Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Tekron wrote: As I have mentioned numerous times, the possessive form does not require ownership in English, so the quad gun is the tomb blades weapon, but not the tomb blades own weapon.
Assuming this is always true, and its not (context dictates ownership), there is nothing in the 3 or 4 rules relevant to this discussion to state the Quad Gun is ever possessed by the tomb blade. The rules provide a framework to allow the quad gun to be fired by the tomb blade, but there is nothing to support that in the moment the quad gun is fired the tomb blade has gained possession of it.
I wonder if perhaps some of the confusion is over the Quad Gun (clearly) being the Tomb Blade's weapon fired versus it (not) being the Tomb Blade's weapon?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/10 20:03:59
easysauce wrote: the grammer you are trying to use as proof, is not correct grammar wise as you may think it to be.
its also akin to breaking this tenant, as you are putting your interpretation of "correct" grammer over actual *rules* that rigel, I , and others have brought to your attention.
Come up with a *rules* bases argument, not a subjective grammar based one, with inherent flaws in it.
6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.
This actually goes both ways, "its" will always have a vague meaning unless it is defined in the rules.
The definitive versions of the rule would have been written something like this:
- If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope all of its equipped ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule. (not Quad Gun)
or
- If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope all of its shots with ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule. (yes Quad Gun)
Both of these examples express which ranged weapons are defined, however the original rule does not. This is why I recommended we move to a HIWPI argument since both interpretations of "its" are grammatically correct.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/03/10 21:42:37
Tekron wrote: It's not exclusive at all. The emplacement rule includes the word "own". The nebuloscope rule does not. So if you define "its" to not require "own" implicitly, then the rules do not conflict.
As I have mentioned numerous times, the possessive form does not require ownership in English, so the quad gun is the tomb blades weapon, but not the tomb blades own weapon.
And you've utterly failed to provide rules support for your statement.
I've provided rules support showing that it is not the tomb blades weapon.
You havent. You simply show the permission for the unit to use the weapon for shooting instead of the weapons listed in the wargear. The QG becomes the Tomb Blades weapon for the purposes of the shooting attack.
And you've cited rules to prove that? I certainly haven't seen any - just repeated assertions with literally zero support.
No, the "its" above indeed refers to the model firing a weapon.
The answer to "Who has fired its maximum number of weapons?"
Is: [The model]
The phrase is: "Once a model has fired [The model]s maximum number of weapons, [The model] cannot fire again that phase."
So you've deduced that your previous statement about the model being able to fire the quad gun and it's own weapon in the same turn is incorrect? Good, we agree
What is "it" ? [The model]
Sometimes.
"If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope all of [The model]s ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule."
"One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire [a gun emplacement] instead of firing his own weapon"
"Once a model has fired [The model]s maximum number of weapons, [The model] cannot fire again that phase."
Slight misquote in the underlined. It should be "it's" referring to "the model's".
They all come down to the same thing in the end:
On a turn in which [The model] fires the Quad gun, instead of [The model]s own weapons, [The model] is still firing the quad gun.
<LEAP OF LOGIC HERE>
Which can mean that [The model]s weapons have Ignore Cover, via Nebuloscope.
Please quote rules support for the leap that firing a weapon means the model possesses it. I've shown that's not required (despite repeated assurances that the rules break without that being true) and have seen nary a single quote in support of it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/10 22:48:46
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
easysauce wrote: the grammer you are trying to use as proof, is not correct grammar wise as you may think it to be.
its also akin to breaking this tenant, as you are putting your interpretation of "correct" grammer over actual *rules* that rigel, I , and others have brought to your attention.
Come up with a *rules* bases argument, not a subjective grammar based one, with inherent flaws in it.
No. Claiming my grammar is incorrect and my argument is inherently flawed without actually making an argument is not going to earn you my attention.
6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.
Saying the possessive form requires ownership is very obviously wrong, so it seems perfectly valid to me to point it out.
rigel and myself have quoted the rules already, without needing to change the wording of them, that support our arguments.
"One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire it instead of firing *its* own weapons."
"If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope all of *its* ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule."
the rules say a quad gun is fired *instead* of its own weapons. they also say *its* weapon ignores cover.
the weapon being fired is instead of *its* weapons, therefore we know its not one of *its* weapons. The grammar of its being a possessive term doesn't change this fact, and in reality, supports that the quad gun is not one of *its* weapons, as its literally being fired instead of one of *its* weapons.
Your only argument is changing the wording or trying to play around with the definition/grammar of "its" which has no rules basis, and no grammar basis either.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/03/11 04:00:12
I've been following this thread and you guys are pretty good rule lawyers.
Do you all argue this hard about this stuff when you play?
For what its worth, I sure the model gets the upgrade, not the gun.
In simple terms:
I'd look at the model and say the necron is on a jetbike.
The bike got a targeting scope upgrade.
He "jacked" the bike Rd2d style, into the quadgun's fire controls and is targeting enemy units from the bike.
The quadgun shots are ignoring cover because of he is shooting (using his ballistics skill) while looking through his scope on his bike
Most rule fights should be broken down into what's realistic and practical if you can't agree.
the actual rules are very clear, you are welcome to house rule anything you want, but whats "reaslistic" to you, might not be to another person, and might not be enough justification to play against the rules. In a game where different areas of the world have their own house-rules, dont expect every other player to accept your own personal house-rules, especially in instances where RAW is actually clear.
Its odd to see people claim that a model firing a "weapon instead of its own weapons" is still firing a its own weapon...
raw is clear, if you dont like it personally, thats fine, but dont claim you have a RAW based arguement.
Calling people names like rules lawyers, is against the forum tenants, as it is insulting, and not a proper argument.
Especially when people are just pointing out *what the rules actually say* doesnt support your personal interpretation of how reality should affect the game.
after all, blast weapons should hit flyers in "reality" after all, thats what FLAKK Is after all, there fore despite what the rules say, im going to shoot your fliers with my blast weapons now. Oh you have a rule that says otherwise? who cares mr rules lawyer! those are all just suggestions!
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/03/11 17:37:32
easysauce wrote: the actual rules are very clear, you are welcome to house rule anything you want, but whats "reaslistic" to you, might not be to another person, and might not be enough justification to play against the rules. In a game where different areas of the world have their own house-rules, dont expect every other player to accept your own personal house-rules, especially in instances where RAW is actually clear.
Its odd to see people claim that a model firing a "weapon instead of its own weapons" is still firing a its own weapon...
raw is clear, if you dont like it personally, thats fine, but dont claim you have a RAW based arguement.
Calling people names like rules lawyers, is against the forum tenants, as it is insulting, and not a proper argument.
Especially when people are just pointing out *what the rules actually say* doesnt support your personal interpretation of how reality should affect the game.
after all, blast weapons should hit flyers in "reality" after all, thats what FLAKK Is after all, there fore despite what the rules say, im going to shoot your fliers with my blast weapons now. Oh you have a rule that says otherwise? who cares mr rules lawyer! those are all just suggestions!
The thread has basically expanded to 5 pages of arguments about the definition and implied meaning of "its".
Court is adjourned.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/11 17:55:12
No, the "its" above indeed refers to the model firing a weapon.
The answer to "Who has fired its maximum number of weapons?"
Is: [The model]
The phrase is: "Once a model has fired [The model]s maximum number of weapons, [The model] cannot fire again that phase."
So you've deduced that your previous statement about the model being able to fire the quad gun and it's own weapon in the same turn is incorrect? Good, we agree
Only if "Its" refers to [The model], making your previous statement incorrect:
rigeld2 wrote: In the quoted rule, "its" is linked to "maximum number of weapons" not "its weapons". So since the model has fired a Quad Gun, it has fired 1 weapon - which is its maximum number of weapons.
Its is linked to [The model] firing "Its" weapons.
And "Its" weapons get Ignores Cover.
"If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope all of [The model]s ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule."
"One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire [a gun emplacement] instead of firing his own weapon"
"Once a model has fired [The model]s maximum number of weapons, [The model] cannot fire again that phase."
Slight misquote in the underlined. It should be "it's" referring to "the model's".
I use other's quotes, as having to find te passage read 5 times in the rulebook is tiring. Indeed:
"One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire [a gun emplacement] instead of firing [The model]s own weapon"
It does not exclude the statement "The Tomb Blade fires its Quad Gun".
On a turn in which [The model] fires the Quad gun, instead of [The model]s own weapons, [The model] is still firing the quad gun.
<LEAP OF LOGIC HERE>
Which can mean that [The model]s weapons have Ignore Cover, via Nebuloscope.
Please quote rules support for the leap that firing a weapon means the model possesses it. I've shown that's not required (despite repeated assurances that the rules break without that being true) and have seen nary a single quote in support of it.
Firing a weapon means that you possess it.
You need a rule to explain that very simple statement? I though this was exactly what the entire thread was about. Tekron has your answer:
Tekron wrote: You'll have to forgive me for using wikipedia here, but I don't have time to start thinking up too many examples.
The relationship expressed by possessive determiners and similar forms is not necessarily one of possession in the strict sense of ownership. The "possessor" may be, for example:
the person or thing to which the "possessed" stands in the designated relationship (my mother, his wife, your subordinates, our boss);
the person or thing of which the "possessed" is a part (my leg, the building's walls);
a person or thing affiliated with or identifying with the "possessed" (his country, our class, my people);
the performer, or sometimes the undergoer, of an action (his arrival, the government's overthrow)
the creator, supervisor, user, etc. of the "possessed" (Prince's album, the Irish jockey's horse).
These are just a few examples where possession exists linguistically without any sense of ownership. To create one more on point, we could say:
"The gunner fires his artillery piece" which is analogous to the quad gun situation for obvious reasons. We could use "its" or "their" instead of "his" to remain gender neutral, but that doesn't sound as natural. The gunner is unlikely to own the artillery piece of course, because mostly they are owned by the government that created the military the gunner is a part of. But there is still a possessive relationship between the gunner and the gun. It is his gun for the purpose of firing it, and he is the guns gunner.
"The artillery piece fires its shell a long distance" is a case where an inanimate object has a relationship with another object, neither of which can be considered to own the other, but nevertheless are described with possessive language.
"The shell is kept stable in its flight by spinning" is an example of an inanimate object possessing the action which it is undergoing. The shell does not own its flight, it simply experiences it.
We know that the nebuloscope rule does not explicitely specify ownership as a requirement for its application, so we just need to create a possessive relationship between the tomb blade and the quad gun, which is done by firing the gun instead of its own weapon.
If you need a rule in the rulebook as allowance to explain that firing a weapon means you possess it (albeit temporarily), i am surprised you don't need specific permission to allow you to touch your models when you are moving them. After all, the term "move" never specifically states that you can do so with your hands.... (I hope that you can read the sarcasm and futility of this).
If a model fires a Weapon, using the Shooting Sequence, he is in possession of the weapon to make the shot.
A good conclusion:
Nilok wrote: The definitive versions of the rule would have been written something like this:
- If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope all of its equipped ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule. (not Quad Gun)
or
- If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope all of its shots with ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule. (yes Quad Gun)
Both of these examples express which ranged weapons are defined, however the original rule does not. This is why I recommended we move to a HIWPI argument since both interpretations of "its" are grammatically correct.
DA:80-S+G+M+B++I-Pw40k01++D+++A+++WD100R++T(T)DM+
Roronoa Zoro wrote:When the world shoves you around, you just gotta stand up and shove back. It's not like somebody's gonna save you if you start babbling excuses. - Bring on the hardship. It's preferred in a path of carnage.
Manchu wrote:
It's like you take a Space Marine and say "what could make him cooler?" Instead of adding more super-genetic-psycho-organic modification, you take it all away. You have a regular human left in power armor and all the armies of hell at the gates. And she doesn't even flinch. Pure. Badass.
Please quote rules support for the leap that firing a weapon means the model possesses it. I've shown that's not required (despite repeated assurances that the rules break without that being true) and have seen nary a single quote in support of it.
Firing a weapon means that you possess it.
You need a rule to explain that very simple statement?
Well, yes. I require a rule to prove an assertion that you're following the rules.
I though this was exactly what the entire thread was about. Tekron has your answer:
I'm not trying to require ownership. At all. Stop with the red herring.
If a model fires a Weapon, using the Shooting Sequence, he is in possession of the weapon to make the shot.
That's never a requirement using actual rules - you're making it up. In fact, literally the only reason to say that is to try and support your argument, but it's a leap of logic with absolutely no support.
There's no requirement for it to be in the model's possession, and since the actual rule says you fire the Quad Gun instead of your own weapons, you're reading the sentence as follows:
"One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire [its weapon] instead of firing [The model]s own weapons"
which makes no grammatical sense. There's no grammatical difference between "its" and "its own".
Unless you're pretending "own" means ownership? Because it can mean "To have control over" - IE, simple possession.
You're trying to fire your weapon instead of your weapons. Please disagree with that statement and explain why.
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
BlackTalos wrote: It does not exclude the statement "The Tomb Blade fires its Quad Gun".
Except in the context of the situation we know it's not the model's Quad Gun; the model is simply using it.
I borrow your car. The sentence, "Mr. Shine is driving his car" is factually incorrect when we know that in fact the sentence, "Mr. Shine is driging BlackTalos' car" is correct. The former sentence would only be correct if I either had some contextually permanent connection with the car (e.g. I were assigned to it or similar) or if we didn't know that it was in fact your, BlackTalos', car.
Firing a weapon means that you possess it.
You need a rule to explain that very simple statement? I though this was exactly what the entire thread was about. Tekron has your answer:
He really doesn't, because he conveniently completely ignores the context of the situation and the examples he provides are not equivalent to the situation, as I've just explained in this post above also. Grammatical correctness is no substitute for contextual correctness, paticularly in the case of rules (I earlier gave the example of, "The model fires its Power Sword" which is grammatically correct but contextually not).
BlackTalos wrote: It does not exclude the statement "The Tomb Blade fires its Quad Gun".
Except in the context of the situation we know it's not the model's Quad Gun; the model is simply using it.
I borrow your car. The sentence, "Mr. Shine is driving his car" is factually incorrect when we know that in fact the sentence, "Mr. Shine is driging BlackTalos' car" is correct. The former sentence would only be correct if I either had some contextually permanent connection with the car (e.g. I were assigned to it or similar) or if we didn't know that it was in fact your, BlackTalos', car.
No, "Mr. Shine is driving his car" is only incorrect if you try to apply some form of timing issue:
It had to be my car before you got in it and drove it.
If you ask anyone on the street: "Look, that's Mr. Shine". "Is Mr. Shine driving his car to town?" Answer is yes, because that person, at that point in time, has no idea who's car it actually is, but Mr. Shine is in the car, and he's driving it. That simple fact makes "Mr. Shine is driving his car" a correct statement.
Same for the Tomb Blade: On Turn 4, Shooting phase, the Tomb Blade is shooting the Quad Gun. The statement "The Tomb Blade is shooting its Quad Gun" is correct for any passer-by who look at the game at that time. Which is what i said many many posts ago:
And in the end, the ambiguity of "its ranged weapons" is clear.
"its ranged weapons" as a one-time occurrence (say before the game starts). or "its ranged weapons" as a RaW constant: any weapons in "its" possession during the game will have the USR.
And secondly if the Quad Gun ever becomes part of "its ranged weapons" (Also unclear)
To argue the second point a bit further: Shrouded:"A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule counts its cover save as being 2 points better than normal."
Is that the Cover Save it had at the beginning of the game? Or would you agree that the definition of "Its" cover save applies to the cover save the model has at that specific time during the game?
Same example in "Skilled Rider" if your Jink save is modified. Same for Skyfire if your Normal BS is modified. etc
Please quote rules support for the leap that firing a weapon means the model possesses it. I've shown that's not required (despite repeated assurances that the rules break without that being true) and have seen nary a single quote in support of it.
Firing a weapon means that you possess it.
You need a rule to explain that very simple statement?
Well, yes. I require a rule to prove an assertion that you're following the rules.
I though this was exactly what the entire thread was about. Tekron has your answer:
I'm not trying to require ownership. At all. Stop with the red herring.
If a model fires a Weapon, using the Shooting Sequence, he is in possession of the weapon to make the shot.
That's never a requirement using actual rules - you're making it up. In fact, literally the only reason to say that is to try and support your argument, but it's a leap of logic with absolutely no support. There's no requirement for it to be in the model's possession, and since the actual rule says you fire the Quad Gun instead of your own weapons, you're reading the sentence as follows:
"One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire [its weapon] instead of firing [The model]s own weapons" which makes no grammatical sense. There's no grammatical difference between "its" and "its own". Unless you're pretending "own" means ownership? Because it can mean "To have control over" - IE, simple possession.
You're trying to fire your weapon instead of your weapons. Please disagree with that statement and explain why.
"One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire [its weapon] instead of firing [The model]s own weapons"
Makes no grammatical sense to you because you do not understand what Tekron explained quite well: "possession exists linguistically without any sense of ownership"
There is a difference between "its" and "its own". "its" could be any weapon the model is currently in possession of (firing a weapon - Quad Gun), whereas "its own" has to be weapons that were in the model's equipment during the game (cannot be any weapon he shoots - Quad Gun).
Unless you're pretending "own" means ownership? Because it can mean "To have control over" - IE, simple possession.
Success! You have found the exact ambiguity everyone is trying to discuss. "possession exists linguistically without any sense of ownership"
As per the example for Mr Shine: It cannot be denied as interpretation that the model Tomb Blade has possession of the Quad Gun during the Turn's Shooting phase.
I feel like we are at the "it IS", "it IS NOT" stage of the discussion.
If a model fires a Weapon, using the Shooting Sequence, he is in possession of the weapon to make the shot.
That statement might be wrong by your definition of "Its" and sense of ownership and possession, but it is correct by RaW if you follow the definition of possession we have used. Which is why, again, i would say that Nilok has pretty much nailed the concluding statement
Nilok wrote: This actually goes both ways, "its" will always have a vague meaning unless it is defined in the rules.
The definitive versions of the rule would have been written something like this: - If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope all of its equipped ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule. (not Quad Gun) or - If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope all of its shots with ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule. (yes Quad Gun)
Both of these examples express which ranged weapons are defined, however the original rule does not. This is why I recommended we move to a HIWPI argument since both interpretations of "its" are grammatically correct.
When you say: " I require a rule to prove an assertion that you're following the rules. ", take note of the emphasis above.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/03/12 10:41:28
DA:80-S+G+M+B++I-Pw40k01++D+++A+++WD100R++T(T)DM+
Roronoa Zoro wrote:When the world shoves you around, you just gotta stand up and shove back. It's not like somebody's gonna save you if you start babbling excuses. - Bring on the hardship. It's preferred in a path of carnage.
Manchu wrote:
It's like you take a Space Marine and say "what could make him cooler?" Instead of adding more super-genetic-psycho-organic modification, you take it all away. You have a regular human left in power armor and all the armies of hell at the gates. And she doesn't even flinch. Pure. Badass.
If you ask anyone on the street: "Look, that's Mr. Shine". "Is Mr. Shine driving his car to town?" Answer is yes, because that person, at that point in time, has no idea who's car it actually is, but Mr. Shine is in the car, and he's driving it.
That simple fact makes "Mr. Shine is driving his car" a correct statement.
Okay, aside from the fact that someone would say, "He's driving A car, i don't know if it's his" it's still someone elses. If you ask someone what colour it is. Just because they say its orange. Doesn't mean it they're right if in fact it is actually a different colour.
It's just silly.
Back to the argument at hand, "instead" Literally none of these grammar schenanigans matter. Instead, means it's mutually exclusive. It's a pointless arguement at this stage.
Raw is quite clear, it's been quoted several times.
Now it's devolved into, basically (forgive the exaggeration) the equivalent of,
"where does it say i can't fire my gun twice"
"here (quote)"
"okay, but where does it say it?"
"here (same quote)"
"okay, but where does it say it?"
...
Unless you have a quote (from the BRB) that specifically says the quad gun is the tomb blades weapon, we have to go by the rules the others have quoted.
They have RAW support at the moment. And all these semantics are irrelevant to it, For RAW purposes we need a quote from the BRB to support your stance that overrides the word instead.
I note that it was mentioned "follow the normal rules for shooting" supports you, it does not. The model is given express permission to over ride the "fire a weapon you are equipped with" part of it. The rest just deals with ranges/dice/shots etc.
Apologies for the long post. And you can disregard the Car paragraph, i just found it funny.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/12 13:11:16
BlackTalos wrote: "One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire [its weapon] instead of firing [The model]s own weapons"
Makes no grammatical sense to you because you do not understand what Tekron explained quite well: "possession exists linguistically without any sense of ownership"
No, really, I understand that quite well. I even said as much multiple times. Please stop pretending I don't understand that.
There is a difference between "its" and "its own". "its" could be any weapon the model is currently in possession of (firing a weapon - Quad Gun), whereas "its own" has to be weapons that were in the model's equipment during the game (cannot be any weapon he shoots - Quad Gun).
Unless you're pretending "own" means ownership? Because it can mean "To have control over" - IE, simple possession.
Success! You have found the exact ambiguity everyone is trying to discuss.
"possession exists linguistically without any sense of ownership"
... which is exactly what I said? And yet you are saying I don't understand that? "its" and "its own" can mean the same thing (possession) and yet you're refusing to define them the same... just to make your point correct?
I pointed out that they mean the same thing way back when, and have based my argument around that fact. Could you supply me with anything, anywhere that supports the underlined statement? That'd be great.
It cannot be denied as interpretation that the model Tomb Blade has possession of the Quad Gun during the Turn's Shooting phase.
Yes, it can. You have no basis in fact for that assertion - just a "NUH UH! IT TOTES IS". I've denied the Tomb Blade is in possession of the Quad Gun, you've asserted otherwise without evidence. The burden of proof is on you.
I feel like we are at the "it IS", "it IS NOT" stage of the discussion.
Well sure - because you're making claims without backing them up.
You've asserted - repeatedly - that the Tomb Blade is in possession of the Quad Gun. AT first you said it must be this way or the shooting rules didn't work.
I proved that incorrect. Now you just assert it without any supporting fact.
If a model fires a Weapon, using the Shooting Sequence, he is in possession of the weapon to make the shot.
That statement might be wrong by your definition of "Its" and sense of ownership and possession, but it is correct by RaW if you follow the definition of possession we have used.
Cite the rule for once. Right there you've asserted that it's correct by RaW but you've utterly failed to actually support that statement.
When you say: " I require a rule to prove an assertion that you're following the rules. ", take note of the emphasis above.
So really what you're saying is "I have absolutely no idea what the rule says, but I want it to read that Tomb Blades are awesome Quad Gunners."?
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
No what i am saying is that the RaW support for "Tomb Blades have Ignore cover on a Quad Gun" is this:
"One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire it instead of firing its own weapons. A model that fires..."
Found in Gun Emplacements.
"If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope, all of its ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule."
Found in the Necron Codex.
The Tomb Blade fires the Gun emplacement instead of its own weapons. Its weapons have have the Ignores Cover special rule. The Tomb blade firing the Quad Gun has the Ignores Cover special rule.
Unfortunately, you disagree because of a definition of "its" and the possession referred by "its" and "its own".
rigeld2 wrote: ... which is exactly what I said? And yet you are saying I don't understand that? "its" and "its own" can mean the same thing (possession) and yet you're refusing to define them the same... just to make your point correct?
I never said your statement was incorrect. "its" and "its own" can mean the same thing (possession). They also can NOT mean the same thing. I am glad we are agreed upon the ambiguity. I lean to one side, you lean to the other, but both exists, unless (it seems anyway) you want only "your side" to exist and the other to be entirely incorrect. And i am saying it is not.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/03/12 15:50:08
DA:80-S+G+M+B++I-Pw40k01++D+++A+++WD100R++T(T)DM+
Roronoa Zoro wrote:When the world shoves you around, you just gotta stand up and shove back. It's not like somebody's gonna save you if you start babbling excuses. - Bring on the hardship. It's preferred in a path of carnage.
Manchu wrote:
It's like you take a Space Marine and say "what could make him cooler?" Instead of adding more super-genetic-psycho-organic modification, you take it all away. You have a regular human left in power armor and all the armies of hell at the gates. And she doesn't even flinch. Pure. Badass.
BlackTalos wrote: No what i am saying is that the RaW support for "Tomb Blades have Ignore cover on a Quad Gun" is this:
"One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire it instead of firing its own weapons. A model that fires..."
Found in Gun Emplacements.
"If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope, all of its ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule."
Found in the Necron Codex.
The Tomb Blade fires the Gun emplacement instead of its own weapons.
Its weapons have have the Ignores Cover special rule.
The Tomb blade firing the Quad Gun has the Ignores Cover special rule.
Unfortunately, you disagree because of a definition of "its" and the possession referred by "its" and "its own".
rigeld2 wrote: ... which is exactly what I said? And yet you are saying I don't understand that? "its" and "its own" can mean the same thing (possession) and yet you're refusing to define them the same... just to make your point correct?
I never said your statement was incorrect. "its" and "its own" can mean the same thing (possession). They also can NOT mean the same thing. I am glad we are agreed upon the ambiguity.
I lean to one side, you lean to the other, but both exists, unless (it seems anyway) you want only "your side" to exist and the other to be entirely incorrect.
And i am saying it is not.
So you have literally nothing to support possession other than your assertion? Anywhere? Just you saying "It's this way."
There's no ambiguity other than what you're inserting then. When you have to make things up your argument has failed and is incorrect.
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
I'm sorry but you keep ignoring the word Instead which is mutually exclusive.
All of the tomb blades weapons have ignores cover. It does not fire it's weapon, it fires the quad-gun instead.
The word "its" never comes into it. Semantically you can argue all you like, but "instead" makes it exclusive. If you are trying to argue that GW deliberately put in the distinction between "its" and "its own" as some way to diffrentiate, then that's RAI territory.
Right now, "its" and "its own" are functionally the same. Suggesting otherwise is moving from RAW and into personal interpretations.
Also, no way GW does something that specific deliberately, if they were that careful these things wouldn't come up.
harkequin wrote: Unless you have a quote (from the BRB) that specifically says the quad gun is the tomb blades weapon, we have to go by the rules the others have quoted.
They have RAW support at the moment. And all these semantics are irrelevant to it, For RAW purposes we need a quote from the BRB to support your stance that overrides the word instead.
The "the rules the others have quoted" are the exact same rules everyone is quoting.
There is disagreement upon the meaning of the rules, not that one side has support while the other does not.
There would be no argument if that was the case.
harkequin wrote: I'm sorry but you keep ignoring the word Instead which is mutually exclusive.
All of the tomb blades weapons have ignores cover. It does not fire it's weapon, it fires the quad-gun instead.
The word "its" never comes into it. Semantically you can argue all you like, but "instead" makes it exclusive. If you are trying to argue that GW deliberately put in the distinction between "its" and "its own" as some way to diffrentiate, then that's RAI territory.
How does "instead" mutually exclude the possession of the weapon? It mutually excludes the weapons mentioned in that rule: The Emplacement V the weapons the model has equipped.
I am also not arguing that there is a distinction between "its" and "its own".
They are both the model's weapons ("its weapons"). Only the Quad Gun is part of those for Nebuloscope, but not part of them for its own "Gun Emplacement" rules.
"The model fires its weapon"
That statement is true whether firing the Quad Gun or the model's equipped weapon. "Instead" just substitutes A for B.
DA:80-S+G+M+B++I-Pw40k01++D+++A+++WD100R++T(T)DM+
Roronoa Zoro wrote:When the world shoves you around, you just gotta stand up and shove back. It's not like somebody's gonna save you if you start babbling excuses. - Bring on the hardship. It's preferred in a path of carnage.
Manchu wrote:
It's like you take a Space Marine and say "what could make him cooler?" Instead of adding more super-genetic-psycho-organic modification, you take it all away. You have a regular human left in power armor and all the armies of hell at the gates. And she doesn't even flinch. Pure. Badass.
BlackTalos wrote: "The model fires its weapon"
That statement is true whether firing the Quad Gun or the model's equipped weapon. "Instead" just substitutes A for B.
No, it's not true when it fires the Quad Gun. You've failed to support that statement at any time when challenged - instead you just assert its truth.
The model fires the Quad Gun. That does not mean the model possesses the Quad Gun at any time. That's what you have to prove. Simply firing it does not mean you possess it.
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
How does "instead" mutually exclude the possession of the weapon? It mutually excludes the weapons mentioned in that rule: The Emplacement V the weapons the model has equipped.
It clearly does, The model fires the quad-gun instead of its weapons. Therefore It is not firing it's weapons. it can't simultaneously both fire and not fire it's weapons. The use of instead makes it basically read. "the model fires the quad-gun and does not fire it's weapons" since it is not firing it's weapons , the quad-gun is not it's weapon.
Again, the quote "the model fire the quad-gun instead of it's weapon" proves the quad gun is not it's weapon.
To dispute that you have to put forward a quote that says it is the models weapon. As it stands, the quote proves that the quad-gun isn't it's weapon, unless you can provide an actual quote backing up your point , we have to go by the quote that says it is (very clearly) not the models weapon.
It mutually excludes it because the weapon cannot both be and not be the models weapon, Firing the quad-gun prevents you firing your weapons, so either firing the quad gun prevents you firing the quad gun (don't take it seriously , it's hyperbole) or, firing the quad gun means it isn't your weapon.
BlackTalos wrote: "The model fires its weapon"
That statement is true whether firing the Quad Gun or the model's equipped weapon. "Instead" just substitutes A for B.
No, it's not true when it fires the Quad Gun. You've failed to support that statement at any time when challenged - instead you just assert its truth.
The model fires the Quad Gun. That does not mean the model possesses the Quad Gun at any time. That's what you have to prove. Simply firing it does not mean you possess it.
Just as you have. Maybe we're both asserting things from the same RaW? It would explain the circular arguments.
The model fires the Quad Gun. Simply firing it does not mean you possess it. That's what you have to prove.
When you can prove that firing a weapon does not imply possession, I will prove to you that firing a weapon does imply possession.
DA:80-S+G+M+B++I-Pw40k01++D+++A+++WD100R++T(T)DM+
Roronoa Zoro wrote:When the world shoves you around, you just gotta stand up and shove back. It's not like somebody's gonna save you if you start babbling excuses. - Bring on the hardship. It's preferred in a path of carnage.
Manchu wrote:
It's like you take a Space Marine and say "what could make him cooler?" Instead of adding more super-genetic-psycho-organic modification, you take it all away. You have a regular human left in power armor and all the armies of hell at the gates. And she doesn't even flinch. Pure. Badass.
BlackTalos wrote: "The model fires its weapon"
That statement is true whether firing the Quad Gun or the model's equipped weapon. "Instead" just substitutes A for B.
No, it's not true when it fires the Quad Gun. You've failed to support that statement at any time when challenged - instead you just assert its truth.
The model fires the Quad Gun. That does not mean the model possesses the Quad Gun at any time. That's what you have to prove. Simply firing it does not mean you possess it.
Just as you have. Maybe we're both asserting things from the same RaW? It would explain the circular arguments.
The model fires the Quad Gun. Simply firing it does not mean you possess it. That's what you have to prove.
When you can prove that firing a weapon does not imply possession, I will prove to you that firing a weapon does imply possession.
... No. The burden is on you to prove possession as you're the one asserting it exists.
The rules don't require it. The gun can be fired without possession just fine. You're asserting something beyond simply firing the quad gun, so you have to prove it works.
I've proven that firing a weapon does not require possession. For the Tomb Blade rule to apply, possession must exist. Therefore you must prove it does to apply the Tomb Blade rule.
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
BlackTalos wrote: No, "Mr. Shine is driving his car" is only incorrect if you try to apply some form of timing issue:
It had to be my car before you got in it and drove it.
If you ask anyone on the street: "Look, that's Mr. Shine". "Is Mr. Shine driving his car to town?" Answer is yes, because that person, at that point in time, has no idea who's car it actually is, but Mr. Shine is in the car, and he's driving it.
That simple fact makes "Mr. Shine is driving his car" a correct statement.
This is simply incorrect for this rules discussion because you're ignoring context and by extension you're ignoring the known nature of the relationship between driver and car, or in this case model and Quad Gun.
We're not a random passerby who does not know the car is not mine. We are not your mother looking at us playing our game and saying, "Oh look, he's firing his little Quad Bazooka!"
We are players who know the Quad Gun is being fired instead of the model's (own) weapon and that there is no relationship between Quad Gun and Tomb Blade except that the Tomb Blade is firing the Quad Gun. As was pointed out to you earlier it cannot be firing [its weapon] instead of its own weapon. That is both a grammatical and contextually incorrect statement.
Hell, the failure of your argument is self-evident from this discussion, in your last post (emphasis mine):
Just as you have. Maybe we're both asserting things from the same RaW? It would explain the circular arguments.
The model fires the Quad Gun. Simply firing it does not mean you possess it. That's what you have to prove.
When you can prove that firing a weapon does not imply possession, I will prove to you that firing a weapon does imply possession.
Why are you calling it "the Quad Gun" when you're insisting it's correctly "the model's Quad Gun"?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/12 19:33:14
If the Tomb Blade is firing the quad-gun, is it firing its weapons?
No.
What has Ignores Cover?
The Tomb Blades' weapons.
If you are not firing the Tomb Blades' weapons, how are you benefiting from Ignores Cover?
Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia
Mr. Shine wrote: Why are you calling it "the Quad Gun" when you're insisting it's correctly "the model's Quad Gun"?
To be fair, I think that was a copy/paste or something he meant to edit after copying from my post. Because it seems out of place without edits in his post.
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
Mr. Shine wrote: Why are you calling it "the Quad Gun" when you're insisting it's correctly "the model's Quad Gun"?
To be fair, I think that was a copy/paste or something he meant to edit after copying from my post. Because it seems out of place without edits in his post.
Yeah, that was only one quoted part but he's constantly referred to it as the Quad Gun and only "its Quad Gun" generally in his bizarre/out of context grammatical constructs.
If it were contextually correct he would constantly have been stating arguments like, "But when the model fires its Quad Gun it possesses it..."
9000
8000
Knights / Assassins 800 
