Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/03/13 00:48:45
Subject: Tomb blades and quad gun
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Except that it is it's weapon when it's shooting it. Seriously how much farther is this thread going with the definition of its.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/13 00:49:00
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/03/13 01:01:57
Subject: Tomb blades and quad gun
|
 |
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran
Ankh Morpork
|
So a model may fire its weapon instead of its own weapon?
Or better put, a model may choose not to fire its own weapon but may instead fire its weapon?
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/03/13 02:14:24
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/03/13 01:50:26
Subject: Tomb blades and quad gun
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Fragile wrote:Except that it is it's weapon when it's shooting it.
Seriously how much farther is this thread going with the definition of its.
No ones debating the definition of "its".
Except you?
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/03/13 10:21:34
Subject: Tomb blades and quad gun
|
 |
Confessor Of Sins
|
rigeld2 wrote:Fragile wrote:Except that it is it's weapon when it's shooting it.
Seriously how much farther is this thread going with the definition of its.
No ones debating the definition of "its".
Except you?
It is related to the definition of "its". The one highlighted below, which, by definition of "its" and the concept of possession, include the Quad Gun being fired:
"If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope, all of its ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule."
Quoting the Gun Emplacement rules does not support your claim that "the model firing the Quad Gun is not in possession of it". So you need a RaW quote or the model, firing the weapon, is by default in possession of the weapon being fired. (Simple logical step, as explained by Tekron)
The action of shooting a weapon creates a state of possession. Simple grammatical form. 6 pages and you still cannot recognise that fact.
|
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. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/03/13 12:06:52
Subject: Tomb blades and quad gun
|
 |
Ork-Hunting Inquisitorial Xenokiller
|
Okay, seriously?? uoting the Gun Emplacement rules does not support your claim that "the model firing the Quad Gun is not in possession of it". So you need a RaW quote or the model, firing the weapon, is by default in possession of the weapon being fired. (Simple logical step, as explained by Tekron) The action of shooting a weapon creates a state of possession. Simple grammatical form. 6 pages and you still cannot recognise that fact. It literally does. It's on you to prove (via a quote), that it is your gun, no semantics, and dancing around language. The rule states. "instead". you fire the quad gun instead of your weapon, = you fire the quad gun and not your weapon, = you are not firing your weapon= the quad gun is not your weapon. It is clearly written RAW, you can argue about possession, but it is expressly denied by the rule. INSTEAD, you fire it instead of your weapon, that literally means you are not firing your weapon, so the quad-gun is not your weapon. Seriously, this quote 100% backs up the position, refusing it is not a matter of interpretation, it's saying "i don't like this rule" , thats fine, but not in a RAW discussion. Point to the quote in the rulebook that states " If a model fire a wepon, for all intents and purposes it is considered it's weapon, even if it fires this weapon instead of it's weapon" or as close as you can. If you cannot do that, you are trying to force your interpretation on a rule that is very cut and dry, still trying to argue the value of "its" is just semantics. In a rules discussion, when a rule states one thing, it shouldn't be denied, by deliberately dissecting the english language to find a loop-hole. The word "instead", is what makes this rule clear, unless you have a counter quote, you have no RAW arguement. 6 pages and you still havent refuted the word "instead" ... anything else is just opinion.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/03/13 12:11:01
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/03/13 12:53:25
Subject: Tomb blades and quad gun
|
 |
Confessor Of Sins
|
harkequin wrote: It literally does. It's on you to prove (via a quote), that it is your gun, no semantics, and dancing around language. The rule states. "instead". you fire the quad gun instead of your weapon, = you fire the quad gun and not your weapon, = you are not firing your weapon= [Logical Leap] the quad gun is not your weapon. I have highlighted above where you make an assumption with no rules support. The Quad gun is not your weapon, no, as it is not part of your Wargear. But how are you jumping to the conclusion that this means you are not allowed temporary possession of the Gun? I agreed as early as page 3 that the Quad Gun was "not included in that list at the beginning of the game." (List of Wargear). The Quad Gun is your weapon, because you are firing a weapon in the shooting phase. When you fire a weapon, does it mean that weapon belongs to you? (is listed in your wargear?) No Are you in possession of it while you make the shot? Yes The model is in possession of the Quad Gun as it is using it to perform a shooting attack. If the Quad Gun was the model making the shooting attack, with a friendly model in base contact to enable this, then you would be entirely correct. But the Quad gun is not the model making the shot. It is the model [Tomb Blade], shooting the Weapon [Gun Emplacement]. As such, the model is firing "its" weapon. Provide the RaW that states that if you fire a Weapon instead of your own, you have no possession of the weapon while following the shooting sequence.
|
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2015/03/13 12:55:18
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. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/03/13 12:58:08
Subject: Tomb blades and quad gun
|
 |
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife
|
Looking over how Ignore Cover has changed for 7e, it only applies to weapons, not only does this break several armies' rules, but it looks like the way this is written is the only way it can work really.
If the con side is right, Ignore Cover can never apply to fortification weapons that come from any book unless it is on the weapon itself.
I wonder how many rules GW broke with this...
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/03/13 13:00:44
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/03/13 13:03:56
Subject: Tomb blades and quad gun
|
 |
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran
Ankh Morpork
|
No. The model is in base contact with the Quad Gun and is simply given permission to fire it instead of its own weapon.
The only time the rules care about whose weapon is being fired is when we are told to select a weapon the model is equipped with, but the Quad Gun allows us to bypass this without any requirement for or statement of possession for the Quad Gun.
We are never told the model possesses the Quad Gun and the rules don't require it for the purposes of firing it.
If you think this is incorrect then support your assertion with the rules and where we are told the model possesses it rather than simply fires it from base contact.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/03/13 13:04:30
Subject: Tomb blades and quad gun
|
 |
Ork-Hunting Inquisitorial Xenokiller
|
Provide the RaW that states that if you fire a Weapon instead of your own, you have no possession of the weapon while following the shooting sequence.
Right here. "instead of firing its own weapon"
I have quoted this numerous times and you still ignore it.
INSTEAD. It means that you are not firing your weapons. No matter what mental gymnastic you do, you come out with 2 options.
a. the rule works, the quad gun is fired despite the fact that is is not your weapon. no issues.
b. The quad gun is your weapon because you are firing it, but because of the quoted rule you cannot fire your weapon, so you cannot fire the quad-gun.
Instead means, you can fire the quad gun , but not your weapons. If the quad-gun is your weapon, you may not fire it, as the rule specifically prevents you from firing your weapon.
RAW there is no way for you to legally fire the quad gun if it is your weapon, as if you try to fire it, it prevents you firing your weapons... which it apparently is.
Again, i have provided a quote, "instead", as it is written. proves that it is not your weapon. there is no arguement to that. unless you find a quote that over rules that, it still stands.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/03/13 13:08:13
Subject: Tomb blades and quad gun
|
 |
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin
|
Does that quad gun take your faction or stop being able to be attacked by your units? Without that there isn't a rules based argument for it to become anyone's, even through possession. Assuming that it is counted as the model's weapon is also a logical leap which you want to avoid. If they wanted all of the Tomb Blades' attacks to be Denying Cover wouldn't they have used shooting attacks instead of its weapons like they do for preferred enemy?
|
ADD causes my posts to ramble from time to time. Please bear with me.
You're not a Time Lord stick with linear time.
Specific Vs General |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/03/13 13:10:21
Subject: Tomb blades and quad gun
|
 |
Ork-Hunting Inquisitorial Xenokiller
|
Looking over how Ignore Cover has changed for 7e, it only applies to weapons, not only does this break several armies' rules, but it looks like the way this is written is the only way it can work really.
If the con side is right, Ignore Cover can never apply to fortification weapons that come from any book unless it is on the weapon itself.
I wonder how many rules GW broke with this...
Practically none im sure, have you ever seen a model with "ignors cover" , it's always on a weapon/rule that gives it to weapons/shots. Model rules generally only apple to cc attacks eg.fleshbane/poisoned. I checked all the Tau stuff, and they're all in the clear for their ignores cover.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/03/13 13:18:46
Subject: Tomb blades and quad gun
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
BlackTalos wrote:rigeld2 wrote:Fragile wrote:Except that it is it's weapon when it's shooting it.
Seriously how much farther is this thread going with the definition of its.
No ones debating the definition of "its".
Except you?
It is related to the definition of "its". The one highlighted below, which, by definition of "its" and the concept of possession, include the Quad Gun being fired:
But no one is saying that the definition is wrong.
Quoting the Gun Emplacement rules does not support your claim that "the model firing the Quad Gun is not in possession of it". So you need a RaW quote or the model, firing the weapon, is by default in possession of the weapon being fired. (Simple logical step, as explained by Tekron)
The action of shooting a weapon creates a state of possession. Simple grammatical form. 6 pages and you still cannot recognise that fact.
I need a RAW quote saying that a model firing a weapon is in possession of it? I haven't claimed that.
No, the act of shooting a weapon does not create a state of possession. In real life it does. 40k isn't real life. Automatically Appended Next Post: BlackTalos wrote:harkequin wrote:
It literally does.
It's on you to prove (via a quote), that it is your gun, no semantics, and dancing around language. The rule states. "instead". you fire the quad gun instead of your weapon, = you fire the quad gun and not your weapon, = you are not firing your weapon= [Logical Leap] the quad gun is not your weapon.
I have highlighted above where you make an assumption with no rules support. The Quad gun is not your weapon, no, as it is not part of your Wargear.
If it's not yours (even temporarily) how do you have possession of it?
But how are you jumping to the conclusion that this means you are not allowed temporary possession of the Gun?
I agreed as early as page 3 that the Quad Gun was "not included in that list at the beginning of the game." (List of Wargear).
Yes, because you made an arbitrary distinction with no rules support.
The Quad Gun is your weapon, because you are firing a weapon in the shooting phase. When you fire a weapon, does it mean that weapon belongs to you? (is listed in your wargear?)
No
Are you in possession of it while you make the shot?
Yes
You keep asserting that with no evidence to support that fact. I've shown that - using rules - it's not required. Why do you keep asserting it's true?
The model is in possession of the Quad Gun as it is using it to perform a shooting attack.
Where is that link defined? Could you show me?
But the Quad gun is not the model making the shot.
It is the model [Tomb Blade], shooting the Weapon [Gun Emplacement]. As such, the model is firing "its" weapon.
It's firing its weapon instead of its weapon. Yup. That makes complete sense - if you ignore the word "instead".
Provide the RaW that states that if you fire a Weapon instead of your own, you have no possession of the weapon while following the shooting sequence.
Again, wrong way around. You're asserting that you have possession of something. Attempting to prove a negative is rarely possible. Prove your positive. I've shown how it isn't required. You're making up a fact that it is.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/13 13:29:51
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
|