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) 2016/08/19 02:02:01
Subject: Kastellan Robots shooting target with their guns and reducing cover saves..for themselves?
|
 |
Enginseer with a Wrench
|
Ok according to the Admech FAQ
Q: If a unit such as the Kataphron Destroyers deals an unsaved Wound using their phosphor blasters, then does the 1-point reduction in cover save from the Luminagen special rule apply to the same unit’s heavy grav-cannons if fired afterwards?
A: Yes.
Ok got it and that's how we've been playing it anyway.
Now this similar but different situation came up and I honestly didn't know how to go about it.
Kastalen Robots can be upgraded to have a Heavy Phosphor Blaster that has the same rule of -1 Cover for shooting that comes after it.
You can upgrade the same Robot to have a second weapon, a Twin-Linked Phosphor Blaster. So he now has both.
If you fire/wound with one version of the weapon, does the -1 cover apply to the other version's shots?
To add to that, someone said that the saves from the phosphor blasters in general have to be rolled one at a time and the -1 cover save applies to any of the rolls that happen after the first failed save.
Thoughts?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/19 02:02:44
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/08/19 07:17:25
Subject: Kastellan Robots shooting target with their guns and reducing cover saves..for themselves?
|
 |
Not as Good as a Minion
|
The SHOOTING is done at the same time from weapons with the same name.
Wound Allocation is performed sequentially after the number of Wounds is determined.
Are both of them Twin-linked, or just one?
If just one, the rulebook never defines if the name of the weapon is Twin-linked is it a different Weapon from the non-Twin-linked one.
|
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/08/19 09:24:29
Subject: Kastellan Robots shooting target with their guns and reducing cover saves..for themselves?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
The relevant upgrade options are:
- replace both fists with twin-linked heavy phosphor blaster
- replace default carapace gun with heavy phosphor blaster.
Just one of them can be twin-linked. So you'd fire them seperately.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/08/19 11:16:26
Subject: Kastellan Robots shooting target with their guns and reducing cover saves..for themselves?
|
 |
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair
|
Remember the choose a weapon step: any same-named weapon(both are just heavy phosphor blasters) that have different special rules(twin-linked for the arm guns) or are firing different ammo are treated as 2 different weapons.
I know someone is going to make a claim that the Twin-linked Heavy Phosphor Blaster technically has a different name than the Heavy Phosphor Blaster; but there is no profile for a Twin-linked Heavy Phosphor Blaster, GW just expects us to apply the Twin-linked(or Master Crafted in those cases) of weapons that begin with such a term. It still treats them as different weapons per the rules referenced in the previous paragraph, but does not change the fact that they are technically also the same weapon. In a Similar vein Salamander's chapter Tactics Flamecraft would function against a baneblades sponsons upgraded to "Twin-linked Heavy Flamers" even though such a named weapon does not exist in any Flamer weapon list.
|
This is my Rulebook. There are many Like it, but this one is mine. Without me, my rulebook is useless. Without my rulebook, I am useless.
Stop looking for buzz words and start reading the whole sentences.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/08/19 11:49:23
Subject: Kastellan Robots shooting target with their guns and reducing cover saves..for themselves?
|
 |
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran
Ankh Morpork
|
Kommissar Kel wrote:Remember the choose a weapon step: any same-named weapon(both are just heavy phosphor blasters) that have different special rules(twin-linked for the arm guns) or are firing different ammo are treated as 2 different weapons.
I think you're mixing this up with separating Wounds into different Wound pools based on special rules - only different firing modes or ammo type are rolled as if different weapons, not by different special rules.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/08/19 14:18:21
Subject: Kastellan Robots shooting target with their guns and reducing cover saves..for themselves?
|
 |
Not as Good as a Minion
|
Kommissar Kel wrote:Remember the choose a weapon step: any same-named weapon(both are just heavy phosphor blasters) that have different special rules(twin-linked for the arm guns) or are firing different ammo are treated as 2 different weapons.
I know someone is going to make a claim that the Twin-linked Heavy Phosphor Blaster technically has a different name than the Heavy Phosphor Blaster; but there is no profile for a Twin-linked Heavy Phosphor Blaster, GW just expects us to apply the Twin-linked(or Master Crafted in those cases) of weapons that begin with such a term. It still treats them as different weapons per the rules referenced in the previous paragraph, but does not change the fact that they are technically also the same weapon. In a Similar vein Salamander's chapter Tactics Flamecraft would function against a baneblades sponsons upgraded to "Twin-linked Heavy Flamers" even though such a named weapon does not exist in any Flamer weapon list.
That still doesn't mean that the name hasn't changed along with adding that Twin-linked rule. Just because its name doesn't show up with "twin-linked" in the roster, doesn't mean we do not have a name change.
The rulebook provides absolutely nothing, one way or the other, on if adding "twin-linked" to the Weapon in the Wargear/Options list changes the name sufficiently to separate it for Choosing a Weapon. Keep in mind that this IS a rare occurrence, in most cases if one Weapon is Twin-linked, they all trend to be Twin-linked.
I can see the merits for arguing either way on this subject, but nothing is properly defined. Discuss it with your opponent/ TO on which way you want to use it and see how they agree. Also add it to the list of questions on the 40K Facebook page for Facebook review.
|
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/08/19 15:17:50
Subject: Kastellan Robots shooting target with their guns and reducing cover saves..for themselves?
|
 |
Powerful Phoenix Lord
|
Yeah, I think discussing with the opponent is best. Personally, I don't see "twin-linked" as part of the weapon name, just as a descriptor for the weapon that gives it that rule. AFAIK, "twin-linked X" is never shown in the weapon profile or reference section (unless twin-linked is always part of the weapon, like the Necron Tesla destructor) Another example of a situation like this is an Eldar Wave Serpent. It comes stock with "twin-linked Shuriken cannons" and can have it's catapults upgrades to a "Shuriken cannon", giving it both a "twinlinked" and non-twin-linked version. No where in the weapon profile or reference section is a "twin-linked shuriken cannon" listed, so how do we know what a TL shuricannon does, assuming it is a different weapon? My interpretation is that TL versions of weapons should be considered the same weapon, otherwise there is no "profile" to use them. So when I shoot my Wave Serpent's weapons, I roll 3 diced for the TL shuricannon, re-rolling misses, 3 dice for the regular shuricannon, then I pick up ALL the hits and roll to wound/pen. -
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/19 15:19:32
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/08/19 15:34:48
Subject: Kastellan Robots shooting target with their guns and reducing cover saves..for themselves?
|
 |
Not as Good as a Minion
|
Galef wrote:Yeah, I think discussing with the opponent is best.
Personally, I don't see "twin-linked" as part of the weapon name, just as a descriptor for the weapon that gives it that rule. AFAIK, "twin-linked X" is never shown in the weapon profile or reference section (unless twin-linked is always part of the weapon, like the Necron Tesla destructor)
Another example of a situation like this is an Eldar Wave Serpent. It comes stock with "twin-linked Shuriken cannons" and can have it's catapults upgrades to a "Shuriken cannon", giving it both a "twinlinked" and non-twin-linked version.
No where in the weapon profile or reference section is a "twin-linked shuriken cannon" listed, so how do we know what a TL shuricannon does, assuming it is a different weapon?
My interpretation is that TL versions of weapons should be considered the same weapon, otherwise there is no "profile" to use them.
So when I shoot my Wave Serpent's weapons, I roll 3 diced for the TL shuricannon, re-rolling misses, 3 dice for the regular shuricannon, then I pick up ALL the hits and roll to wound/pen.
I can see it as both providing a different "name" as well as adding the rule at the same time. As you said, the T-L version is never listed in the roster, however it IS listed as its name in the Wargear or Options.
So, either it doesn't exist, or it is using this name in the Wargear/Options to also provides the Special Rule as well as an identifying name.
Keep in mind, that the Select a Weapon and Select Another Weapon does not specifically tell us to refer to the name on the Weapon roster, but carried by the unit, or rather implied, carried by the models the unit has, to be more precise. In this case, the Weapons carried by the model carry two different names, even though the change in name is simply to change it to Twin-Linked.
It is almost like the difference between Flamer and Heavy Flamer, but not quite (having totally different profiles is part of the "not quite"). And that is the reason why I can see the argument against considering them different Weapons.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/19 15:45:15
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/08/19 16:03:09
Subject: Kastellan Robots shooting target with their guns and reducing cover saves..for themselves?
|
 |
Powerful Phoenix Lord
|
I guess I was trying to say that by considering it a different weapon, you can no longer use the profile of the non-twin-linked weapon. You have to find the profile for "twin-linked X", but if one does not exist, you can't use the weapon at all, which is silly.
In order to use the same profile, it has to be considered the same weapon, but simply gains the twin-linked rule.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/08/19 19:24:53
Subject: Kastellan Robots shooting target with their guns and reducing cover saves..for themselves?
|
 |
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair
|
Christoph: can you find in any wargear section of any book a weapon called "Twin-Linked Lascannon"?
It is not a different weapon from a regular Lascannon; that is why I used the Twin-linked Heavy Flamers and Flamecraft as an example of it still being the same weapon that adds the Twin-linked rule. "Twin-linked Heavy Flamer" is not on any Flamer weapon list; if you want it to be a new weapon, then it has no profile and is unaffected by Flamecraft(nor the Avatar of Khaine)
And Mr Shine is correct; different special rules only make for different wound pools.
This really throws a wrench into the works. If we treat them as differently named weapons, then we have weapons with no profile(I am talking about all twin-linked/master-crafted weapons here) and therefore no use(and anything that grants a bonus to or against weapons within the base group is also useless).
If we treat them as same-named weapons with the named special rule; then the robots cannot benefit from their own rule(which is fine by me btw), but they are at least functional.
|
This is my Rulebook. There are many Like it, but this one is mine. Without me, my rulebook is useless. Without my rulebook, I am useless.
Stop looking for buzz words and start reading the whole sentences.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/08/19 21:11:09
Subject: Kastellan Robots shooting target with their guns and reducing cover saves..for themselves?
|
 |
Not as Good as a Minion
|
Kommissar Kel wrote:Christoph: can you find in any wargear section of any book a weapon called "Twin-Linked Lascannon"?
Land Raiders in Codex: Space Marines, Codex: Blood Angels, Codex: Space Wolves, and Codex: Dark Angels. I can't remember if they are in the Inquisition book or Grey Knights book anymore, and that is largely unimportant.
Kommissar Kel wrote:It is not a different weapon from a regular Lascannon; that is why I used the Twin-linked Heavy Flamers and Flamecraft as an example of it still being the same weapon that adds the Twin-linked rule. "Twin-linked Heavy Flamer" is not on any Flamer weapon list; if you want it to be a new weapon, then it has no profile and is unaffected by Flamecraft(nor the Avatar of Khaine)
And Mr Shine is correct; different special rules only make for different wound pools.
This really throws a wrench into the works. If we treat them as differently named weapons, then we have weapons with no profile(I am talking about all twin-linked/master-crafted weapons here) and therefore no use(and anything that grants a bonus to or against weapons within the base group is also useless).
If we treat them as same-named weapons with the named special rule; then the robots cannot benefit from their own rule(which is fine by me btw), but they are at least functional.
Different special rules apply for Wound Pools provided by the same Weapon, such as when Rending occurs.
We are discussing if the game considers a "Twin-linked Lascannon" to be a "Lascannon" for the purposes of Select A Weapon/Select Another Weapon. They are different names under the Wargear and Option lists of the unit entries, but not in the Weapon roster. Which are we to use?
The problem is there is no specific standard provided by the rulebook, FAQs, or Draft FAQs to go by in making this determination. If you can provide one, please do. Otherwise, no matter which side you are on, it is HYWPI.
|
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/08/19 21:14:54
Subject: Kastellan Robots shooting target with their guns and reducing cover saves..for themselves?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Charistoph wrote: Kommissar Kel wrote:Christoph: can you find in any wargear section of any book a weapon called "Twin-Linked Lascannon"?
Land Raiders in Codex: Space Marines, Codex: Blood Angels, Codex: Space Wolves, and Codex: Dark Angels. I can't remember if they are in the Inquisition book or Grey Knights book anymore, and that is largely unimportant.
They're also in the new Deathwatch Codex.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/08/19 21:21:27
Subject: Kastellan Robots shooting target with their guns and reducing cover saves..for themselves?
|
 |
Powerful Phoenix Lord
|
Charistoph wrote: Kommissar Kel wrote:Christoph: can you find in any wargear section of any book a weapon called "Twin-Linked Lascannon"?
Land Raiders in Codex: Space Marines, Codex: Blood Angels, Codex: Space Wolves, and Codex: Dark Angels. I can't remember if they are in the Inquisition book or Grey Knights book anymore, and that is largely unimportant.
I think Kommisar Kel and I are asking where is the PROFILE listed for "Twin-linked Lascannon", ya know where it tells you what Str, AP, range and # of shots, etc. Sure Land Raiders have them in their list of weapons, but does it say in their entry what they do? I'll I can find is the profile for "Lascannons" in the wargear section of the codex. If you are using the profile for a Lascannon to resolve a Twin-linked Lascannon, then you are treating it as the same weapon, therefore they must create the same pool. You only have to roll them separately in the same manner as a unit with different BS. A Captain with BS5 needs to have his bolter rolled for separately from his squads' BS4 bolters, but once all hits are made, they are all still bolters and to-wounds are resolved in the same pool. -
|
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/08/19 21:29:00
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/08/19 22:39:29
Subject: Kastellan Robots shooting target with their guns and reducing cover saves..for themselves?
|
 |
Not as Good as a Minion
|
Galef wrote:
I think Kommisar Kel and I are asking where is the PROFILE listed for "Twin-linked Lascannon", ya know where it tells you what Str, AP, range and # of shots, etc.
Sure Land Raiders have them in their list of weapons, but does it say in their entry what they do?
I'll I can find is the profile for "Lascannons" in the wargear section of the codex.
If you are using the profile for a Lascannon to resolve a Twin-linked Lascannon, then you are treating it as the same weapon, therefore they must create the same pool.
You only have to roll them separately in the same manner as a unit with different BS. A Captain with BS5 needs to have his bolter rolled for separately from his squads' BS4 bolters, but once all hits are made, they are all still bolters and to-wounds are resolved in the same pool.
I am aware of what he was actually asking (section of the book, not just section), but I was presenting it as what the game might be asking.
But let's face it, a Twin-linked Lascannon is slightly different than a Lascannon. The sponson on a Predator or a Heavy Weapon on a Devastator isn't Twin-linked, but the ones on the Predator Turret and Land Raider sponson are. The adjustment is made in the name presented in the Wargear or Options list.
I will be using the Rng, Str, AP, and Type of the Lascannon for the TL Lascannon, but the TL Lascannon presumably adds Twin-Linked to the Type or does nothing at all. A normal Lascannon isn't Twin-Linked, so it is not completely the same Weapon.
Sadly, unlike the situation for Combi-Bolters, there is nothing definitive either way on this. The fact that Combi-Bolters are explicitly written to make them to the same as the non-Combi- types (and not as a reminder) is indicative that such things are to be considered.
|
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/08/19 23:43:44
Subject: Kastellan Robots shooting target with their guns and reducing cover saves..for themselves?
|
 |
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair
|
I meant the weapon's profile. I know the vehicles have it as wargear and figured you would know when I said wargear section, I meant the section of rules that defines the wargear.
And yes my point was that if they are different weapons than they are completely unusable.
Since we are dealing with the Admech in this discussion; I can show a similar example of a weapon that is basically the standard weapon with a special rule(that does have its own profile): Cognis weapons.
From Skitarri, the lascannon is a lascannon, the heavy stubber is a heavy stubber, and the autocannon is an autocannon(for most of the profile); they just add the cognis rule as well. Of course, you then get into the ballisari having a Twin-linked cognis autocannon(because: Games Workshop) which is the only way the cognis autocannon comes.
|
This is my Rulebook. There are many Like it, but this one is mine. Without me, my rulebook is useless. Without my rulebook, I am useless.
Stop looking for buzz words and start reading the whole sentences.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/08/20 00:24:24
Subject: Kastellan Robots shooting target with their guns and reducing cover saves..for themselves?
|
 |
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord
|
For me the thought process goes thus:
Is there a separate profile for a Twin-linked weapon?
If yes, then it counts as a different weapon. If no, then it's the same weapon.
If I remember correctly there are indeed versions of some weapons that have the twin-linked rule, but also actually have a separate profile from their base weapon, thus to me if they did want a Twin Linked Weapon to be a different weapon, it would have a separate profile. Otherwise the interpretation would, at it's logical peak, render all twin-linked weapons useless since they would all be referring to non-existent weapons.
|
Gwar! wrote:Huh, I had no idea Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines posted on Dakka. Hi Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can I have an Autograph!
Kanluwen wrote:
Hell, I'm not that bothered by the Stormraven. Why? Because, as it stands right now, it's "limited use".When it's shoehorned in to the Codex: Space Marines, then yeah. I'll be irked.
When I'm editing alot, you know I have a gakload of homework to (not) do. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/08/20 01:18:05
Subject: Kastellan Robots shooting target with their guns and reducing cover saves..for themselves?
|
 |
Enginseer with a Wrench
|
Glad to see I wasn't alone in not being sure.
I am/was currently playing them as separate weapons.
One of the additional factors was because the the protocols say
"Protector Protocol: Kastelan Robots can't move, run or assault, but fire the carapace-mounted weapon twice."
The carapace mounted version is the non-twin linked. The twin-linked are the "arm mounted" ones. Which is funny since this isn't a vehicle but it has specific mounted places.
Looking at it now, I would wager that GW probably did not intend for the Robots to benefit from their own rule.
The other reason my mind kept going to them benefiting was an old version of the necron scarabs. They used to debuff AV of vehicles on hits, and If I remember right, even though they all attack at once each one would benefit from the one before it.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/08/20 01:19:59
Subject: Kastellan Robots shooting target with their guns and reducing cover saves..for themselves?
|
 |
Not as Good as a Minion
|
Kommissar Kel wrote:I meant the weapon's profile. I know the vehicles have it as wargear and figured you would know when I said wargear section, I meant the section of rules that defines the wargear.
And yes my point was that if they are different weapons than they are completely unusable.
Since we are dealing with the Admech in this discussion; I can show a similar example of a weapon that is basically the standard weapon with a special rule(that does have its own profile): Cognis weapons.
From Skitarri, the lascannon is a lascannon, the heavy stubber is a heavy stubber, and the autocannon is an autocannon(for most of the profile); they just add the cognis rule as well. Of course, you then get into the ballisari having a Twin-linked cognis autocannon(because: Games Workshop) which is the only way the cognis autocannon comes.
The problem is that Select a Weapon/Select Another Weapon isn't asking if they have different profiles, they are asking if they are the same weapon. But even then, they aren't exactly the same profile now, either, are they?
Is a Twin-linked Lascannon and a Lascannon the same Weapon? The answer is no. If they were the same there wouldn't be a reason to make the name different, now is it? In addition, what does a Twin-linked Lascannon do that a Lascannon cannot?
Roughly speaking, everything (besides name) is the same until we get to Type. Lascannon is Heavy 1. Twin-linked Lascannon would be interpreted (to be used) as Heavy 1, Twin-linked.
So, the effective profile isn't the same, and we are not told to make a difference between the profiles, just that they be different Weapons. They state that it is between, " any differently named weapons" What classifies as a different is never really explained, though, when doing things like adding Twin-linked being added to the names of Weapons since forever.
|
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/08/20 09:26:38
Subject: Kastellan Robots shooting target with their guns and reducing cover saves..for themselves?
|
 |
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair
|
Let's look at the Twin-linked special rule, first paragraph, last sentence: "If a shooting weapon has the Twin-linked special rule, or is described in a model's wargear entry as Twin-linked, ...."
The ellipses are the effect of the rule.
A Twin-Linked X is not the name of the weapon; Twin-Linked is the description of the weapon that grants the use of the special rule. The weapon, in this case a Heavy Phosphor Blaster, is still the same weapon.
|
This is my Rulebook. There are many Like it, but this one is mine. Without me, my rulebook is useless. Without my rulebook, I am useless.
Stop looking for buzz words and start reading the whole sentences.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/08/20 14:56:50
Subject: Kastellan Robots shooting target with their guns and reducing cover saves..for themselves?
|
 |
Not as Good as a Minion
|
Kommissar Kel wrote:Let's look at the Twin-linked special rule, first paragraph, last sentence: "If a shooting weapon has the Twin-linked special rule, or is described in a model's wargear entry as Twin-linked, ...."
The ellipses are the effect of the rule.
A Twin-Linked X is not the name of the weapon; Twin-Linked is the description of the weapon that grants the use of the special rule. The weapon, in this case a Heavy Phosphor Blaster, is still the same weapon.
While the rules may call it a descriptor, it still doesn't change the fact that it is listed as the Weapon's name in the model's Wargear entry AND has an adjusted profile as a result.
I am not sold on this concept any more than what you have presented, I just cannot find anything definitive, one way or the other, that states this is the case.
|
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/08/20 16:44:56
Subject: Kastellan Robots shooting target with their guns and reducing cover saves..for themselves?
|
 |
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair
|
There is no adjusted profile. It is literally the same weapon. The wargear "name" is the description referenced in the rule and under the effects of the rule.
Saying that the effects of the rule makes it a different weapon is like saying that a Fire Dragon Exarch is firing a different fusion gun due to Crack shot.
A "twin-linked heavy phosphor blaster" is a heavy phosphor blaster described as twin-linked and thus gaining the effect of the special rule by RAW. If you want to claim it as a different weapon then it has no profile and cannot be fired.
|
This is my Rulebook. There are many Like it, but this one is mine. Without me, my rulebook is useless. Without my rulebook, I am useless.
Stop looking for buzz words and start reading the whole sentences.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/08/20 21:33:40
Subject: Kastellan Robots shooting target with their guns and reducing cover saves..for themselves?
|
 |
Not as Good as a Minion
|
Kommissar Kel wrote:There is no adjusted profile. It is literally the same weapon. The wargear "name" is the description referenced in the rule and under the effects of the rule.
Saying that the effects of the rule makes it a different weapon is like saying that a Fire Dragon Exarch is firing a different fusion gun due to Crack shot.
A "twin-linked heavy phosphor blaster" is a heavy phosphor blaster described as twin-linked and thus gaining the effect of the special rule by RAW. If you want to claim it as a different weapon then it has no profile and cannot be fired.
If it is literally the same weapon with the same profile, why add Twin-linked? It would not be able to reroll To Hit unless the profile added this Special Rule.
|
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/08/20 23:39:00
Subject: Kastellan Robots shooting target with their guns and reducing cover saves..for themselves?
|
 |
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair
|
Because as I quoted from the special rule a weapon only needs to be described as twin-linked in the models wargear entry(yes this is the wargear section like from the Land Raider and its twin-linked lascannons under "wargear").
Look at the Twin-linked rules; it is very clear.
|
This is my Rulebook. There are many Like it, but this one is mine. Without me, my rulebook is useless. Without my rulebook, I am useless.
Stop looking for buzz words and start reading the whole sentences.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/08/20 23:49:10
Subject: Kastellan Robots shooting target with their guns and reducing cover saves..for themselves?
|
 |
Not as Good as a Minion
|
Kommissar Kel wrote:Because as I quoted from the special rule a weapon only needs to be described as twin-linked in the models wargear entry(yes this is the wargear section like from the Land Raider and its twin-linked lascannons under "wargear").
Look at the Twin-linked rules; it is very clear.
Than it isn't the same Profile now is it? One has TL attached to its profile, one does not. They don't quite have the same name, as "Twin-linked X" and "X" are not the same thing.
I understand what you are saying, but nothing you have brought up is definitive in anything other than HYWPI, and it is a perfectly valid way of looking at it. If you kept posting the opposite, I would countering it, too, for that exact reason.
|
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/08/21 01:36:42
Subject: Kastellan Robots shooting target with their guns and reducing cover saves..for themselves?
|
 |
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair
|
No Twin-linked is not at all attached to the profile(it has no profile because it is the same weapon).
Seriously, read the Twin-linked rule; I even posted the relevant line and bolded the section that explains this.
It is not a HIWPI, it is the RAW.
A weapon described in the wargear section of the ALE as "Twin-LiLinked may re-roll failed to hits. Such weapons do not even actually have the Twin-linked rule; the twin-linked rule simply gives them the same benefit as a weapon that has it.
|
This is my Rulebook. There are many Like it, but this one is mine. Without me, my rulebook is useless. Without my rulebook, I am useless.
Stop looking for buzz words and start reading the whole sentences.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/08/21 03:27:50
Subject: Kastellan Robots shooting target with their guns and reducing cover saves..for themselves?
|
 |
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord
|
Again this argument can be solved with a few simple question:
Where is the profile for a "Twin-Linked Heavy Phosphor Blaster". As in a profile with that specific name and listing the strength, AP, special rules and range of said weapon. I'm gonna need a page number here.
Failing that, give me the page number (from any rulebook) where it tells you how to "adjust" an existing weapon's profile with a new rule changes it to be a new weapon.
Remember 40k is a game of permissions. Kel has provided actual rule quotes that support his views, while you've provided only conjecture and interpretations. We're fine with you playing it however you like in your interpretations, but to consider them RAW we need actual Rules As Written to back it up.
|
Gwar! wrote:Huh, I had no idea Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines posted on Dakka. Hi Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can I have an Autograph!
Kanluwen wrote:
Hell, I'm not that bothered by the Stormraven. Why? Because, as it stands right now, it's "limited use".When it's shoehorned in to the Codex: Space Marines, then yeah. I'll be irked.
When I'm editing alot, you know I have a gakload of homework to (not) do. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/08/21 05:58:56
Subject: Kastellan Robots shooting target with their guns and reducing cover saves..for themselves?
|
 |
Not as Good as a Minion
|
Kommissar Kel wrote:No Twin-linked is not at all attached to the profile(it has no profile because it is the same weapon).
Seriously, read the Twin-linked rule; I even posted the relevant line and bolded the section that explains this.
It is not a HIWPI, it is the RAW.
A weapon described in the wargear section of the ALE as "Twin-LiLinked may re-roll failed to hits. Such weapons do not even actually have the Twin-linked rule; the twin-linked rule simply gives them the same benefit as a weapon that has it.
Virtually speaking, it is adding it to the profile in terms of use. But this is a pointless direction to take since the Select A Weapon rule does not look at profiles, but names, as I stated earlier. And the name is definitely a little different, even if it is just a descriptor added.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote:Failing that, give me the page number (from any rulebook) where it tells you how to "adjust" an existing weapon's profile with a new rule changes it to be a new weapon.
Remember 40k is a game of permissions. Kel has provided actual rule quotes that support his views, while you've provided only conjecture and interpretations. We're fine with you playing it however you like in your interpretations, but to consider them RAW we need actual Rules As Written to back it up.
Show me where adding a descriptor does not change the name of the Weapon? Do you have permission to consider this added descriptor in the name as the same Weapon without the Descriptor?
|
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/08/21 06:36:01
Subject: Kastellan Robots shooting target with their guns and reducing cover saves..for themselves?
|
 |
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord
|
Charistoph wrote:Show me where adding a descriptor does not change the name of the Weapon? Do you have permission to consider this added descriptor in the name as the same Weapon without the Descriptor? I see what you're trying to do but simply reversing the question on me does not work that way. 40k is, once again, a game of permissions. Inaction is the neutral state of anything, but an action takes permission. I cannot prove that I have permission to perform an inaction because you cannot perform an inaction (an inaction, by definition, is not doing anything). Not to mention this does not answer the core of my question, which is that while Kel has provided an actual quote from the rulebook, you still have only provided interpretations and conjecture. Again, RAW requires actual Rules As Written backing them up. EDIT: Anyways, back on topic. Despite that I argue for RAW stating that the Twin-linked version of the weapon is the same as the normal version of the weapon, I believe that the INTENT of it was that the second shot does have -1 cover save. The above Kataphron Destroyer ruling and the fact that the second Blaster is designed on the model in such a way that it looks like it should be aimed separately leads me to think that this was the intent as the rule itself doesn't stack. If they end up ruling it differently (as in, you don't get the -1 save) then I would chalk it up to their hands being tied with a poor wording, like how Ogre Butchers were able to take Magic Armor due to having Iron Fists, despite the designers explicitly saying that was not the intent.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/21 07:12:30
Gwar! wrote:Huh, I had no idea Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines posted on Dakka. Hi Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can I have an Autograph!
Kanluwen wrote:
Hell, I'm not that bothered by the Stormraven. Why? Because, as it stands right now, it's "limited use".When it's shoehorned in to the Codex: Space Marines, then yeah. I'll be irked.
When I'm editing alot, you know I have a gakload of homework to (not) do. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/08/21 19:05:10
Subject: Kastellan Robots shooting target with their guns and reducing cover saves..for themselves?
|
 |
Not as Good as a Minion
|
MechaEmperor7000 wrote:I see what you're trying to do but simply reversing the question on me does not work that way. 40k is, once again, a game of permissions. Inaction is the neutral state of anything, but an action takes permission. I cannot prove that I have permission to perform an inaction because you cannot perform an inaction (an inaction, by definition, is not doing anything). Not to mention this does not answer the core of my question, which is that while Kel has provided an actual quote from the rulebook, you still have only provided interpretations and conjecture. Again, RAW requires actual Rules As Written backing them up.
Quite pertinent. Do you treat it as the exact same Weapon with the descriptor and where does it tell you to do that?
If this is about permissions (to which I attest there are none, either way), where does it state the permission on how to treat this descriptor either way when you Select A Weapon?
|
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/08/21 20:45:25
Subject: Kastellan Robots shooting target with their guns and reducing cover saves..for themselves?
|
 |
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord
|
Charistoph wrote: MechaEmperor7000 wrote:I see what you're trying to do but simply reversing the question on me does not work that way. 40k is, once again, a game of permissions. Inaction is the neutral state of anything, but an action takes permission. I cannot prove that I have permission to perform an inaction because you cannot perform an inaction (an inaction, by definition, is not doing anything). Not to mention this does not answer the core of my question, which is that while Kel has provided an actual quote from the rulebook, you still have only provided interpretations and conjecture. Again, RAW requires actual Rules As Written backing them up.
Quite pertinent. Do you treat it as the exact same Weapon with the descriptor and where does it tell you to do that? If this is about permissions (to which I attest there are none, either way), where does it state the permission on how to treat this descriptor either way when you Select A Weapon? See again, this is where we are at an impasse, because the only way I can answer your question is by reversing it on you, but then you insist on reversing it on me. I cannot provide proof of an inaction, because I cannot provide you a place where it says "do not do this". Your entire argument hinges on "it did not tell me I cannot do this, therefore I can" (and since you are now cherry picking pieces of my argument, I must clarify that I am not saying this is what you are saying, but your argument is based on this train of logic as far as we can understand it). This is not how permission works. Note that Kel's argument is the same, but he provided actual support to which he thinks his argument is correct in the form of a rulebook quote (He even highlighted it for your convenience). You are correct, there is nothing stating which way we should treat it Directly (Emphasis here. By Directly I mean explicitly spelling out "Treat this as the same Weapon" or "Treat this as a different Weapon"). But Kel's example provides an example where the main rulebook's own rules treat it as the same weapon, albeit in a different context. Which is why it is a plausible piece of evidence for his claim. For your version to work, the weapon is considered to be different weapon when a rule checks for them, but then becomes another weapon when you actually fire it with an extra rule attached. It flipflops through two different "versions" as you're firing it; when first checking for which weapons are the same, it's suddenly a different weapon and remains so through the To Hit phase. When it comes to the To Wound phase, it suddenly becomes the same weapon as the non-twin linked version (because no "Twin-Linked Phosphor Blaster" profile exists in the back of the rulebook or the codex, so you must use the existing, non-twin linked one's strength here) and remains so for determining if a model gets an armor save, then it suddenly becomes a different weapon again when you have to resolve a cover save. That is, quite literally, the definition of cherry picking the rules. Kel's stance instead keeps it the same throughout the entire process, with no flipfloping happening anywhere. So I ask you again, please provide a piece of evidence where it is indeed treated as a different weapon. Finally, I should point out that in all of these shenanigans, you've interchangeably used the term "profile" and "name". I must point out that these are not actually synonymous; the Name is a portion of the profile, while a Profile can be differentiated by a different name. (SEE EDIT) EDIT: I retract the accusation of you using the two terms interchangeably (I had misread one of your comments), but keeping it in there for the sake of documentation.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/21 20:52:01
Gwar! wrote:Huh, I had no idea Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines posted on Dakka. Hi Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can I have an Autograph!
Kanluwen wrote:
Hell, I'm not that bothered by the Stormraven. Why? Because, as it stands right now, it's "limited use".When it's shoehorned in to the Codex: Space Marines, then yeah. I'll be irked.
When I'm editing alot, you know I have a gakload of homework to (not) do. |
|
 |
 |
|