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.

Gun Wagons periscope rule lets it fire it's killkannon twice "Da Boomer" kustom job replaces the killkannon with a souped up killkannon, does "Da Boomer" benefit from the periscope rule?

If the weapon is replaced by a weapon with a different name, rules that explicitly call out the original name will not work with the new weapon.

Whether this is intended or not is arguable, as it's a similar issue to the Astra Millitarum Leman Russ turret issue that was FAQd.

Perhaps it will be in the Saga FAQ. Until then, by RAW, it does not work.

The Periscope does not work with the souped up killkannon

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The Periscope does not work with the souped up killkannon

Sadly you're right, we'll have to wait for the FAQ to make the relevant clarifications.

Q: Does the Hammer of Sunderance Relic count as a turret
weapon for the purposes of Grinding Advance?
A: Yes.

This FAQ in Vigilus Defiant implies that relics replacing weapons on a "shoot twice" list are treated the same as the original weapon. It obviously still needs a FAQ to keep BCB from claiming that this is not a "special snowflake" ruling rather than a precedent.

 Jidmah wrote:
Q: Does the Hammer of Sunderance Relic count as a turret
weapon for the purposes of Grinding Advance?
A: Yes.

This FAQ in Vigilus Defiant implies that relics replacing weapons on a "shoot twice" list are treated the same as the original weapon. It obviously still needs a FAQ to keep BCB from claiming that this is not a "special snowflake" ruling rather than a precedent.

That FAQ applies only to the Hammer of Sunderance.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Q: Does the Hammer of Sunderance Relic count as a turret
weapon for the purposes of Grinding Advance?
A: Yes.

This FAQ in Vigilus Defiant implies that relics replacing weapons on a "shoot twice" list are treated the same as the original weapon. It obviously still needs a FAQ to keep BCB from claiming that this is not a "special snowflake" ruling rather than a precedent.

That FAQ applies only to the Hammer of Sunderance.

Sure, but it also sets a precedent and shows how they will likely rule similar situations in the next FAQ.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Q: Does the Hammer of Sunderance Relic count as a turret
weapon for the purposes of Grinding Advance?
A: Yes.

This FAQ in Vigilus Defiant implies that relics replacing weapons on a "shoot twice" list are treated the same as the original weapon. It obviously still needs a FAQ to keep BCB from claiming that this is not a "special snowflake" ruling rather than a precedent.

That FAQ applies only to the Hammer of Sunderance.

Sure, but it also sets a precedent and shows how they will likely rule similar situations in the next FAQ.

And the Quantum Shielding ruling "sets a precedent" that dice can be modified below 1, despite another FAQ saying otherwise. There is also precedent that stratagems that target ADEPTUS ASTARTES should work on Space Wolves (the Death Guard FAQ) but another FAQ saying otherwise. Which is it? Until GW FAQ it, then the Da Boomer doesn't benefit.

Please argue the topic at hand, and don't derail the thread with some random strawmen that aren't even true.
Feel free to open separate threads for each of them.

There are rules like the Quantum Shielding that don't really make sense, then there are rules like the Hammer of Sunderance Relic counting as a turret.

The former is odd, the latter makes sense within the capacity of the rules...

 DeathReaper wrote:
There are rules like the Quantum Shielding that don't really make sense, then there are rules like the Hammer of Sunderance Relic counting as a turret.

The former is odd, the latter makes sense within the capacity of the rules...

And who gets to decide what is odd? You? Why when you say it's "odd" that is valid but if I say it's OK it isn't valid? What makes your preference more valid than mine?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:
Please argue the topic at hand, and don't derail the thread with some random strawmen that aren't even true.
Feel free to open separate threads for each of them.

You are the one that brought up precedent. I am showing you that precedent is not a thing in 40k FAQs.

Kindly stay on topic.

-removed-

A better precedent is found in The Greater Good FAQ:

Q: Does the Up-gunned tenet also improve the Armour Penetration characteristic of high-output burst cannons and long-barreled burst cannons?

A: No.

Unlike Codex Space Marines and their bolter weapons, there is no weapon categories in Codex Orks and therefore the 'Periscope' rule only works with the weapons listed (i.e., a kannon, killkannon or zzap gun) and not those who share a similar name or background.

The Grinding Advance rule (from Astra Militarum, on LRBT) also doesn't refer weapon categories, but has a list just like the periscope.
Both rules very much mirror each other, so it's pretty like that they intend them to have the same behavior.

It also doesn't compare well, as the two weapons referenced are completely different weapons (similar to shoota, big shoota and super-shoota), not protoype versions. Note that the FAQ explicitly doesn't call out the Gatling Burst Cannon, which would match the Da Boomer constellation.

Until GW FAQs either Da Boomer or weapon replacement relics in general, it doesn't work.

 Jidmah wrote:
The Grinding Advance rule (from Astra Militarum, on LRBT) also doesn't refer weapon categories, but has a list just like the periscope.
Both rules very much mirror each other, so it's pretty like that they intend them to have the same behavior.

It also doesn't compare well, as the two weapons referenced are completely different weapons (similar to shoota, big shoota and super-shoota), not protoype versions. Note that it explicitly doesn't call out the Gatling Burst Cannon.

The Vigilus Defiant FAQ actually changes the 'Grinding Advance' rule by adding an additional weapon to the list of turret weapons. It does not make the Hammer of Sunderance one of the weapons already listed (e.g., it doesn't become a battle cannon, etc.) and thus is not a precedent. As of right now, the 'Periscope' rule does not work with da boomer as it is not listed as a weapon that it works with nor can it be considered a kannon, killkannon or zzap gun.

 Ghaz wrote:
[The Vigilus Defiant FAQ actually changes the 'Grinding Advance' rule by adding an additional weapon to the list of turret weapons.

The FAQ contains nothing of that kind. Please quote the rule which you think does that.

Q: Does the Hammer of Sunderance Relic count as a turret weapon for the purposes of Grinding Advance?

A: Yes.

There it is. The Hammer of Sunderance now counts as a turret weapon (i.e., it's been added to the list of turret weapons) for the purpose of Grinding Advance.

 alextroy wrote:
Until GW FAQs either Da Boomer or weapon replacement relics in general, it doesn't work.

The relic FAQ from vigilus, the weapon categories in the SM codex and sisters, the custom craftworld attributes, the knight's death grip stratagem and the CSM's malicious volleys and Daemon Shell/Hydras Teeth FAQ are all clear indicators that GW intents that relics are supposed to be affected by the same rules and stratagems as the weapons they replace.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

Q: Does the Hammer of Sunderance Relic count as a turret weapon for the purposes of Grinding Advance?

A: Yes.

There it is. The Hammer of Sunderance now counts as a turret weapon (i.e., it's been added to the list of turret weapons) for the purpose of Grinding Advance.

That's not what it says. The grinding advance rule remains unchanged, there is no errata applied.

 Ghaz wrote:
A better precedent is found in The Greater Good FAQ:

Q: Does the Up-gunned tenet also improve the Armour Penetration characteristic of high-output burst cannons and long-barreled burst cannons?

A: No.

Unlike Codex Space Marines and their bolter weapons, there is no weapon categories in Codex Orks and therefore the 'Periscope' rule only works with the weapons listed (i.e., a kannon, killkannon or zzap gun) and not those who share a similar name or background.

Well surely this settles the matter for Jidmah? Clearly this "precedent" proves Da Boomer doesn't benefit.

Seriously, do your ever read anything but your own posts?
This literally the fifth time this week you respond to something I have already explained two or three posts before yours.

Jidmah wrote:It also doesn't compare well, as the two weapons referenced are completely different weapons (similar to shoota, big shoota and super-shoota), not protoype versions. Note that the FAQ explicitly doesn't call out the Gatling Burst Cannon, which would match the Da Boomer constellation.

If anything, that is yet another indicator for you being wrong.

Heavy Plasma Cannon is not the same as a Plasma Cannon.

Monstrous Rending Claws are not the same as Rending Claws.

Da Boomer is not the same as a Killkannon.

It really is that simple.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Heavy Plasma Cannon is not the same as a Plasma Cannon.

Monstrous Rending Claws are not the same as Rending Claws.

Da Boomer is not the same as a Killkannon.

It really is that simple.

Hammer of Sunderance is the same as a Battlecannon.

Vengeance of Ultramar is the same as a Storm Bolter.

Matyr's Vengeance is the same as an Inferno Pistol

Gauntlet of Ascension is the same as Thunderstrike Gauntlet

Gatling Burst Cannon is the same as a Burst Cannon

Viper's Bite is the same as a Combi-Bolter

The difference between my post and yours? I'm actually comparing relics to weapons they replace, rather than two weapons that sound similar like you did.
How about you find a FAQ or rule which clearly, in RAW, states relics are not be treated the same as their non-relic counterpart. That would actually be a valuable contribution.

Except you're wrong, Gatling Burst Cannon is not the same as a Burst Cannon and Hammer of Sunderance is not the same as a Battlecannon.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:
How about you find a FAQ or rule which clearly, in RAW, states relics are not be treated the same as their non-relic counterpart. That would actually be a valuable contribution.

"It doesn't say I can't" is not an argument. Show me a FAQ or Rule that says that says I can't use reanimation protocols on my Canoptek Wraiths. Show me a FAQ or Rule that says I can't give a stray cat some tuna to automatically pass morale.

You need to show an FAQ or Rule that says relics ARE treated the same as their non relic counterparts. That is why the SM codex has such rules, because the default is that they are not the same.

By RAW, it does not apply.

In a friendly game, I'd definitely let it apply.
For a tournament, ask your TO because they could easily rule that it applies.

But RAW, it doesn't.

No it does not work in it's current form and here is why

Page 76 of PA Kustom jobs

"Note that some Kustom Jobs are weapons that replace
one of the model’s existing weapons. Where this is the
case, you must, if you are using points values, still pay
the cost of the weapon that is being replaced. Write
down any Kustom Jobs your models have on your
army roster."

Da boomer kustom job wording
"BATTLEWAGON , BONEBREAKA or GUNWAGON model
with killkannon only. Da Boomer replaces a killkannon
and has the following profile"

Gunwagon Periscope ability wording
"If the model remains stationary or moves under half speed in its Movement phase(i.e. it moves a distance in inches less than half of its current move characteristic) it can shoot twice in the following shooting phase with its kannon,killkannon or zzap gun(the weapon must target the same unit both times)

The Periscope does not work as it names the weapons that may be used with the ability.

Also note it would not work with the Zag Zzap Kustom job for the same reason.

It's exactly the same for the Hammer of Sunderance and it does work. The FAQ for the burst cannon ignored the prototype weapon and multiple armies have rules explicitly handling replacing certain types of weapons with relics.

There is not a single instance in the game where a relic version of a weapon is explicitly called out to not be affected by rules that would work for the standard version.

While it's not explicitly spelled out, there is overwhelming evidence that relics are to be treated the same as the weapon they replace and no evidence of the contrary.

 JNAProductions wrote:
By RAW, it does not apply.

In a friendly game, I'd definitely let it apply.
For a tournament, ask your TO because they could easily rule that it applies.

But RAW, it doesn't.

Yep, it’ll get FAQ’d like allllll the other similar situations, but until then if you meet a stickler you might have to bow to their interpretation or decline the game if you can’t agree. Right now, given that’s either someone you live with or a game on TTS, it makes life a lot easier as you’re either unlikely to be playing someone you wildly disagree with, or you can easily just log off and find a new matchup.

 Jidmah wrote:
It's exactly the same for the Hammer of Sunderance and it does work.

It's already been shown that the Hammer of Sunderance is a different situation and has no bearing on the question at hand.