stephane4985 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 I just saw that in the rule book faq Q: When a Damaged – Weapon Destroyed result is rolled and a weapon is destroyed are any built-in, combi or co-axial weapons attached to it also destroyed? (p61) A: Yes. So I was wondering what happens when you destroy a turret on a razorback that contains a lascannon and a TL plasma cannon. Are they not considered co-axial weapons, since they are on the same turret? Are they both destroy or only one of them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DK1 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Read SM FAQ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephane4985 Posted April 25, 2012 Author Share Posted April 25, 2012 Can't get much more clearer than that. thx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkGuard Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Just to make it totally clear, the plasma gun is not a co-axial weapon to the lascannon. Neither is it inbuilt or in any way related. It is a separate weapon, as the C:SM FAQ makes clear, but because they are two separate weapons the BRB FAQ wouldn't apply to them anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arikel Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 To expand on this in a related issue I know a dreadnaught usually has a gun arm and a ccw+stormbolter arm. In this case I guess if i get a weapon destroyed result I have to remove an entire arm, i can't just remove the stormbolter correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShinyRhino Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 To expand on this in a related issue I know a dreadnaught usually has a gun arm and a ccw+stormbolter arm. In this case I guess if i get a weapon destroyed result I have to remove an entire arm, i can't just remove the stormbolter correct? Correct. I believe the wording used in most marine codeci (codexes?) is "built-in" when referring to the underslung weapon on the DCCW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonaides Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 yes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacinda Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 codeci (codexes?) GW uses codexes. The rest of the world says codices (KHO-duh-seez). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chapter Master Ignis Domus Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Codexes is actually an alternate spelling/pronunciation, according to the dictionary. Or it was the last time this came up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacinda Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 It probably is, in the OED. I thought it might be a British thing, like "colour," but I wasn't sure. But either way, we all know what you mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acebaur Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 I presume that both weapon are mounted on the Turret? If that is the case then GW's SM FAQ is very very wrong. They are indeed co-axial by the definition of the term which is a main weapon with a secondary weapon mounted in such a way that it uses the same line of fire in order to draw a target. However, since the info in both FAQ's are in the Q&A section which GW considers "soft" rulings. So ultimately I'd say you should discuss with your opponent. Off topic, there are a lot of words that are spelled differently between the Brits and the Americans, armour/armor and daemon/demon to name a couple more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chromedog Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 In 40k, "Co-axial" is a rule that ONLY exists in APOCALYPSE, and specifically where the unit entry states it (like certain FW tanks and certain superheavies) The FAQ states that on a SM razorback, they are TWO separate weapons, not built-ins and not co-axial (even if in reality they might be called such). Reality and 40k do not have anything in common. Please don't try to shoehorn reality into the game, it only ends badly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkGuard Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 I presume that both weapon are mounted on the Turret? If that is the case then GW's SM FAQ is very very wrong. They are indeed co-axial by the definition of the term which is a main weapon with a secondary weapon mounted in such a way that it uses the same line of fire in order to draw a target. They don't have to be on the same turret. I've seen some conversions where there's the lascannon on the turret and a twin-linked plasma gun where a pintle mounted storm bolter would be. Just because someone modelled the plasma gun and lascannon together on the same turret doesn't mean it's co axial in game, it needs to be said so in the rules. The Codex says it's a lascannon and a plasma gun, no mention to co axial, therefore they aren't co axial, they are separate weapons, and the C:SM FAQ is therefore very, very right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Mage Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 IIRC some codices do mention that the DCCW has a built in stormbolter, for an example of something that is affect by this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShinyRhino Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Just for the sake of completeness and trivia, "co-axial" is not onlyused in Apocalypse. It is also used in the Imperial Armour rules for several IG tanks, especially in the Armored Battlegroup army list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ming Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Codex - a single codex Codexi - plural codex Codexus - feminine form of codex Codexaram - masculine form of codex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.