Quadgun Shenanigans!

[CitadelArmyGuy]

Bumping old thread to keep Quadgun issues in one place.

 

May any model fire a quadgun, or just models with Infantry type? I've heard talk about Rhinos parking next to quadguns and firing them instead of their stormbolter. I'm pretty sure I know that answer but again, its a 'community awareness' thing ;)

 

Also, can a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature fire a quadgun?

[Morollan]

One model in base contact with the gun emplacement can fire it instead of his own weapon, following the normal rules for shooting.

 

From that, I would have to say that a vehicle can indeed fire the gun if in base contact. Seems stupid but I can't see anything wrong with it. It would also appear that swoopers can fire it.

 

They can, therefore, fire up to two of their weapons normally, even if Swooping

[Gentlemanloser]

Going back to battlefield debris and not being owned by anyone.

 

To table your opponent, do you need to destroy any fortifications they have purchased? Or the other way around, if all you have left on board at the end of the turn is a fortification, do you automatically lose?

[Morollan]

Going back to battlefield debris and not being owned by anyone.

 

To table your opponent, do you need to destroy any fortifications they have purchased? Or the other way around, if all you have left on board at the end of the turn is a fortification, do you automatically lose?

 

We have always played that fortifications and gun emplacements do not count as units and therefore cannot be claimed for First Blood and also do not prevent auto-losing if they are the only models on the table.

[CitadelArmyGuy]

Re-engaging this thread, concerning Question #2 from original post: When a non-relentless model must move to make base contact with a quadgun, will it then shoot only Snap Shots?

 

We're all clear on 'One model in base contact with the gun emplacement can fire it instead of his own weapon, following the normal rules for shooting.'

 

Well, normal rules for shooting means we go to the Heavy profile in the weapons description section, Page 51.

 

"If a model carrying (emphasis mine) a Heavy Weapon moved in the preceding movement phase, he can fire it in the shooting phase but only as Snap Shots."

 

That use of the word carrying is the crux; no model is ever carrying the quadgun. I do believe the model fires at full BS.

[maturin]

Re-engaging this thread, concerning Question #2 from original post: When a non-relentless model must move to make base contact with a quadgun, will it then shoot only Snap Shots?

 

We're all clear on 'One model in base contact with the gun emplacement can fire it instead of his own weapon, following the normal rules for shooting.'

 

Well, normal rules for shooting means we go to the Heavy profile in the weapons description section, Page 51.

 

"If a model carrying (emphasis mine) a Heavy Weapon moved in the preceding movement phase, he can fire it in the shooting phase but only as Snap Shots."

 

That use of the word carrying is the crux; no model is ever carrying the quadgun. I do believe the model fires at full BS.

 

While I agree that RAW reads this way, I have to say that I find myself severely allergic to this interpretation as clearly RAI is models that move into btb that turn can only fire snap shots. Otherwise, why give the weapon a Heavy profile at all? Essentially you've turned it into an Assault weapon (albeit an immobile one) in any situation, with this reading of the rules, since a Quadgun/Icarus can never be carried by anyone.

 

EDIT: for clarity

[Calnus]

It does however make sense from a logical perspective--The gun itself (and presumably its targeting gear) is immobile, and unaffected by movement, since it can't move. You run up to it, press a trigger or two and watch the fireworks. Heavy weapons need the carrier to brace in order to fire them with any measure of accuracy, so if you move, its assumed you can't stop to brace yourself against the massive recoil and so have trouble hitting the broad side of a barn.

 

As written, I think it actually makes the most sense (who would have guessed?), so thats how I intend to play it.

[maturin]

@Calnus - but you could also equally as logically (as far as conjecturing about stuff 40,000 years in the future goes) presume that you need time to run up to the gun, activate it, select and acquire the target (which isn't going to be instantaneous), and chant your blessings to the Omnissiah, before the gun gets to do its shooty thing.

 

If you try to do that while running around/up to the gun, you could easily argue the gun's not going to fire very accurately. ;)

[Calnus]

Totally valid point Maturin, but does not follow RAW. When it makes sense and is legal = win

[tvih]

I'd say that RAW you do need to fire snap shots if the model moved and isn't Relentless. But it makes sense from a RAI point of view as well. Just like vehicles can't fire overwatch because they don't have enough time to bring their more-sluggish-than-infantry-weapons to bear, a big gun emplacement (profiled as Heavy, to boot) isn't going to be all that quick to operate and thus tricksy to shoot accurately, requiring you to prepare properly. As such just because you don't have to carry it doesn't mean it doesn't do snapshots if you didn't prepare properly by not moving. Although since rules as written don't need to include common sense as it were, since its profile is a heavy weapon then snapshots it is if you moved with a non-relentless weapon and want to fire it.

[Morollan]

Totally valid point Maturin, but does not follow RAW. When it makes sense and is legal = win

 

I think you'd have a hard time convincing most people that this is legal based solely on the word "carrying". The intent of the rules is pretty clear and is even stated specifically on page 13

 

The most common occurrence of a Snap Shot is when a model with a Heavy weapon, such as a heavy bolter, moves and shoots in the same turn

 

Note, no mention of carrying in this wording. Now you could of course argue that the Weapons rules are Advanced and therefore supercede the Basic rule quoted above but again, I think you'd have a hard time making the case that you're not simply trying to exploit a loosely worded rule.

[Morollan]

double post

[Hymirl]

Totally valid point Maturin, but does not follow RAW. When it makes sense and is legal = win

 

I think you'd have a hard time convincing most people that this is legal based solely on the word "carrying". The intent of the rules is pretty clear and is even stated specifically on page 13

 

I agree trying to play semantics to make a loophole isn't very convincing. It's not like IG heavy weapons claim they're not carrying the heavy weapons because they push them about on little wheels or something...

[CitadelArmyGuy]

I think you'd have a hard time convincing most people that this is legal based solely on the word "carrying". The intent of the rules is pretty clear and is even stated specifically on page 13

The most common occurrence of a Snap Shot is when a model with a Heavy weapon, such as a heavy bolter, moves and shoots in the same turn

Note, no mention of carrying in this wording. Now you could of course argue that the Weapons rules are Advanced and therefore supercede the Basic rule quoted above but again, I think you'd have a hard time making the case that you're not simply trying to exploit a loosely worded rule.

Unfortunately I feel it is not semantics, it is a very pertinent wording.

 

In both your quoted sections Morollan, the words carrying a heavy and with a heavy are proxy-words for Models Equipped with Heavy Weapons.

 

I would contend that no models are equipped with Gun Emplacements, simply that they may fire them instead of their own weapons. I'm fairly convinced of the RAW.

[Morollan]

I think you'd have a hard time convincing most people that this is legal based solely on the word "carrying". The intent of the rules is pretty clear and is even stated specifically on page 13

The most common occurrence of a Snap Shot is when a model with a Heavy weapon, such as a heavy bolter, moves and shoots in the same turn

Note, no mention of carrying in this wording. Now you could of course argue that the Weapons rules are Advanced and therefore supercede the Basic rule quoted above but again, I think you'd have a hard time making the case that you're not simply trying to exploit a loosely worded rule.

Unfortunately I feel it is not semantics, it is a very pertinent wording.

 

In both your quoted sections Morollan, the words carrying a heavy and with a heavy are proxy-words for Models Equipped with Heavy Weapons.

 

I would contend that no models are equipped with Gun Emplacements, simply that they may fire them instead of their own weapons. I'm fairly convinced of the RAW.

 

They could equally be proxy-words for Models firing a Heavy weapon.

[CitadelArmyGuy]

They could equally be proxy-words for Models firing a Heavy weapon.

I agree that 'with' can proxy for 'firing', but I don't think anyone could stretch 'carrying' to equal 'firing.'

 

All descriptions fit Equipped but not all descriptions fit Firing.

 

I completely see your point of view on it-- it truly does come down to the legally defined meaning of 'carrying.' I've played devil's advocate for both sides of the argument myself against a local player who wouldn't budge from the Full-BS side of it.

[Younger Old Fart]

It's all really simple. A gun emplacement is a site where a gun may be emplaced. An emplaced gun is a gun in a gun emplacement. A gun emplacement could be a bunker, a pillbox, a foxhole even. If there is no gun emplaced in it, it's still a bunker/pillbox/foxhole. A gun is either emplaced or out in the open. Simple.