Zombies and Quad guns

[Imperial Templar]

Can zombies use a quad gun in a aegis defense line? I would think not, but a guy I play regulary insists they can because it does not specifically say they cannot.

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

There's no rule to prevent them, no. For all intents and purposes, they're Infantry that happen to be slow and stupid, but they're still Infantry, and so follow all the rules for those, including the ability to use a quad-gun.

[Hymirl]

The zombies have a BS skill therefore the can fire guns, if they can find one to shoot. So I see no problem with it.

 

Although if you fire a quad gun instead of a weapon of your own it could be argued you need a weapon not to fire. I'm not sure it's a very convincing theory though.

[Gentlemanloser]

Literal RAW would be no.

 

can fire it instead of his own weapon

 

Plague zombies have no range weapons, so the quad gun can't be fired instead of one.

 

The shooting phase allows you to shoot with "any units that are capable" (or a unit armed with ranged weapons). as Plague zombies have no ranged weapons, they are incapable of shooting in the shooting phase.

[Captain Idaho]

So you're saying a Space Marine captain with Storm Shield and Relic blade can't fire a Quad gun because he hasn't got a weapon?

 

This is incorrect.

 

You can fire a weapon instead of firing your own weapon, but there is no specification about having a weapon in the first place.

 

The rule book defines the capacity to shoot in it's description of ballistic skill. Whether you have a weapon or not doesn't mean you have no capacity to shoot.

[Gentlemanloser]

Whether you have a weapon or not doesn't mean you have no capacity to shoot.

 

it's from the shooting phase rules.

 

If the unit doesn't have any ranged weapons, it cannot shoot in the shooting phase.

 

a unit containing models armed with ranged weapons can be nominated to make shooting attacks

 

This is incorrect.

 

So what weapon is he firing instead of?

[Kol Saresk]

Whether you have a weapon or not doesn't mean you have no capacity to shoot.

 

it's from the shooting phase rules.

You kind of answered your question didn't you? The RAW says "instead of firing their own weapon." But it does not say that they have to have a weapon to "shoot instead of" in order to fire. It might be RAI, but technically any Infantry unit that has the capacity to shoot, as the capacity to shoot does not hinge on having a weapon to shoot, should be able to use the Quad Gun. In this case, the Quad Gun would take place of any weapon they are lacking since there is no weapon to be replaced.

[Captain Idaho]

Whether you have a weapon or not doesn't mean you have no capacity to shoot.

 

it's from the shooting phase rules.

 

If the unit doesn't have any ranged weapons, it cannot shoot in the shooting phase.

 

a unit containing models armed with ranged weapons can be nominated to make shooting attacks

 

This is incorrect.

 

So what weapon is he firing instead of?

 

Your logic is flawed. By your definition a unit out of range cannot fire an emplaced weapon either since it cannot fire in the shooting phase.

 

And ignoring playing semantics with wording, you're forgetting he rest of the rules for weapon emplacements; "following the normal rules for shooting".

 

Checking the shooting rules states a unit can be nominated to fire provided it has ranged weapons and he gun emplacements counts as a weapon.

[Hymirl]

If the unit doesn't have any ranged weapons, it cannot shoot in the shooting phase.

 

Yeah, they have a quad gun don't they?

 

Basically you're being over picky about wording, its not RAW it's semantic silly play. The rule is there to prevent it being possible to fire the weapon in addition to what the model can normally fire.

[Gentlemanloser]

Cap, is a unit armed with ranged wepaons, but out of range;

 

a unit containing models armed with ranged weapons can be nominated to make shooting attacks

 

That's a very specific condition, that preceeds choosing a target (of which checking LoS/Range is the next step). if you have no ranged weapons, you're not alowed to be nominated to make a shooting attack. Period.

 

Yeah, they have a quad gun don't they?

 

Are they armed with a quad gun? it's not part of the units wargear. If not, then a unit of Plague zombies isn't armed with any ranged weapons, and cannot be nominated to shoot.

 

Basically you're being over picky about wording, its not RAW it's semantic silly play.

 

discussing wording is Raw, isn't it. No RAI here.

 

How can a unit shoot the quad gun instead of their Ranged weapon, when they don't have a Ranged Weapon?

[Fibonacci]

If the unit doesn't have any ranged weapons, it cannot shoot in the shooting phase.

 

Yeah, they have a quad gun don't they?

They do not. They are standing next to a piece of battlefield debris. They do not have a quadgun any more than a unit next to another piece of terrain have an ammo dump.

 

If they did have a quadgun it would make the rules much simpler since "any guns used are strictly for the purpose of clubbing their victims to death." <-- this is rule, not fluff.

[Morollan]

If they did have a quadgun it would make the rules much simpler since "any guns used are strictly for the purpose of clubbing their victims to death." <-- this is rule, not fluff.

 

Which in itself would prevent them from shooting wouldn't it? It says "used" not carried, equipped etc.

[tvih]

Basically any model with a Ballistic Skill can shoot it in my books. Sure, you can argue that if one doesn't have a shooting weapon that the wording then disallows you from shooting the Quad Gun based on the poor wording, but frankly if you want to go that route, you're essentially "that guy." Apply some common sense - why even give something like an assault terminator a ballistic skill stat if they're utterly incapable of firing a weapons such as emplaced ones?

[Fibonacci]

Basically any model with a Ballistic Skill can shoot it in my books.

Tyranid FAQ seems to disagree with this.

[tvih]

Tyranid FAQ seems to disagree with this.

Which is kinda stupid (well, I suppose it makes sense fluff-wise, I don't think tyranids have much interest in other races' technology), but regardless of its potential stupidity it's a specific exception, not a wider implication.

[Gentlemanloser]

Basically any model with a Ballistic Skill can shoot it in my books. Sure, you can argue that if one doesn't have a shooting weapon that the wording then disallows you from shooting the Quad Gun based on the poor wording, but frankly if you want to go that route, you're essentially "that guy." Apply some common sense - why even give something like an assault terminator a ballistic skill stat if they're utterly incapable of firing a weapons such as emplaced ones

 

Heaven forbid we follow the rules, right.

 

Doesn't it make sense, that mindless zombies cannot opperate such a technological construct, much like Nids can't.

 

But no, the rules don't make sense here.

 

Maybe for Assault Terminators, the Lightning Claws they can't turn off, would rip right through the firing control of the Quad Gun.

 

As for Terminators with BS, it's for internal consistency. They are marines, like any other, with a BS to match. They don't just lose thier shooting training from wearing TDA. But thier choice of Wargear precludes them from being able to opperate any shooting weapons, or perform any shooting attacks.

 

Internally consistent.

[Morollan]

Tyranid FAQ seems to disagree with this.

Which is kinda stupid (well, I suppose it makes sense fluff-wise, I don't think tyranids have much interest in other races' technology), but regardless of its potential stupidity it's a specific exception, not a wider implication.

 

And you don't think that mindless zombies would be a specific exception too?

[Captain Idaho]

You're inferring your own interpretation of what a zombie is. If a zombie in 40K is mindless etc, then how do you control them on the table?

 

Similarly a storn shield and power fist can be turned off and even placed on the ground. Background justifications for rules are inspirational only and shouldn't form the basis for a strong argument.

 

Regardless, if we stick to the rules it'll be less complex.

 

Let's break it down; a unit can be nominated to shoot if it has a ranged weapon, a gun emplacement with a model in base contact can be fired as normal, following the rules for shooting; the gun emplacement can only be fired instead of another weapon

 

Ergo, being in base contact with a quad gun counts as having a weapon for that shooting phase, therefore the model can fire it regardless of it's other weapons.

 

Now the main point of contention is whether the comment "instead of firing another weapon" debars a model from firing if it doesn't have another weapon.

 

It doesn't. The reason being context of the comment. People often argue elements of a rule as if each sentence was a separate entity, which is incorrect. 40K is an abstract rule set which works with each rule contributing to every other rule. If you take a single rule like that which has been done here then sure it seems like your can make a black and white declaration of the rule (i.e. You can fire only if you have another weapon first) but it ignores the rest of the paragraph defining the rule mechanic - following the usual rules as stated in the shooting phase, which has nothing to do with limiting whether you can fire if you don't have another weapon.

 

It's basically just context and taking a sentence which prevents a player from firing 2 weapons at the same time and assuming it is a limiting factor as to who can operate the weapon.

[dswanick]

Let's break it down; a unit can be nominated to shoot if it has a ranged weapon, a gun emplacement with a model in base contact can be fired as normal, following the rules for shooting; the gun emplacement can only be fired instead of another weapon

 

Ergo, being in base contact with a quad gun counts as having a weapon for that shooting phase, therefore the model can fire it regardless of it's other weapons.

I disagree. The "instead of" clause is irrelevant. The operative clause is:

"any guns used are strictly for the purpose of clubbing their victims to death."

Zombies may not make Shooting attacks because their special rules preclude it. Any Shooting attacks they may have available (including the Quadgun) are ignored.

[Hymirl]

I'm going to have to agree that zombies cannot in fact operate a quad gun, due to their special rules which state they only used ranged weapons as clubs. This would act in the same manner as the nid FAQ.

 

If not for that it would be fine to use it, there would be no legitimate complaint against a combat terminator using the gun.

[Haranin]

CC termies can turn off the lighting claws

[Gentlemanloser]

And fit thier massive Power Fist sized fingers into the trigger guard?

 

Shooty Termies have normal sized fingers to wield and fire thier Storm Bolters. They can use those to fire the Quad Gun.

 

Besides, unless you can show that a unit next to a battlefield debry is 'armed' with a ranged weapon, the unit *cannot* be nominated to shoot in the shooting phase.

[Captain Idaho]

Let's break it down; a unit can be nominated to shoot if it has a ranged weapon, a gun emplacement with a model in base contact can be fired as normal, following the rules for shooting; the gun emplacement can only be fired instead of another weapon

 

Ergo, being in base contact with a quad gun counts as having a weapon for that shooting phase, therefore the model can fire it regardless of it's other weapons.

I disagree. The "instead of" clause is irrelevant. The operative clause is:

"any guns used are strictly for the purpose of clubbing their victims to death."

Zombies may not make Shooting attacks because their special rules preclude it. Any Shooting attacks they may have available (including the Quadgun) are ignored.

 

Oh well that's a zombie specific special rule and has no bearing on whether the principle of being able to fire normally if you haven't a ranged weapon of your own.

 

@ gentlemanloser; again, ignoring arbitrary background justification of rules, the description of a gun emplacement states it can be fired instead of a model's ordinary weapon, following the usual rules for shooting. It then goes on to describe it as a weapon.

 

This is where context matters, but also it doesn't state if you haven't got a weapon you can't use it, merely you can use it in lieu of your ordinary ranged weapon. Whilst a permissive rule set, the words "instead of it's own weapon" is not definitive to mean "you must have a weapon to use the gun emplacement". It's a massive leap to assume so.

[Morollan]

This is where context matters, but also it doesn't state if you haven't got a weapon you can't use it, merely you can use it in lieu of your ordinary ranged weapon. Whilst a permissive rule set, the words "instead of it's own weapon" is not definitive to mean "you must have a weapon to use the gun emplacement". It's a massive leap to assume so.

 

I have to disagree. A model cannot fire a weapon "instead of it's own weapon" when it does not have a weapon in the first place. To assume that it can would require a leap. The default position would have to be that it cannot. As Gentlemanloser asked earlier in the thread, which weapon is it firing instead of?

[dswanick]

Oh well that's a zombie specific special rule and has no bearing on whether the principle of being able to fire normally if you haven't a ranged weapon of your own.

Agreed, the OP asked specifically about Zombies and Quadguns - so my answer to that question is "no" because of the Zombie-specific rule.

I also agree that to the general question, my answer would be "yes" - a model with a BS > 0 can operate the Quadgun, as the "instead of it's own" clause is (IMO) to prevent a model from operating the Quadgun in addition to firing an equipped weapon.