Maybe a silly question abou rapiers

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Moving and shooting at normal BS.

[Brofist]

It's wonky, I agree, but it's RAW. The crux of it is that GW choose to write 'carrying the heavy/ordinance weapon' in the ordinance and heavy weapon section. The crew are firing the gun, and not the rapier. It's this combination that makes it a thing.

[Spinsanity]

I have to agree that RAW, firing an artillery weapon on the move has to be legal.

 

Rules for Heavy weapons state on page 41 that a model carrying a heavy weapon cannot shoot it, whereas the rules for Artillery on page 64 says the crewman firing the gun cannot shoot any of the weapons it is carrying. Clearly, the gunner is NOT considered to be carrying the weapon since he'd then be unable to shoot it.

[Terminus]

And the example of the Eldar heavy platform falls right into this. If a guardsman with a small antigravity platform can jog while firing a big gun, why wouldn't the same apply to a robot tank or a bigger antigravity platform carrying a bigger gun?

[Elzender]

It would depend on the rules for the eldar platform: if it is specified that the guardian counts as relentless when firing it, then as with the rapier it is not specified, it shouldn't be able to shoot normally on the move. If somebody could look it up it would be nice.

[Goonbandito]

Heavy Weapons Platform:  One Guardian from the same unit as, and within 2" of, a Heavy Weapons Platform may fire the platform instead of his shuriken catapult, counting as having the Relentless special rule - Codex: Eldar Craftworlds.

[Terminus]

It would depend on the rules for the eldar platform: if it is specified that the guardian counts as relentless when firing it, then as with the rapier it is not specified, it shouldn't be able to shoot normally on the move. If somebody could look it up it would be nice.

The Eldar platform is not an artillery model, so the same rules do not apply.

[Elzender]

Just a question: in the 6th ed rulebook (I don't have the 7th ed at hand right now), in the artillery section, it says under "Shooting with artillery":

"Gun models cannot be fired if they moved at all in that turn's movement phase - they cannot make snap shots."

Is that phrase gone in the 7th ed rulebook?

EDIT: yup, it's gone, just found it. Guess it could be reasoned RAW, although I'm not a big fan of it. While it would make sense to be able to fire a rapier on the move, the fact that there is no clause confirming it as in the eldar platform (even if they are not atillery) makes me doubt about it. Funnily enough, the artillery section contains a picture of an eldar platform .

[Sanct]

 

The grot on the right gets to shoot that after moving?  Geet ta feth.

[Terminus]

That particular weapon is Artillery (Immobile). And yes, the grots could move around and still fire that gun if they are within 2".

 

Next.

[Wolf Lord Loki]

I dont see the issue. Nowhere does it say either the gunner or artillary are relentless.

 

Gunners must stay in coherency with their weapon.

 

Heavy weapons may snap fire if moved. Ordinance cannot snap fire.

 

Unless artillary says it overwrites those basic rules then it is a pretty open and shut case.

 

Yes it can move and snap fire IF it has an appropriate Heavy class weapon (heavy bolters/ shatter shells).

[Terminus]

Please read the posted rules references before offering your opinion.

[Spinsanity]

I dont see the issue. Nowhere does it say either the gunner or artillary are relentless.

 

Please read the posted rules references before offering your opinion.

 

 

I have to agree that RAW, firing an artillery weapon on the move has to be legal.

 

Rules for Heavy weapons state on page 41 that a model carrying a heavy weapon cannot shoot it, whereas the rules for Artillery on page 64 says the crewman firing the gun cannot shoot any of the weapons it is carrying. Clearly, the gunner is NOT considered to be carrying the weapon since he'd then be unable to shoot it.

As Terminus said, please read the thread before throwing judgement into the lot, or at least don't just dismiss everyone else's arguments with no acknowledgement whatsoever.

 

As I said previously :

- Page 41, the rules for Heavy Weapons say that a model carrying a HW who moves can only snapshoot it, and has no restrictions when shooting any other guns.

- Page 64, the rules for Artillery say that a model shooting an Artillery weapon cannot shoot any of the weapons it is carrying.

 

The rules for Artillery say the model cannot shoot any weapon it is carrying if it shoots the artillery gun.

Since the model wouldn't even be able to shoot the artillery gun if he was carrying it, we have to conclude the shooter is not considered to be carrying the gun.

 

The restriction on shooting HW is that the model can only snapshoot it if he is carrying said weapon (and moving), and only then.

Since we already concluded that he is not carrying the gun, that restriction cannot apply.

 

 

 

And finally, whether that was intended to or not is irrelevant, that is what the rule actually says.

[Wolf Lord Loki]

Please read the posted rules references before offering your opinion.

Fair point!! Ive been a bit busy of late and was largely paraphrasing what had been previously referenced.

 

So based of the rules as referenced, in theory the carrage can move and fire as long as the gunner remains stationry.

 

How do you envisage this being used practically?

 

Without providing references due to not having my books available, i foresee a few challenges.

 

As a unit a squad must remain in coherency thus a three man unit can only advance a maximum of 4"

 

To get maximum benefits the gun needs to move as much as possible and now leads the 'conga' and is now much more suseptible to incoming fire.

 

Next turn it can only move forward 3" as the gunner the previous turn leapfrogs the new gunner to allow the artillary to move.

 

Its doesnt sound practical to me (i think ive been hanging out with ultras too much all this talk of theoreticals and practicals!)

 

Edit:

My bad. It was already establishmented earlier in the thread that the gunner must be within 2" so that limits movement further.

 

I think that there is also the possiblity of the wording "non-vehicle model" also counting as being the gun carrage thus counting towards the (paraphrased) 'ordinance can not move and fire'.

[Dono1979]

Please read the posted rules references before offering your opinion.

 

you go and play this little loop hole you have found then, yes it appears that RAW you are correct. If you seriously want to play the game this way and can do so in clear conscious then I am just glad that I will most likely never face you across the table.

[Spinsanity]

you go and play this little loop hole you have found then, yes it appears that RAW you are correct. If you seriously want to play the game this way and can do so in clear conscious then I am just glad that I will most likely never face you across the table.

Well, personally I'd not play it that way. However, if an oppone t were to bring it up and do it, I'd have to let him do it. Like it or not, I can't pretend that RAW the rules forbid it.

[Terminus]

@Loki - all unnecessary, the gunner is not carrying anything that it is firing, it is in no way restricted from shooting.

 

@Dono - no need for a judgemental attitude. It's the rules as written and I don't see where it breaks fluff either as not intended. A grav platform with a big gun can move and fire, but a bigger grav platform with a bigger gun cannot? A remote control tank can't move and fire?

[Wolf Lord Loki]

@Loki - all unnecessary, the gunner is not carrying anything that it is firing, it is in no way restricted from shooting.

 

"One crewman that is within 2" of a gun in the Shooting phase can fire it."

 

As you suggested earlier its the crewman who counts as firing it so he would be affected by the 'firing ordinance' rules even if the weapon is not.

 

So to fire the gun the stationry crewman cannot be more than 2" away thus limiting the guns total movement

 

Also if you are taking the description of 'he may fire.....' to referenced to the crewman rather than the artillary im sure the 'he' is a generic rather than specificly saying only male models can fire the weapons

[Spinsanity]

As you suggested earlier its the crewman who counts as firing it so he would be affected by the 'firing ordinance' rules even if the weapon is not.

First of all, the rapiers are not Ordnance, they're Heavy weapons, so the "firing ordnance" rule does not apply.

 

Second, can't you, once, acknowledge the points I've raised multiple times already?

 

The crewmen firing the gun cannot fire any weapons they are carrying[...]

Clear as day. The shooter cannot fire ANY weapon he's carrying, which means he is NOT carrying the artillery gun.

 

If a model carrying a Heavy weapon moved in the preceeding Movement phase, he can fire it in the Shooting phase but only as Snap Shots (pg 32).

Since we've already established that the shooter is NOT carrying the gun, this does not apply.

 

Please, tell me, where in the rules does it say that Artillery snapshoots when moving and being equiped with a Heavy weapon? Now shooting an Ordnance weapon would be an altogether different can of worm, but this is not an issue here...

 

+ Edit : Typos...

 

+ + Edit : As pointed out by Terminus bellow, the wording is the same for Ordnance weapons; a non-vehicle model carrying an ordnance weapon cannot shoot if he moved, and as pointed out above, the gunner is not carying the gun...

[Terminus]

Laser rapiers are ordnance weapons but the rules for firing ordnance weapons use the same language of carrying the weapon.

@Loki please go back a page and read my post where I quote all the relevant rules in full.

The gun does not fire itself explicitly by the rules, the crewman is not carrying the gun explicitly by the rules. You're only barred from firing if you're both moving and carrying the gun. Neither the gun nor the crew are both carrying and firing, just one or the other. Again, every single step of this process has a specific rule, and several other rules imply this is how it works. Everything has been quoted, please read the references.
 

 

Anyway, gonna take my own advise and just let the other issue drop. I will just say that I would always rather play a rules lawyer than a crybaby who takes his toys and goes home when reality doesn't agree with his self-delusion. You can't fix that with a dice-off.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

A lot of times RAW is just a loop hole. I wouldn't play it this way for this instance.

[Spinsanity]

I wouldn't either, but if an opponent did it I wouldn't argue. After the game I might ask if he/she minds discussing it, but knowing how the rules are written in that regards, I'd let it slide and afterwards try to come to an agreement.

 

I wouldn't shove my RAI interpretation down an opponent's throat though knowing he/she IS right, RAW...

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I just wouldn't want to set that kind of tone for the game.

[Terminus]

What tone is that?  Playing as rules and fluff dictates?