Quadgun appropriation

Debate all the finer points of our fine hobby, or just 4, 5 or 6 it...

Quadgun appropriation

Postby swampthing » Fri Apr 26, 2013 7:58 am

Can a quadgun (emplaced weapon) be taken over by enemy forces and fired if abandoned because friendly forces had to run?

I say no, and site pp96 where it talks about dilapidated fortifications and says "its emplaced weapons cannot be fired".

I welcome and encourage a counter argument and hope that it has supporting evidence.
swampthing
 
Posts: 330
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:34 am
Location: Palatine/Aurora/Palatine etc.etc.

Re: Quadgun appropriation

Postby Redbeard » Fri Apr 26, 2013 8:33 am

Since when is a quad gun a dilapidated fortification? I suggest you actually read the entire paragraph about dilapidated forts, from the same page 96 that you cite.

Page 96 wrote:... In this case, simply treat all fortifications not bought for either you or your opponent's army as being dilapidated...


So, did your opponent buy the quad gun? If he did, then it fails that test, and is not dilapidated. Now, if my opponent wants to play the quad gun he paid for as dilapidated on the off-chance that I get control of it, I'm happy to let him. But there's no mechanic that adds dilapidation to any terrain once the game has started.

Running away from a perfectly good gun does not dilapidate it.
"All very successful commanders are prima donnas and must be so treated."

George S. Patton
User avatar
Redbeard
 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:55 am
Location: Homewood, IL

Re: Quadgun appropriation

Postby seahawk » Fri Apr 26, 2013 9:39 am

Of course you can use it. Fun fact: If your opponent has a guy in BTB with it, and you have a guy in BTB with it, you can both shoot it on each of your turns. Even in 40,000 years into the future we remember how to share...;)
"Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealously, boastfulness, disregard of all rules and sadistic pleasure in witnessing violence. In other words, it is war, minus the shooting." - George Orwell
seahawk
 
Posts: 792
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 7:36 am
Location: Sycamore, IL

Re: Quadgun appropriation

Postby swampthing » Fri Apr 26, 2013 10:00 am

Mr. Redbeard,

Wow, what a unpleasant response to a simple question, seem like you might get the resident troll award.

so then your opinion is yes, ... or maybe its no. its kind of hard to tell through all the sarcasm, and condescension of your response. either way, i see no chapter and verse to back it up and back handed Insults are not a valid counter argument.

So to clarify, I did read that page, i read the entire section,Ive reat the entire book, a few times, and the closest reference that i came across that addresses the situation , was that which i quoted in my post.

to address some of your points;
Is the quadgun a delapidated fortification? No, its a gun emplacement in a now abandoned fortification which may or may not qualify it as dilapidated.
Is there a mechanic that adds delapidation to the terrain once the game has starte? Yes, his name is Gomer.
Did my opponent buy the quad gun? (finally a good question), No, which is one of the reasons i question whether he can use it.

So if anyone else wants to chime in, I'd like to hear it, in case this situation comes up in a game again.
swampthing
 
Posts: 330
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:34 am
Location: Palatine/Aurora/Palatine etc.etc.

Re: Quadgun appropriation

Postby Redbeard » Fri Apr 26, 2013 11:06 am

swampthing wrote:Wow, what a unpleasant response to a simple question, seem like you might get the resident troll award.


I see no insults in my response. Sorry you have such thin skin, it was not my intent to insult you, simply to point out the reasoning.

...either way, i see no chapter and verse to back it up...


You won't. The rules tell you what you can do, not what you cannot. There is not going to be a rule that says a gun can't be fired by your opponent.

Instead, the rules say what you can do, and define what things are. Page 96 defines what a delapidated fortification is. It's a fortification that was not paid for by either player. That's a very simple definition, and leaves no real room for interpretation.

Does an abandoned fortification meet that definition? It does not. Your question is answered.

to address some of your points;
Is the quadgun a delapidated fortification? No, its a gun emplacement in a now abandoned fortification which may or may not qualify it as dilapidated.


If you're going to debate something, please include where you're getting these ideas. I see no definition in the rules for an abandoned fortification, but I might have missed it. A text search finds the word four times, never in conjunction with fortifications. Can you cite a page number that defines such a concept?


Is there a mechanic that adds delapidation to the terrain once the game has starte? Yes, his name is Gomer.


And you think I'm trolling? It is a serious question, as if there is a method that makes an existing item delapidated, then it means your position has some validity. However, I don't see such a means. If you can cite a page number that shows how this happens, please do.

Did my opponent buy the quad gun? (finally a good question), No, which is one of the reasons i question whether he can use it.


If neither player paid points for the gun, then it may, or may not, count as delapidated (as described on page 96). Defining terrain should be done before the game starts, and Gun Emplacements are a valid type of terrain (Page 105). If your opponent paid points for the fortification, then there is no means through which it becomes delapidated, and any model in contact with it can fire it.

(If both of you have models in contact with it, you each get to fire it on your turn too - a Gun Emplacement has no concept of ownership or control - also page 105)
"All very successful commanders are prima donnas and must be so treated."

George S. Patton
User avatar
Redbeard
 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:55 am
Location: Homewood, IL

Re: Quadgun appropriation

Postby swampthing » Fri Apr 26, 2013 11:57 am

The Insult in your response is when you imply that I am either too lazy to read the rule or to stupid to understand it. My skin does get incredibly thin when i feel someone is disrespecting me publicly. This is a situation that is not specifically dealt with in the rules, so when it comes up in a game, people have to come up with an opinion and if that opinion is a concensus then it becomes the accepted result. Neither you , nor anyone else on this or any other forum is an expert at interpreting situations that arise as a result of ambiguous rules.
In posting my question, i was mearly looking for a consencus from which i could base an opinion in the future.

Also, the rules as we have them, do indeed outline situations in which you may not do something. since I do not have the ruleset in front of me, I will spare you the pages. And Yes they do attempt to 'define' things, but those definitions cant possibly cover every instance that may arise during a game. Your assertion that any rules are "simple" and "leave not room for interpretation is utterly absurd. Why else do we have Errata and FAQ's

In addition, the "Gomer" respose to your question about a "mechanic" was an attempt at humor and not an example to trolling as ive come to know it. sorry for not putting an emoticon after it.

this is my final post on this matter, you are welcome the the final word. :D
swampthing
 
Posts: 330
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:34 am
Location: Palatine/Aurora/Palatine etc.etc.

Re: Quadgun appropriation

Postby seahawk » Fri Apr 26, 2013 1:57 pm

There are Fortifications (that anybody purchased). [Page 96]

There are Dilapidated Fortifications (that nobody purchased). [Page 96]

There are no Abandoned Fortifications. It doesn't exist. You simply moved away from it.


Redbeard is right, though. The rules are exceedingly clear on all these points, even so far as to say who can fire it:

“One non-vehicle model in base contact with the gun emplacement can fire it instead of his own weapon, following the normal rules for shooting. Note that the model counts as stationary for these purposes”.


Now just run down the checklist:
1. Was the Fortification purchased in a player's army? Y/N (If YES, go to 2-5, whichever is relevant to the situation; if NO, then nobody may fire it)

2. Is a model from your side in base contact with it during your shooting phase? Y/N (If YES, your model may fire it; if NO, you may not fire it)
3. Is a model from your side in base contact with it during your opponent's movement phase? Y/N (If YES, you may use it to intercept his Reserves; if NO, you may not fire it)
4. Is a model from their side in base contact with it during their shooting phase? Y/N (If YES, their model may fire it; if NO, they may not fire it)
5. Is a model from their side in base contact with it during your movement phase? Y/N (If YES, they may use it to intercept your Reserves; if NO, they may not fire it)
"Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealously, boastfulness, disregard of all rules and sadistic pleasure in witnessing violence. In other words, it is war, minus the shooting." - George Orwell
seahawk
 
Posts: 792
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 7:36 am
Location: Sycamore, IL


Return to Rules Discussions (40K)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron