Tank shoots from a Quad-gun

Can a tank or other vehicle shoot from an emplaced weapon? I didn't find something about it in the rulebook.
It should be just a model with BS>0 in base contact with the weapon. Vehicle is also a model and it in most situations it has BS>0.

But where is the logic? If we take an infantry model, we can assume, that this guy picks a target, watches in scope, pulls a trigger and so on. But how a tank can do the same?
Ok. It's just a game and there are many conventionalities. Lte's imagine that a crew member leaves the tank and makes a shot from a quad gun (silly). Could the vehicle shoot it's own weapons after this?

Great, the rules say "a model" (page 105). Which RAW means a tank could shoot the gun too. RAI no one would play it like that 'cause we all would instinctive feel that it should be an infantry model.

GW dropped the ball there again. Nice find...

I suppose this could even be acceptable, if the players are open minded.
Personally I would strongly argue if my opponent says he is going to do this. Especially if that vehicle had all (or its best) weapons destroyed.

In the far future, wifi hacking of gun terminals is rife!

Yes you can do it... Technically

Massaen wrote:

In the far future, wifi hacking of gun terminals is rife!

Yes you can do it... Technically

as much as this makes me giggle, I think its a valid argument. I mean if a dreadnought can do it, why cant a Leman russ?

I'd have no problems with a vehicle using a quad gun. Its not "as intended" but its so unlikely to ever happen and its so clever

how does the tank fire the gun? They put up a string from the slits in the front where they can see and pull the trigger, unless it is an open topped vehicle that is... and the gun would actually only be able to shoot in the direction the gun was facing at the time the "model" decided to operate it.

hmmm... it's a clever question, but to me it doesn't seem like a vehicle have the nimbleness required to operate a gun-emplacement.

in the case of a crew member leaving the vehicle. He is not an IC and therefore cannot leave his unit behind inside the tank(okay, i'm just being silly now), the whole unit must either disembark fully or not disembark at all.

my 2 cents.

Just imagine you opponent's face when you place your Jetfighter in base contact with his quad gun and shoot at his precious troop (or a flyer!!!!).

Of course it is very situational, 'cause his quad gun should be "empty" and your airplane's guns should be directed towards the table edge (otherwise it would be better to launch a couple of rockets), but such a moment would be priceless.

Warhammer is too grimdark to be logical. If a Quad Gun can DIE from a poisoned shoot, why can't a tank shoot from an emplaced weapon?

Flyers can't use it unless in hover mode...

"how does the tank fire the gun? "
WiFi
Bluetooth
USB
LAN

SERAFF wrote:

Could the vehicle shoot it's own weapons after this?

This would be the crux of it for me. I guess I don't mind the idea of a tank, or any vehicle, firing a quad gun, particularly if it has lost its own weapons. There are any number of ways that it could be done remotely (although I doubt that Orks could use Bluetooth), or a crew member could simply climb out and pull the trigger. So long as the vehicle is in base contact with the gun emplacement, same as any other model that employs it. (a tank cosying up to the gun would actually reduce its arc of fire significantly)

However, apart from it simply being way OTT, the rules are quite clear that any model using the Quad can choose to fire it instead of their weapons. I would definitely be against that.

Oh yeah, absolutely Gob. Don't understand actually why SERAFF asked that, 'cause would you do that with an infantry model? No? Then why all of a sudden with a vehicle?

Well, some Guard players in our local enviroment started to fire quad guns by empty chimeras. [tag:joke]Sometimes i think collecting pain token from such a guy isn't a bad thing[tag:joke]

If anyone tried that at our club we would laugh and laugh till our heads fell off! What utter nonsense. Dear oh dear. If you can't win properly..............

If neither the vehicle nor the gun emplacement have a base, can they ever be in base contact? Ponder this zen koan whilst meditating in base contact with a waterfall.

Ha! Yes! Captain Balroga. That's the stuff right there! Even if you stick all your tanks on bases, at the end of the day, you're just a punk modelling for advantage because you can't play properly. So either way you lose.

Yep the quad gun can be fired by a vehicle. One of the tactics with this is to drop pod assault your opponent on turn one and then use his quad gun with your drop pod to shoot down his reserves as they come in, works great if you are going second. Not RAI but it is the rules. I wouldn't do this in a friendly game though, which they all should be.

Red

No it absolutely can not. The rulebook clearly says base contact, not hull contact. What utter nonsense.

Please do not be so derisive of other people's thoughts. Let's keep the discussion friendly - Cavash.

I feel that is kinda moot, as a vehicle by the rules can have a base and some models by tradition are not mounted on a base even if they have one, like bikes. Also what constitutes base contact, it is not strickly defined in the rules, as far as I know, but is generally excepted as when a models base touches another object, which would be a function of distance or measurement. In the vehicle rules when you measure to a vehicle you measure to its hull.

Basically it can be argued in several different ways and by the rules I could mount my drop pod on a scenic base so I don't see the point in arguing the semantics and let the drop pod fire the quad gun, it's no more unacceptable to me than allowing sentinel to do it. The vehicle fireing the gun isn't realistic but so is using an ellement of the model to determine legitamacy. Should it be a non vehicle can fire the gun emplacement? In my opinion yes, but if some one wishes to play RAW then I am happy to allow it, as I'm just here to have fun and as long as I know the rules before we start I can still play the game, realistic or not.

Red

Timatron wrote:

No it absolutely can not. The rulebook clearly says base contact, not hull contact. What utter nonsense.

And yet you can, quite legitimately, mount a vehicle on a base. The vehicle rules also make several mentions of being in base contact with a vehicle.

Personally I wouldn't use this tactic as it is pretty cheesy but the argument against it is not as cut and dried as you might like.

Well, maybe. I go to a club which is run by one of the members of the England 40k team who won the European title in August. He would definitely rule that move straight out of any tournament he ran. Quite rightly too, there's trying your hardest to win and playing to the best of your ability, then there's twisting and "cheese-mining" the rules in order to win at all costs. As has been mentioned previously on this thread, the rules of 40k do, and always have, require a decent degree of sensible and balanced interpretation in order to produce a fair, balanced and above all, fun and engaging, game for those playing. Happy Wargaming!

Just let me get this straight. The point here is that vehicles can't fire a Quad-Gun, because 'duh they have no arms dude'?

I understand the angle you're coming from, but like others said before there are multiple plausible explanations, like:

sophisticated hacking technologies to slice into the imperial targeting program - (Dark) Eldar / Tau / Necrons
using remote controls - Space Marines / Imperial Army
or just climbing out of the vehicle and firing the gun by hand - everyone

While there are plenty of non-vehicle models that are at least as big a stretch of plausibility:

- All Tyranids, especially all without actual fingers like spinefist Termagaunts, Ripper Swarms and Mycetic Spores
- Nearly all Deamons.
- All MCs, especially Taloi, Cronoi and Eldar Avatars. Seriously, the Avatar is a three stories high statue of molten rock and metal. It shouldn't even stand next to let alone think about using a complex mechanical object.
- Last but not least, we have all Tau suits and drones.

- Oh, and lastest all bikers, jetbikers and jump troops, that should be flying all the time, like hellions, if a tank crew can't stop next to a gun, get of their vehicle and fire the gun, a biker or flying guy shouldn't be able, too.


By the way, neither a quad gun, nor an Icarus Lascanon even has a trigger. They are clearly designed as automated weapons, that use sensors to fire, not a gunner.
And why should any xenos race be allowed to fire an Imperial gun?

After all it's just a gamplay mechanic that says you have to bind a model next to the gun and sacrifice the opportunity to fire another gun.

FAQ is out and now says "non-vehicle model".

Now I feel stupid, but at least it was solved.

Why do you feel stupid? You are still completely correct in your post. There's not a false statement in there.

But we all 'felt' (I'm assuming you too) that is should be non-vehicle models and seeing the new FAQs that feeling was correct. Now there's no doubt. Everybody happy.

P.S.:
Hate to drag up old stuff by the way (but I never saw Timatron's reactions and I would like to respond). This is what happens when people simply want to point out something in the rulebook and people judging with their own moral compass whats fair. The discussion was never about what's fair. It's about what is exactly in the rulebook. Before the new FAQ you could have a razorback fire a Quad Gun, wether you like it or not. Isn't up to you, it's in the rules. Now, it has been addressed luckily and only non-vehicle models can fire Gun Emplacements. Good! We all 'felt' is should've been like this anyway.
But how are you going to explain this to ppl that started 40k 2 days ago? Without knowing they' ll make you angry (looking at you Timatron) because he shoves his empty razorback against his Quad Gun and fires at you. Your heads explodes and you get annoyed, calling him cheesemonger, whatever. While the newcomer calmly gets his rulebook and points to the rules. What then?
In other words, I see heated discussions all the time, while 90% of the time it's because the discussion changes from what it says in the rulebook (RAW) to how you think it should be played (RAI). If you ever see me posting, it's RAW. Always... ' Cause I can only discuss about that. In my local club I' ll discuss RAI, because I have to play these guys... End of novel.

Please do not swear. Cheers - Cavash.
Did I swear? Can't remember. Well I apologize good sir.
No worries. Cavash is forgiving... for now.