Gun Emplacements and Monstrous Creatures

Monstrous Creatures can fire 2 weapons per turn. The FAQ has the gun emplacement as "One non-vehicle model in base contact with the gun can fire it instead of his own weapon."

Can a MC that has only only one ranged attack fire the Gun emplacement and then use their single ranged weapon?

If so, that could technically allow an Avatar to fire an emplacement and the wailing doom.

Add Fastshot...

The Aristocrats...

I'm thinking not, but would be nice if it could...

This is a slightly futzy area still, as I don't think GW has cleaned up the language. That said, here is my understanding;

Per the rules for gun emplacements - you fire it 'instead of their weapon'
Per MCs - they can fire 'up to two of their weapons'
So, to use the emplacement, you cannot use 'their' weapons.
To fire two weapons, they have to be 'their' weapons.
So you may either use the emplacement or their weapon, but not both.

Even if, somehow, it gets to the stage where that does work, it still wouldn't work for the Avatar because he only has one shooting attack to use instead of - so he'd still need to sacrifice it to use the emplacement.

I'd agree with Thor, if it said 'instead of one of their weapons' maybe.

Though frankly I think the concept of creatures like Avatars and Daemon princes firing quad guns I think should be FAQ'd out of the game entirely...

Heck, I find it strange when Logan Grimnar is sitting there pew-pewing from behind an Aegis line while my Dark Eldar xenos scum are flying around stabbing and imprisoning his men.
Then I shoot his gun with poison and kill it...so maybe I shouldn't worry too much about things making sense in 40k.
4a. Please refrain from double posting. You may "bump" a post every 48hrs if you feel you are not getting responses. Double posts in project logs are acceptable. /Your friendly mod SS

perhow wrote:

I'd agree with Thor, if it said 'instead of one of their weapons' maybe.

I agree with Thor that it's fuzzy.

If the text was 'instead of one of his own weapons', then it would be clear that a MC can fire the emplacement and one other weapon.

On the other hand, if the text was 'instead of his own weapons', then it would be clear that a MC had to sacrifice both of their regular shots to fire the emplacement.

But the text isn't either of those - just 'instead of his own weapon' - which seems to presuppose, falsely, that they can only shoot one weapon. This doesn't seem to say anything about the MC case; I wouldn't be surprised if GW simply hadn't thought about it.