Vulkan and his mighty hand debate

[Andrew]

Don't vote until you've read through this post, please. Even if you play the character you may be convinced otherwise...

So, there's a debate between Delso and me about the functionality of Vulkan's special rules and his Gauntlet of the Forge. He recently won me over fairly well, but I have other ideas and we wanted the club to discuss it.

The Background
- Vulkan's special makes all Flamers, Heavy Flamers, and Meltaguns twin-linked, amongst other weapons. Okay, that's fine. Now what does his Gauntlet of the Forge do? It fires in the same manner as a heavy flamer.

The Issue
- The Gauntlet of the Forge fires like a heavy flamer, but it is not a heavy flamer by name. Should it be twin-linked?

Reasons it should be twin-linked
- Its in-game effect is the same as a heavy flamer as stated in the rules. One would think it shoots heavy fire, etc.
- Combi-flamers are not exactly the same as flamers by name, but they are counted as the same type of weapon.

Reasons it should not be twin-linked
- Its in-game effect is the same as a heavy flamer; however, the weapon itself is NOT a heavy flamer by name. It is the Gauntlet of the Forge. These are two totally different weapons with the same in-game effect. This also happens with Huron Blackheart's Tyrant's Claw, which has an in-game effect that's the same as a heavy flamer, among other things.
- Combi-flamers do count as flamers, but that's because it literally is a flamer and a second weapon bolted together. The Gauntlet of the Forge is a completely unique weapon with no other precedent.

Conclusion
The Gauntlet could shoot fire, or it could be a different chemical reaction, or even spraying molten metal (if the info on that is in the fluff as fire then oopsy me I'll correct). Since it's not actually a heavy flamer by name, only having a similar in-game effect, I would rule that it is not affected by Vulkan's special rules.

Discuss both sides and add to the reasons above, consider, then vote!

[dragonbait]

I'm going along with simplicity's sake. "Armoured Gauntlet can be fired as a heavy flamer" = Gauntlet mounted Heavy flamer. Take the twin link.

[Leudast1215]

I voted "no," but just to clarify, I feel that because it says "may be fired as a heavy flamer" then it should count as being twin-linked. If it didn't have that sentence, then it wouldn't benefit.

[RARE CHOICE GAMES]

I would agree with your conclusion Andrew. This is also the same conclusion was reached on Adepticon. Since it is not labeled as a flamer or heavy flamer it would not get the special rule.

[dragonbait]

Isn't the yes vote for it being twin linked? Or did I vote wrong?

[Leudast1215]

Hehe I think I voted wrong, but at least I explained where I was coming from as a redundancy.

[lixulan]

well....

"can be fired as a heavy flamer"

as there is no stat line provided and if it is not a heavy flamer what are the stats? if it said range template str 5 ap 4 as a stat line then it isnt a heavy flamer even though it has the same stats.

imho if you have to refer to a specific weapon to get the stats for a weapon in this case Heavy flamer then it counts as that for all other rules.

[ddaypunk06]

I agree, it doesn't specify anything special about it.

An example where it does specify is the Grey Knights Incinerator. It has the same profile as a flamer except it ignores invulnerable save. It has an explicit stat line. This is also a gauntlet mounted weapon for the Termys.

For the gauntlet on vulkan, it just says heavy flamer and nothing else special about it. In this respect I heavily agree with Lixulan.

On a side note...the description leaves open a blank. "CAN be fired as a heavy flamer"...wtf else can it be fired or used as? Where is GW on this one lol. If its open to suggestion, then i say it should be able to also fire thunder cannon rounds lol.

As for Adepticon...I read their faqs as a reference, but not as official rulings. They create these only for their tournaments. Other than that they have no affect on anyone else.

I vote that it should apply to Vulkan.

[RARE CHOICE GAMES]

Yeah sorry I said Adepticon. I meant adeptus. The only reason why I fall on adepticons rulings is because they host the largest and most successful tournament in the country (which I think says a lot), even better than GW Grand Tourneys.

Until GW comes out with something they are the closest thing to official you can get...that why they are referenced so much. not saying we have tp use them but most people do.

For friendly play I say let the players decide before the game till GW comes up with rules for stating specifically one way or the other. Something needs to be decided by the club though for tournament that we host.

[siriq]

I voted no because of the name. There are several weapons that act like a flamer or heavy flamer but when it comes down to it, the rule specifically talks about flamers and heavy flamers. It doesnt say this rule applies to any weapon that acts like a flamer. But i do have a feeling that when gw does get around to it will work.

[Andrew]

Unless someone can come up with something totally wack that works, it'll stay that his Gauntlet of the Forge cannot reroll due to Chapter Tactics. Here's why:

- It is not a heavy flamer. It is a gauntlet, as stated in its rules section. It only "can be fired [in the same manner] as a heavy flamer." If they had written that last part in there would be no debate at all. This does not make it a heavy flamer. Lastly, in his unit entry in the army list section (that explicitly says what wargear and weapons a unit has), there is no mention of a heavy flamer. Thus, no rerolls.

So by the letter of the rules, that's where it will stand, regardless of intention.

[ddaypunk06]

So this vote means jack...even if the vote was yes? Thats stupid.

[ddaypunk06]

Here is a post on Bolter and Chainsword arguing the point using some linguistics:

[ As someone who spent most of his early young life studying languages and grammar while at the same time being very active on the national and state debate circuit and spent most of his weekends picking apart arguments and everything from commas to prepositions in debate resolutions/topics, and is hoping to get into a top law school soon, I spent today going over the rules on these two issues and came to a pretty solid conclusion.

There are a lot of issues with some codexes and with the SM one especially that are very much in the grey area. There are also things that are murky at first but can be ruled on with a proper knowledge of 40k and the FAQs (like the re-roll to wound on the Eversor gauntlet).

I don't think either is the case with these two issues. Despite my background in seeing both sides of an issue, I have trouble being a devil's advocate for 1 of the 2 perspectives here and feel that only one is valid. When I go debate-mode on 40k stuff, I look to see if a) the rules could have been easily written in a different way if a specific conclusion was intended and B ) both the written rules RAW as well as common/sense point in one direction...if both logic as well as grammar allow the controlling player to claim something, then I find it very difficult to deny them. The wording of Vulkan He'stan's rules and equipment descriptions point, in A and B here, towards his gauntlet being twin-linked as well as allied units being linked.


I feel this to be very powerful, maybe even a little overpowered with allied units. However, that doesn't stop it from being the consequence of what GW wrote.

1) Is Vulkan's gauntlet twin-linked?

Yes. Vulkan's rule makes all heavy flamers in the army twin-linked- no one disagrees on that. There are other flame-weapons that logic/fluff says should be twin-linked with He'stan, but legally are not according to RAW: the Redeemer flamers do not get to be twin-linked, because they are a type of weapon not listed in He'stan's entry. Likewise, a Callidus neural shredder, although a "template" weapon, is not described as any one of the qualifying nouns. It also does not make sense in logic/fluff- a psychic attack wouldn't benefit from any of Vulkan's fire-based changes to the army. Furthermore, even if it WAS fire-based, it would still not benefit from twin-linking due to RAQ- it HAS to be mentioned as one of the categories of weapon types for the shooting attack to benefit.

The argument for Vulkan's gauntlet benefiting from the twin-linked rule is overwhelming in terms of RAW *and* logic/fluff, which is why I think this issue is less of an issue of perspective and more one of correctly applying an understanding of grammar and basic intelligence. As someone else already pointed out, the writing is very specific and uses the term "as". The gauntlet does not read, "This gauntlet can fire a strength 5 ap 4 template during the shooting phase" (similar to the Callidus description). The flame weapon does not have a specific name/category of its own and is not listed in the weapons summary in the back of the Space Marine codex (like the flamestorm cannon). It does not even say it is "very similar to a heavy flamer".

It does not EVEN say "this gauntlet can be fired AS IT IF WERE a heavy flamer"...I think this sentence would make the weapon-twin linked anyway, but it goes EVEN beyond that and clarifies it further just to make sure. The actual sentence in the codex reads: "This armored gauntlet can be fired as a heavy flamer." Bam. Done. How does it fire? As a heavy flamer. If it is a heavy flamer in an army/force org chart deployment by a space marine player with Vulkan He'stan as the specified special-rule HQ, then that heavy flamer is twin-linked. Therefore, when the gauntlet is fired (and it doesn't do ANYTHING other than work as a heavy flamer anyway!), the heavy flamer that is fired is twin-linked. This also makes sense fluff-wise: why would a lowly flamer or combi-flamer in a force prepared beforehand and modified by Vulkan He'stan be twin-linked, but not the super-ultra relic badass heavy flamer he carries from the primarch? Every heavy flamer on a dreadnught or land raider or tactical marine in an army, potentially dozens, is twin-linked, but the special one He'stan carries really sucks in comparison and is half as good? Give me a break.

Someone could try to argue against He'stan's heavy flamer not being twin-linked until he or she is blue in the face, but there isn't a single thing they can say that would bring them closer to being correct, or that would eliminate the word choice, grammar, and logic underpinning anyone using He'stan and re-rolling the wound dice on his flamer.

2) Do the melta-weapons and flamer-weapons of allied units count as twin-linked?

Yes. Again, this is overwhelmingly supported by logic and RAW. First, the RAW is very clear and simple: it says that ALL weapons of a certain name/category in YOUR army are twin-linked. It does not say, "all space marine thunder hammers, flamers, etc." are twin-linked. It does not say "all thunder hammers, flamers, etc. used BY space marines...". It does not say "some", "most", "specific" flamers and melta weapons. Maybe it SHOULD and maybe the RAW makes it a little too good, but that doesn't change what it currently says: ""all thunder hammers in your army will count as master-crafted and all flamers, heavy flamers, meltaguns, and multi-meltas count as twin-linked."

The only RAW issue is whether or not allied units count as a part of "your army", and it is pretty much impossible to argue intelligently that allies used in your deatchement are not considered components of "your army". First- if it isn't a part of YOUR army, whose army are they a part of? They aren't a part of your opponent's army, and they have to be there as a part of SOMEBODY'S army. If you play 40k with an allied player and he brings Witch Hunters, he has a SEPARATE army with a separate force org chart detachment and separate units. You can be as friendly as you want, but the units in the other guy's army don't benefit from the Vulkan rule as they are not members of the army controlled by Vulkan's owner/deployer. However, if they are allies used as a part of a space marine army by the space marine player with Vulkan, then they ARE included in that player's "army".

Second, ownership having been discussed, what is an "army"? If you look at page iii of the 5th Ed rulebook, it is very clearly generic and all-purpose about the term, and applies it several times to mean whatever force you choose to purchase, build, paint, and then deploy on the tabletop using the Warhammer 40k tabletop rules. This is in addition to plain common sense between us players, which already tells us the same thing. Furthermore, you can apply some characteristics to an army- an army is deployed at the beginning of a game of 40k. An army follows certain restrictions, as outlined by the force org chart (6 troops choices max, etc.). An army is composed by adhering to certain other restrictions, such as the point costs of individual entries within the army, in conjunction with the agreed points limit of a 40k round. With all of these things in mind, allied units in a space marine force are indeed a part of the overall army- they take up spots on the force org chart of the army and their listed point costs count toward the army's overall point limit. They are controlled identically to other units in the army and by the exact same player. Based on both the rules surrounding an army and the manner in which allied units are applied in a round of 40k, every single consideration surrounding this issue makes it painfully clear that allied units are considered a part of the controlling player's "army".

The above is more than enough to settle the issue, but to further drive the nail in the coffin you can also look at the RAW and grammar of the rules in the entry of the codexes outlining allies. For example, on page 25 of the Witch Hunter codex, it says, "Witch hunter units can be INCLUDED as allies IN any of the following codex armies." It also says, "If you have an existing Warhammer 40,000 army, this is the simplest way of INCORPORATING an inquisitor or a squad of sisters of battle." They are IN a codex army, they are INCORPORATED into an existing army, and so on. It never says "you can take a separate Witch Hunters mini-army", "these allies count as a separate detachment", or anything like that. Anyone who understands what simple words like "in" and "incorporated" mean is pretty much done with the argument at this point- those words are even applied specifically to the the noun "army" in both sentences. RAW allies are a part of the army of the player that legally paid the points for them.

Finally, this also makes sense in logic/fluff. There is no difference in legal game terms or in the fluff between the weapons used interchangeably in imperial armies- a SoB meltagun is exactly identical to a space marines meltagun. If having Vulkan in your army means that changes were made beforehand to the equipment of the space marine units, it makes sense that the exact same things were done to all units that are a part of the army and commanded by Vulkan. Do you really think Vulkan goes around juicing up all the space marine melta-guns and then looks at the identical imperial SoB meltaguns under his command and goes "no I don't think I'll make those twin-linked today even though I could and that's my army specialty, I think I'd prefer that our army kills less heretics/aliens/etc. in the upcoming battle and that we are more likely to take causalities in our force."? Let's use our brains here, please.




And that's my word on the subject. That took a while. Oh well.

Cheers.

Read this and lemme know what you think?

[ddaypunk06]

And again, I'm not trying to draw this out. But the wording sucks, and eveyone likes to read it their own way. But by a democratic vote it was voted yes. So why are you saying it doesn't count Andrew? You aren't the judge. It should be taken as a house rule until it is FAQ'ed I think, and the house has voted its ok so far.

[siriq]

I would say that the vote needs to be redone because it sounds like people changed their mind after the vote.

[dragonbait]

Alright Florida...you're allowed to retract your vote and re-vote at any time, so we don't need a do-over. What does it matter if the vote doesn't hold any sway anyways though....yay democracy?

[Leudast1215]

I vote "yes," The original reasoning behind the grammar is sound and irrefutible which is also why I voted "yes" originally prior to this post. Just because some tournament somewhere rules otherwise is merely a testament to their way of thinking and interpreting grammar. It does not make it correct. Using our own knowledge, intelligence and rationalization skills are all we need to settle RAW issues like this.

so for what it's worth Delso, if you play me and you want to use your special guy's special flamey thingy as twin-linked, it's ok cause it makes sense grammer wise and fluff wise.

[Andrew]

Correct, the vote was just to get peoples' opinions. Perhaps once everyone is aware of all things we'll make an official House Rule about it getting twin-linking; however, when we hold tournaments and people are coming in from other places that use RAW, they'll insist we are wrong. This is what I want to avoid. I avoid house-rules (unless it's a BS-dex for complete funsies and few rules apply) so that I don't get things mixed up.

Everyone seems to be forgetting the Gauntlet of the Forge = Gauntlet of the Forge, not the Gauntlet of the Forge = Heavy Flamer. I know, and I feel, it is supposed to be twin-linked. But by the rules it can't be.

Here's another thought: replace the word "as" with the word "like." Does the sentence still make sense? Yes! Does it still literally mean that the Gauntlet of the Forge is a heavy flamer? No, it still doesn't. It distinctly shows that the gauntlet is NOT a heavy flamer, but acts just like it in the game. "Like" and "as" are interchangeable in most cases; this is one of them, further proving that it, until FAQ'd by GW (which it won't now that GW came out with that FAIL of a FAQ), it does not benefit from twin-linking.

And the general sticking point was "counts as" does not equal "is".

Ergo just because it has the same profile as a heavy flamer and fires like one, does not a heavy flamer make. Indeed someone emailed the rules boys this question along with the whole Sisters of Battle issue and the rules boy (though we loathe to listen to them) basically said no his gauntlet is not MC'd as it is not specifically mentioned as being one of the weapons that gets it (i.e. it is not a Heavy Flamer, Flamer, MG, or MM). As for the Combi-weapon, because it states that you fire the secondary weapon as per that weapons specific rules listed elsewhere in the codex, it would in fact, on the turn you fired the flamer, be MC'd.

[ddaypunk06]

Did anyone read the big long thing I posted from bloter and chainsword? It does a similar thing like you just suggested. Specifically these two paragraphs:

"The argument for Vulkan's gauntlet benefiting from the twin-linked rule is overwhelming in terms of RAW *and* logic/fluff, which is why I think this issue is less of an issue of perspective and more one of correctly applying an understanding of grammar and basic intelligence. As someone else already pointed out, the writing is very specific and uses the term "as". The gauntlet does not read, "This gauntlet can fire a strength 5 ap 4 template during the shooting phase" (similar to the Callidus description). The flame weapon does not have a specific name/category of its own and is not listed in the weapons summary in the back of the Space Marine codex (like the flamestorm cannon). It does not even say it is "very similar to a heavy flamer".

It does not EVEN say "this gauntlet can be fired AS IT IF WERE a heavy flamer"...I think this sentence would make the weapon-twin linked anyway, but it goes EVEN beyond that and clarifies it further just to make sure. The actual sentence in the codex reads: "This armored gauntlet can be fired as a heavy flamer." Bam. Done. How does it fire? As a heavy flamer. If it is a heavy flamer in an army/force org chart deployment by a space marine player with Vulkan He'stan as the specified special-rule HQ, then that heavy flamer is twin-linked. Therefore, when the gauntlet is fired (and it doesn't do ANYTHING other than work as a heavy flamer anyway!), the heavy flamer that is fired is twin-linked. This also makes sense fluff-wise: why would a lowly flamer or combi-flamer in a force prepared beforehand and modified by Vulkan He'stan be twin-linked, but not the super-ultra relic badass heavy flamer he carries from the primarch? Every heavy flamer on a dreadnught or land raider or tactical marine in an army, potentially dozens, is twin-linked, but the special one He'stan carries really sucks in comparison and is half as good? Give me a break. "

AS and LIKE are not two similar things. Everyone will be confused no matter what is said on this. Its gonna be debated forever until GW learns to FAQ things before they release them...or in otherwords COPYREAD. Anyways, I don't see the problem with it. Paying that much and not getting his own tactic like the other captains is utterly ridiculous.

[siriq]

I read the big post and i have to say that i still dont agree. Whats uniquely interesting with this guys argument is it goes both ways. Using grammer can be a perilous argument in that yes hes right that things are written a certain way, but using his exact same argument i just change the conclusion and bam it doesnt work in RAW. "This armored gauntlet can be fired as a heavy flamer." Bam. is it a heavy flamer? NO does it fire similar to one YES. But as does not equal is. Just that simple. A resistor and a capacitor can work as an oscillator. But it is NOT an oscillator. I will say this though, I do believe that it was the intention of the creator that it is twin linked. I think this would have been avoided if the simply said "this fires a str 5 ap 4 flame template/twin linked."

what the advantage of twinlinked flame weapons anyway, they auto hit.