Vulkan and his mighty hand debate

[RARE CHOICE GAMES]

I am in agreeance with Caleb (siriq) on this one.

Also just want to point out that Bolter and Chainsword is being used for defence of this argument yet when Adeptus and Adepticon were brought up it was shouted down and said that we need to make our own decision. I think for the sake of fairness I need to shout down arguments from Space marine lovers on Bolter and Chainsword since they are even more unreliable than Adeptus and Adepticon. Just a thought.

Just being fair...arguments from other forums shouldnt be used since and i quote:

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.

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.

Therefore any argument handed down from any other forum whether they be unreliable Space marine fans or Local Club that runs the Largest Tournament in the country Forum should be ignored.

ITS UP TO US, YAY!

[Durrak]

This is nothing more than a combi-weapon so if it does work with a combi-flamer it will work with the gauntlet. The wording for the combi-flamer is the exact same as the wording for the gauntlet as to its flamer status.

[siriq]

but a combi flamer has FLAMER in the name

[Durrak]

So, just because it has it in it's name doesn't mean anything. Would this work with a gun named Ripper Mega Flamer gun? No, because it isn't refrencing to any of the weapons listed; unlike the gauntlet which has the exact same wording as the combi-flamer "fire as a flamer(heavy flamer)".

edit: In my Ripper Mega Flamer gun refernce that is assuming it wasn't referencing to a Flamer or Heavy flamer, but had its own stat line.

additional:
Combi-flamer: May fire either as a bolter or as a Flamer.

Guantlet of the Forge: Can be fired as a Heavy flamer.
So, since they both are fired as a Flamer(Heavy flamer) does it apply?

[RARE CHOICE GAMES]

I am not disagreeing with it because of the wording. I am going by a simple rule that we play a game that is based on rules. To me if it isnt labeled specifically as a hvy flamer than it shouldnt count as one. Fluff to me doesnt have an effect on the rules. Until GW makes an FAQ that states otherwise I dont think it should be used as one. People who play with me know I dont get worked up over winning and losing I could give two shiza's but I think that rules should be followed.

One could drive their camaro like it was an ORV and take it off roading and what not but that doesnt make it an ORV. No matter what the guy who sold it to you compared it too.

[siriq]

A combi flamer is a flamer attached to a weapon. its an addon to a weapon not a weapon its self. The debate about the name is significant because of the special rule that is being applied. it says that heavy flamers and flamers are twin linked. A very specific rule. ill say this again, it doesnt say all weapons that act like flamers and heavy flamers become twin linked. They try to make weapons generic. they dont have a flamer and an acid thrower. its just called a flamer. both have the same effect, so they use a generic name. when they do name it something else its for a reason. Case in point. There are krag and frag missles but the eldar have plasma missles which act the same as the imperial counter point but cause pinning. thus the different name.

[Durrak]

So, what you are saying is if it was called the "Heavy flamer that is attached to a gauntlet" you would be fine with it being twin-linked? That is what the rules are for is so people can have thier fluffy names for their guns and still benefit from the bonus abilites.
Btw I don't play space marines or know anyone who owns this character.

additional:
siriq: Basically the rule is if it doesn't say flamer in the name it won't work ,even if it says it is a flamer in the rules, right? So, what is the point of having rules for weapons again?

additional:
My point is that if a Combi-flamer, which btw has the same wording as the Gauntlet of the Forge, becomes twin-linked then the Gauntlet does aswell. Who gives a patoot as to the name of the weapon the whole point of have rules for weapons is for clairifcation as to what other rules and abilites apply. Also, does the Gauntlet say it is a flame template weapon that is S5 AP4 Assult1 or does it say it functions as a Heavy flamer?

[RARE CHOICE GAMES]

Basically yes I am saying if GW in all their infinite wisdom (sarcasm folks) did not label it correctly (such as how all tanks are labeled tanks and things that are not tanks but look similar to being tanks are not labeled tanks) than it shouldnt count as that.

Rules is rules. As far as I know it is not counted a hvy flamer therefore it shouldnt get the rule from Vulkan. yes I know that it is silly for him not to get it. I know. We all get that. I will take a look at someones book on Thursday to make a better judgement but from what has been said on here to me it is not lebaled specifically as a hvy flamer therefore it is not one. GW will hopefully get off their collective asses and make a worthwile FAQ that will fix this but till then no is my answer.

This is just another example of GW's awesome rule writing capabilities. For another example of GW's awesomeness with rules look here: BRB pg 22 top left "Rather than clutter the rules with endless clarifications, we have included further examples on our website" Yes god forbid you put rules in a rule book that would justify the 50$ one spends on it...instead post them on your website which is sub-par to say the least.

[siriq]

Im just saying in this specific instance it doesnt work. The rule is significant because it says as and not is. It doesnt say counts as a heavy flamer it says fire as a heavy flamer. I believe that there is a problem with the wording. fire as a weapon and counting as a weapon or is a weapon maters. I would say that if there is a discrepancy then it should fall back to the name of the weapon. since the special rule talks about certain weapons. Idk maybe i am wrong about the combi flamer

[Andrew]

You're not wrong about the combi-flamer bit. It just has no bearing on this part of the debate because it distinctly says it is two different weapons slapped together. The gauntlet is NOT a combi-heavy flamer.

My reading is that "as" =/= "is" no matter which way you look at it. Important vowel difference. I also agree with everything Josh said about using some forum references and not better references; it's either all or none, and if the biggest tournamt organizers are going to play it the correct way, I'd advise we do the same so nobody comes and plays with us and riles up attitutdes because we are playing it wrong.

[NonSequitur]

Well, heres my two bits. Stupid Games Workshop, they really need to think these things through. I totally agree that GW needs to proof read its Codices before they publish them, case in point, my beloved Guard. They misstated the hellhound, priest, and junior officers stat lines and added a platoon commander guy who was not even in the Codex . On the topic of Vulkan, well, I guess I would have to say it should work just like a heavy flamer does (or should I say it should be a heavy flamer ), but according to the rules on the page, doesn't technically.

My friend Ricky (Durrak) stopped by an official GW store, that is to say a store owned and opperated by Games Workshop, tonight to pick up some Steel Legion, mmm... metal guardsmen, and the GW redshirts declared that they thought it was self explanatory that Vulkan's special rule would apply to the special weapon he had and that was why the rules don't specifically say "flamers, heavy flamers, meltas, multimeltas, and Vulkan's gauntlet thingy". I don't know if this is the "official" GW stance, but assuming it is, we could expect a FAQ within 3-8 months clarifying the matter. I don't know why it takes so long to make a PDF file, must be the bloody 40K background, they always include it but never save it so they have to recreate it from hand every time (Sarcasm Alert). But seriously, I would have little problem with the weapon being used the way it was apparently intended regardless of GW being a bunch of lazy idiots who don't consider how a rule centric community could react to poorly laid out special rules. IS, IS, IS, how hard is it to say "IS" a heavy flamer or that it benefits from the special rules .

So, to sum up, rules wise, it appears it doesn't benefit from the special rule but that, according to a group of GW redshirts, it should, they just figured that we would figure that out all by ourselves . Dumb GW, will they ever learn?

[Andrew]

According to the GW Rulez Boyz, it doesn't get the benefit. Redshirts get so much wrong it ain't funny. But egh...

[NonSequitur]

Well, after all, they are only redshirts . I still do think that it was the intent for the weapon to get the ability. By the way, who are the GW Rulez Boys, just for my own curiosity . I haven't heard that name used before, really just heard of redshirts and the comapny higher-ups before. Some kind of 'hotline' or something?

[ddaypunk06]

Yea, I'd like to know who they are too. The red shirt are kinda dumb and one sided. Ask Frizzell about how they cheat.

[GiantKiller]

Well, the poll's closed, but I'd still like to weigh in in favor of twin-linking the gauntlet.

"fired as a heavy flamer" is its rule, not fluff. It has no ranged weapon statline of its own.

Short analysis:
If you were a new player, and had no idea what a "heavy flamer" was, where would you look first to see how this gauntlet fires? In the back of the book on the summary sheet under the listing "Heavy Flamer," right? So its a heavy flamer. There's no entry in the list for "gauntlet of the forge," just "heavy flamer."


Longer analysis:
Since we don't have a direct ruling from GW in the form of a FAQ on the issue, the very best we can do is look at precedent - and base our decision on how similar situations were settled. The opinions of GW redshits, adeptus windy, and bolter and chainsword all mean equally little to me because none of them are binding on us whatsoever.

So... what're the two closest examples? I would argue the two closest examples are Combi flamers and the redeemer's AP3 flamer.

It is well settled that combi-flamers get twin-linked by vulcan's rule. So if the gauntlet of the forge is like a combi-flamer, it, too, should be twin-linked. Combi-flamers are like the gauntlet of the forge in the following ways:
1. both say they can be fired as a [heavy] flamer.
2. neither one has its own statline

It is similarly well settled that the redeemer's souped-up flamer thing is NOT twin-linked by vulcan's rule. If the gauntlet of the forge is like the redeemer AP3 flamer, then it would *not* be a heavy flamer and I would vote against twin-linking it. But it isn't, for the following reasons:
1. The redeemer flamer has its own statline and entry in the armory.
2. The redeemer flamer does not indicate in its rules that it can be fired as anything but itself.

If those are our two closest examples, and gauntlet of the forge is more like the combi-flamer than the redeemer flamer, then its rules should be interpreted the same as the combi-flamer's, and it should be twin-linked by vulcan's rule. I would argue for the reasons above that the gauntlet of the forge IS more like the combi-flamer, and should be twin-linked.

P.S. the benefit of twin-linking a template weapon is that you get to reroll failed "to wound" dice.

-John B.