Heldrake double whammy legal?

[Magpie]

Basically what has happened is somebody did a Vector Strike on his vehicle, toppled his people out and then killed them with the Baleflamer. This seemed so cosmically unfair to him that he spent a good couple of hours trying to figure out some Bizarro World logic to prove it is illegal.

Ah ok. He's out of luck I 'fraid, the VC attack followed by the Baleflamer is totally legit.

[whargoul666]

The question here is poorly worded and as such you guys are answering it poorly. The contention that the OP is making is that at the end of the vector strike rules it states:

A model that made a Vector Strike
in its Movement phase counts as
having already fired one weapon in its
following Shooting phase. However, any
additional weapons it fires that turn can
choose a different target to that of the
Vector Strike.

The OP feels that since he already made an attack in his movement phase, he has already fired his baleflammer/autocannon that turn, and so can not fire it again in the shooting phase. This is where he is wrong as that the vector strike (counting as firing one weapon) is actually a hand to hand attack so the gun is still free to track what it likes. This isn't an unreasonable mistake, but look at the picture that accompanies the helldrake entry in the codex (pg. 52), it illustrates what is happening fairly well (it vector striked (struck?) that flier with its talons in the movement phase, and is now baleflaming it in the shooting phase!).

[Nabterayl]

The OP feels that since he already made an attack in his movement phase, he has already fired his baleflammer/autocannon that turn, and so can not fire it again in the shooting phase.

Yeah, I got that. But it still assumes that "counts as having already fired one weapon" means that it counts as having fired a specific, identifiable weapon that the model is actually armed with. That's not a warranted assumption.

[Magpie]

The question here is poorly worded and as such you guys are answering it poorly. The contention that the OP is making is that at the end of the vector strike rules it states:

A model that made a Vector Strike
in its Movement phase counts as
having already fired one weapon in its
following Shooting phase. However, any
additional weapons it fires that turn can
choose a different target to that of the
Vector Strike.

The OP feels that since he already made an attack in his movement phase, he has already fired his baleflammer/autocannon that turn, and so can not fire it again in the shooting phase. This is where he is wrong as that the vector strike (counting as firing one weapon) is actually a hand to hand attack so the gun is still free to track what it likes. This isn't an unreasonable mistake, but look at the picture that accompanies the helldrake entry in the codex (pg. 52), it illustrates what is happening fairly well (it vector striked (struck?) that flier with its talons in the movement phase, and is now baleflaming it in the shooting phase!).

Fully aware of what the OP is asking and I do not think anyone here has answered it "poorly"

The rule says the Hellchicken "counts as having fired one weapon in its following shooting phase" it does NOT say it "counts as having fired one of its weapons in the following shooting phase"

[RGilbert26]

I agree with the above

Either way i wouldnt be surprised if this thread was started by what Caitsidhe said.

[Tynskel]

The logic of the original poster was not bad. The issue is the assumption: does 'count as' firing a weapon replace one of your current weapons.

I think almost everyone would agree that 'count as' firing a weapon does not physically replace one of your available weapons. It replaces one of the weapons that could be fired, up to the maximum allowed.

[Chris*ta]

Basically what has happened is somebody did a Vector Strike on his vehicle, toppled his people out and then killed them with the Baleflamer. This seemed so cosmically unfair to him that he spent a good couple of hours trying to figure out some Bizarro World logic to prove it is illegal.

Wouldn't it make more sense to try the "Can't target two different units in the same turn logic"? Would still be wrong since vector strike doesn't stop you shooting a different target but would still be a more sensible way to try and stop it.

I'm not convinced that the can't attack two different targets rule would be much of an argument either. Compare the ability to pop a transport in the shooting phase and then assault the contents in the assault phase.

[Defenestratus]

Basically what has happened is somebody did a Vector Strike on his vehicle, toppled his people out and then killed them with the Baleflamer. This seemed so cosmically unfair to him that he spent a good couple of hours trying to figure out some Bizarro World logic to prove it is illegal.

Indeed.

Projected rules interpretation if I've ever seen it.

[Tynskel]

Indeed.

Projected rules interpretation if I've ever seen it.

I disagree. His logic is sound. It comes from an assumption being made: 1) 'count as' weapon fired replaces an actual weapon.

If this were the case, it must be applied to all situations, and would only be modified by explicit rules.
On the other hand, you can make the assumption: 2) 'count as' weapon fired does not replace an actual weapon.

Again, this would need to be applied everywhere, and an exception would have to be explicitly stated.

1) means you must have a weapon to fire to be able to replace with the 'count as'.
2) means you do not have to have a weapon to fire to be able to replace with 'count as'.

Applying this logic would mean that under 1) a bloodletter could not use the Aegis Defense Line cannon. Nor can they use any stationary weapons. Furthermore, they would not be able to fire the cannon on their chariot.
Oh, that's not good–why have a cannon on their chariot that they cannot fire?

2) means that you do not have to have a physical weapon to be able to fire the weapons. This means that the same bloodletter could use the Aegis Defense Line cannon, and fire the weapons on their chariot, etc.

This reasoning, unless otherwise stated, should be applied to everything in 40k, unless there is an explicit exception. The Helldrake, by this reasoning, is not replacing their gun. It is just 'firing' one of their weapons up to their limit of available weapons.

[RGilbert26]

Either way doesn't matter, the guy is wrong, discussion over.