IG Hydra & Ageis Defence Line Quad-gun

[Turner]

If an Imperial Guard Hydra is in base to base with the Ageis Defence Line Quad-gun and an enemy flier arrives from reserve can the Hydra fire at the enemy flier? (At the end of the movement phase, provided the enemy is within range and Line of Sight)


Please use the following material as reference:
Page 105 of the Main Rule Book
Gun Emplacement
"One model in base contact with the gun emplacement can fire it instead of his own weapon, following the normal rules for shooting. The type of weapon on the gun emplacement depends on the model that you're using to represent it - some shooting weapon profiles can be found starting on page 56. If a model is in cover behind a gun emplacement, it has a 4+ cover save. The gun emplacement can be shot at and attacked in close combat. It is hit automatically in close combat and has the following profile:"


Page 42 of the Main Rule Book
Skyfire
"A model with this special rule, or that is firing a weapon with this special rule, fires using its normal Ballistic Skill when shooting at Flyers, Flying Monstrous Creatures and Skimmers. Unless it also has the Interceptor special rule, it can only fire snap shots against other targets."




Your move, Mr. Bond.

[DWest]

The rule which permits you to fire during the enemy's turn is Interceptor, not Skyfire. As per the BRB, pg 38 "a weapon with the Interceptor rule can be fired . . ." The Hydra's ACs have Skyfire, but not Interceptor. According to RAW, "a model" may fire the weapon which comes with the Aegis line, so yes, you could wedge a Hydra in there and have it run the gun. However, this does not confer any special bonus to said Hydra, and for 25 points cheaper, you can put your Company Command Squad in the Aegis line, and they have 1 better BS than the Hydra.

I would personally argue that the vehicle cannot fire the Aegis line, on the strength of the fact it says under Gun Emplacements, pg 105, "One model . . . can fire it". In reading through the rules, GW only uses the term model when referring to people; Infantry, Monstrous Creatures, and the like, while Vehicles are always referred to as "a vehicle" and never as "a model" so far as I have seen.

[Nabterayl]

I really like that line of argument, DWest, but I note the following exceptions:

Page 71, "As vehicle models ..."
Page 71, "Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model."
Page 73, "Note that, unlike for other models, a vehicle's wings are not ornamental ..."
Page 74, "The model is left in place and becomes a wreck."
Page 74, "The difference from the way cover works for other models ..."
Page 75, "exactly like a non-vehicle model ..."
Page 76, "Some damage results debilitate rather than destroy vehicle models ..."
Page 76, "Some players leave the weapons and turrets on their models unglued ..."
Page 77, "Most vehicles fight as individual units and are represented by a single model ..."
I'll stop there, sine I think it makes the point. The rules do refer to vehicles as models. So Turner, while I wouldn't be surprised to see some pushback on the point, I do agree that vehicles can fire gun emplacements.

[JMichael]

I never considered that a vehicle can man the gun emplacements! Mind=blown!
Now putting my Exorcists up on the Aegis!

[Caitsidhe]

Seems a strange question in the first place. :) Just put a Lord Commissar in there in a nice central position on your Quad Gun and thus bolster your troops and get a BS-5 on the weapon. If you give said LC the camo he will have a 2+ save behind the Aegis without even going to ground.

[JMichael]

I never considered that a vehicle can man the gun emplacements! Mind=blown!
Now putting my Exorcists up on the Aegis!

And now re-reading the Gun Emplacement rule (p105) it states the model may fire the Gun Emplacement instead of it's own weapon.
So this seems to mean that if a Leman Russ was to shoot the Aegis' gun then it can't fire any of it's vehicle weapons. Am I correct on this?

[Nabterayl]

I read the singular there to say that the weapon it takes the place of shooting one weapon; e.g., if a monstrous creature fired a gun emplacement it could still fire one other weapon, if it had another weapon. Similarly, as long as the gun on the vehicle can see the target, the vehicle may fire the gun emplacement instead of that weapon.

[Chris Copeland]

This seems like needless rules-lawyering. I can see the need to hash this out in the abstract but if a real person tried this nonsense in a real game I think I'd politely ask them to find another opponent.

That being said, I DO like that this is being considered in the abstract. Cheers! Good gaming to all... Cope