Wound Allocation Question

[Algesan]

My sternguard has six guys in it. PF, 2 combi-meltas, and 3 boltguns. For the purposes of this example, we'll say that one of the two combi-meltas has used it's melta shot. So we have six guys:

PF, usable combi, expended combi, 3 boltguns. This unit takes some fire and take four wounds. I will of course allocate them to the three guys with simple boltguns and one of them to the combi-melta batch (I love my Power Fists).

 

I roll my saves and fail ONE of them...the one on the combi-melta batch. (Typical.)

 

Under Case 1, I can ONLY take a model with a combi-melta. Since one of them has expended his combi-shot, I take him as a casualty. Perfectly within the rules, and a good idea. Now I still have a guy with a usable combi-melta shot.

This is why it matters. If the squad above had taken five wounds and failed on one of the two models with a combi, it matters who failed and which one you take off. In the example above, ignoring the difference in game effect between a fired and an unfired combi, the fired combi becomes an ablative wound protecting the unfired combi - in direct opposition to the reason for having 5th edition wound allocation rules (ie : the special weapons are at risk to volume of fire). Of course we will choose to remove the spent combi in preference to the unspent combi, and that's the tactic reason why they should be grouped seperately. That very logically removal choice proves that there is a difference between a fired and an unfired combi in game terms. That's why it's not just about semantics.

 

The tricky bit here is that the example squad is de facto a complex unit by RAW.

 

The issue is whether or not an entire combi armed unit needs to be treated with some expended needs to be treated as complex or simple. Complex gives a minor advantage to the attacker in certain situations (the chance to pop an unexpended combi model). To clarify, they would all need the same combi weapon, if they have different combi weapons, then complex rules apply again since they are different weapons.

[Legatus]

In the 4 empty & 1 full situation, if using the simple rules because they are all armed with combi-meltas, then when the unit takes 5 wounds, it is dead. Period.

 

51 possible results (20 chances of killing 3, 30 chances of killing 4, 1 chance of killing all 5) assuming these are unsaved wounds as I did above. The meltagunner would survive in 17 cases, which gives him a 1/3 of not being killed in the the failing of 5 saves vs wounds. The odds would be the same in the case of the squad with 4 used combis for the 1 unused combi surviving. So yes, there is a difference there, the attacker needs less unsaved wounds to kill the unit using simple rules, but the defender has a higher chance of the unit surviving using complex rules at the risk of losing the available melta.

 

The issue comes from those low hit/low wound attacks where using the simple rules means the defender pulls the ones without melta without any further ado after rolling as a simple unit.

First of all, in your example I was replying to you had your models suffer a number of wounds and were then taking saves. I do not know why you skip the saves part in my example, though admittedly I did not specify that the wounds that were suffered would now be saved against. I assumed that to be the obvious course of action, but I probably could have been more specific. (The math is much easier with saves, though.)

 

Second of all, which situation is more common: That a unit will suffer enough wounds to force a player to allocate some to valuable special models, or that a unit will suffer so many wounds that it will statistically fail so many saves that every model could be removed? Well, in case of Orks or Guardsmen the two are not far apart in numbers, but in case of Space Marines the latter is less common.

 

 

The issue is whether or not an entire combi armed unit needs to be treated with some expended needs to be treated as complex or simple. Complex gives a minor advantage to the attacker in certain situations (the chance to pop an unexpended combi model). To clarify, they would all need the same combi weapon, if they have different combi weapons, then complex rules apply again since they are different weapons.

The entire point of the complex unit wound allocation rules is not to have a unit be more resistant to an excessive number of wounds suffered. The point of that rule is to make special models vulnerable to higher numbers of wounds suffered.

[Algesan]

First of all, in your example I was replying to you had your models suffer a number of wounds and were then taking saves. I do not know why you skip the saves part in my example, though admittedly I did not specify that the wounds that were suffered would now be saved against. I assumed that to be the obvious course of action, but I probably could have been more specific. (The math is much easier with saves, though.)

 

You mean easier without saves? To make the math work, you need 15 wounds on SM to get 5 wounds through with AP4 or greater weapons. OTOH, you only need 5 wounds from AP3 or less weapons. Put a plasma cannon blast on the unit and you get maybe 1 survivor, then you just shoot him.

 

So, I shoot with 2xmelta, a flamer and some bolters, if both meltas wound, then two SM are dead under the simple rules and the last three have to roll armor saves from the rest of the hits, but if I score more than 5 wounds total, then under the complex unit rules only one SM dies from the meltas and the rest of the wounds get distributed around with the first wound of each block of 5 going on the already melta BBQed SM. Four saving rolls vs. three saving rolls.

 

Second of all, which situation is more common: That a unit will suffer enough wounds to force a player to allocate some to valuable special models, or that a unit will suffer so many wounds that it will statistically fail so many saves that every model could be removed? Well, in case of Orks or Guardsmen the two are not far apart in numbers, but in case of Space Marines the latter is less common.

 

Depends on size of the target and how much smack down you are delivering to it. Of course, with the larger model units there are relatively less special units to worry about. Also, any template weapons appear to tend to do a larger number of hits against larger units normally because they are more tightly packed. Of course, some of this escalates if you take more than one shot at a unit because casualties start piling on the numbers.

 

In the case we are discussing it only takes 5 wounds to force each model (or model type) to make their saving throw(s).

 

The entire point of the complex unit wound allocation rules is not to have a unit be more resistant to an excessive number of wounds suffered. The point of that rule is to make special models vulnerable to higher numbers of wounds suffered.

 

Yep, but the effect is that the unit can be made more resistant to higher numbers of wounds by piling on straight model kills (say, power sword hits with no invulnerable save) in a simple unit onto a few models in a complex unit. Yes, it does give a chance in some situations to get an occasional special model kill, but it balances by more resilient units.

[Legatus]

You mean easier without saves? To make the math work, you need 15 wounds on SM to get 5 wounds through with AP4 or greater weapons.

My example was really very simple. You have 5 Marines, one of which has a special weapon (or in the one scenario, being the only one with a full combi-weapon). That squad now suffers 5 wounds. You now take 5 saves. Do that 30 times. How often does the special weapon in the 5 man squad die? How often does the full combi-weapon among the empty combi-weapons die?

 

 

Yep, but the effect is that the unit can be made more resistant to higher numbers of wounds by piling on straight model kills (say, power sword hits with no invulnerable save) in a simple unit onto a few models in a complex unit. Yes, it does give a chance in some situations to get an occasional special model kill, but it balances by more resilient units.

Then anotehr question of "how common". How common are units that are not already complex units even without distinguishing between empty and full combi-weapons?

[Algesan]

You mean easier without saves? To make the math work, you need 15 wounds on SM to get 5 wounds through with AP4 or greater weapons.

My example was really very simple. You have 5 Marines, one of which has a special weapon (or in the one scenario, being the only one with a full combi-weapon). That squad now suffers 5 wounds. You now take 5 saves. Do that 30 times. How often does the special weapon in the 5 man squad die? How often does the full combi-weapon among the empty combi-weapons die?

 

I can model the statistics if you want to, but see below first since IMO, this is a dead letter. Between Brother Ramses and others comments, as well as a somewhat heated discussion I had yesterday with two 40k players face to face. You are correct in some of your points and I was wrong on some of mine, but I think we can close this out as an ambiguous rule.

 

Caveat: This depends on GW changing the situation from a FAQ ruling.

 

Yep, but the effect is that the unit can be made more resistant to higher numbers of wounds by piling on straight model kills (say, power sword hits with no invulnerable save) in a simple unit onto a few models in a complex unit. Yes, it does give a chance in some situations to get an occasional special model kill, but it balances by more resilient units.

Then anotehr question of "how common". How common are units that are not already complex units even without distinguishing between empty and full combi-weapons?

 

Actually not very common at all, although IMO, it is technically more common that you will see on a gaming board, especially with some older codex units. The reason is it would be silly to buy something like a Battle Sister squad without upgrading the SGT (Sister Superior) to a model with a different stat line (Veteran Sister Superior), but here is what the situation boils down to:

 

pg 24 Remove Casualties

"As long as all the models in the unit have the same profile, special rules, weapons and wargear, the player who owns the unit can choose which of his models is removed."

 

pg 25 Complex Units

"..., assume that ll the models in the target unit are identical in game terms. By this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear."

 

Okay, that is the exact RAW definition of identical units and ambiguously the same in both places.

 

So, there are only four possible ways to count things as different and therefore subject to complex unit rules:

1) Different stat line: which means an IC, SGT/Champ or any other special character in most cases. In a few cases (Sternguard is one), the SGT has the exact same stat line which means this case does not apply for those units.

 

2) Different special rules: AFAIK, this would only apply when adding a special character in with a unit, but does account for a special character with the same stat line as the rest of the squad.

 

3) Different Weapon: Obvious one and actually the point of contention. The killer for the "they are different" crowd is that I have not found any (I mean zero, zilch, zip, nada) entry for weapon-X (expended). So guess what, it doesn't matter if they are expended or unexpended one-shot munitions, the existence of a different weapon profile on a starting model makes the unit complex.

 

Note: Obviously, if you have a squad of 7x bolter/CCW, 1xHF, 1xMelta, 1x SGT (with an extra attack), then if the HF, Melta and SGT all become casualties, then the unit will fall under the simple rules at any further point after the third one dies.

 

4) Different Wargear: Again obvious, but this does cover the bases since some codexes use either Weapons or Wargear in different places. This is the same as 3) above, but removes wiggle room.

 

Okay, dropping the HK missile example (discussion is not relevant for vehicles), this does mean that your other example of an IG with a demo charge will make the entire squad complex, whether you want it to or not, whether it is expended or not until that model dies. Why? It has a weapon/wargear entry of "demo charge" and while "demo charge" may be in the state of expended/unexpended, that is not a distinction available for weapons/wargear. Therefore, a model with weapon/wargear-X is different as long as it is on the board, regardless of whether or not the item is useful or not.

 

Interestingly enough, we'd been ignoring the stat line while playing here in the very few cases where the troops and the SGT had different stat lines but the same wargear. That is an error.

 

Bottom line, RAW and from the way this is the simplest interpretation, requiring nothing from outside the rulebook, by Occam's Razor, this is RAI. So, it doesn't matter if the combi-X are expended or unexpended, in terms of targeting the models are all the same. The unit would roll as a simple unit and the defender would pull his choice of models.

 

NOTE: They would all have to be the same combi variant. Combi-melta and combi-flamer have different entries and are therefore different weapons.

[Legatus]

this does mean that your other example of an IG with a demo charge will make the entire squad complex, whether you want it to or not

Whether a model that has expended it's "one use only" weapon then no longer counts as equipped with a different weapon is a separate discussion. The more important question is whether a used and an unused "one use only" are considered the same.

 

 

3) Different Weapon: Obvious one and actually the point of contention. The killer for the "they are different" crowd is that I have not found any (I mean zero, zilch, zip, nada) entry for weapon-X (expended). So guess what, it doesn't matter if they are expended or unexpended one-shot munitions, the existence of a different weapon profile on a starting model makes the unit complex.

First I want to point out that "starting properties" i.e. how you buy the model from the army list is completely irrelevant. What matters is what the models have or don't have at the moment you compare them. "As long as all the models in the unit have the same profile, special rules, weapons and wargear". Present tense. If half of the Marines in the squad get their boltguns snatched by sneaky grots, then they are obviously no longer armed like the rest of the squad.

 

Then I would like to point out that if a weapon's own entry describes that it may change properties during the game then you can end up with several versions of the weapon that are obviously not currently "the same". If the rule describes that a weapon might have different properties, then that's a defined qualifier. You don't just have Marines with combi-meltas. You have Marines with combi-meltas that can shoot and Marines with combi-meltas that cannot shoot. The rules for combi-meltas tell you that this will be the case. And that is not the same. It would have been nice of GW to state that a combi-melta that can no longer be used was different from an unused combi-melta, but as far as I am concerned it would have been somewhat redundant.

[thade]

First I want to point out that "starting properties" i.e. how you buy the model from the army list is completely irrelevant. What matters is what the models have or don't have at the moment you compare them. "As long as all the models in the unit have the same profile, special rules, weapons and wargear". Present tense. If half of the Marines in the squad get their boltguns snatched by sneaky grots, then they are obviously no longer armed like the rest of the squad.

 

What it boils down to is whether the weapon in question is still a combi-melta after the melta's one-use is discharged, or if it becomes a (is reduced to) a standard boltgun. RAW, there is no clear answer to this.

 

That said, after 10 pages and taking up the opposite side of things, I believe I agree with the sentiment that the weapon is no longer a combi- after the one-shot is used; reason being is that this would still put other combi-weapons in the unit at risk when shots are taken and not give them an effective retinue. Putting upgrades at risk during wound allocation is a core element of the game, and retinues are still in the process of being phased out (retinues being a previous core element that allow the player to skirt around risking upgrades). I think RAI things are pretty clear; that fresh, unused combi-melta is functionally different from used combi-meltas, and so it should be at risk when the unit comes under heavy fire. That's how the game is designed now, after all.

[Arikel]

What it boils down to is whether the weapon in question is still a combi-melta after the melta's one-use is discharged, or if it becomes a (is reduced to) a standard boltgun. RAW, there is no clear answer to this.

 

That said, after 10 pages and taking up the opposite side of things, I believe I agree with the sentiment that the weapon is no longer a combi- after the one-shot is used; reason being is that this would still put other combi-weapons in the unit at risk when shots are taken and not give them an effective retinue. Putting upgrades at risk during wound allocation is a core element of the game, and retinues are still in the process of being phased out (retinues being a previous core element that allow the player to skirt around risking upgrades). I think RAI things are pretty clear; that fresh, unused combi-melta is functionally different from used combi-meltas, and so it should be at risk when the unit comes under heavy fire. That's how the game is designed now, after all.

 

 

Oddly enough thade, this thread has convinced me that a hunter killer missile still needs to be destroyed after the vehicle has fired it, but that's probably just me I'm thinking. I dropped out much earlier in this thread because the same argument has gone through for 10 pages now, and basically boils down to preference. Both ways of allocating will give risk to the used and unused combi meltas, and neither way is more correct than the other.

[thade]

Both ways of allocating will give risk to the used and unused combi meltas, and neither way is more correct than the other.

 

There is one fundamental difference. Consider a unit with two combi-melta mariness and two bolter-carrying marines, and one of the combi-meltas has already used his one-shot. The unit takes four wounds which it must allocate and save for.

 

CASE 1: Used combi-melta is still a combi melta. We've got two groups, a combi- group and a non combi-group, each group is allocated two wounds. We roll saves for the combi- guys and fail one. Which model would you remove? See, there is a hidden benefit here, as your still-functional combi-melta has an ablative wound...he was at less risk.

 

CASE 2: Used combi-melta is a boltgun now. We've got two groups, again, a combi- and non-combi group...only this time the combi- group has only one model in it. If he fails his save, he dies.

 

So there it is; one rule gives you an advantage, the other does not. As the advantage (however small) revolves around whether a weapon is subject to risk due to wound allocation, and the new ruleset is all about just that (putting weapon upgrades at risk due to wound alloc), I feel this must have been their intention: CASE 2 here is very likely correct.

[Algesan]

Whether a model that has expended it's "one use only" weapon then no longer counts as equipped with a different weapon is a separate discussion. The more important question is whether a used and an unused "one use only" are considered the same.

 

Same discussion, I don't see anywhere in the rulebook or FAQs where the model is considered different.

 

First I want to point out that "starting properties" i.e. how you buy the model from the army list is completely irrelevant. What matters is what the models have or don't have at the moment you compare them. "As long as all the models in the unit have the same profile, special rules, weapons and wargear". Present tense. If half of the Marines in the squad get their boltguns snatched by sneaky grots, then they are obviously no longer armed like the rest of the squad.

 

Nice example, except the rules don't allow for boltgun snatching by sneaky grots. Even using present tense, whether or not the melta shot is expended or not, the models are still armed with combi-meltas. Do you have anywhere in the rules that state differently?

 

Then I would like to point out that if a weapon's own entry describes that it may change properties during the game then you can end up with several versions of the weapon that are obviously not currently "the same". If the rule describes that a weapon might have different properties, then that's a defined qualifier. You don't just have Marines with combi-meltas. You have Marines with combi-meltas that can shoot and Marines with combi-meltas that cannot shoot. The rules for combi-meltas tell you that this will be the case. And that is not the same. It would have been nice of GW to state that a combi-melta that can no longer be used was different from an unused combi-melta, but as far as I am concerned it would have been somewhat redundant.

 

And in both cases, the models in question are still armed with combi-meltas. Same weapon, same wargear. Note that your "difference" that you are parsing out comes from the description of one (1) weapon and there is no mention of a change in weapon whether or not its one shot use has been expended. If the weapon is not different in the rules, then it isn't a different weapons no matter how many menstruations we go through.

 

Yes, it would be extremely nice if GW would do a quick Q&A edit on one of the FAQs, but they have not, so RAW make them the same weapon for casualty purposes. What you are doing is technically known as eisegesis, which is interpreting the text while inserting your own ideas into it. Nowhere in the strict RAW is there any support for this.

[Algesan]

What it boils down to is whether the weapon in question is still a combi-melta after the melta's one-use is discharged, or if it becomes a (is reduced to) a standard boltgun. RAW, there is no clear answer to this.

 

Actually, Brother Ramses stated the case correctly. RAW, there is one and only one entry for combi-x, therefore it doesn't matter if it is expended or unexpended, it is still the same weapon. Same weapon = Same profile for casualty purposes.

 

That said, after 10 pages and taking up the opposite side of things, I believe I agree with the sentiment that the weapon is no longer a combi- after the one-shot is used; reason being is that this would still put other combi-weapons in the unit at risk when shots are taken and not give them an effective retinue. Putting upgrades at risk during wound allocation is a core element of the game, and retinues are still in the process of being phased out (retinues being a previous core element that allow the player to skirt around risking upgrades). I think RAI things are pretty clear; that fresh, unused combi-melta is functionally different from used combi-meltas, and so it should be at risk when the unit comes under heavy fire. That's how the game is designed now, after all.

 

Heh, I actually wouldn't call it a core element when you still have to put enough hits on the unit to get any risk at all. Otherwise it would be random dice for which model in a unit got hit rather than unit owner selects. I'd lean more towards it being a mechanic that while it allows some chance for "special" characters to take wounds, it also increases the survivability of the unit, making it more resilient to damage. See one of my earlier posts where a five model simple unit rolls ten saves and takes five unsaved wounds and is dead, but a five model complex unit only has a small chance of dying, like about 2%, whereas there is a ~59% chance that two models will survive.

 

Of course, while retinues do help distribute risk, simply joining any squad for most ICs will do the same thing. I'd say that retinues were a nice way to get an extra elite choice in large point games.

[InquisitorHayn]

Perhaps this is somewhat of an oversimplification for all those who hold even the lowliest comma to the highest quality standards, but it seems to me as if the argument is over whether or not a gun remains a gun once you've run out of bullets. As far as the rules on it being empty, they don't change the listing of the wargear, only whether it can be fired again. If you can swing the gun like a bat, you still have it. Pinch yourself, if you must, to make sure it's not a dream. To quote a rather intelligent sig...

Do you use the number on the bottom of the die to determine your rolls? because the book doesn't discuss that the top is the correct side to read, either. some things are just THAT obvious.

[Algesan]

Both ways of allocating will give risk to the used and unused combi meltas, and neither way is more correct than the other.

 

There is one fundamental difference. Consider a unit with two combi-melta mariness and two bolter-carrying marines, and one of the combi-meltas has already used his one-shot. The unit takes four wounds which it must allocate and save for.

 

CASE 1: Used combi-melta is still a combi melta. We've got two groups, a combi- group and a non combi-group, each group is allocated two wounds. We roll saves for the combi- guys and fail one. Which model would you remove? See, there is a hidden benefit here, as your still-functional combi-melta has an ablative wound...he was at less risk.

 

CASE 2: Used combi-melta is a boltgun now. We've got two groups, again, a combi- and non-combi group...only this time the combi- group has only one model in it. If he fails his save, he dies.

 

So there it is; one rule gives you an advantage, the other does not. As the advantage (however small) revolves around whether a weapon is subject to risk due to wound allocation, and the new ruleset is all about just that (putting weapon upgrades at risk due to wound alloc), I feel this must have been their intention: CASE 2 here is very likely correct.

 

CASE 2 requires a redefinition of "weapon" not present in the RAW. CASE 1 is the only one that fits the RAW.

 

Both cases give advantages and disadvantages from a gaming perspective. Case 1 makes the ablative wounds automatic, but allows for a lot higher chance of unit wipe from unsaved wounds. Case 2 allows low wound shots to have some possible chance of knocking out model X, but require a lot more shots to get more wounds to actually kill the unit.

[thade]

CASE 2 requires a redefinition of "weapon" not present in the RAW. CASE 1 is the only one that fits the RAW.

 

Again, the rules are not bulletproof which is why we're left with ambiguity here. It's true that a combi- is an upgrade (like a hunter killer missile), but once expended it makes no sense for it to form an effective "retinue" for the unit it's still a part of. That interpretation of the rules can at best gain you an unnecessary (and small) advantage, and at worst make somebody at your table angry.

 

Both cases give advantages and disadvantages from a gaming perspective. Case 1 makes the ablative wounds automatic, but allows for a lot higher chance of unit wipe from unsaved wounds. Case 2 allows low wound shots to have some possible chance of knocking out model X, but require a lot more shots to get more wounds to actually kill the unit.

 

Um, so allow me to try an over-simplified example to try and blow the benefit out of proportion so we can see it. Consider three models - the last three survivors in a sternguard squad. Two of the models have combi-meltas, one spent, one not; the third model has a boltgun. The unit takes three wounds for which it must save. No matter which case we use, each model has a save to make. For sake of argument, the marine with the boltgun will always fail is save. (Poor guy.)

 

In Case 1, the combi-meltas stand together. We roll their two saves as a batch and fail one. We remove, of course, the spent combi-. The unspent combi- had an effective retinue, and was at a very small risk.

 

In Case 2, the unspent combi-melta has a larger risk, as he has to take and make his own save...if he fails it, he's gone, there is no unspent combi- to discard for him.

 

So far the only things we've all be able to agree on are what Case 1 and Case 2 are; the relative advantages and disadvantages of each are helpful with regards to RAI, but RAW is a toss-up. Nothing in the rules-as-written makes any reference to whether a combi- loses it's "title" as a combi- once it loses it's ability to function as a combi. I'd recommend this for grey area/dice-off...but it seems to trivial I would literally handle it by asking my opponent "What would you have me do?" And I'd go with whatever he or she thought, off-the-cuff, was fair.

 

Why? Because the advantage is tiny and the game is more challenging for me if I lose that unused combi-melta anyway.

[Grey Mage]

3) Different Weapon: Obvious one and actually the point of contention. The killer for the "they are different" crowd is that I have not found any (I mean zero, zilch, zip, nada) entry for weapon-X (expended). So guess what, it doesn't matter if they are expended or unexpended one-shot munitions, the existence of a different weapon profile on a starting model makes the unit complex.

 

Note: Obviously, if you have a squad of 7x bolter/CCW, 1xHF, 1xMelta, 1x SGT (with an extra attack), then if the HF, Melta and SGT all become casualties, then the unit will fall under the simple rules at any further point after the third one dies.

By this logic my Wolf Gaurd are invulnerable.

 

Their starting traits have them as part of a pack that by the time theyre shot at no longer exists. There is no unit entry for Grey Hunters with Wolf Guard.

 

Simple Fact: Things change during the course of the game, and we must adjust as they do. Wounds are most common, leadership values not uncomon at all. The presence or lack of a weapon is not based on what you have at the start of the game because nowhere in the rules does it state that.

 

If you want RAW- its the gear they currently have.

[Legatus]

Nice example, except the rules don't allow for boltgun snatching by sneaky grots. Even using present tense, whether or not the melta shot is expended or not, the models are still armed with combi-meltas. Do you have anywhere in the rules that state differently?

I have rules stating that the two combi-meltas may very well not be identical.

 

 

And in both cases, the models in question are still armed with combi-meltas. (...) If the weapon is not different in the rules (...)

I for one remain utterly unconvinced that a weapon that can fire a Strength 8, AP 1 melta shot is the same as another weapon that can only fire Strength 4 AP 5 rapid fire. As I have been saying for a few pages, in their rules these two weapons are extremely different. They are "the same" in name and fluff only, but I have also tried to point out that names and fluff are usually irrelevant for two wepaons to be considered "the same". There are weapons that look and work apparently the same in fluff, but they get different rules in the game and are thus not considered the same. And there are weapons that are apparently working on a different principle or have a very different shape but use the same rules and thus are considered the same. So apparently how a weapon is called, how it is shaped or how it works in fluff is all irrelevant, and all that matters it how that weapon works in the game. And in a turn where one combi-melta is empty and one is ready to use, these two weapons do not work the same at all.

[Algesan]

By this logic my Wolf Gaurd are invulnerable.

 

Their starting traits have them as part of a pack that by the time theyre shot at no longer exists. There is no unit entry for Grey Hunters with Wolf Guard.

 

Simple Fact: Things change during the course of the game, and we must adjust as they do. Wounds are most common, leadership values not uncomon at all. The presence or lack of a weapon is not based on what you have at the start of the game because nowhere in the rules does it state that.

 

If you want RAW- its the gear they currently have.

 

Okay, I don't have the SW codex, so I'm unaware of any special interaction that a Wolf Guard might have with Grey Hunters in a squad (or pack). Looking in the army reference in the rulebook, it looks like a Wolf Guard has the same stat line as a Veteran SM Sergeant, which means if your Wolf Guard is simply the "Sergeant" for a Grey Hunter unit, then by himself, without any other changes, he makes the unit complex. Same case applies if the Wolf Guard is a HQ unit and has the ability to buy a retinue of Grey Hunters (as it would for any other HQ with the ability to have a retinue). The rules I quoted above referenced the "profile", and the Wolf Guard has a different one that Grey Hunters. Feel free to amplify your example if I am mistaken in my assumption that a Wolf Guard is just the enhanced leader of a squad.

 

Yes, things change during the game, but I don't see anywhere in the rules about casualties where that is to be taken into consideration for determining simple or complex units.

 

In fact, using your example of wounds "changing" the profile, the rules for multiple model units of multi-wound models notes that if they are not different in game terms (which is the definition I'm using), then the unit is rolled for as a whole with the special rule that all wounds must be taken in a way to remove the most units (you cannot have more than one "wounded" model). Directly, there is no justification for a unit of five 2-wound models with four being unwounded and one having one wound being treated any differently than any other unit. Despite the "changed" profile you use for justification (one model is now a "1-wound" profile), the model is considered the same as all the other models in the unit in game terms as long as they are the same in the other three criteria.

 

So, this is an example, and as you note a common one, of something "changed" from the four criteria given to define model differences in game terms, but it is totally irrelevant to taking casualties as a unit, despite the "expended" wound.

 

The gear they currently have is the gear they came with. Even if we bring up the demo charge thing again (which has the best justification), as long as the unit was bought with combi-x then the models are still armed with combi-x, even if they cannot shoot them right now.

[Legatus]

Yes, things change during the game, but I don't see anywhere in the rules about casualties where that is to be taken into consideration for determining simple or complex units.

I am not sure that's what you mean, but the rules for comparing models to determine whether the unit is complex tell you to compare current state attributes and equipment of the models.

 

 

In fact, using your example of wounds "changing" the profile

Wounds are the most common, and are even expected to change during teh course of a game, pther than the rest of a model's profile which is mostly expected to stay the same. But that is why there is a specific rule describing how units with multi wound models are handled for teh purpose of removing casualties.

 

There are, however, other ways a model's stats may be altered. Witch Hunters have a psychic powers that permanently reduces a model's Leadership value for the rest of the game, for example. Commander Dante can reduce an independent Character's stats for the entire game. Both of these could not be used on units and only on characters, but it is possible to field teh same character model twice (like two Captains or two Librarians) and have them form a small unit of independent characters or have them both join the same unit. If the two characters had the same equipment, they would be considered identical and would be treated as a single group for wound allocation. But if one of the characters had it's stats lowered by the Witch Hunters power or Dante he would obviously no longer be considered identical, as their stats would now not be the same.

 

 

The gear they currently have is the gear they came with. Even if we bring up the demo charge thing again (which has the best justification), as long as the unit was bought with combi-x then the models are still armed with combi-x, even if they cannot shoot them right now.

It is not the model that is unable to shoot the combi-weapon, it is the combi-weapon that cannot be shot. A Captain would still be a Captain, even if he had his stats lowered by Dante or by the Witch Hunter power. Yet he would be different from another Captain even if that one was otherwise equipped the same. In the case of a combi-weapon that has already been fired and one that has not, both are still combi-weapons, but one is a combi-weapon that can be fired and one is a combi-weapon that cannot be fired, so they are not the same.

 

Two weapons are not the same if they do not do the same thing, even if they are called the same and look the same. That is the core of the argument we are making.

 

 

Take a simple boltgun.

 

- Marine 1 has a Boltgun

 

- Marine 2 has a Boltgun

 

--> Both Marines have the same weapon.

 

 

- Marine 1 has a Boltgun

 

- Marine 2 has an empty Boltgun and cannot shoot during the game

 

--> These two Marines are armed differently. Even though both have a "Boltgun", the two weapons are described differently and work differently in the game.

 

 

There are no rules for empty boltguns. But there are rules for empty combi-weapons.

[Algesan]

Again, the rules are not bulletproof which is why we're left with ambiguity here. It's true that a combi- is an upgrade (like a hunter killer missile), but once expended it makes no sense for it to form an effective "retinue" for the unit it's still a part of. That interpretation of the rules can at best gain you an unnecessary (and small) advantage, and at worst make somebody at your table angry.

 

Emphasis added.

 

Those two are probably why I would actually solve the issue (if it came up) the same way you would over a gaming table, although if it was at a LGS or regular grouping, I'd push for an official house ruling on it. Truth, it is a bit trivial to argue over right before a game and it depends on the army builds, tactical situation, etc. as to which way gives the minor benefits of either position to which player.

 

The bold bit is the biggest reason to let it go at a gaming table (or call for higher authority if appropriate). I actually had all the various "the weapon changed" lines used here by several of the posters thrown at me in a few hours by a couple of vet players. With vehemence. In fact, the "make somebody at your table angry" bit generally points to somebody being indignant because they are wrong. It also provokes a parental response reflex in me which does not end well.

 

Since I'm not at a gaming table, I'm not being so pragmatic and I don't mind dealing with the issue with out having to worry about dealing with the issue I bolded.

 

Um, so allow me to try an over-simplified example to try and blow the benefit out of proportion so we can see it. Consider three models - the last three survivors in a sternguard squad. Two of the models have combi-meltas, one spent, one not; the third model has a boltgun. The unit takes three wounds for which it must save. No matter which case we use, each model has a save to make. For sake of argument, the marine with the boltgun will always fail is save. (Poor guy.)

 

In Case 1, the combi-meltas stand together. We roll their two saves as a batch and fail one. We remove, of course, the spent combi-. The unspent combi- had an effective retinue, and was at a very small risk.

 

In Case 2, the unspent combi-melta has a larger risk, as he has to take and make his own save...if he fails it, he's gone, there is no unspent combi- to discard for him.

 

So far the only things we've all be able to agree on are what Case 1 and Case 2 are; the relative advantages and disadvantages of each are helpful with regards to RAI, but RAW is a toss-up. Nothing in the rules-as-written makes any reference to whether a combi- loses it's "title" as a combi- once it loses it's ability to function as a combi. I'd recommend this for grey area/dice-off...but it seems to trivial I would literally handle it by asking my opponent "What would you have me do?" And I'd go with whatever he or she thought, off-the-cuff, was fair.

 

Why? Because the advantage is tiny and the game is more challenging for me if I lose that unused combi-melta anyway.

 

I'm leaning for RAW being what is said. If there is no mention of a special case, then there is no special case. Tada, a model with a combi-x is equipped with a combi-x whether or not the shot has been fired.

 

Looking at the flip side, the response could also be:

Why? Because the advantage is tiny and the game is more challenging for me if I have to deal with that unused combi-melta anyway.

[thade]

I'm leaning for RAW being what is said. If there is no mention of a special case, then there is no special case. Tada, a model with a combi-x is equipped with a combi-x whether or not the shot has been fired.

 

Looking at the flip side, the response could also be:

Why? Because the advantage is tiny and the game is more challenging for me if I have to deal with that unused combi-melta anyway.

 

I'm perfectly okay with this as a solution too. Frankly, I'm shocked that this debate has gone on for so long over so small a thing.

 

I say just play it whichever way you think seems right to you, and if your opponent calls you on it, shrug and play it the other way. Point them to this thread if they're not satisfied by that. :D You all should be, after ten pages. <3

 

EDIT: typoz

[Algesan]

I have rules stating that the two combi-meltas may very well not be identical.

 

Where? In the wargear description of the combi-melta?

 

I for one remain utterly unconvinced that a weapon that can fire a Strength 8, AP 1 melta shot is the same as another weapon that can only fire Strength 4 AP 5 rapid fire. As I have been saying for a few pages, in their rules these two weapons are extremely different. They are "the same" in name and fluff only, but I have also tried to point out that names and fluff are usually irrelevant for two wepaons to be considered "the same". There are weapons that look and work apparently the same in fluff, but they get different rules in the game and are thus not considered the same. And there are weapons that are apparently working on a different principle or have a very different shape but use the same rules and thus are considered the same. So apparently how a weapon is called, how it is shaped or how it works in fluff is all irrelevant, and all that matters it how that weapon works in the game. And in a turn where one combi-melta is empty and one is ready to use, these two weapons do not work the same at all.

 

The different rules for the weapons are what make them different weapons in wargear lists.

 

If they were able to have two melta shots a game, would you consider them different weapons if some had one shot left and some had two?

 

thade has made the best resolution for over a gaming table and the one I'd use, even if it results in an absolutely incorrect reading of the rules. The issue is trivial, has advantages for different situations and armies and it isn't worth hearing all the hue and cry over it.

 

In fact, the hue and cry factor is one reason that I'll probably never really get into the Necrons using the current codex.

 

 

If you want a reason why, consider the differences in the wording between the 4th and 5th ed rules on Sweeping Advance. For 5th, the critical bit is the last sentence of the first bullet point when compared with the WBB rule in the Necron codex.

 

If you think I'm reading that one funny, perhaps you should consider why in 4th it was specifically prohibited...

 

[thade]

Legatus and Algesan, I'd like to e-shake your hands for bashing this around with me...even if it did just come down to the following solution:

 

*shrug* *drink* *play on*

[Legatus]

If they were able to have two melta shots a game, would you consider them different weapons if some had one shot left and some had two?

I guess I would, because the implications for removing the one or the other would be different. In such cases you usually have to keep track of the number of shot's such a model has fired, so as to be able to distinguish them.

 

 

I think the way weapons are classified can best be described as using "qualifiers" that make a difference. I have mentioned that this is what being empty or not being empty does for a combi-weapon, but perhaps I should elaborate on the concept.

 

There are different versions of "boltguns" in the game. They are all "boltguns", but they have different rules and would be considered different weapons. What makes them different is not that they aren't all boltguns, it is detaily like added upgrades or the use of different ammunition. All of them add qualifiers to the "boltgun" and make it a different weapon in the game.

 

 

Boltgun

This weapon has 24" range, S4, AP5 and is a 'Rapid Fire' weapon.

 

Boltgun with Hellfire Rounds

This weapon has 24" range, SX, AP5 and is a 'Rapid Fire' and a 'Poison (2+)' weapon.

 

Boltgun with targeter and silenced shells

Also known as 'Stalker Pattern Boltgun', this weapon has 36" range, S4, AP5 and is a 'Heavy 2' and a 'Rending' and 'Pinning' weapon.

 

Boltgun with M.40 targeter with auto-sense link and Stalker silenced shells

From the old Deathwatch rules. This weapon has 24" range, S4, AP5 and is a 'Heavy 2' and a 'Pinning' weapon.

 

 

They are all "boltguns", but they are all different weapons in the game. They are Boltguns with differen qualifiers. Those mostly have to do with different kinds of ammunition, but often have to do with added targeters as well.

 

In case of combi-weapons, you can have combi-weapons with special weapon ammunition and combi-weapons without special weapon ammunition.

[Algesan]

I guess I would, because the implications for removing the one or the other would be different. In such cases you usually have to keep track of the number of shot's such a model has fired, so as to be able to distinguish them.

 

 

I think the way weapons are classified can best be described as using "qualifiers" that make a difference. I have mentioned that this is what being empty or not being empty does for a combi-weapon, but perhaps I should elaborate on the concept.

 

There are different versions of "boltguns" in the game. They are all "boltguns", but they have different rules and would be considered different weapons. What makes them different is not that they aren't all boltguns, it is detaily like added upgrades or the use of different ammunition. All of them add qualifiers to the "boltgun" and make it a different weapon in the game.

 

 

Boltgun

This weapon has 24" range, S4, AP5 and is a 'Rapid Fire' weapon.

 

Boltgun with Hellfire Rounds

This weapon has 24" range, SX, AP5 and is a 'Rapid Fire' and a 'Poison (2+)' weapon.

 

Boltgun with targeter and silenced shells

Also known as 'Stalker Pattern Boltgun', this weapon has 36" range, S4, AP5 and is a 'Heavy 2' and a 'Rending' and 'Pinning' weapon.

 

Boltgun with M.40 targeter with auto-sense link and Stalker silenced shells

From the old Deathwatch rules. This weapon has 24" range, S4, AP5 and is a 'Heavy 2' and a 'Pinning' weapon.

 

 

They are all "boltguns", but they are all different weapons in the game. They are Boltguns with differen qualifiers. Those mostly have to do with different kinds of ammunition, but often have to do with added targeters as well.

 

In case of combi-weapons, you can have combi-weapons with special weapon ammunition and combi-weapons without special weapon ammunition.

 

With the difference being for the RAW advocates, they each have (or did have I'd guess on the last example) a different wargear entry. For example, the first one I spotted on your list was the Hellfire rounds where the SM Codex says "If a model carries hellfire rounds, replace their boltgun's profile ..."

 

This signifies a change in the profile in gaming terms under the definitions given twice in the rules on targeting units, whereas there is no such change under the combi-weapon entry.

 

In this specific instance, fluff descriptions support no differentiation, because we are talking about a simple long arm weapon without special attachments, tanks of fuel, belts of ammo, etc. beyond the combi attachment. It can be just snatched up by one of the models that formerly had expended its shot. RAI support this also.

 

1) The rules state that cover applies to any non-vehicle model if even one small part of the main model is behind the cover from the LOS of the shooter because the models are assumed to be using the cover (by ducking or whatever).

 

2) Models in the same unit do not block each others LOS because they are considered to be "shifting" around some to get a clear LOS between themselves and their target (works in the real world with infantry tactics for about a century or so).

 

3) If you pop a template of any sort over this same unit, covering only the two models with unexpended combi weapons (or two models with any specific weapons/wargear) and score two wounds with both failing their armor saves, then any two in the unit can be pulled, not just the ones under the template.

 

In all of these cases, there is some official wiggle room built into the RAW to cover odd situations like this one.

 

Bottom Line: Thade is correct about one thing, across the table, the point is so minuscule in game terms (oh yeah, it might win or lose you one game) over the long term, that it isn't worth getting upset about when you are lining up your models at the gaming table.

 

I'm perfectly okay with this as a solution too. Frankly, I'm shocked that this debate has gone on for so long over so small a thing.

 

Heh, it is often the small things that cause the most debate. Not that small things cannot be important (as in "for want of a nail"), but in this case, the game isn't worth the candle when it is time to play. It is interesting for me for other reasons because I'm leaning how to swim in new waters with rules designed for the anal retentive. I do have to give GW a bit more credit than I was in one area, but they lost some in another because this is something that would have taken a couple of minutes to FAQ and put on the Net. I'm not even going to get into the silliness I found about the BT, where GW did answer a question, but only in the German language FAQ, not in English. DOH!

 

It about blew my mind when I was first lurking around and read a poster with many posts and apparently well respected as knowledgeable about 40k rules who decided a question between codex vs rulebook as: you always go with the ruling that is most restrictive to you.

 

IOW, what helps your opponent.

 

I'm probably going to run into something actually serious in the next tabletop game game I play, where it was claimed a 5th ed codex for another army trumped my 3d edition codex rules for wargear and units. Then when I pointed out the "codex rules rule" rule, I was told that house rules rule. That one is going to be fun and that game is worth the candle. I plan on taking two army lists, the second having 2x point costs for my units and throwing it down and ask why we don't just make a house rule that all my units cost double since they want to messed up the RAW so badly.

 

In their defense, this is a tailor built partner army specifically designed to bend over the usual opposing lists, but I'm not forcing them to run the same old list over and over again, am I?

 

Legatus and Algesan, I'd like to e-shake your hands for bashing this around with me...even if it did just come down to the following solution:

 

*shrug* *drink* *play on*

 

Thanks, have fun.

[Legatus]

With the difference being for the RAW advocates, they each have (or did have I'd guess on the last example) a different wargear entry. For example, the first one I spotted on your list was the Hellfire rounds where the SM Codex says "If a model carries hellfire rounds, replace their boltgun's profile ..."

 

This signifies a change in the profile in gaming terms under the definitions given twice in the rules on targeting units, whereas there is no such change under the combi-weapon entry.

I would say being able to fire a S8 melta shot or only being able to fire S4 boltgun rapid fire is a difference in profile. Also, there is not a lot of difference between loading a Boltgun with different rounds, making it a different weapon, or taking away all ammunition for a weapon. You put different rounds in there, it now shoots differently. You take away all ammo, it now shoots differently (namely not at all).