Wound Allocation Question

[Legatus]

You would have to tally up the points cost as a combi-melta, which shows that even after fired, it is still treated as a combi-melta after it is used.

No it doesnt. The notion that if a model's status is altered during the game you would then somehow also have to retroactively lower it's point costs makes no sense at all. If a Librarian's Leadership value is reduced from 10 to 7 for the rest of the game via the "Purgatus" power, then his point costs are not adjusted because of that. But he sure as hell is not considered to have Leadership 10 from that point on.

If a Space Marine Captain is killed, his point costs are not reduced to zero (since he is dead, and all). But he is out of the game. There is no connection between the points you pay for a model and any status or property changes that model may be affected to during the game.

[ShinyRhino]

You would have to tally up the points cost as a combi-melta, which shows that even after fired, it is still treated as a combi-melta after it is used.

No it doesnt. The notion that if a model's status is altered during the game you would then somehow also have to retroactively lower it's point costs makes no sense at all. If a Librarian's Leadership value is reduced from 10 to 7 for the rest of the game via the "Purgatus" power, then his point costs are not adjusted because of that. But he sure as hell is not considered to have Leadership 10 from that point on.

If a Space Marine Captain is killed, his point costs are not reduced to zero (since he is dead, and all). But he is out of the game. There is no connection between the points you pay for a model and any status or property changes that model may be affected to during the game.

 

His point, however, was that "a combimelta is a combimelta is a combimelta."

Defining a "spent combimelta" and a "loaded combimelta" is akin to inventing wargear in your codex. There is no definition in any 40K rulebook anywhere that gives a definition of a spent or loaded combimelta. The only definition that exists is "combimelta", whch is a bolter that has the potential to fire a single melta shot, once per game.

 

Personally, I don't care how my opponent allocates it. If he splits into more than one wound grouping based on expended/unexpended, I have the potential to wipe out all of the models in one group, while plinking at the other with overflow. If he keeps it as one group, I have the same potential, except this time he gets to pick which model dies after the save is failed. Honestly, it's VERY unlikely to matter. A smart opponent will always put all the hardest saves (or instakill/no-save wounds) on the least valuable models.

 

This discussion has firmly landed in the "Grey Area". There are no concrete RAWs to support EITHER side, so the resultis a "yah ha!...nuh uh!" debate where you chase each others' tails. Chalk it up to a grey area, and roll off.

[Legatus]

There is no definition in any 40K rulebook anywhere that gives a definition of a spent or loaded combimelta.

According to it's description in the Codex Space Marines: "The bolter can be fired every turn, but the secondary weapon can only be fired once per battle" That tells you that there is a substantial difference between a combi-weapon that hasn't fired the special shot yet and one that has. The difference being that one can still fire a special shot, while the other cannot. It means you have to keep track of which combi-weapon has been fired. That is a clear distinction between those combi-weapons that have been fired and those that haven't right there.

[ShinyRhino]

There is no definition in any 40K rulebook anywhere that gives a definition of a spent or loaded combimelta.

According to it's description in the Codex Space Marines: "The bolter can be fired every turn, but the secondary weapon can only be fired once per battle" That tells you that there is a substantial difference between a combi-weapon that hasn't fired the special shot yet and one that has. The difference being that one can still fire a special shot, while the other cannot. It means you have to keep track of which combi-weapon has been fired. That is a clear distinction between those combi-weapons that have been fired and those that haven't right there.

 

I can agree with that. Problem becomes enforcing that. If done on a model-by-model basis, you now have to have little markers scattered around the squad. Folks like those little glass life counter beads, but they are indiscriminate. Which one belongs to which model? It gets confusing, especially after moving models around. The arguyments over whch belongs to which can get just as out-of-hand as this one over wound allocation, especially in a critical range measurement.

I've seenit suggested that instead you simply keep track of how many of the combis have fired, but then you can cheat on range by saying all the models in range are still armed with combis.

It's a sticky vortex of chits, chads, beans, and beads!

 

It still boils down to a Grey Area rule you should discuss with your opponent before the game, if you use a large number of combis in a single unit in your force.

[Grimtooth]

There is no definition in any 40K rulebook anywhere that gives a definition of a spent or loaded combimelta.

According to it's description in the Codex Space Marines: "The bolter can be fired every turn, but the secondary weapon can only be fired once per battle" That tells you that there is a substantial difference between a combi-weapon that hasn't fired the special shot yet and one that has. The difference being that one can still fire a special shot, while the other cannot. It means you have to keep track of which combi-weapon has been fired. That is a clear distinction between those combi-weapons that have been fired and those that haven't right there.

 

And yet it is still a combi-melta, WHETHER or NOT, it has fired it's shot or not. You would still point at them as a squad of combi-meltas, which two have already used their melta shots. At the end of the game, if that unit was wiped out you would count the points up as a full squad of combi-meltas, not 3 combi-meltas and two boltguns. Which, as was mentioned, was my point, a combi is a combi is a combi.

 

The BRB specifically defines what "identical in gaming terms",

By this we mean that they have the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear.

 

That is the definition of "identical in gaming terms" is per the BRB. Not what you think is logical or what should be. A combi-weapon is still a combi-weapon whether fired or not.

[Legatus]

And yet it is still a combi-melta, WHETHER or NOT, it has fired it's shot or not.

That's like saying "a Space Marine is a Space Marine, no matter what weapon or wargear he is carrying". Sometimes you have further distinguishing criteria. In the case of combi-weapons their rules provide one.

 

You also have to realize that names are of only marginal relevance for the rules. Calgar's Gauntlets are equipped with "a pair of boltguns". But they fire with AP 2. I am sure you would not insist that this is to be considered for all intents and purposes to be a regular boltgun just like any other?

Sometimes names will be the same, but rules will not. What rules do "chain axes" use? Depends on whether you ask a Berserker or a Chaos Terminator. Then there are items that work the same, but have different titles. Dark Angel sepcial Character Ezekiel carries the "Deliverer", but that merely is a master crafted boltistol, nothing else.

 

The thing that I and a few opthers have tried to argue is that in game terms, a "fired combi-melta" is not identical to a "not yet fired combi-melta". It's rules describe that there is a difference. It can only be fired once. Therefor whether or not it has already been fired is a viable distinguishing factor between combi-meltas. So, no, a combi is not a combi is a combi.

 

And I stress agiain that whether a model has it's stats reduced or it's wargear stolen/destroyed during the game has absolutely NO bearing on it's initial point costs.

[Arikel]

I still prefer my own view(and indeed it is the easiest, least time consuming way in most cases), but it is a grey area as shinyrhino had pointed outand so it basically boils down to this quote I found on another blog today(attributed to nietzche)

 

“You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”

[Grimtooth]

The bolter can be fired every turn, but the secondary weapon can only be fired once per battle.

 

This quote from the Sm codex does not create a new piece of weapon/wargear however much you keep quoting it. After that entry is there a weapon/wargear entry for "combi-weapon, secondary weapon already fired"? Explanation of the operation of the weapon is now describing a completely new weapon?

 

The definition of "in gaming terms" is very clear in what it describes. You cannot point to a piece of wargear/weapon that is ""combi-weapon, secondary weapon already fired". You only have a model that has a combi-weapon, fired or not.

 

I keep bringing up the points cost not because what you are proposing is that you pay a set points cost for the model and once fired you change his points value via "creating" a new wargear/weapon that does not even exist in-game. You cannot point to this mythical new type of weapon because it does not exist. You can only point at a model that has a combi-weapon, per the rules in the BRB for what is defined as "in gaming terms", per the points cost you paid for the model, and per WYSIWYG.

[Grimtooth]

That's like saying "a Space Marine is a Space Marine, no matter what weapon or wargear he is carrying". Sometimes you have further distinguishing criteria. In the case of combi-weapons their rules provide one.

 

No it isn't saying that at all because the rules for defining models as identical in gaming terms is very specific,

 

By this we mean that they have the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear.

 

An example for weapons,

 

A Space Marine with a plasmagun is not a Space Marine with a bolter.

 

An example for wargear,

 

A Space Marine with melta bombs is not a Space Marine with krak grenades.

 

Marneus Calgar fires his "bolters" using a specifically given profile which is why you fire them at ap2, not the ap of a regular bolter . Please show me your "combi-weapon that has already fired it's secondary weapon" profile and you are golden.

 

The BRB nor does Codex SM differentiate between a combi-weapon that has been fired or a combi-weapon that hasn't been fired. The part of the rule you keep bringing up does not create a new piece of wargear/weapon. It tells you how to use the combi-weapon.

 

It doesn't tell you that once the secondary weapon is fired it becomes a bolter. If it did, you would be golden. It remains a combi-weapon, just not able to fire the secondary weapon. If the state of a weapon/wargear were included as part of the definition given in the BRB for "in gaming terms", you would be golden. However it doesn't. The model still has a combi-weapon, whether it has been fired or not.

[Legatus]

The bolter can be fired every turn, but the secondary weapon can only be fired once per battle.

This quote from the Sm codex does not create a new piece of weapon/wargear however much you keep quoting it.

It creates a very clear in-game distinction between a combi-weapon that has not fired and one that has. If it has not yet been fired, it can be fired. If it has been fired earlier, it cannot be fired. That is a difference. It is one you have to keep track of. Thus it is a distinguishing factor.

 

 

I keep bringing up the points cost not because what you are proposing is that you pay a set points cost for the model and once fired you change his points value via "creating" a new wargear/weapon that does not even exist in-game. You cannot point to this mythical new type of weapon because it does not exist. You can only point at a model that has a combi-weapon, per the rules in the BRB for what is defined as "in gaming terms", per the points cost you paid for the model, and per WYSIWYG.

I can point to a Librarian that loses three points of his Leadership. I can point to a Dark Eldar Archon whose shadow field is destroyed. I can point to a rhino firing it's hunter-killer missile. I can point to a leman russ battle tank which has it's battle cannon destroyed. I can point to an Imperial Guard sepcial weapon guardsman who throws his demolition charge. And I can point to a Marine who fires the single shot he has for the melta that is attached to his boltgun. These are all examples that would alter a model's game-term properties. After that the model or vehicle does not have the same characteristics, special rules, weapons or wargear it started with.

 

A Marine that has fired his combi-melta does not have the same weapon as a Marine that has not fired his combi-melta, because the rules make it clear that there is a difference between the two. It can only be fired once. That means once it has been fired, it can now not be fired anymore. "can fire"/"cannot fire". Those are not the same.

 

 

Heck, if you insist that a weapon that is now defunctional (the attached special weapon of a combi-weapon), still counts as teh same as a functional weapon, then see it as a difference in wargear, not weapons.

 

"This extra weapon carries only a limited charge, allowing the bearer a single shot, perfect for emergencies and shots of opportunity."

 

Well, if the Marine has fired his special weapon, he does not have that charge anymore, does he?

[Grey Mage]

There is no definition in any 40K rulebook anywhere that gives a definition of a spent or loaded combimelta.

According to it's description in the Codex Space Marines: "The bolter can be fired every turn, but the secondary weapon can only be fired once per battle" That tells you that there is a substantial difference between a combi-weapon that hasn't fired the special shot yet and one that has. The difference being that one can still fire a special shot, while the other cannot. It means you have to keep track of which combi-weapon has been fired. That is a clear distinction between those combi-weapons that have been fired and those that haven't right there.

 

And yet it is still a combi-melta, WHETHER or NOT, it has fired it's shot or not. You would still point at them as a squad of combi-meltas, which two have already used their melta shots. At the end of the game, if that unit was wiped out you would count the points up as a full squad of combi-meltas, not 3 combi-meltas and two boltguns. Which, as was mentioned, was my point, a combi is a combi is a combi.

 

The BRB specifically defines what "identical in gaming terms",

By this we mean that they have the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear.

 

That is the definition of "identical in gaming terms" is per the BRB. Not what you think is logical or what should be. A combi-weapon is still a combi-weapon whether fired or not.

Weapons- is exactly the issue. A weapon that can fire is not the same as a weapon that can no longer fire. Its really that simple.

[Grimtooth]

There is no definition in any 40K rulebook anywhere that gives a definition of a spent or loaded combimelta.

According to it's description in the Codex Space Marines: "The bolter can be fired every turn, but the secondary weapon can only be fired once per battle" That tells you that there is a substantial difference between a combi-weapon that hasn't fired the special shot yet and one that has. The difference being that one can still fire a special shot, while the other cannot. It means you have to keep track of which combi-weapon has been fired. That is a clear distinction between those combi-weapons that have been fired and those that haven't right there.

 

And yet it is still a combi-melta, WHETHER or NOT, it has fired it's shot or not. You would still point at them as a squad of combi-meltas, which two have already used their melta shots. At the end of the game, if that unit was wiped out you would count the points up as a full squad of combi-meltas, not 3 combi-meltas and two boltguns. Which, as was mentioned, was my point, a combi is a combi is a combi.

 

The BRB specifically defines what "identical in gaming terms",

By this we mean that they have the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear.

 

That is the definition of "identical in gaming terms" is per the BRB. Not what you think is logical or what should be. A combi-weapon is still a combi-weapon whether fired or not.

Weapons- is exactly the issue. A weapon that can fire is not the same as a weapon that can no longer fire. Its really that simple.

 

However, in the World of Warhammer 40k, we are not defining the "state" of combi-weapons, just that they are a combi-weapon. That is exactly how far the rule for defining identical models in game terms goes. To go any farther, you tread into RAI, not RAW.

 

Lets look at it in a practical real life situation,

 

When I was in the Marine Corps, there was a point in my tour that I carried this,

http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s89/Grimtooth_photos/M203-1.jpg

 

Now, if I ran out of ammunition for the M203 40mm grenade launcher attached to my M16, I STILL had an M203 grenade launcher attached to my M16. That is ALL the BRB cares about in regard to identical models with this definition,

 

By this we mean that they have the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear.

 

Now if you want to bring to light the combat effectiveness as a factor of having an M203 attached to my M16 without any 40mm ammunition to someone else that is carrying a M203 attached to their M16 that does have ammuntion, that is a valid argument. However, per the definition in the BRB, that doesn't matter. All the definition cares about is whether or not I am carrying a M203 attached to my M16.

 

Firing the combi-weapon does not change it from being a combi-weapon. Defining a combi-weapon as fired or not fired is you going to far with your interpretation in regard to what the rules specifically define as identical and what is not in regard to weapons on models.

[Grey Mage]

Sorry, but if were talking about your weapons- once your out of grenades, you can no longer fire them- your capabilities, your 'combat effectiveness" your "payload" or "loadout" is not identical to someone who has them still.

 

Once the combi-weapon has fire, its no longer the same as one that has not. To put it another way- it may look like a duck, but it sure doesnt walk like a duck or quack like a duck.

 

Two things that have any differences at all simply cannot be 'identical' by the very definition of the word.

 

Edit: I see where the confusion may be- your interpreting weapons as to being simply the title of the weapon. This is an assumption that is no more valid then the state of the weapon being just as paramount to the considerations of 'identical'.

[SeattleDV8]

Weapons- is exactly the issue. A weapon that can fire is not the same as a weapon that can no longer fire. Its really that simple.

 

Really, where in the rules is that stated?

Its not , so not so simple.

 

Identical in game terms

A- same profile

B-same special rules

C- same wargear

D-same weapon

 

Notice nothing and nowhere does the ability to fire come into this.

It is a moot point

 

Legatus "It creates a very clear in-game distinction between a combi-weapon that has not fired and one that has. If it has not yet been fired, it can be fired. If it has been fired earlier, it cannot be fired. That is a difference. It is one you have to keep track of. Thus it is a distinguishing factor. "

I agree, it is a 'distinguishing' factor, but it still does not meet the rules for an item that is 'identical in game terms'

Sorry but you have not proven that a fired combi-weapon is different from an unfired combi-weapon as per the rules.

Both are still the same weapon and so are 'identical in game terms'.

[Legatus]

I agree, it is a 'distinguishing' factor, but it still does not meet the rules for an item that is 'identical in game terms'

Sorry but you have not proven that a fired combi-weapon is different from an unfired combi-weapon as per the rules.

That a combi-weapon can only be fired once is a rule. That makes a fired and an unfired combi-weapon different as per it's own rules.

 

 

same weapon

In fluff terms or in the rules it has? That is the big question. Which one matters "in game terms"? That Calgar's boltgun is called a boltgun, or that it has AP2? I.e. is it the same weapon as a tactical Marine's weapon, or is it a different one for having different stats? Is a "combi-melta" the same as any other "combi-melta", even though one can be fired as a melta, while the other can only be fired as a boltgun?

[SeattleDV8]

In fluff terms or in the rules it has? That is the big question. Which one matters "in game terms"? That Calgar's boltgun is called a boltgun, or that it has AP2? I.e. is it the same weapon as a tactical Marine's weapon, or is it a different one for having different stats? Is a "combi-melta" the same as any other "combi-melta", even though one can be fired as a melta, while the other can only be fired as a boltgun?

Okay , stop with the Calgar's boltgun, those are the "Gauntlets of Ultramar" so they are not just boltguns.

Not the same as a normal boltgun , not even the same name and not a weapon, it is wargear.

That is the classic strawman argument.

Come on Legatus, you are much, MUCH better than this.

I always enjoy your debating style and logical manner.

 

I'm sorry but you not come up with a good RAW argument in this debate.

A good RAI or GAP argument , yes....well maybe....I don't really buy into it.

To me the RAW is clear and you have not disproved it, although there is a point to houseruling it.

[Algesan]

The best reason to go with the list as it was at the begining of the game is that it follows the KISS principle. There is no need to needlessly bog down the game by having models change profiles and equipment loadouts midway through and have to work out new wound allocation groups.

 

KISS is all well and good, but most of the time people want it complex, at least for wound allocation. That's why we've seen the sudden upswing of Nob Bikers and Thunderwolf Cavalry hitting the table. Multi-wound models with everyone as a separate wound group...I don't like it either, but that's what people are going for. Single wound models are just trying to get in on them game in some way.

 

True but the thing is that the nob with the kombi skorcha is always the nob with the kombi skorcha, whether it's been fired or not. Some people are trying to differentiate between the item being a loaded kombi skorcha or and unloaded one and then rearranging wound allocation groups mid game to gain some advantage. This is 1) Not clearly supported(yet unfortunately, not specifically negated) by the rules, 2) unsportsmanlike, and 3)adding unnecessary complexity to an already complex system.

 

Some people are trying to differentiate between the item being a loaded kombi skorcha or and unloaded one and then rearranging wound allocation groups mid game to gain some advantage. This is (...) 2) unsportsmanlike

As opposed to allocating wounds to your "combi-meltas", then removing those that have allready been fired for the failed saves, and thus not really losing any melta shots? That's totally what the rules for "complex units" were intended for... :o

 

KISS works real well and being reasonable works real well.

1) They are all the same combi weapons, i.e.-no reasonable way for your troops to pick out visually which ones are still loaded (unless you have a Vindicare on your side).

 

2) The rules still let me put the four troops with heavy weapons in the windows and when you score 4 (or less) wounds put them among the four vanilla bolter armed troops in the squad who are behind a wall and totally out of sight to make armor saves. Even if I blow all four saving throws, unless you have more to shoot at that squad, there are going to be four heavy weapons still shooting at you in my next shoot phase. This point may get to be a bit "tricky" for some since it relies on real world "fluffiness". If you shot my M-60 gunner or the guy with the spare LAW, etc. I can go right over there, take it over and keep using it if it is functional.

 

3) A lot of the rules for cover _depend_ on the assumption that models are "doing things" other than standing there on a round base. Real world "fluffiness".

 

4) I'd argue over a real heavy weapon for casualties (you know, the ones that need belts of ammo or tanks of fuel), but what is basically an assault rifle with a clipped on grenade launcher type thing with one shell in it that anyone can snatch up? Bzzzt, a little reality fluff is useful. Otherwise you will argue that charging through a doorway on a ruin model that doesn't have a base under it doesn't count as charging into cover and squeezing your troops one by one through the only door to assault the unit inside doesn't hamper you any more (by dropping to 1 Initiative) than charging the same unit standing in the middle of a freshly mowed golf green.

 

5) I'm still trying to figure out what the deal is. If you want to insure enough wounds, then hammer the crap out of them until they are gone. Period. I cannot conceive of a situation (except for hot dice and dice are dice) where it matters. If you have 3 or less wounds, then the owner will allocate them to the spent combis. His choice. If you get 3 wounds unsaved through, owner picks the models for the same reasons. Just figure you are going to have to do enough damage to kill 5 models, then that is the end of it.

 

Finally, if the game is hinging over whether or not you manage to kill a unexpended combi-melta armed model, roll the freaking dice and have fun. It isn't worth fighting over because you are down to luck anyway.

 

 

EDIT:

Sorry, but if were talking about your weapons- once your out of grenades, you can no longer fire them- your capabilities, your 'combat effectiveness" your "payload" or "loadout" is not identical to someone who has them still.

 

Once the combi-weapon has fire, its no longer the same as one that has not. To put it another way- it may look like a duck, but it sure doesnt walk like a duck or quack like a duck.

 

Two things that have any differences at all simply cannot be 'identical' by the very definition of the word.

 

Edit: I see where the confusion may be- your interpreting weapons as to being simply the title of the weapon. This is an assumption that is no more valid then the state of the weapon being just as paramount to the considerations of 'identical'.

 

Grey Mage, Brother Ramses has this one nailed. I made the example above that he provided pictures for when he did. True, after I'm out of grenade shells, I'm "not as combat effective", but if Brother Ramses is packing one with one up the spout (or some in his ammo pouches), if you killed him, it is well within game terms (and reality) for me to snatch up his rifle with extra weapon attached or grab some of his rounds (not applicable for the combi, but similar) out of his ammo pouch and regain full combat effectiveness...without moving in game terms.

[Grey Mage]

Grey Mage, Brother Ramses has this one nailed. I made the example above that he provided pictures for when he did. True, after I'm out of grenade shells, I'm "not as combat effective", but if Brother Ramses is packing one with one up the spout (or some in his ammo pouches), if you killed him, it is well within game terms (and reality) for me to snatch up his rifle with extra weapon attached or grab some of his rounds (not applicable for the combi, but similar) out of his ammo pouch and regain full combat effectiveness...without moving in game terms.

Indeed, and if he had an RPG-7 anti-tank grenade launcher you could snatch that up to- but a marine cannot pick up another marines missile launcher in this edition- so that comparison is pointless.

 

The profiles on the weapons have changed, they are not armed with identical weapons any longer. A spent combi-weapon is not the same thing as a stock issued combi-weapon. The models are not identical, their weapons are not identical. It just doesnt work.

 

If a spent combi-weapon and an unspent combi-weapon were identical then youd still be able to shoot the melta option on a combi-melta. Why? Because if they both cant do the same things theyre not identical.

 

While I can understand them not being part of the bolters, spent and unspent weapons should not be rolled together. They are simply different.

[SeattleDV8]

If a spent combi-weapon and an unspent combi-weapon were identical then youd still be able to shoot the melta option on a combi-melta. Why? Because if they both cant do the same things theyre not identical.

 

Again. really?

Where is this rule?

Heh, only in your own mind as it is not in the BRB, a fired and unfired Combi-weapon are both the same as far as the rules.

Don't agree? well simply show us where in the rules where there is a difference.

Good luck with that as there is nothing there.

A fired and unfired combi-weapon are both a 'combi-weapon' which makes both 'identical for gaming terms'.

 

House rule as you wish but don't pretend that it is RAW.

[AyanamiKun]

To me it seems this topic has hit a roadblock. It goes in circles all the times now. I do not think there is a solution to this because the rules are just not clear enough and there are, in my opinion at least, good arguments for both sides. Personally I will go with the KISS principle.

 

Does it even make sense to discuss this further without having new arguments? GW needs to FAQ this or (which I would prefer) write an Errata for this.

[Grey Mage]

If a spent combi-weapon and an unspent combi-weapon were identical then youd still be able to shoot the melta option on a combi-melta. Why? Because if they both cant do the same things theyre not identical.

 

Again. really?

Where is this rule?

Heh, only in your own mind as it is not in the BRB, a fired and unfired Combi-weapon are both the same as far as the rules.

Don't agree? well simply show us where in the rules where there is a difference.

Good luck with that as there is nothing there.

A fired and unfired combi-weapon are both a 'combi-weapon' which makes both 'identical for gaming terms'.

 

House rule as you wish but don't pretend that it is RAW.

Its right there- the combi-weapons own rules state that once its fire the optional charge, it cannot be fired again.

 

Do you need to be shown the definition of identical to understand?

 

Identical: exactly alike; incapable of being perceived as different.

 

There is a difference between a used combi-melta and an unused one- one can fire a meltagun shot, the other cannot. Thus, by plain and simple english, they are not, and can not, be identical.

[Legatus]

Okay , stop with the Calgar's boltgun, those are the "Gauntlets of Ultramar" so they are not just boltguns.

Not the same as a normal boltgun , not even the same name and not a weapon, it is wargear.

Every piece of equipment of the special characters is listed under the "Wargear" heading. Whether that piece of warger is used to shoot at the enemy or hit im in the face or not. Sicarius' Tempest Blade is listed there, as are Tigurius' Rod of Hellfire, Cassius' "Infernus" combi-flamer, Telion's Stalker Pattern Boltgun, etc.

And Calgar's Gauntlets of Ultramar are essentially (and traditionally) described as a pair of power fists with integrated boltguns. If Captains were not limited to two weapons, you could equip them with the same weapons. (Obviously the Fists are special in fluff, though they do not have special rules, but the bolters are your basic standard boltguns.)

 

 

well simply show us where in the rules where there is a difference.

I will try it one more time. With colour coding. *yay*

 

 

Combi-Weapons

"Combi-weapons are bolters (...) Each has been expertly converted to house another weapon (...) The bolter can be fired every turn, but the secondary weapon can only be fired once per battle"

5th Edition Codex Space Marines, page 97.

 

Marine A, with combi-melta, not yet fired --> This Marine can fire a melta shot.

 

Marine B, with combi-melta, already fired --> This Marine cannot fire a melta shot.

 

Essentially, Marine A is equipped with a boltgun and a functional meltagun. Marine B is equipped with a boltgun and a disfunctional meltagun.

[Hiro_Protagonist]

This phrase of 'identical in gaming terms' worries me

 

You've hit the nail on the head there I think. That one generalizing phrase is the root of this hole problem! Technically, at any given point in a game almost every model is different "in gaming terms". Why, you say? "Whithin X inches" is a gaming term! Hence, every model is different because no two models will have an identical positon to every other model on the battlefield.

 

Now I know that this takes it to a rather ludicrus(?) extreme, but that's the problem! "Identical in game terms" allows on to make this kind other statement and still have it be true, not "right", or "proper", or even "reasonable"...but still true.

[Legatus]

I would say, though, that the matter of individual model's positions is covered by the basic rules for removing casualties. The choice which model at which position to remove, alas, is left in the hands of the player.

[Hiro_Protagonist]

The choice which model at which position to remove, alas, is left in the hands of the player.

 

Although this, I think was merely added to prevent positional sniping, which used to happen a fair bit under the old rules.

 

The point I was trying to make though was that if their language had of been more concise as to what should be considered identical, we wouldn't be having this problem.