Wound Allocation Question

[Legatus]

As with many core rules, the wording does not neccessarily anticipate certain circumstances not mentioned in the rulebook, such as destructable or expendable items. It is also not particularly clear on when a weapon or piece of wargear would be considered different. There are weapons that are called the same but have different rules. And there are weapons with different names that have the same rules. Which two are "the same", and which aren't?

[Hiro_Protagonist]

You would think though, that by 5th edition (or whatever we're in) this kind of thing would have come up though. You know, during all of that "extensive playtesting" they go on about.

[Grey Mage]

Thats often the case with GW publications- and while true brings us no closer to solving this debate.

[KhorneHunter57x]

Just so you guys know, this issue has come up before and is already in the "Grey Area Rules" sticky at the top of the forum (in the fourth post).

[Grimtooth]

As I said before, you are going too far to differentiate.

 

The rules for determining identical models in game terms is very specific.

 

Weapon functionality is NOT part of the criteria given for determining identical status.

 

Not a single codex has multiple entries for combi-weapons, secondary weapon fired/unfired.

 

Webster's or Oxford's definition of identical in game terms has no bearing on the World of Warhammer 40k. Only the definition given in the BRB is relevant to determining identical in game terms.

[Grey Mage]

As I said before, you are going too far to differentiate.

 

The rules for determining identical models in game terms is very specific.

 

Weapon functionality is NOT part of the criteria given for determining identical status.

 

Not a single codex has multiple entries for combi-weapons, secondary weapon fired/unfired.

 

Webster's or Oxford's definition of identical in game terms has no bearing on the World of Warhammer 40k. Only the definition given in the BRB is relevant to determining identical in game terms.

1) If the rulebook must define everything internally, were screwed- it doesnt even define the word 'the'.

 

2) Your making an assumption.

 

All the book says is "weapons". That could be what weapons, the state of those weapons, how many of each, the function or even the profile of those weapons.

 

3 ) It should be noted- no codex has the profile for a combi-weapon either. Just Boltgun or Bolter, and a seperate profile for the plasma/flamer/meltagun. It could be infered thus that a Combiweapon equips you with a bolter and a single shot weapon of the other type- to quote C:SW :

This extra weapon carries only a limited charge, allowing the bearer a single shot, but one that often makes all the difference.

 

Much like a Hunter-killer missile, the 'secondary weapon' is just not there after its fired. The model is then equiped merely with a boltgun, also known as a bolter.

[Algesan]

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

 

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

 

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner. If you have a model with a combi weapon using WYSIWYG, does the appearance of the weapon change after firing? Or does it still look like a bolter with a widget attached?

 

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.

 

Are you capable of "perceiving" the difference? Or does it just look like a bunch of guys with combi weapons? Do we need to mark it on the board or simply note it on the army list?

 

BTW, you do realize if you stick even one guy in the squad with a different weapon (IMO, even a different combi), then the complex units rule comes into play anyway. Of course, you still have to put out some smackdown on the unit, otherwise you have to buy a Vindicare because a couple of wound rolls will go on expended combi holders, just like the RAW allow. Now the advantage to splashing extra wounds into a unit with even one different weapon setup, you can then get your opponent to point out the expended and unexpended combis before he starts rolling for losses.

 

It might be annoying, but as I understand it in the old rules, if you had 7 figures in a unit and got slapped in an assault that netted 6 rends and 11 normal wounds, then you pulled 7 figures (your choice) and the last figure got to make 11(!) saves.

 

New rules, start distributing hits. 3 figs get 3 hits each and 4 figs get 2 hits each. Oh, BTW, all 6 rends went on 2 of the figs that got 3 hits. Happened to me in a game a couple of weeks ago, annoyed my opponent because 3 of the other figs survived and managed to punch out one of his heavy units in some nice dice for me and bad dice for him.

 

Nice story, but is there a reason for it? Oh yeah. If the unit being attacked had 6 identical figures (like combi weapons all around), then it would have been all dead.

[Grey Mage]

Yes, I am capable of perceiving the difference between a model with a used combiweapon and a model that has not used their seperate shot yet. Its all very simple.

 

When my opponent fires, he picks wich models are used, and measures from them. As they are in different positions it matters, and we note wich ones it was and keep track of them. Its all very simple.

 

And of course, your being obtuse. They are not identical. The ones who have used their combiweapons are not exactly the same in all respects as their brethren- they no longer has a secondairy weapon to fire.

 

As noted that secondairy weapon has its own profile, is indeed its own weapon. It is no longer there once the shot is fired. It thus cannot be considered part of the models wargear any more than a spent HK missile can- and thus leaves the person wielding int with a standard boltgun.

[Grimtooth]

As I said before, you are going too far to differentiate.

 

The rules for determining identical models in game terms is very specific.

 

Weapon functionality is NOT part of the criteria given for determining identical status.

 

Not a single codex has multiple entries for combi-weapons, secondary weapon fired/unfired.

 

Webster's or Oxford's definition of identical in game terms has no bearing on the World of Warhammer 40k. Only the definition given in the BRB is relevant to determining identical in game terms.

1) If the rulebook must define everything internally, were screwed- it doesnt even define the word 'the'.

 

2) Your making an assumption.

 

All the book says is "weapons". That could be what weapons, the state of those weapons, how many of each, the function or even the profile of those weapons.

 

3 ) It should be noted- no codex has the profile for a combi-weapon either. Just Boltgun or Bolter, and a seperate profile for the plasma/flamer/meltagun. It could be infered thus that a Combiweapon equips you with a bolter and a single shot weapon of the other type- to quote C:SW :

This extra weapon carries only a limited charge, allowing the bearer a single shot, but one that often makes all the difference.

 

Much like a Hunter-killer missile, the 'secondary weapon' is just not there after its fired. The model is then equiped merely with a boltgun, also known as a bolter.

 

The rulebook does not need to define "the". However when referring to the vacuum that Warhammer 40k, specific instances occur that the BRB definition does not match the English definition. See disembark in the BRB and compare it to a dictionary definition. In this case, the definition that the designers want us to use for "identical in game terms" is in the very next sentence.

 

The BRB does ONLY say "weapons". So why are you then further defining ONLY weapons to include functionality or state of said weapons? Nothing tells you to take those further steps. I did just did a quick check of the SM Codex, SW Codex, and BA Codex. In each of their weapons and wargear sections, they also reference ONLY "weapons" with absolutely nothing to mention of state or functionality. So the BRB only tells you to go as far as "weapons" and in three different codex wargear sections they only reference "weapons", then why do you suddenly feel empowered to further define what they meant by "weapons"?

 

If you are going to reference the fluff description, please reference all relevant wording:

Combi-weapons are bolters that have been specially modified by the most skilled Iron Priests in the Chapter. Each has been expertly converted to house another weapon, either a meltagun, plasma gun, or flamer.

 

When you get to the actual rule part, it specifically tells you to reference the profile listed in "this" section. So your combi-??? uses the profile of ??? in the wargear/weapon section. And while they do not have a listed profile for the "Combi-weapon, they do have only a single entry in the wargear sections labeled as "Combi-Weapons", with absolutely nothing for a "Combi-Weapon, Used".

 

Both you and Legatus have referenced Hunter-killer which does nothing for your argument. Read the full entry for the HK and notice that the rule specifically tells you that the HK is treated as an additional weapon. As an additional weapon, it can be destroyed AND as an additional weapon, that can only fire once, once fired it is gone. Note that specific wording lacking from the combi-weapon rules entry. It is not to be treated as an additional weapon to the bolter. The bolter AND melta/flamer/plasma gun are ONE weapon.

[Grey Mage]

Nothing tells us that a Combi-weapon isnt exactly what it states either. The Combiweapon tells us that it is in fact two weapons, one of wich is a bolter wich can fire as normal for a bolter- each and every turn. It says there is a second weapon, a one shot weapon. A weapon whose profile isnt exactly the same as another weapon of the same name is not identical- for example C:DH Assault Cannons and C:SM Assault Cannons.

 

Your confusing 'named the same' with 'Identical'. My name is Moses. That doesnt make me a biblical prophet, or a jew.

 

As for HKs- just like you said 'once its fired its gone'. Why isnt it the same for the combi-weapon. Once its fired, its gone- and all you have left is a bolt gun, as per the rules in our codex. Because it IS an additional weapon. It even says that:

 

This extra weapon carries only a limited charge, allowing the bearer a single shot, but one that often makes all the difference.

 

Once its shot it no longer exists- the model is now equiped with a bolter, and exactly the same as any other, sterngaurd, that is likewise equiped with a bolter. They have identical profiles- including weapon profiles- and wargear.

 

You might be able to get away with saying that a fired Combiweapon is a different weapon than a bolter OR an unfired combiweapon, but they certainly are not identical their unfired versions.

[Legatus]

The BRB does ONLY say "weapons". So why are you then further defining ONLY weapons to include functionality or state of said weapons? Nothing tells you to take those further steps. I did just did a quick check of the SM Codex, SW Codex, and BA Codex. In each of their weapons and wargear sections, they also reference ONLY "weapons" with absolutely nothing to mention of state or functionality. So the BRB only tells you to go as far as "weapons" and in three different codex wargear sections they only reference "weapons", then why do you suddenly feel empowered to further define what they meant by "weapons"?

Actually, neither the Codex Space Marines (p. 144), the Codex Blood Angels (p. 96) nor the Codex Space Wolves (p. 96) have "combi-weapon" listed in the summary of the "weapon types".

 

 

If you are going to reference the fluff description, please reference all relevant wording:

(...)

When you get to the actual rule part, it specifically tells you to reference the profile listed in "this" section. So your combi-??? uses the profile of ??? in the wargear/weapon section. And while they do not have a listed profile for the "Combi-weapon, they do have only a single entry in the wargear sections labeled as "Combi-Weapons", with absolutely nothing for a "Combi-Weapon, Used".

Actually the "rules" part makes a clear distinction between the two weapons a combi-weapon cinsists of. From the Codex Space Marines, page 97:

 

"A Space Marine armed with a combi weapon (...) can chose to fire either the bolter, or the secondary weapon, each with the profile listed elsewhere in this section. The bolter can fire every turn, but the secondary weapon can only be fired once per battle (...). You cannot fire both weapons in the same turn."

 

The secondary weapon of a combi-weapon is no different in game terms from a demolition charge or a hunter-killer missile.

 

 

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner. If you have a model with a combi weapon using WYSIWYG, does the appearance of the weapon change after firing? Or does it still look like a bolter with a widget attached?

So in other words, if I have glued the hunter-killer missile to the tank, and if I have an IG model with a demolition charge, I will keep the missile and the charge and can still use them even after having used them once, because the models still have them? That is awsome.

[Algesan]

<snip>

 

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner. If you have a model with a combi weapon using WYSIWYG, does the appearance of the weapon change after firing? Or does it still look like a bolter with a widget attached?

So in other words, if I have glued the hunter-killer missile to the tank, and if I have an IG model with a demolition charge, I will keep the missile and the charge and can still use them even after having used them once, because the models still have them? That is awsome.

 

Not if the model for those items aren't simply bare weapons. A demo charge would go in a bag, even if the demo charge was gone, the bag would remain. Similarly if the missile was inside a strapped on launch tube, then after the missile was gone, the tube would remain. Now, if we say the Guardsman discarded the bag at the same time the charge was used or the missile consumed the launcher when used, then being hypertechnical, you should replace each model with the expendable gear with a model without the expendable gear. Can you point to any physical visible difference between the models that would point to some way of telling them apart? Or is it just some notations on the army list to the side of the board? Or can we call it luck of the dice in one game that can go the other way in the next game?

 

This doesn't get you any points though since the description of a combi weapon quoted in posts above indicate a built in weapon in game terms. It might be possible to pull it off in between battles (although that isn't indicated in a strict reading), but during the battle it is still a bolter with the extra weapon fixed onto it. To claim otherwise gets into mystical warp events that teleport the combi weapon away while teleporting in a regular bolter without combi part. Since you don't have to pay for this extra bolter that just teleported in, I guess we can assume that it plus the mystical triggered teleport are included in the base price. What a bargain, spare weapons and automatically working Warp powers without needing a test. I wonder if the combi weapon is then lost in the Warp forever?

 

The RAW cover allocation of wounds. As I pointed out, there are benefits and negatives to being considered a complex unit. If you do 10 wounds on a 5 figure unit with 2 expended combis and your opponent saves against 8 of them, he gets to pull the 2 expended combis. If he only saves against 5 of those wounds, the entire unit dies. Period. Nothing follows. If they are a complex unit, then each figure saves against 2 wounds each. Let's say it is only 7 wounds, then the expended combi figures will get to save twice and the unexpended figures only once. If it was 12 wounds, it would be the expended 3 times and unexpended twice. Maybe you get lucky, maybe you don't because the distribution of saves will almost assuredly leave at least 1 model alive out of 5 unsaved wounds, I'd bet on 2 models in many cases, the odds are that these will still be unexpended combis. So you give up the chance of outright wiping out the unit for the potential of leaving at least 1, maybe 2 unexpended combi weapon models standing. (Note: Source and value of save is irrelevant here, I'm assuming 5 failed saves here and whether it was 5 rolls of 6 to save or 5 rolls of 1 to fail doesn't matter.)

 

Personally, in this case, I'd rather do the 10 wounds and wipe the unit rather than have to take a chance of maybe/maybe not scoring wounds on specific models. FWIW, unintentional (and intentional) non random dice rolling occurs more frequently when rolling smaller numbers of dice.

 

What it sounds like is trying to get a bigger bang for the buck out of low hit/wound shooting and doing less than enough to wipe out the unit reliably. Something like 4-5 wounds rolled against a 3+ or 4+ save. If 5 (or less) wounds were rolled and the unit had 3 extra expended combi armed figures or even plain bolter armed ones (yep, this does trigger the complex unit rules) that were behind a wall out of LOS that you couldn't target or hit by themselves, there would be no chance at all of killing any of the unexpended models even with the complex rules since the owner would allocate 2 wounds to the expended combis and 3 to the figures behind that wall. This is fishing for a chance to kill 1 model specifically out of an army that cannot be directly targeted. It will only cost you about 100-something points to buy a Vindicare and then use him to shoot at the specific model you want. Rolls to hit, wound and save all will apply there too. I can buy one of several different nicely kitted out squads for that price and even some decent vehicles.

 

Can you point out any time this situation would be relevant except when your opponent has managed to be tactically adroit enough to get a potential tank busting squad in range of some vital tanks after next turn's movement while keeping enough cover to avoid being hammered by enough firepower to wipe them out?

 

Or maybe the tactical situation set up by your opponent has other calls on your firepower from other threats? Then you just have to makes your choice and takes your chances.

 

Or how about any scenario that doesn't require a special crafting and where the changing of the number of figures or number of wounds wouldn't make the question irrelevant?

 

Trying to make this work is like picking one or two verses out of the Bible and building your entire case on them while ignoring all the context as "fluff" to force your interpretation. FYI, that kind of teaching is called ... <drumroll> ... HERESY! :lol:

[Legatus]

So in other words, if I have glued the hunter-killer missile to the tank, and if I have an IG model with a demolition charge, I will keep the missile and the charge and can still use them even after having used them once, because the models still have them? That is awsome.

Not if the model for those items aren't simply bare weapons. A demo charge would go in a bag, even if the demo charge was gone, the bag would remain. Similarly if the missile was inside a strapped on launch tube, then after the missile was gone, the tube would remain.

That not how the official models look, though. So, unlimited HKs and demolitioncharges for the IG?

 

 

What it sounds like is trying to get a bigger bang for the buck out of low hit/wound shooting and doing less than enough to wipe out the unit reliably. Something like 4-5 wounds rolled against a 3+ or 4+ save. If 5 (or less) wounds were rolled and the unit had 3 extra expended combi armed figures or even plain bolter armed ones (yep, this does trigger the complex unit rules) that were behind a wall out of LOS that you couldn't target or hit by themselves, there would be no chance at all of killing any of the unexpended models even with the complex rules since the owner would allocate 2 wounds to the expended combis and 3 to the figures behind that wall. This is fishing for a chance to kill 1 model specifically out of an army that cannot be directly targeted. It will only cost you about 100-something points to buy a Vindicare and then use him to shoot at the specific model you want. Rolls to hit, wound and save all will apply there too. I can buy one of several different nicely kitted out squads for that price and even some decent vehicles.

I am not exactly sure what you mean, as you are being obscure with what kind of example unit you are using. If you are inflicting 5 wounds on a unit that has 3 boltguns and 2 expended combi-weapons in addition to a number of full combi-weapons, you would never be able to kill any of the combi-weapon models, no matter if you distinguished between full and empty combi-weapons or not, simply because there are 5 models without a combi weapon you can remove as casualties first.

 

 

Here are a few examples about how the rules will play out, though.

 

- 5 Marines, one of them with a missile launcher, receive 5 wounds. 4 go on the boltguns, 1 on the missile launcher. --> the chance is 33% that the missile launcher is removed as a casualty.

 

- 5 Marines, one with a power fist, receive 5 wounds. 4 go on the boltguns, 1 on the powerfist. --> the change is 33% that the powerfist is removed as a casualty.

 

- 5 Marines, one with meltagun, one with heavy bolter, receive 5 wounds. 3 go on the boltguns, 1 on the meltagun, 1 on the heavy bolter. --> the chance that the meltagun is removed is 33%, while the chance that the heavy bolter is removed is also 33%.

 

now:

 

- 5 Marines, two with expended combi-meltas, 1 with full combi-melta, receive 5 wounds. If you distinguish between empty and full combi-meltas, then 4 wounds go on the boltguns or empty combi-meltas, while 1 wound goes on the full combi-melta. --> the chance that the combi-melta is removed is 33%, just like it was in all those other instances.

 

- Same squad, 2 empty, 1 full combi-melta, receives 5 wounds. If you don't distinguish between spent and full combi-meltas, 2 wounds go on the boltguns, 3 go on the combi-meltas. --> the chance that the full combi-melta is removed as a casualty is 4% (!!), as you would have to fail three armour saves to be forced to remove it. For the first two failed saves on "combi-melta" models, you would not lose any combi-melta shots.

 

In that last example, the full combi-melta would be protected by ablative models, and the risk of losing the melta-shot is substantially lower than in the case of a single special weapon in a squad of boltgun marines. Do you see why that might be considered an issue?

[Grimtooth]

This one has run its course.

 

You two will continue to add additional criteria to the definition GIVEN to you by the BRB without any standard other then, "that is the definition in a dictionary". That is akin to me saying that every time I kill a one of your models, I can destroy it with a hammer. Yes the BRB tells us to remove models from the table represent casualties, but I am going to define "removal" as destroying them with a hammer, just because I feel like it.

 

A combi-weapon does not become a standard bolter once the secondary weapon is fired. The bolter portion of the combi-weapon may be the only part of the weapon that can still fire, but that does not change the FACT that it is still a combi-weapon.

 

Functionality is NOT listed as a requirement in the BRB given definition for identical in game terms. By arbitrarily including it, based on solely on your opinion, is not RAW. It is RAI completely since it is both of you adding to the given definition beyond what is clearly specified as the criteria for determining identical in game terms.

[Legatus]

You two will continue to add additional criteria to the definition GIVEN to you by the BRB

The BRB only explains what factors constitute being "identical in game terms". One of those factors is "same weapons", another "same wargear".

 

What the BRB doesn't do is explain when the weapons or wargear of two models are considered to be the same.

 

There are three possible definitions for "being the same in the game", which one is essential?

 

1. It is modeled the same.

 

2. It is said in the background to be the same, or has the same name.

 

3. The rules are the same.

 

You just happen to think that fluff or how it is modeled are more important than what rule properties it has. I disagree with that. The game system does not care much for how something is modeled or called in fluff. If it has different rules, it is not the same.

 

 

A combi-weapon does not become a standard bolter once the secondary weapon is fired. The bolter portion of the combi-weapon may be the only part of the weapon that can still fire, but that does not change the FACT that it is still a combi-weapon.

A combi-weapon provides a model with two weapons, a boltgun and a secondary special weapon. The special weapon can be expent, like a demolition charge or a hunter-killer missile, leaving only the boltgun for the model to use.

[Grimtooth]

A combi-weapon provides a model with two weapons, a boltgun and a secondary special weapon. The special weapon can be expent, like a demolition charge or a hunter-killer missile, leaving only the boltgun for the model to use.

 

It does not leave a boltgun. It leaves a COMBI-WEAPON, of which only the bolter can fire. It is not changed to a boltgun, it is not changed to a bolter. It is a COMBI-WEAPON, which only the bolter can still fire. You are changing the GIVEN and DEFINED name of a weapon to suit your argument which is not supported in the rules at all. You are interpreting it that once the secondary weapon has expended it's ammunition the combi-weapon reverts to a a completely different weapon entry. Absolutely NOTHING tells your that the combi-weapon reverts to a completely different weapon entry. The entry for a combi-weapon ONLY tells you that the secondary weapon can fire once. That is all it does per RAW. To infer a complete change of the weapon entry to another weapon entry due to the functionality of said weapon, is complete RAI.

[Grey Mage]

This one has run its course.

 

You two will continue to add additional criteria to the definition GIVEN to you by the BRB without any standard other then, "that is the definition in a dictionary". That is akin to me saying that every time I kill a one of your models, I can destroy it with a hammer. Yes the BRB tells us to remove models from the table represent casualties, but I am going to define "removal" as destroying them with a hammer, just because I feel like it.

 

A combi-weapon does not become a standard bolter once the secondary weapon is fired. The bolter portion of the combi-weapon may be the only part of the weapon that can still fire, but that does not change the FACT that it is still a combi-weapon.

 

Functionality is NOT listed as a requirement in the BRB given definition for identical in game terms. By arbitrarily including it, based on solely on your opinion, is not RAW. It is RAI completely since it is both of you adding to the given definition beyond what is clearly specified as the criteria for determining identical in game terms.

I challenge you to find a dictionairy that gives "smiting with a hammer" as the definition of 'removal'.

 

Using the basic english language isnt adding additional criteria.

 

Its not a functionality issue- its an existance issue. You yourself said once a one shot weapon is fired, its gone. Once your combi-melta is fired, all thats left is a bolt gun. Pretty simple, eh? Your right in that nothing changes- Because a combiweapon is just another way of saying that the model is equiped with both a bolt gun and a single shot special weapon.

[Legatus]

You are interpreting it that once the secondary weapon has expended it's ammunition the combi-weapon reverts to a a completely different weapon entry. Absolutely NOTHING tells your that the combi-weapon reverts to a completely different weapon entry.

The combi-weapon entry tells me that a model with a combi-melta is considered to be equipped with a boltgun and a meltagun that can only be fired once. The meltagun is the same as a demolition charge or a hunter-killer missile, once it has been fired it can no longer be used. You would probably normally interprete a demolition charge or a hunter-killer missile to be "gone" after having been used. I am asking that you apply the same logic to a meltagun that can no longer be used. From a game mechanic point, the three weapons are the same.

[Algesan]

That not how the official models look, though. So, unlimited HKs and demolitioncharges for the IG?

 

Close enough. Again, if we are being hyper technical in both of these examples where the entire weapon is consumed in one use, then the model should be replaced after expending the weapon, although from the looks, you could have the grunt holding the empty bag (or nothing) and the tank should have an empty launch rail on it (with a scorched tank commander if that thing launches right then). This is because the represented weapon is consumed by use.

 

In the case of a combi, the weapon empty looks the same as the weapon full, since the weapon doesn't consume itself, it simply has expended its ammo.

 

I am not exactly sure what you mean, as you are being obscure with what kind of example unit you are using. If you are inflicting 5 wounds on a unit that has 3 boltguns and 2 expended combi-weapons in addition to a number of full combi-weapons, you would never be able to kill any of the combi-weapon models, no matter if you distinguished between full and empty combi-weapons or not, simply because there are 5 models without a combi weapon you can remove as casualties first.

 

I'll sum up. The only time that this would be an issue would be in a squad with all combi weapons, some having fired their shot and some having not fired their shot. In all other cases where identical weapons and wargear apply, the complex unit rules would not apply. I made the point that simply blasting the unit with a ton of firepower would actually require lower unsaved wounds under the simple units rules since by distribution of dice rolls some units would receive multiple wounds and some would be unwounded. All that reading it as a complex unit gets you is some chance of hitting specific models that have the same appearance as the rest of the unit. This is only potentially useful in the examples you gave where low numbers of wounds came in against a unit, which was my point.

 

If we make it an actual complex unit with different wargear and weapons, then low numbers of wounds still keep the unexpended combis in play. So again, it is all about a special case of something that isn't in the rules.

[SeattleDV8]

You are interpreting it that once the secondary weapon has expended it's ammunition the combi-weapon reverts to a a completely different weapon entry. Absolutely NOTHING tells your that the combi-weapon reverts to a completely different weapon entry.

The combi-weapon entry tells me that a model with a combi-melta is considered to be equipped with a boltgun and a meltagun that can only be fired once. The meltagun is the same as a demolition charge or a hunter-killer missile, once it has been fired it can no longer be used. You would probably normally interprete a demolition charge or a hunter-killer missile to be "gone" after having been used. I am asking that you apply the same logic to a meltagun that can no longer be used. From a game mechanic point, the three weapons are the same.

Sorry but what do you call a combi-weapon that has fired???

Gee, it is still a combi-weapon.

A combi-weapon is still the same weapon fired or not.

What is the thing that makes a difference by the rules or 'identical in gaming terms" (NOT identical)

A. the same profile .....In this case no difference

B. the same special rules....again no difference

C.the same weapon..... gosh and golly gee a fired and unfired Combi-weapon are both 'Combi-weapons' a difference that no-one has disproved.

D. the same wargear....not a difference.

 

The problem is athough a fired combi-weapon is different from a unfired one; by the rules (RAW) both are 'identical in gaming terms'

It doesn't matter if it can fire only that it is the same weapon.

[Grey Mage]

You are interpreting it that once the secondary weapon has expended it's ammunition the combi-weapon reverts to a a completely different weapon entry. Absolutely NOTHING tells your that the combi-weapon reverts to a completely different weapon entry.

The combi-weapon entry tells me that a model with a combi-melta is considered to be equipped with a boltgun and a meltagun that can only be fired once. The meltagun is the same as a demolition charge or a hunter-killer missile, once it has been fired it can no longer be used. You would probably normally interprete a demolition charge or a hunter-killer missile to be "gone" after having been used. I am asking that you apply the same logic to a meltagun that can no longer be used. From a game mechanic point, the three weapons are the same.

Sorry but what do you call a combi-weapon that has fired???

Gee, it is still a combi-weapon.

A combi-weapon is still the same weapon fired or not.

What is the thing that makes a difference by the rules or 'identical in gaming terms" (NOT identical)

A. the same profile .....In this case no difference

B. the same special rules....again no difference

C.the same weapon..... gosh and golly gee a fired and unfired Combi-weapon are both 'Combi-weapons' a difference that no-one has disproved.

D. the same wargear....not a difference.

 

The problem is athough a fired combi-weapon is different from a unfired one; by the rules (RAW) both are 'identical in gaming terms'

It doesn't matter if it can fire only that it is the same weapon.

But a combi-weapon isnt a single weapon- its a Boltgun, and another weapon- the model has two peices of equipment that are summed up by the term 'combi-weapon', according to C:SM, C:SW, and C:BA.

[Grimtooth]

You are interpreting it that once the secondary weapon has expended it's ammunition the combi-weapon reverts to a a completely different weapon entry. Absolutely NOTHING tells your that the combi-weapon reverts to a completely different weapon entry.

The combi-weapon entry tells me that a model with a combi-melta is considered to be equipped with a boltgun and a meltagun that can only be fired once. The meltagun is the same as a demolition charge or a hunter-killer missile, once it has been fired it can no longer be used. You would probably normally interprete a demolition charge or a hunter-killer missile to be "gone" after having been used. I am asking that you apply the same logic to a meltagun that can no longer be used. From a game mechanic point, the three weapons are the same.

Sorry but what do you call a combi-weapon that has fired???

Gee, it is still a combi-weapon.

A combi-weapon is still the same weapon fired or not.

What is the thing that makes a difference by the rules or 'identical in gaming terms" (NOT identical)

A. the same profile .....In this case no difference

B. the same special rules....again no difference

C.the same weapon..... gosh and golly gee a fired and unfired Combi-weapon are both 'Combi-weapons' a difference that no-one has disproved.

D. the same wargear....not a difference.

 

The problem is athough a fired combi-weapon is different from a unfired one; by the rules (RAW) both are 'identical in gaming terms'

It doesn't matter if it can fire only that it is the same weapon.

But a combi-weapon isnt a single weapon- its a Boltgun, and another weapon- the model has two peices of equipment that are summed up by the term 'combi-weapon', according to C:SM, C:SW, and C:BA.

 

In C:SM, SW, and BA you don't buy a bolter and melta gun, bolter and flamer, or bolter and plasma gun. In Codex SW for example,

 

Any Wolf Guard model may replace both pistol and/or close combat weapon with:

 

-Boltgun.........................................................................XX

-Storm bolter..................................................................XX

-Combi-flamer, Combi-Melta or Combi-plasma..................XX

 

Clearly a Combi-weapon is a single weapon when bought. It may consist of two functions, but it is only a single weapon. At no point do you buy two weapons, that are summed up as one. It has its own entry, its own point cost, and we can even say its own GW provided representation on some models.

 

http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s89/Grimtooth_photos/combimelta1.jpg

http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s89/Grimtooth_photos/combiplas1.jpg

 

Yea, I can totally see how they are NOT single weapons.................../sarcasm

 

Edit:

 

I wanted to check out the actual unit that this debate was started over. Codex: SM: Sternguard Veteran Squad:

 

Any model may replace his boltgun with:

- a storm bolter, combi-melta, -flamer, -or -plasma..........................Xpts

 

So again, NOT buying a boltgun and a melta/flamer/plasma weapon. Actually GIVING UP the boltgun and REPLACING it with a combi-weapon.

[dswanick]

Question : Can someone please post the summary/statline for a Combi-melta along with book and page were they found it published.

For example :

Missile Launcher

- Frag missile S4 AP6 Heavy 1, Blast

- Krak missile S8 AP3 Heavy 1

Thanks in advance.

[Legatus]

Algesan:

 

Again, if we are being hyper technical in both of these examples where the entire weapon is consumed in one use, then the model should be replaced after expending the weapon, although from the looks, you could have the grunt holding the empty bag (or nothing) and the tank should have an empty launch rail on it (with a scorched tank commander if that thing launches right then). This is because the represented weapon is consumed by use.

 

In the case of a combi, the weapon empty looks the same as the weapon full, since the weapon doesn't consume itself, it simply has expended its ammo.

But that is purely fluff/modelling. There is no difference in rules between a hunter-killer missile that has expended it's one shot and the meltagun of a combi-melta that has expended it's one shot. Take for example a Space Marines hunter-killer missile. That is modeled as a missile launcher tube. So, do the Space Marines keep the weapon, but the Imperial Guard loses the single missile? No, that is purely a cosmetic issue. In the game both have the same function. If for a HK missile "fired = gone" and for a demolition charge "fired = gone" then you would have to treat a meltagun from a combi-melta the same way. In the rules it is just another weapon that can only be used once, and then no more during the rest of the game.

 

 

---

 

SeattleDV8:

 

Sorry but what do you call a combi-weapon that has fired???

Gee, it is still a combi-weapon.

A combi-weapon is still the same weapon fired or not.

What is the thing that makes a difference by the rules or 'identical in gaming terms" (NOT identical)

(...)

C.the same weapon..... gosh and golly gee a fired and unfired Combi-weapon are both 'Combi-weapons' a difference that no-one has disproved.

(...)

 

The problem is athough a fired combi-weapon is different from a unfired one; by the rules (RAW) both are 'identical in gaming terms'

I may be misunderstanding what you were trying to say, but did you just use the criteria for when two 'models' are identical, one of which being that they have the same 'weapons', as your proof that their 'weapons' are identical?

 

What I am trying to argue is that two weapons are only identical if their properties are identical. Their name, fluff, or model representation does not matter to the rules. Their properties are all that matters. And a fired and non-fired combi-weapon do not have the same properties.

 

 

---

 

Brother Ramses:

 

In C:SM, SW, and BA you don't buy a bolter and melta gun, bolter and flamer, or bolter and plasma gun. In Codex SW for example,

Any Wolf Guard model may replace both pistol and/or close combat weapon with:

 

-Boltgun.........................................................................XX

-Storm bolter..................................................................XX

-Combi-flamer, Combi-Melta or Combi-plasma..................XX

Clearly a Combi-weapon is a single weapon when bought. It may consist of two functions, but it is only a single weapon. At no point do you buy two weapons, that are summed up as one. It has its own entry, its own point cost, and we can even say its own GW provided representation on some models.

And this is how the combi-weapon is described in Codex SW, page 57:

 

"A Space Marine armed with a combi-weapon (...) can choose to fire either the boltgun, or the secondary weapon, each with the profile listed elsewhere in this section*. The bolter can be fired every turn, but the secondary weapon can only be fired once per battle (...). You cannot fire both weapons in the same turn."

 

*For the profile of a boltgun or a flamer you have to look at the entry for 'boltgun' or the entry for 'flamer' on page 57, the entry for the melatgun can be found on page 58, and the entry for the plasmagun on page 60.

 

So, clearly when buying a 'combi-weapon' you equip the model with a two-weapon package. "You cannot fire both weapons in the same turn". One 'combi-weapon' = two weapons in the rules.

 

 

---

 

dswanick:

 

Question : Can someone please post the summary/statline for a Combi-melta along with book and page were they found it published.

There is none. The rule description for combi-weapons refers to the individual entries for boltguns, flamers, meltaguns and plasmaguns for the weapon's profiles. The weapon types summary at the end of the Codices does not list combi-weapons at all.

[Valerian]

What I am trying to argue is that two weapons are only identical if their properties are identical. Their name, fluff, or model representation does not matter to the rules. Their properties are all that matters.

 

I understand that is what you are trying to argue, but the rules don't tell you to treat them as identical.

 

Let's use an example:

 

Pretend we have a unit of 5 Marines. Four of them have Bolters, while the 5th model has a 'Widget'. A Widget looks like a futuristic harpoon, and has a weapons profile of:

 

S4 AP5 R24" Rapid Fire

 

The Widget is not a Bolter, and by RAW you must treat the Widget armed model as a separate 'group' within the unit for Wound Allocation purposes. You can ask your opponent if he minds if you just roll all 5 models together, as they are all 'effectively' the same, but they are not all 'actually' the same.

 

The same is true of our scenario of 4 models in a unit with Bolters, and one model in a unit with a Combi-melta that has already been fired/used. They are effectively the same, but they are not actually the same. It would be a different story if there was a section in the BRB that told us to treat models that have fired one-shot weapons or activated one-use pieces of wargear in a specific way, but there is no such guidance.

 

Similarly, we have our scenario where there is a unit of 5 models that all have Combi-meltas, and 2 of them have already fired/used the one-time Melta shot. As far as capability goes, they are effectively different, at this particular point in the game. However, none of the actual tell us that matters, or tell us to distinguish them because of that difference. Instead, we are instructed to only treat them differently if they have unique rules, wargear, weapons, or profiles - and they do not. In the ways that matter according to the rules, they are exactly the same.

 

 

Anyway, this has gone on for four pages now, and neither side is likely to convince the other side at this point, so we might as well throw this issue up into the Grey Area, to be resolved by mutual agreement with your opponent, or a roll-off if you can't come to an agreement.

 

V