Wound Allocation Question

[Legatus]

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.

I have a different example: Chainswords and Combat Blades.

 

Are Chainswords and Combat blades to be considered 'the same' weapon if a unit was armed with a mix of the two?

 

Name: different

 

Fluff: different

 

Model: different

 

Properties: the same

 

While the Scouts in Codex Space Marines are specifically upgraded with 'combat blades', the Codex Dark Angels Scouts can chose between 'combat blades' and 'chainswords'. That was reflected in the older metal models. So, would you consider Scouts with combat blades to be different in game terms from Scouts with chainswords?

[Valerian]

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.

I have a different example: Chainswords and Combat Blades.

 

Are Chainswords and Combat blades to be considered 'the same' weapon if a unit was armed with a mix of the two?

 

Name: different

 

Fluff: different

 

Model: different

 

Properties: the same

 

While the Scouts in Codex Space Marines are specifically upgraded with 'combat blades', the Codex Dark Angels Scouts can chose between 'combat blades' and 'chainswords'. That was reflected in the older metal models. So, would you consider Scouts with combat blades to be different in game terms from Scouts with chainswords?

 

That is an excellent example, however, I would submit that the rules do tell you to treat them the same, according to the paragraph titled "Normal Close Combat Weapons" on page 42 of the rulebook "Weapons like chainswords, rifle butts, combat blades, bayonets, etc. do not confer any particular bonus to the model using them..."

 

You could argue otherwise, of course, but I would say that this statement alone is enough to tell us that we do treat Chainswords and Combat Blades as the same (they fall into a broad category of normal CCWs), although they do have different names, fluff descriptions, and look different on a model. There is no such guidance to tell us to treat ranged weapons (such as our Bolter, spent Combi-Melta, or Widget) as the same, even if they have the exact same weapon profile. Again, you could do it because it is expedient, and has no real bearing on the game since they all have the same 'capability', but the rules do not tell you to do it.

 

V

[Legatus]

Ranged weapons may not as often be lumped together into one broader category, like 'cose combat weapons' or 'power weapons', but there are a few such examples. How about lasguns/autoguns or laspistols/autopistols? They are now all but gone in the recent Codices, the last example I could find was for the 'adversaries' in Codex Witch Hunters. The 'mutants' and 'traitors' (page 41) can be equipped with these weapons.

 

"The squad can replace their close combat weapons (...) with an autopistol or a laspistol for +1 point per model"

 

"Any model may exchange their lasgun for an autogun, shotgun or laspistol/autopistol and close combat weapon for free"

 

The breakdown for autoguns and lasguns would be the same as for combat blades and chainswords. Different name, fluff and model, but same properties, and usually used interchangeably in the rules.

 

 

Edit: Also, the argument is only partially that empty combi-weapons should be considered the same as a boltgun merely for having the same properties. Another point to the argument is that a combi-weapon is considered to provide the model with two weapons according to the rules, a boltgun and a one-shot special weapon. Once the special weapon has been fired, it is considered gone for game purposes, just like used demolition charges or hunter-killer missiles, and now only the boltgun the model is considered equipped with remains.

 

I.e. Space Marine with boltgun --> rules: boltgun, boltpistol, grenades

 

Space Marine with combi-melta --> rules: boltgun, meltagun, boltpistol, grenades

 

What I and maybe some others are now saying is that

 

Space Marine with fired combi-melta --> rules: boltgun, boltpistol, grenades

[Grimtooth]

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.

I have a different example: Chainswords and Combat Blades.

 

Are Chainswords and Combat blades to be considered 'the same' weapon if a unit was armed with a mix of the two?

 

Name: different

 

Fluff: different

 

Model: different

 

Properties: the same

 

While the Scouts in Codex Space Marines are specifically upgraded with 'combat blades', the Codex Dark Angels Scouts can chose between 'combat blades' and 'chainswords'. That was reflected in the older metal models. So, would you consider Scouts with combat blades to be different in game terms from Scouts with chainswords?

 

Do you even research your arguments or just go by your gut feeling RAI on everything?

 

The BRB rule for determining if something is 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.

 

So Dark Angel Scouts have a mix of chainswords and combat blades.

 

We look up the description for chainswords or combat blades, Codex: DA pg 48:

 

CHAINSWORD OR COMBAT BLADE

 

Space Marines utilise and array of close combat weapons, from the combat blades wielded by the scouts to the chainswords carried by Assault Marines. All are equally deadly in the hands of a Space Marine.

 

Both chainswords and combat blades are close combat weapons, as described in the Assault Phase chapter of the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook.

 

So now we take a gander at the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook, pg 42:

 

CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS

 

.....-seasoned warriors often bear a deadly array of combat knives and frag grenades, while specialised troops take pistols, swords, and deadly power weapons into battle. In terms of rules, they are grouped into either of the following two categories:

 

NORMAL CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS

 

Weapons like chainswords, rifle butts, combat blades, bayonets, etc., do not confer any particular bonus to models using them. Remember that, in close combat.......

 

So now we apply your Dark Angel Scouts with a mixture of chainswords and combat blades to the identical in game terms criteria set by the BRB:

 

Same profile of characteristics: Well, they are all scouts. The chainswords and combat blades do not give any bonuses or negatives to the profile. SAME!

Same special rules: They have the same special rules that chainswords or combat blades do not change. SAME!

Same weapons: They are both close combat weapons that follow the same rules for normal close combat weapons in the BRB. SAME!

Same wargear: They all have the same wargear as chainswords and combat blades are both classed as normal close combat weapons. SAME!

 

Since we are at it, how about we go ahead and do that Sternguard Veteran unit?

 

5 Sternguard Veterans all with combi-meltas:

 

Same profile oc characteristics: the combi-meltas do not change the profiles..........................................SAME!

Same special rules: ATSKNF, Combat Squads, Combat Tactics.......................................................................SAME!

Same weapons: 5 combi-meltas......................................................SAME!

Same wargear: Power armor, bolt pistol, Special issue ammunition, Frag and krak grenades........................SAME!

 

Here is a little tidbit I picked up last night, but forgot to add. As much as both of you insist on them being two different weapons (bolter and melta/flamer/plasma), take a look at the Special ammunition section of the Sternguard entry:

 

Each special ammunition type replaces the boltgun profile (includeing the boltguns THAT ARE PART OF A COMBI-WEAPON) with the one shown here.

 

So again, more proof that it isn't two weapons. The boltgun is just one part of the weapon that is called a combi-weapon.

[Legatus]

Do you even research your arguments or just go by your gut feeling RAI on everything?

 

(...)

To sum it all up: The rules consider combat blades and chainswords to be identical in game terms in every description, even though they have different models, different names and different fluff. That was more or less my point, really.

 

 

Here is a little tidbit I picked up last night, but forgot to add. As much as both of you insist on them being two different weapons (bolter and melta/flamer/plasma), take a look at the Special ammunition section of the Sternguard entry:

Each special ammunition type replaces the boltgun profile (includeing the boltguns THAT ARE PART OF A COMBI-WEAPON) with the one shown here.

So again, more proof that it isn't two weapons. The boltgun is just one part of the weapon that is called a combi-weapon.

What, two things cannot be part of something? And that line is somehow completely invalidating the combi-weapon's own description which explains that it consists of two weapons? I guess the combi-weapon's rules should probably read "You cannot fire both weapons in the same turn (even though it's really only one weapon)".

[Grimtooth]

Do you even research your arguments or just go by your gut feeling RAI on everything?

 

(...)

To sum it all up: The rules consider combat blades and chainswords to be identical in game terms in every description, even though they have different models, different names and different fluff. That was more or less my point, really.

 

 

Here is a little tidbit I picked up last night, but forgot to add. As much as both of you insist on them being two different weapons (bolter and melta/flamer/plasma), take a look at the Special ammunition section of the Sternguard entry:

Each special ammunition type replaces the boltgun profile (includeing the boltguns THAT ARE PART OF A COMBI-WEAPON) with the one shown here.

So again, more proof that it isn't two weapons. The boltgun is just one part of the weapon that is called a combi-weapon.

What, two things cannot be part of something? And that line is somehow completely invalidating the combi-weapon's own description which explains that it consists of two weapons? I guess the combi-weapon's rules should probably read "You cannot fire both weapons in the same turn (even though it's really only one weapon)".

 

Except a chainsword is a combat blade and a combat blade is a chainsword in game terms. A bolter is not a combi-weapon and a combi-weapon is not a bolter in game terms.

 

Two things can be part of something. However, when two things are part of something (meltagun/boltgun) and then given a specific name (combi-melta), they are no longer what they were when separate (meltagun and a boltgun). This referenced special ammo rule actually validates the fluff description that the boltgun is combined with an additional weapon, thus creating a NEW weapon with it's own entry in the weapons sections.

[Legatus]

Except a chainsword is a combat blade and a combat blade is a chainsword in game terms.

Yes. Even though the name, fluff and model representation is not the same. Did the coin drop yet? Names, fluff and model representation are not important. All that matters is how a weapon works in the game.

 

Chain Axe and Chainsword: Same weapon? Different name, different fluff, different model, but work the same, so yes, they are the same in game terms.

 

CSM Chain Axe and Terminator Chain Axe: Same weapon? Same name, same fluff, same model representation, but work differently, so they are different weapons in game terms.

 

--> Names, fluff, modelling are irrelevant for 'identical in game terms'. How it works in the game is the only relevant criterion.

 

 

This referenced special ammo rule actually validates the fluff description that the boltgun is combined with an additional weapon, thus creating a NEW weapon with it's own entry in the weapons sections.

All it really validates is that a model with a combi-weapon is then considered to be armed with a boltgun. And with a secondary special weapon, but in particular it is considered armed with a boltgun.

 

"Each boltgun-armed model in a Sternguard Veteran squad automatically comes with several special issue ammunition types. (...) Each special ammunition type replaces the boltgun profile (including boltguns that are part of a combi-weapon) with the one shown here."

 

--> A Marine armed with a 'combi-weapon' is among other things cionsidered to be armed with a 'boltgun' in game terms.

[Valerian]

Another point to the argument is that a combi-weapon is considered to provide the model with two weapons according to the rules, a boltgun and a one-shot special weapon. Once the special weapon has been fired, it is considered gone for game purposes, just like used demolition charges or hunter-killer missiles, and now only the boltgun the model is considered equipped with remains.

 

Really? Where exactly does it say that? Where in the rules does it tell us that the Melta portion of the weapon is considered gone? Where does it tell us that a used demolition charge is considered gone? I even went and looked at the IG Codex just to be sure, and it doesn't say anything about how to treat the Veteran model that has the demolition charge once it is used. Same thing with a Hunter-killer missile, really; the text in Codex Space Wolves just tells you to treat it as an additional weapon for the vehicle.

 

Your argument would have a lot more weight to it if any of those quotes that you've been providing actually told players to treat an expended system as gone.

 

Best regards,

 

V

[BlackSpike]

If a vehicle that has fired its H/K missile takes a Weapon Destroyed result, can it be allocated to the H/K?

[Legatus]

Really? Where exactly does it say that? Where in the rules does it tell us that the Melta portion of the weapon is considered gone? Where does it tell us that a used demolition charge is considered gone? I even went and looked at the IG Codex just to be sure, and it doesn't say anything about how to treat the Veteran model that has the demolition charge once it is used. Same thing with a Hunter-killer missile, really; the text in Codex Space Wolves just tells you to treat it as an additional weapon for the vehicle.

It doesn't say that. Not anymore, anyways. That is how demolition charges and hunter-killer missiles are generally interpeted, though. The 4th Edition Codex Imperial Guard did actually describe demolition charges in that way, and that the model should be replaced with a guardsman armed with a lasgun once it had used the demolition charge. Now it does not say that anymore, but that was precisely my point. With demolition charges and hunter-killer missiles players will readily take them as "gone" once they have been used. But their rules in 5th Edition are the same as for the special weapon of a combi-weapon, so they should be treated the same.

 

Hunter-killer missiles have been brought up before, IIRC by Grey Hunter. Once they have been fired, are they still considered among the weapons of the vehicle that need to be destroyed? Or is it ignored for those purposes once it has been fired? Myself and certainly not few others would say that since it doesn't do anything, it does not have to be destroyed in order to render the vehicle weaponless and immobile.

[Valerian]

Really? Where exactly does it say that? Where in the rules does it tell us that the Melta portion of the weapon is considered gone? Where does it tell us that a used demolition charge is considered gone? I even went and looked at the IG Codex just to be sure, and it doesn't say anything about how to treat the Veteran model that has the demolition charge once it is used. Same thing with a Hunter-killer missile, really; the text in Codex Space Wolves just tells you to treat it as an additional weapon for the vehicle.

 

It doesn't say that....

 

Okay, now we are getting somewhere.

 

The 4th Edition Codex Imperial Guard did actually describe demolition charges in that way, and that the model should be replaced with a guardsman armed with a lasgun once it had used the demolition charge. Now it does not say that anymore,

 

So, we were given guidance for how to treat Demolition Charge models in an old codex, written for the old ruleset. Quite a bit changed from 4th to 5th Edition in the ruleset, and quite a bit has changed between version of the Imperial Guard codex. What is the justification for continuing to use the old guidance in the new game?

 

Even if the wording hadn't changed one bit (and the 5th Edition wording was the same), that guidance was specific to the Demolition Charge, a single piece of wargear in the game, and the guidance cannot/should not be applied generally to other similar situations unless we are told to.

 

With demolition charges and hunter-killer missiles players will readily take them as "gone" once they have been used. But their rules in 5th Edition are the same as for the special weapon of a combi-weapon, so they should be treated the same.

 

I agree, they probably should be treated as the same (unless we are told not to), but we are not instructed to treat them in any way at all; certainly nothing has been written to tell us to treat them any differently than weapons, wargear, pieces of equipment that do not have limited ammunition, charges, etc., other than that they can only be used once.

 

Like I said earlier though, we aren't likely to convince one another unless someone comes up with a brand new bold approach, or comes up with an actual relevant instruction somewhere in the rules.

 

Until next time,

 

V

[Legatus]

The basic notion I am putting forward for how to treat any weapon that is destroyed, empty or in any other way non-functional is still that they should be considered non-existant by the rules. If it does not actually do anything in the game, it is not considered to be a distinguishing element of a model. That is following the same noting according to which it is purely an object's game-properties that define it's status, and not fluff, name, or model.

 

If the properties are different, it's a different item, no matter the name, fluff or model.

 

If the properties are the same, it is the same item, no matter the name, fluff or model.

 

If it does not have any properties at all, it does not exist, no matter the name, fluff or model.

 

Case in point: Tactical Marine with combat blade. In fluff they have them, and some models are equipped with them (there are a few in the tactical marine sprues). But as they don't do anything, not being deemed worthy of even counting as a CCW, a Space Marine is not considered to be armed with three weapons in the game. He only has a two ranged weapons.

[Grimtooth]

The rule to define identical in game terms does not consider functionality. Does that coin drop for you? No matter how logical you want it to be, the rule does not include it so therefore it is not applied.

 

Your continued comparison to the chainsword and combat blade is ineffective. The codex and the BRB both instruct you to treat them as normal close combat weapons. That is specifically spelled out in the rules. They are specifically combined in the weapons and wargear section. Chainswords and combat blades cover their butts explicitly. However, the combi-weapon entry does not tell you treat them as boltguns. The rules do not tell you to treat them as either weapon X or weapon X. They only have a single entry in the wargear and weapon section of the codex with no further distinction as to what happens after the secondary weapon is fired.

 

Based on that, and following the letter of the rule, combi-weapons stay combi-weapons despite state of functionality or combat effectiveness. You applying the properties of functionality or combat effectiveness is your own thing, not supported by the rules of the BRB or the codex. Again, you are playing by your gut RAI feeling of what should be logical and what should be considered, NOT by what you are directed by the rules of the game.

[Legatus]

The rule to define identical in game terms does not consider functionality. Does that coin drop for you? No matter how logical you want it to be, the rule does not include it so therefore it is not applied.

I must have missed the part where the rules describe which weapons are considered the same or different in the BRB. So if you could direct me towards it that would be helpful. Untill then I can only give example after example of weapons that are considered the same despite having different names, fluff or model representation or weapons that are considered different despite having the same names, fluff or model representation. Despite the existance of such weapons where their in-game functionality is the one and only distinguishing or unifying criterion, there apparently is a rule somewhere explaining that this is not how things work. Which page can I find that rule?

 

 

the combi-weapon entry does not tell you treat them as boltguns. The rules do not tell you to treat them as either weapon X or weapon X.

That would certainly have been very helpful. But that it would ever be an issue would have been difficult to anticipate. So we have to go with a reasonable interpretation for how items that are expended are to be treated instead. And to treat a model that can fire a meltagun as being armed identical to a model that cannot fire a meltagun is not at all reasonable. You are insisting on basing the status of armament on name/fluff/modelling/army list, all of which I have tried to point out via numerous examples are completely irrelevant for how the rules usually consider weapons. The only reasonable interpretation for a situation where a weapon gets expended, and one that coincides with how weapons are generally treated in the game, is to base weapon identity exclusively on it's in-game properties.

 

I.e:

 

Same name, same fluff, same model, different properties --> different weapon. (CSM chain axe/Terminator chain axe)

 

Different name, different fluff, different model, same properties --> same weapon. (combat blades/chainswords, lasguns/autoguns)

 

That is how the game usually considers various weapons.

 

The rules do not elaborate about how to treat weapons that change properties. An understandable omission, as such weapons are not abundant (there are none in the BRB). So we have to find the most reasonable interpretation. And the interpretation that "if the properties change, the weapon is changed" on the one hand is closer to how the rules generally categorise weapons, and it satisfies the purpose of the "complex units" rules for wound allocation.

[Grey Mage]

If a vehicle that has fired its H/K missile takes a Weapon Destroyed result, can it be allocated to the H/K?

Ive asked this several times, and so far no one has said 'yes'.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

If a vehicle that has fired its H/K missile takes a Weapon Destroyed result, can it be allocated to the H/K?

Ive asked this several times, and so far no one has said 'yes'.

 

As the attacker allocates what is destroyed, he never would.

 

Interestingly, and perhaps your point, this situation comes up.

After all weapons are destroyed, the next WD become immobilised, and if the vehicle is immobilised, then it is destroyed.

 

Surely a spent HK missile is not protection against this?

as in you have to WD the spent HK missile before you can then have WD shots become immobilised shots? An empty tube saves the vehicle?!

[Grey Mage]

If a vehicle that has fired its H/K missile takes a Weapon Destroyed result, can it be allocated to the H/K?

Ive asked this several times, and so far no one has said 'yes'.

 

As the attacker allocates what is destroyed, he never would.

 

Interestingly, and perhaps your point, this situation comes up.

After all weapons are destroyed, the next WD become immobilised, and if the vehicle is immobilised, then it is destroyed.

 

Surely a spent HK missile is not protection against this?

as in you have to WD the spent HK missile before you can then have WD shots become immobilised shots? An empty tube saves the vehicle?!

That is in fact what I asked earlier- no one seemed to think it did. Why then the change with a combi-weapon?

 

It, like the combiweapon states it is an additional weapon and is one use only. I have never, in 12 years of playing, heard anyone try to argue you had to to the HK missile after it was fired before the vehicle could be immobilized.

 

Frankly, I dont see how people are even saying a combi-weapon is one weapon when the description of the item even states it is two weapons.

 

Now, that being said- even if we were to say that the spent weapon still exists after being fired, theres a significant difference between a fired melta-charge and an unfired melta-charge. The two cannot be considered the same- they dont have the same profile, they cant be used in the same manner, they are distinct, seperate, different. Grouping models with spent charges and those with unspent charges isnt right. They are NOT the same for game purposes.

[Grimtooth]

If a vehicle that has fired its H/K missile takes a Weapon Destroyed result, can it be allocated to the H/K?

Ive asked this several times, and so far no one has said 'yes'.

 

As the attacker allocates what is destroyed, he never would.

 

Interestingly, and perhaps your point, this situation comes up.

After all weapons are destroyed, the next WD become immobilised, and if the vehicle is immobilised, then it is destroyed.

 

Surely a spent HK missile is not protection against this?

as in you have to WD the spent HK missile before you can then have WD shots become immobilised shots? An empty tube saves the vehicle?!

That is in fact what I asked earlier- no one seemed to think it did. Why then the change with a combi-weapon?

 

It, like the combiweapon states it is an additional weapon and is one use only. I have never, in 12 years of playing, heard anyone try to argue you had to to the HK missile after it was fired before the vehicle could be immobilized.

 

Frankly, I dont see how people are even saying a combi-weapon is one weapon when the description of the item even states it is two weapons.

 

Now, that being said- even if we were to say that the spent weapon still exists after being fired, theres a significant difference between a fired melta-charge and an unfired melta-charge. The two cannot be considered the same- they dont have the same profile, they cant be used in the same manner, they are distinct, seperate, different. Grouping models with spent charges and those with unspent charges isnt right. They are NOT the same for game purposes.

 

The combi-weapon entry never tells you that it is an additional weapon. It specifically calls it a secondary weapon of the weapon called a combi-weapon. I mean really, you are just adding stuff now. The hunter-killer entry specifically instructs you to treat it as an additional weapon. Something clearly lacking in the combi-weapon entry.

 

As far as does a weapon destroyed result apply to a hunter killer missile that has already fired?

 

Well the codex entry for the hunter-killer missile tells you nothing about what happens to the it after it has fired. The weapon destroyed entry in the BRB does not differentiate between a fired or unfired hunter killer missile. So at first glance, RAW seems to indicate that a hunter killer that has already fired can still be destroyed via a weapon destroyed result.

 

However, if you read the rule for the hunter-killer closely and with detail, you see this specifically,

A hunter-missile is a krak missile.....

 

So the hunter-killer is not the launcher or whatever you want to say can be destroyed after the missile itself has been fired, it is the actual krak missile. Once fired and it kills or misses it's target, the krak missile no longer exists.

 

So the continued comparision to a hunter-killer missile is not applicable. At no time is the secondary weapon of the combi-weapon considered the combi-weapon, and once fired, makes it no longer exist and revert the combi-weapon back to just a bolter. Once fired, it remains part of the weapon entry called a combi-weapon.

 

And has been mentioned time and time again, functionality of the weapon is not part of the criteria given for determining identical in game terms, just "weapons". You are directed to look at the models and when it comes to weapons, you do not question who has spent combi-weapons and who has charged combi-weapons, you only check to see who has combi-weapons. That is it, that is all the BRB directs you to do. Anything more is your applying your RAI logic.

[Grey Mage]

The combi-weapon entry never tells you that it is an additional weapon. It specifically calls it a secondary weapon of the weapon called a combi-weapon. I mean really, you are just adding stuff now. The hunter-killer entry specifically instructs you to treat it as an additional weapon. Something clearly lacking in the combi-weapon entry.

 

As far as does a weapon destroyed result apply to a hunter killer missile that has already fired?

 

Well the codex entry for the hunter-killer missile tells you nothing about what happens to the it after it has fired. The weapon destroyed entry in the BRB does not differentiate between a fired or unfired hunter killer missile. So at first glance, RAW seems to indicate that a hunter killer that has already fired can still be destroyed via a weapon destroyed result.

 

However, if you read the rule for the hunter-killer closely and with detail, you see this specifically,

A hunter-missile is a krak missile.....

 

So the hunter-killer is not the launcher or whatever you want to say can be destroyed after the missile itself has been fired, it is the actual krak missile. Once fired and it kills or misses it's target, the krak missile no longer exists.

 

So the continued comparision to a hunter-killer missile is not applicable. At no time is the secondary weapon of the combi-weapon considered the combi-weapon, and once fired, makes it no longer exist and revert the combi-weapon back to just a bolter. Once fired, it remains part of the weapon entry called a combi-weapon.

Interesting- because thats much the same language used in combi-weapons.

 

..converted to house another weapon, either a meltagun, plasma gun, or flamer.

 

This extra weapon....

 

You cannot fire both weapons in the same turn.

 

The weapon fires- it only gets one shot. So, if we use your same logic the secondairy weapon- wether it be a plasmagun, flamer, or scissor tosser- no longer exists after it is fired. This leaves only the:

 

The bolter

wich

can be fired every turn

 

 

 

And has been mentioned time and time again, functionality of the weapon is not part of the criteria given for determining identical in game terms, just "weapons". You are directed to look at the models and when it comes to weapons, you do not question who has spent combi-weapons and who has charged combi-weapons, you only check to see who has combi-weapons. That is it, that is all the BRB directs you to do. Anything more is your applying your RAI logic.

 

Your not directed to 'look at the models' and eyeball it. Your told to determine if they have "the same weapons". A used one shot meltagun and an unused one shot meltagun are NOT the same. Thats not RAI, thats simple fact.

[Legatus]

Well the codex entry for the hunter-killer missile tells you nothing about what happens to the it after it has fired. The weapon destroyed entry in the BRB does not differentiate between a fired or unfired hunter killer missile. So at first glance, RAW seems to indicate that a hunter killer that has already fired can still be destroyed via a weapon destroyed result.

 

However, if you read the rule for the hunter-killer closely and with detail, you see this specifically,

 

A hunter-missile is a krak missile.....

 

So the hunter-killer is not the launcher or whatever you want to say can be destroyed after the missile itself has been fired, it is the actual krak missile. Once fired and it kills or misses it's target, the krak missile no longer exists.

 

So the continued comparision to a hunter-killer missile is not applicable.

 

"A hunter-killer missile is a krak missile* (...) that can only be used once per battle. (...) They are treated as an additional weapon.***"

 

vs.

 

"Each has been converted to house another weapon, either a meltagun, pasma gun or flamer*. (...) A Space Marine can chose to fire either the bolter or the secondary weapon*** (...) the secondary weapon can only be fired once per battle.**"

 

With both we have:

 

*The description which other weapon profile to reference.

 

**The description that it can be fired only once.

 

***The description that they are additional or secondary weapons.

 

 

In the game there is no such thing as a "missile" that is fired and then gone, whereas all other ranged weapons that are expended are still on the model. There are only "ranged weapons". A single krak missile is a ranged weapon, just like a demolition charge is a ranged weapon, and a meltagun attached to a boltgun is a ranged weapon. These weapons have the special properties that they can only be fired once. There is no rule explaining that the missile is gone but the empty meltagun is still counted as a model armed with a meltagun. By RAW you either treat both weapons as still there, but non-funtional, or you treat them as gone, as they non longer do anything in the game.

 

 

And has been mentioned time and time again, functionality of the weapon is not part of the criteria given for determining identical in game terms, just "weapons". You are directed to look at the models and when it comes to weapons, you do not question who has spent combi-weapons and who has charged combi-weapons, you only check to see who has combi-weapons.

And this has been refited time and time again, though apparently not decisive enough. The rolebook does not tell you anything about how to differentiate between weapons. It only tells you how to differentiate between models. One criterion to differentiate between models is that they may have different weapons. Obviously a criterion to differentiate between two weapons cannot be their weapons.

 

You want to interprete weapon differnetiation by applying the same criteria for model differentiation? Ok, let's look at a combi-melta's characteristics profile:

 

Combi-Melta: [24"/S4/AP5/Rapid Fire] or [12"/S8/AP1/Assault 1, Melta].

 

Fired Combi-melta: [24"/S4/AP5/Rapid Fire]

 

That looks like a slight difference in profiles to me. How the unused combi-melta has two to chose from, but once fired it only has one available.

 

And indeed all the examples I have given mainly differentiate weapons based on their characteristics, or their "properties" as I chose to call it. Chainswords and Chain Axes are the same because they work the same, even though every other aspect of them is different. CSM Chain Axes and Terminator Chain Axes are different because they work differently, even though all other aspects of them are the same. Autoguns and Lasguns are the same and used interchangeable by the rules, because they have the same profile (you could argue that they have the same profile because the designers intended tehm to be used interchangeable, but thatis besides the point).

 

I am trying to apply the same logic that is apparently used for other weapons to combi-weapons. The difference here is that two combi-weapons may start out with the same properties but may change during the course of the game. Two weapons are generally considered the same if they have the same properties, and different if they have different properties. In the case of combi-weapons the properties change during the game. So while an unused combi-melta is the same as another unused combi-melta, once one of them has been fired, his properties are changed, and it now is different from the unused combi-melta.

 

The rulebook doesn't tell you how to differentiate between weapons, so you have to interprete it in some manner. Comparing it to other examples of weapon equation or differentiation is a good way to do that.

[Grimtooth]

The rulebook doesn't tell you how to differentiate between weapons, so you have to interprete it in some manner. Comparing it to other examples of weapon equation or differentiation is a good way to do that.

 

The rulebook does set the standard,

 

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

 

That is it. You don't "interpret it in some manner" and you don't "compare it to other examples of weapon equation or differentiation". You look at what weapon was bought for the model and that is it.

 

You mentioned this earlier:

Another point to the argument is that a combi-weapon is considered to provide the model with two weapons according to the rules, a boltgun and a one-shot special weapon.

 

However you leave out an important fact that it is considered to provide two weapons, a boltgun and a one-shot special weapon, THAT ARE COMBINED INTO AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT WEAPON WITH ITS OWN ENTRY IN THE CODEX. Both you and Grey seem to leave out that little bit of information with all your quotes of two different weapons.

[Legatus]

The rulebook doesn't tell you how to differentiate between weapons, so you have to interprete it in some manner. Comparing it to other examples of weapon equation or differentiation is a good way to do that.

The rulebook does set the standard,

 

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

That is it. You don't "interpret it in some manner" and you don't "compare it to other examples of weapon equation or differentiation". You look at what weapon was bought for the model and that is it.

No, that's not it. The rulebook tells you how to compare MODELS. One criterion is whether or not they have the same WEAPONS. The rulebook does not tell you how to compare WEAPONS. You do not compare WEAPONS by seeing whether or not they have the same weapons and wargear.

 

Also, you do NOT look at what weapons were bought for the model. You look at what weapons the model has. If you buy two Marines with a boltgun, then they are obviously armed identical. If one of the Marines somehow loses the boltgun in the game, then they are obviously no longer armed identical. "By this we mean that they have (...) the same weapons and wargear."

 

 

You mentioned this earlier:

Another point to the argument is that a combi-weapon is considered to provide the model with two weapons according to the rules, a boltgun and a one-shot special weapon.

However you leave out an important fact that it is considered to provide two weapons, a boltgun and a one-shot special weapon, THAT ARE COMBINED INTO AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT WEAPON WITH ITS OWN ENTRY IN THE CODEX. Both you and Grey seem to leave out that little bit of information with all your quotes of two different weapons.

Because according to the description of a combi-weapon, the model is then considered to have two ranged weapons at it's disposal. The description for combi-weapons does not even list any profiles, because you are using the profiles for boltguns, flamers, meltaguns and plasmaguns, as the combi-weapon will consist of two of those.

 

==> Combi-weapon --> the model has a boltgun and a special weapon

 

==> Remove the special weapon

 

==> Combi-weapon --> the model has a boltgun

 

I stress again that the combi-weapon neither has any profile listed in it's own description, nor is it listed in the back of the codex among the different weapon types. When a model buys a combi-weapon, it effectively gets a boltgun + special weapon package deal. If you were to remove one of those weapons from the deal, it would just be a boltgun or a special weapon.

[Grimtooth]

The rulebook doesn't tell you how to differentiate between weapons, so you have to interprete it in some manner. Comparing it to other examples of weapon equation or differentiation is a good way to do that.

The rulebook does set the standard,

 

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

That is it. You don't "interpret it in some manner" and you don't "compare it to other examples of weapon equation or differentiation". You look at what weapon was bought for the model and that is it.

No, that's not it. The rulebook tells you how to compare MODELS. One criterion is whether or not they have the same WEAPONS. The rulebook does not tell you how to compare WEAPONS. You do not compare WEAPONS by seeing whether or not they have the same weapons and wargear.

 

The fact that is does not tell you how to compare weapons does NOT mean you then take it upon yourself to do so. If the BRB tells you to take one step, you don't take it upon yourself to take two. It tells you how to compare models with one criterion being the same weapons so therefore that is ALL you are bound to do by the BRB. Nothing more.

 

Also, you do NOT look at what weapons were bought for the model. You look at what weapons the model has. If you buy two Marines with a boltgun, then they are obviously armed identical. If one of the Marines somehow loses the boltgun in the game, then they are obviously no longer armed identical. "By this we mean that they have (...) the same weapons and wargear."

 

No model can lose a bolter, so bad analogy. And nothing at all tells you that you lose the secondary weapon of a combi-weapon. It may not fire anymore, but you do not lose it making the combi-weapon not a combi-weapon. The combi-weapon does not suddenly become NOT a combi-weapon because the secondary weapon can no longer fire. The properties may have changed, but that is not part of the criterion set forth by the BRB. That may be part of your criterion, but again, that is your RAI, not RAW.

 

 

You mentioned this earlier:

Another point to the argument is that a combi-weapon is considered to provide the model with two weapons according to the rules, a boltgun and a one-shot special weapon.

However you leave out an important fact that it is considered to provide two weapons, a boltgun and a one-shot special weapon, THAT ARE COMBINED INTO AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT WEAPON WITH ITS OWN ENTRY IN THE CODEX. Both you and Grey seem to leave out that little bit of information with all your quotes of two different weapons.

Because according to the description of a combi-weapon, the model is then considered to have two ranged weapons at it's disposal. The description for combi-weapons does not even list any profiles, because you are using the profiles for boltguns, flamers, meltaguns and plasmaguns, as the combi-weapon will consist of two of those.

 

==> Combi-weapon --> the model has a boltgun and a special weapon

 

==> Remove the special weapon

 

==> Combi-weapon --> the model has a boltgun

 

I stress again that the combi-weapon neither has any profile listed in it's own description, nor is it listed in the back of the codex among the different weapon types. When a model buys a combi-weapon, it effectively gets a boltgun + special weapon package deal. If you were to remove one of those weapons from the deal, it would just be a boltgun or a special weapon.

 

Nothing removes the special weapon from the combi-weapon after it has fired. It is not a fire and forget weapon. It may not be able to fire anymore, but that does not make it suddenly dematerialize the melta portion of the combi-melta.

 

Logically, us looking at the weapon after it has fired, the weapon is no longer the same functionally. I agree with you on that. However, the BRB definition for identical in game terms only cares that it is a combi-weapon, not that is functionally different.

[Legatus]

The fact that is does not tell you how to compare weapons does NOT mean you then take it upon yourself to do so. If the BRB tells you to take one step, you don't take it upon yourself to take two. It tells you how to compare models with one criterion being the same weapons so therefore that is ALL you are bound to do by the BRB. Nothing more.

The BRB tells us that for two models to be considered identical in game terms, they have to have the same characteristics profile, the same special rules, the same weapons and the same wargear.

 

That is what the BRB tells us.

 

In order for two models to be considered identical, they have to have the same weapons.

 

But under what circumstances are two weapons considered to be the same?

 

When they have the same name? When they have the same fluff? When they have the same model? When they have the same properties?

 

The BRB does not tell us.

 

 

Are a Chainsword and a Chain Axe the same weapon?

 

Are a Lasgun and an Autogun the same weapon?

 

Are the Chain Axe of a Chaos Marine and the Chain Axe of a Chaos Terminator the same weapons?

 

 

Nothing removes the special weapon from the combi-weapon after it has fired. It is not a fire and forget weapon. It may not be able to fire anymore, but that does not make it suddenly dematerialize the melta portion of the combi-melta.

In fluff, it doesn't. On the model, it doesn't. The name of the weapon does not change. But it's rules? They are different now.

[dswanick]

Just a quick question for Brother Ramses - What is your definition of "same weapon" in the statement :

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

How do you come to the conclusion that any two given models weapons are "the same"?