Wound Allocation Question

[Legatus]

Becase the BRB definition only lists weapon. It doesn't tell you to dig any deeper or expand upon the word "weapon".

That is a shame, as the rulebook clearly requires that multiple weapons are deemed either "the same" or "not the same".

 

 

By you standard of weapon functionality I could create a unit where half the models are different soley by switching the weapons from left side to rightside.

 

A left handed wolf claw is the same as a right handed wolf claw per the BRB. Functionally they are different.

No they are not. :huh:

 

Whether your model is holding it's weapon with the right hand or the left hand is purely modelling or fluff. It has absolutely no meaning for how the model works in the game. As I have tried to establish, modelling and fluff are irrelevant when comparing weapons.

[Grimtooth]

Well it appears that some people have shifted their arguments to the mathhammer aspect of either counting them as still being combi-weapons or not and how it doesn't matter one way or the other. My point is despite what mathhammer tells us is the odds on better situation for either countiing them all the same or fired ones differently is a moot point that has absolutely zero bearing on the rules discussion.

That is true. I find it interresting none the less. Whereas Algesan is of the opinion that treating fired combi-weapons as different model types than non-fired ones would result in complications and odd situations, I on the other hand think that treating them that way works out just how other common situations with limited special weapons in a squad work out, and thus should be the desired outcome.

 

 

Not once is functionality of the weapon a qualifier for the BRB definition for being identical.

Unfortunately the BRB does not explain when two weapons are considered identical at all.

 

Which is why I look at examples where two weapons are considered identical or not identical. I have found examples where the weapons are called the same, look the same and work in the fluff the same but have different rules (CSM Chain Axes, CSM Terminator Chain Axes), and would be considered not identical. And I have found examples where the weapons are called differently, look differently and work differently in the fluff, but have the exact same rules (Lasguns and Autoguns, Chain Swords and CSM Chain Axes) and would be considered identical in the game.

My conclusion based on those examples is that the rules only care for the weapon's in game properties and in no way care for the weapon's name, it's model representation or how it is described to work in the fluff when determining whether or not two weapons are considered to be identical.

 

Is the name the same? Does not matter!

 

Is the model the same? Does not matter!

 

Do they have the same background? Does not matter!

 

Are they working the same in the game? <-- This is the sole criterion!

 

You have tried this example a couple of times already and it is about time that you are called on it.

 

What are CSM Chain axes and CSM Terminator Chain Axes and how are they different in rules? And btw the way, they are not named the same even by your description. Notice the lack of "Terminator" in one of the above.

 

Secondly, the entries for lasguns, autoguns, chainswords, and chainaxes specifically tell you how to treat them in game terms. The entries specifically tell you they are to be treated identical with the entry for chainaxes and chainswords explicitly telling you that they are close combat weapons.

 

So your little list of declarations only applies to the specific examples you have found because they have specific entries telling you how to treat them identical in game terms.

[Grey Mage]

Becase the BRB definition only lists weapon. It doesn't tell you to dig any deeper or expand upon the word "weapon".

 

By you standard of weapon functionality I could create a unit where half the models are different soley by switching the weapons from left side to rightside.

Ramses, we both know your not that stupid.

[Legatus]

What are CSM Chain axes and CSM Terminator Chain Axes and how are they different in rules? And btw the way, they are not named the same even by your description. Notice the lack of "Terminator" in one of the above.

They are not actually called "CSM Terminator Chain Axes". That was me giving a nominal distinction between a Chain Axe when it is wielded by a regular Chaos Marine and a Chain Axe when it is wielded by a Chaos Terminator. With close combat weapons it is common practice to lump several different kinds together into one "group" of weapons with the same in game functionality, but that serves as an example for how irrelevant fluff, modelling and names are nonetheless. That Berserker Champion is wielding a Chain Axe (as do about half of all Khorne Berserkers). And that Chaos Terminator is wielding a Chain Axe. But for the Berserker it counts as a regular close combat weapon, while for the Terminator it counts as a power weapon. These weapons are not identical in game terms, because they work differently. Not because they have a different name, not because the model of the weapon is different, and not because the weapon is described as different technology in the fluff.

 

 

Secondly, the entries for lasguns, autoguns (...) specifically tell you how to treat them in game terms.

They do not, actually. Not for Lasguns and Autoguns. The last Codex to include Autiguns is the Codex With Hunters, and neither the armoury nor the weapon summary even mentions autoguns. The only place where tehy are mentioned are the entries for the heretic units on page 41.

 

Mutants entry:

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

 

Traitors entry:

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

 

I don't think the Codex Eye of Terror included any description of Autoguns or Autopistols either, even though they are available as Lasgun or Laspistol substitutes for LatD traitors as well.

 

 

The entries specifically tell you they are to be treated identical with the entry for chainaxes and chainswords explicitly telling you that they are close combat weapons.

Once again an example of "weapon grouping" for close combat weapons (not usually used for ranged weapons, except for the "firearms" entry in the Codex Eye of Terror). In this case the two weapons look differently, have their own distinct title (we know what a chainsword or a chain axe is), and are differently formed weapons that can be used differently in the fluff (a sword can usually stab and parry, for example). Yet neither of this matters, as all that is important is that for the game purposes they both work exactly the same. As generic close combat weapons. That is, untill you put the chain axe in the hands of a Chaos Terminator. Then it will become a power weapon.

 

I would not see the fact that the rules specifically tell us to treat chainswords and chain axes the same as detrimental to the point I am trying to make. They are still an example of two weapons with different names, different models, different fluff that have the same rule, and are considered the same in game terms. It would of course be preferable if we had a long list where it is explained which weapon counts the same as which other weapon, but we do not have that.

[Grimtooth]

Becase the BRB definition only lists weapon. It doesn't tell you to dig any deeper or expand upon the word "weapon".

 

By you standard of weapon functionality I could create a unit where half the models are different soley by switching the weapons from left side to rightside.

Ramses, we both know your not that stupid.

 

The point being that your RAI of weapon functionality is not based in the rules and thus open fully to being blown out of proportion. You went on to list other interpretations of what the term "weapon" could be without just thinking it refers to just the "weapon".

 

And even if I wasn't going over the deep end you still have a unit that is this complex:

 

Power weapon and fired combi

power weapon and unfired combi

Wolf claw and fired combi

Wolf claw and unfired combi

powerfist and fired combi

powerfist and unfired combi

Chainsword and fired combi

chainsword and unfired combi

storm shield and fired combi

storm shield and unfired combi

[Grimtooth]

What are CSM Chain axes and CSM Terminator Chain Axes and how are they different in rules? And btw the way, they are not named the same even by your description. Notice the lack of "Terminator" in one of the above.

They are not actually called "CSM Terminator Chain Axes". That was me giving a nominal distinction between a Chain Axe when it is wielded by a regular Chaos Marine and a Chain Axe when it is wielded by a Chaos Terminator. With close combat weapons it is common practice to lump several different kinds together into one "group" of weapons with the same in game functionality, but that serves as an example for how irrelevant fluff, modelling and names are nonetheless. That Berserker Champion is wielding a Chain Axe (as do about half of all Khorne Berserkers). And that Chaos Terminator is wielding a Chain Axe. But for the Berserker it counts as a regular close combat weapon, while for the Terminator it counts as a power weapon. These weapons are not identical in game terms, because they work differently. Not because they have a different name, not because the model of the weapon is different, and not because the weapon is described as different technology in the fluff.

 

 

Secondly, the entries for lasguns, autoguns (...) specifically tell you how to treat them in game terms.

They do not, actually. Not for Lasguns and Autoguns. The last Codex to include Autiguns is the Codex With Hunters, and neither the armoury nor the weapon summary even mentions autoguns. The only place where tehy are mentioned are the entries for the heretic units on page 41.

 

Mutants entry:

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

 

Traitors entry:

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

 

I don't think the Codex Eye of Terror included any description of Autoguns or Autopistols either, even though they are available as Lasgun or Laspistol substitutes for LatD traitors as well.

 

 

The entries specifically tell you they are to be treated identical with the entry for chainaxes and chainswords explicitly telling you that they are close combat weapons.

Once again an example of "weapon grouping" for close combat weapons (not usually used for ranged weapons, except for the "firearms" entry in the Codex Eye of Terror). In this case the two weapons look differently, have their own distinct title (we know what a chainsword or a chain axe is), and are differently formed weapons that can be used differently in the fluff (a sword can usually stab and parry, for example). Yet neither of this matters, as all that is important is that for the game purposes they both work exactly the same. As generic close combat weapons. That is, untill you put the chain axe in the hands of a Chaos Terminator. Then it will become a power weapon.

 

I would not see the fact that the rules specifically tell us to treat chainswords and chain axes the same as detrimental to the point I am trying to make. They are still an example of two weapons with different names, different models, different fluff that have the same rule, and are considered the same in game terms. It would of course be preferable if we had a long list where it is explained which weapon counts the same as which other weapon, but we do not have that.

 

Legatus, CSM terminators NEVER have chain axes. The entry for them specifically, explicitly, tells you they are equipped with power weapons. You don't say they are chain axes that become power weapons in the hands of a terminator, they are by wargear definition power weapons. You can not even try and float that as terminators are never given chain axes that count as power weapons. They are given power weapons, period. Thee form may be different, but they are classified and recognized as being power weapons in game terms. It is never a generic chain axe until a terminator uses it, it is a power weapon from the beginning.

 

Chain axes, chainswords, rifle butts, combat blades, etc, etc explixitly tell you that the are considered close combat weapons as described in the BRB. No matter how much hou want to try, the BRB specifies their mechanic and what they are to be classified.

 

I can't check EoT until tomorrow for autoguns and lasguns.

[Grey Mage]

Becase the BRB definition only lists weapon. It doesn't tell you to dig any deeper or expand upon the word "weapon".

 

By you standard of weapon functionality I could create a unit where half the models are different soley by switching the weapons from left side to rightside.

Ramses, we both know your not that stupid.

 

The point being that your RAI of weapon functionality is not based in the rules and thus open fully to being blown out of proportion. You went on to list other interpretations of what the term "weapon" could be without just thinking it refers to just the "weapon".

 

And even if I wasn't going over the deep end you still have a unit that is this complex:

 

Power weapon and fired combi

power weapon and unfired combi

Wolf claw and fired combi

Wolf claw and unfired combi

powerfist and fired combi

powerfist and unfired combi

Chainsword and fired combi

chainsword and unfired combi

storm shield and fired combi

storm shield and unfired combi

No worse than some of the nob bikerz Ive seen. Not that it matters, as you previously pointed out.

[Grimtooth]

Becase the BRB definition only lists weapon. It doesn't tell you to dig any deeper or expand upon the word "weapon".

 

By you standard of weapon functionality I could create a unit where half the models are different soley by switching the weapons from left side to rightside.

Ramses, we both know your not that stupid.

 

The point being that your RAI of weapon functionality is not based in the rules and thus open fully to being blown out of proportion. You went on to list other interpretations of what the term "weapon" could be without just thinking it refers to just the "weapon".

 

And even if I wasn't going over the deep end you still have a unit that is this complex:

 

Power weapon and fired combi

power weapon and unfired combi

Wolf claw and fired combi

Wolf claw and unfired combi

powerfist and fired combi

powerfist and unfired combi

Chainsword and fired combi

chainsword and unfired combi

storm shield and fired combi

storm shield and unfired combi

No worse than some of the nob bikerz Ive seen. Not that it matters, as you previously pointed out.

 

And no one is questioning nob bikerz gear beyond what "weapons" they have when determining if they are different.

[Grey Mage]

Becase the BRB definition only lists weapon. It doesn't tell you to dig any deeper or expand upon the word "weapon".

 

By you standard of weapon functionality I could create a unit where half the models are different soley by switching the weapons from left side to rightside.

Ramses, we both know your not that stupid.

 

The point being that your RAI of weapon functionality is not based in the rules and thus open fully to being blown out of proportion. You went on to list other interpretations of what the term "weapon" could be without just thinking it refers to just the "weapon".

 

And even if I wasn't going over the deep end you still have a unit that is this complex:

 

Power weapon and fired combi

power weapon and unfired combi

Wolf claw and fired combi

Wolf claw and unfired combi

powerfist and fired combi

powerfist and unfired combi

Chainsword and fired combi

chainsword and unfired combi

storm shield and fired combi

storm shield and unfired combi

No worse than some of the nob bikerz Ive seen. Not that it matters, as you previously pointed out.

 

And no one is questioning nob bikerz gear beyond what "weapons" they have when determining if they are different.

Unless they have spent/unspent combi-rockets/scorchas.

[Legatus]

Legatus, CSM terminators NEVER have chain axes. The entry for them specifically, explicitly, tells you they are equipped with power weapons. You don't say they are chain axes that become power weapons in the hands of a terminator, they are by wargear definition power weapons. You can not even try and float that as terminators are never given chain axes that count as power weapons. They are given power weapons, period. Thee form may be different, but they are classified and recognized as being power weapons in game terms. It is never a generic chain axe until a terminator uses it, it is a power weapon from the beginning.

 

Chain axes, chainswords, rifle butts, combat blades, etc, etc explixitly tell you that the are considered close combat weapons as described in the BRB. No matter how much hou want to try, the BRB specifies their mechanic and what they are to be classified.

Such close combat weapons are all lumped together as either counting as a "close combat weapon" or a "power weapon". True. But they can still take a lot of different forms. So you can have two power weapons that are essentially completely different weapons, but are both simply considered to be power weapons in game terms. Such as, possibly, a Chain Axe and a Power Sword. These two weapons are very different in fluff, in shape, and have their own name. What makes them be considered the same? That the rules declare them both as a power weapon, obviously. Still, what is now the only thing they really have in common? How they work in the game! They still have different fluff, shapes and distinct names. Despite both being declared to be a power weapon, they still look different. They still have different fluff. They sill have their own designations.

They may not neccessarily be considered identical as a result of working the same in the game, but they are none-the less an example for two weapons that do not have anything in common other than how they are declared to work in-game, and which would be considered to be identical in game terms.

[Grimtooth]

Legatus, CSM terminators NEVER have chain axes. The entry for them specifically, explicitly, tells you they are equipped with power weapons. You don't say they are chain axes that become power weapons in the hands of a terminator, they are by wargear definition power weapons. You can not even try and float that as terminators are never given chain axes that count as power weapons. They are given power weapons, period. Thee form may be different, but they are classified and recognized as being power weapons in game terms. It is never a generic chain axe until a terminator uses it, it is a power weapon from the beginning.

 

Chain axes, chainswords, rifle butts, combat blades, etc, etc explixitly tell you that the are considered close combat weapons as described in the BRB. No matter how much hou want to try, the BRB specifies their mechanic and what they are to be classified.

Such close combat weapons are all lumped together as either counting as a "close combat weapon" or a "power weapon". True. But they can still take a lot of different forms. So you can have two power weapons that are essentially completely different weapons, but are both simply considered to be power weapons in game terms. Such as, possibly, a Chain Axe and a Power Sword. These two weapons are very different in fluff, in shape, and have their own name. What makes them be considered the same? That the rules declare them both as a power weapon, obviously. Still, what is now the only thing they really have in common? How they work in the game! They still have different fluff, shapes and distinct names. Despite both being declared to be a power weapon, they still look different. They still have different fluff. They sill have their own designations.

They may not neccessarily be considered identical as a result of working the same in the game, but they are none-the less an example for two weapons that do not have anything in common other than how they are declared to work in-game, and which would be considered to be identical in game terms.

 

Dude, where are you coming up with this argument?

 

In game terms a power weapon is a power weapon and a chain axe is a close combat weapon. Completely different rules, completely different names, completely different entries, completely different models. The forms do not matter either. A chain axe could indeed look like a chain axe, but if labeled as a power weapon it follows all rules for power weapons, regardless of what it actually looks like on the model. If it is a power weapon, it is a power weapon. You would not call it a chain axe, you would call it a power weapon. Same with a chain axe.

 

Seriously, you are not convincing at all in this arguement in creating chain axes that are power weapons and power weapons that are chain axes. Per the BRB definition for identical in game terms, you look at the weapon entry in the relevant codex and see either power weapon or chain axe with the relevant rules entry for both. You don't question if a chain axe is really a power weapon or a power weapon is really a chain axe unless the models entry tells you that it is a power weapon or chain axe.

 

This is a moot point furthermore since the definition listed in the BRB does not ask for functionality. Again that is something that you have taken upon yourself to add to the definition of "weapon" instead of just taking the BRB at face value when it lists "weapon".

 

Seriously point out a Chain Axe, page number and listing, that is considered to be a power weapon. Even if it calls it fluff, 'chain axe" that is treated as a power weapon, per the defined game terms, it is not a chain axe, it is a power weapon and thus follows all the rules for and being identified as a power weapon. Would you further define a chain axe that follows all rules for a power weapon as being different from a power weapon?

[dswanick]

Per the BRB definition for identical in game terms, you look at the weapon entry in the relevant codex and see either power weapon or chain axe with the relevant rules entry for both.

Can't this very argument be used to show that a Combi-melta is a Bolter and a One-shot Meltgun, since you have to see the Bolter and the Meltagun's relevant codex entries for each to know how the Combi-weapon functions? Doesn't this, then, lend weight to the side that argues that a Combi-weapon simply is a rule device by which a model is equipped with two weapons and if one weapon "goes away" the model then counts as only having a Bolter when considered in conjunction with the below quoted bit?

This is a moot point furthermore since the definition listed in the BRB does not ask for functionality. Again that is something that you have taken upon yourself to add to the definition of "weapon" instead of just taking the BRB at face value when it lists "weapon".

If "weapon" means "weapon" regardless of functionality then a spent Hunter-killer missile is still available for "weapon" destroyed results. Therefore, when considering these two points, one must conclude that if you think a weapon is defined by it's BRB/Codex weapon entry and a spent Hunter-killer's functionality counts for weapon destroyed results then a spent Combi-weapons One shot component must count for identical in game terms evaluations.

[Legatus]

Seriously point out a Chain Axe, page number and listing, that is considered to be a power weapon. Even if it calls it fluff, 'chain axe" that is treated as a power weapon, per the defined game terms, it is not a chain axe, it is a power weapon and thus follows all the rules for and being identified as a power weapon. Would you further define a chain axe that follows all rules for a power weapon as being different from a power weapon?

Do you think any gamer out there does not know what a chainaxe is? In case you aren't sure, there is an illustration of a chainaxe on page 84 of the Codex Chaos Space Marines. It has power cablings on the hilt, and the box also shows a Lightning Claw and a Chain Fist, so this could be a chainaxe like a Terminator might wield. But the box also has the illustration of a Chainsword, which Terminators generally are not known to use, so we cannot really say, and it is basically just any generic chainaxe. In case you have doubts about what kind of weapon Khârn the betrayer may be wielding, it is described as a "huge and ancient chainaxe". But obviously Khârns chainaxe is different from a Terminator's chainaxe or a Berserker's chainaxe. That is, it has different RULES. In fluff, modelling and in it's proper designation it is still a chainaxe. It is a special chainaxe with a unique name. But it is also a chainaxe.

 

I don't know how I can make the point that fluff, name and model representation are generally and repeatedly and demonstrably irrelevant for weapon classification any clearer. The argument had been made that "a combi-melta is a combi-melta is a combi-melta". Well, no, that argument does not hold. As I have demonstrated, "a chainaxe is NOT a chainaxe is a chainaxe".

 

Both weapons are called "chainaxe" --> but one is used in the game as a close combat weapon, and one as a power weapon, so they are not the same.

 

Both weapons look like chainsaw bladed axes on the model --> but one is used in the game as a close combat weapon, and one as a power weapon, so they are not the same.

 

Both weapons harm their target via a series of swirling saw teeth, and use an axe head so they have to be swung --> but one is used in the game as a close combat weapon, and one as a power weapon, so they are not the same.

 

Names are irrelevant. Model representation is irrelevant. Fluff is irrelevant.

 

 

Autoguns and Lasguns are used interchangeably in the game, yet they have different mechanical principles behind them, different names and they look different.

 

One is called a "lasgun", the other is called an "autogun" --> but they both work exactly the same and are used interchangeable in the army list, so they are the same.

 

One has the typical "laser" nozzle, while the other has a deformed M16 look --> but they both work exactly the same and are used interchangeable in the army list, so they are the same.

 

One uses amplified light pulses to harm the enemy, while the other fires solid rounds --> but they both work exactly the same and are used interchangeable in the army list, so they are the same.

 

Names are irrelevant. Model representation is irrelevant. Fluff is irrelevant.

 

 

Now we come back to our fired and non-fired combi meltas.

 

They are both still called a "combi-melta".

 

They both look like a combi-melta.

 

They both are a boltgun with an integrated meltagun.

 

One of them can fire a melta shot, the other one cannot.

 

Names are irrelevant. Model representation is irrelevant. Fluff is irrelevant.

[Legatus]

And by the way: I am not only making the observation that the rules generally seem to disregard names, modelling and fluff and only care for in game effects when distinguishing between weapons. I will also go ahead and say that this is the only way that makes sense!

 

Why should the rules care whether one berserker is armed witha sword and one with an axe if both have exactly the same effect? They shouldn't, it does not matter. Should the rules care when two weapons are seemingly equal in form and fluff, but they have different effects in the game? Yes! Here it matters.

 

Distinguishing weapons based on how they work in the game, and disregarding how they may be modelled or said to work in the fluff is the only way that makes sense form a game mechanic point of view. And it is how we can observe certain example weapons to be distinguished.

[Grimtooth]

You are down to using a fluff picture to further your argument? Please do expand on that sillyness.

 

Khârn has Gorechild, whose RULES tell you to treat it as a power weapon. It has absolutely zero ingame affect of a chain axe. In game terms it never was and never will be a chain axe. Description wise, yes a chain axe. In game terms, a power weapon with additional rules.

 

In game terms a chain axe is a chain axe is a chain axe. Per the wargear entry it is considered a close combat weapon per the BRB and that is all it will ever.

 

A combi weapon is a combi weapon is a combi weapon. Per the wargear entry that is what it is and only ever will be, fired or not.

 

Answer this since you brought it up, what is Gorechild in game terms? Do you look under close combat weapons in the Chaos armory to figure out how it works as a chainsword?

 

When you buy a combi-weapon from a model's options where do you look in the codex armory on how to use it, first?

 

You look to the combi-weapon entry that then tells you how the weapon system works together. How you use a combi-weapon does not change the fact that you have a combi-weapon.

 

And again with the chainsword and chain axe? The entry tells you to treat two different weapons as the same, close combat weapons. If anything, the combi-weapon entry tells you to do the same thing in that you use the profiles for two different weapons as one weapon called a combi-weapon. You don't buy a bolter separately and a one shot flamer separately, you buy a combi-flamer. You don't buy a bolter separately and a one shot melta gun separately, you buy a combi-melta. You use two separate weapon profiles as directed by a single weapon rules entry labeled a combi-weapon.

 

And that is it for me again. On that summary of my point,

 

You are directed to use two weapon profiles but it is under the heading and rules of a single weapon entry, combi-weapons.

[Legatus]

Khârn has Gorechild, whose RULES tell you to treat it as a power weapon. It has absolutely zero ingame affect of a chain axe. In game terms it never was and never will be a chain axe. Description wise, yes a chain axe. In game terms, a power weapon with additional rules.

You almost got the point. Only not quite.

 

Description wise, yes a chain axe. <-- hallelujah

 

In game terms, a power weapon with additional rules. <-- Jeehaw

 

That's only what I have been saying for several posts now. Only the implication is still not dawning on you. Gorechild is refered to as a chain axe in fluff. And it looks like a chain axe. But it does not work like one usually does, and it is not considered to be the same weapon that basic Berserkes use. That is exactly my point! Despite having the look and in fluff being of the same type, in the game they work differently, so they are considered to be different.

 

Works different = different in game terms

 

name? dun'matter!

 

model? dun'matter!

 

fluff? dun'matter!

 

 

When you buy a combi-weapon from a model's options where do you look in the codex armory on how to use it, first?

 

You look to the combi-weapon entry that then tells you how the weapon system works together. How you use a combi-weapon does not change the fact that you have a combi-weapon.

The entry tells me, however, that a combi-weapon that has already been fired differs from one that has not yet been fired in one very crucial aspect. Namels in that one can be fired as a special weapon, while the other cannot.

 

That means that when you have two Marines with a combi-melta each, once one of them has fired his combi melta you have:

 

- two Marines who nominally are armed with a "combi-melta"

 

- two models holding a combi-melta

 

- two Marines that have gone to battle with a combi-melta

 

- one Marine that can fire a melta, and one that cannot

 

cue the chainaxe song...

[thade]

So...

 

I really want to weigh in on this thread, but the conversation seems so heated and directed now that I'm not sure what the topic is or where exactly people stand. @_@ Allow me to (sheepishly) state my stance on it and see if that doesn't get me beheaded. Note that the following applies to all combi- weapons, but I'm going to focus on meltas because a. my sternguard carries boltguns and combi-meltas, and b. I like the word "melta". (Don't you?)

 

If I understand the argument correctly, there are at most three positions:

1. Combi-meltas are in all ways different from boltguns, and so are considered a seperate bunching for the purposes of wound allocation.

2. Combi-meltas are just boltguns, and so are clustered along with boltguns for the purposes of wound allocation.

3. Combi-meltas are a mixed bag: before firing the melta shot, combi-meltas are different than boltguns and bunched separately for wound alloc; after firing, they are bunched WITH boltguns for wound alloc. (IE the combi-melta fundamentally changes in game terms after the combi-shot is used).

 

If I have any of these three wrong, then probably what comes next will make even less sense. Bare with me though (and also, quote and correct me).

 

Case 1: This makes the most sense to me. Why? Because when you upgrade to a combi-melta, you are quote:"Replac[ing] your boltgun with" the combi-melta. You are not attaching the combi- part to it; you are quote: "replace"-ing it. Exchanging it. Your boltgun is gone. You have replaced it with the combi-melta; something that is not a boltgun but functions AS a boltgun does, with the added benefit that comes from the combi-part. (With good reason. Don't you love the word "melta"?)

 

Case 2: It's not just a boltgun, it's a combi-melta. It has a boltgun component, but your boltgun was "replaced" with the combi-. You actually modeled it appropriately for WYSIWYG (or proxied it, in which case your opponent is being kind enough to mutually imagine that you modeled it appropriately for WYSIWYG); it looks different. Now, if you consider it just as a boltgun for the purposes of wound allocation, you can more effectively protect it from wounds than you otherwise would be able to. Why? Because we roll for saves in batches, and if they're part of the batch with the marines that carry real actual non-combi boltguns...then you'll just remove those poor non-upgraded (not upgraded) marines instead of the guys with the combi- melta. Makes sense, right? You want to protect the guys with the upgrades? That's why wound allocation is the way it is: so those guys are effectively threatened. They are upgraded, after all. They replaced their boltguns with combis.

 

Case 3: It's both! This is...well, weird, and I bet this is the crux of the crossfire here. On the one hand, it starts off being Case 1, which is fair. The guys with the combi-meltas are effectively threatened by wound allocation (ie when they roll their saves, THEY take the losses and don't get to offload the losses to other marines with non-upgraded boltguns; this is why the wound allocation rules exist). However, when they (echo effect) TRANSFORM (/echo effect) into boltgun marines, they are giving *no additional benefit* to the guys in their squad who still have a usable melta shot on their combi-. How not? Consider the following example:

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Under Case 3, it's the same thing: I'm going to take a guy with a boltgun...I may as well take the guy with the expended combi-melta shot as his now-useless combi-component is an affront to my eyes. But it's just another boltgun at this point, so it's a non-issue. What are we quibbling about? Semantics? It's okay. Let it go.

 

This leaves us only with Case 2. Under this case, if both marines with combi's have NOT used their shots, and they BOTH fail their saves, you can drop two non-upgraded boltgun marines. I bet your opponent would be upset by this gesture. These marines with combis have different pieces of gear which have a VERY different game effect. Different equipment = different batch = take them as a casualties. It's how the rules work.

 

Hope I helped and did not offend.

[Legatus]

If I understand the argument correctly, there are at most three positions:

1. (...)

2. Combi-meltas are just boltguns, and so are clustered along with boltguns for the purposes of wound allocation.

3. (...)

You are off on what you think this discussion is about. No one is suggesting that a combi-weapon is generally to be considered the same as a boltgun for wound allocation purposes.

 

The main point of contention is whether models with not yet fired combi-weapons and models that have already fired their combi-weapons should still be considered identically armed.

 

Position A: They still count as identical and are grouped together for wound allocation.

 

Position B: They are now differently armed and you have to allocate wounds between the full combi-weapons and the empty ones.

 

 

Situation: You have a leftover squad with two Marines, each of them has a combi-melta. One of them has already fired his, while the other has not. That squad now suffers two wounds.

 

With position A, you roll both saves together, and if one of them fails you simply remove the empty combi-melta. The full combi-melta will never die unless you failed both saves.

 

With position B, you roll for the full combi-melta separately from the spent one. If the full combi-melta fails his save, it is removed as a casualty. If the spent one fails, you are lucky.

 

Position B would work out just like when you had a squad with a boltgun and a meltagun armed Marine. The special weapon has to make its own save and is in danger of being removed when failing its save. In the case of an empty and a full combi-melta, you have one Marine that can fire a melta shot and one that cannot. Essentially, it makes a difference on whether the full combi weapon is removed or the empty one. Since it makes a difference, you have to roll separately.

 

 

There is then also the question of whether spent combi-weapons should be considered identical to boltguns or should be a separate weapon group of their own. The argument here is that a combi-weapon is described as being a boltgun with an added single shot special weapon, and if you dismiss the special weapon once it has been fired, what is left is the boltgun. In this case it makes no difference which Marine is removed. Either one can fire a boltgun. The empty combi-weapon cannot do anything in the game that the boltgun cannot.

[rat of vengence]

The argument here is that a combi-weapon is described as being a boltgun with an added single shot special weapon, and if you dismiss the special weapon once it has been fired, what is left is the boltgun. In this case it makes no difference which Marine is removed. Either one can fire a boltgun. The empty combi-weapon cannot do anything in the game that the boltgun cannot.

This still going :lol:

 

Where in the rules does it say the combi-melta stops being a combi-melta just because it has fired it's melta shot?

 

I think it is a simple as that (I asm sure I posted this several pages/months ago, and it still hasn't been answered...)

 

RoV

[Legatus]

Where in the rules does it say the combi-melta stops being a combi-melta just because it has fired it's melta shot?

The thing is that the rules say a combi-melta can no longer fire a melta shot once it has fired it's melta shot. You then end up with Marines wit hcombi-meltas that can fire melta shots and other Marines with combi-meltas that cannot.

[dswanick]

The argument here is that a combi-weapon is described as being a boltgun with an added single shot special weapon, and if you dismiss the special weapon once it has been fired, what is left is the boltgun. In this case it makes no difference which Marine is removed. Either one can fire a boltgun. The empty combi-weapon cannot do anything in the game that the boltgun cannot.

This still going :rolleyes:

 

Where in the rules does it say the combi-melta stops being a combi-melta just because it has fired it's melta shot?

 

I think it is a simple as that (I asm sure I posted this several pages/months ago, and it still hasn't been answered...)

 

RoV

The bone of contention is that the rules say to group like models together. On the one side the argument is that a combi-melta is not the same in game terms as a spent combi-melta by virtue of being able to fire a S8 AP1 Melta shot. The rules themselves are vague on how one determines if two models are identical in game terms on this count.

[thade]

If I understand the argument correctly, there are at most three positions:

1. (...)

2. Combi-meltas are just boltguns, and so are clustered along with boltguns for the purposes of wound allocation.

3. (...)

You are off on what you think this discussion is about. No one is suggesting that a combi-weapon is generally to be considered the same as a boltgun for wound allocation purposes.

 

The main point of contention is whether models with not yet fired combi-weapons and models that have already fired their combi-weapons should still be considered identically armed.

 

 

So you are saying that there is a Case 4 which I didn't include, which is

 

Case 4: Unused combi-meltas, used combi-meltas, and regular boltguns are ALL separate clusters for the purposes of wound allocation.

 

Nothing in the rules says anything about the combi-melta changing; does it RAI? Kind of; it no longer serves a different in-game function compared to other bolters. RAW however it's still a combi-melta. Why? Well, we quote:"replace" the model's boltgun with the combi-melta. No where in the rules does it say 'once the combi-melta is fired, it now counts as a boltgun'.

 

What is the weapon? A combi-melta. Is it different? Yes. See Case 1. Why is it different? It was used to REPLACE the boltgun. As Written, it does not add to or modify; it replaces. It is exchanged.

 

Hope I helped and did not offend.

[Grey Mage]

If I understand the argument correctly, there are at most three positions:

1. (...)

2. Combi-meltas are just boltguns, and so are clustered along with boltguns for the purposes of wound allocation.

3. (...)

You are off on what you think this discussion is about. No one is suggesting that a combi-weapon is generally to be considered the same as a boltgun for wound allocation purposes.

 

The main point of contention is whether models with not yet fired combi-weapons and models that have already fired their combi-weapons should still be considered identically armed.

 

 

So you are saying that there is a Case 4 which I didn't include, which is

 

Case 4: Unused combi-meltas, used combi-meltas, and regular boltguns are ALL separate clusters for the purposes of wound allocation.

 

Nothing in the rules says anything about the combi-melta changing; does it RAI? Kind of; it no longer serves a different in-game function compared to other bolters. RAW however it's still a combi-melta. Why? Well, we quote:"replace" the model's boltgun with the combi-melta. No where in the rules does it say 'once the combi-melta is fired, it now counts as a boltgun'.

 

What is the weapon? A combi-melta. Is it different? Yes. See Case 1. Why is it different? It was used to REPLACE the boltgun. As Written, it does not add to or modify; it replaces. It is exchanged.

 

Hope I helped and did not offend.

Ah, but again- we are asked to check and see if the models are the same, or different- a very vague and general command in some ways. A 'used' combiweapon is functionally identical to a boltgun, and a sterngaurd with a used combi is going to have identical capabilities in every way to one who just has a boltgun.

[thade]

Not identical every way.

 

Identical functionally, yes.

Identical wargear-wise, no.

 

To reiterate, what is he wearing? Well, we "replaced" his boltgun with the combi-melta. He's still got it later in the game, whether that combi-melta shot was used or not.

 

Inferring that identical functionality = same weapon is RAI.

What kind of wargear he's wearing is clearly RAW.

 

I understand that a chainsword and a knife are both RAW "Close Combat Weapons", and that this is because they are functionally the same; so some of you are extending this to cover combi- weapons after their shot has changed. This inference of yours (which is RAI) is not necessary to do; it's covered under RAW. A "Close Combat Weapon" is listed as a "Close Combat Weapon" under the Wargear. However you model it is fine; remember it's the "Counts-As" rule that makes it a WYSIWYG CCW. In the case of a combi-melta tho...however you model it, in the end it has to Counts-As a combi-melta. It is in fact listed under Wargear as "Combi-melta." It's not going to change mid-game...that's explicitly against the rules! Nothing changes what it Counts-As mid-game, whether it effectively does (because of a rules-imposed shift in functionality) or not.

 

"Counts As" is a game rule. "Functions identically to" is an inference. I think it's important to draw a distinction between these two ideas, especially since it seems to be mucking up this argument.

 

...I'm still not seeing why you are all so locked up over this. Only reason I interjected here was hoping that in you all trying to make me see it we'd get some good mid-game summaries and see the end of it.

 

What tactical advantage do you see to the used combi- transforming into a pure boltgun that I don't see? At the end of the day, I see the overlap of Case 1 and 3...which means nothing changes with regards to wound allocation. Case 4 is beyond me.

[Grey Mage]

No tactical advantage, just how I see things from the page.

 

Were asked to check if the models are identical in game terms. There is a list of things to check, including weapons. A combiweapon is a boltgun, and a secondairy gun. If the secondairy weapon is no longer there then all they are equiped with at that point is a boltgun.... wich is the same as any other bolt gun.

 

This is how I see it based on the common usage that single shot weapons are gone once theyve fired. Most of the people in this thread have said thats how they play it, its the way that makes sense to them. If we assume they are wrong....

 

Then a fire and unfired combi-weapon are different. One can use its alternate shot, the other doesnt have one to use. In wich case spent combis should be rolled for together.

 

Edit: also, I cant agree with your 'counts as' close combat weapons. Close Combat Weapons are listed in their rules as being diverse in appearance and function.... they dont counts-as anything, its just what they are.