Wound Allocation Question

[thade]

Okay, so...the debate is in fact purely over semantics. =) It seems that - insofar as wound alloc is concerned - everything is kosher, which is a relief.

 

As to your counterpoint on Counts-As...well, okay. You got me there.

[dswanick]

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

[thade]

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

My follow-up argument addresses this; actually, so does my original post.

 

The rules say you "Replace" the boltgun with the combi-melta. What is it? A combi-melta. It is not a boltgun. It has a boltgun component, but it is NOT a boltgun. It is a combi-melta. Why? Well, we replaced the boltgun with it. So it must be different. If it were a modification or an addition to it, it would not "replace". It would be "may take", like a Melta Bomb, for instance.

 

No where in the rules does it say that upon the melta-shot being discharged that the combi-melta becomes a Boltgun (ie that the combi-melta is "replaced" with a boltgun). To believe otherwise is RAI, which is not what we deal in here. We deal in RAW.

 

I have seen several assertions here rooted in RAI that this transformation (ie combi-melta to boltgun post-melta-shot) takes place, but I have not seen a single RAW rule reference. Once I get out of work I can take the time to really dig through this thread; that said, if someone can point out to me what rule does this in the meantime, I'd apreciate it.

[dswanick]

I have seen several assertions here rooted in RAI that this transformation (ie combi-melta to boltgun post-melta-shot) takes place, but I have not seen a single RAW rule reference. Once I get out of work I can take the time to really dig through this thread; that said, if someone can point out to me what rule does this in the meantime, I'd apreciate it.

TAKING SAVING THROWS

Having allocated the wounds, all of the models in the unit that are identical in gaming terms take their saving throws at the same time, in one batch. Casualties can then be chosen by the owning player from amongst these identical models. If there is another group of identical models in the unit the player then takes all of their saves in one batch, and so on.

 

Finally, the player rolls separately for each model that stands out in gaming terms. If one of these different models suffers an unsaved wound, then that specific model must be removed . Note that if a model carrying a different weapon to the rest of the unit is killed and removed, his squad-members are not allowed to pick up his gun. We can assume that he was the only one trained to use the weapon, or that the weapon itself has been damaged and is now useless

By your own statement, do not unfired combis "stand out" from fired combis? I don't assert that a fired combi "becomes" a boltgun, I just suggest that there should be two save groups "Unfired combis" and "Fired combis", RAW. Personally I miss the good old days when a ten-man Marine Tactical squad would take some casualties and start their turn down to three guys - the sergeant, the missile launcher, and the plasmagun. But GW seems to think that these guys always being the "last men standing" was a problem that needed to be corrected with the current wound allocation and fast rolling rules. I would prefer that my Wolf Guard combi squad's spent combi guys should provide ablative wounds to the unfired ones, but is that really the way the current rule set is meant to work?

[thade]

I have seen several assertions here rooted in RAI that this transformation (ie combi-melta to boltgun post-melta-shot) takes place, but I have not seen a single RAW rule reference. Once I get out of work I can take the time to really dig through this thread; that said, if someone can point out to me what rule does this in the meantime, I'd apreciate it.

TAKING SAVING THROWS

Having allocated the wounds, all of the models in the unit that are identical in gaming terms take their saving throws at the same time, in one batch. Casualties can then be chosen by the owning player from amongst these identical models. If there is another group of identical models in the unit the player then takes all of their saves in one batch, and so on.

 

Finally, the player rolls separately for each model that stands out in gaming terms. If one of these different models suffers an unsaved wound, then that specific model must be removed . Note that if a model carrying a different weapon to the rest of the unit is killed and removed, his squad-members are not allowed to pick up his gun. We can assume that he was the only one trained to use the weapon, or that the weapon itself has been damaged and is now useless

By your own statement, do not unfired combis "stand out" from fired combis? I don't assert that a fired combi "becomes" a boltgun, I just suggest that there should be two save groups "Unfired combis" and "Fired combis", RAW. Personally I miss the good old days when a ten-man Marine Tactical squad would take some casualties and start their turn down to three guys - the sergeant, the missile launcher, and the plasmagun. But GW seems to think that these guys always being the "last men standing" was a problem that needed to be corrected with the current wound allocation and fast rolling rules. I would prefer that my Wolf Guard combi squad's spent combi guys should provide ablative wounds to the unfired ones, but is that really the way the current rule set is meant to work?

 

No, actually, by my own statements, they do not stand out at all.

 

Gaming terms. What are those? Well, a literal gaming term is "War gear." RAW. You are inferring that gaming terms also included "functional similarities". RAI.

 

I still think this is pretty cut and dry here.

[dswanick]

No, actually, by my own statements, they do not stand out at all.

So, why then did you choose to remove this guy instead of the other guy? Because there is no difference between them? You just closed your eyes and picked one at random?

Gaming terms. What are those? Well, a literal gaming term is "War gear." RAW. You are inferring that gaming terms also included "functional similarities". RAI.

That's the problem, what are "game terms"? Is the list exhaustive? Is one-shot a game term? Does a fired one-shot Hunter-Killer still count for weapon destroyed results? What we have are two different ways of saying something, which (in typical GW fasion) end up saying different things. The point is, you see a difference between a model with a fired vs an unfired combi-weapon which is why you and I would choose to remove the fired one before the unfired one. Just as a player would prefer to remove his opponents special/heavy weapon before a basic weapon armed warrior. The 5th ed rules allocate wounds to put damgerous/special equipment at risk, as opposed to the earlier version of the game I mentioned where the "last men standing" were the three guys with important equipment.

[thade]

No, actually, by my own statements, they do not stand out at all.

So, why then did you choose to remove this guy instead of the other guy? Because there is no difference between them? You just closed your eyes and picked one at random?

 

I'm going to ask you, respectfully, to step back a bit on your aggressive angle here. You know why I pulled the model I did, and not only because it's obvious...but because you read my first post in which I explained it. Right? I mean, it's only okay for you to really bash on every word I say if you READ every word I say.

 

Gaming terms. What are those? Well, a literal gaming term is "War gear." RAW. You are inferring that gaming terms also included "functional similarities". RAI.

That's the problem, what are "game terms"? Is the list exhaustive? Is one-shot a game term? Does a fired one-shot Hunter-Killer still count for weapon destroyed results? What we have are two different ways of saying something, which (in typical GW fasion) end up saying different things. The point is, you see a difference between a model with a fired vs an unfired combi-weapon which is why you and I would choose to remove the fired one before the unfired one. Just as a player would prefer to remove his opponents special/heavy weapon before a basic weapon armed warrior. The 5th ed rules allocate wounds to put damgerous/special equipment at risk, as opposed to the earlier version of the game I mentioned where the "last men standing" were the three guys with important equipment.

 

The 5th Ed. rules do indeed put special equipment at risk; they do this by having us roll our saves in batches, where the batches are marines based on their Wargear. Here I go again.

 

What Wargear does the guy with the used combi-melta have? Why, he has a combi-melta. How do we know this? We replaced his boltgun with it. Is it different after the melta shot is used? No. Why not? Because it's still Wargear: Combi-melta. There is no Wargear: Used Combi-melta. That's a term you are implicitly making up in order to differentiate between a guy with a used combi-melta and a guy with a fresh combi-melta.

 

What are the terms that are important here? Wargear and Combi-melta. Those are both well-defined game terms for 40k. You quibbling over the definition of the term "term" is akin to an American president asking us to consider what our definition of the word "is" is.

[Legatus]

What Wargear does the guy with the used combi-melta have? Why, he has a combi-melta.

Do a Guardsman with a demolition charge and a Guardsman that has already used its demolition charge count as being identically armed? They are both armed, after all, with a demolition charge. Only one of them has used his.

 

Does a hunter-killer missile that has been fired still counts as one of the weapons of the vehicle that has to be destroyed?

 

The overall question is, do models that "have a weapon" that is non functional and cannot be used in the game count as being equipped with that weapon for gaming purposes? Or, since he cannot use the weapon and it has no effect on the game, is the model NOT considered to be equipped with that weapon for gaming terms?

 

Two models are considered "identical in gaming terms" when they have the same weapons (among other conditions). And there are people who doubt that a Guardsman with a demolition charge and a Guardsman that has used its demolition charge and therefor can no longer use it are not considered to be armed identical. The reasoning is very simple: If a weapon can be used, and another weapon cannot be used, then they are not the same. Would you rather have a broken powersword or a working one? "It doesn't matter, they are both powerswords!" Really, are they both simply powerswords? A broken powersword and a working one should be considered to be the same?

And before you say "the rules do not make a distinction between a broken weapon and a working one", they kinda do. The rules explain that certain weapons cannot be used any longer under certain circumstances. The rules for combi-weapons clearly explain, that if Marine A has already fired his combi-melta but Marine B has not, these two models now have different capabilities. One can fire a melta shot, the other cannot. How is that "the same"?

[dswanick]

I'm going to ask you, respectfully, to step back a bit on your aggressive angle here. You know why I pulled the model I did, and not only because it's obvious...but because you read my first post in which I explained it. Right? I mean, it's only okay for you to really bash on every word I say if you READ every word I say.

What "aggressive angle"? Are you reading a bit much into what I'm typing? And, yes, we both know why you pulled the model you did - because "fired combi-weapon"<"unfired combi-weapon".

The 5th Ed. rules do indeed put special equipment at risk; they do this by having us roll our saves in batches, where the batches are marines based on their Wargear"identical in game terms" nature. Here I go again.

And yet your own statements show that you want to game the rules to keep your unfired combiweapon safe at the expense of a model without the ability to fire a combiweapons special shot.

What Wargear does the vehicle with the used hunter-killer have? Why, he has a hunter-killer. How do we know this? We added it. Is it different after the missile shot is used? No. Why not? Because it's still Wargear: hunter-killer missile. There is no Wargear: Used hunter-killer missile. That's a term you are implicitly making up in order to differentiate between a vehicle with a used hunter-killer and a vehicle with a fresh hunter-killer.

Therefore, a vehicle with a used hunter-killer missile must still have a weapon destroyed result applied to the hunter-killer missile, because "fired"=/="weapon destroyed", RAW. That's logically consistant given your point of view, correct?

[Grimtooth]

In both cases regarding the HK missile and the demolition charge it is explained what happens to the model.

 

In the case of the HK missile is specifically details that it is indeed a single krak missile that is fired. It also details said krak missile as an additional weapon for purposes of being destroyed. This covers it not being able to be a weapon destroyed result after the missile is fired and allows for it to no longer exist after firing as it specifies the missile not a missile system.

 

Demolition charge is the same in that it actually tells you to replace the model after using the demolition charge.

 

Both are lacking from the combi-weapon entry.

[Grey Mage]

In both cases regarding the HK missile and the demolition charge it is explained what happens to the model.

 

In the case of the HK missile is specifically details that it is indeed a single krak missile that is fired. It also details said krak missile as an additional weapon for purposes of being destroyed. This covers it not being able to be a weapon destroyed result after the missile is fired and allows for it to no longer exist after firing as it specifies the missile not a missile system.

No, it doesnt. The fact that it counts as additional weapon for weapon destroyed results would infact further reinforce the idea that it must be destroyed in order to glance a vehicle to death wether or not its been fired.

[Legatus]

The rules for the hunter-killer missile do not say it is "gone". They merely say that it can only be used "once per battle".

 

The rules for demolition charges do not say they are gine and that the models should be replaced (that was the previous Codex IG). The current rules do not say anything at all. It is just a fluff intro and a stat line, which includes the "One Shot Only" attribute.

 

That these weapons are "gone" is fluff only. In both cases the weapon would still be there, but would now be disfunctional. Of course, myself and others have tried to argue that as far as the rules are concerned, disfunctional and "gone" are one and the same.

If he opponent asked "does one of those special weapon squad Guardsmen have a demolition charge?" would you answer "This one has a demolition charge, but he already used it!", or would you answer "The squad does not have a demolition charge anymore!"

 

I.e. once the demolition charge has been used, it now can no longer be used by the model, so the model is now no longer considered to be equipped with the demolition charge anymore.

Similarly, once the hunter-killer missile has been used, it now can no longer be used by teh vehicle, so the vehicle is no longer considered to be equipped with a hunter-killer missile.

 

If that was how "one shot" weapons were treated, then once the meltagun that has been strapped in top of a boltgun to create a combi-melta has been fired, it would likewise no longer be functional, and thus no longer considered part of the model's equipment.

[dswanick]

Just an additional thing to consider when contemplating combi-weapons as bolter + oneshot weapon :

Special Issue Ammunition: Each boltgun-armed model in a Sternguard Veteran squad automatically comes with several special ammunition types. Each time a Sternguard Veteran squad fires, the controlling player can choose which type of ammunition is being used. Each special ammunition type replaces the boltgun profile (including boltguns that are part of a combi-weapon) with the one shown here.

So perhaps GW considers combi-weapons as a package deal where (combi-melta = bolter + one-shot melta) and if you argue that one-shot (Hunter-Killer/Melta) "goes away" after it is fired, then all the is left is combi-melta = bolter + oneshot melta (fired) thus combi-melta = bolter. Just thinking out loud.

[Grey Mage]

Just an additional thing to consider when contemplating combi-weapons as bolter + oneshot weapon :

Special Issue Ammunition: Each boltgun-armed model in a Sternguard Veteran squad automatically comes with several special ammunition types. Each time a Sternguard Veteran squad fires, the controlling player can choose which type of ammunition is being used. Each special ammunition type replaces the boltgun profile (including boltguns that are part of a combi-weapon) with the one shown here.

So perhaps GW considers combi-weapons as a package deal where (combi-melta = bolter + one-shot melta) and if you argue that one-shot (Hunter-Killer/Melta) "goes away" after it is fired, then all the is left is combi-melta = bolter + oneshot melta (fired) thus combi-melta = bolter. Just thinking out loud.

This is what Ive been saying for like six pages *sighs*

[Legatus]

It is basically still down to these basic positions, which we cannot seem to agree on:

 

A - As long as a weapon has the same name and is bought by that name from the army list, it will allways be considered to be the same like other weapons with that name, even if they have completely different properties. Their official title is by what weapons are distinguished.

 

B - If two weapons have different properties, they cannot be considered to be the same, no matter what they may be called or under what name they are bought. How they work in the game is how weapons are distinguished.

 

I prefer the position that makes more sense as a game mechanic.

[dswanick]

Which is one of many reasons why intelligently debating rules 100% RAW is impossible. There is a great list of RAW in a thread on Dakka's forums showing that 40k can't be played if you play 100% RAW. Everything must be XX% RAW / XX%RAI / XX% Common Sense. How each player weights their RAW / RAI / Common Sense is personal, but since this is a game players have to come to some kind of an agreement which both can accept. Personally I will continue to play the unfired combi-s are a seperate save allocation group from fired combi-s and both are seperate from bolters. In this way I still keep to the spirit of putting special weapons at risk to volume of fire. So 'B' for me, please. ;)

[Legatus]

"RAW" is a problem if there is no "W" available that resolves the issue.

 

If A was correct, by RAW we should treat mutants or traitors that are armed with autoguns as differently armed than those with lasguns. I don't a lot of people would suggest that. I also think that if the original question had been about how guardsmen that have used their demolition charge are treated we would not have this discussion.

[thade]

What "aggressive angle"? Are you reading a bit much into what I'm typing? ... And yet your own statements show that you want to game the rules to keep your unfired combiweapon safe at the expense of a model without the ability to fire a combiweapons special shot.

 

This is what I was reading into. You seemed to be inferring that I was taking the stance I was purely because I could gain some tactical advantage from it; in doing so you change the angle of the discussion from a "thade is the devil's advocate in an effort to exhaust all confounds to our argument" into a personal-thing. My recommendation to you is to disallow yourself such inferences; if you don't make such inferences, the language you use suggests otherwise, so I ask that you alter your approach. Thank you.

 

Back on topic.

 

The Hunter-Killer missile adds a curious spin to this. Like the combi-, it's described as a one-shot weapon. Like the combi, it does NOT state that it vanishes/goes away once it is used, only that you can use it once. Now we have a conundrum.

 

Suppose for instance that the HK missile is the last functional (ie not removed by a Weapon Destroyed result) weapon on my Immoblised Rhino. I fire it this turn, and of course I miss. On my opponent's following turn, he hits me and gets an Immobilized result. Now, what happens?

 

CASE 1 (What I would rule)

 

The HK missile is gone; the Immobilized result stacks to Wrecked.

 

CASE 2 (The conundrum)

 

The HK missile was fired (one use) but is still there (I modelled it) so while I can't use it anymore, it's not RAW destroyed/removed. So, the Immobilized result turns into a Weapon Destroyed Result; the Rhino is still on the table, not a Kill Point, and my marines safely inside.

 

First, let me state clearly and unambiguously that I do not personally seek to exploit the rules in this way; I am trying only to find a consistent way to handle the rules, as is the ostensible goal of the OR board. :) K?

 

Now, see what I mean? Is the missile there, or isn't it? Is the combi- still there, or isn't it? Used does NOT equal vanished or gone, it just equals "Used". By crossing it out, you are breaking a rule. That's what I fear.

 

That said, I'm pretty sure we'd all opt for Case 1 without thinking...but are we all in the wrong?

[Legatus]

That said, I'm pretty sure we'd all opt for Case 1 without thinking...

And not just with hunter-killer missiles. I am pretty sure that would be the consensus for demolition charges as well. Though to be fair, previous rule iterations for those had actually stated that the model was then replaced with a model armed only with a lasgun. The current rules do not say that anymore, however. Now it merely has a weapon profile and the "One Shot Only" attribute.

 

The argument for such situations is that whatever does not have any rules, any impact or effect in the game, is not considered a "thing" by the rules. If you model a sarlac pit on your gaming table but do not agree o any rules for it, then there is no sarlac pit on your table, just a piece of the table where it is difficult to place models. If you model an imbedded Imperial information broadcaster on to your Rhino, but do not invent rules for him you and your opponent agree on, then there is no extra person in your Rhino, and you can still transport your 10 man squad with it.

 

You could say the same about a fired hk missile or demolition charge. They have no effect and do nothing at all from that point on. They have no rules, so they do not "exist" as far as the rule system is concerned. That is what is being proposed anyway, as one could make the case that merely being a distinguishing element could still be consodered having an impact on the game and thus justifying the rules caring for such things as empty weapons.

[thade]

Hmm, maybe. Though, I didn't pay points to put the thingies on the board...I did pay points for the HK missile, and so I *must* represent it on the model as it is a purchased wargear upgrade.

 

The rules stating that the model being replaced would be *awesome* in this edition, as it would solve this weird little circle we're in. With regards to our current argument (combi-'s) I still don't see either interpretation as being game-breaking, but I would appreciate some consistency.

 

Recently I read thru the WHFB new rulebook. I find myself hoping that 40k will see a similar style update in the near future.

[Legatus]

Hmm, maybe. Though, I didn't pay points to put the thingies on the board...I did pay points for the HK missile, and so I *must* represent it on the model as it is a purchased wargear upgrade.

Once you fire it you get what you paid for. (And if yo never fire it before the game ends or before the model is killed, you wasted your points...). There are other things you pay points for that do not have a model representation at all, like Space Wolves sagas, Black Templar Vows or a lot of wargear that is not a weapon. As far as WYSIWYG is concerned you could even argue that models that have fired their hk missile, demolition charge or combi-weapon would have to be specifically marked, as outside of the issue of how they count for wound allocation those models are now different and cannot use those weapons anymore. You have two Identical Rhino's, but one has already fired it's hk missile, while the other has not. Naturally the opponent would probably rather shoot the one that still got it's missile. But if they both are still modeled with the hk missile launcher on it, how does he know which one has fired his? The opponent will probably be forthcoming and tell him which one it is, but the purpose of WYSIWYG is that a player does not constantly have to ask the opponent which model is armed how.

[thade]

There are other things you pay points for that do not have a model representation at all, like Space Wolves sagas, Black Templar Vows or a lot of wargear that is not a weapon.

 

If you have two Space Wolf Captains, and they both look identical with identical load outs except that one has a Saga and one does not...that's not going to fly. However, if they look significantly different (as they should, being two different SW "lords" or what have you) then it's not an issue, because you can tell which one has it and which one does not. This isn't specifically modeling the "upgrade" that is the Saga, but effectively that's what it is. You need to be able to distinguish between the models in order to know which one has the Saga and which one does not.

 

Still, that's got RAI stamped all over it. WYSIWYG and Counts-As should get their own section/chapter. It would remedy a lot of things, like this.

[Algesan]

*shakes head*.

 

1) Your wrong, as there were 7 models in the above unit, it would *potentially* be alive.

 

2) The chance on an armor save doesnt change because the model has different weapons- only the number of wounds allocated to it matter.

 

3) Most importantly, this has nothing to do with cheese or lack there of- so keep your insults out of this thread please.

 

4) This has to do with how the rules are written. All your math has to say here is that wether or not theyre the same has a significant impact on the game- we knew that, thank you for confirming it.

 

1) Sorry, I crossed the examples unclearly. The original example was for an actual combat event in a game with 7 models then I returned back to the 5 model all combi-weapon squad without a clear transition. Yes, technically the last survivor in a simple unit situation could have potentially survived 11 armor save rolls (but that is why we roll the dice), but the statistical chances of making 11x 3+ armor saves isn't real good, about 1.2%.

 

2) Correct, but the handling of the unit casualties does change, which is my point. If the combis are treated differently depending on use status, then a there is a set range of wounds (X to Y) where using complex rules has a minor advantage (i.e. - there is a chance to kill an unexpended combi). For a number of wounds less than X, then there is no chance to kill a combi by either simple or complex methods and for a number of wounds greater than Y, then the simple unit rules will result in more kills. The values of X and Y can be calculated. Of course, this assumes average dice rolling.

 

3) Didn't think I brought up cheese in there, but I apologize for the snippy comment.

 

4) It is the differing impact and the saddest part is that this is a RAW applicable to the Core rules not something in a Codex, so this entire discussion that has a post in the "Grey Area" thread from May 2009 could have been resolved by a simple errata/Q&A in the FAQ by GW a long, long time ago. Yes it has differing impacts, the complex interpretation gives a bonus to the attacker for a small range of wounds (X to Y) and a bonus to the defender at all numbers of wounds and the simple one gives an advantage to the defender for 1 to Y wounds and advantage to the attacker for greater than Y wounds. IMO, going with RAI, the advantage in all other low wound situations rests with the defender and even when using the complex rules, therefore, continue that trend. Especially when spending a few more points can give the Sgt an different wargear profile and invoke the complex rules without any RAW issues.

[Algesan]

You see, that's exactly what I was saying. Your beef is with the 5th Edition rules for wound allocation. But that is how 5th Edition works. You are now basically trying to argue to keep those pesky 5th Edition rules awaye from a mixed-combi-weapon squad.

 

Actually, I'm against introducing an unneeded further complexity into the game for something that has a limited specific application that in an additional limited case gives an advantage to the attacker on wound allocation that the attacker has in no other case.

 

Ok, now take a unit with 4 Boltgun Marines and 1 Meltagun Marine. That unit suffers 5 regular wounds. If you had such a scenario 30 times, how often would you end up with a dead Meltagun?

 

Now take a unit with 4 empty combi-meltas and 1 full combi-melta. That units suffers 5 regular wounds. In 30 takes, how often would the full combi-melta be removed as a casualty if you treat the models as identical for wound allocation?

 

Do you notice a difference? Do you think there should be a difference?

 

Yep, one unit can fire 5x bolters on any turn and up to 5x individual melta shots if they choose not to shoot one of the bolters that shooting phase. The other can only fire 4x bolters and 1x melta on any shooting phase.

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Algesan]

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.

 

Actually Brother Ramses and I agree on the way the RAW read, but there is dispute. So I'm using other means to point out how that RAW interpretation can be supported by RAI. So, the mathhammer to point out how the interpretation as complex only gives an advantage to the attacker in a very limited context while it is irrelevant (or hurts the attacker) in all other situations and the fact that the visual representation of the wargear does not change in the case of combi weapons as it technically does in other examples of one shot weapons.