Wound allocation

[Debauchery101]

just by spending the points for that option is what makes the model become a member of another pool. there is nothing that can happen during the game to change that.

[Grey Mage]

Care to back up that statement with some rules? Because the IG demo-charge would say your wrong.

[KhorneHunter57x]

http://i1026.photobucket.com/albums/y322/jd12370/beating-a-dead-horse.gif

Indeed. There is a reason this issue is in the Grey area rules thread stickied at the top of the forum. (scroll down a bit in the thread)

[Wildfire]

1 listing, 2 weapons.

 

Yes, exactly what I've been saying.

[Grimtooth]

1 listing, 2 weapons.

 

Yes, exactly what I've been saying.

 

Exactly.

 

No, matter how many times this argument will come up the basic fact overriding all, is that there is no listing anywhere that has, "Combi-weapon used". As been mentioned countless times, when determing like models in games terms, functionality is not listed as one of the things to check. This functionality check has been a RAI driven aspect during this argument from the beginning. There is no basis for a functionality check in the rulebook.

[Grey Mage]

1 listing, 2 weapons.

 

Yes, exactly what I've been saying.

 

Exactly.

 

No, matter how many times this argument will come up the basic fact overriding all, is that there is no listing anywhere that has, "Combi-weapon used". As been mentioned countless times, when determing like models in games terms, functionality is not listed as one of the things to check. This functionality check has been a RAI driven aspect during this argument from the beginning. There is no basis for a functionality check in the rulebook.

Question- What is a combi-weapon?

A: A bolter and a one shot weapon, noted after the hyphen.

 

Question- What happens to a one shot weapon after its fired?

A: GW says... its gone.

 

Question- Whats a combiweapon without the one shot weapon?

A: A bolter.

 

Its not a 'functionality check' its a simple fact that the model no longer has the secondairy weapon, and thus cannot have a combi-weapon because a combiweapon is a Bolter AND the secondairy weapon.

 

The rules say check the model for a number of things- including weapons and wargear. The model no longer has one of its weapons, so it cannot be part of the group of models that does still have that weapon.

 

Note- not, wether or not that weapon works any more but quite literally, according to the rules of the game, it no longer has it.

[Grimtooth]

I really don't feel like getting into again.

 

Your points all address one thing, HOW A COMBI-WEAPON WORKS.

 

That is it. You are only pointing out how a combi-weapon functions. That is clear as day.

 

However wound allocation does not care how a combi-weapon works nor how it functions. No matter how many times you point out how a combi-weapon works, it does not change what the weapon is identified as in gaming terms for identifying like models. Again, you cannot point out in the rules support for changing of a weapon to a completely different weapon. A fired combi-weapon may now act like a bolter, it may fire like a bolter, but is not a bolter, it is a combi-weapon.

[Grey Mage]

I really don't feel like getting into again.

 

Your points all address one thing, HOW A COMBI-WEAPON WORKS.

 

That is it. You are only pointing out how a combi-weapon functions. That is clear as day.

 

However wound allocation does not care how a combi-weapon works nor how it functions. No matter how many times you point out how a combi-weapon works, it does not change what the weapon is identified as in gaming terms for identifying like models. Again, you cannot point out in the rules support for changing of a weapon to a completely different weapon. A fired combi-weapon may now act like a bolter, it may fire like a bolter, but is not a bolter, it is a combi-weapon.

No, what Im saying is that once the secondairy weapon is fired, the model no longer has a combiweapon. Why? Because a combiweapon is two parts- if you dont have half an item, you cant claim to have all of it. Once the weapon is fired, all they have is a bolter- RAW.

[SeattleDV8]

No, you have a combi-weapon that has fired it's single shot.

It is still a combi-weapon.

 

Also the single shot FAQ is for vehicles.

It may be implied that is also works for infantry but cannot be proven.

[Grey Mage]

No, you have a combi-weapon that has fired it's single shot.

It is still a combi-weapon.

In what way is it still a combi-weapon if it doesnt fit the criteria of a combiweapon?

 

This is the same thing as arguing that your Tactical Squad is 10 strong because it was 10 strong when you wrote your army list. What you have written down means nothing compared to whats actually on the model at the time.

 

 

Also the single shot FAQ is for vehicles.

It may be implied that is also works for infantry but cannot be proven.

Its the only precedent I see for what happens to an expended weapon one way or the other. Why should we assume the rules are inconsistent?

[Legatus]

I see the same interpretation for when two weapons or items are identical in this thread, an interpretation I vehemently disagree with. That interpretation being that when two Items have the same name or the same point costs, it does not matter that their rules or stats are different, they are considered the same item in the game. I.e. Lasgun and Autogun = not the same, Chain Axe and Chainsword = not the same, combi-weapon that can fire a melta shot and combi-weapon that cannot fire a melta shot = the same.

 

That interpretation focuses entirely on labels, or even just on paint jobs if you take it to the extreme ("in this deathwatch squad, this here is a blood angels marine, and this is a dark angels marine, so they are different"). I do not find that very reasonable when we are dealing with game mechanics, so to me the game mechanics of an item or weapon are the main, if not the only deciding criterion to determining whether two items or weapons are the same.

 

I.e. some models in a squad may be armed with power swords, some have power axes, and others have power whips. But they are all power weapons, their names or the models do not matter, the models are all identical in game terms.

 

Some traitor guardsmen are armed with lasguns, while others are equipped with autoguns. These weapons are identical in the game, so the guardsmen armed with them are considered identical.

 

A model with a combi-melta can fire a S8, AP1 shot. Once a model has fired his combi-melta special weapon shot, it now cannot fire a S8, AP1 shot anymore. It can now only fire a boltgun. It does not matter that the model is still holding a boltgun with an underslung Meltagun. It does not matter that the underslung meltagun does not "disappear" and that the marine is still technically carrying a "combi-melta". All that matters is that the model can only fire a boltgun, while those models with unused combi-meltas can fire a S8, AP1 shot.

[Grimtooth]

I see the same interpretation for when two weapons or items are identical in this thread, an interpretation I vehemently disagree with. That interpretation being that when two Items have the same name or the same point costs, it does not matter that their rules or stats are different, they are considered the same item in the game. I.e. Lasgun and Autogun = not the same, Chain Axe and Chainsword = not the same, combi-weapon that can fire a melta shot and combi-weapon that cannot fire a melta shot = the same.

 

That interpretation focuses entirely on labels, or even just on paint jobs if you take it to the extreme ("in this deathwatch squad, this here is a blood angels marine, and this is a dark angels marine, so they are different"). I do not find that very reasonable when we are dealing with game mechanics, so to me the game mechanics of an item or weapon are the main, if not the only deciding criterion to determining whether two items or weapons are the same.

 

I.e. some models in a squad may be armed with power swords, some have power axes, and others have power whips. But they are all power weapons, their names or the models do not matter, the models are all identical in game terms.

 

Some traitor guardsmen are armed with lasguns, while others are equipped with autoguns. These weapons are identical in the game, so the guardsmen armed with them are considered identical.

 

A model with a combi-melta can fire a S8, AP1 shot. Once a model has fired his combi-melta special weapon shot, it now cannot fire a S8, AP1 shot anymore. It can now only fire a boltgun. It does not matter that the model is still holding a boltgun with an underslung Meltagun. It does not matter that the underslung meltagun does not "disappear" and that the marine is still technically carrying a "combi-melta". All that matters is that the model can only fire a boltgun, while those models with unused combi-meltas can fire a S8, AP1 shot.

 

And your RAI is just that, your RAI. The BRB is specific for determining identical models and your RAI is not part of that definition.

 

As I said, a fired combi-weapon may fire like a bolter and act like a bolter, but it is not a bolter. It is a combi-weapon and that is all the BRB cares about.

[Legatus]

And your RAI is just that, your RAI. The BRB is specific for determining identical models and your RAI is not part of that definition.

Unfortunately the BRB does not say anything about when two weapons are considered to be identical. But I think I pointed that out a couple of times before.

[dswanick]

And your RAI is just that, your RAI. The BRB is specific for determining identical models and your RAI is not part of that definition.

 

As I said, a fired combi-weapon may fire like a bolter and act like a bolter, but it is not a bolter. It is a combi-weapon and that is all the BRB cares about.

Question : If what matters is it's a "combi-weapon", and from looking in the rule book a "combi-weapon is a combi-weapon" (ie: C:SM, Pg.97 or C:SW, Pg.57 both only list an entry entitled "Combi-weapons" without differentiating between combi-flamer/-melta/-plasma) then two models, one armed with a combi-melta and one with a combi-plasma should be grouped into a single wound allocation group of "combi-weapon armed" - per your argument. In the same way Power Swords and Power Axes are lumped together as "Power Weapons" and Chainswords and Chainaxes are "Close Combat Weapons". So my question is - do you lump all combi-weapons into a single wound allocation group or do you differentiate between -flamers/-plasmas/-meltas?

[Wildfire]

I think we'll just have to disagree on this, GM. I understand what you're trying to say (or think I do, at least), but I believe you are incorrect in your interpretation.

 

A good FAQ question, though, if the number of opposing opinions here are any indication.

[DarkGuard]

That's not what he means. Power sword and power axe do the same thing, they are power weapons. In combat, they deny the enemy an invulnerable save. Therefore you do wound allocation on them together. Chainswords and chainaxes do the same thing. You roll for them together. Power weapons and power fists? No, they're different. The power fist not only ignores saves but it has an enforced initiative and double strength, they are quite different. Combi-melta and combi-plasma do different things, you roll them separately. One can fire a melta, one can fire a plasma. The only time you roll for them together is when they've both fired, as they are now just boltguns in gaming terms.

 

The key part in the rulebook is gaming terms, and I'll cite that here for everyone:

 

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.

 

And later 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.

 

Is a fired combi-melta the same as an unfired combi melta in gaming terms? No, it isn't. One is only a boltgun, while the other can still fire a combi weapon, allowing it to ID characters, blow up vehicles, deny armour saves on Terminators etc. They are different in gaming terms.

 

Is a fired combi-melta different to a boltgun in gaming terms? No, of course not, as they are both boltguns in how they affect the game. It does not matter that one could fire a melta shot in the past, it does not matter that one was slightly more expensive. What matters is what it can do now, and both of them can only fire a boltgun. They only they can be separated now is if one was on a different statline (like a Sergeant statline), or if one had additional different equipment that affects the game in a different way (like meltabombs or a power fist).

 

So my Sternguard squad, 9 men strong, take 11 wounds, and I can take saves against all. It has a power fist, two heavy flamers, two used combi-meltas and two unused combi-meltas, and therefore the other two are boltguns. I allocate them evenly, putting one on each, except for the boltguns where I put two on each. I then start to roll in batch, and in doing so look at it in gaming terms. In gaming terms, the used combi-meltas and the boltguns do the same things, so I pick those 6 dice up and roll, loosing a couple of guys. I then roll for the unused combi-meltas separately, then the heavy flamers, and the Sergeant. That's how it plays, according to the rulebook.

[Algesan]

This again? Okay, first the facts that nobody manages to quote in support of expended/unexpended combi-weapons being different. Straight BRB from page 25 under Complex Units, the first paragraph:

The rules for taking saving throws and removing casualties, as presented so far, assume that all the models in the target unit are identical in in gaming terms. By this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear.

 

NOTE: The second sentence is an actual definition of what "gaming terms" means. Not the random grabbing of a word out of sentence and claiming that is the complete and total definition. Not the reaching into other sections of rules to find a kinda related situation. A direct definition of what "gaming terms" means.

 

Not one of the expended/unexpended crowd has managed to show a change in wargear. It is either a combi-weapon that can fire its one shot or a combi-weapon that can no longer fire its one shot. It either case, it is still a combi-weapon. Period.

 

Of course, this same definition also precludes the amusing position that all combi-weapons are the same for wound purposes since the wargear has different effects depending on which combi-weapon it is, but I enjoyed the sarcasm of the post that used the same logic as those who read two wargear listings where people without such mystical sight can only seem to find one listing.

 

Now, let's get to the important bit: Even though RAW does not differentiate between the two, I personally don't care either way. Why? Because the effects are trivial over the course of multiple games, in one case making the squad more resilient and in the other making it more fragile. After all, if your entire gaming life is dependent on whether or not you can kill an unexpended combi-weapon early or not, I'd suggest you have far larger problems that this.

 

Solution? At the table, don't get into a pissing contest over this, simply find out what the other guy wants to do (if it is relevant to either army) and do it. The difference is trivial.

[Legatus]

This again? Okay, first the facts that nobody manages to quote in support of expended/unexpended combi-weapons being different. Straight BRB from page 25 under Complex Units, the first paragraph:

 

The rules for taking saving throws and removing casualties, as presented so far, assume that all the models in the target unit are identical in in gaming terms. By this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear.

 

NOTE: The second sentence is an actual definition of what "gaming terms" means. Not the random grabbing of a word out of sentence and claiming that is the complete and total definition. Not the reaching into other sections of rules to find a kinda related situation. A direct definition of what "gaming terms" means.

NOTE: The definition given in that passage refers specifically to "models". A model has a characteristics profile, can have special rules, different weapons and items of wargear.

 

A "weapon" on the other hand may have a profile and special rules, but generally does not have weapons and wargear.

 

That passage explains that two models can be considered the same in game terms if they have the same weapon. It does not explain when two weapons are considered identical in game terms. (It also does not adress the issue of characteristics profiles, special rules, weapons or wargear being altered during the course of the game.)

 

It did not do so the last time this issue was discussed, and unsurprisingly it still does not do that.

 

To reiterate, because I know that this point is easily overlooked: The rulebook does not tell us under which circumstances two weapons are considered to be indentical.

 

 

Not one of the expended/unexpended crowd has managed to show a change in wargear. It is either a combi-weapon that can fire its one shot or a combi-weapon that can no longer fire its one shot. It either case, it is still a combi-weapon. Period.

Well, there is the current Rulebook FaQ which explains that expended one-shot weapons on vehicles are for all intents and purposes considered destroyed for future damage results. There is also the rule for demolition charges from the previous Codex Imperial Guard to refer to, which explained that a model that has used up its demolition charge should be replaced with a model with just a lasgun. The rule for demolition charges have been changed to simply being a 'one shot' weapon in the current Codex Imperial Guard though. But it is not as if there is no precedent for the game mechanic to treat expended 'one shot' weapons as effectively gone for game purposes.

 

 

Of course, this same definition also precludes the amusing position that all combi-weapons are the same for wound purposes since the wargear has different effects depending on which combi-weapon it is, but I enjoyed the sarcasm of the post that used the same logic as those who read two wargear listings where people without such mystical sight can only seem to find one listing.

If we take the Codex Chaos Space Marines as an example (since in that Codex the models get to buy "a comby weapon" instead of "a combi-flamer, combi-melta or combi-plasmagun"), then the same rule (Combi-Weapon entry, p. 83) that explains that a combi weapon is a boltgun that includes either a flamer, meltagun or plasmagun also explains that the special weapon has only a single shot. Why should one part of that description be relevant for defining different types of weapon (one can fire like a meltagun, one can fire like a flamer, etc.), but the other isn't? (one can fire like a meltagun, the other cannot, because it has already been fired) Both traits are described in the same rule.

 

The description establishes two different things: That the combi-weapon will contain one of three different special weapons, and that the special weapon can only be fired once during the game. That there is a distinction between which special weapon the combi-weapon contains is obvious. But that there is a difference between a weapon that has been fired already, and one that hasn't, is not really much less obvious.

 

"this boltgun includes a 'one shot' meltagun" / "this boltgun includes a 'one shot' flamer" --> obviously different

 

"this boltgun can also fire a meltagun" / "this boltgun can only fire as a boltgun" --> also obviously* different

 

 

*you'd think

[dswanick]

This again? Okay, first the facts that nobody manages to quote in support of expended/unexpended combi-weapons being different. Straight BRB from page 25 under Complex Units, the first paragraph:

The rules for taking saving throws and removing casualties, as presented so far, assume that all the models in the target unit are identical in in gaming terms. By this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear.

So you agree that what matters is that they may or may not have the same weapon. So what weapon are they aremed with? A Combi-weapon.

Of course, this same definition also precludes the amusing position that all combi-weapons are the same for wound purposes since the wargear has different effects depending on which combi-weapon it is, but I enjoyed the sarcasm of the post that used the same logic as those who read two wargear listings where people without such mystical sight can only seem to find one listing.

Since you find it so amusing - show me in the rulebook where a combi-melta is defined as a seperate waepon from the combi-flamer. Because looking at the rule for Combi-weapons (C:SM, Pg.97) it clearly lumps all the variants of the weapon into the single group, just as it lumps all Power Weapons into the same weapon entry (C:SM, Pg.99). The only way you can differentiate is by looking at the statline for the specific examples of the weapon you are talking about

Combi-Flamer R:24" S:4 AP:5 Rapid-fire

--------------TemplateS:4 AP:5 Assault 1 / One-shot

vs

Combi-Plasma R:24" S:4 AP:5 Rapid-fire

-----------------R:24" S:7 AP:2 Rapid-fire / One-shot

But as soon as you do go to this statline to determine if the two weapons are the same weapon (which according to the rules you quoted you can't), you suddenly find that the statline for a Combi-weapon which has fired its one shot special weapon component (and which therefore no longer exists per the v1.2 FAQ)

Combi-Flamer R:24" S:4 AP:5 Rapid-fire

--------------TemplateS:4 AP:5 Assault 1 / One-shot

is equal to the statline Bolter R:24" S:4 AP:5 Rsapid-fire.So you can't have it both ways. You can't demand that the statline be used to determine that one Combi-weapon is different from another combi-weapon and then declare that the statline may not be used to conclude that a Combi-weapon which has expended it's one-shot special weapon is identical to the Bolter afterwords. After all, an expended combi- has the same effect in game as a Bolter.

[Algesan]

NOTE: The definition given in that passage refers specifically to "models". A model has a characteristics profile, can have special rules, different weapons and items of wargear.

 

A "weapon" on the other hand may have a profile and special rules, but generally does not have weapons and wargear.

 

Well, since we are referring to the weapon that a model carries, this is a silly red herring. It also makes my point, since a weapon cannot be differentiated for the purposes of "gaming terms", there isn't one in the RAW. So the weapon itself determines if there is a difference in models based on weapons.

 

If you want to bring up powerswords/poweraxes, chainswords/chainaxes, etc. there are relevant rules that cover cosmetic differences. Do I need to cite them also?

 

That passage explains that two models can be considered the same in game terms if they have the same weapon. It does not explain when two weapons are considered identical in game terms. (It also does not adress the issue of characteristics profiles, special rules, weapons or wargear being altered during the course of the game.)

 

ROFL. So, two models with the same combi-weapon have the same weapon and are therefore not different in game terms. Thank you.

 

It did not do so the last time this issue was discussed, and unsurprisingly it still does not do that.

 

To reiterate, because I know that this point is easily overlooked: The rulebook does not tell us under which circumstances two weapons are considered to be indentical.

 

The rulebook also does not include instructions on how to unzip my pants, pull out my willie, hold it properly to hit the bowl, shake it and put it away, remembering to rezip. In Other Words, so what? The burden is to show where they are considered different in the rulebook and where the rules say that this change occurs.

 

Well, there is the current Rulebook FaQ which explains that expended one-shot weapons on vehicles are for all intents and purposes considered destroyed for future damage results. There is also the rule for demolition charges from the previous Codex Imperial Guard to refer to, which explained that a model that has used up its demolition charge should be replaced with a model with just a lasgun. The rule for demolition charges have been changed to simply being a 'one shot' weapon in the current Codex Imperial Guard though. But it is not as if there is no precedent for the game mechanic to treat expended 'one shot' weapons as effectively gone for game purposes.

 

So, the vehicle rules section applies to the infantry rules section now?

 

Reread this: "NOTE: The second sentence is an actual definition of what "gaming terms" means. Not the random grabbing of a word out of sentence and claiming that is the complete and total definition. Not the reaching into other sections of rules to find a kinda related situation. A direct definition of what "gaming terms" means."

 

In fact, here is what you are talking about: "A: No. Once a weapon cannot possibly fire again during the battle it is effectively destroyed as far as Damaged - Weapon Destroyed results on the Vehicle Damage table are concerned."

 

Wheee, shall I say it again? "... it is effectively destroyed as far as Damaged - Weapon Destroyed results on the Vehicle Damage table are concerned."

 

This great and mighty EXAMPLE is in reference to one thing only, the vehicle damage table. Nothing else.

 

As for calling on a previous edition of C:IG, why don't you simply cite some previous edition of the core rules? Maybe because it is irrelevant? 4th Edition Hangover?

 

It doesn't help your case that your alternate examples are separate items added to a model while all pictures of combi-weapons are shown as one distinct weapon.

 

If we take the Codex Chaos Space Marines as an example (since in that Codex the models get to buy "a comby weapon" instead of "a combi-flamer, combi-melta or combi-plasmagun"), then the same rule (Combi-Weapon entry, p. 83) that explains that a combi weapon is a boltgun that includes either a flamer, meltagun or plasmagun also explains that the special weapon has only a single shot. Why should one part of that description be relevant for defining different types of weapon (one can fire like a meltagun, one can fire like a flamer, etc.), but the other isn't? (one can fire like a meltagun, the other cannot, because it has already been fired) Both traits are described in the same rule.

 

Sorry, I did a quick check and the C:CSM says "combi" just like various Imperial forces. At least the one copyrighted 2007, I don't know if there is a newer one, it is the one I could make a call and get read to me.

 

The description establishes two different things: That the combi-weapon will contain one of three different special weapons, and that the special weapon can only be fired once during the game. That there is a distinction between which special weapon the combi-weapon contains is obvious. But that there is a difference between a weapon that has been fired already, and one that hasn't, is not really much less obvious.

 

"this boltgun includes a 'one shot' meltagun" / "this boltgun includes a 'one shot' flamer" --> obviously different

 

"this boltgun can also fire a meltagun" / "this boltgun can only fire as a boltgun" --> also obviously* different

 

 

*you'd think

 

Well, of course it is "much less obvious", it cannot be found in the relevant rules! Show me where in the rules you are pulling this from and I'll agree with you. As long as it isn't in crayon.

 

Otherwise it is still "this weapon can fire as a bolter and once per game fire as X" whether once per game has passed or not. I can do this with current rules from the relevant sections and it happens to fit the fluff. I don't have to read my opinions into the rules to get a "correct interpretation".

 

The only reason I dropped it the last time was that over the tabletop, it really doesn't matter one way or the other. There are advantages to either position.

[Algesan]

So you agree that what matters is that they may or may not have the same weapon. So what weapon are they aremed with? A Combi-weapon.

 

Looking at the various entries for units in the C:SM, you will see a difference in which combi-weapon you purchase for your unit.

 

But as soon as you do go to this statline to determine if the two weapons are the same weapon (which according to the rules you quoted you can't), you suddenly find that the statline for a Combi-weapon which has fired its one shot special weapon component (and which therefore no longer exists per the v1.2 FAQ)

 

It is a difference in weapon or wargear from the rule I cited.

 

BTW, the reference to the v1.2 FAQ is irrelevant: First, it refers to vehicles. Second, it refers to being used for certain results on the Vehicle Damage Table. Third, it doesn't apply to infantry.

 

Since you find it so amusing - show me in the rulebook where a combi-melta is defined as a seperate waepon from the combi-flamer. Because looking at the rule for Combi-weapons (C:SM, Pg.97) it clearly lumps all the variants of the weapon into the single group, just as it lumps all Power Weapons into the same weapon entry (C:SM, Pg.99). The only way you can differentiate is by looking at the statline for the specific examples of the weapon you are talking about

 

Page 97. Description of combi-weapons. Second Paragraph. First Sentence. Different weapons.

 

Page 131-142. Multiple unit entries that differentiate between the different combi-weapons by name. Different weapons.

 

Now Page 99 is interesting, but you can stay on Page 97 and move up one weapon description, Chainsword or Combat Blade. Notice the difference in both descriptions and what they refer you to.

 

This is it for me on this one again, I shouldn't have posted anything because this rule, however interpreted, is so trivial it isn't funny. The only reason to pull for a distinction is to get a chance to kill an unexpended combi without having enough shots to blanket the unit at the cost of making the unit harder to kill. Wheee.

[Grey Mage]

That passage explains that two models can be considered the same in game terms if they have the same weapon. It does not explain when two weapons are considered identical in game terms. (It also does not adress the issue of characteristics profiles, special rules, weapons or wargear being altered during the course of the game.)

What youve yet to show is how two things that are not identical are the same.

 

As for addressing changes during the course of the game- it states that we do this after the rolls to wound have been made. We check the groups each time we go to make armor saves... theres nothing in the book that says we check once at the begining of the game and then keep them the same all game... so why the assumption that we do?

[dswanick]

Looking at the various entries for units in the C:SM, you will see a difference in which combi-weapon you purchase for your unit.

And looking in C:CSM, i believe it doesn't make a differentiation. Only caring that you purchase a combi-weapon.

BTW, the reference to the v1.2 FAQ is irrelevant: First, it refers to vehicles. Second, it refers to being used for certain results on the Vehicle Damage Table. Third, it doesn't apply to infantry.

Hardly irrelevant. It is asked in regards to vehicle weapons and Weapon Destroyed results - but it does indicate that for game purposes that an expended One-Shot weapon is no longer relevant.

Since you find it so amusing - show me in the rulebook where a combi-melta is defined as a seperate waepon from the combi-flamer. Because looking at the rule for Combi-weapons (C:SM, Pg.97) it clearly lumps all the variants of the weapon into the single group, just as it lumps all Power Weapons into the same weapon entry (C:SM, Pg.99). The only way you can differentiate is by looking at the statline for the specific examples of the weapon you are talking about

 

Page 97. Description of combi-weapons. Second Paragraph. First Sentence. Different weapons. You mean the sentence which states, as GreyMage pointed out, "A Space Marine armed with a combi-weapon (-melta, -plasma, -flamer) can choose to fire either the Bolter, or the secondary weapon" (sure sounds likek the are making a case that a "combi-weapon" is a package deal of two weapons - a Bolter and some other One-Shot secondary weapon). Which is followed by the sentence "You cannot fire both weapons in the same turn"(which is a ludicris statement unless a combi-weapon is, in fact, two weapons).

 

Page 131-142. Multiple unit entries that differentiate between the different combi-weapons by name. Different weapons. In some unit entries. In others (ie: C:CSM) they are lumped into a single entry regardless of sub-type.

 

Now Page 99 is interesting, but you can stay on Page 97 and move up one weapon description, Chainsword or Combat Blade. Notice the difference in both descriptions and what they refer you to. And yet, they are lumped into a single group in the Weapons section and would be rolled for as a single Wound Allocation group.

 

This is it for me on this one again, I shouldn't have posted anything because this rule, however interpreted, is so trivial it isn't funny. The only reason to pull for a distinction is to get a chance to kill an unexpended combi without having enough shots to blanket the unit at the cost of making the unit harder to kill. Wheee. As the 5th Edition Wound Allocation system intends - placing special weapons at risk to volume of firepower. The only reason to argue against it is to try and protect unexpended Combis from that very danger.

[Legatus]

Well, since we are referring to the weapon that a model carries, this is a silly red herring. It also makes my point, since a weapon cannot be differentiated for the purposes of "gaming terms", there isn't one in the RAW. So the weapon itself determines if there is a difference in models based on weapons.

And how exactly does the weapon do that? :lol: Do two weapons have to have the same name to be considered the same? (you will note that a model's name is not brought up to determine whether two models are identical.) Or is it the weapon's rules, stats and properties?

 

I have one weapon that can fire a Strength 4 shot and a Strength 8 shot, and another weapon that can fire only a Strength 4 shot.

 

4/8 shot <--> 4 shot

 

Most people having passed primary school would go "that's not the same".

 

 

The burden is to show where they are considered different in the rulebook and where the rules say that this change occurs.

Maybe you can explain why you insist that it is the weapon's name that is all that matters, and that the weapon's properties are completely irrelevant. Does the rules explain something like that? Because if you wanted to compare two 'models', their titles are completely irrelevant, and only their game properties are important.

 

 

So, the vehicle rules section applies to the infantry rules section now?

Well, unfortunately... (and I believe I have said so before)... the rulebook does not explain under what circumstances two weapons are considered identical.

 

Looking at related rules or previous rulings are a good indicator on how to deal with the situation. There are several cases where expended 'one shot' weapons are considered to be gone. And there are several cases where two weapons are considered identical even though they have different names. That is all very telling, but unfortunately the rulebook itself does not explain when two weapons are considered identical or how to treat expended 'one shot' weapons. Looking at similar ruling sis a resonable approach to interprete the situation.

 

 

Sorry, I did a quick check and the C:CSM says "combi" just like various Imperial forces. At least the one copyrighted 2007, I don't know if there is a newer one, it is the one I could make a call and get read to me.

Yes, concentrate on the typo. That is very productive...

 

I was of course refering to the fact that in the Codex Chaos Space Marines, Characters and squads can buy a "combi-weapon", and not as in the Codex Space Marines can chose between the three variants. So by your own reasoning, for Chaos squads there is no difference between a combi-flamer and a combi-melta, as they were both bought from the wargear list as a "combi-weapon".

 

 

Well, of course it is "much less obvious", it cannot be found in the relevant rules! Show me where in the rules you are pulling this from and I'll agree with you.

It is in the Codex Chaos Space Marines on page 83. I did cite it in my previous post:

 

Combi-weapons

"Combi-weapons are bolters that have been converted to house another weapon; a meltagun, plasma gun or flamer. This extra weapon carries limited ammunition, allowing the weapon a single shot, perfect for shots of opportunity. A model armed with a combi-weapon (combi-meltagun, combi-plasma gun or combi-flamer) may choose to fire either the bolter, or the other weapon. The bolter may be fired every turn, but the other weapon may only be used once per battle. You may not fire both weapons in the same turn."

 

The units in the CSM army list then only have the option to buy a "combi-weapon". The army list does not list all three options like the SM Codex does.

 

So the only reason why you might treat a CSM combi-melta as a different weapon than a CSM combi-flamer would be because the three types are described in the rule above. And that very same rule also describes that the special weapon can only be fired once, establishing that once fired, it now cannot be fired as that special weapon again. This means that you have to keep track of which weapon has fired. It means that the weapons in the squad that have not yet been fired need to be distinguished by teh player from the weapons that already have, as obviously removing a fired one is different from removing a not-fired one. It means they are different.

 

An empty weapon and a loaded weapon are not the same!

 

The rulebook has no rules for empty weapons. But the rule for combi-weapons describes such a case.

 

full != empty

 

Maybe I can find an old sesame street clip where grover explains that. Ah, there you go. And one more.

 

Edit: fixed link.

[Algesan]

And looking in C:CSM, i believe it doesn't make a differentiation. Only caring that you purchase a combi-weapon.

 

And the only really relevant point is the one in the Wargear section description in both books, which does differentiate.

 

BTW, the reference to the v1.2 FAQ is irrelevant: First, it refers to vehicles. Second, it refers to being used for certain results on the Vehicle Damage Table. Third, it doesn't apply to infantry.

Hardly irrelevant. It is asked in regards to vehicle weapons and Weapon Destroyed results - but it does indicate that for game purposes that an expended One-Shot weapon is no longer relevant.

 

Extremely relevant....The very next time I roll for an infantry model on the Vehicle Damage Table. Oh wait, that doesn't happen...Ever!

 

Page 97. Description of combi-weapons. Second Paragraph. First Sentence. Different weapons. You mean the sentence which states, as GreyMage pointed out, "A Space Marine armed with a combi-weapon (-melta, -plasma, -flamer) can choose to fire either the Bolter, or the secondary weapon" (sure sounds likek the are making a case that a "combi-weapon" is a package deal of two weapons - a Bolter and some other One-Shot secondary weapon). Which is followed by the sentence "You cannot fire both weapons in the same turn"(which is a ludicris statement unless a combi-weapon is, in fact, two weapons).

 

Nope, it is a combination weapon that has two firing modes, one of which can be used once per game. Both C:SM and C:CSM say in the Wargear entry that a combi-weapon is a bolter modified to house another weapon. Not a throw away item that can be discarded, simply a built in secondary weapon with one unit of ammunition. Since I've handled, maintained and fired a real world equivalent of a combi-weapon (assault rifle + grenade launcher), the RAW make a great deal of sense. (Not that my RW experience has any real relevance to how the rules work, since there are several RW issues with the game rules anyway, like disallowing any chance of final protective fire for a unit being assaulted. It is simply useful for me.)

 

Page 131-142. Multiple unit entries that differentiate between the different combi-weapons by name. Different weapons. In some unit entries. In others (ie: C:CSM) they are lumped into a single entry regardless of sub-type.

 

Meh, I shouldn't have included the unit entries because they aren't really relevant, the only thing is the wargear description since "weapons and wargear" are part of what is used to differentiate models in "gaming terms".

 

Now Page 99 is interesting, but you can stay on Page 97 and move up one weapon description, Chainsword or Combat Blade. Notice the difference in both descriptions and what they refer you to. And yet, they are lumped into a single group in the Weapons section and would be rolled for as a single Wound Allocation group.

 

Because they have exactly zero difference on how they work in game. The rules doesn't care what kind of CCW you are carrying, or what kind of Power weapon, or what kind of Force weapon, or what kind of DCCW, or what kind of Bolter, or what kind of Flamer, or which Mark of powered armor you have. All of these have the exact same effect and not only don't have different wargear entries, they also don't refer you to other wargear entries.

 

This is it for me on this one again, I shouldn't have posted anything because this rule, however interpreted, is so trivial it isn't funny. The only reason to pull for a distinction is to get a chance to kill an unexpended combi without having enough shots to blanket the unit at the cost of making the unit harder to kill. Wheee. As the 5th Edition Wound Allocation system intends - placing special weapons at risk to volume of firepower. The only reason to argue against it is to try and protect unexpended Combis from that very danger.

 

Or to have an easier time cutting down the unit using torrent of fire. The only time there is an advantage to allowing wound allocation games by claiming a difference between the expended/unexpended combi-weapons is when you want to try to get a freebie shot at the unexpended combi-weapons with less than enough shots to blanket the unit. Statistically if there is no difference (as supported by the RAW), then the unit dies easier. So it is a trade-off, you give up ease of killing the entire squad under high rates of fire for the ability to kill an unexpended combi-weapon when you toss a few rounds at the squad.