Wound allocation

[dswanick]

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.) - Same here, and I agree : irrelevant.

 

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". Agreed, what matters is the Wargear Description, which according to the C:SM lumps all combi-weapons into a single group, just as it does for Close Combat Weapons and Power Weapons. Which, of course, is utterly ridiculous.

 

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.

And yet, a Bolter and an expended Combi-weapon have exactly zero differences on how they work in game. Thank you for agreeing with us.

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.

Funny I find a reference to how Bolters work in the description of how a combi-weapon works.

C:SM, Pg.97 : "A Space Marine armed with a combi-weapon (combimeltagun, combi-plasma gun or combi-flamer) can choose to fire either the bolter, or the secondary weapon, each with the profile listed elsewhere in this section."

[Algesan]

And how exactly does the weapon do that? :) 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".

 

So, you are saying that S4/S8 shot != S4 shot. That is true.

But you are also trying to say that S4/capable of S8 shot = S4 shot. That is not true.

 

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.

 

RTFM. Wargear Description, pg 97-102 in C:SM and pg 81-86 in C:CSM. Covers the names and the weapon properties. :blink:

 

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

 

The rulebook also doesn't tell me how to breathe while playing a game, does that mean I have to stop or do I have to keep going? I'm not sure, there isn't a rule! Oh wait, maybe that just means there isn't a rule because it isn't relevant.

 

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.

 

Sure this is reasonable as long as you don't try to stretch it. So we have a case where for vehicles with a certain piece of wargear in a certain specific situation (vehicle damage results only) a use once per game item of wargear doesn't count. We have another case where a superseded obsolete codex speaking of a different item of wargear. We also happen to have Wargear descriptions in current codices that give examples of wargear that is different and the same.

 

The first two are irrelevant to the topic under discussion, but might have some use in a "reasonable approach to interpret the situation" if such is needed. For the third, that is most relevant and it actually covers the situation quite clearly with entries that show when two weapons with different names are equivalent and when weapons with similar names and characteristics are different. So we have a direct line and clear result until the water starts getting muddied with "reasonable approach" reinterpretations using older edition rules and rules sections with a kinda sounds like maybe similar 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".

 

Sorry, I wasn't after a typo, I simply thought we were referring to different C:CSM because "comby" just looks like it might be some kind of silly arse Chaos thing. It was why I included the copyright date.

 

However, the wargear description in C:CSM does differentiate between the different combi-weapons. It is not as clearly spelled out as in the newer C:SM, but then perhaps GW noticed in the intervening time the effects of a "reasonable approach" and using what they noted, amplified the description in C:SM to provide a more current basis for an actual reasonable approach. It might also be that the 5th Edition rules are copyrighted after C:CSM.

 

 

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.

 

Covered that above, interesting issue there though since C:CSM appears to be a 4th Edition codex.

 

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.

 

Not in gaming terms as defined by the rules on page 25 of the core rulebook.

 

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.

 

No, the weapon isn't empty, it simply cannot use its secondary weapon shot. It does not change the fact that it is still a combi-flamer, combi-melta, combi-plasma or combi-whatever.

 

As for Sesame Street as an example, let me know the next time you can stop, open and inspect the charge of a combi-weapon. Or perhaps you can let me know the visual difference between an expended and unexpended combi-X weapon so that we can play "One Of These Things Is Not Like The Others: Combi-Weapon X".

 

All of the above, plus the Sesame Street thing are not rules, they are interpretations of rules that require going outside the rules framework and the plain reading of the rules to find the answer desired. :)

[Legatus]

So, you are saying that S4/S8 shot != S4 shot. That is true.

But you are also trying to say that S4/capable of S8 shot = S4 shot. That is not true.

An expended combi-melta is not capable ro fire a S8 shot. It can only fire as a boltgun.

 

 

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.

RTFM. Wargear Description, pg 97-102 in C:SM and pg 81-86 in C:CSM. Covers the names and the weapon properties.

And one of the properties given for a combi-weapon is that it can only be fired once. But as your answer for why you think that a weapon's name is all that matters and why teh weapon's properties do not matter when comparing weapons this is not really that satisfying.

 

 

The rulebook also doesn't tell me how to breathe while playing a game, does that mean I have to stop or do I have to keep going? I'm not sure, there isn't a rule! Oh wait, maybe that just means there isn't a rule because it isn't relevant.

Models have to be compared for the wounding/saving process. Since their weapons are one of the criteria, that means that weapons have to be compared. So yes, it is relevant. What else have we been debating all this time? :)

 

 

Sure this is reasonable as long as you don't try to stretch it. So we have a case where for vehicles with a certain piece of wargear in a certain specific situation (vehicle damage results only) a use once per game item of wargear doesn't count. We have another case where a superseded obsolete codex speaking of a different item of wargear.

So... comparing the 'one shot' weapon of a combi-weapon with the 'one shot' hunter killer missiles and the 'one shot' demolition charges from older Imperial Guard Codices is strentching it...? :)

 

 

Covered that above, interesting issue there though since C:CSM appears to be a 4th Edition codex.

I can asure you that the 4th Editio rulebook did not include some passages on combi-weapons and one-shot weapons that were omitted in teh 5th Edition rulebook. And "logic" did was not altered for the interpretation of 5th Edition rules either, so why it would be "interesting" that a combi-weapon is described differently in an older Codex escapes me.

 

 

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.

Not in gaming terms as defined by the rules on page 25 of the core rulebook.

Regrettably, it is not defined in the core rulebook when two weapons are considered to be different.

 

 

No, the weapon isn't empty, it simply cannot use its secondary weapon shot.

You are on to something...

 

 

It does not change the fact that it is still a combi-flamer, combi-melta, combi-plasma or combi-whatever.

...aaand you lost it.

 

I would like to point out, again, that neither name nor looks are given as relevant criteria on page 25 to distinguish between two models. Yet you insist that looks and title are the sole relevant factors to determine whether two weapons are considered identical. That one of the weapons can fire a melta shot and the other cannot you deem irrelevant.

 

 

All of the above, plus the Sesame Street thing are not rules, they are interpretations of rules that require going outside the rules framework and the plain reading of the rules to find the answer desired.

If you find a definition on when two weapons are considered to be identical or different in the rulebook or any other relevant source, then please let me know.

 

To you it may seem like the most obvious thing in the world that a "combi-melta" will allways be a "combi-melta", and can never be considered anything else. But to me and others it is inconceivable how a weapon that can fire a melta-shot could possibly be considered to be identical in game terms to a weapon that can only be fired like a boltgun. As soon as you find the relevant rulebook section that explains that a missile launcher and a laspistol are considered the same weapon as long as they are both labeled "my shooting thingy" by the wearer, then you can enlighten us all.

[Grey Mage]

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.)

As noted, this isnt RL- this is a game. The rules say its two weapons. Not, one weapon and an alternate firing mode- such as that used for the missile launcher- but literally a main weapon and an additional weapon.

[Twisted100]

*Fact-A hunter killer can not be picked as a "weapon destroyed," once it has been fired its removed from play.

 

i would assume the same rules apply to a combi weapon. the special weapon is removed and it reverts back to the other weapon.

[Grimtooth]

*Fact-A hunter killer can not be picked as a "weapon destroyed," once it has been fired its removed from play.

 

i would assume the same rules apply to a combi weapon. the special weapon is removed and it reverts back to the other weapon.

 

Way to not bother even reading the thread. This comparison has already been explained as moot.

 

Seriously, can one you point out FUNCTIONALITY as one of the criteria for determining identical models in gaming terms? I have absolute proof that is it not part of the criteria per RAW of the BRB.

 

Until you can specifically point out FUNCTIONALITY as one of the criteria, your arguments that is part of the criteria continue to be RAI.

[Grimtooth]

Gonna make this simple:

 

Combi-melta (FIRED)

Combi-melta (UNFIRED)

 

The emboldened text above is all the rule for determining identical models in games terms cares about. This is supported by RAW.

 

The italicized text above is what you are trying to add to the criteria for determining identical models in game terms. It is not supported by RAW, it continues to be your RAI.

[Legatus]

Seriously, can one you point out FUNCTIONALITY as one of the criteria for determining identical models in gaming terms? I have absolute proof that is it not part of the criteria per RAW of the BRB.

Actually, according to the rulebook, all that counte when distinguishing models is their in-game functionality.

 

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

 

All of the listed points represent how the model will take effect in the game, its in-game functionality, or game properties. Note how the model's name/title/designation is completely irrelevant, as is the form or appearance of the model. It does not matter whether a model in a squad is a "Space Marine" or whether it is a "turbo servitor cranked to the max". If they have the same profile, rules, weapons and wargear, the two are considered to be identical in game terms.

 

However, when you insist that "a combi-weapon is still a combi-weapon" you are focusing entirely on appearance and title, and not on any relevant game properties.

 

One can shoot a S4 or a S8 shot, one can only shoot a S4 shot. Those are in game properties, and they are different. One looks like a boltgun with an underslung melta barrel, and it is called a "combi-melta". The other one also happens to look like a boltgun with an underslung melta barrel, and it also happens to have been bought as a "combi-melta". Names and appearances. None of these traits is relevant when comparing "models". Yet you insist they are all that matters when comparing weapons.

 

If you want to compare a weapon to a "model", then the weapon's profile would be analogue to a model's characteristics profile, while the weapon's 'type' properties are analogie to a model's special rules.

 

A combi-melta that has not been fired can be used with either of these two profiles and properties:

 

range: 24", S: 4, AP: 5, Type: Rapid Fire

 

or

 

range: 12", S: 8, AP: 1, Type: Assault 1, Melta

 

A combi weapon that has already fired teh melta shot can only be used with the following profile and type:

 

range: 24", S: 4, AP: 5, Type: Rapid Fire

 

It can be used with only one of the profiles, where the unused weapon could be used with two. The one weapon has an entire set of characteristics and special rules that are unavailable with the used weapon. The properties are clearly not the same, which becomes only too clearm when a player would rather remove the fired combi-melta rather than the unised one. The weapons still look the same on the model, and they are still called the same. But that is entirely irrelevant. All that matters that they currently do not have the same in-game properties.

[Grimtooth]

Seriously, can one you point out FUNCTIONALITY as one of the criteria for determining identical models in gaming terms? I have absolute proof that is it not part of the criteria per RAW of the BRB.

Actually, according to the rulebook, all that counte when distinguishing models is their in-game functionality.

 

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

 

All of the listed points represent how the model will take effect in the game, its in-game functionality, or game properties. Note how the model's name/title/designation is completely irrelevant, as is the form or appearance of the model. It does not matter whether a model in a squad is a "Space Marine" or whether it is a "turbo servitor cranked to the max". If they have the same profile, rules, weapons and wargear, the two are considered to be identical in game terms.

 

However, when you insist that "a combi-weapon is still a combi-weapon" you are focusing entirely on appearance and title, and not on any relevant game properties.

 

One can shoot a S4 or a S8 shot, one can only shoot a S4 shot. Those are in game properties, and they are different. One looks like a boltgun with an underslung melta barrel, and it is called a "combi-melta". The other one also happens to look like a boltgun with an underslung melta barrel, and it also happens to have been bought as a "combi-melta". Names and appearances. None of these traits is relevant when comparing "models". Yet you insist they are all that matters when comparing weapons.

 

If you want to compare a weapon to a "model", then the weapon's profile would be analogue to a model's characteristics profile, while the weapon's 'type' properties are analogie to a model's special rules.

 

A combi-melta that has not been fired can be used with either of these two profiles and properties:

 

range: 24", S: 4, AP: 5, Type: Rapid Fire

 

or

 

range: 12", S: 8, AP: 1, Type: Assault 1, Melta

 

A combi weapon that has already fired teh melta shot can only be used with the following profile and type:

 

range: 24", S: 4, AP: 5, Type: Rapid Fire

 

It can be used with only one of the profiles, where the unused weapon could be used with two. The one weapon has an entire set of characteristics and special rules that are unavailable with the used weapon. The properties are clearly not the same, which becomes only too clearm when a player would rather remove the fired combi-melta rather than the unised one. The weapons still look the same on the model, and they are still called the same. But that is entirely irrelevant. All that matters that they currently do not have the same in-game properties.

 

Again, you are championing functionality as part of the criteria for determining identical models in game terms and again, it is not listed in the BRB.

 

Legatus, you have changed your tactics now to hint that the weapon is a separate entity then the model that wields it. Weapons do not take wounds. Weapons do take saves and weapons are not removed as casualties. Models EQUIPPED with said weapons are removed and that is how they are determined to be identical in gaming terms. Your functionality argument is RAI, but weapons as separate entities? Really?

[dswanick]

Again, you are championing functionality as part of the criteria for determining identical models in game terms and again, it is not listed in the BRB.

 

Legatus, you have changed your tactics now to hint that the weapon is a separate entity then the model that wields it. Weapons do not take wounds. Weapons do take saves and weapons are not removed as casualties. Models EQUIPPED with said weapons are removed and that is how they are determined to be identical in gaming terms. Your functionality argument is RAI, but weapons as separate entities? Really?

So you are arguing against functional abilities as a criteria for determining if two models are armed with the "same weapon". Great, where in the Rulebook does it list the criteria to be used to determine if two models are armed with the same weapon? Please post page number and paragraph.

[waits]...[/waits]

Didn't find a Rule As Written, did you? Because GW conveniently neglegted to gives us specific guidance on what criteria need to be met to qualify two models to be considered armed with the same weapon.

So let's move on to Rule As Interpreted. (That's what everyone in these Combi-weapon Wound Allocation threads is doing - interpreting the RAW to solve the dilemma created by GW not giving us written criteria.

 

"A combi-melta is a combi-melta" : You appear to be claiming that a model armed with a combi-melta is a WA group with all other identical models armed with a combi-melta. Based on : the Army List entry, Options group entry where it says something to the effect of " - Combi-melta ................. +5pts".

This, of course, leads to the situation where all CSM Terminators who purchase a "Combi-weapon" from their option list should be pooled into a single WA group, right? Of course not, those with Combi-plasma should be in a seperate group from those with a Combi-flamer. But the Options entry doesn't differentiate, so you must be interpreting some other rule to conclude that there is a seperation between the various sub-types of Combi-weapon. Looking at the Wargear entry doesn't work, as it lumps all Combi-s into a single Wargear entry. Further, the Wargear entry states that a "Combi-weapon" is a Bolter and another Weapon with the added characteristic of "One-shot". Which some of your opposition have used to support their contention that models which have expended their One-shot second weapon are now armed with a Bolter and should be lumped in with all the other Bolter armed identical models. So how are you concluding that a Combi-plasma is a different weapon from a Combi-melta based on the Wargear entry for Combi-weapon?

It appears to me that you are arguing that each has a different weapon profile - one being a compund profile of {Bolter/One-shot Melta} and the other being a compund profile of {Bolter/One-shot Plasma}. But guess what, that's not WRITTEN in the rules (either the profile or using the profile as a criteria for comparison). Further, once you use the weapon profile as a comparison point you have to allow your opponents to do the same. This is where the rest of those arguing for expended Combi- = Bolter come in. As the profile for an expended Combi-weapon is identical to the profile for a Bolter.

Lastly, some argue that what matters is what the model was armed with at the beginning of the game. All the models that began the game armed with a combi-melta are pooled seperately from all the otherwise armed models and this can't change once the game is underway and the One-shot is expended. OK, but GW has written rules and written FAQs that declare an expended One-shot weapon is considered "gone" when expended and models are considered armed "differently" than they were before. The recently released One-shot:Weapon Destroyed FAQ ruling in addition to the older rules for IG Demolition Charges and others. So we are left with two positions on this debate - each with Rules As Interpreted supporting some of our positions.

But wait, there's one more angle to consider. GW implemented the 5th Ed Wound Allocation rules to give an enemy a chance to kill off models armed with special weapons within a squad through volume of firepower. I ask you - which position hews to the spirit of this rule? The position that an expended combi-waepon armed model which can no longer fire it's special shot can be lumped into, and protect from harm, a model which can? Or either of the other two positions wehereby an expended combi- forms it's own WA group or is lumped into the Bolter armed group?

[Legatus]

Again, you are championing functionality as part of the criteria for determining identical models in game terms and again, it is not listed in the BRB.

And what else are a model's characteristics profile, it's special rules, it's weapons and wargear representing, if not how it will work in the game?

 

In contrast, how do you get the idea that a weapon's name, appearance or point costs are of any relevance? A model's name, appearance and point costs are not relevant at all when determining whether two models are identical. Why should these matter when comparing weapons?

 

 

Legatus, you have changed your tactics now to hint that the weapon is a separate entity then the model that wields it. Weapons do not take wounds. Weapons do take saves and weapons are not removed as casualties. Models EQUIPPED with said weapons are removed and that is how they are determined to be identical in gaming terms. Your functionality argument is RAI, but weapons as separate entities? Really?

...

 

In order to be able to compare two models, you have to compare their weapons as well. That they carry the same weapons is one of the criteria to determine whether two models are identical. If they don't have the same weapon, then they are not identical. Therefor you somehow need to compare two weapons. There may be weapons that have the same stats and properties but look differently and are called differently. And there may be weapons that look the same and are called the same, but work differently. You have to compare these and decide in which cases the weapons are identical.

 

The rulebook does not describe how weapons are compared, and which criteria are relevant for them to be considered the same. But looking at other examples, or looking at how models are compared, everything points towards the stats and properties of the weapon being what is relevant, and not how it looks or how it is called.

[Roland Durendal]

You know I was going to jump in and side with the "combi-weapons are still combi-weapons even when fired", but then I remembered my good old Elysians.

 

Yes, Guardsmen. Not your pansy run of the mill Guardsmen, but badass paratroopers of death Guardsmen. Why did this debate remind me of them? Demo charges you say? Nope (well sort of for I did / do use them). No, the far simpler Aux. Grenade Launcher.

 

Whenever I had models with an Aux GL, once he fired it, he became a normal guardsmen for wound purposes. Granted this was back in 4th ED (I haven't played IA8 Elysians much, even though I've got some killer lists), but the mentality is the same: once that one-shot wonder is shot, it's just another poor Guardsman wielding a flashlight.

 

My thoughts anyway

 

(and PS, the wording for an Aux GL is the same as for a combi weapon)

[Algesan]

Actually, none of them have managed to "get it". A combi-X is still a combi-X after it has fired its one alternate shot. They are not TWO different weapons to be modeled on the miniature for WYSIWYG, as the two counter examples used to support their interpretation are (H/K missile and Demo charge). It is ONE weapon type that has several different variants, it isn't functionally, visibly or otherwise two different distinct weapons, it is one. It is a weapon that has the option to fire in two different modes with only enough ammunition to fire once in mode X.

 

Therefore, it qualifies for being different in gaming terms per page 25 as a difference in wargear or weapon. If you are worried about ammo counting, if only half a squad can fire its weapon in one fire phase, does the other half automatically become armed with "different" weapons because they have extra ammo on hand now?

 

KEY POINT: This really doesn't have any relevance in most games played on a tabletop. It might have some relevance in one particular game once in a while (no matter which way this is called), but not over a series of games.

[dswanick]

Actually, none of them have managed to "get it". A combi-X is still a combi-X after it has fired its one alternate shot. They are not TWO different weapons to be modeled on the miniature for WYSIWYG, as the two counter examples used to support their interpretation are (H/K missile and Demo charge). It is ONE weapon type that has several different variants, it isn't functionally, visibly or otherwise two different distinct weapons, it is one. It is a weapon that has the option to fire in two different modes with only enough ammunition to fire once in mode X.

Well, that's your interpretation anyways. You still haven't supposrted you grand declaration with a single rule from the rulebook stating that two models are armed with the same weapon if they are bought from the same option line regardless of functionality.

Therefore, it qualifies for being different in gaming terms per page 25 as a difference in wargear or weapon. If you are worried about ammo counting, if only half a squad can fire its weapon in one fire phase, does the other half automatically become armed with "different" weapons because they have extra ammo on hand now?

 

KEY POINT: This really doesn't have any relevance in most games played on a tabletop. It might have some relevance in one particular game once in a while (no matter which way this is called), but not over a series of games.

I'll keep this in mind in every one of my games where I field some Wolf Guard armed with various combi-weapons, and I'll remind my opponent that he should just stop QQing that my unfired combis are bubble wrapped by the expended ones...

[Legatus]

It is ONE weapon type that has several different variants, it isn't functionally, visibly or otherwise two different distinct weapons, it is one.

I guess once you can somehow mathematically prove that 8 equals 4, that 5 equals 1, and that 12 equals 24, then I will admitt that a weapon that can fire a melta shot and a weapon that can fire only a bolter shot are identical. Until you can prove that, I will continue advocating the notion that a melta shot and a bolter shot are in fact very different, and that models that can fire a melta shot are thus different from models that can only fire bolter shots.

 

I mean, I can understand how one could lump the two together. 8 and 4 are kinda similar, 8 being merely twice the amount of 4. And the difference between 5 and 1 is not much more than the difference between 8 and 4. And 12 and 24 both have a '2' in them. But I do must insist that 8 does not equal 4.

[Algesan]

Well, that's your interpretation anyways. You still haven't supposrted you grand declaration with a single rule from the rulebook stating that two models are armed with the same weapon if they are bought from the same option line regardless of functionality.

 

Quoted it many, many times. It's on page 25. The only one missing a rule are the ones who are trying to make up something somewhere in the rules that differentiates between an expended and unexpended combi-weapon. You can call it silly, you can call it stupid, but it isn't there in the rules. To argue otherwise is to bring in fluff, RL or other things.

 

Show me the difference in the wargear from a current codex.

 

It is ONE weapon type that has several different variants, it isn't functionally, visibly or otherwise two different distinct weapons, it is one.

I guess once you can somehow mathematically prove that 8 equals 4, that 5 equals 1, and that 12 equals 24, then I will admitt that a weapon that can fire a melta shot and a weapon that can fire only a bolter shot are identical. Until you can prove that, I will continue advocating the notion that a melta shot and a bolter shot are in fact very different, and that models that can fire a melta shot are thus different from models that can only fire bolter shots.

 

I mean, I can understand how one could lump the two together. 8 and 4 are kinda similar, 8 being merely twice the amount of 4. And the difference between 5 and 1 is not much more than the difference between 8 and 4. And 12 and 24 both have a '2' in them. But I do must insist that 8 does not equal 4.

 

Guess what, you don't know enough about math to support that statement. All that math blather is trivial to do if you know what you are doing. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with the rules of this game.

 

If you are wielding combi-meltas then every one of them is a weapon that can fire a melta shot and a weapon that can fire a bolter shot, although not at the same time, according to the rules. They are identical. Of course, regardless of what they fire they will be "different" according to your standards simply because of ammunition expenditure. Let's see how it works:

 

Combi-melta A

Combi-melta B

Combi-melta C

Combi-flamer D

Combi-plasma E

 

First turn: A,B,C,D fire as bolters, E fires as plasmagun

Second turn: A,B,C,E fire as bolters, D fires as flamer

Third turn: A,B,D fire as bolters, C fires as melta, E doesn't have LOS so doesn't get a shot

Fourth turn: A,C,D,E fire as bolters, B fires as a melta.

 

So, here is what we have:

A has fired 4 units of bolter

B has fired 3 units of bolter and 1 unit of melta

C has fired 3 units of bolter and 1 unit of melta

D has fired 3 units of bolter and 1 unit of flamer

E has fired 2 units of bolter and 1 unit of plasma

 

According to this "ammo expended = change in wargear" idea that hasn't been found in the rules, A is different, B/C/D are the same and E is different. If we make this a plain jane bolter armed tactical squad and change the firing of combi weapons to inability to fire because of LOS, then simply because of expended ammo the same "variations" of the unit into "different" wargear has occurred. Whee, you just made us add extra ammo tracking to the game to determine complex units.

[Legatus]

According to this "ammo expended = change in wargear" idea that hasn't been found in the rules

The concept of limited ammo for combi-weapons is described on page 97 of the Codex Space Marines, or page 83 of the Codex Space Marines. There have been precedents of expended single-shot weapons being treated as "gone" in previous rules for demolition charges and apparently also for some Forgeworld grenade launchers, and also in the Rulebook FaQ for vehicle mounted hunter killer missiles.

 

Boltguns currently do not have a limited amount of ammunition. However, there are other weapons, such as the Vindicare Assassin rifle or a Manticore artillery tank, that also have a limited ammunition. Limited ammunition in game terms means that in one turn the model will be able to fire that weapon, but in another turn (and likely for the rest of the game) it will not.

 

For the specific case of two Space Marines that have been equipped with a combi-melta, that means that it may occur that in one turn one of them will be able to fire a melta shot, while the other one will not be able to do so.

[DarkGuard]

Well, that's your interpretation anyways. You still haven't supposrted you grand declaration with a single rule from the rulebook stating that two models are armed with the same weapon if they are bought from the same option line regardless of functionality.

 

Quoted it many, many times. It's on page 25. The only one missing a rule are the ones who are trying to make up something somewhere in the rules that differentiates between an expended and unexpended combi-weapon. You can call it silly, you can call it stupid, but it isn't there in the rules. To argue otherwise is to bring in fluff, RL or other things.

 

Show me the difference in the wargear from a current codex.

 

There is a rule for the difference between expended and unexpended combi-weapons, it's under Wound Allocation for Complex units and uses the phrase 'gaming terms'. Unfortunately I don't have the rulebook on me at the moment and can't remember the page number off of the top of my head, but its there. If you want I could cite my post from earlier in this thread, when I did have the rulebook to hand.

 

Basically, you allocate according to how a model is defined and how it effects the game, 'in gaming terms'. A model that can only fire a boltgun is very different in gaming terms to one that can fire either a boltgun or a meltagun I think we can agree. They are therefore different in gaming terms, and are allocated differently. If a combi-weapon has fired its extra charge, then in gaming terms it is only a boltgun, nothing more. Therefore, it is treated as a boltgun in wound allocation. No one is saying that it is a boltgun, it is still a combi-weapon. However, it is a fired combi-weapon that in the game is not distinct from a boltgun, and so in gaming terms it is grouped with the boltgun and not grouped with the unfired combi-weapons, which are different in gaming terms as they have the ability to fire a melta shot or whatever else.

[Algesan]

According to this "ammo expended = change in wargear" idea that hasn't been found in the rules

The concept of limited ammo for combi-weapons is described on page 97 of the Codex Space Marines, or page 83 of the Codex Space Marines. There have been precedents of expended single-shot weapons being treated as "gone" in previous rules for demolition charges and apparently also for some Forgeworld grenade launchers, and also in the Rulebook FaQ for vehicle mounted hunter killer missiles.

 

Boltguns currently do not have a limited amount of ammunition. However, there are other weapons, such as the Vindicare Assassin rifle or a Manticore artillery tank, that also have a limited ammunition. Limited ammunition in game terms means that in one turn the model will be able to fire that weapon, but in another turn (and likely for the rest of the game) it will not.

 

For the specific case of two Space Marines that have been equipped with a combi-melta, that means that it may occur that in one turn one of them will be able to fire a melta shot, while the other one will not be able to do so.

 

Yes, yes, yes, we know, you are using obsolete rules, the principle of "codex interprets other codex" and the idea of "if it works in another section of the rules about something else, but sounds close, it can be used here".

 

How about 5th Edition rules as they are written? Keeping ourselves to the relevant section(s) of the rules?

[Algesan]

I've quoted it enough, in fact I just cited it in response to your accusation that I couldn't find a "single rule from the rulebook". It is where the definition of different in "gaming terms" is defined. Functionality or current state of ammo expenditure are not two of the criteria listed.

 

Well, that's your interpretation anyways. You still haven't supposrted you grand declaration with a single rule from the rulebook stating that two models are armed with the same weapon if they are bought from the same option line regardless of functionality.

 

Quoted it many, many times. It's on page 25. The only one missing a rule are the ones who are trying to make up something somewhere in the rules that differentiates between an expended and unexpended combi-weapon. You can call it silly, you can call it stupid, but it isn't there in the rules. To argue otherwise is to bring in fluff, RL or other things.

 

Show me the difference in the wargear from a current codex.

 

There is a rule for the difference between expended and unexpended combi-weapons, it's under Wound Allocation for Complex units and uses the phrase 'gaming terms'. Unfortunately I don't have the rulebook on me at the moment and can't remember the page number off of the top of my head, but its there. If you want I could cite my post from earlier in this thread, when I did have the rulebook to hand.

 

Basically, you allocate according to how a model is defined and how it effects the game, 'in gaming terms'. A model that can only fire a boltgun is very different in gaming terms to one that can fire either a boltgun or a meltagun I think we can agree. They are therefore different in gaming terms, and are allocated differently. If a combi-weapon has fired its extra charge, then in gaming terms it is only a boltgun, nothing more. Therefore, it is treated as a boltgun in wound allocation. No one is saying that it is a boltgun, it is still a combi-weapon. However, it is a fired combi-weapon that in the game is not distinct from a boltgun, and so in gaming terms it is grouped with the boltgun and not grouped with the unfired combi-weapons, which are different in gaming terms as they have the ability to fire a melta shot or whatever else.

[dswanick]

Just keep repeating the same thing over and over without any support, until you've convinced yourself it's true. But you're the only one who will be convinced that way...

[Legatus]

Yes, yes, yes, we know, you are using obsolete rules, the principle of "codex interprets other codex" and the idea of "if it works in another section of the rules about something else, but sounds close, it can be used here".

 

How about 5th Edition rules as they are written? Keeping ourselves to the relevant section(s) of the rules?

There are no official rules given in the rulebook or anywhere else I am aware of on how we are to compare two weapons.

 

There are no such rules.

 

But we have to compare weapons in order to compare models.

 

My suggestion is that two weapons are considered the same if their functionality and stats are the same, and that their appearance and their name are not important. Just how it is done for models. And there are several examples of this in the game, such as lasguns/autoguns, etc. And there are also examples of rules for weapons or models changing stats or funtionality during the course of a game, and thus now perhaps being different from other such models.

[DarkGuard]

Algesan, you keep saying that on page 25 is clear conclusive proof that combi-weapons regardless of expenditure are allocated together. Can't say I see it to be honest. I keep on seeing the phrase 'gaming term's, which backs up mine, Legatus and dswanick's points, but nothing on page 25 that looks like it could help you out. Perhaps you could point this out more specifically to use because I keep on missing it obviously.

[Legatus]

DarkGuard, his interpretation is that models will only ever be distinguished by the four traits listed in the Rulebook, namely the models' Characteristics profile, the models' special rules, their weapons and their wargear. In his view a 'combi-melta' will allways be a 'combi-melta', and a combi-melta that has expended his single shot is indistinguishable from a combi-melta that can still fire the special shot, since the rules do not explicitely tell us that the weapons are then to be considered to be different.

 

In my view the rules do not explain under what circumstances two weapons should be considered to be identical, and whenever two weapons works differently or have different properties then they should be considered to be different, analogue to how models are considered to be different if any of their game relevant traits are different, analogue to how several weapons are already compared in the rules (lasguns and autoguuns are the same, because they have the same properties, chain axes and wooden clubs are the same, etc.), and combi-weapons that expend their single shot are treated differently than fired ones, analogue to several other single-shot weapons that have existed or still exist.

[dswanick]

DarkGuard, his interpretation is that models will only ever be distinguished by the four traits listed in the Rulebook, namely the models' Characteristics profile, the models' special rules, their weapons and their wargear. In his view a 'combi-melta' will allways be a 'combi-melta', and a combi-melta that has expended his single shot is indistinguishable from a combi-melta that can still fire the special shot, since the rules do not explicitely tell us that the weapons are then to be considered to be different.

And that's exactly the problem. The rule states to group models which, amongst other things, have "the same weapons". But what does it mean that two modesl have "the same weapons"? The rules are silent on this - thus we are all interpreting the rule to make it work. Some of us interpret it to mean that the weapons must share the same in-game effects/statline, in which case an expended combi- is no different than a bolter and is clearly different from an unexpended combi-. Another valid, yet utterly rediculous interpretation would be that the models must literally share "the same weapons" (ie. two(2) Codex: Space Marine Tacticals which have "the same" one(1) Bolter). I guess Marine A fires the bolter and then tosses it to Marine B who has been waiting patiently for his turn to use "the same" Bolter. Focusing on the name of the weapon to ascertain if it is "the same" is a third method of determining if the weapons are "the same", yet fails because at other times names are ignored when making such comparisons. And saying "it's the rule, I've said it before" is just wrong.