Wound allocation

[Legatus]

Basically, the two interpretations are:

 

 

A: If two models buy a weapon from an army list entry, that weapon will allways be of that type, as denoted in the army list. Two Sternguard Veterans with combi-meltas both have bought a denoted 'Combi-Melta' from their army list, and thus they have the same weapon, no matter the actual properties or stats of those weapons.

 

Example: Two models in a squad are both equipped with a 'Boltgun'. One of the models gets affected by a (hypothetical) "weapon malfunction" effect which reduced it's Strength to 3 for the rest of the game. The two Models would still be considered identical, even though one fires with Strength 4 and the other with Strength 3, since they are both still equipped with a 'Boltgun'.

 

 

B: For two weapons to be considered identical, they have to have the same stats and properties. The form or the name of the weapon is irrelevant. Should a weapon change any stats or properties during the course of the game, it can no longer be considered to be identical to un-altered weapons of that type.

 

Example: Same as above, one model's boltgun is reduced to Strength 3. The Strength 4 boltgun and the altered Strength 3 boltgun can no longer be considered to be identical weapons, so the two models are no longer considered to be 'Identical in game terms'.

 

 

The rulebook does not make a statement either way, but 'models' are compared according to B, and there are other examples of weapons being compared according to B.

[shatter]

There's a LOT of us here, watching this thread that choose not to endlessly post the same argument because it's ridiculous to do so (when Legatus et al repeat it so well and carefully with few signs of contempt).

 

Every point made that boltgun and spent boltgun combi are the same in gaming terms is so frustratingly and patently obvious.

 

Every insistence that name is relevant and contributes to 'gaming terms' is simply... ugh... words fail.

[DarkGuard]

OK, thanks for explaining his position Legatus, I missed that part of the rulebook. I will admit I might have been overly, well I'm not sure what, I went a bit far and so I apologize to Algesan for that. I suppose it's mainly because of the conviction on my point of view that I missed and can't understand his, but I do see it now. I am, however, still sticking with my view about gaming terms being characteristics rather than names.

 

Just a quick question, has anyone tried emailing GW about this? I know some feel it is limited in actual application, but there are a few units that can boost identical combi-weapons and boltguns and so this could feasibly come up a few times.

[Algesan]

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.

 

Well done. Would have been excellent if you stopped at the first sentence. I can support my position by logic, fluff, RL, "common sense", etc., etc., etc. However, as I noted earlier in this thread, none of that matters. Only the rules as written.

 

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.

 

This issue here is that we don't have to go running off hunting for rules to interpret rules in some arcane fashion. Simply read the rules using the English language. It is easy to discern when models differ in Characteristics by looking at their codex. It is easy to discern difference in special rules by looking either in the codex or the USR listing in the BRB. It is easy to discern the differences in wargear/weapons by looking at the relevant codex and see what the listings say.

 

There is no criteria for judging about "functionality". Legatus pointed out that in the 4th Ed IG codex, a troop equipped with a demo charge was replaced by a troop without a demo charge after it was expended. Excellent. A perfect example of a rule written to show a difference in functionality. In the last edition of the game...

 

Expended hunter killer missiles do not count as a weapon for purposes of losing a weapon on the vehicle damage table. I agree that any other stand alone one shot weapon mounted on a vehicle should work that way also. A perfect rule written for vehicles. Oh, we are talking about infantry...

 

I'll also note that all combi-weapons are combined together in one listing like many others are, but the most current one notes that they are different in the text and gives relevance to differentiating between different types of combi-weapons. Unfortunately, there is no "expended combi-weapon" listing or special rules as mentioned above for them...

 

We don't need a "rules clarification" because someone objects to the way a rule is written and can be understood in standard English.

 

There's a LOT of us here, watching this thread that choose not to endlessly post the same argument because it's ridiculous to do so (when Legatus et al repeat it so well and carefully with few signs of contempt).

 

Every point made that boltgun and spent boltgun combi are the same in gaming terms is so frustratingly and patently obvious.

 

Every insistence that name is relevant and contributes to 'gaming terms' is simply... ugh... words fail.

 

Except the Sesame Street episode...

 

The similarity is patently obvious, however, as I have been told repeatedly, this is GW and this is 40K.

 

Sorry about the word failure. I'll point out the last time my position, based on a standard reading of the rules, got reversed, even when I didn't care for the way the interpretation of the rule was, it was because GW rewrote the rules...

 

Remember, if I met you on a tabletop and the issue was relevant, I'd ask you how you wanted to play it, because the difference is trivial on the tabletop. What is not trivial is the process used to come to this decision which includes trying to use codex to overrule codex, old editions of the game, different rules sections that aren't relevant, fluff, appeals to "common sense", logical fallacies and faulty assumptions.

[shatter]

Well, in all frankness, I don't know what the hell you're on about. Sesame street?

 

Prove a boltgun and a spent combi boltgun don't play the same and we'll talk further...

 

 

and don't say "they're not the same because wound allocation treats them different" or I'll.. I'LL... punch you through the internets!

[SeattleDV8]

Oh please, like this makes any difference.

The very rare times where this comes up,it really makes such a small difference it really does not make it worth the argument.

House rule it, or not.

The fact is the very,very few times it makes a difference are not worth the argument.

 

It is a silly debate

Grow up.

[Baragash]

It doesn't make a difference until more wounds then the number of models in the squad are inflicted. That's the point where, depending on how it's played, you can sneak in a second allocation stage to protect the unspent Combis.

 

Don't expose the Sternguard to too much dakka and you'll never have this problem ;)

 

(I play them as boltguns once they're expended personally)

[Legatus]

It is easy to discern when models differ in Characteristics by looking at their codex. It is easy to discern difference in special rules by looking either in the codex or the USR listing in the BRB. It is easy to discern the differences in wargear/weapons by looking at the relevant codex and see what the listings say.

But Characteristics, special rules or equipment can sometimes change during the course of the game. A model's characteristics can permanently be altered by a positive or negative effect. A model's special rule might be triggered by a certain event, while the rule of others is not. Wargear can on occasion be destroyed or lost (attacking a C'tan with a 'C'tan phase sword' will destroy the sword, for example). You do not compare the entries of the models as you bought them. You compare the models as they currently are at that point in the game.

 

 

I'll also note that all combi-weapons are combined together in one listing like many others are, but the most current one notes that they are different in the text and gives relevance to differentiating between different types of combi-weapons. Unfortunately, there is no "expended combi-weapon" listing or special rules as mentioned above for them...

There is only a rule explaining that once the special weapon of a combi-weapon has fired, it can no longer fire.

 

 

Btw:

It is easy to discern the differences in wargear/weapons by looking at the relevant codex and see what the listings say.

By that interpretation 'Lasguns' and 'Autoguns' would be different weapons, and traitor squads equipped with different such weapons would be treated as including different models for wound allocation purposes. That would also mean that you could not customise your own regiment with a few autoguns, since that would make the models different in game terms and the Codex Imperial Guard does not inclide that option.

It might also open up for interpretations to treat chainswords and combat knoves as different weapons (and possibly chainswords and chain axes), as while they may be both described as being treated as close combat weapons, they are still clearly different weapons, much like combi-weapons are explained in a single entry but there are clearly three different types.

[Algesan]

Oh please, like this makes any difference.

The very rare times where this comes up,it really makes such a small difference it really does not make it worth the argument.

House rule it, or not.

The fact is the very,very few times it makes a difference are not worth the argument.

 

It is a silly debate

Grow up.

 

True in this case, as I said it is the roundabout method being used to make the call that an expended combi-weapon is now a bolter with the massive amounts of hand waving that is disturbing. Why? Because I've seen the same tactics used when it does make a difference.

 

By that interpretation 'Lasguns' and 'Autoguns' would be different weapons, and traitor squads equipped with different such weapons would be treated as including different models for wound allocation purposes. That would also mean that you could not customise your own regiment with a few autoguns, since that would make the models different in game terms and the Codex Imperial Guard does not inclide that option.

It might also open up for interpretations to treat chainswords and combat knoves as different weapons (and possibly chainswords and chain axes), as while they may be both described as being treated as close combat weapons, they are still clearly different weapons, much like combi-weapons are explained in a single entry but there are clearly three different types.

 

No, not really. I'm not going to bother looking it up again, but the lasgun and autogun are both considered the same weapon in gaming terms. Also the rules directly clumps combat knives, chain swords, chain axes, etc. as the same weapon in gaming terms.

 

I'd suggest that you reread the section on combi-weapons to see where a differentiation is made between the different types and I'd also suggest you quit using and/or believing in your own strawman arguments. I've never said that all that mattered was the name, however, you have.

[Legatus]

No, not really. I'm not going to bother looking it up again, but the lasgun and autogun are both considered the same weapon in gaming terms.

That's not exactly how the Codex Eye of Terror describes them. I don't know how the Imperial Armour books deal with autoguns.

 

 

Also the rules directly clumps combat knives, chain swords, chain axes, etc. as the same weapon in gaming terms.

If the description for "combi-weapon" can distinguish between different types such as combi-flamer, combi-melta and combi-plasmagun, then why couldn't an entry such as "close combat weapons" explain that the Marines are often equipped with either a combat blade or a chainsword?

 

From the Codex Chaos Space Marines, p. 83 and 84:

 

"Combi-weapons

Combi-weapons are bolters that have been converted to house another weapon; a meltagun, plasma gun or flamer. (...) A model armed with a combi-weapon (combi-meltagun, combi-plasma gun or combi-flamer) may chose to fire either..."

 

"Close Combat Weapons

Chaos Space Marines utilise an array of close combat weapons, from the dripping blades wielded by Plague Marines to the bloodstained chainaxes carried by Khorne Berserkers. (...) Chainswords, chainaxes and combat blades are close combat weapons, as described in the Assault Phase chapter of the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook."

 

The last sentence could have added "...just like how combi-meltas, combi-flamers and combi-plasmaguns are combi-weapons". Chaos Marines can get a combi weapon: and that could possibly be a combi-melta, a combi-flamer or a combi-plasmagun. Chaos Marines also carry a close combat weapon: and that could be a chainaxe, a plague sword, a chainsword, a maul, or something else.

At what point does the rule explain that the three variants mentioned in the description of the "Combi-Weapon" are all considered to be different for gameing purposes, while the variants mentioned in the description of the "Close Combat Weapon" are all simply taken as the same weapon for gaming purposes? It doesn't explain that.

 

The reason why combi-meltas are treated differently than combi-flamers is because they have different rules. While a chainaxe and a chainsword are treated the same because they have the same rules. It is NOT because of how the Codex Chaos Space Marines lists three distinct types of cobi-weapon and lumps all close combat weapons together.

 

 

In the Codex Space Marines the models can specifically pick one of the three combi-weapon types from the army list entry, but Chaos Marines cannot. But in the Codex Space Marines, Assault Squads are explicitely listed as being equipped with "chainsword", while Scouts are equipped with "Combat Blades". They are not equipped with "close combat weapons". I guess that means that equipping a Scout model with a chainsword would be against WYSIWYG, since he is not actually allowed to get a different close combat weapon than the rest of the squad.

[Decoy]

I have a great way to end this entire debate.

 

Stop paying through the nose for useless one-shot weapons, get some units that actually have some staying power and let them do the work instead of relying on a gimmicky weapons delivery system that should have been removed editions ago.

 

Yeesh. Ya'd think it'd be obvious.

[Algesan]

The combi-weapon rules in C:SM are a little clearer, but both indicate that the weapon can be fired as the bolter or as the alternate weapon (one uses "secondary" and one uses "other"). Which means a difference in weapon, one of the criteria for a difference in "gaming terms" according to the rules.

 

So Bolter <> Combi-flamer <> Combi-melta <> Combi-plasma <> Combi-stake crossbow.

 

OTOH, both the BRB and the various codices do lump axes, chainswords, combat knives, spears, etc. together as CCW. Just as they lump power-axes, power-swords, power-chainswords, power-knives, power-maces, etc. together as Power Weapons.

 

Note that the references for combi-weapons refer you to the X in combi-X in the particular codex, but the CCW and PW listings both refer you to the Assault section of the BRB.

 

You know, you weaken your case when you keep trying to push this emotional "sounds like" false connection instead of dismissing it for the logical fallacy it is. You are well aware I'm not basing my position on the name of the item, so this is a strawman.

[Legatus]

The combi-weapon rules in C:SM are a little clearer, but both indicate that the weapon can be fired as the bolter or as the alternate weapon (one uses "secondary" and one uses "other"). Which means a difference in weapon, one of the criteria for a difference in "gaming terms" according to the rules.

The rule also explains that at some point during the game the special weapon may cease to function.

 

 

You know, you weaken your case when you keep trying to push this emotional "sounds like" false connection instead of dismissing it for the logical fallacy it is. You are well aware I'm not basing my position on the name of the item, so this is a strawman.

Then why else are you considering a weapon that can fire like a boltgun or a meltagun and a weapon that can only fire like a boltgun to be the same weapon?

[DarkGuard]

I have a great way to end this entire debate.

 

Stop paying through the nose for useless one-shot weapons, get some units that actually have some staying power and let them do the work instead of relying on a gimmicky weapons delivery system that should have been removed editions ago.

 

Yeesh. Ya'd think it'd be obvious.

 

Paying 15pts for 3 combi-meltas on Sternguard actually increases their threat profile and makes them more useful. And I have a feeling that 8-10 Sternguard in a Rhino have more staying power than a single MM/HF Speeder. I have not doubt that this comes up rarely, but for it does come up it's handy to have a good idea on how to deal with the problem.

[Grimtooth]

The combi-weapon rules in C:SM are a little clearer, but both indicate that the weapon can be fired as the bolter or as the alternate weapon (one uses "secondary" and one uses "other"). Which means a difference in weapon, one of the criteria for a difference in "gaming terms" according to the rules.

The rule also explains that at some point during the game the special weapon may cease to function.

 

 

You know, you weaken your case when you keep trying to push this emotional "sounds like" false connection instead of dismissing it for the logical fallacy it is. You are well aware I'm not basing my position on the name of the item, so this is a strawman.

Then why else are you considering a weapon that can fire like a boltgun or a meltagun and a weapon that can only fire like a boltgun to be the same weapon?

 

Oh look, Legatus once again claiming function as one of the criteria in determining identical models in game terms when it is not part of the rules in the BRB. Nothing new to see here folks, keep walking by folks.

[Legatus]

Oh look, Legatus once again claiming function as one of the criteria in determining identical models in game terms when it is not part of the rules in the BRB.

Well, actually that is the only criteria for determining identical models. You look at the model's stats, its special rules, and its equipment. All of that is actual in game functionality. None of that is fluff or modelling or army list denotation. It is all about how the model will function in the game.

 

It would follow, at least to the reasonable observer, that, in lack of any actual given explanation, individual weapons would also be compared based on their stats and rules, and not based on their fluff, modelling or army list denotation.

 

If one "Tactical Space Marine" somehow ends up with a different characteristics profile or special rule than another "Tactical Space Marine", then the two would no longer be considered to be identical. So if a weapon ended up with a different profile or properties than another weapon of initially the same type, they yhould likewise now be considered to be different.

 

Bt, meh, reason. It may be overated.

[Grimtooth]

Oh look, Legatus once again claiming function as one of the criteria in determining identical models in game terms when it is not part of the rules in the BRB.

Well, actually that is the only criteria for determining identical models. You look at the model's stats, its special rules, and its equipment. All of that is actual in game functionality. None of that is fluff or modelling or army list denotation. It is all about how the model will function in the game.

 

It would follow, at least to the reasonable observer, that, in lack of any actual given explanation, individual weapons would also be compared based on their stats and rules, and not based on their fluff, modelling or army list denotation.

 

If one "Tactical Space Marine" somehow ends up with a different characteristics profile or special rule than another "Tactical Space Marine", then the two would no longer be considered to be identical. So if a weapon ended up with a different profile or properties than another weapon of initially the same type, they yhould likewise now be considered to be different.

 

Bt, meh, reason. It may be overated.

 

Wrong.

 

You don't look at a two models that have a different strength value and say, "Well that one can cause wounds easier then the other, so they are different." You only say that model has a different profile then the other, so they are different. Same with the special rules and equipment. That is ALL you do. You continue to add functionality to the RAW, BRB, SPECIFIC, rule given when it is not there.

[Grey Mage]

Form and function are one ramses. Why does it have a better chance of wounding? Because it has a higher strength.

 

Why does a combi-melta have a better chance at killing a vehicle than a bolter? Because it has a higher strength.

 

Note, each time were looking at differences. What is different about the model, one to the other in its profile, its wargear, and its special rules?

 

Well, in this case one has a used peace of wargear, one does not. They are different for gaming purposes.

[Legatus]

Wrong.

 

You don't look at a two models that have a different strength value and say, "Well that one can cause wounds easier then the other, so they are different." You only say that model has a different profile then the other, so they are different. Same with the special rules and equipment. That is ALL you do. You continue to add functionality to the RAW, BRB, SPECIFIC, rule given when it is not there.

Analogue to the comparable properties of models, you could either see the difference between a fresh and a spent combi-melta as a difference in characteristics profiles (the fresh combi-melta has two profiles to chose from, the spent one has only one) or a difference in special rules (the fresh combi-melta can be fired as either of two weapons, the spent one as only one). Heck, you could even see it as a difference in equipment (the fresh combi-melta has ammunition for the special weapon, the spent one does not), but this interpretation would be based on the fluff of the weapon, as the ammunition capacity is not explicitely listed as a piece of equipment. However, it is explained in the weapon's rules, and has an actual effect in the game.

 

 

Difference in characteristics profile

 

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

 

Combi-Melta that has been used: 24"/S4/AP5/Rapid Fire

 

 

Difference in special rules

 

Combi-Melta: Is fired as a boltgun. Can instead be fired as a meltagun as an alternative.

 

Combi-Melta that has been fired: Is fired as a boltgun.

 

 

Difference in wargear (fluff)

 

"This extra weapon carries only a limited charge, allowing the bearer a single shot, perfect for emergencies and shots of opportunity. (...) The bolter can be fired every turn, but the secondary weapon can only be fired once per battle (...)"

5th Edition Codex Space Marines, p. 97, 'Combi-Weapons'

 

The unused combi-melta still has the ammunition for the meltagun. The combi-melta that has been fired no longer has ammunition for the meltagun.

[Algesan]

Wrong..

Analogue to the comparable properties of models, you could either see the difference between a fresh and a spent combi-melta as a difference in characteristics profiles (the fresh combi-melta has two profiles to chose from, the spent one has only one) or a difference in special rules (the fresh combi-melta can be fired as either of two weapons, the spent one as only one). Heck, you could even see it as a difference in equipment (the fresh combi-melta has ammunition for the special weapon, the spent one does not), but this interpretation would be based on the fluff of the weapon, as the ammunition capacity is not explicitely listed as a piece of equipment. However, it is explained in the weapon's rules, and has an actual effect in the game.

 

 

Difference in characteristics profile

 

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

 

Combi-Melta that has been used: 24"/S4/AP5/Rapid Fire

 

 

Difference in special rules

 

Combi-Melta: Is fired as a boltgun. Can instead be fired as a meltagun as an alternative.

 

Combi-Melta that has been fired: Is fired as a boltgun.

 

 

Difference in wargear (fluff)

 

"This extra weapon carries only a limited charge, allowing the bearer a single shot, perfect for emergencies and shots of opportunity. (...) The bolter can be fired every turn, but the secondary weapon can only be fired once per battle (...)"

5th Edition Codex Space Marines, p. 97, 'Combi-Weapons'

 

The unused combi-melta still has the ammunition for the meltagun. The combi-melta that has been fired no longer has ammunition for the meltagun.

 

Why all the song and dance? It is really simple, just point to the RAW that defines "expended combi-X" in wargear or weapons.

 

From long experience on this subject, ya got nuttin. What is it I've been told...oh yes, this is GW, this if 40K, it is probably stupid, so deal with it.

[dswanick]

Why all the song and dance? It is really simple, just point to the RAW that defines "expended combi-X" in wargear or weapons.

 

From long experience on this subject, ya got nuttin. What is it I've been told...oh yes, this is GW, this if 40K, it is probably stupid, so deal with it.

Right back atcha. Please point to the RAW that defines how to determine if two models are armed with the same weapons. You got nothing either. Any attempt to determine if two models are armed the same runs afoul of the interpretation. You interpret the rule to mean two models armed with "combi-melta" are armed the same regardless of in-game capability. Others interpret the rule to mean that two models armed with "Range:24" / S:4 / AP:5 / Rapid-fire" weapons are armed the same regardless of name. Either could be right, but the rules don't define the procedure for comparing, so you and we are both engaging in RAI when we try to decide if two models are armed the same.

[Legatus]

Why all the song and dance? It is really simple, just point to the RAW that defines "expended combi-X" in wargear or weapons.

I could point to the weapon's rule, which describes how a weapon that has not yet fired the special weapon and one that has are different, in that one can fire the special shot while the other cannot. But I think I have done so before, and I don't think it helped.

[Grey Mage]

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.

 

Well done. Would have been excellent if you stopped at the first sentence. I can support my position by logic, fluff, RL, "common sense", etc., etc., etc. However, as I noted earlier in this thread, none of that matters. Only the rules as written.

Indeed, and the rules as written tell us that if a model has a different weapon than another model, they are different in gaming terms.

 

A model whose weapon can fire using the profile of a meltagun, and another model whos weapon cannot are incapable of being identical by the very basic fact that they are not in all ways the same.

 

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.

 

This issue here is that we don't have to go running off hunting for rules to interpret rules in some arcane fashion. Simply read the rules using the English language. It is easy to discern when models differ in Characteristics by looking at their codex. It is easy to discern difference in special rules by looking either in the codex or the USR listing in the BRB. It is easy to discern the differences in wargear/weapons by looking at the relevant codex and see what the listings say.

I am reading the rules using plain english- identical means in all ways the same. Something that can use two profiles for its shots is different from something that cannot. Simple, straightforward.

 

There is no criteria for judging about "functionality". Legatus pointed out that in the 4th Ed IG codex, a troop equipped with a demo charge was replaced by a troop without a demo charge after it was expended. Excellent. A perfect example of a rule written to show a difference in functionality. In the last edition of the game...

 

Expended hunter killer missiles do not count as a weapon for purposes of losing a weapon on the vehicle damage table. I agree that any other stand alone one shot weapon mounted on a vehicle should work that way also. A perfect rule written for vehicles. Oh, we are talking about infantry...

Yet this shows internal consistency with the rules- once a limited use item is gone, its gone for gaming terms. This is also simple and straightforward- of what impact is something that doesnt exist anymore? None.

 

I'll also note that all combi-weapons are combined together in one listing like many others are, but the most current one notes that they are different in the text and gives relevance to differentiating between different types of combi-weapons. Unfortunately, there is no "expended combi-weapon" listing or special rules as mentioned above for them...

 

We don't need a "rules clarification" because someone objects to the way a rule is written and can be understood in standard English.

I would have agreed with this, yet you continue to say that a spent combi-melta is the same as an unspent combi-melta despite its complete and utter contradiction to the term 'identical'. That somehow two things that are not the same are simultaneously exactly the same is a logical impossibility.

 

Theres no song and dance here, simply an inability to resort to doublethink over a basic rule in a wargame.

[Vincent Black Shadow]

My take:

 

A combi-melta is a combi-melta, regardless of whether or not the marine has fired it.

 

A bolter is a bolter. If you spend points and attach a one-shot device to it, it is no longer a bolter.

 

In a hypothetical sternguard unit that starts the game with 2 marines with combimelta, 1 sgt with combimelta and power fist, 2 marines with combiflamer, and 2 marines with boltguns... the unit fires all its combiweapons in one round... you now have 2 marines with combimelta, 1 sgt with combimelta and pf, 2 marines with cflamer, and 2 with boltguns.

 

You can play wound allocation games, but the armament stays the same. It's not like melta bombs or HKM, where you use the weapon once and it's gone. The weapon still exists, it just loses a firing mode.

[Legatus]

My take:

 

A combi-melta is a combi-melta, regardless of whether or not the marine has fired it.

 

A bolter is a bolter. If you spend points and attach a one-shot device to it, it is no longer a bolter.

You could just as much say "a Tactical Marine is a Tactical Marine". You pay 15 points (or 16, depending on the Codex) for the model. But then what happens if the Marine's stats are altered during the course of the game? Or what if his wargear is affected and removed/destroyed? (There are such rules, even if they are rare.) According to the rulebook definition for "identical models", the affected Tactical Marine would no longer be identical to a stock Tactical Marine. One should apply the same logic to a weaponwhich has its stats are altered.