Wound allocation

[BOBMAKENZIE]

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.

 

Except theres things like the Space Marine Vet Sarge in a terminator squad which is clearly different since its an Upgrade Character which is defined different in the rules and yet you dont believe it should be effected different in the long run. Which Is rather strange I think.

[Legatus]

There currently are no core game rules that have an "upgrade character" act in any way different from the rest of the squad. In fact, teh rules explicitely state that the model counts as just a nother member of the squad. In 3rd Edition it was possible to directly attack such characters in close combat, but since 4th Edition that is no longer possible. What distinguishes these characters from the rest of the squad are usually a different characteristics profile and different wargear and weapon options. That is the case with every Veteran Sergeant in the Codex Space Marines, with the exception of the Assault Terminator Sergeant, who has the exact same characteristics profile and equipment as the rest of the squad.

 

There may be a few Codices which include rules that specifically target enemy upgrade characters, and in such cases you could indeed argue that being an "upgrade character" alone, even if stats, rules and equipment were otherwise teh same, would make the model different in game terms. But that is a different discussion, and has nothing to do with the question whether a weapon that can fire like a meltagun and a weapon that fires like a boltgun are identical.

[Algesan]

Just so we are on the same wavelength.

 

BRB, pg 25: "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 gaming terms. By this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear."

 

The underlined bit is defined in the next sentence which is in italics. This is a specific definition of what GW means by "identical in gaming terms" and closes the door on any other appeals to other interpretations of what "identical in gaming terms" means, at least as long as we stick with RAW. In bold italics are the three criteria for defining the underlined bit. Note that the last one is subdivided into two for completeness with current codex layouts.

 

If we go to page 7 we find the rules section that shows what characteristic profiles are so we can know if two models share the same "profile of characteristics". I don't think any issues exist here.

 

For special rules, that one is rather obvious, be they USRs or Codex specific. AFAIK, there are no fuzzy conflicts here, but there might be somewhere. It would have to be something Space Marine where different ICs joined into an "IC unit".

 

Now for the last clause with its "weapons and wargear", which is where we are. I don't see a definition of "wargear" in the BRB, but it might be in the codices. I don't have C:SM or C:CSM handy, but I do happen to have C:WH (3d Ed Codex), C:BT (4th Ed Codex) and C:IG (5th Ed Codex), so lets see what they have to say. Hmmm, it seems each has a section that has a listing called "Wargear", although the C:WH and C:BT list it as part of the Armoury and C:IG does not, but that is a change consistent with what I've observed in 5th Ed codices. So, "wargear" does have a definite usage and "expended combi-weapon" isn't listed.

 

OTOH, combi-weapons fall under the listing of "weapons" in the two Armoury sections and as a subsection of Wargear in C:IG. So perhaps there is something more there. Let's check the BRB for "Weapons"... Aha! There is a section on Weapons, what do we find there on page 27: "Every weapon has a profile that consists of several elements,..." and a Boltgun is listed with explanation of the entries. Under TYPE we find (last paragraph of the first column): "Some weapons may be able to fire in different ways, representing different power settings or different types of ammo. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon's profile for each." Continuing onward to the top of the second column we see ADDITIONAL CHARACTERISTICS: "In addition to its type, a weapon may have some additional characteristics like 'gets hot!' or 'blast'. A weapon may have any number of these characteristics in addition to its type."

 

Okay, from the descriptions of combi-weapons, as an example, a combi-melta would have the following profile:

Bolter 24" ST4 AP5 Rapid Fire

Meltagun 12" ST8 AP1 Assault 1, Melta, One Shot Only

 

Note that the last entry of "One Shot Only" is logically inferred from the weapon description and the quote from BRB, pg 27 above. Oh yes, this is an "interpretation", but it is the only one consistent with the RAW using standard English. It could be rendered not valid by GW adding something along the lines of "After firing the other weapon's single shot, the combi-weapon should be treated as a bolter only.", but nothing appears in the written rules presented so far to that effect. IOW, GW must change the rules as currently written.

 

So, we have a Bolter with profile:

Bolter 24" ST4 AP5 Rapid Fire

 

Then we have a combi-melta (as an example, unless someone really wants to somehow try to prove that the exact added weapon is relevant for this discussion) with profile:

Bolter 24" ST4 AP5 Rapid Fire

Meltagun 12" ST8 AP1 Assault 1, Melta, One Shot Only

 

These profiles are NOT the same, therefore the weapons are NOT the same.

 

Since there is no provision for changing weapon profiles given in the RAW (even if there is some actual change in the course of a game) the profile suggested by some here of:

Bolter 24" ST4 AP5 Rapid Fire

Meltagun 12" ST8 AP1 Assault 1, Melta, Shot Expended

to justify their position can therefore be considered invalid and irrelevant. The weapon keeps the same profile as before even though it is noted in the game that its shot has been fired and cannot be fired again.

 

Notice:

No side trips into irrelevant rules sections about different situations,

No trying to make the mention of a specific word in one rules section into the definitive definition of that word in all contexts,

No pulling up obsolete codices or rules,

No trying to make special rules from one codex apply to special rules in another codex,

No calling in "common sense" or "fluff" or "real world" examples,

No trying to force definitions of words based on out of context use,

and No appeals to emotion ("it's not FAIR that way" or "it's more FAIR this way").

 

In other words, no song and dance. Simple straight line reading of the rules that apply to the situation at hand. There is only one inference, the profile of a combi-weapon, that is not listed directly in the rules, but that is supported directly from the text of the rules and nowhere else. Yes, you can call this an "interpretation", but there is big difference between a valid interpretation and an invalid one. In this case, as I've shown, mine follows directly from RAW and the alternate does not.

 

If GW changes the rules or someone manages to point out something written in the rules I've missed, then it might be different. Can we get a reply using the written rules or an alternate interpretation based tightly on the RAW?

[Legatus]

Just so we are on the same wavelength.

 

BRB, pg 25: "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 gaming terms. By this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear."

What you have not touched upon is that all of those properties might change during the course of the game, and are NOT compared based on how the models were bought from the army list. Tactical Marine A and Tactical Marine B are bught for the same points, have the same profile, rules and equipment. But if Space Marine B should have his properties altered in any way during the course of the game, he would no longer be identical to Marine A.

 

Properties can change during the course of the game. Sometimes they change due to the opponent's special rules affecting a model. But some items may have a change of properties already built into them. Such as "One Shot Only" weapons.

 

Okay, from the descriptions of combi-weapons, as an example, a combi-melta would have the following profile:

Bolter 24" ST4 AP5 Rapid Fire

Meltagun 12" ST8 AP1 Assault 1, Melta, One Shot Only

What you have graciously omitted is that there is a drastical difference between a "One Shot Only" weapon that has not yet fired and one that has. Namely that one can be fired, while the other cannot. That is the entire purpose of the "One Shot Only" attribute. What you end up with are models with a weapon that they can fire, and other models with a weapon they cannot fire.

 

Not to mention that in the past, expended "One Shot Only" weapons were consistently treated as "gone". But we are not minding those long gone rules, I guess.

 

 

"A Space Marine with a combi-weapon (...) can choose to fire either the bolter, or the secondary weapon, each with the profile listed elsewhere in this section."

 

Only, if the Space Marine had already used the special shot, then he cannot do that, can he? That rule is not speaking of that model, even though he is equipped with such a combi-weapon.

 

"The bolter can be fired every turn, but the secondary weapon can be fired only once per battle (...)"

 

So what you end up with, with Marine A already having fired his combi-melta and Marine B not having fired his, are one Marine (:woot: who according to the rule "can choose to fire the secondary weapon", while the other Marine (A) according to the rules cannot choose to fire the secondary weapon. Because he already had.

 

 

According to the RAW rules of the combi-weapon

 

--> Marine A cannot use a meltagun

 

--> Marine B can use a meltagun

 

If a rule explains that this one Marine can use a meltagun, but this other Marine cannot, then how could the two possibly be considered to currently have the same special rules and/or weapons? Only one of them can fire a melta.

[dswanick]

{{snip}}

In the descriptions of combi-weapons, as an example, a combi-melta would have the following profile:

Bolter 24" ST4 AP5 Rapid Fire

Meltagun 12" ST8 AP1 Assault 1, Melta, One Shot Only

Note that the last entry of "One Shot Only" is logically inferred from the weapon description and the quote from BRB, pg 27 above. Oh yes, this is an "interpretation", but it is the only one consistent with the RAW using standard English. It could be rendered not valid by GW adding something along the lines of "After firing the other weapon's single shot, the combi-weapon should be treated as a bolter only.", but nothing appears in the written rules presented so far to that effect. IOW, GW must change the rules as currently written.

 

So, we have a Bolter with profile:

Bolter 24" ST4 AP5 Rapid Fire

 

Then we have a combi-melta (as an example, unless someone really wants to somehow try to prove that the exact added weapon is relevant for this discussion) with profile:

Bolter 24" ST4 AP5 Rapid Fire

Meltagun 12" ST8 AP1 Assault 1, Melta, One Shot Only{{snip}}

Just so everyone is clear that you admit that you are arguing RAI and not RAW. Now, all you have to realize is that GW set a precedent with expended One Shot weapons ceasing to exist "in game terms" and you will be in agreement with Legatus, et al. because

Bolter 24" ST4 AP5 Rapid Fire

Meltagun 12" ST8 AP1 Assault 1, Melta, One Shot Only

is equal to

Bolter 24" ST4 AP5 Rapid Fire

[Legatus]

I thought I could edit in something more, but I guess a newe post will do.

 

Now for the last clause with its "weapons and wargear", which is where we are. I don't see a definition of "wargear" in the BRB, but it might be in the codices. I don't have C:SM or C:CSM handy, but I do happen to have C:WH (3d Ed Codex), C:BT (4th Ed Codex) and C:IG (5th Ed Codex), so lets see what they have to say. Hmmm, it seems each has a section that has a listing called "Wargear", although the C:WH and C:BT list it as part of the Armoury and C:IG does not, but that is a change consistent with what I've observed in 5th Ed codices. So, "wargear" does have a definite usage and "expended combi-weapon" isn't listed.

Essentially, it is like this:

 

RAW for comparing models:

Two models are considered identical if they have the same game relevant properties. It does not matter from what army list entry they were bought.

 

--> Interpretation A for comparing weapons:

Two weapons are considered identical if they have the same game relevant properties. It does not matter from what army list entry they were bought.

 

--> Interpretation B for comparing weapons:

Two weapons are considered identical if they were bought from the same army list entry. It does not matter what their game relevant properties are.

[Grey Mage]

Now for the last clause with its "weapons and wargear", which is where we are. I don't see a definition of "wargear" in the BRB, but it might be in the codices. I don't have C:SM or C:CSM handy, but I do happen to have C:WH (3d Ed Codex), C:BT (4th Ed Codex) and C:IG (5th Ed Codex), so lets see what they have to say. Hmmm, it seems each has a section that has a listing called "Wargear", although the C:WH and C:BT list it as part of the Armoury and C:IG does not, but that is a change consistent with what I've observed in 5th Ed codices. So, "wargear" does have a definite usage and "expended combi-weapon" isn't listed.

 

OTOH, combi-weapons fall under the listing of "weapons" in the two Armoury sections and as a subsection of Wargear in C:IG. So perhaps there is something more there. Let's check the BRB for "Weapons"... Aha! There is a section on Weapons, what do we find there on page 27: "Every weapon has a profile that consists of several elements,..." and a Boltgun is listed with explanation of the entries. Under TYPE we find (last paragraph of the first column): "Some weapons may be able to fire in different ways, representing different power settings or different types of ammo. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon's profile for each." Continuing onward to the top of the second column we see ADDITIONAL CHARACTERISTICS: "In addition to its type, a weapon may have some additional characteristics like 'gets hot!' or 'blast'. A weapon may have any number of these characteristics in addition to its type."

 

Okay, from the descriptions of combi-weapons, as an example, a combi-melta would have the following profile:

Bolter 24" ST4 AP5 Rapid Fire

Meltagun 12" ST8 AP1 Assault 1, Melta, One Shot Only

 

Note that the last entry of "One Shot Only" is logically inferred from the weapon description and the quote from BRB, pg 27 above. Oh yes, this is an "interpretation", but it is the only one consistent with the RAW using standard English. It could be rendered not valid by GW adding something along the lines of "After firing the other weapon's single shot, the combi-weapon should be treated as a bolter only.", but nothing appears in the written rules presented so far to that effect. IOW, GW must change the rules as currently written.

 

So, we have a Bolter with profile:

Bolter 24" ST4 AP5 Rapid Fire

 

Then we have a combi-melta (as an example, unless someone really wants to somehow try to prove that the exact added weapon is relevant for this discussion) with profile:

Bolter 24" ST4 AP5 Rapid Fire

Meltagun 12" ST8 AP1 Assault 1, Melta, One Shot Only

 

These profiles are NOT the same, therefore the weapons are NOT the same.

Wich is exactly the problem with saying a spent combi-melta and an unspent combi-melta are the same.

 

The used combi-weapon no longer has access to the meltagun profile. It now has only the following profile:

Bolter 24" ST4 AP5 Rapid Fire

 

As opposed to:

Bolter 24" ST4 AP5 Rapid Fire

Meltagun 12" ST8 AP1 Assault 1, Melta

 

Why? Because the rules for a combi-weapon tell us that after the initial alternate shot we cant use it again.

 

Since there is no provision for changing weapon profiles given in the RAW (even if there is some actual change in the course of a game) the profile suggested by some here of:

Bolter 24" ST4 AP5 Rapid Fire

Meltagun 12" ST8 AP1 Assault 1, Melta, Shot Expended

to justify their position can therefore be considered invalid and irrelevant. The weapon keeps the same profile as before even though it is noted in the game that its shot has been fired and cannot be fired again.

There doesnt have to be a provision- this is basic logic. The wargear cannot be identical, because it is not the same. The list for a model to be identical in gaming terms is having the same wargear.

 

A combi-melta that can still fire as a meltagun is not the same as a combi-melta that cannot fire as a meltagun. Thats simple, logical, fact. Thus, the models no longer have the same wargear.

 

This also doesnt go off on any tangents, bring up any irrelevant or outdated rules, or use anything but the basic english language and the RAW. In fact, I dont even had to add any extras to either weapons profile, unlike your argument above.

 

As Nighthawks once said: GW doesnt say you have to read the top of your dice either. Some things are just that simple.

[Algesan]

What you have not touched upon is that all of those properties might change during the course of the game, and are NOT compared based on how the models were bought from the army list. Tactical Marine A and Tactical Marine B are bught for the same points, have the same profile, rules and equipment. But if Space Marine B should have his properties altered in any way during the course of the game, he would no longer be identical to Marine A.

 

Properties can change during the course of the game. Sometimes they change due to the opponent's special rules affecting a model. But some items may have a change of properties already built into them. Such as "One Shot Only" weapons.

 

<sigh> Do you have any rules to show us about your logic?

 

What you have graciously omitted is that there is a drastical difference between a "One Shot Only" weapon that has not yet fired and one that has. Namely that one can be fired, while the other cannot. That is the entire purpose of the "One Shot Only" attribute. What you end up with are models with a weapon that they can fire, and other models with a weapon they cannot fire.

 

Nope, not omitted at all. You just haven't shown anything that fits the definition above.

 

Not to mention that in the past, expended "One Shot Only" weapons were consistently treated as "gone". But we are not minding those long gone rules, I guess.

 

Ding! Ding! Ding! Old Edition Hangover Alert! Not relevant the first time, not relevant since, but you still keep trying to repeat it as if it means anything. Of course, if you repeat it enough then some ignorant people will believe it.

 

 

"A Space Marine with a combi-weapon (...) can choose to fire either the bolter, or the secondary weapon, each with the profile listed elsewhere in this section."

 

Only, if the Space Marine had already used the special shot, then he cannot do that, can he? That rule is not speaking of that model, even though he is equipped with such a combi-weapon.

 

"The bolter can be fired every turn, but the secondary weapon can be fired only once per battle (...)"

 

So what you end up with, with Marine A already having fired his combi-melta and Marine B not having fired his, are one Marine (:) who according to the rule "can choose to fire the secondary weapon", while the other Marine (A) according to the rules cannot choose to fire the secondary weapon. Because he already had.

 

 

According to the RAW rules of the combi-weapon

 

--> Marine A cannot use a meltagun

 

--> Marine B can use a meltagun

 

If a rule explains that this one Marine can use a meltagun, but this other Marine cannot, then how could the two possibly be considered to currently have the same special rules and/or weapons? Only one of them can fire a melta.

 

You keep trying to change it from being one weapon that can shoot two different ways into two separate weapons. Show me the rules. I nicely traced it all through the rules, with reference pages. You got something or is this just trying to override with volume?

[Algesan]

{{snip}}

In the descriptions of combi-weapons, as an example, a combi-melta would have the following profile:

Bolter 24" ST4 AP5 Rapid Fire

Meltagun 12" ST8 AP1 Assault 1, Melta, One Shot Only

Note that the last entry of "One Shot Only" is logically inferred from the weapon description and the quote from BRB, pg 27 above. Oh yes, this is an "interpretation", but it is the only one consistent with the RAW using standard English. It could be rendered not valid by GW adding something along the lines of "After firing the other weapon's single shot, the combi-weapon should be treated as a bolter only.", but nothing appears in the written rules presented so far to that effect. IOW, GW must change the rules as currently written.

 

So, we have a Bolter with profile:

Bolter 24" ST4 AP5 Rapid Fire

 

Then we have a combi-melta (as an example, unless someone really wants to somehow try to prove that the exact added weapon is relevant for this discussion) with profile:

Bolter 24" ST4 AP5 Rapid Fire

Meltagun 12" ST8 AP1 Assault 1, Melta, One Shot Only{{snip}}

Just so everyone is clear that you admit that you are arguing RAI and not RAW. Now, all you have to realize is that GW set a precedent with expended One Shot weapons ceasing to exist "in game terms" and you will be in agreement with Legatus, et al. because

Bolter 24" ST4 AP5 Rapid Fire

Meltagun 12" ST8 AP1 Assault 1, Melta, One Shot Only

is equal to

Bolter 24" ST4 AP5 Rapid Fire

 

Show me this precedent in the rules, a FAQ, somewhere relevant. No, we don't need weapon vehicle damage table rules or old edition rules.

 

BTW, it is RAW unless you can show how the inference doesn't hold up using RAW. I built the case using the rules, how is it that nobody can seem to reply that way? For example, while you point to a functional equivalency you don't show from the rules how your proposed change applies to "identical in game terms". You just assert it. Rules As Made Up?

 

How about we follow this rabbit a bit? If this logic you use above is valid, then why doesn't it apply on a turn by turn basis?

 

Five Marines with 2x bolter, 1x combi-melta, 1x combi-plasma and 1x combi-flamer. None have expended their combi shot. If they shot the last turn using all bolter fire are they all considered armed with bolters for wound allocation? If not, why not, since by their firing pattern and this claim to be able to use functional equivalence to redefine "identical in game terms", they all fired simple bolters. Which means that by this logic, the ONLY time there is a difference for wound allocation would be when they are shooting the combi shot.

 

ROFL. If some of the unit is out of range, do they count as having a weapon profile of nothing at all? If they don't shoot, it "is equal to" not having one if you are making it all about ammo expenditure.

[Algesan]

Now for the last clause with its "weapons and wargear", which is where we are. I don't see a definition of "wargear" in the BRB, but it might be in the codices. I don't have C:SM or C:CSM handy, but I do happen to have C:WH (3d Ed Codex), C:BT (4th Ed Codex) and C:IG (5th Ed Codex), so lets see what they have to say. Hmmm, it seems each has a section that has a listing called "Wargear", although the C:WH and C:BT list it as part of the Armoury and C:IG does not, but that is a change consistent with what I've observed in 5th Ed codices. So, "wargear" does have a definite usage and "expended combi-weapon" isn't listed.

Essentially, it is like this:

 

RAW for comparing models:

Two models are considered identical if they have the same game relevant properties. It does not matter from what army list entry they were bought.

 

 

You have rules pages to cite for this? Or are you making it up as it sounds good to you? I clearly defined and broke down the definition of "identical in gaming terms" with relevant references. If you have jack sh*t to disagree with, then do the same. With references. Otherwise all you are doing is blabbering and blathering.

[Algesan]

Wich is exactly the problem with saying a spent combi-melta and an unspent combi-melta are the same.

 

The used combi-weapon no longer has access to the meltagun profile. It now has only the following profile:

Bolter 24" ST4 AP5 Rapid Fire

 

As opposed to:

Bolter 24" ST4 AP5 Rapid Fire

Meltagun 12" ST8 AP1 Assault 1, Melta

 

Why? Because the rules for a combi-weapon tell us that after the initial alternate shot we cant use it again.

 

It doesn't have "access to", it actually has the meltagun profile as part of the combi-melta profile. Straight line inference from the rules I quoted.

 

There doesnt have to be a provision- this is basic logic. The wargear cannot be identical, because it is not the same. The list for a model to be identical in gaming terms is having the same wargear.

 

A combi-melta that can still fire as a meltagun is not the same as a combi-melta that cannot fire as a meltagun. Thats simple, logical, fact. Thus, the models no longer have the same wargear.

 

This also doesnt go off on any tangents, bring up any irrelevant or outdated rules, or use anything but the basic english language and the RAW. In fact, I dont even had to add any extras to either weapons profile, unlike your argument above.

 

As Nighthawks once said: GW doesnt say you have to read the top of your dice either. Some things are just that simple.

 

The "basic logic" you are using doesn't have support in the rules. We don't want to go with "basic logic" because as I pointed out above, this "basic logic" you claim actually would result in defining the weapon "in gaming terms" by what it fired in that turn.

 

Profiles don't change and as I've pointed out, I cited the rules and referenced them to build my case. The fuzzy part here is that you don't reference anything, but just use this "basic logic" argument. Of course, you then claim that I'm in the wrong or perhaps committing the same "error" I've shown others are making because I wrote out the profile of a combi-melta. Perhaps you are guilty of failing to RTFM. I did not have a copy of the C:SM Codex in hand when I made my post, so I took the liberty of using my memory. So let me look there again and see how much "add any extras" I did:

 

C:SM, pg 97, under listing Combi-Weapons, second paragraph: "A Space Marine armed with a combi-weapon (combi-meltagun, comi-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. The bolter can be fired every turn, but the secondary weapon can only be fired once per battle..."

 

Which means the only "extra" I added was actually writing the profile out which GW didn't, apparently to save the column space. The text states exactly the same thing that my "extra" supposedly "added". Gee, I did that from memory too. That just blew up in your face, so try another put down with references.

 

Nighthawks may have said that, but you haven't show the relevance here. In fact, it is totally irrelevant, because in the post you are replying to, the first thing I listed was where GW did tell us how to do this thing, so it isn't "just that simple". Which puts you in the position of claiming something that ain't so. Happens when people use "basic logic" or "common sense" or fail to use references when they are available.

 

Now where that quote is nicely relevant is on WBB vs Sweeping Advance, because that entire case hinges on ignoring the dictionary, but that is another thread.

 

Guys, guys, guys, use some references, spell it out. I've ground it up nice and fine so that anyone can understand.

 

dswanick has claimed something that GW did that would be relevant, now let's see if he can produce some references to authenticate his claim.

[Legatus]

What you have not touched upon is that all of those properties might change during the course of the game, and are NOT compared based on how the models were bought from the army list. Tactical Marine A and Tactical Marine B are bught for the same points, have the same profile, rules and equipment. But if Space Marine B should have his properties altered in any way during the course of the game, he would no longer be identical to Marine A.

 

Properties can change during the course of the game. Sometimes they change due to the opponent's special rules affecting a model. But some items may have a change of properties already built into them. Such as "One Shot Only" weapons.

<sigh> Do you have any rules to show us about your logic?

Why, yes, I do.

 

"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 gaming terms. By this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear."

5th Edition Rulebook, page 25, "Complex Units".

 

I.e. if two models do not have the same profile of characteristics, do not have the same special rules, or do not have the same weapons and wargear, then they are not considered to be identical in game terms. So if two "Tactical Marines" do not have the same profile of characteristics, do not have the same special rules, or do not have the same weapons and wargear, then they are not considered to be identical in game terms, even if you had originally bought the two models from the very same army list entry with the same options. That fact simply has no bearing at all.

 

 

What you have graciously omitted is that there is a drastical difference between a "One Shot Only" weapon that has not yet fired and one that has. Namely that one can be fired, while the other cannot. That is the entire purpose of the "One Shot Only" attribute. What you end up with are models with a weapon that they can fire, and other models with a weapon they cannot fire.

Nope, not omitted at all. You just haven't shown anything that fits the definition above.

That an expended one shot weapon is different from an unexpended one is not in question at all. You are merely doubting that this has any importance for the comparison of the two weapons.

 

 

You keep trying to change it from being one weapon that can shoot two different ways into two separate weapons. Show me the rules. I nicely traced it all through the rules, with reference pages. You got something or is this just trying to override with volume?

I distinctly remember having explained this before. Not that it helped. Maybe this time is the charm.

 

"Combi-weapons are bolters that have been specially modified by the Chapter's most skilled artisans. Each has been expertly converted to house another weapon (...) This extra weapon carries only a limited charge (...)

A Space Marine armed with a combi-weapon (...) can chose to fire either the bolter, or the secondary weapon (...) The bolter can be fired every turn, but the secondary weapon can only be fired once per battle (...) You cannot fire both weapons per turn."

5th Edition Codex Space Marines, page 97, "Combi-Weapons"

 

Those are the rules. They were not really important to what I had been talking about, but there they are.

 

 

Essentially, it is like this:

 

RAW for comparing models:

Two models are considered identical if they have the same game relevant properties. It does not matter from what army list entry they were bought.

You have rules pages to cite for this? Or are you making it up as it sounds good to you? I clearly defined and broke down the definition of "identical in gaming terms" with relevant references. If you have jack sh*t to disagree with, then do the same. With references. Otherwise all you are doing is blabbering and blathering.

"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 gaming terms. By this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear."

5th Edition Rulebook, page 25, "Complex Units".

 

- profile of characteristics

- special rules

- weapons and wargear

 

^ Those are properties that have a noticeable effect during the game. If one of those properties is different, then the models are not considered to be identical. Two models are only considered identical if all of those properties are the same. Other conditions or criteria are not given. So if you buy two models from the same army list entry, with the same options, but they end up with a difference in these properties, then they are no longer considered the same.

 

This basically means there is a difference between "identical in the army list (bought from the same entry)" and the defined "identical in gaming terms".

 

The rules for wound allocation speak of models that are "identical in gaming terms", and one of the requirements is that they use the same weapons. I (and others) are then suggesting that weapons are identical if they too are "identical in gaming terms", while you are suggesting that weapons should be considered identical if they are "identical in the army list (bought from the same entry)".

[Grey Mage]

You keep trying to change it from being one weapon that can shoot two different ways into two separate weapons. Show me the rules. I nicely traced it all through the rules, with reference pages. You got something or is this just trying to override with volume?

Because the rules in C:SM specificly describe a combi-melta as two guns, thats why.

[Legatus]

One more:

"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 gaming terms. By this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear."

5th Edition Rulebook, page 25, "Complex Units".

Basically, saying "a weapon that can no longer shoot is still the same weapon" is a bit like saying "a Tactical Marine that has his Weapon Skill reduced to 3 is still a Tactical Marine". As explained in the rules, that "Tactical Marine" is now no longer considered to be identical in gaming terms to a regular "Tactical Marine" with a Weapon Skill of 4. What I am suggesting is that "weapons" are held to the same principle, and a weapon that has its stats altered or can no longer shoot should no longer be considered to be identical in gaming terms to a regular model of that weapon. It is really very straight forward.

 

 

Edit: That GW has treated "empty" weapons quite differently from fresh ones in the past and on vehicles is just an additional argument for this method. But even disregarding how GW treated weapons that can no longer shoot in the past of for the purpose of vehicles, the principle still stands on its own.

 

(Though, to be honest, in a case such as this where there is no RAW for how to compare weapons, I find it quite odd to categorically dismiss how such cases were treated in the past or are still treated for the purpose of vehicles. Since there is no RAW, all of those cases give a pretty good idea about the intent.)

[dswanick]

I'm not going to try and counter all your other rantings against the others, they are too long, too numerous, too vapid, and they can do a better job at it. So:

BTW, it is RAW unless you can show how the inference doesn't hold up using RAW. I built the case using the rules, how is it that nobody can seem to reply that way? For example, while you point to a functional equivalency you don't show from the rules how your proposed change applies to "identical in game terms". You just assert it. Rules As Made Up?

And you don't show where RAW says all that matters is the name of the weapon, or the unit option entry from which it is bought. GW didn't WRITE that, so you too are interpreting an incompletely written rule to justify your position. Claiming it is RAW doesn't make it so. The rule simply states that for two models to be identical in game terms the have to have the same weapons, without defining how to judge two weapons to be identical. You interpret that to mean that they have the same name or are purchased from the same wargear option entry, but not that the two weapons have the same functional characteristics = Nice try, doesn't fly. You want us to provide RAW without actually having any of your own, then declare our argument as inferior to yours on what? The basis of your vast knowledge and good nature? LOL.

How about we follow this rabbit a bit? If this logic you use above is valid, then why doesn't it apply on a turn by turn basis?

 

Five Marines with 2x bolter, 1x combi-melta, 1x combi-plasma and 1x combi-flamer. None have expended their combi shot. If they shot the last turn using all bolter fire are they all considered armed with bolters for wound allocation? If not, why not, since by their firing pattern and this claim to be able to use functional equivalence to redefine "identical in game terms", they all fired simple bolters. Which means that by this logic, the ONLY time there is a difference for wound allocation would be when they are shooting the combi shot.

 

ROFL. If some of the unit is out of range, do they count as having a weapon profile of nothing at all? If they don't shoot, it "is equal to" not having one if you are making it all about ammo expenditure.

Nice absurdity, which I'll not even bother countering. For this, and your other three ranting posts, you've earned yourself a block - have a nice day.

[Algesan]

Three posts that don't address any of the rules I brought up. Instead, they simply appeal to things not in the rules.

 

For example, Legatus spins out some thoughts on how he defines "identical in gaming terms" while ignoring the case built directly from the rules. I cited every definition from the rules, Legatus does not.

 

Grey Mage tries using the C:SM to prove they are two weapons while the description states that they are a bolter crafted with another weapon that has two different profiles. I covered this issue with reference to the BRB entry on Weapons. It might be of interest that all pictures of combi-weapons show them as one weapon.

 

dswanick fails to make good on his claims about some FAQ or rules somewhere to support his position, piles on some ad hom fallacy in personal insults, plays the strawman fallacy about names and announces he is incapable of dealing with my post that cited from the rules on each particular. Then claims that I'm not using RAW while not citing any RAW to disprove my point. Oh, he say he put me on ignore too.

 

If you want logic, parsing or actually dealing with the rules, the thing to do is not to rant and rave, but to show where my chain of logic using the rules is incorrect. This will require you citing actual rules and breaking them down as I did. The first error is the "functionality" argument. If that was a criteria from the rules, where do you find it? Show me from something official from GW and I'll acknowledge I'm incorrect. Don't show me and it is all just making things up to fit personal notions and this is a house rules discussion, not an official rules discussion.

 

"It just makes sense" isn't valid, because it "just makes sense" that those flamers that were out of range and couldn't shoot in my shooting phase should be able to shoot at those genestealers that just moved 13-18" to assault me. Yes, "it just makes sense", but it isn't RAW, at least for the current edition. Rules are there for a reason, to create a situation which both sides have to abide by.

[Legatus]

If you want logic, parsing or actually dealing with the rules, the thing to do is not to rant and rave, but to show where my chain of logic using the rules is incorrect. This will require you citing actual rules and breaking them down as I did.

I tried, but maybe my explanation was to opaque.

 

This is the part where you leave RAW:

 

Now for the last clause with its "weapons and wargear", which is where we are. I don't see a definition of "wargear" in the BRB, but it might be in the codices. I don't have C:SM or C:CSM handy, but I do happen to have C:WH (3d Ed Codex), C:BT (4th Ed Codex) and C:IG (5th Ed Codex), so lets see what they have to say. Hmmm, it seems each has a section that has a listing called "Wargear", although the C:WH and C:BT list it as part of the Armoury and C:IG does not, but that is a change consistent with what I've observed in 5th Ed codices. So, "wargear" does have a definite usage and "expended combi-weapon" isn't listed.

Yes, the Codices have lists of weapons and wargear. But they also have entries that list the different model types a unit consists of.

 

From the description of the army list entries from page 128 of the Codex Space Marines:

 

(2) Unit Composition: Where aplicable, this entry lists the number and type of models that make up the basic unit.

 

For example, a "Tactical Squad" consists of "4 Space Marines" and "1 Space Marine Sergeant". However, when you look at page 25 of the Rulebook, you will find that this classification is completely and utterly irrelevant for the purpose of determining whether or not models are considered to be "identical in gaming terms".

 

You propose that the listing in the Codex clearly defines which weapons are "the same". But what we know from RAW is that "models" are not compared based on how they are listed or classified in a Codex. If "Space Marine A" and "Space Marine B" have a different characteristics profile, different special rules or different equipment, then they are not considered to be identical in gaming terms. It does not matter how tehy were categorized in the Codex.

My suggestion is that we use the same principle for weapons that we are given to compare models.

 

 

The first error is the "functionality" argument. If that was a criteria from the rules, where do you find it? Show me from something official from GW and I'll acknowledge I'm incorrect. Don't show me and it is all just making things up to fit personal notions and this is a house rules discussion, not an official rules discussion.

I did quote the passage from page 25 a couple of times, so I don't think quoting it again will help, will it? According to the army list from the Codex Space Marines, a Tactical Squad consists of 1 Sergeant and 4-9 Marines. Those are the "types of models" the unit consists of. According to the Rulebook rules for models being considered "identical in gaming terms", how they are classified in the army list matters not one bit. What matters are their stats, their rules and their equipment.

 

! Codex --> has unit lists and model types

 

! BRB --> stats/rules/gear is all that matters for "identical gaming terms"

 

==> RAW: unit lists and model types from a Codex mean diddely squad, game properties is all that counts for "identical in gaming terms"

 

 

! weapons are listed in Codices

 

! weapons have properties

 

--> RAI: should weapons be compared based on how they are listed in a Codex or based on their properties to determine whether they are "identical in gaming terms"? According the RAW for comparing models, for them it is entirely based on their properties, and not on how they are listed in the Codex.

[stinkenheim]

@legatus

 

Ok, in regards to models stat lines changing, consider this:

 

A unit of nobs, assume there are 'pairs' of identically equipped models. E.g 2 with power klaws, 2 with huge choppas and 2 with slugga/choppa.

Now the unit consist of 3 groups of models, but if each group suffers one wound by your logic you would now have 6 groups .

1 with power klaw, 1 with power klaw and 1 wound, 1 huge choppa, 1 huge choppa and 1 wound, 1 slugga/choppa, slugga choppa and 1 wound.

Am I correct in saying that is how you are interpreting that because the profile of 3 of the models has changed? So based on your interpretation that new groups are created in multi wound units as they suffer wounds.

If you decide that actually the starting statline is actually what is compared in this case then surely you must also compare starting wargear as you cannot ignore ingame changes in one respect and not in others.

 

Likewise a unit attacking a tyranid creature with lash whips. Those models attacking the creature are reduced to I1 for that assault phase, does that make them a different group to models attacking another unit (assumng multiple combat) or are they still considered the same as other identically armed models in the unit as it isn't a permanent stat change?

 

I'm just confused because it keeps getting mentioned about a tactical marine magically having his ws reduced being

different from one who hasn't so I wondered where the line was drawn.

 

Note I'm not meaning to come across as rude or ignorant.

[Legatus]

@legatus

 

Ok, in regards to models stat lines changing, consider this:

 

A unit of nobs, assume there are 'pairs' of identically equipped models. E.g 2 with power klaws, 2 with huge choppas and 2 with slugga/choppa.

Now the unit consist of 3 groups of models, but if each group suffers one wound by your logic you would now have 6 groups .

1 with power klaw, 1 with power klaw and 1 wound, 1 huge choppa, 1 huge choppa and 1 wound, 1 slugga/choppa, slugga choppa and 1 wound.

Am I correct in saying that is how you are interpreting that because the profile of 3 of the models has changed?

It might have been, but the case of units with several multi-wound models is specifically adressed and explained in the rulebook on page 26. In the example with three regular nobs and one upgraded nob that is given on that page, after the unit has already been fired at, leaving the upgraded nob with one wound, one regular nob with one wound and one regular nob with both wounds, when an additional wound is suffered the player has to remove either the wounded upgraded nob or the wounded regular nob. He can not allocate the wound to the unwounded nob as his own model group. Instead the wounded regular nob and the unwounded regular nob are still one model group.

 

The wounds characteristic is a core rule element and is expected to change during the course of the game. The other characteristics, as well as rules or equipment, only change on rare occasions.

 

 

Likewise a unit attacking a tyranid creature with lash whips. Those models attacking the creature are reduced to I1 for that assault phase, does that make them a different group to models attacking another unit (assumng multiple combat) or are they still considered the same as other identically armed models in the unit as it isn't a permanent stat change?

The rule for the Lash Whip states that the affected model "counts their initiative value as 1", but it also states that the model's "actual initiative value" is disregarded. So the rule acknowledges that the model still has an "actual Initiative value".

The Lash Whip is merely a temporary bonus, similar to the Ld modifier after a lost combat or the reduced movement distance after a difficult terrain test. It does not alter the model's characteristics profile. However, there are certain rules, like the Witchhunter "purgatus" power or when a Callidus attacks a C'tan, where stats are lowered or wargear is removed for the rest of the game. Such rules are rare, but they do exist.

 

 

I'm just confused because it keeps getting mentioned about a tactical marine magically having his ws reduced being

different from one who hasn't so I wondered where the line was drawn.

That is merely an example, because a "Tactical Space Marine" is a basic infantry model. There is no actual rule that would permanently reduce a Tactical Marine's stats for the rest of the game. At least not that I can think of right now.

 

If you want an existing example: Two identically equipped Librarians, both joining the same unit. They are independent characters, but when the unit is fired at, because of their identical stats, rules and equipment they would be counted as identical and one model group for wound allocation. In a match against Witchhunters it could happen that one of the two Librarians has his Leadership Value lowered by 3 for the rest of the game via the "Purgatus" power. After that he would no longer be considered identical in gaming terms to the other Librarian.

[Grey Mage]

Grey Mage tries using the C:SM to prove they are two weapons while the description states that they are a bolter crafted with another weapon that has two different profiles. I covered this issue with reference to the BRB entry on Weapons. It might be of interest that all pictures of combi-weapons show them as one weapon.

Pictures arent rules Algesan, even if they can be used to help illustrate them.... Ive yet to see a picture of a combi-weapon that had any rules attached to it.

 

The RAW is "to house another weapon" and "This extra weapon carries only a limited charge" and "or the secondary weapon".

 

Repeatedly, blatantly, and plainly the rules for the wargear entry say it gives you two weapons. That is cut and dry.

[thade]

The reasons I haven't been posting here are that

1. We had this entire debate already, and settled with the result that - frankly - it doesn't matter which way you play this, the situations where it's advantageous to use spent combi-weapons to protect your unspent combi-weapons by counting them still as combi-weapons for allocation are VERY few and VERY rare. It's purely academic and a waste of your efforts. There are bigger fish to fry, my friends.

2. Basically anytime you see GM post, you can just imagine me posting right below it with a quote to GM and a "^This" affixed by myself. He's spot on in my mind with his interpretation here.

[Spacefrisian]

Long debate short:

 

A combi plasma stays a combi plasma even if its plasma part has been emptied.

 

Unless someone wants to argue that an empty m16 rifle becomes a sword spontainiously.

[Legatus]

A combi plasma stays a combi plasma even if its plasma part has been emptied.

 

Unless someone wants to argue that an empty m16 rifle becomes a sword spontainiously.

I would want to argue that if given the choice between an empty m16 rifle and a loaded one, that would not be equivalent choices.

 

And as I said earlier, you can just as much declare that "a Tactical Marine who has his stats changed or loses his weapon is still a Tactical Marine". Well, kind of, but according to the rulebook he would then be considered to be different from regular Tactical Marines for gameplay purposes.

 

A Tactical Marine will stay a Tactical Marine, but he is now a different model in gaming terms.

 

--> A weapon that can no longer shoot is still the same kind of weapon, but it is now different from the original weapons in gaming terms.

[Brother Valerius]

Legatus, it seems to me those two scenarios aren't equivalent. Let's return to the quote from the BRB you provided:

 

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 gaming terms. By this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear.

 

So, let's consider a marine who has fired his combi-weapon, and a marine who has not fired his combi-weapon. Same profile? Check. Same special rules? Check. Same weapons and wargear... maybe. That depends on how you interpret the combi-weapon once fired. If you interpret that the weapon is not considered part of the model's wargear once fired, then they are different. If you interpret that the weapon is still part of the wargear (simply unusable), then they are the same (since they fulfill all the criteria given for being "identical in gaming terms"). This is quite different from the tactical marine scenario you have provided as an analogy, where the profile of the unit changed, so the criteria for "identical in gaming terms" are no longer being met.

 

There are two grey areas here, it seems. One: is the combi- part of the weapon still a part of the model's wargear once fired? Two: does the "by this we mean" bit of the rule above constitute a definition of what "identical in gaming terms" is, or merely a rough guideline (that is, can two models be non-identical in gaming terms even if they meet all of these criteria)?

 

To be honest, I don't know. It makes more sense to me to treat fired and un-fired combi-weapons as the same (so that's probably how I'd play it), but the RAW debate seems to boil down to one or two unresolvable grey areas which I really have no stance on.

[Grey Mage]

Long debate short:

 

A combi plasma stays a combi plasma even if its plasma part has been emptied.

 

Unless someone wants to argue that an empty m16 rifle becomes a sword spontainiously.

A Loaded M16 is not an unloaded M16.

 

Putting one of those in the rack will get you in big trouble, the other will not.

 

.... because they are not identical in military terms.

 

 

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 gaming terms. By this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear.

 

So, let's consider a marine who has fired his combi-weapon, and a marine who has not fired his combi-weapon. Same profile? Check.

Sort of- the bolter on each weapon has an identical profile, and that I think is the sticking point for alot of people in this debate- a combiweapon is 2 weapons, not 1.

 

It should also be noted that "one shot" isnt like "blast" or "Ordnance". Its a note on the status of the weapon, and I see no reason it cant be changed to "used".

 

 

Same weapons and wargear... maybe. That depends on how you interpret the combi-weapon once fired. If you interpret that the weapon is not considered part of the model's wargear once fired, then they are different. If you interpret that the weapon is still part of the wargear (simply unusable), then they are the same (since they fulfill all the criteria given for being "identical in gaming terms"). This is quite different from the tactical marine scenario you have provided as an analogy, where the profile of the unit changed, so the criteria for "identical in gaming terms" are no longer being met.

Why is the title as important as the function?

Where in the BRB does it say to define a weapon by its title as opposed to say.... all aspects, as the word 'same' and 'identical' normally mean?

 

Seriously, I want to know. Because as far as I can tell yall have made this part up. My copy of the BRB lists weapons and wargear as things that must be the same in order to be "Identical in gaming terms". Nowhere does it say I check the name of the items in question and move on.

 

Please, someone point out the chapter and verse on this one for me.