About CCW and extra attacks

[Agramar_The_Luna_Wolf]

I was playing a small game with my nephew this afternoon and he asked me this:

The rulebook and the Libers said that everyone has a close combat weapon, like a knife or whatever. If a miniature has a pistol, in the assault phase, can get +1 attack for a ccw??

 

For example, a tactical marine with bolter and bolt pistol is assaulted by other miniature. Can reclaim an extra attack for ccw or not?

 

Personally, I think it's a bit strange and excessive but I want to know your opinion about this.

 

Thanks for your patience

[SkimaskMohawk]

We're going to go with some of the classics at this point: "the full answer needs a different book" and "the wording is terrible".

 

Page 176 of the core rules the following about close combat weapons and pistols.

 

Quote

A Pistol can be used as a close combat weapon. If it is treated in this way, use the profile given above – the Strength, AP and special rules of the Pistol’s shooting profile are ignored. Additionally, if a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type, it is treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon as shown above.

 

Does choosing to use the pistol as a close combat weapon count them as being specifically stated as having a weapon with the melee type? I'd tend to say yes at that point, but it's the furthest thing from airtight. The wording is the same as in 1st, and I can't remember if there was a pre 2018 FAQ that addressed it. 

[RoadRunna]

This questions was roasted, cooked, cut up, eaten, spat out and eaten again when the rule book was launched.  You should be able to find a thread or two around this disuccsion.  To save you the trouble - the answer is no.  If the model is armed with only a pistol then it does not get any +1.  If however the model is only armed with a shooting weapon and no ccw is listed in the Wargear description then it is deemed to have a CCW to enable it to fight with the profile of the "Basic close combat weapon".  

[Agramar_The_Luna_Wolf]

As I suspected.

 

Thanks both for the replies!

[Brother Kraskor]

On 8/21/2023 at 3:44 AM, RoadRunna said:

This questions was roasted, cooked, cut up, eaten, spat out and eaten again when the rule book was launched.  You should be able to find a thread or two around this disuccsion.  To save you the trouble - the answer is no.  If the model is armed with only a pistol then it does not get any +1.  If however the model is only armed with a shooting weapon and no ccw is listed in the Wargear description then it is deemed to have a CCW to enable it to fight with the profile of the "Basic close combat weapon".  

I'll preface this by saying this is how I would play it. This is a sensible way of doing it and likely intended. But I don't think you can definitively say 'the answer is this'. A pistol 'can be used as a melee weapon' does not equal 'counts as a melee weapon', that is just not a natural interpretation. 
 

To really dumb it down, lets say in a restaurant everyone eats with a fork. You don't have a fork, so you use your spoon to eat with instead - the spoon has not become a fork. The restaurant notices you don't have a fork so they give you a backup one - now you have two implements which can be used for eating. 
 

Through sloppy writing, I think RAW you are entitled to an extra attack for being armed with just a pistol (a spoon). Step one: you qualify for the free CCW (you don't have a fork, you get the spare one), step two: you have two weapons which can be used in melee (two eating implements). 
 

All they needed to say was a Pistol 'counts as' a melee weapon, rather than 'may be used as'. 

[General Zodd]

1 hour ago, Brother Kraskor said:

I'll preface this by saying this is how I would play it. This is a sensible way of doing it and likely intended. But I don't think you can definitively say 'the answer is this'. A pistol 'can be used as a melee weapon' does not equal 'counts as a melee weapon', that is just not a natural interpretation. 
 

To really dumb it down, lets say in a restaurant everyone eats with a fork. You don't have a fork, so you use your spoon to eat with instead - the spoon has not become a fork. The restaurant notices you don't have a fork so they give you a backup one - now you have two implements which can be used for eating. 
 

Through sloppy writing, I think RAW you are entitled to an extra attack for being armed with just a pistol (a spoon). Step one: you qualify for the free CCW (you don't have a fork, you get the spare one), step two: you have two weapons which can be used in melee (two eating implements). 
 

All they needed to say was a Pistol 'counts as' a melee weapon, rather than 'may be used as'. 

As Roadrunna was implying, there are more fulsome debates on this topic elsewhere on this forum. The quickest response when this comes up again is simply to skip to the answer. Or did you want to repeat the whole debate yet again rather than just go look up previous threads?

[Brother Kraskor]

1 hour ago, General Zodd said:

As Roadrunna was implying, there are more fulsome debates on this topic elsewhere on this forum. The quickest response when this comes up again is simply to skip to the answer. Or did you want to repeat the whole debate yet again rather than just go look up previous threads?

I'm not exactly sure why you feel entitled to demand an explanation from me for my input. Nonetheless, I wanted to highlight to the OP that it is probably not as cut and dry as Roadrunna represents (though again, RAI it is so I can see why they said that), and offer an argument as to why. The quickest response is not automatically the best! 

Edited August 24, 2023 by Brother Kraskor

[General Zodd]

8 hours ago, Brother Kraskor said:

I'm not exactly sure why you feel entitled to demand an explanation from me for my input. Nonetheless, I wanted to highlight to the OP that it is probably not as cut and dry as Roadrunna represents (though again, RAI it is so I can see why they said that), and offer an argument as to why. The quickest response is not automatically the best! 

I wasn’t demanding anything, but I think given the OP seemed content with the TL:DR version, the fact SkimaskMohawk provided the obligatory caveat about the whole rulebook being badly written and RoadRunna already stating it had been debated at length and to save the OP the time he’d skip to the conclusion, it felt like your addition was simply muddying the waters, which led to my curiosity as to why it seemed like you wanted to repeat the same old debate.

 

Semantically, yes you are 100% correct that it’s terribly worded and could be read either way. That’s why the previous threads exist. However, even the people arguing that the rules say you should always get the bonus attack if you only have a pistol don’t seem to actually think that’s how you should play it, you even said this yourself. So it’s unhelpful to a new player to suggest that they could rock up at a game and attempt to argue that their tactical marines should get the same amount of attacks in combat as their opponent’s despoilers.

 

Having played 40k/30k since Rogue Trader I’m not aware of anyone who’s ever played like that, or even attempted to make the argument (with the exception of brand new players being confused about it, until a more experienced player does exactly what has happened here and skipped to the interpretation employed by the vast, vast majority of players). I’m not saying they don’t exist, but I’d confidently assert they’re in a very small minority if they do.
 

So the most helpful answer really is to say that there’s room for debate because the rules are atrociously written, but this is the way you should apply it, as that’s how everyone does apply it. Can you see why I was confused by your comment? Unless I’ve misunderstood and you genuinely think you should get the +1 Attack bonus with just a pistol and that we’re all playing it wrong?

Edited August 24, 2023 by General Zodd

[Noserenda]

Better to put a comment here than necro some old thread to do essentially the same thing

[Brother Kraskor]

14 hours ago, General Zodd said:

I wasn’t demanding anything, but I think given the OP seemed content with the TL:DR version, the fact SkimaskMohawk provided the obligatory caveat about the whole rulebook being badly written and RoadRunna already stating it had been debated at length and to save the OP the time he’d skip to the conclusion, it felt like your addition was simply muddying the waters, which led to my curiosity as to why it seemed like you wanted to repeat the same old debate.

 

Semantically, yes you are 100% correct that it’s terribly worded and could be read either way. That’s why the previous threads exist. However, even the people arguing that the rules say you should always get the bonus attack if you only have a pistol don’t seem to actually think that’s how you should play it, you even said this yourself. So it’s unhelpful to a new player to suggest that they could rock up at a game and attempt to argue that their tactical marines should get the same amount of attacks in combat as their opponent’s despoilers.

 

Having played 40k/30k since Rogue Trader I’m not aware of anyone who’s ever played like that, or even attempted to make the argument (with the exception of brand new players being confused about it, until a more experienced player does exactly what has happened here and skipped to the interpretation employed by the vast, vast majority of players). I’m not saying they don’t exist, but I’d confidently assert they’re in a very small minority if they do.
 

So the most helpful answer really is to say that there’s room for debate because the rules are atrociously written, but this is the way you should apply it, as that’s how everyone does apply it. Can you see why I was confused by your comment? Unless I’ve misunderstood and you genuinely think you should get the +1 Attack bonus with just a pistol and that we’re all playing it wrong?

 

Look I'm not really interested in getting into an argument about my posting methodology. You're obviously a very experienced player, let's not embarrass ourselves further by continuing this farce.  

 

What I will say is the sentence I've put in bold is exactly the conclusion I was trying to steer towards. I think it's important to point out the writing flaws (the OP's nephew was not wrong to notice something was up), if only to be aware that a minority may try and play it this way and to be prepared for that debate. But equally important of course is to relay how the majority play it. 

[9x19 Parabellum]

Furthering this question; does a model armed with a meltabomb + any other close combat weapon get the +1A combo ?    The meltabombs rule specifcially says if you attack with *it*, you can only make 1 attack, however if you attack with another weapon, would you get +1 A with it?

[Dark Legionnare]

2 hours ago, 9x19 Parabellum said:

Furthering this question; does a model armed with a meltabomb + any other close combat weapon get the +1A combo ?    The meltabombs rule specifcially says if you attack with *it*, you can only make 1 attack, however if you attack with another weapon, would you get +1 A with it?

I don't have the verbatim rules in front of me. But I believe the wording around the Meltabomb has, in both 1.0 and 2.0, been around the lines of 

"Can be used as a CCW against vehicles & monsters (automata, dreadnought, etc... in 2.0) but when doing so the user can only ever make 1 attack"

So, the rules advise it is only a CCW in those cases, not outside them, and if used (as the primary weapon or possibly suggested as being used as the secondary) it's still being used, so you can only ever make 1 attack.

(If not the case, I would posit this absolutely smacks of "RAW vs RAI" where RAI is objectively the option. IE, don't let anyone be 'that guy' otherwise.)

Edited August 28, 2023 by Dark Legionnare

[9x19 Parabellum]

I'm inclined to agree.

Is there a third scenario here, though?

 

-You can attack infantry, bikes, beasts, swarms, etc, as normal, and the melta bomb doesn't help you.

-You can attack V-D-A with the melta bomb and make 1 attack

-You can attack V-D-A with normal array of weapons, and the melta bomb counts as an additional weapon so you get +1 attack (but none of those attacks get made with the melta profile)

 

?

[Gorgoff]

The melta bomb is a close combat weapon which profile can only be used against certain enemies but it still counts as a close combat weapon. Therefore you get +1 A if you have another ccw like a chainsword or a bolt pistols. Sounds weird but RAW it is what it is. If you take the huge canister type of MB it makes sense in a way though. The model just flails around with it and distracts the enemy.

 

Edited August 29, 2023 by Gorgoff

[SkimaskMohawk]

Ya you can off-hand a melta bomb for an extra attack in your main weapon, which is pretty funny.

 

It now has a straight up melee weapon profile, with a special rule that restricts the target and amount of attacks while using it. But nothing that stops it counting as an additional melee weapon.

[RoadRunna]

23 hours ago, Gorgoff said:

The melta bomb is a close combat weapon which profile can only be used against certain enemies but it still counts as a close combat weapon. Therefore you get +1 A if you have another ccw like a chainsword or a bolt pistols. Sounds weird but RAW it is what it is. If you take the huge canister type of MB it makes sense in a way though. The model just flails around with it and distracts the enemy.

 

IMHO playing it like this just makes me feel icky

[Gorgoff]

1 hour ago, RoadRunna said:

IMHO playing it like this just makes me feel icky

Yup it does but it is what it is. 

That's why I said if your model has the huge canister style of MB it kind of feels plausible but the dmall FW ones make no sense at all. 

The unfortunate part is that GW probably will never adress these kind of interactions in FAQ or such.

[Cactus]

5 hours ago, Gorgoff said:

Yup it does but it is what it is. 

That's why I said if your model has the huge canister style of MB it kind of feels plausible but the dmall FW ones make no sense at all. 

The unfortunate part is that GW probably will never adress these kind of interactions in FAQ or such.

Where are these small FW melta bombs? I'm not doubting you, I just haven't ever noticed them.

[Gorgoff]

On 8/30/2023 at 4:18 PM, Cactus said:

Where are these small FW melta bombs? I'm not doubting you, I just haven't ever noticed them.

They come with the Breacher set for example. 

They are as tiny as frag grenades and such bitz:

 

https://bitzarium.com/en/legion-mk4-power-weapons/5498-melta-bomb-space-marines.html

 

Edited August 31, 2023 by Gorgoff

[LameBeard]

The idea of using your melta bomb as a cudgel without detonating it is quite amusing really.

[Brother Sutek]

On 8/29/2023 at 3:07 AM, Gorgoff said:

The melta bomb is a close combat weapon which profile can only be used against certain enemies but it still counts as a close combat weapon. Therefore you get +1 A if you have another ccw like a chainsword or a bolt pistols. Sounds weird but RAW it is what it is. If you take the huge canister type of MB it makes sense in a way though. The model just flails around with it and distracts the enemy.

 

I tried telling that to someone that and they told me it's not a melee weapon except with certain restrictions.  I tried to argue RAW but they were unpleasant.  This was over the spear wielding Blood Angels getting an extra attack due to the melta bombs. Fortunately for me I don't play him often and the rest of my group read the rules completely and don't cherrynpick the parts they like.

[SkimaskMohawk]

2 hours ago, Brother Sutek said:

I tried telling that to someone that and they told me it's not a melee weapon except with certain restrictions.  I tried to argue RAW but they were unpleasant.  This was over the spear wielding Blood Angels getting an extra attack due to the melta bombs. Fortunately for me I don't play him often and the rest of my group read the rules completely and don't cherrynpick the parts they like.

 

I don't understand people that refuse to read what the rules actually say and get irate when others do. 

 

Like, it's not a creative use of grammar or bringing up an unclear interaction. You're not arguing that specialist weapons should give an extra attack when attacking with a different weapon. It's just a melee weapon with no restrictions on the extra attack.

[Brother Sutek]

7 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

 

I don't understand people that refuse to read what the rules actually say and get irate when others do. 

 

Like, it's not a creative use of grammar or bringing up an unclear interaction. You're not arguing that specialist weapons should give an extra attack when attacking with a different weapon. It's just a melee weapon with no restrictions on the extra attack.

Sadly some people like to try to squeak out things from rules that even the most basic reading says different.  It's one of the reasons I like playing new people less and less. I get someone making a mistake from quick reading but this guy specifically had read the sentence back to me multiple times and each time changed what the important part was.

[Unit1126PLL]

The FAQ answer on Servo-Arms (in the Mechanicum FAQ but I think also in the Legions one) had a similar effect on me - 

 

If you have A2, a Servo Arm, a pistol, and a Volkite charger, you can make 4 attacks with a servo arm that is unwieldy, or 3 attacks with a CCW and one with a Servo Arm.