Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

With the change to meltabombs for Ork Tankbustas, the debate about Tankbusta Nob loadouts has resurfaced.

Tankbustas don't have melee weapons per se.

One model may be upgraded to a Boss Nob.

The Boss Nob may take weapons from the Melee Weapons lis

The Melee Weapons list details the points cost of Power Klaw and Big Choppa. Underneath the Melee Weapons list, it says "a model may exchange its melee weapon with one of the following."

Some folk argue that this detail prevents the Boss Nob from purchasing a Power Klaw (perhaps unless he buys a Tankhammer first).

Big Rule Book states: "No Specified Melee Weapon: 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."

My belief is that the Boss Nob CAN take a Power Klaw, without the Tankhammer, because his entry specifically says "he may". His entry specifies the item may come from the Melee Weapons list. The extra instruction on the melee list is irrelevant.

The Boss Nob may take a Power Klaw, RAW. He doesn't restrict the unit to having only one Tankhammer if he takes a PK, as he's allowed to take a weapon from the Melee list in his entry. RAI I think if he takes a PK then he can't take the rokkit launcha, although this is unclear (Nobz can normally take Ranged AND Melee weapons).




.

How can a further instruction, detailnig HOW you take weapons from the melee list, be irrelevant? Its literlly a set of ruels you must follow

He cannot RAW take a klaw. He cannot swap his "treated as " weapon either.

I disagree. A tankbusta has no melee weapon. You have the option to upgrade a tankbusta to a "Boss Nob". At this point you are drafting in a model that is not described as a tankbusta but specifically as a boss nob who's rules and stat line is listed on the nobz page and comes default with a slugga choppa and stikkbombs. He therefore can swap for a PK or BC.

Once upgraded to a boss nob he cannot take a tankhammer as this is only an option for a standard tanbusta

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
With the change to meltabombs for Ork Tankbustas, the debate about Tankbusta Nob loadouts has resurfaced.

Tankbustas don't have melee weapons per se.

One model may be upgraded to a Boss Nob.

The Boss Nob may take weapons from the Melee Weapons lis

The Melee Weapons list details the points cost of Power Klaw and Big Choppa. Underneath the Melee Weapons list, it says "a model may exchange its melee weapon with one of the following."

Some folk argue that this detail prevents the Boss Nob from purchasing a Power Klaw (perhaps unless he buys a Tankhammer first).

Big Rule Book states: "No Specified Melee Weapon: 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."

My belief is that the Boss Nob CAN take a Power Klaw, without the Tankhammer, because his entry specifically says "he may". His entry specifies the item may come from the Melee Weapons list. The extra instruction on the melee list is irrelevant.

The Boss Nob may take a Power Klaw, RAW. He doesn't restrict the unit to having only one Tankhammer if he takes a PK, as he's allowed to take a weapon from the Melee list in his entry. RAI I think if he takes a PK then he can't take the rokkit launcha, although this is unclear (Nobz can normally take Ranged AND Melee weapons).

You cannot ignore the rules from the Weapons list at will.
"is treated as being armed with a single CCW" is not the same as actually having a melee weapon.


Another example which should be clearer:

The Command Squad says "may take an item from the Space Marine Standards list".
But that list specifically tells you that the Chapter Banner is available to the Honour Guard only.
Clearly the CS still can't take a Chapter Banner since that would ignore the restrictions of the Space Marine Standards list.

*edit* however what nurgle said (damn, that feels odd to write as a loyalist) is much more important. Changing a model from A to B does not retain it's previous rules unless specifically noted.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
How can a further instruction, detailnig HOW you take weapons from the melee list, be irrelevant? Its literlly a set of ruels you must follow

He cannot RAW take a klaw. He cannot swap his "treated as " weapon either.

There is a qualification in the melee weapons list. But that is a general list, which is over-ridden by the entry specific to the Tankbusta Nob.

That entry says he may take one. What does it mean other than "he may take one" ? To say he may not is to ignore a specific instruction, based on an inference. He is able to swap a melee weapon, if he has one. It doesn't say he is NOT allowed to have the upgraded melee weapon if he doesn't have a melee weapon already. But it DOES say he is allowed to take one on his codex entry.

To look specifically at that melee weapon 'restriction'. It says "replace" to make it clear they can't have two melee weapons at once. It doens't say "replace" in order to restrict who can have the upgraded Melee weapons - because THAT is done in the more specific codex entry.

For instance, Lootas have only ranged weapons (they are actually allowed to upgrade to a Mek with slugga). But they are specifically limited from upgrading to a PK etc because it does not allow for that on their entry - which does not mention the Melee weapons list.

RAW say the tankbusta nob can have the PK, and this is clarified by reference both to those that can, and those that can't.

"may" does not mean "must.' This is why the 'must have a melee weapon to replace" restriction is clearly wrong, RAW.

You're looking at it the wrong way because there is no such thing as a tankbusta nob. Its a tankbusta for which you are paying an additional cost to become a boss nob and a boss nob always comes with 2 melee weapons.

Nosferatu1001 was right, the rules text in the melee weapons list IS literally rules and cannot be ignored. A model without a melee weapon cannot swap for something from the list.

Luckily the model in question does actually have 2 melee weapons so can swap. The codex has taken this into account.

 nurgle86 wrote:
You're looking at it the wrong way because there is no such thing as a tankbusta nob. Its a tankbusta for which you are paying an additional cost to become a boss nob and a boss nob always comes with 2 melee weapons.

Nosferatu1001 was right, the rules text in the melee weapons list IS literally rules and cannot be ignored. A model without a melee weapon cannot swap for something from the list.

Luckily the model in question does actually have 2 melee weapons so can swap. The codex has taken this into account.

I understand your reading, which would mean the nob is restricted to a shoota or rokkit-kombi. And would have the [b]big[/i] advantage of not needing to modify any models!

 nurgle86 wrote:
You're looking at it the wrong way because there is no such thing as a tankbusta nob. Its a tankbusta for which you are paying an additional cost to become a boss nob and a boss nob always comes with 2 melee weapons.

This is not correct. The Boss Nob in a Tankbusta unit has the same wargear as a Tankbusta as the unit entry only lists wargear for the unit in general.

A Boss Nob has the same base wargear as any other model in his squad unless it is stated otherwise. The reason a Boss Nob in a Nob or Boyz unit has a Slugga, Choppa and Stikkbombz is because those unit entries (similar to the Tankbustas) state that the unit in general has them.


However on the topic more close at hand... RAW the Tankbusta Boss Nob doesn't have a melee weapon to replace and so can't take items from the list. RAI and HIWPI though he can.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 nurgle86 wrote:
You're looking at it the wrong way because there is no such thing as a tankbusta nob. Its a tankbusta for which you are paying an additional cost to become a boss nob and a boss nob always comes with 2 melee weapons.

This is not correct. The Boss Nob in a Tankbusta unit has the same wargear as a Tankbusta as the unit entry only lists wargear for the unit in general.

A Boss Nob has the same base wargear as any other model in his squad unless it is stated otherwise. The reason a Boss Nob in a Nob or Boyz unit has a Slugga, Choppa and Stikkbombz is because those unit entries (similar to the Tankbustas) state that the unit in general has them.


That said though I just noticed the Ork codex has an error in both the Burna and Loota entries don't give the mek upgrade a specific set of wargear and yet say he can replace his Choppa (which RAW from the entry he doesn't have) with a different weapon (and also gives him a Burna/Deffgun that he probably shouldn't have respectively).


However on the topic more close at hand... RAW the Tankbusta Boss Nob doesn't have a melee weapon to replace and so can't take items from the list. RAI and HIWPI though he can.

hmm. It says in lootas that the Mek gets Mek's Tools, Slugga and Choppa. Then later it says he can swap choppa for killsaw.

RAW, are you saying "may" = "must?"

Yes.
I have seen people try and model a tankhammer onto a nob to give it extra attacks but this can't be done either.

The inclusion of the boss nob option in tankbustas gives the squad the option to take a boss pole (for dubious benefit) and the PK. The faq clarification on grenades in assault sadly seriously nerfs tankbustas and makes the nob with PK a better option.

When I played orks I always ran my tanbustas as small squads of 5-7 with bomb squigs but no tankhammer and no nob. They were a reliable option for dealing with heavy armour but sadly they've joined the rest of the ranks of orks as unreliable but still viable options.

Ah I missed that bit in the Burna/Loota entry (I only skimmed it when I was skipping to the Tankbusta page). Don't mind that then.


RAW I'm not saying "May" = "Must" I'm just saying "May take items from the Melee Weapons list" doesn't not mean "May take items from and ignore restrictions of the Melee Weapons list".

His Melta Bomb is a melee weapon

Yeah he replaces that

ALRIGHT LET'S DO THIS WAAAAAAGGHH!

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Ah I missed that bit in the Burna/Loota entry (I only skimmed it when I was skipping to the Tankbusta page). Don't mind that then.


RAW I'm not saying "May" = "Must" I'm just saying "May take items from the Melee Weapons list" doesn't not mean "May take items from and ignore restrictions of the Melee Weapons list".

Understood... but the "restriction" only says "may exchange." Not "must exchange." That provides one way in, and that wording is used to clarify that if you already have a Melee weapon you must give it up to avoid having too. Seriously, May is not equivalent to Must.

The Codex entry says "may take weapons from" and gives a different way in.

TL;DR. If you're arguing for a restrictive interpretation, you need to demonstrate clarity. But this is impossible when may /= must.

 Rismonite wrote:
His Melta Bomb is a melee weapon

Yeah he replaces that

ALRIGHT LET'S DO THIS WAAAAAAGGHH!

I thknk a Melta bomb is an Orky Know-wot.

Yes, he may exchange a Melee weapon to get an item.

He also may not exchange a Melee weapon to not get an item.


The wording in the list's restriction is as it is so that a model that "May take items from the Melee weapons list" isn't then forced to because the list says they must replace a melee weapon for X, Y or Z.

You have two requirements to meet. Not one.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Ah I missed that bit in the Burna/Loota entry (I only skimmed it when I was skipping to the Tankbusta page). Don't mind that then.


RAW I'm not saying "May" = "Must" I'm just saying "May take items from the Melee Weapons list" doesn't not mean "May take items from and ignore restrictions of the Melee Weapons list".

Understood... but the "restriction" only says "may exchange." Not "must exchange." That provides one way in, and that wording is used to clarify that if you already have a Melee weapon you must give it up to avoid having too. Seriously, May is not equivalent to Must.

The Codex entry says "may take weapons from" and gives a different way in.

TL;DR. If you're arguing for a restrictive interpretation, you need to demonstrate clarity. But this is impossible when may /= must.

You're reading it wrong, the word may is used to give permission without forcing you to swap. If it said you must exchange a melee weapon, then you'd not be allowed to keep the melee weapon you wanted (you could argue it would create a cycle forcing you to constantly swap weapons) By saying may, you have permission to swap your weapon, you also have permission to keep your weapon. It's like saying you may exchange $79.80 on a battle sister squad (damn those prices they kill my wallet) You can choose to buy them or you can choose not to buy them but you can't take them for free

Really there was no reason to rehash this with an ork FAQ inbound in just a couple months. We already know that the Tankbusta Nob is the only one that can't have a Power Klaw.

And as soon as the BRB grenade FAQ gets fixed no ork will be worried about explaining to a rules lawyer how the PK issue is a typo because we will be spam clamping grenades again.

rehash it may be but an ork faq may or may not address this. I was always of the opinion that when you upgrade a squad to include a nob it comes with what the original model has as wargear.

Theres an argument to be made for tankbusta bombs being a melee weapon because they are counts as melta bombs. under the rulebook in the grenades section it says that a grenade can make a melee attack. By extension you could assume that you could swap the tankbusta bomb for the Klaw and pay the additional points. Its a reach though.

Interesting idea on the Boss nob being a swap from the nobz data sheet which would mean it comes with slugga and choppa which resolves this issue.

 Nithaniel wrote:
rehash it may be but an ork faq may or may not address this. I was always of the opinion that when you upgrade a squad to include a nob it comes with what the original model has as wargear.

That is more or less true. There are some exceptions to this if the Wargear list separates them out like the Sergeants in many of the IG Squads not having access to Lasguns, or the Space Marine Captain model not having Orbital Strike, but the Chapter Master does.

 Nithaniel wrote:
Theres an argument to be made for tankbusta bombs being a melee weapon because they are counts as melta bombs. under the rulebook in the grenades section it says that a grenade can make a melee attack. By extension you could assume that you could swap the tankbusta bomb for the Klaw and pay the additional points. Its a reach though.

Unfortunately, the rules for Melta Bombs only give them that profile when "used in assaults against vehicles, buildings, gun emplacements or Monstrous Creatures". That does not include during list building.

 Nithaniel wrote:
Interesting idea on the Boss nob being a swap from the nobz data sheet which would mean it comes with slugga and choppa which resolves this issue.

Interesting, but fruitless as the Tankbusta datasheet does not reference the Nob datasheet any more than it references a Battle Wagon.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You have two requirements to meet. Not one.

This requires disobeying an explicit instruction, and obeying an inferred one.

We have all seen the instruction "the boss nob may take items from the Melee Weapons list." That is plain, we are agreed?

There is, under the heading Melee Weapons list, an instruction. But it is not an item from the Melee Weapons list. It is an instruction, a piece of text that's under the Melee Weapons heading that is plainly not an item from the Melee Weapons list.

To say an instruction is an item is stretching logic. And requires us to ignore a clear instruction.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You have two requirements to meet. Not one.

This requires disobeying an explicit instruction, and obeying an inferred one.

We have all seen the instruction "the boss nob may take items from the Melee Weapons list." That is plain, we are agreed?

There is, under the heading Melee Weapons list, an instruction. But it is not an item from the Melee Weapons list. It is an instruction, a piece of text that's under the Melee Weapons heading that is plainly not an item from the Melee Weapons list.

To say an instruction is an item is stretching logic. And requires us to ignore a clear instruction.

What doe the Boss nob need in order to take items from the Melee weapons list?

Does he have one?

Yes, the nob has a melee weapon as he has an attack value.

pg 41 No specified melee weapon

if a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon, it is treated as being armed with a single CCW.

ERGO the nob has a non specific CCW that get's replaced with a specific CCW (the Power klaw)

sirlynchmob wrote:
Yes, the nob has a melee weapon as he has an attack value.

pg 41 No specified melee weapon

if a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon, it is treated as being armed with a single CCW.

ERGO the nob has a non specific CCW that get's replaced with a specific CCW (the Power klaw)

And when does that get applied?

 DeathReaper wrote:


What doe the Boss nob need in order to take items from the Melee weapons list?

Does he have one?

he needs an instruction to take one, which is provided on page 65.

Another instruction sits under the heading Melee Weapons but it is irrelevant in this instance. It is not a specified condition. It is not an item on the list.

Zarroc1733 wrote:
By saying may, you have permission to swap your weapon, you also have permission to keep your weapon. It's like saying you may exchange $79.80 on a battle sister squad (damn those prices they kill my wallet) You can choose to buy them or you can choose not to buy them but you can't take them for free

The joke is appreciated!

I would say this is like my getting the shopping. The g/f says "buy all the items on last week's shopping list". On the shopping list, it also says, "don't wear your old blue jeans, wear your red tutu." I am wearing black jeans and I don't fancy the red tutu tonight. the shopping list might also have other conditions, like a maximum spend I'm allowed. But if I've been told explicity to buy the items on the list, I obey the list - not the instructions, all the more so when obeying the instructions would give a meaningless outcome.

 Rismonite wrote:
Really there was no reason to rehash this with an ork FAQ inbound in just a couple months. We already know that the Tankbusta Nob is the only one that can't have a Power Klaw.

And as soon as the BRB grenade FAQ gets changed to work how I want it to no ork will be worried about explaining to a rules lawyer how the PK issue is a typo because we will be spam clamping grenades again.

Fixed that for you.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:


What doe the Boss nob need in order to take items from the Melee weapons list?

Does he have one?

he needs an instruction to take one, which is provided on page 65.

The instruction sits under the heading Melee Weapons but it is irrelevant in this instance. It is not a specified condition. It is not an item on the list.

Zarroc1733 wrote:
By saying may, you have permission to swap your weapon, you also have permission to keep your weapon. It's like saying you may exchange $79.80 on a battle sister squad (damn those prices they kill my wallet) You can choose to buy them or you can choose not to buy them but you can't take them for free

The joke is appreciated!

I would say this is like my getting the shopping. The g/f says "buy all the items on last week's shopping list". On the shopping list, it also says, "don't wear your old blue jeans, wear your red tutu." I am wearing black jeans and I don't fancy the red tutu tonight. the shopping list might also have other conditions, like a maximum spend I'm allowed. But if I've been told explicity to buy the items on the list, I obey the list - not the instructions, all the more so when obeying the instructions would give a meaningless outcome.

I'll agree to disagree, and exalt your post for acknowledging my joke and responding in kind haha

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You have two requirements to meet. Not one.

This requires disobeying an explicit instruction, and obeying an inferred one.

We have all seen the instruction "the boss nob may take items from the Melee Weapons list." That is plain, we are agreed?

There is, under the heading Melee Weapons list, an instruction. But it is not an item from the Melee Weapons list. It is an instruction, a piece of text that's under the Melee Weapons heading that is plainly not an item from the Melee Weapons list.

To say an instruction is an item is stretching logic. And requires us to ignore a clear instruction.

The first is permission to access the list at all. Without this permission you cannot even reference the list

When you reference the list, this tells you how you may take items. There is an absolute requirement. Your permission for the first gives you no permission to ignore the second.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

The first is permission to access the list at all. Without this permission you cannot even reference the list

When you reference the list, this tells you how you may take items. There is an absolute requirement. Your permission for the first gives you no permission to ignore the second.

No inference. The lists tell you what is required to access the items.

That is absolute.

You are claiming you can bypass a rule,,and instead of providing actual rules to support your contention, you dismiss arguments against your position. With no rules support. In a rules debate.

We're at an impasse indeed. One side follows the rules, one ignores them