Bat Manuel wrote:That's why I said this

Bat Manuel wrote:
I'd say only one person believes that a warscythe=a gauss blaster and nothing anyone ever says will change that...no matter how logical.
and it also says that arguing with you would be pointless

Yeah I got that
I'd guess they'd also like to bring some super secret Necron nanobots into the fight as well.


That light that comes out of the back of it is the nanobots (at less then 10% of full power, that thing is way overpowered >_> ). They're designed to destroy any weapon, including armour.

There is no rule, as far as I am aware, that the effects of CCW are limited to assault. Plenty of weapons modify S, which is commonly used (at least according to the BRB) for strength tests. Plenty of weapons confer special shooting attacks. As far as I know, it's considered RaW that these weapons have some in-game effect, even outside of the shooting phase.

The only issue I can see from a RaW standpoint is whether or not the "warscythe with a built-in gauss blaster" is 1 weapon or 2. If it is 1 weapon, then ranged attacks from it are indeed from a warscythe, and thus no save may be made.

I believe the phrase "built-in" makes it clear that it is 1 weapon, as what you are shooting and resisting is a function of the warscythe granted by the built-in components. What I would love to see is a RaW discussion as to whether or not the shooting attack comes from the warscythe. I believe I've seen no such discussion
(except for the odd "I can't see how it would be" without any discussion of rules or reasons)

Interesting, what I'd really like to see though would be a test game with Pariahs being ran in this fashion.

ajfirecracker, here is why I think you are incorrect in this position:

Pariahs are described as having a Warscythe with a built-in Gauss Blaster. "Built-in" does not mean "same", as you seem to be arguing. What this "built-in" means is that the Pariahs have a Warscythe (with all the armor-countering goodness attributed to it), and on this Warscythe (or in it, which ever) there is also a Gauss Blaster.

To go for analogy (which you seem to hate, for some reason), see Gwar's first post in this thread (the Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon with Built-In Heavy Flamer).

The fact of the matter is that, no matter how much of a fuss you make about this, the Gauss Blaster is a seperate weapon from the Warscythe. Trying to attribute the rules of one weapon (the Warscythe) to another (the Gauss Blaster) is being highly unreasonable. You have failed to prove your argument that "built-in" means "the same", instead relying on phrases like "I believe", which does not fly here in YMDC.

The purpose of this thread also seems rather inflammatory and, well, like you're trolling here. I'm going to leave the thread open for now, but please be polite, reasonable, and check out the Tenets of You Make Da Call.

Thank you.

I disagree with your assertion that the rules have not been discussed.

I pointed out that the warscythe has no ranged weapon profile, therefore, even if it says it has a "built in gauss blaster" you can't shoot with a warscythe.

You have to shoot with a Gauss Blaster.

Since the only other use of the words "built in" refer to DCCW, it is clear that the gauss blaster is in fact a separate weapon, and you have to shoot the gauss blaster at the enemy, not the warscythe. You don't shoot your DCCW at the enemy, regardless of whether it transfers its properties to the incorporated ranged weapon or not. You shoot the heavy flamer or storm bolter.

How would this affect Ole Mr Calgars PF's? They have Integrated Storm bolters (and yes they do list unique stats for them they are still storm bolters) Does that mean that they are not infact S4 AP2 But S8 Ignores armor saves? no of course not. Just like the war scythe the integrated weapon has its own stat line. Frankly this is getting rediculous, your repeating the same inane point over and over.

Thank you for the reply, Iorek.

I've been using the term "I believe" as a substitute for "I believe the rules say that". Please pardon this shorthand, I'll stop using it.

I believe the rules say that DCCW apply the relevant bonuses in the assault phase (double S), while the warscythe has no such restriction. (The power weapon ability of DCCW is naturally applied in the assault phase only, as per the BRB)

While I do agree that "built-in" is not synonymous with "same", I do not agree that the rules denote the warscythe and gauss blaster as separate items. My point is that if the rules are such that a warscythe with a built-in gauss blaster can shoot (there are not actually any rules for this particular weapon), then it must remain a warscythe. If this is so, then it must gain the bonuses given to warscythes via p. 14 of the necron codex.

I would like an explanation as to how the decision has been reached as to why the gauss blaster and warscythe are separate weapons when one is "built in"to the other. This is a rules question, which I do believe is the purpose of YMDC. Moreover, failing that, I believe the rules are such that it must be considered 1 item. There are numerous posts in the 'storm bolter are ccw' thread which claim vehemently this very point.

As a result, I am very confused as to how a line of weaponry in a codex can be interpreted (seemingly unanimously) as referring to 1 item, and a different line of weaponry in the same codex can be interpreted (seemingly unanimously) as referring to 2 items, where neither of them is an exact match for some well-described set of equipment, but both are seemingly "fluff" descriptions of weaponry.

Edit: all that is necessary to deny saves is that the save somehow be "against" the warscythe. It does not need to modify the gauss blaster profile in any way to do this. My claim is not that any profile is transferred, rather that saves taken against the gauss blaster should also be considered saves taken against the warscythe, as the gauss blaster is built into the warscythe.

ajfirecracker wrote:Thank you for the reply, Iorek.

I've been using the term "I believe" as a substitute for "I believe the rules say that". Please pardon this shorthand, I'll stop using it.

I believe the rules say that DCCW apply the relevant bonuses in the assault phase (double S), while the warscythe has no such restriction. (The power weapon ability of DCCW is naturally applied in the assault phase only, as per the BRB)

While I do agree that "built-in" is not synonymous with "same", I do not agree that the rules denote the warscythe and gauss blaster as separate items. My point is that if the rules are such that a warscythe with a built-in gauss blaster can shoot (there are not actually any rules for this particular weapon), then it must remain a warscythe. If this is so, then it must gain the bonuses given to warscythes via p. 14 of the necron codex.

I would like an explanation as to how the decision has been reached as to why the gauss blaster and warscythe are separate weapons when one is "built in"to the other. This is a rules question, which I do believe is the purpose of YMDC. Moreover, failing that, I believe the rules are such that it must be considered 1 item. There are numerous posts in the 'storm bolter are ccw' thread which claim vehemently this very point.

As a result, I am very confused as to how a line of weaponry in a codex can be interpreted (seemingly unanimously) as referring to 1 item, and a different line of weaponry in the same codex can be interpreted (seemingly unanimously) as referring to 2 items, where neither of them is an exact match for some well-described set of equipment, but both are seemingly "fluff" descriptions of weaponry.

Because the ignores armour part is reffering to the material the blade is made out of. Think of it like a bayonet like it has been previously mentioned.

willydstyle wrote:I disagree with your assertion that the rules have not been discussed.

I pointed out that the warscythe has no ranged weapon profile, therefore, even if it says it has a "built in gauss blaster" you can't shoot with a warscythe.

You have to shoot with a Gauss Blaster.

Since the only other use of the words "built in" refer to DCCW, it is clear that the gauss blaster is in fact a separate weapon, and you have to shoot the gauss blaster at the enemy, not the warscythe. You don't shoot your DCCW at the enemy, regardless of whether it transfers its properties to the incorporated ranged weapon or not. You shoot the heavy flamer or storm bolter.

I agree with willydstyle. Many posters have posted relevant rules, and the OP only wants to continue arguing. This thread should be closed. A warscythe ignores armor saves (in CC because it's a close combat weapon), and in the shooting phase, you fire the warscythe's "built-in" gauss blaster, which has it's own profile that is used to determine damage and saves.

Only the warscythe, (by it's own entry) ignores saves. A gauss blaster, by it's profile only ignores saves if it's AP equals or beats the targets armor save. You are not firing a warscythe at an enemy, you are firing the built in gauss blaster. A warscythe does not have a "range", only the gauss blaster does.

not_u, the material the blade is made out of is an item of fluff, which has no bearing on the rules of the game.

I understand that the developers probably intended the warscythe to only grant the ability to ignore saves in close combat, but my enquiry is to the structure and meaning of the written rules, not the unknowable intent of the game's developers.

Whitedragon, not a single poster has posted any rules concerning a weapon called "warscythe with built-in gauss blaster", because, strictly speaking, no such rules exist. What posters have posted is their interpretation of the words "with built-in" which (their interpretation) is not generally considered a portion of the rules. I do not believe that the rules support any particular reading of the wargear item (indeed, I cannot seem to find any BRB entry for built-in weapons, under walkers or elsewhere). Furthermore, it is the case that there is no rule specifying whether or not saves made "against" the gauss blaster are also considered to be "against" the warscythe.

Edit: @not_u, if fluff has some bearing on the rules of the game, then all sorts of mayhem breaks loose. I could take any special character, for example, and insist that because there is fluff for them being alive but none for their death, they are invulnerable. Certain character also specify the manner of their doom (like Kaptin Badrukk), so a strict fluff game would only allow them to come to harm if via that manner (in Badrukk's case, Gets Hot!)

It does when it's rules have been written to reflect it's properties, like how the gaus weapons like.

@BlackEagle: powerfists specify that they "double the user's strength"

If the storm bolters are said to be using the PF they are integrated into, then they would get their strength doubled.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@all: The AP of the gauss blaster is irrelevant as to whether or not the warscythe rules come into effect. AP only specifies which saves may not be taken, it does not guarantee that other saves may be taken. Consider a heavy flamer, which (like the gauss blaster) denies a particular group of armor saves. However, the heavy flamer also denies cover. An incinerator takes the process a step further. As a result, any 40k player should be familiar with the idea that having penetrated armor does not guarantee any other save.

ajfirecracker wrote:@BlackEagle: powerfists specify that they "double the user's strength"

If the storm bolters are said to be using the PF they are integrated into, then they would get their strength doubled.

Where does it say the Gauss Blaster uses the Warscythe?

The uses clause is a particular trait of the powerfist doubling strength. (p. 42)

The corollary requirement for warscythes is whether or not saves are taken "against" the warscythe (p. 14, C:Necrons). I believe that if they are 1 weapon, then a save against either is a save against both. If they are 2 weapons, then it's clear that the warscythe confers no shooting benefit.

Edit: It's unclear as to whether or not the warscythe needs to be the weapon used to gain an extra D6 against vehicles. Given an especially broad interpretation of "when attacking vehicles", the presence of a single warscythe on the table grants everyone 2D6 rather than D6. Given a more reasonable interpretation along the lines of "when [warscythes are] attacking vehicles", then it becomes clear that the only bonuses that may be gained are for assaulting or shooting (subject to the 1 weapon requirement for warscythes supercharging gauss blasters).

It seems that a rules clarification is need from GW as to the number of different weapons carried by a Pariah, but I'd love to hear any RaW arguments as to why they get or do not get the bonus. I feel that this must exclude "they're just 2 weapons" or "built-in things are a separate weapon just because". Why must they be 2 weapons? I do apologize if I've overlooked some rule to that effect.

It's called "It has 2 Weapons". Seriously, what part of the rules state you may use a Close Combat Weapon outside of close combat? Page reference and quote please.

The fluff only counts if there are rules based on it, just like the material used for the blades of the Warscythe.

It's been said many many times. The rules are permissive. I could, say, light your stuff on fire. But, the rules don't let me therefore it's against the rules, you see.

Regardless of that I suggest you re-read page 14 of the Necron codex, the part about the warscythe.
"Warcythes are made from the same living metal as the hulls of Necron ships and the C'Tan necrodermis (see page 27). The have phase blades that slip effortlessly through the most powerful armour. A well-directed Warscythe can cut the barrel from a Leman Russ or carve a hole in the side of a bunker. There are no saving throws of any sort (including invulnerable saves) allowed againts Warscythes, and when attacking vehicles 2D6 + Strength is rolled for armour penetration."


Imortals also have Gauss Blasters, the warscythes are exactly the same, they are just a Gauss Blaster with a blade attached to the side of it. Now think of it this way, if it works like that Calgar would be shooting 24" S8 AP2 Assault 2 attacks. Now think of it, if Calgar can do that, why aren't people using him?

I'm aware of the warscythe rules (in fact, I've quoted that passage repeatedly).

Permissive rulesets are such that you may not do things if there is doubt as to whether or not they are allowed by the rules. In this case, the rules both say that you "can test" to save against wounds, and that "there are no saves allowed against Warscythes". If you wish to play with a permissive ruleset in mind, then the default here is to deny any save, because it is a game action, while we are not sure if it is permitted.

As to marneus calgar: if the storm bolters are described as using the PF, they may double their strength (as per the powerfist rules, which can be found on p.42 of the rulebook). Otherwise they may not, which is perhaps why people correctly play him with non-doubled shooting attacks.

Please answer my question:
Where does it say you may use a Close Combat Weapon outside of the assault phase.

Whilst I disagree with 'ajfirecracker' his argument is very easy to prove.

He merely needs to identify the section of the 5e rulebook which defines 'built-in' weapons. That will explain everything.

Well let's go back to Gwars! Dreadnought example, does my stormbolter now shoot strength 8 attacks that ignore armour saves. How about my Heavy Flamer, does that shoot strength 10 template now that ignores armour saves because that would really be awesome in addition to how it already ignores cover saves. Even better when you realise that I can now charge the remaining enemy and hit them with 3 S10 attacks that ignore armour saves as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ajfirecracker wrote:As to marneus calgar: if the storm bolters are described as using the PF, they may double their strength (as per the powerfist rules, which can be found on p.42 of the rulebook). Otherwise they may not, which is perhaps why people correctly play him with non-doubled shooting attacks.

Continue this line of thought, but apply to Necrons. They say they're integrated, kind of like the warscythes Intergrated and Built-in having very similar meanings.

ajfirecracker wrote:I do not agree that the rules denote the warscythe and gauss blaster as separate items.

Oh? Try reading page 14 of the necron 'dex. There's an entry for the gauss blaster under "ranged weapons" and a separate entry for "warscythe" under close combat weapons. Separate entries = separate items. Note the distinct lack of an entry for "warscythe with built-in gauss blaster". The lack of an entry doesn't mean you get to combine the properties of the two separate entries however you see fit to create an uberweapon in hopes that your pariahs will somehow be able to earn back their points (which is why the analogies to dreadnought CCWs were on-point). It means the pariah has a warscythe and a gauss blaster. Since this simple concept seems to have eluded you for three pages, you shoot with the gauss blaster (ranged weapon) and melee with the warscythe (close combat weapon).

If you argue strict, context-ignoring RAW (which is a fallacy in itself), along the lines of Gwar's argument as to why daemonhunters can't take leman russes (which you cited earlier), your pariahs are unarmed because there is no entry for "warscythe with built-in gauss blaster". According to that argument which you've espoused, if there's no entry for it, there's no such thing.

But let's get back to the rules.

In the shooting phase, you can only fire ranged weapons. Ranged weapons have ranged weapon profiles. Ranged weapons have a range. "all weapons have a maximum effective range, which is the furthest distance they can shoot." BGB p.17. Note the many references on page 17, 19, and 20 to various elements of the ranged weapon profile. A ranged weapon profile is a prerequisite to shooting. A warscythe does not have a ranged weapon profile nor a maximum range, so it cannot be fired in the shooting phase. Neither does a "warscythe with built-in gauss blaster" which has no wargear entry at all. The only thing the Pariah can fire is the gauss blaster, which does have a ranged weapon profile including a maximum range.

If you want to know whether the "warscythe with built-in gauss blaster" ignores armor, ask yourself: How do ranged weapons ignore armor? The rules tell us how: "The AP rating indicates the armour save the weapon can ignore." BGB p.20 A warscythe has no AP rating, so it cannot ignore armor in the shooting phase. The gauss blaster does have an AP rating, however. So, in the shooting phase, because you're shooting the gauss blaster, the gauss blaster's AP rating is used.

Simply put, the rules don't allow you to shoot a warscythe in the shooting phase. A model cannot make a ranged attack with a warscythe. Pariahs may fire the only ranged weapon they have, which is the gauss blaster. Accordingly, their shots use the gauss blaster profile and not the warscythe profile.

You can disagree until you're blue in the face, but the rules aren't behind you on this one. As a longtime necron player, I'd love to see the much-maligned pariahs made competitive, but this fallacy-filled uberweapon pipedream of yours just isn't going to cut it. (get it? cut? scythe? ha! see what I did there?)

-GK

That's a brilliant point, Gwar, building on permissive rulesets to argue that I may not use a CCW outside of the assault phase.

The simple answers are A) I'm not using a warscythe as described in the necron armory, I'm using a "warscythe with built-in gauss blaster", otherwise I would be completely unable to shoot (following from the reasoning that I may not use my CCW outside of the assault phase)
B) Secondly, the wargear effects of various CCW are constantly applied. If denying saves "against" the warscythe is a constant effect, (as my point C suggests), then any time a wound is conferred that could be saved "against" the warscythe, the effect applies without me "using" the weapon. As I've pointed out with the PF argument, I do not need to "use" a warscythe in order to gain its effects, I need merely to make my opponent take a test "against" the warscythe
C) Death or Glory

The real kicker is: no language even close to "use" is mentioned anywhere in the BRB concerning CCW or the assault phase. It's just not how CCW work. The exception is multiple special CCW, wherein you must specify which effect to use for that turn. (A turn consisting of three phases, only one of which is assault, as you well know.)

You're not making a save against a warscythe, you're making a save against a "built-in gauss blaster."

ajfirecracker wrote:That's a brilliant point, Gwar, building on permissive rulesets to argue that I may not use a CCW outside of the assault phase.

The simple answers are A) I'm not using a warscythe as described in the necron armory, I'm using a "warscythe with built-in gauss blaster", otherwise I would be completely unable to shoot (following from the reasoning that I may not use my CCW outside of the assault phase)

I'm affraid your Necrons have no weapons, as previously pointed out (if you want to be extremely strict with RAW to the point that it bends the rules). There is no "warscythe with built-in gauss blaster" entry. Did you mean "Warscythe" and "Gauss Blaster" because we all know about those two, they're usually attached to each other to make transportation into battle a bit easier.

It's simple its two weapons .... Hell i'm shocked this has got to page 3 ... but while we're having a laugh ....

The Maugeta R:36" S:6 AP:5 Assault 4, Pinning, Rending with a built in Executioner

Executioner is a Two handed Power weapon that adds +2 S.

So by the above logic that make the maugeta R:36" S:8 AP:5 Assault 4, Pinning, Rending

Now you got it

I need merely to make my opponent take a test "against" the warscythe

Which can't be done in the shooting phase because you cannot fire a warscythe.

Note I'm not arguing you can't use a CCW outside of the assault phase, I'm arguing you cannot fire a CCW in the shooting phase. There's a significant difference there. Death or glory (which doesn't occur in the shooting phase) is irrelevant.

-GK

ajfirecracker wrote:Gwar, I ask that you carefully read the rules on this point, particularly before making any analogies.

That really made me laugh.
For at least three reasons.

I really think most of this has been covered so I have little enough to add but my thought that two weapons that are stuck together still use their own rules (only) when used, and no rule allows for overlap, in fact as in every other case - they would need explicite allowance to do so.

GK: Barring psychic powers, you know neither my intent nor that of GW. Please drop all claims to either. (In particular, my intent)

I agree that under strict RaW pariahs get a pointy foozle no one's ever heard of called "warscythe with built-in gauss blaster".
However, the Pariah entry makes it clear that what are normally separate items have been joined together into 1 item ("built-in"). There is no reason to believe that they should be counted as separate weapons, aside from the fact that that is how they have been played in the past.

While AP is the normal method by which shooting attacks ignore Armor, there is no reason that a special rule cannot affect this.

It's not unusual for wargear to influence shooting in some way. I contend that a warscythe with a gauss blaster built into it simply gains a shooting attack with the profile of the gauss blaster. Such an attack would still be saved "against" the combined device, thus triggering the warscythe rules.
A model whose warscythe has a ranged weapon built into it may certainly make a shooting attack.

Furthermore, I contend that even if they are separate weapons, a save against either is a save against both, because one is "built in" to the other.

My argument is simple: is a Warscythe with a built-in gauss blaster a warscythe? If yes, then saving against one is the same as saving against the other, despite the possibility that they are not 1 weapon in every respect.

What rule, on what page, am I misunderstanding that everyone else seems to grasp so perfectly? How is it crystal clear to everyone else that saving against the "gauss blaster" which is "built in" to a warscythe is in no way saving against the warscythe?

kirsanth wrote:

ajfirecracker wrote:Gwar, I ask that you carefully read the rules on this point, particularly before making any analogies.

That really made me laugh.
For at least three reasons.

I really think most of this has been covered so I have little enough to add but my thought that two weapons that are stuck together still use their own rules (only) when used, and no rule allows for overlap, in fact as in every other case - they would need explicite allowance to do so.

How did I miss that, I'm siging it now
Unless Gwar wants to.

n0t_u wrote:
I'm affraid your Necrons have no weapons, as previously pointed out (if you want to be extremely strict with RAW to the point that it bends the rules). There is no "warscythe with built-in gauss blaster" entry. Did you mean "Warscythe" and "Gauss Blaster" because we all know about those two, they're usually attached to each other to make transportation into battle a bit easier.

Transportation issues you've come up with are fluff. Second-hand fluff at that.
And I agree that a strict RaW results in the combined weapon having no effect whatsoever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tri wrote:It's simple its two weapons .... Hell i'm shocked this has got to page 3 ... but while we're having a laugh ....

The Maugeta R:36" S:6 AP:5 Assault 4, Pinning, Rending with a built in Executioner

Executioner is a Two handed Power weapon that adds +2 S.

So by the above logic that make the maugeta R:36" S:8 AP:5 Assault 4, Pinning, Rending

Unfortunately, it adds 2 to his strength, not to any wound rolls he makes (which would be the corollary for extra strength, I believe)
This means that it does not affect shooting attacks.

Combined weapons function as either weapon as per the rules. Not both at the same time.

There are rules for using various weapons a model carries - those rules do not care that they are stuck together. The fact that they are stuck together is basically fluff.

shrug

His point is that the Warscythe states that saves cannot be taken against it . . . It does not state only in cc, such as power weapons, so all of you bringing up st 8 powerfist bolters completely ignored the point, which is solely about the wording of the warscythe. So far I think Killkrazy stated the only real answer, that you need a definition of built-in. The Maugetar's power weapon is clearly defined as cc only, and its strength modifier would only come into play if its weapon somehow ran off the bearer's strength.

I understand his point.

The problem with that point is that the stuck on gauss weapon is not a warscythe.

No matter what it is attached to, it has its own rules.

kirsanth has it correct, just like everyone who has been saying the same thing for the last couple of pages.

Any other things you figured out that no one else has yet?

That would be like arguing that a dakkafex gets to use its MC bonus to when SHOOTING a vehicle.

From page 2:

willydstyle wrote:The words "built in" have no in-game rules definition other than that which pertains to DCCWs and losing the "built-in" weapon on a "weapon destroyed" result.

Because of this, I don't see how the words "built in" confers the warscythe's abilities onto the gauss blaster.

What you're trying to say is that the model is shooting with a "warscythe" with special ranged properties.

What I'm saying is that the model is shooting with a gauss blaster that is connected to a warscythe by meaningless fluffy words.

Kilkrazy wrote:Whilst I disagree with 'ajfirecracker' his argument is very easy to prove.

He merely needs to identify the section of the 5e rulebook which defines 'built-in' weapons. That will explain everything.

Irdiumstern wrote:His point is that the Warscythe states that saves cannot be taken against it . . . It does not state only in cc, such as power weapons, so all of you bringing up st 8 powerfist bolters completely ignored the point, which is solely about the wording of the warscythe. So far I think Killkrazy stated the only real answer, that you need a definition of built-in. The Maugetar's power weapon is clearly defined as cc only, and its strength modifier would only come into play if its weapon somehow ran off the bearer's strength.

What you mean is that Killkrazy and Willydstyle have stated the only real answer However, I would disagree that it is the only real answer, but just another piece of evidence to refute the "warscythe with built-in gauss blaster means you shoot a warscythe with gauss blaster rules" idea.

There's no denying that this topic actually ended probably 8-10 posts in.

Even ended by LunaHound shooting it down. How often do you see that happening?

Actually, not_u, to shoot a rules question down, you'd have to cite rules, which LunaHound has not done.

Because there is no "built-in" section, as willydstyle has pointed out, there is no correct way to play this (aside, perhaps, from giving the Pariah pointy floozles with no in-game effect).

The idea that a lack of rules as a green light to dismiss wargear listings as fluff is at best a RaI argument. Which weapons listings are we free to dismiss as fluff, which are really rules, and who decides which?

The obvious solution, should we wish to play the game, is to attempt to determine based on plain english (which the rules are written in, generally) what the rules mean. While a dictionary solution is disastrous and ignorant of context in general, it may be appropriate where there is a lack of rules (in this case, as to what items a model has). I have therefore argued based on a (presumably shared) understanding of "built-in" that Pariahs are equipped with a single weapon that follows both gauss blaster and warscythe rules, with some interesting (and as you've noticed, potentially overpowered) results.

Personally, I'd play this RaI that they're two weapons and built-in is meaningless.

So to all of you who made any arguments not based on fluff or comparisons to PF/DCCW, congrats, you won an argument on the internet.

To those of you who solely made arguments based on fluff or comparison: shame on you! You didn't actually contribute anything to the rules discussion! Try harder next time.

Is that not what you have been doing?

Or am I missing something?

When firing a Gauss Blaster (or whatever), why use the Warscythe rules?

n0t_u wrote:There's no denying that this topic actually ended probably 8-10 posts in.

Even ended by LunaHound shooting it down. How often do you see that happening?

Actually i answer YMDC pretty well sometimes , but people just miss it all the time :<
( i think they just skip my post hehe ^^)

It wasn't using fluff to argue, there are rules based around that material just look at the C'Tan.



Anyway, everyone line up for your cookies. Even you OP.

Barring psychic powers, you know neither my intent nor that of GW. Please drop all claims to either. (In particular, my intent)

Request denied. Your intent is evidenced in the same way as GWs: by the words you write. You continue to ignore cogent, rules-based arguments and continually re-state and re-word your same basic premise again and again with no applicable rules to support it aside from your own personal (and apparently unique) interpretation of the words 'built-in'. That is evidence of an agenda.

There is no reason to believe that they should be counted as separate weapons, aside from the fact that that is how they have been played in the past.

Again I refer you to Codex: Necrons p. 14. They should be counted as separate weapons because they are separate weapons, owing to the fact that they have separate weapons entries. One is a ranged weapon profile and one is a close combat weapon. If they are not counted as separate weapons, they cease to exist (by your previously espoused interpretation of context-ignoring RAW), because there is no entry for "warscythe with built-in gauss blaster". They can only exist and can only function as separate weapons.

While AP is the normal method by which shooting attacks ignore Armor, there is no reason that a special rule cannot affect this.

I agree, though that special rule would have to be part of the ranged weapon's special rules, not the special rules described in the entry for a separate close combat weapon also carried by the model.

A model whose warscythe has a ranged weapon built into it may certainly make a shooting attack

I agree, that model may make a shooting attack using the profile of the weapon that is built into it. However, the model is attacking with the built-in weapon, not the warscythe, as a warscythe is a close combat weapon and close combat weapons cannot be fired in the shooting phase due to their lack of a ranged weapon profile.

Furthermore, I contend that even if they are separate weapons, a save against either is a save against both, because one is "built in" to the other

This line of reasoning is backed up by what rule(s), exactly? Note:
1. 40k's permissive ruleset
2. the fact that nowhere in the shooting section does it reference taking into account separate close combat weapons the model may be carrying (built-in or not), and
3. the fact that it is generally accecpted that a Tac Squad Sergeant with a bolt pistol and a powerfist (separate weapons) doesn't ignore all armor saves when firing his bolt pistol.

My argument is simple: is a Warscythe with a built-in gauss blaster a warscythe? If yes, then saving against one is the same as saving against the other, despite the possibility that they are not 1 weapon in every respect.

The answer to your question "is a Warscythe with a built-in gauss blaster a warscythe" is:
1. yes when used to make a close combat attack (because the warscythe is a close combat weapon per Codex:Necrons p. 14)
2. no when used to make a ranged weapon attack in the shooting phase (because you're firing the gauss blaster, not the warscythe. The warscythe cannot be used to make a shooting attack in the shooting phase as it has no ranged profile. See BGB p.17-20)

The answer to your question does not support your argument.

What rule, on what page, am I misunderstanding that everyone else seems to grasp so perfectly? How is it crystal clear to everyone else that saving against the "gauss blaster" which is "built in" to a warscythe is in no way saving against the warscythe?

Seems to me that's the separate entries for 'warscythe' and 'gauss blaster' on Codex:Necrons p.14



-GK

He gave up in his last post.

Is there a way to check if OP is someone 's alt account?
im sort of curious :'o

He gave up in his last post.

Rats.

I was still typing mine while he was busy giving up.

Slow typist ftl.

-GK

No, this is not an alt account. The egg that is on my face shall presumably stay there (although I do give pretty solid rules interpretations for every army but my own, and even Necrons I get right for friendly play).

Giantkiller, while those were very concise and logical rebuttals to the tenets upon which he based his argument... he made a post which was essentially a gentlemanly "bow out" from the debate, which should be respected.

In fact, I think that's one of the things that is wrong with YMDC: people try to say "I give up!" while saving face... and they continue to get a literary beat-down.

Also, thanks for the cookies. You are a gracious bunch.

GiantKiller wrote:

He gave up in his last post.

Rats.

I was still typing mine while he was busy giving up.

Slow typist ftl.

-GK

Sorry for criticizing you for simply posting late.

@ajfirecracker

I take it when an eldar player shoots his laser lances, they ignore armor saves as well?

Not cool.

imweasel, per the eldar codex, they count as s6 power weapons, a description which does nothing when shooting.

They are however AP:4, which does allow you to ignore some saves. (They're S6 when shooting, so there's not really anything to argue on that point)

Edit: @not_u I did just say I could give rules answers. Let's assume it's a genuine question.

I also don't see where the executioner entry states it only adds +2s to only the "user's" str.

It simply states it adds +2str.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ajfirecracker wrote:imweasel, per the eldar codex, they count as s6 power weapons, a description which does nothing when shooting.

They are however AP:4, which does allow you to ignore some saves. (They're S6 when shooting, so there's not really anything to argue on that point)

The entry for the laser lance specifically states that they are power weapons. It follows that you may use them as a ranged weapon. It's not even 'built-in' or 'integrated'. It's saying you can use your laser lance as a ranged weapon.

Seems to me that (based on the precedence you are setting for warscythes) that they would also ignore armor saves when being used as a range weapon.

imweasel, you seem to be correct on the executioner. It doesn't specify what it adds 2S to. As a result, a model equipped with an executioner could be said to have stronger ranged weapon shots. However, the assumption when modifying a characteristic is usually that it modified the profile.

RaW, nothing gets the extra strength because you don't know what to add it to. In friendly games, I'd throw it/have my opponent throw it on the profile.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As to warscythes vs. laser lances, the warscythe specified that no save may be taken, while laser lances specify that they may be used as power weapons. Power weapons only work in assault as per the BRB, while "no save may be taken" works all the time.

His gwarness has spoken.
(yes you can sig that)

also i believe that somewhere in the main rulebook it says that unless it explicitly says you can do something you can't.

furthermore i'm assuming the wording is a by-product of 3rd ed. and no longer applies in 5th(though I could be wrong).

Plus the staff of light is a power weapon that can be used in the shooting yet does not ignore armor saves in the shooting phase. Now its going to take some serious lawyer gymnastics to tell us that we should treat the warscythe+gauss blaster combo any differently.

EDIT: got ninja'd for slow typing and getting out the codex.

ajfirecracker wrote:Actually, not_u, to shoot a rules question down, you'd have to cite rules, which LunaHound has not done.

Because there is no "built-in" section, as willydstyle has pointed out, there is no correct way to play this (aside, perhaps, from giving the Pariah pointy floozles with no in-game effect).

...
...

.

A rules question only needs 'shooting down' if it is a valid question in the first place.

There is no reason to suppose that the special effect of a CCW can be superimposed on the distance effect of a ranged weapon, just because they are 'built-in'. The game makes no provision for such an effect.

There is an obvious correct way to play the situation; it works in H2H as a CCW (Warscythe) and in Shooting as a ranged weapon (Blaster.) These terms and weapons are fully explained in the codex and/or core rules.

Mod: I am now closing this topic as it has more than run its course.

Of course, I have already conceded the point. I have officially stopped claiming that warscythes ignore saves outside of melee attacks. (@imweasel)

Well done.

That is the proper and gracious to accept a rules argument.

Well done.

That is the proper and gracious way to accept a rules argument.