Apologies if this has already been asked. I did some searching but didn't see it.

Wraiths can take a weapon whose type is pistol. Does this give them an extra CC attack? I figure not, as they don't have an ordinary CCW to pair with, but I'm not 100% sure.

They do not have another weapon that is classed as a CCW. It does let them do some wound allocation though.

calypso2ts wrote:They do not have another weapon that is classed as a CCW. It does let them do some wound allocation though.

I believe that their Phaseshifter is listed a wargear as well and also grants Rending... Sounds like a CCW to me.

Delta Echo wrote:

calypso2ts wrote:They do not have another weapon that is classed as a CCW. It does let them do some wound allocation though.

I believe that their Phaseshifter is listed a wargear as well and also grants Rending... Sounds like a CCW to me.

The phase shifter is something else entirely. The rule that gives them rending ("Phase Attacks") is only a special rule that affects their close combat attacks, but is not a close combat weapon in itself.

Rending is granted by a special rule not wargear.
Unfortunately without a ccw you can't get that extra attack from the pistol.

copper.talos wrote:Rending is granted by a special rule not wargear.
Unfortunately without a ccw you can't get that extra attack from the pistol.

After some re-reading and re-thinking, I have to concur with your point. No extra CC attack is granted by the pistol being it is the only CCW. I still find it odd however that Wraiths rend in CC (granted by Phased Attacks special rule) yet have no base CCW. Ward was very careful about not giving them rending claws for this very reason it seems.

it seems to be the trend throughout the necron codex that any additional weapons (rather than swaps) seem to be carapace mounted or underslung. So they are completely separate to CCWs and dont count as such.

While we are on the subject of close combat wepons. Do Spyders get an extra attack if they take both the particle beamer and a fabricator claw array. It states that the fabricator is a close combat wepon. So that combined with the beamber does it get an extra attack?

Is the particle beamer a pistol? No.

Ghaz wrote:Is the particle beamer a pistol? No.

Indeed, the particle caster is the pistol of the particle family. So no, Spyder does not take extra attacks in CC.
Was actually going to put this question on the table myself, thanks OP for beating me to it!

I do believe this has now changed. I think.

p.51 states that is a model is not specifically states as having a Melee weapon, it is treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon.

After that, it mentions that pistols can be used as a CCW.

So, does the Wraith get its default CCW, and then if you give him a pistol, he has two? Or does giving him the pistol make him ineligible for the 'free' CCW?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
While we're on this, see also Canoptek Spyders and Fabricator Claw Arrays.

nightbringer's chosen is correct: in 6th anything without a default melee weapon listed in their profile now gains one, including Wraiths.


As for the latter question: I'm inclined to believe that their new default CCW can be combined with the pistol for the +1 attack (same with spyders and their fabricator array), but the wording is unclear enough to indicate wether or not adding an optional CCW to their profile negates the free default one they'd otherwise receive.

Incorrect. As soon as you give them a pistol, they now have a weapon with the 'Melee' type and thus do not get the free weapon and do not get the bonus +1 Attack in close combat.

Ghaz wrote:Incorrect. As soon as you give them a pistol, they now have a weapon with the 'Melee' type and thus do not get the free weapon and do not get the bonus +1 Attack in close combat.

They don't -get- the free weapon. But what if they already -had- the free weapon?
It seems to be an issue of timing. When do they receive the free weapon? Do they have it as you're building them because they don't have a normal CCW, and then you buy them their pistol? Or do you wait until they are completely constructed, check for melee weapon, and then hand them one as they're going out the door if they don't have one?

I'm inclined to believe the intent is that they have a default CCW and then the pistol gives them +1A, as otherwise there is 0 reason to say "Fabricator claw array is a close combat weapon", but it would not be the first time that intent and actual rule did not mesh.

Order makes no difference. If you have a melee weapon then you do not get the free weapon. The 'No Specified Melee Weapon' rule is simply a way to explain how a model without a melee weapon can fight in close combat. It is not meant to be a cheap way to get a bonus attack in close combat.

Ghaz wrote:Order makes no difference. If you have a melee weapon then you do not get the free weapon. The 'No Specified Melee Weapon' rule is simply a way to explain how a model without a melee weapon can fight in close combat. It is not meant to be a cheap way to get a bonus attack in close combat.

10 points isn't all that cheap.
And I'm still not sure about that interpretation; like I said, why would it mention at all that the fabricator claws are a CCW if you just get one in general and if in 5E when the codex was printed you didn't need to have one at all?
And if I am building a Wraith on my army list, he has a CCW until I give him a pistol, at which point he suddenly loses that CCW? It seems odd, though as I said, odder things have happened in this game.

Anyone else have any insight on the matter?

And again, what do you have to prove that there is an order and by using a specific order you get a bonus that you wouldn't get otherwise? You're looking for Easter eggs. You're trying to get the bonus attack for free when Wraiths should be getting the bonus attack at all.

No, that is just a fortunate side-effect, or so side B to the argument goes.

The relevent text is as follows: "If a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the melee weapon type..."


Side A:
The model is 'specifically stated' as having a weapon with the melee type if it starts with one in it's default profile 'and/or' if you spend the points necessary to equip it with an optional one.

Side B
The model is 'specifically stated' as having a weapon with the melee type 'only' if it starts with one in it's default profile.

For people who agree with side A in this argument: As people are discussing Wraiths in this thread, i'm going to go with them for an example. Where does it 'specifically state' that they have a close combat weapon? The codex does not indicate such.

Nightbringer's Chosen wrote:I'm inclined to believe the intent is that they have a default CCW and then the pistol gives them +1A, as otherwise there is 0 reason to say "Fabricator claw array is a close combat weapon", but it would not be the first time that intent and actual rule did not mesh.

You're assuming that the Necron codex was written with 6th edition in mind. That's a mistake to do, since the codex was written for 5th edition.

Nightbringer's Chosen wrote:

Ghaz wrote:Order makes no difference. If you have a melee weapon then you do not get the free weapon. The 'No Specified Melee Weapon' rule is simply a way to explain how a model without a melee weapon can fight in close combat. It is not meant to be a cheap way to get a bonus attack in close combat.

10 points isn't all that cheap.
And I'm still not sure about that interpretation; like I said, why would it mention at all that the fabricator claws are a CCW if you just get one in general and if in 5E when the codex was printed you didn't need to have one at all?
And if I am building a Wraith on my army list, he has a CCW until I give him a pistol, at which point he suddenly loses that CCW? It seems odd, though as I said, odder things have happened in this game.

Anyone else have any insight on the matter?

The way I read the "No Specified Melee Weapon" rule is at the start of the game. The fact that they have no close combat weapon has no bearing on the creation of the army list, as they have no replacement of said weapon, and they are not armed with said weapon in the codex. Another reason I read it as start of the game is that when you are constructing the list you are capable of giving melee weapons to several of the units (Canoptek Spyders for one example) meaning that it is rather useless to apply the NSMW rule at that point since they can be given one. Thus we have to ask, when does it make the most sense to apply said rule? The best point would be at the start of the game, when we have already determined exactly what wargear a model has for the game. If he has no melee weapon, apply NSMW rule.

Lone Dragoon wrote:

Nightbringer's Chosen wrote:I'm inclined to believe the intent is that they have a default CCW and then the pistol gives them +1A, as otherwise there is 0 reason to say "Fabricator claw array is a close combat weapon", but it would not be the first time that intent and actual rule did not mesh.

You're assuming that the Necron codex was written with 6th edition in mind. That's a mistake to do, since the codex was written for 5th edition.

Preferred Enemy on Destroyers says that they were at least giving an eye towards 6E.
And as mentioned, fabricator claw arrays counting as a CCW make just as little sense in 5E.

I suppose part of my issue with the matter is finding it odd that my troops' wargear exists in a state of flux until the moment the game starts. I can just see my commander now, looking over his troops as they're about to engage the enemy. "We will show these upstart vermin to whom this galaxy rightf...wait, a second, do you not have a Particle Caster? By The Deceiver's Mirrored Bollocks, what were you thinking? Here, take this bladey-thing. Okay, NOW we can charge."

Nightbringer's Chosen wrote:I suppose part of my issue with the matter is finding it odd that my troops' wargear exists in a state of flux until the moment the game starts. I can just see my commander now, looking over his troops as they're about to engage the enemy. "We will show these upstart vermin to whom this galaxy rightf...wait, a second, do you not have a Particle Caster? By The Deceiver's Mirrored Bollocks, what were you thinking? Here, take this bladey-thing. Okay, NOW we can charge."

I look at it more along the lines of, "Well boys, the REMFs (Rear Echelon Motherfethers for non-military folk) did not see fit to outfit us with something to fight hand to hand with. Pick up whatever rocks and pointy sticks you can, or you can stick to fists and harsh language. Either way, let's get to it."

If they have a CCW/pistol, then they don't qualify for the 'free' one.

The no specified rule is a generic rule that applies to models. There is no mentioning that it is in use only in the assault phase. It refers to the description of the model and stops there. The vanilla spyder has 1 CCW. The FClaw is an upgrade. Upgrades never substitute anything unless they specifically mention it in their entry. So the vanilla spyder has 1 CCW and the upgraded spyder has 2 CCW. Same with wraiths and the pistol.

And anyway in 5th we were all questioning why would ever mention the FClaw as a CCW since it didn't have any meaning back then. But since the necron codex was designed with 6th in mind, it is apparent the FClaw was classified as a CCW with the no specified weapon rule in mind.

Yes they do have close combat weapons.
there is no specified weapon on page 44 or 94 of the necron codex.
now turn to page 51 of the new rulebook
"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 cose combat weapon."
thereby, wraiths have a single close combat weapon. people should really read the new rulebook -_- enjoy your +1 pistol attack, as i will thoroughly AND DONT FORGET THE HAMMER OF WRATH FOR CHARGING :p...
hmm, never mind, jost noticedthat some1 else pointed out this rule previously

Are Close Combat and Melee the same thing?

There is an entire section (page 60) on melee weapons, I don't see pistols there. They do count as a close combat weapon, but do so as a special rule for pistols, not as a melee weapon.

So, unless it can be shown that a Pistol IS a melee weapon, +1 A for owning just a pistol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In fact, page 24, seems to support that a pistol is not a melee weapon (under +1 Two Weapons).

That being said, the example below, specifically uses Space Marines as having only 1 attack. Is an example a rule?

EDIT: I see these directly tied to each other. Either the SM Tacticals get +1 attacj AND the wraiths do, or neither do.

Lobukia wrote:Are Close Combat and Melee the same thing?

There is an entire section (page 60) on melee weapons, I don't see pistols there. They do count as a close combat weapon, but do so as a special rule for pistols, not as a melee weapon.

So, unless it can be shown that a Pistol IS a melee weapon, +1 A for owning just a pistol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In fact, page 24, seems to support that a pistol is not a melee weapon (under +1 Two Weapons).

That being said, the example below, specifically uses Space Marines as having only 1 attack. Is an example a rule?

Take a read on page 51 under pistols as a close combat weapon, and it's all laid out right there.

Lone Dragoon wrote:

Lobukia wrote:Are Close Combat and Melee the same thing?

There is an entire section (page 60) on melee weapons, I don't see pistols there. They do count as a close combat weapon, but do so as a special rule for pistols, not as a melee weapon.

So, unless it can be shown that a Pistol IS a melee weapon, +1 A for owning just a pistol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In fact, page 24, seems to support that a pistol is not a melee weapon (under +1 Two Weapons).

That being said, the example below, specifically uses Space Marines as having only 1 attack. Is an example a rule?

Take a read on page 51 under pistols as a close combat weapon, and it's all laid out right there.

Yeah, I see the dots connecting now. Close combat weapons are a subset of Melee. Therefore, a pistol is a melee weapon, and neither wraiths, nor marines get the +1 attack (of course, as expected, given the example, the CCW definition on page 51, and the fact the boards would be singing out if tacs got an extra attack).

the marines just have bolters so that isnt the same thing
and for the orks which is the second example we all know orks have choppa /sluga we dont know if wraiths have pistol/ccw

azgrim wrote:the marines just have bolters so that isnt the same thing
and for the orks which is the second example we all know orks have choppa /sluga we dont know if wraiths have pistol/ccw

Marines have a pistol too

Do all marines come stock with them? Since the example just says the have bolters.

Yes, all marines have bolt pistols unless given an upgrade.

Yes, basically every SM nowadays comes with both a bolter and bolt pistol.

As above, a bolt pistol means you have a CCW, and are not eligible for the non-specific CCW rule. Otherwise every basic tac marine in the game would be getting +1A right now.

As Ghaz said before, it's just an explanation of how/why models which don't have a CCW listed in their equipment are still able to attack. WHFB has the same rule; technically I can say that my Treeman is hitting people with a club.

I thought all basic marines had bolter, pistol, -and- CCW. I guess I play against space wolves too often or misread it or something.
Not that this changes the answer to this question...it just makes the answer more far-reaching. Still not convinced either way.

I really wish GW had an active rules team or something. Someone who could make actual, official rulings for this kind of thing, and update the FAQ/errata more than once every couple of years.

ONnly GH and Chaos SM get all 3. Basic Tactical marines get BP+Bolter.

nosferatu1001 wrote:ONnly GH and Chaos SM get all 3. Basic Tactical marines get BP+Bolter.

Which stinks, but since I field sternguard and scouts, it really doesn't affect me. I do like that CSM get the extra attack (being thousands of years old should count for something), but I've never understood why GH get it AND counter attack with no significant raise in cost. Oh well.

Lobukia wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:ONnly GH and Chaos SM get all 3. Basic Tactical marines get BP+Bolter.

Which stinks, but since I field sternguard and scouts, it really doesn't affect me. I do like that CSM get the extra attack (being thousands of years old should count for something), but I've never understood why GH get it AND counter attack with no significant raise in cost. Oh well.

Perhaps part of the reason for the rule is to patch this inconsistency, giving all those Marines with a pistol and nothing but a fist something to put into that fist. But we may never know because GW doesn't talk to anyone.

Pretty cut and dry on this one...

If the model has no listed ccw, then you are given one at XS -AP, where X = model's base S value.

Now look at the wraith's equipment in the codex. Does it start with a ccw? Does it have one listed in the profile? No. It doesn't. So it is given a ccw that is 6S -AP.

What else is there to argue? That ccw isn't removed from the profile now, ever. It is a part of the wraith's starting wargear. ***The rule doesn't tell you that this "granted" ccw is predicated on the model not being able to be given a ccw via added wargear, it gives models without a ccw, one.***

If a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon of the Melee type, it is treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon.

First, as soon as you give a model a pistol, you are now specifically stating that it has a weapon of the Melee type. So it doesn't qualify.

Second, the above passage tells us that the model is "treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon". If you're armed with a single close combat weapon, by definition you can't get a bonus for being armed with two close combat weapons. The two states are mutually contradictory.

'You' may be saying that the model has a pistol and therefore now has a CCW, but it's profile still does not say such regardless of what wargear you've chosen for it. If the default profile of the unit is used (given the verbiage of the rule it's a good possibility, as it's the only place it's guaranteed to be 'specifically stated' in) then anything without one listed would now have a default one for all subsequent purposes you wish to use one for.

Also having a 'single' CCW does not as written preclude a model from having multiple CCWs, it just indicates they have at least one.

A) I don't know why you're bringing the profile into it. It doesn't factor into the rule.
B) No matter how many weapons you actually have, if a special rule states that you are "treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon", you're not getting a bonus attack for multiple weapons. Because you're being treated as just having one.

A) The reason i refer to the profile of the model is because that is where we are told to look for the models' applicable rules. Without the characteristics profile, the model has no way to interact with the game. if you are not referring to the profile of the model to determine wether or not it has a CCW already, then where 'are' you looking to find out that information?

B) As i said above, those two rules are not mutually exclusive. If a model has two or more CCWs, it is and can be treated as having at least one CCW as well. By your logic anyone with a pistol or another close combat weapon without unique rules (they all use the same profile as the default CCW) would essentially ignore any other CCWs present on the model.

Mannahnin wrote:A) I don't know why you're bringing the profile into it. It doesn't factor into the rule.
B) No matter how many weapons you actually have, if a special rule states that you are "treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon", you're not getting a bonus attack for multiple weapons. Because you're being treated as just having one.

Isn't the full line (my book is at home, and I'm not!) something involving: "A single close combat weapon of XS -AP?" I was under the impression this ccw was not something that would disappear and appear based on my wargear choices. It doesn't make sense to me!

1) half my wraiths would have a ccw and half my wraiths wouldn't?
2) that a pistol, while a close combat weapon, is the same as a specifically stated type of CCW?

Also, isn't a pistol still a pistol?

I don't remember the pistol entry as having made it clear that it is a close combat weapon 100% of the time, I seem to recall it's only a close combat weapon in actual combat?

Regardless, it just seems arbitrary to me that the foundation for an argument that seems counter intuitive:

The 5th ed necron codex was 100% written for 6th, there is absolutely no reason to have the pistol on the wraith gear options instead of an assault 12" gun, same with the spyder and his ccw on a piece of wargear that has it's own purpose before being a ccw. Imotekh's rules also are written for 6th ed challenges, if you need further proof. In 5th ed there was no point to his special ability "Humiliating Defeat." Then you have the pref. enemy rules on destroyers. The evidence, in my humbleness seems stacked in favor that the attack given by the rulebook is a unique attack, and it's meant, maybe only in my reading of its intent sadly, to give models without "claws and teeth" something to count for in melee.

I can see the argument you've got holds water on the forums, Mannahnin, but without my book to look at specifics I can only argue so much before just having to give up and wait till I'm back with it!

Nightbringer's Chosen wrote:

Lobukia wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:ONnly GH and Chaos SM get all 3. Basic Tactical marines get BP+Bolter.

Which stinks, but since I field sternguard and scouts, it really doesn't affect me. I do like that CSM get the extra attack (being thousands of years old should count for something), but I've never understood why GH get it AND counter attack with no significant raise in cost. Oh well.

Perhaps part of the reason for the rule is to patch this inconsistency, giving all those Marines with a pistol and nothing but a fist something to put into that fist. But we may never know because GW doesn't talk to anyone.

Unlikely, Chaos has had the full set on their marines for ages, well since before the current marines codex, and it was a bone of contention back then among some players too, it was well documented, and carried over into the new Codex.

The point of the pistol was only ever to give them a weapon that could be fired before assaulting, not to give them two close combat weapons for +1 attack.

Seriously. You can go through all the gymnastics you'd like, but the second you upgrade either a Wraith to have a pistol (which is a weapon with the melee type) or a Canoptek Spyder with a Fabricator Claw Array (which is a close combat weapon and therefore a weapon with the melee type) then you have models that have weapons with the melee type.

So there is no logical way to conclude that Wraiths or Spyders are able to get the +1 Attack bonus for having two close combat weapons.

As above. No +1 attack, no matter how many contortions you go through

Is it just me, or are a lot of people here reading the rule incorrectly?

Pg. 52: 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.

Take a look at any pistol. Does it have the Melee type?

Now, I agree that this interpretation should be wrong, and will probably be FAQed. But the point stands. Yes, a pistol counts as a CCW in the Assault phase, and yes, a CCW has the melee type, but when you are making your army and checking this rule, is a pistol a Melee type weapon? I would say no, but it should be considered as one.

yakface wrote:
Seriously. You can go through all the gymnastics you'd like, but the second you upgrade either a Wraith to have a pistol (which is a weapon with the melee type) or a Canoptek Spyder with a Fabricator Claw Array (which is a close combat weapon and therefore a weapon with the melee type) then you have models that have weapons with the melee type.

'Gymnastics'? Seriously? I'm going to ignore that, since it doesn't have anything to do with any kind of rules discussion.

As for the rules in question: They do not ask you to check if the model has been given any kind of melee weapon at any time. I'm going to quote the rule again for reference: "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."

What i've been saying is:
1) The only place you can check if the model has been 'specifically stated' to have a melee-type weapon is it's characteristics profile.
2) The characteristics profile of the unit does not change if you've purchased wargear for a model or not. (indeed, how can it given it's a static description of the models wargear and abilities?)
3) Therefore any model without a listed CCW now has the default listed one regardless of how much or how little wargear you subsequently purchased for it, 'including' a second (or more) CCW of some kind.

Neorealist wrote:

yakface wrote:
Seriously. You can go through all the gymnastics you'd like, but the second you upgrade either a Wraith to have a pistol (which is a weapon with the melee type) or a Canoptek Spyder with a Fabricator Claw Array (which is a close combat weapon and therefore a weapon with the melee type) then you have models that have weapons with the melee type.

'Gymnastics'? Seriously? I'm going to ignore that, since it doesn't have anything to do with any kind of rules discussion.

As for the rules in question: They do not ask you to check if the model has been given any kind of melee weapon at any time. I'm going to quote the rule again for reference: "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."

What i've been saying is:
1) The only place you can check if the model has been 'specifically stated' to have a melee-type weapon is it's characteristics profile.
2) The characteristics profile of the unit does not change if you've purchased wargear for it or not. (indeed, how can it given it's a static description of the models wargear and abilities)
3) Therefore any model without a listed CCW now has the default listed one regardless of how much or how little wargear you subsequently purchase for it, 'including' a second CCW of some kind.

Also, iirc, pistols may be used as close combat weapons. Therefore, while they count as combat weapons in combat, they are not combat weapons and as such would still receive the default combat weapon.

Neorealist wrote:

yakface wrote:
Seriously. You can go through all the gymnastics you'd like, but the second you upgrade either a Wraith to have a pistol (which is a weapon with the melee type) or a Canoptek Spyder with a Fabricator Claw Array (which is a close combat weapon and therefore a weapon with the melee type) then you have models that have weapons with the melee type.

'Gymnastics'? Seriously? I'm going to ignore that, since it doesn't have anything to do with any kind of rules discussion.

As for the rules in question: They do not ask you to check if the model has been given any kind of melee weapon at any time. I'm going to quote the rule again for reference: "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."

What i've been saying is:
1) The only place you can check if the model has been 'specifically stated' to have a melee-type weapon is it's characteristics profile.
2) The characteristics profile of the unit does not change if you've purchased wargear for a model or not. (indeed, how can it given it's a static description of the models wargear and abilities?)
3) Therefore any model without a listed CCW now has the default listed one regardless of how much or how little wargear you subsequently purchased for it, 'including' a second (or more) CCW of some kind.

You're so hung up on "default profile", as others are, but if your wording above is the correct wording for the rule it doesn't even say the word profile, let alone default.

It's a very simple thing to comprehend here. If a model has no melee weapon, it is treated as having a single close combat weapon. So, if you give that model a melee weapon (which FCA and Pistols are) how could that model possibly qualify for the rule in question?

Kevin949 wrote:[You're so hung up on "default profile", as others are, but if your wording above is the correct wording for the rule it doesn't even say the word profile, let alone default.

It's a very simple thing to comprehend here. If a model has no melee weapon, it is treated as having a single close combat weapon. So, if you give that model a melee weapon (which FCA and Pistols are) how could that model possibly qualify for the rule in question?

I'm not 'hung up' on it so much as i see it as the only place to 'specifically state' a given model has something.

I'll ask you the same question i asked the other poster: If you are not looking at the characteristics profile of the model in order to determine if it is stated to have a CCW, where 'are' you looking for that information?

Neorealist wrote:2) The characteristics profile of the unit does not change if you've purchased wargear for a model or not. (indeed, how can it given it's a static description of the models wargear and abilities?)

I don't understand that assertion.

A unit's wargear list does change based on wargear purchased. It must.

Neorealist wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:[You're so hung up on "default profile", as others are, but if your wording above is the correct wording for the rule it doesn't even say the word profile, let alone default.

It's a very simple thing to comprehend here. If a model has no melee weapon, it is treated as having a single close combat weapon. So, if you give that model a melee weapon (which FCA and Pistols are) how could that model possibly qualify for the rule in question?

I'm not 'hung up' on it so much as i see it as the only place to 'specifically state' a given model has something.

I'll ask you the same question i asked the other poster: If you are not looking at the characteristics profile of the model in order to determine if it is stated to have a CCW, where 'are' you looking for that information?

I never said not to, but "specifically stating" something doesn't mean it is the default, it simply means that something specifically states it has the melee weapon type and is on the model.

I say again though (since you didn't address it), if a model [at any point of the game] has a melee weapon equipped how could it qualify for a rule that requires a model to not have a melee weapon equipped?

Kevin949 wrote:I never said not to, but "specifically stating" something doesn't mean it is the default, it simply means that something specifically states it has the melee weapon type and is on the model.

I say again though (since you didn't address it), if a model [at any point of the game] has a melee weapon equipped how could it qualify for a rule that requires a model to not have a melee weapon equipped?

I thought i had addressed it, but i'll happily recap: I'm saying that there is only one place where a model can be 'specifically stated' to have something definitively. I believe this location to be the characteristics profile of the unit. I'll say it again: if you are not looking at the models profile to determine what it has, where 'are' you getting that information from? Please quote any and all locations where that information could be found apart from the profile of the unit.

I do not believe you are required to verify throughout the game wether or not the model still qualifies for the 'default CCW' rule. One reason for this is because the model is armed with a melee type weapon as a part of the rule, which would invalidate itself the next time you checked to see if it was following that very same rule. The other reason is that i contend you need to look at the models' characteristics profile to determine if it has a weapon and regardless of how much wargear you subsequently purchase for the game, the profile itself remains static.

Neorealist wrote:The other reason is that i contend you need to look at the models' characteristics profile to determine if it has a weapon and regardless of how much wargear you subsequently purchase for the game, the profile itself remains static.

So purchasing wargear doesn't add to the wargear list?

So... it doesn't do anything? Do you have any basis for your assumption?

Neorealist wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:I never said not to, but "specifically stating" something doesn't mean it is the default, it simply means that something specifically states it has the melee weapon type and is on the model.

I say again though (since you didn't address it), if a model [at any point of the game] has a melee weapon equipped how could it qualify for a rule that requires a model to not have a melee weapon equipped?

I thought i had addressed it, but i'll happily recap: I'm saying that there is only one place where a model can be 'specifically stated' to have something definitively. I believe this location to be the characteristics profile of the unit. I'll say it again: if you are not looking at the models profile to determine what it has, where 'are' you getting that information from? Please quote any and all locations where that information could be found apart from the profile of the unit.

I do not believe you are required to verify throughout the game wether or not the model still qualifies for the 'default CCW' rule. One reason for this is because the model is armed with a melee type weapon as a part of the rule, which would invalidate itself the next time you checked to see if it was following that very same rule. The other reason is that i contend you need to look at the models' characteristics profile to determine if it has a weapon and regardless of how much wargear you subsequently purchase for the game, the profile itself remains static.

So purchasing wargear does not alter your characteristics.

I think TW Lords, MoN marines, Slaanesh Marines, MotW GH, et al will ALL disagree with you.

You look at the models characteristics; if it has a pistol it has got a CCW. If it doesnt have a pistol it does not have a specific CCW, so it is treated as having one. Stop ignoring the pistol option and pretending you can only look at the basic wargear of a mdel.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So purchasing wargear does not alter your characteristics.

I think TW Lords, MoN marines, Slaanesh Marines, MotW GH, et al will ALL disagree with you.

You look at the models characteristics; if it has a pistol it has got a CCW. If it doesnt have a pistol it does not have a specific CCW, so it is treated as having one. Stop ignoring the pistol option and pretending you can only look at the basic wargear of a mdel.

I did not say optional purchased wargear doesn't modify the units characteristics. I said optional purchased wargear does not modify what is printed in a given book in the form of the 'characteristics profile'.

Neorealist wrote:I said optional purchased wargear does not modify what is printed in a given book in the form of the 'characteristics profile'.

But it must for models equipped with that wargear.
Unless you're asserting that models equipped with Mark of Slannesh (iirc it gives +1 initiative) do not get that bonus on a Sweeping Advance.

In which case, you need some form of rules backup. So far you haven't had any.

Does a model with a pistol have a CCW or not? Clearly RAW the answer is yes.

A good indication of whether your case has any merit or not is how specific and narrow your focus has to be in order for your argument to work. If the other side is incredibly broad and general and works, and you have to pick out an imagined level of detail unsupported as even existing in the rules to make your argument work, then the odds that you are correct are worse than the odds that you are a Nigerian prince who has millions in the bank that he would like to share with us.

rigeld2 wrote:But it must for models equipped with that wargear.
Unless you're asserting that models equipped with Mark of Slannesh (iirc it gives +1 initiative) do not get that bonus on a Sweeping Advance.

In which case, you need some form of rules backup. So far you haven't had any.

If you can explain to me what a mark of slaanesh (or sweeping advances for that matter) has to do with wether or not a model has a close combat weapon or not, i'll address your comments. Also reading is fundamental Rigeld2: If you choose not to view any of my previous posts on this topic and then make baseless assertations about my lack of rules backup based solely on that precieved lack of infomation, i can't really help you.

Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:But it must for models equipped with that wargear.
Unless you're asserting that models equipped with Mark of Slannesh (iirc it gives +1 initiative) do not get that bonus on a Sweeping Advance.

In which case, you need some form of rules backup. So far you haven't had any.

If you can explain to me what a mark of slaanesh (or sweeping advances for that matter) has to do with wether or not a model has a close combat weapon or not, i'll address your comments. Also reading is fundamental Rigeld2: If you choose not to view any of my previous posts on this topic and then make baseless assertations about my lack of rules backup based solely on that precieved lack of infomation, i can't really help you.

You asserted that purchasing wargear doesn't change the profile.
Mark of Slannesh adds one initiative to the models in the unit that purchased it (again, iirc). This changes the profile.
Sweeping Advance uses your unmodified initiative in the rolloff.
By your assertion, models with a MoS do not use that extra initiative in the rolloff.

Different argument - I'm a Space Marine Captain. I purchase, as wargear, a bike. Do people roll to wound me based on toughness 4 or 5?
You're asserting that purchasing wargear doesn't change the profile of the unit, so you would say Toughness 4. That's not what actually happens though.

Please, defend your assertion with respect to those two examples.

My "baseless assertion" is that you have no rules backup for saying that purchasing wargear does not alter your profile. That's the only assertion of yours I've ever discussed in this thread. I clicked "Filter Thread" for your username (http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/449778.page?userfilterid=58920) and in http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/449778.page#4505587 that post, your point number 2 is "The characteristics profile of the unit does not change if you've purchased wargear for a model or not. (indeed, how can it given it's a static description of the models wargear and abilities?)". I replied, and only quoted that line, asking for rules backup. You chose not to reply to that post. When you again asserted "The other reason is that i contend you need to look at the models' characteristics profile to determine if it has a weapon and regardless of how much wargear you subsequently purchase for the game, the profile itself remains static." (http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/449778.page#4506024) I quoted just that line and asked for a basis for that assumption. You again chose not to respond. I haven't found anything that backs up the assertion I've quoted you saying twice now - just you saying it. At least, not in this thread.

Perhaps I should insult you by saying "reading is fundamental" as well?

I apologise but it seems you still aren't reading and responding what i've actually typed (as opposed to what you 'think' i've typed) in my posts for this topic. As such, i'm not going to be responding further to your posts. It's nothing personal, but i do not want to get dragged into an off-topic side debate about wargear not related to the 'Default Close Combat weapon' rule on this thread.

Neorealist wrote:I apologise but it seems you still aren't reading and responding what i've actually typed (as opposed to what you 'think' i've typed) in my posts for this topic. As such, i'm not going to be responding further to your posts. It's nothing personal, but i do not want to get dragged into an off-topic side debate about wargear not related to the 'Default Close Combat weapon' rule on this thread.

I've quoted your assertion twice and asked for a basis for that assertion. You've failed to respond either time. The third time you responded by telling me to read the thread.

Ignore my examples. Provide a link to this thread where I can find your basis. Failing that (which you will - you haven't ever said why that assertion is valid) provide some kind of basis for that assertion.

You've made the statement. Please defend it.

Hopefully this works: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/449778.page#4505587
Here is a good example of my premise and the rule i'm basing it on.

You'll note that when i say 'characteristics profile' i'm referring to the printed block of text listed in a codex for a given model. (which i'd clarified in a subsequent post when someone else raised the same point as you have vis-a-vis the effects optional wargear can have on a models' profile).

All that post does is restate your argument - including the point that I'm asking for a rules basis.

Your point 2 in that post. How. Did. You. Come. To. That. Conclusion?

I understand what you're referring to. I question why you're asserting that it's immutable.

Because unless you decide to redact or write on top of a portion of the relevent rules-text for a model, what is written in your codex is not going to change?

Neorealist wrote:Because unless you decide to redact or write on top of a portion of the relevent rules-text for a model, what is written in your codex is not going to change?

So purchasing wargear doesn't add to the wargear list for a unit?

It doesn't change what is printed (or specifically stated) in the wargear section of the characteristics profile for a given model, no.

Neorealist wrote:It doesn't change what is printed (or specifically stated) in the wargear section of the characteristics profile for a given model, no.

So?

Nothing about this "no specified melee weapon" rule says to ONLY look at the basic profile. In fact, when starting a game your point of reference is your ARMY SHEET, the book is only used for cross-referencing and rules at that point.

This "no specified melee weapon" rule is written for units like Necron warriors that list they only have a gauss flayer (and have no options to purchase anything else), as this rule was made so that units without a melee weapon in their profile or the ability to purchase one can still fight in close combat. But since the very first part of the rule states that a model must have no melee weapon to be treated as having one, you're breaking that rule (or nullifying it) the second you purchase a Melee weapon or CCW equivalent.

Neorealist wrote:It doesn't change what is printed (or specifically stated) in the wargear section of the characteristics profile for a given model, no.

So where is the basis for your assertion that what is printed is the only thing you can reference?

Because I'll use that assertion during the game as well. Oh, you paid for a res orb? Sorry, not in the wargear section of your codex.

Thread necro. The original post was to do with wound allocation tricks

Testify wrote:Thread necro. The original post was to do with wound allocation tricks

Original post was asking if pistols give wraiths an extra attack in CC. I thought it appropriate enough to use that as a starting point.

Kevin949 wrote:Nothing about this "no specified melee weapon" rule says to ONLY look at the basic profile. In fact, when starting a game your point of reference is your ARMY SHEET, the book is only used for cross-referencing and rules at that point.

rigeld2 wrote:So where is the basis for your assertion that what is printed is the only thing you can reference? Because I'll use that assertion during the game as well. Oh, you paid for a res orb? Sorry, not in the wargear section of your codex.

That is what i was asking other people; to provide a valid location where that information can be looked up 'besides' the characteristics profile. Sadly though your ARMY SHEET is not such a location, as you are not required to write down the non-optional wargear your units may have there and therefore you cannot use such to definitively indicate wether or not a given model has a CCW.

Nightbringer's Chosen wrote:

Testify wrote:Thread necro. The original post was to do with wound allocation tricks

Original post was asking if pistols give wraiths an extra attack in CC. I thought it appropriate enough to use that as a starting point.

Actually if you look at the date, this question was posted during 5th edition as well anyway, so the much simpler answer during that time was "no". It's still no, but apparently not as simple.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Neorealist wrote:
That is what i was asking other people; to provide a valid location where that information can be looked up 'besides' the characteristics profile. Sadly though your ARMY SHEET is not such a location, as you are not required to write down the non-optional wargear your units may have there and therefore you cannot use such to definitively indicate wether or not a given model has a CCW or not.

Wait, are you saying that the piece of paper (or papers) used to write your army list on is not a viable location to determine if your unit/model purchased (or started with) a melee weapon (because purchased items do modify the starting gear of a model/unit)?

And you may not be required to write it down but it makes things much simpler for your opponent when they ask to see your sheet. I mean, if I look at your sheet and I don't see that power weapon listed that your big bad super-dude started with, I assume he doesn't have one and you will come across as a player with bad form that is attempting to pull a fast one (friendly games are a different story, but with randoms at a store or wherever and in tournaments, this just won't fly).

Anyway, you're making this out to be like the model/units stats are immovable rocks, but they are more like flowing water. You have the source it all starts at and the end where everything it has gathered comes into play. Be the water, not the rock.

Neorealist wrote:That is what i was asking other people; to provide a valid location where that information can be looked up 'besides' the characteristics profile. Sadly though your ARMY SHEET is not such a location, as you are not required to write down the non-optional wargear your units may have there and therefore you cannot use such to definitively indicate wether or not a given model has a CCW.

You must combine the optional purchased wargear with the listing of wargear in the codex. Doing anything else gets you an incomplete picture. Incomplete pictures cause statements like "You don't have a Res Orb." "You gain a free attack for your Schrodinger's Close Combat Weapon."

Not officially no. A tournament army list is perfectly legal if it only includes the optional purchased wargear for your army and not the stuff they all have to come with.

I agree it's probably better to list all the wargear rather than just some of it, but the rules do not currently 'force' that degree of clarity and therefore it's not a definitively reliable location to determine wether or not a unit has a CCW.

Neorealist wrote:Not officially no. A tournament army list is perfectly legal if it only includes the optional purchased wargear for your army and not the stuff they all have to come with.

I agree it's probably better to list all the wargear rather than just some of it, but the rules do not currently 'force' that degree of clarity and therefore it's not a definitively reliable location to determine wether or not a unit has a CCW.

No, listing it isn't required.

But when considering a unit, you must combine the two. Doing anything else gives an incomplete picture.

The no specified rule is not an assault rule. It doesn't "activate" during assault. It's about the model.

Does the Wraith entry specifically have a CCW listed? No. He now has a basic CCW. All other things are upgrades on that basic model. And upgrades never substitute anything unless it is mentioned specifically in the upgrade description. So in the end you can have in a unit a vanilla wraith with 1 ccw and an upgraded wraith with 2 ccw.

copper.talos wrote:The no specified rule is only is not an assault rule. It doesn't "activate" during assault. It's about the model.

Does the Wraith entry specifically have a CCW listed? No. He now has a basic CCW. All other things are upgrades on that basic model. And upgrades never substitute anything unless it is mentioned specifically in the upgrade description. So in the end you can have in a unit a vanilla wraith with 1 ccw and an upgraded wraith with 2 ccw.

You've broken the rule on page 51 then. Here, let me quote it for you:

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 asingle close combat weapon.

If you have a pistol, you are specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type.

Neorealist wrote:Not officially no. A tournament army list is perfectly legal if it only includes the optional purchased wargear for your army and not the stuff they all have to come with.

I agree it's probably better to list all the wargear rather than just some of it, but the rules do not currently 'force' that degree of clarity and therefore it's not a definitively reliable location to determine wether or not a unit has a CCW.

So you are still claiming that having "Pistol" on your upgrades has not altered your basic profile?

Odd. You also belive that a Nurgle Marine is Toughness 4, not Toughness 5. BEcause that isnt printed on the Chaos Marine statline.

The comparison is apt.

Copper - that assertion has no basis in rules. Back it up witrh a page or retract, please

copper.talos wrote:The no specified rule is only is not an assault rule. It doesn't "activate" during assault. It's about the model.

Does the Wraith entry specifically have a CCW listed? No. He now has a basic CCW. All other things are upgrades on that basic model. And upgrades never substitute anything unless it is mentioned specifically in the upgrade description. So in the end you can have in a unit a vanilla wraith with 1 ccw and an upgraded wraith with 2 ccw.

Again, the rule never says anything about the basic model having weapons listed in his entry. All that is additional specificity that has been inserted via argument.

This is not something crazy and new in 6th edition. This is the same exact concept that existed in the 5th edition rulebook and simply shows that a model which has no close combat weapons counts as fighting in combat with a single close combat weapon. This is not some crazy easter egg designed to allow models that don't come base with a close combat weapon an additional attack just for including a single CC weapon option.

A model that has a melee type weapon is 'specifically stated as having a weapon with the melee type'. There is no expository about when or how the model can get the weapon, only that if the model has a weapon, then it has a weapon. Every argument that has been put forth so far does not have any logical basis to stand upon because there is nothing in the rule which indicates that it only applies to a model's base unit entry, etc. The rule as written applies to the model for the entirety of the game and does not care if the model started with no CC weapons and purchased one via wargear options or whether the model started with a CC base and then somehow lost it due to a special rule.

If the model doesn't have a melee weapon then it counts as having one. If it does have a melee weapon then it ignores that rule.

I remember very well that when the necron codex arrived we were all wondering why does the fabricator claw mention that is a CCW since back in 5th it didn't change anything. We all thought that this was a hint for a change in 6th. And here it is, the no specified weapon rule. It equips all basic models with a CCW so the claw gives the spyder the +1A. You can't have a model with 1 CCW, upgrade it with another CCW, and still claim it has 1 CCW...

copper.talos wrote:I remember very well that when the necron codex arrived we were all wondering why does the fabricator claw mention that is a CCW since back in 5th it didn't change anything. We all thought that this was a hint for a change in 6th. And here it is, the no specified weapon rule. It equips all basic models with a CCW so the claw gives the spyder the +1A. You can't have a model with 1 CCW, upgrade it with another CCW, and still claim it has 1 CCW...

Look at the Wargear section. Does it have a Melee weapon? Okay, then pretend it does. Oh wait - you equipped it with one? Then it just has the one.

If you're trying to have 2 CCWs you're breaking the rule I quoted.

Can you think of any other reason why the fabricator claw is specifically mentioned to be a CCW? I think not...

copper.talos wrote:Can you think of any other reason why the fabricator claw is specifically mentioned to be a CCW? I think not...

Because they felt like it?
Why are you trying to assign a reason to it?

Because if a codex says you can upgrade your model, it means you upgrade as it's entry say. And the claw is a CCW UPgrade.

copper.talos wrote:Because if a codex says you can upgrade your model, it means you upgrade as it's entry say. And the claw is a CCW UPgrade.

Right.

You're trying to say that every bit of an upgrade must be an actual upgrade.
That cannot be true.
Crushing Claws force your initiative to always be 1 - that's a downgrade.

Well yes, it is specifically mentioned that it does so. Some upgrades can substitute existing wargear. Such changes are desdcibed in the wording. But the f.claw mentions no such thing. It just a CCW upgrade with extra abilities. So you upgrade your model with an additional CCW and now has access to those extra abilities.

copper.talos wrote:Can you think of any other reason why the fabricator claw is specifically mentioned to be a CCW? I think not...

I'm going to be quite honest, just let this thread die. You've got 2-3 people who wont allow themselves to be moved by any argument, which is fine, but it's getting us nowhere.

It seems very strait forward to me, reading the full rules for equipping units with a melee weapon, that this rule is specific and and direct.

As has been stated: if the rule is a loop and you're always checking to see what is equipped, then the rule folds in on itself and the unit both has and doesn't have a CCW, at the same time. I shouldn't have to point out the logical disconnect that this interpretation leads you to.

If the rule is a single run: the question becomes "when do we apply this rule." And this is the loophole people are abusing in this thread to claim that wraiths are given no ccw.


Here comes the argument that I hope clears this up for anyone legitimately concerned with a solid interpretation from a lay-player.


If you begin considering that single run rules can be applied at the player's discretion you run into real issues with existing rules: When do I apply the wargear options I buy for my unit? If we begin drawing indistinct lines where wargear is given and isn't we bring ourselves into a game where the rules completely fall apart. My ork boyz can start the game unarmed, and then switch wargear from shootas to sluggas and choppas at my discretion, since we have established that wargear is now applied at the player's discretion.

We could of course, all agree privately that there are certain steps to how we apply wargear, and this is what I belive already exists indirectly: The race-codex has a little snippet on the back cover: "Requires the main rulebook to play."

This is rather clear: the order in which you read these books and apply the results is in order of: "rulebook, codex." Weapons are meaningless, items are meaningless, unless you know what they do via the main rulebook.

Now, the main rulebook isn't concerned with what is in the private codex, proof of this is the rule that allows a race-codex to take precedence over the main rulebook, it's implied implicitly that the main rulebook is read first.

So, we apply the main rulebook's ruling, using it's single run statement to analyze the wraith's actual wargear; not its options, because the wargear options are the province of the codex, not the rulebook

After reading the the main rulebook, we have established that necron are given a ccw. Now we move on to reading the necron codex in full, which allows us to select a list, and then customize our list with wargear options. When you add in the custom wargear, you don't re-reference the ccw rule, if you did, then adding whip coils would mean you re-check the wraith's wargear, and in doing so the wraith would lose his ccw, and he'd start the game without one.

If you want to specify that the "re-check" for a unit having a ccw for the rule in question happens only if the wargear item being customized is a close combat weapon, you're applying your own arbitration to the game; there is no section, anywhere, no rule, anywhere, that indicates of even indirectly implicates it.

It is clear: if you want to remove a wraith's ccw when he selects an item of optional wargear, you're left in a situation in which no wraith can ever have a ccw (provided by the rulebook). That, is most certainly not the intent, and in a situation in which a rule can either, a) be applied as per its intent, or b) be applied (and offer giant logical gaps and problems) against its intent, and the book does not specify, it is my complete belief that we should accept the intent, and the logical application of this rule. Not the opposite, in both ways.

Thanks for reading.

Viti wrote:It is clear: if you want to remove a wraith's ccw when he selects an item of optional wargear, you're left in a situation in which no wraith can ever have a ccw.

...
That's not the case.
If you pick a piece of optional wargear that happens to have the Melee type he loses the "free" CCW.
Whip Coils are not a piece of optional wargear that has the Melee type, so a Wraith wouldn't lose the free CCW.
Particle Casters are a Pistol - and Pistols have the Melee type.

rigeld2 wrote:

Viti wrote:It is clear: if you want to remove a wraith's ccw when he selects an item of optional wargear, you're left in a situation in which no wraith can ever have a ccw.

...
That's not the case.
If you pick a piece of optional wargear that happens to have the Melee type he loses the "free" CCW.
Whip Coils are not a piece of optional wargear that has the Melee type, so a Wraith wouldn't lose the free CCW.
Particle Casters are a Pistol - and Pistols have the Melee type.

You didn't understand anything I've said, which is fine. Re-read it if you're curious.

My argument specifically covers what you just said: I'm not so much concerned with if you're right or wrong, but how you could post immediately after me and not realize I already offered the logical breakdown of the assumptions present in your applications of the rule.

Hint: Look at "loop" and "single run" interpretations. Then go down to near the end of my explanation and read about why a single run interpretations of your ruling means a wraith can never have a ccw provided by the book (to summarize, a single run rule can only ever be applied ONCE or it's purpose is countered by itself, and thus any "if, then" that has an 'if' statement that can be changed by the 'then' can only ever be single run because otherwise it has no purpose).



Please understand I don't care how you want to play with your friends, I'm simply taking issue with the fact you seem to have not taken the time to read through my response, and then you respond to me and not only repeat yourself (you've been saying the same thing for the last 5-6 posts) but also repeat yourself when a response to your understanding of the rules is covered succinctly in my post.

Viti wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Viti wrote:It is clear: if you want to remove a wraith's ccw when he selects an item of optional wargear, you're left in a situation in which no wraith can ever have a ccw.

...
That's not the case.
If you pick a piece of optional wargear that happens to have the Melee type he loses the "free" CCW.
Whip Coils are not a piece of optional wargear that has the Melee type, so a Wraith wouldn't lose the free CCW.
Particle Casters are a Pistol - and Pistols have the Melee type.

You didn't understand anything I've said, which is fine. Re-read it if you're curious.

You edited after/while I posted. Not a big deal, but you did add content and changed some of your wording. No insult intended - just simply how I read your post.

Viti wrote:As has been stated: if the rule is a loop and you're always checking to see what is equipped, then the rule folds in on itself and the unit both has and doesn't have a CCW, at the same time. I shouldn't have to point out the logical disconnect that this interpretation leads you to.

False. Perhaps you should reference the actual rule?

If a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type, it is treated as being armed with asingle close combat weapon.

Even if the model is treated as having a single close combat weapon it's still not specifically stating it has one.
There's no logical disconnect. You just pretend you have one. Therefore your entire loop assumption is wrong.

So, we apply the main rulebook's ruling, using it's single run statement to analyze the wraith's actual wargear; not its options, because the wargear options are the province of the codex, not the rulebook

After reading the the main rulebook, we have established that necron are given a ccw. Now we move on to reading the necron codex in full, which allows us to select a list, and then customize our list with wargear options. When you add in the custom wargear, you don't re-reference the ccw rule, if you did, then adding whip coils would mean you re-check the wraith's wargear, and in doing so the wraith would lose his ccw, and he'd start the game without one.

And that's why this is false.

It is clear: if you want to remove a wraith's ccw when he selects an item of optional wargear, you're left in a situation in which no wraith can ever have a ccw (provided by the rulebook). That, is most certainly not the intent, and in a situation in which a rule can either, a) be applied as per its intent, or b) be applied (and offer giant logical gaps and problems) against its intent, and the book does not specify, it is my complete belief that we should accept the intent, and the logical application of this rule. Not the opposite, in both ways.

It is clear - if you want to twist the words to be illogical, they are.
The actual words in the rule however aren't. You can re-examine the Wraith all you want and you'll never see a CCW specifically stated under the Wraith. Unless you purchase a Pistol.

You have to pretend you have one... that makes no sense at all.

Dozer Blades wrote:You have to pretend you have one... that makes no sense at all.

It's what the rule says. You treat the model as if it does, but it actually doesn't because nothing is specifically stating that it does.

Dozer Blades wrote:You have to pretend you have one... that makes no sense at all.

No different than pretending to be in difficult terrain when hit with a tremorstave, or if SnP...

It sounds like people are assuming you just do a blanket once-over of your army with this rule and then move on and never reference it again, which is where the "when do you apply it" argument comes from. The problem is, there is no time-to-apply, it is a rule that is always in effect and a rule that can be broken at any point by giving a model/unit a melee/CCW weapon. The whole wraith losing their CCW thing is just...well, it makes no sense. Sorry Viti, but it appears to me what you're saying is that *any* wargear replaces the "no specified melee weapon" weapon, which isn't right. You can put whatever gear you want on whatever unit/model, so if you had three wraiths and one had a particle caster and the other had the exile beam and the third has whip coils, they all still have one CCW.

Kevin949 wrote:Sorry Viti, but it appears to me what you're saying is that *any* wargear replaces the "no specified melee weapon" weapon, which isn't right

No, he's saying that if you give them the free weapon, then upgrade them, when you look at them again they have the free weapon and therefore they lose it (because you have to not have a CCW to have the free weapon).

Which is wrong, because that's not what the rule actually says.

copper.talos wrote:Can you think of any other reason why the fabricator claw is specifically mentioned to be a CCW? I think not...

Actually I'm in a unique position to answer that question.

You may or may not remember, but I was able to give out solid information about the Necron codex before its release (if not, you can search the news and rumors forum to verify).

I may have had access to an earlier version of the codex and I can confirm that it appears as though Spyders at one time came standard with something called a Dissector Claw, and they started with two of these. You could swap one or both out for Fabricrator Claws, and both of these were close combat weapons.

So it seems at one point Spyders had the option to take an additional CC weapon, but it got cut out at some point during development.


And again guys, this is NOT some new fangled rule designed to allow certain models to get the +1A bonus when only taking a single CC weapon. This is the same rule we've had for YEARS which is just there to cover when a model actually has no weapons at all. As soon as your model has any kind of melee weapon, then you ignore that rule and start following the rules for the weapon the model has.

Transdimensional Beamers are not pistols so Wraiths dont get +1A for CCW.

MadCowCrazy wrote:Transdimensional Beamers are not pistols so Wraiths dont get +1A for CCW.

You should look at Particle Casters, which is what was being talked about in this thread.

They don't get an extra attack though.

@yakface Yes but why did they leave out the dissector claws (I love the name by the way, I wish they kept them) and leave the f.claw as a CCW. If they changed one part shouldn't they change the others too?

So what we are dealing here is
A. an accidental referance that the f.claw is a CCW with no benefit whatsoever
B a deliberate CCW upgrade to interact with the no specified weapon rule.

I go with B.

B then the nsccw rule says you DO have a ccw , so you no longer are treated as having one due to this rule

Stop Easter egging

copper.talos wrote:@yakface Yes but why did they leave out the dissector claws (I love the name by the way, I wish they kept them) and leave the f.claw as a CCW. If they changed one part shouldn't they change the others too?

So what we are dealing here is
A. an accidental referance that the f.claw is a CCW with no benefit whatsoever
B a deliberate CCW upgrade to interact with the no specified weapon rule.

I go with B.

But the game is literally littered with units and models that have a single close combat weapon for absolutely no in-game purpose. Its just what GW does.

But the rule for fighting without any base weapon is again a long-standing thing. This isn't a new thing designed to give some models with a single weapon the +1A bonus for having two weapons. It is just their explanation of how models that don't have ANY CC WEAPON at all fight in combat.

Every Tryanid unit ever has a single CCW in their wargear.

And copper, you're Easter egging. I've shown how the actual rules work and you're trying to stretch a meaning into a benefit when the rules aren't even close to supporting it.

yakface wrote:
But the game is literally littered with units and models that have a single close combat weapon for absolutely no in-game purpose. Its just what GW does.

In 6th is pretty clear that 1 CCW is the minimum for every model in the game. So the game is not littered with units and models that have a single close combat weapon for absolutely no in-game purpose. They just meet the minimum set in 6th.

yakface wrote: But the rule for fighting without any base weapon is again a long-standing thing. This isn't a new thing designed to give some models with a single weapon the +1A bonus for having two weapons. It is just their explanation of how models that don't have ANY CC WEAPON at all fight in combat.

That was 5th, We must unlearn what we have learned. In 6th the game changed decisively on this. Now all models have a base weapon. There is no argument against that. The only argument is if an upgrade CCW to a model make it lose that base weapon. I agree that the wording could have been a lot clearer on this issue. But as it is now my point of view is that an upgrade is in addition of the base model. If the base model has a CCW then it gets another one. Otherwise you have a base model with 1 CCW, upgrade it with 1 CCW and end up with an upgraded model with 1 CCW! And the fact that the f.claw is a CCW doesn't make sense with this line of thinking. I know that you believe that the f.claw being a CCW is a mistake. But I can only take at face value what the codex says. So until they faq it otherwise, the +1A because of the no specified rule is the only way the f.claw is classified as a CCW and makes sense.

Anyway this is my last post on the subject.. I understand many will still argue against this, but rarely do I see in YMDC making a consensus even in the simplest of rules. Between my post and vitti's, I think there is everything that can be said in favour of the +1A and that the best thing you can do here.

You have no permission to retain the "No specified CCW" because, as soon as you BUY a CCW, you DO have a specified weapon

That is clear unambiguous Rules as Written

Agreed. I don't even know how this is a discussion. Schrodingers ccw dosent exist. You either have one, or if you dont, you have one. A pistol bought is a ccw in a profile. This means you no longer fulfill the requirement of not having a ccw to get a free one.

Its like the made up rule that you can only look at the printed, codex statline to determine a models stats.


If you have no CCW whatsoever, you get one. IF you have a CCW, you dont get another one.

Thats it. Nothing more complicated is required. No made up rules stating you can only look at the codex profile and no further. Thats it.

I thought Pan Fo were allowed to have Schrodinger's CCW? Have they been reviled yet?

copper.talos wrote:If the base model has a CCW then it gets another one.

Correct.
Show me the CCW on the Wraith's base model. I'll wait.
That or you just refuse to admit you're wrong - there's no "interpretation" going on here. I've shown in the black and white text of the rules how it works.
You're off in copper.talos land pretending that you get a free +1 Attack with absolutely no rules support just because you want to.

It's not agreeing to disagree (I'd be fine if it was), it's you insisting you're right in the face of evidence.

And it seems like everyone arguing this is a crons player, and acting like we are being unfair to the space undead when in reality, I myself am a necron player. I've been playing them since destroyers were just dudes on floating chairs and Immortals looked like they were carrying around giant syringes. Its not that we want to take away perks to corns models, it is only that we see what the rules tell us.

I thought that upgrades that replaced existing weapons clearly said that in the codex. Saying something like "Up to 2 models in the unit may replace their power fists with lightning claws for 20 pts each", or something similar.

Adding a Particle Caster to the Wraith model does not say it replaces an existing weapon, and look at the model. The Particle Caster does not take the place of an existing claw/tenderil or whatever you want to call it's appendage, it attaches to the chest of the model. I don't have the new Spyder model, so I can't tell if the fabricator claw array is an additional arm or replaces an existing arm.

Based on the model itself, I think the Particle Caster would add +1A, but not sure about the Spyder. Does anyone have the Spyder model and can tell us?

Tye_Informer wrote:I thought that upgrades that replaced existing weapons clearly said that in the codex. Saying something like "Up to 2 models in the unit may replace their power fists with lightning claws for 20 pts each", or something similar.

Adding a Particle Caster to the Wraith model does not say it replaces an existing weapon, and look at the model. The Particle Caster does not take the place of an existing claw/tenderil or whatever you want to call it's appendage, it attaches to the chest of the model. I don't have the new Spyder model, so I can't tell if the fabricator claw array is an additional arm or replaces an existing arm.

Based on the model itself, I think the Particle Caster would add +1A, but not sure about the Spyder. Does anyone have the Spyder model and can tell us?

Upgrades that replace do state so.
The Particle Caster doesn't replace anything. Ever. I've never said that it does.
You should probably read the thread and reply citing actual rules.

Tye_Informer wrote:I thought that upgrades that replaced existing weapons clearly said that in the codex. Saying something like "Up to 2 models in the unit may replace their power fists with lightning claws for 20 pts each", or something similar.

Adding a Particle Caster to the Wraith model does not say it replaces an existing weapon, and look at the model. The Particle Caster does not take the place of an existing claw/tenderil or whatever you want to call it's appendage, it attaches to the chest of the model. I don't have the new Spyder model, so I can't tell if the fabricator claw array is an additional arm or replaces an existing arm.

Based on the model itself, I think the Particle Caster would add +1A, but not sure about the Spyder. Does anyone have the Spyder model and can tell us?

The Wraith never has a CCW, it is just treated as having one if it doesnt have a CCW to start

If you give it a CCW, can you state that it doesnt have one? If you can do so then it gains +1 attack.

Tye_Informer wrote:I thought that upgrades that replaced existing weapons clearly said that in the codex. Saying something like "Up to 2 models in the unit may replace their power fists with lightning claws for 20 pts each", or something similar.

Adding a Particle Caster to the Wraith model does not say it replaces an existing weapon, and look at the model. The Particle Caster does not take the place of an existing claw/tenderil or whatever you want to call it's appendage, it attaches to the chest of the model. I don't have the new Spyder model, so I can't tell if the fabricator claw array is an additional arm or replaces an existing arm.

Based on the model itself, I think the Particle Caster would add +1A, but not sure about the Spyder. Does anyone have the Spyder model and can tell us?

To answer your spyder question, the fabricator claw does not replace anything on the spyder. However, that (and the wraith's pistol) does not have ANY bearing on the rule in question at all.

It does not matter at all if the actual Bit replaces something physically on the model, it only matters what the rules tell us. And the rules tell us that if you don't have a specified melee weapon, you're TREATED as having one (everyone keeps saying "you have one" but the model does not, it is treated as having one), and if you DO have a specified melee weapon (Particle Caster, Fab Claws) then you ignore the rule as you ACTUALLY have a melee weapon and are also treated as having a melee weapon due to HAVING a melee weapon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:And it seems like everyone arguing this is a crons player, and acting like we are being unfair to the space undead when in reality, I myself am a necron player. I've been playing them since destroyers were just dudes on floating chairs and Immortals looked like they were carrying around giant syringes. Its not that we want to take away perks to corns models, it is only that we see what the rules tell us.

Hey, to be fair I'm a cron player (not as long as you, however) and I'm not arguing it. LoL Honestly I think the necron entry is just the easiest to reference (and the newest?). That and the army was the topic of this thread (which again, this thread was started before 6th ed so it should really be closed I think and a new one started).

I'd like to chime in again:

Has anyone found a valid location where a given model can be 'specifically stated' to already have a CCW (or not) other than the written block of text for that unit in its' respective codex?

If not, Why would adding any optional wargear to the unit change what the words on the page 'specifically state'?

If anyone has i'd be delighted to read about it; since thus far in this thread I've been unable to find any listed location that is definitive enough to be used as part of the 'Default CCW' rule.



Also, has anyone resolved the following eternal loop if you have to check more than once to see if you are following the 'Default CCW' rule? After all it doesn't include any rules-text explicitly precluding itself in application.
1) Check if the model has (and/or counts as having) a CCW.
2) If it doesn't, it now 'counts as' having a CCW via this rule. If it does, it does not (or no longer) 'counts as' having a CCW via this rule.
3) Repeat Step 1 as often as necessary until you agree to only apply the 'Default CCW' rule once at a specific point in your game.

I side with the no +1A. As much as I would love my wraiths getting the additional attack, it just won't work. Here is a similar situation that would apply that makes me think this.

A Necron Overlord has no CCW base, just a SoL, which is a shooting weapon. Due to the NCCW rule, the Overlord has a CCW when fighting in CC. If you replace the SoL with a Voidblade, he now has a Voidblade. Just a Voidblade. Not a Voidblade and a CCW gaining him +1A. It just doesn't work that way.

I see it as a rule that is always in effect. The model enters combat. if he specifically has a CCW, he uses it. If he doesn't, he uses the butt of his gun or whatever he is carrying as an improvised CCW.

Neorealist - yes, its called the characteristics plus any wargear you purchase

You then check once.

Really not tricky.

Your position still claims that MoN Marines are T4, not T5, and when you roll for sweeping advance with a Slaanesh icon marine you only look at I4.

An absurd result like that should give you a clue that your argument is absurd

nosferatu1001 wrote:Neorealist - yes, its called the characteristics plus any wargear you purchase

You then check once.

Really not tricky.

Your position still claims that MoN Marines are T4, not T5, and when you roll for sweeping advance with a Slaanesh icon marine you only look at I4.

An absurd result like that should give you a clue that your argument is absurd

I apologise if i've been unclear, but i am not attributing any such thing. The wargear you mentioned should function fine and i have not (nor have any reason to) insist that my contention effects that in any way.

The 'plus any wargear you purchase' is not a specific location where you can find relevent rules-text though, for what it's worth. I'd also appreciate if you would not refer to my arguments as 'absurd' going forward, that is pointlessly offensive and inflammatory.

Neorealist wrote:I apologise if i've been unclear, but i am not attributing any such thing. The wargear you mentioned should function fine and i have not (nor have any reason to) insist that my contention effects that in any way.

You've asserted that the only true way to know what a model is equipped with is to look at the profile - unaltered by optional purchases. Correct?

If that's the case, any wargear that is supposed to alter the profile would fail to function.
I purchase a Mark of Nurgle. It raises the Toughness on my profile by 1.
My unit is shot. I check my profile to see what is needed to wound my unit. I see they have a Toughness of 4.
Since I cannot look at optional purchases but only my base profile, the Mark of Nurgle did nothing.

You're also still ignoring the fact that once they have a Particle Caster they are specifically stated as having a CCW.
Without one they are still not specifically stated as having a CCW, simply treated as if they do.

Its a case of what came first, the chicken or the egg.

Technically you can't get to point B without starting at point A.

Point A. The model has a close combat weapon. (All models do now).

Point B. You buy the model a pistol, an extra piece of wargear.

This isn't the same thing as space marines, who come with a pistol to start, therefore would not qualify for the "free" close combat weapon. You are buying an extra piece of wargear in addition to the close combat weapon they start with.

Maybe it wasn't intended to work that way in their codex, but RAW that is how it works in 6th edition.

Kevlar wrote:Its a case of what came first, the chicken or the egg.

Technically you can't get to point B without starting at point A.

Point A. The model has a close combat weapon. (All models do now).

Point B. You buy the model a pistol, an extra piece of wargear.

This isn't the same thing as space marines, who come with a pistol to start, therefore would not qualify for the "free" close combat weapon. You are buying an extra piece of wargear in addition to the close combat weapon they start with.

Maybe it wasn't intended to work that way in their codex, but RAW that is how it works in 6th edition.

False.

Point A. The model is treated as having a CCW - it does not actually have one.
Point B. You buy the model a pistol. It is now specifically stated to have a CCW and therefore you do not treat it as having the CCW from point A.

RAW that's how it works in 6th edition.

Neorealist wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Neorealist - yes, its called the characteristics plus any wargear you purchase

You then check once.

Really not tricky.

Your position still claims that MoN Marines are T4, not T5, and when you roll for sweeping advance with a Slaanesh icon marine you only look at I4.

An absurd result like that should give you a clue that your argument is absurd

I apologise if i've been unclear, but i am not attributing any such thing. The wargear you mentioned should function fine and i have not (nor have any reason to) insist that my contention effects that in any way.

Except your contention is that you can only look on the printed characteristics for a model in order to determine what it has and what rules apply to it.

In order for your contention to be at all valid, it has to be consistent. You have created a standard out of whole cloth, so the only reasonable test is to apply this standard consistently to see if it makes any form of sense.

The two items of wargear I mentioned alter the printed stat to something else. As does a space marine bike. As does a TWC mount for a SW Lord.

So, as I pointed out - your contention is absurd, because when it is applied consistently it leads to the absurd result that a SM on a bike is no tougher than one that is not on a bike - despite that being one of the stated benefits of the wargear. A slaanesh marine is no faster in combat than a normal chaos space marine, despite that being one of the stated benefits of the wargear. And so on.

Neorealist wrote:The 'plus any wargear you purchase' is not a specific location where you can find relevent rules-text though, for what it's worth. I'd also appreciate if you would not refer to my arguments as 'absurd' going forward, that is pointlessly offensive and inflammatory.

It is specified by the codex. It is an explicit location for you to check - if you have purchased a piece of wargear it is entirely logical to refer to the codex to tell you what that item of wargear is, xref to the BRB as required.

I will continue to use the word "absurd" as it is being used correctly - you are positing an argue that, prima facie, is absurd because it cannot be applied to anything without giving incorrect results. The ones we have given above are direct, unarguable faults with your contention, showing that contention to be an absurd one.

rigeld2 wrote:False.

Point A. The model is treated as having a CCW - it does not actually have one.
Point B. You buy the model a pistol. It is now specifically stated to have a CCW and therefore you do not treat it as having the CCW from point A.

RAW that's how it works in 6th edition.

You have stated your opinion 20 something times already. Stop being a broken record. Your reasoning is your own, and in my opinion not very sound at all. Posting it 50 more times won't make it more relevant.

Kevlar wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:False.

Point A. The model is treated as having a CCW - it does not actually have one.
Point B. You buy the model a pistol. It is now specifically stated to have a CCW and therefore you do not treat it as having the CCW from point A.

RAW that's how it works in 6th edition.

You have stated your opinion 20 something times already. Stop being a broken record. Your reasoning is your own, and in my opinion not very sound at all. Posting it 50 more times won't make it more relevant.

Not sound? It's the literal text out of the rulebook.
How about you offer actual rules instead of telling me to stop posting?

rigeld2 wrote:Not sound? It's the literal text out of the rulebook.
How about you offer actual rules instead of telling me to stop posting?

How about you calm down and let other people chime in instead of playing "nanner nanner is not, is too" with every post in this thread?

Kevlar wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Not sound? It's the literal text out of the rulebook.
How about you offer actual rules instead of telling me to stop posting?

How about you calm down and let other people chime in instead of playing "nanner nanner is not, is too" with every post in this thread?

Right, so no rules. That's cool. Just checking.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except your contention is that you can only look on the printed characteristics for a model in order to determine what it has and what rules apply to it.

In order for your contention to be at all valid, it has to be consistent. You have created a standard out of whole cloth, so the only reasonable test is to apply this standard consistently to see if it makes any form of sense.

The two items of wargear I mentioned alter the printed stat to something else. As does a space marine bike. As does a TWC mount for a SW Lord.

So, as I pointed out - your contention is absurd, because when it is applied consistently it leads to the absurd result that a SM on a bike is no tougher than one that is not on a bike - despite that being one of the stated benefits of the wargear. A slaanesh marine is no faster in combat than a normal chaos space marine, despite that being one of the stated benefits of the wargear. And so on.

It is specified by the codex. It is an explicit location for you to check - if you have purchased a piece of wargear it is entirely logical to refer to the codex to tell you what that item of wargear is, xref to the BRB as required.

I will continue to use the word "absurd" as it is being used correctly - you are positing an argue that, prima facie, is absurd because it cannot be applied to anything without giving incorrect results. The ones we have given above are direct, unarguable faults with your contention, showing that contention to be an absurd one.

Duly noted, i have reported your continued use of that offensive term.

As I've already stated: my contention is that one should refer to the printed word to verify if something is 'specifically stated' (as per the wording in the Default CCW' rule.) i have not and do not contend that you should not apply the effects of optional purchased wargear to the model. If you wish to continue to debate with me, i'd suggest not trying to 'interpret' my words in a fashion that apparently sounds rediculous to you so much as 'reading' it and responding to the points i've actually made.

rigeld2 wrote:Right, so no rules. That's cool. Just checking.

I don't know if you are intentionally being dense. I posted my interpretation of the rule in my first post in this thread. For some reason you seem to enjoy posting your interpretation numerous times in the same thread in order to prove to yourself that you are right. (When in fact you are just repeatedly giving all of us your opinion).

The wraith model does not come with a pistol or any other close combat weapon. It therefore is treated as having a close combat weapon per the BRB p51.

This is now the default state of the model.

If you then buy additional wargear of the type "pistol" for a model that already "counts as" having a close combat weapon, then that model gains +1 attack.

This is not the same thing as a unit like a standard space marine that comes standard with a pistol which then counts as its close combat weapon.



You are the one adding an additional rule to the unit. "Buying a pistol as wargear replaces the default close combat weapon". No where does this rule exist, at least outside of your head.

Kevlar wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Right, so no rules. That's cool. Just checking.

I don't know if you are intentionally being dense.

No, I'm not. Your first post contained no rules references. This one does. Thanks!

The wraith model does not come with a pistol or any other close combat weapon. It therefore is treated as having a close combat weapon per the BRB p51.

Correct.

This is now the default state of the model.

"Default" is a strange term, so I'll leave this sentence alone for now.

If you then buy additional wargear of the type "pistol" for a model that already "counts as" having a close combat weapon, then that model gains +1 attack.

Annnnd... stop. He does not "count as" having a CCW. He is "treated as" having a CCW. I'm pretty sure you can't equate those two phrases.
Even if you could - he's treated as having one unless specifically stated otherwise. Once you purchase a CCW for him, he's specifically stated to have a CCW and therefore cannot be treated as having one in addition to the purchased one.

This is not the same thing as a unit like a standard space marine that comes standard with a pistol which then counts as its close combat weapon.

... Random example, but ok.

You are the one adding an additional rule to the unit. "Buying a pistol as wargear replaces the default close combat weapon". No where does this rule exist, at least outside of your head.

False. I have not added that rule anywhere. Cite me saying that.
The "free" CCW only exists as long as you are not specifically stated as having one.
Answer one simple question: If you purchase a Particle Caster for a Wraith, are you specifically stated as having a CCW?

Kevlar wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Right, so no rules. That's cool. Just checking.

I don't know if you are intentionally being dense. I posted my interpretation of the rule in my first post in this thread. For some reason you seem to enjoy posting your interpretation numerous times in the same thread in order to prove to yourself that you are right. (When in fact you are just repeatedly giving all of us your opinion).

The wraith model does not come with a pistol or any other close combat weapon. It therefore is treated as having a close combat weapon per the BRB p51.

This is now the default state of the model.

If you then buy additional wargear of the type "pistol" for a model that already "counts as" having a close combat weapon, then that model gains +1 attack.

This is not the same thing as a unit like a standard space marine that comes standard with a pistol which then counts as its close combat weapon.



You are the one adding an additional rule to the unit. "Buying a pistol as wargear replaces the default close combat weapon". No where does this rule exist, at least outside of your head.

Your interpretation is absolutely no different than the others in this thread that think all models now "get a free melee weapon". It's flat out wrong, they do not HAVE a melee weapon, they are TREATED as having one. The same way a model is "treated" as moving through difficult terrain if they have Slow and Purposeful.

Yes, buying a pistol DOES remove the RULE granting a TREATED AS melee weapon because the model ACTUALLY has a melee weapon now. You tell me how I can give a model a melee weapon AND treat it as having a melee weapon so that it gets +1a. Explain to me how HAVING a melee weapon is not the same thing as being treated as having one. Explain to me how you aren't breaking the first line of the rule that states "if a model doesn't specifically state it has a melee weapon..." when you give them a pistol, or any melee weapon.

And yes, it IS the same as a marine that comes with a pistol because the increased cost of a marine over other standard troops is including that extra bit of wargear. Just because they come with it out of the box does not mean they are "any" different than a model that purchases a melee/ccw as extra wargear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry, I just have to add...this discussion is ridiculous.

Personally, I get how the rule is supposed to be played. I'm sure pretty much everyone I play against will know as well. I'm sure any events I go to will know as well.

So, I'm good. Have fun.

Neorealist wrote:Duly noted, i have reported your continued use of that offensive term.

Thats what the yellow icon is for. Note it isnt actually an offensive term when applied to a debate in its correct use, which is that a prima facie "wrong" argument is an absurd one. I would avoid taking it personally, as it was not stated as such. The argument is absurd, not the person.

Neorealist wrote:As I've already stated: my contention is that one should refer to the printed word to verify if something is 'specifically stated' (as per the wording in the Default CCW' rule.) i have not and do not contend that you should not apply the effects of optional purchased wargear to the model. If you wish to continue to debate with me, i'd suggest not trying to 'interpret' my words in a fashion that apparently sounds rediculous to you so much as 'reading' it and responding to the points i've actually made.

So, again, the Wargear given to a model as part of its options is not enough to "specifically state" that it comes with a CCW? Even though the rulebook "specifically states" that a model equpped with a pistol is equipped with a close combat weapon?

If you pay the points for a wraith to have a pistol, it is specifically stated to have a CCW by the very fact you have paid the points for it, and is now parrt of the wargear for that model.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So, again, the Wargear given to a model as part of its options is not enough to "specifically state" that it comes with a CCW? Even though the rulebook "specifically states" that a model equpped with a pistol is equipped with a close combat weapon?

If you pay the points for a wraith to have a pistol, it is specifically stated to have a CCW by the very fact you have paid the points for it, and is now parrt of the wargear for that model.

Correct: my contention is that the act of purchasing optional wargear in and of itself does not alter what is 'specifically state'-ed in the characteristics profile/block of rules-text for a given model regarding wether or not it includes (or not) a Melee-type weapon.



Perhaps this will help.
Step 1:
Check if the model has any CCWs listed in it's block of rules text.
Step 2:
If it doesn't, it now 'counts as' having a default one.
Step 3:
If it does, it does not 'counts as' having a default one.

There; the rule has been applied, and finished resolving it's effect on the game.

If you choose to purchase additional wargear for that model, (including but not limited to another CCW) why would you then have to check again to see if you can apply the 'Default CCW' rule a second time?
Wouldn't that run into the problem of the rule invalidating itself? (Of course it has a CCW the second time you check, it 'counts as' having one by virtue of the rule itself from the first time you checked!)

In addition, how does purchasing optional wargear change what is written (the literal words found on the page) in your codex?


I have to agree with other posters that have indicated that this effect is probably not RAI. I do however think i make a decent argument for it being RAW.

Neorealist wrote:
Perhaps this will help.
Step 1:
Check if the model has any CCWs listed in it's block of rules text.
Step 2:
If it doesn't, it now 'counts as' having a default one.
Step 3:
If it does, it does not 'counts as' having a default one.

"counts as" != "treated as" - unless you've got some rules based reason to equate them?

There; the rule has been applied, and finished resolving it's effect on the game.

What's your basis for only ever applying it before purchasing wargear?

If you choose to purchase additional wargear for that model, (including but not limited to another CCW) why would you then have to check again to see if you can apply the 'Default CCW' rule a second time?
Wouldn't that run into the problem of the rule invalidating itself? (Of course it has a CCW the second time you check, it 'counts as' having one by virtue of the rule itself from the first time you checked!)

No, as I've proven and you never responded to. It does not have a specifically stated CCW the second time you check.

In addition, how does purchasing optional wargear change what is written (the literal words found on the page) in your codex?

Why do you keep asserting that wargear cannot change your profile, when you've been shown that it must?

I'm sorry Rigeld2; i've gotten tired of repeating myself in response to your posts so i'm only going to address your last point here; as it is the only one relevant to something another poster was saying.

rigeld2 wrote:Why do you keep asserting that wargear cannot change your profile, when you've been shown that it must?

Why do I keep seeing this argument in response to my posts? Is it literally such a leap of logic to take for granted that the words on the codex page are unmodifiable 'without' automatically assuming that means that purchased wargear never has any effect?

So if we invent a specific time when the check to see if you have a CCW that isn't after you've got your list built and you're ready to play the game AND equate "treated as" with "is equipped with" AND we assume that we determine that the "treated as" check occurs BEFORE we buy wargear, then we must agree with Neorealist et al.

I have high confidence that the set of 40K judges for major US tournaments who agree with Neorealist will be null, and assume that will be the case for judges in other countries as well. Any decision that has to invent a very strict order of operations that is not required by the rules is highly unlikely to be widely accepted without direct instruction to do so from a GW FAQ.

Neorealist wrote:Why do I keep seeing this argument in response to my posts? Is it literally such a leap of logic to take for granted that the words on the codex page are unmodifiable 'without' automatically assuming that means that purchased wargear never has any effect?

Neorealist wrote:A) The reason i refer to the profile of the model is because that is where we are told to look for the models' applicable rules. Without the characteristics profile, the model has no way to interact with the game. if you are not referring to the profile of the model to determine wether or not it has a CCW already, then where 'are' you looking to find out that information?

Neorealist wrote:I'm not 'hung up' on it so much as i see it as the only place to 'specifically state' a given model has something.

I'll ask you the same question i asked the other poster: If you are not looking at the characteristics profile of the model in order to determine if it is stated to have a CCW, where 'are' you looking for that information?

Neorealist wrote:I did not say optional purchased wargear doesn't modify the units characteristics. I said optional purchased wargear does not modify what is printed in a given book in the form of the 'characteristics profile'.

Yes, it absolutely is a leap of logic to say that you reference an "unmodifiable" codex page for one thing and never for anything else.

Where am I supposed to look up the Toughness for my unit?
Where am I supposed to look up the Initiative for my unit?
Where am I supposed to look up the Wound value for my unit?

You're the one that has asserted the profile is unmodifable. You haven't yet provided anything to back that statement up - in fact, where do I reduce a unit's Wounds as required by page 15? I obviously can't modify the profile according to you...

jwolf wrote:So if we invent a specific time when the check to see if you have a CCW that isn't after you've got your list built and you're ready to play the game AND equate "treated as" with "is equipped with" AND we assume that we determine that the "treated as" check occurs BEFORE we buy wargear, then we must agree with Neorealist et al.

I have high confidence that the set of 40K judges for major US tournaments who agree with Neorealist will be null, and assume that will be the case for judges in other countries as well. Any decision that has to invent a very strict order of operations that is not required by the rules is highly unlikely to be widely accepted without direct instruction to do so from a GW FAQ.

I didn't invent a specific time to check, i just picked a specific 'place'. You can check any time you like, you are still going to get the same result if the only place you are looking for that information is in your codex on the models' listed characteristics profile.

I don't see what is so 'strict' about looking in your book to check if the model already has a melee weapon, let alone even if it 'was' strict, why that would perforce make my argument any less 'right' or 'wrong'.

Neorealist wrote:I don't see what is so 'strict' about looking in your book to check if the model already has a melee weapon, let alone even if it 'was' strict, why that would perforce make my argument any less 'right' or 'wrong'.

Because you're completely ignoring optional wargear - intentionally.
When you're completely ignoring part of the army building process to make your point it should be a clue that you're wrong.

Neorealist wrote:
Correct: my contention is that the act of purchasing optional wargear in and of itself does not alter what is 'specifically state'-ed in the characteristics profile/block of rules-text for a given model regarding wether or not it includes (or not) a Melee-type weapon.

Rules backing for that? For the first time this thread?

Neorealist wrote:Perhaps this will help.
Step 1:
Check if the model has any CCWs listed in it's block of rules text.

Rules quote as to why this is the only place you can check?

Neorealist wrote:Step 2:
If it doesn't, it now 'counts as' having a default one.

Try to get this correct: Treats as is not the same as Counts as, unless you have some rules backing

Neorealist wrote:Step 3:
If it does, it does not 'counts as' having a default one.

There; the rule has been applied, and finished resolving it's effect on the game.

So, now you've shown zero rules support for why you made this arbitrary decision to a) only check the initial wargear given to a model and b) only once, before you've even written a list to include said model, care to provide any?

Neorealist wrote:If you choose to purchase additional wargear for that model, (including but not limited to another CCW) why would you then have to check again to see if you can apply the 'Default CCW' rule a second time?

Or, and heres the rub: this isnt the second time you check. You check once, after purchasing the model.


You make not one single arugmetn for it being RAW, because you dont ever include a single rule for any of the assertions and assumptions you have made.

Neorealist wrote:

jwolf wrote:So if we invent a specific time when the check to see if you have a CCW that isn't after you've got your list built and you're ready to play the game AND equate "treated as" with "is equipped with" AND we assume that we determine that the "treated as" check occurs BEFORE we buy wargear, then we must agree with Neorealist et al.

I have high confidence that the set of 40K judges for major US tournaments who agree with Neorealist will be null, and assume that will be the case for judges in other countries as well. Any decision that has to invent a very strict order of operations that is not required by the rules is highly unlikely to be widely accepted without direct instruction to do so from a GW FAQ.

I didn't invent a specific time to check, i just picked a specific 'place'. You can check any time you like, you are still going to get the same result if the only place you are looking for that information is in your codex on the models' listed characteristics profile.

I don't see what is so 'strict' about looking in your book to check if the model already has a melee weapon, let alone even if it 'was' strict, why that would perforce make my argument any less 'right' or 'wrong'.

I make no claim of the strictness of looking in your book. It's the very exacting order in which you claim checks must be made that is strict. Your argument requires an exact order of operations, whereas the correct position requires only that when we place models on the table that we treat all models with a weapon skill, even those with no listed close combat weapons, as having one (and being able to fight in close combat).

jwolf wrote:I make no claim of the strictness of looking in your book. It's the very exacting order in which you claim checks must be made that is strict. Your argument requires an exact order of operations, whereas the correct position requires only that when we place models on the table that we treat all models with a weapon skill, even those with no listed close combat weapons, as having one (and being able to fight in close combat).

I don't think it's terribly 'strict' to presume one is following the rule in the fashion it is printed either (as written there is only one 'check' in this rule), but you are of course free to continue to assign that adjective to it if you wish.

Also: if you only apply the rule after all the models placed on the table; isn't that 'you' arbitrarily picking a specific time to apply it? ie: the very same thing you indicated was wrong with 'my' argument?



Sure thing, here you go nosferatu1001: (though I would like to note this isn't the first time i've said this in this thread...)

nosferatu1001 wrote:Rules backing for that? For the first time this thread?

(6th ed rulebook page 3) "Characteristics Profile: Every model in warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics. At the back of this book, and in the codexes for each army, you will find the profiles for warriors and heroes drawn from many different races."

For here it's quite simple really; Every model has a characteristics profile. It's either found in the main book, or in the codex. The printed word found in each of these locations is not an opensource document and cannot be editted short of vandalizing your book with a sharpie. With me so far?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Rules quote as to why this is the only place you can check?

That is where the book says the information is listed. That said, can you think of anywhere 'else' that could be definitively said to 'specifically state' this information? I've asked several times.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Try to get this correct: Treats as is not the same as Counts as, unless you have some rules backing

What difference does it make to my argument if you equate 'treated as' with 'counts as' or not? Go with whatever interpretation you prefer.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So, now you've shown zero rules support for why you made this arbitrary decision to a) only check the initial wargear given to a model and b) only once, before you've even written a list to include said model, care to provide any?

a) It doesn't matter when you check to determine if the model has a CCW for my argument either before or after you purchase wargear, only 'where' you look for that information. I've never claimed a specific time when that is supposed to occur.
b) You can only do it once, as doing it multiple times runs into the problem of the rule invalidating itself. I've already explained this effect in a prior post.

Checking what models have what gear at the start of a game happens in every game I play, so that check is going to happen every game automatically. In fact, models don't exist until they're in a game, in game terms. So while you might view checking the wargear on models at the start of a game as an arbitrary time, it at least de facto is a time that the rules support existing. Your timeline for checking requires a preconstruction check that cannot happen after the assignment of optional wargear - nothing in the rules supports your timeline, whereas mine is a standard part of playing the game.

Your continued assertion that you only ask where to check, not when, does not hold water. If you check the model's profile after assigning wargear, then the model has a CCW weapon on it's profile, and your +1 attack argument is invalid.

I'll go so far as to say there is no specific time to check. It's just a fact.

No CCW? Pretend you have one. Have a CCW? You're gtg.

rigeld2 wrote:I'll go so far as to say there is no specific time to check. It's just a fact.

No CCW? Pretend you have one. Have a CCW? You're gtg.

Wait so having a ccw makes you go to ground? Interesting....

JK, I know what gtg means in this situation.

Happyjew wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:I'll go so far as to say there is no specific time to check. It's just a fact.

No CCW? Pretend you have one. Have a CCW? You're gtg.

Wait so having a ccw makes you go to ground? Interesting....

Sorry, just felt an orkmoticon frenzy.

Clearly the only way to resolve this is a duel.
Pistols at dawn?
Oh, wait, right, sore subject.

Nightbringer's Chosen wrote:Clearly the only way to resolve this is a duel.
Pistols at dawn?
Oh, wait, right, sore subject.

Sounds like fun to me!

Yeah, there is no specific time to check, it is a rule that is absolute in nature.

So if a model only has a pistol, for example, and that pistol somehow gets destroyed by a special rule, then when he charges into combat, guess what? He counts as having a close combat weapon.

If he some later magically materializes a pistol back again, guess what? He no longer has the free close combat weapon as he no actually has one.

yakface wrote:Yeah, there is no specific time to check, it is a rule that is absolute in nature.

So if a model only has a pistol, for example, and that pistol somehow gets destroyed by a special rule, then when he charges into combat, guess what? He counts as having a close combat weapon.

If he some later magically materializes a pistol back again, guess what? He no longer has the free close combat weapon as he no actually has one.

The problem with that is that is the rule itself gives the unit a free CCW, or at least treats it as having such. You check it multiple times? well it has a CCW this time, and so does not benefit from the rule. You check it again, and 'bam' mysteriously does not have one and so has a CCW again! Repeat until sick of self-referential rules.

It's very easy to say that the default CCW rule 'shouldn't' do this, but as written there doesn't seem to be a reason why it doesn't.

Neorealist wrote:You check it multiple times? well it has a CCW this time, and so does not benefit from the rule. You check it again, and 'bam' mysteriously does not have one and so has a CCW again! Repeat until sick of self-referential rules.

That's.
Not.
True.

The model is treated as having a CCW - it is not specifically stated to have a CCW. Therefore no matter how many times you look at a model without a CCW it will never actually have one.

You're making up an issue with a self referential rule where there isn't one.

Pg 52 brb says "a pistol counts as a close combat weapon in the assault phase."

So my wraith has a partial caster and is equipped with no specified ccw so therefor has 1 then we enter the assault phase and blam I have an extra attack bcz I have my non specifies ccw and a pistol that counts as a close comat weapon in the assault phase. Then we leave the assault phase now I only have my non specified ccw and a pistol again.

It seems people do not like the 6th Ed changes so they are trying to hold onto the 5th Ed.
I believe regular tactical marines have an extra attack now, since grey hunters and chaos marines have had it forever no additional point cost looks like gw is trying to make it more balanced

Page 51 of BRB says "A pistol can be used as close combat weapon." No restrictions about when.
So no extra attacks for normal Marines or for Wraiths with only 1 pistol and no second CCW.

Essentially a particle caster's profile is this:

Range Strength AP Type
- user - Melee
12" 6 5 Assault 1

This is because, according to pg 52, "All Pistols are effectively Assault I weapons. A Pistol also counts as a close combat weapon in the Assault phase." Thus giving the weapon a duel profile, just like some other weapons, such as a Rod of Covenant.

Because of this, a model armed with a Particle caster has a melee weapon and does not get a +1A.

I just spent a large amount of time looking up and verifying rules to give an answer to this situation and an even larger amount of time trying to organize it and make it easy to read ,to address the specific points brought up earlier in this thread, and to answer in a detailed and polite manner, to make it easy to reference all related rules to the situation, and the computer crashed!!! On top of that someone posted one of my most important observations before I could. So here is my not so detailed, summary of what my perspective is on the situation. As stated recently, Pistols only count as close combat weapons during the assault phase. Also, the rule about the "free melee weapon" states that it will not gain it if the model already has a weapon of the MELEE TYPE. Pistols are PISTOL and ASSAULT 1 TYPE. In general, and I mean very general, at this point my conclusion is, that yes, wraiths with a particle caster get the +1 attack.

As for rules references, read in the BRB, pg. 24, 50,51,52,61 The Necron FAQ and The Necron codex at any page that mentions fabricator claw array, gauntlet of fire, warscythe, rod of covenant, particle caster, warscythe, voidblade, hyperphase sword, and staff of tomorrow. They all tie in, in some way. Also, think about how the particle caster, gauntlet of fire and rod of covenant all share in common having both a shooting and melee profile. Sorry for the general rules references, I'm still frustrated at the huge amount of time and effort that got wasted from the crash. I would walk you through all of it piece by piece, but I'm not in the mood to restart the whole thing. The least I could do is provide a hint where to look. I wish I could have contributed my much more thorough explanation.

Maybe in a few days if anyone would like to hear it, I will consider reconstructing it. Otherwise if anyone has any specific questions as to how I arrived at my conclusion I would be glad to share it, if not, I don't want to waste any more time. I know this might sound like a cheap attempt to validate my point, but please consider that I truly did put some very serious effort into this before the crash. I am a contract manager and I deal with multi-million dollar contracts and FCC tariffs. I interpret rules for a living. I'm not perfect, but my work requires that I'm at least as close as humanly possible when it comes to understanding rules. Right now though I'm just really frustrated and tired and needed to vent a little.

Edit: spelling

Neo - and, again, you have been provided the answer MULTIPLE TIMES

When you write the list, any wargear you purchase for the model definitively states what additions you have made to the book

Your made up loop is just that, MADE UP.

When something is a fact, it is a fact. You have no RAW argument.

It's really impressive how so many people try to 'break' the game and find loopholes when something new comes out. Does a wraith have an extra attack? No, or GW would have made it clear.


It's entertaining, and I guess poking around is how the finer parts of the new rules are learned, but sometimes I wonder how the games must go at some of these tables...

The biggest issue with a "free ccw" we have is that we are not told when to look for another ccw. By default, you should look and see if you are equipped with a ccw every time you get into cc, which is where a pistol is a ccw.

Pdelski, I recomend re-reading page 51. Specifically on the left side the paragraph entitled "Pistols as Close Combat Weapons". Pistols ARE of the Melee type.

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:The biggest issue with a "free ccw" we have is that we are not told when to look for another ccw. By default, you should look and see if you are equipped with a ccw every time you get into cc, which is where a pistol is a ccw.

No, you check when you build your list. If you buy a pistol for a model that already has a close combat weapon then that model gets +1 attack. That is the way the game has always been played. The only thing that changed from fifth to sixth was that models like the wraiths were not given close combat weapons. Now they are.

Kevlar wrote:

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:The biggest issue with a "free ccw" we have is that we are not told when to look for another ccw. By default, you should look and see if you are equipped with a ccw every time you get into cc, which is where a pistol is a ccw.

No, you check when you build your list. If you buy a pistol for a model that already has a close combat weapon then that model gets +1 attack. That is the way the game has always been played. The only thing that changed from fifth to sixth was that models like the wraiths were not given close combat weapons. Now they are.

Except of course that they are not given CCW - if they actually had CCW then there would be no argument in the negative. Similarly, since they do not have CCW, there is no valid argument in the affirmative, regardless of the tenacity of those flat out making stuff up.

jwolf wrote:Except of course that they are not given CCW - if they actually had CCW then there would be no argument in the negative. Similarly, since they do not have CCW, there is no valid argument in the affirmative, regardless of the tenacity of those flat out making stuff up.

There is no difference between "counts as" and "has". If you buy a pistol for a model that "counts as" having a close combat weapon that model still gets +1 attack.

Kevlar wrote:

jwolf wrote:Except of course that they are not given CCW - if they actually had CCW then there would be no argument in the negative. Similarly, since they do not have CCW, there is no valid argument in the affirmative, regardless of the tenacity of those flat out making stuff up.

There is no difference between "counts as" and "has". If you buy a pistol for a model that "counts as" having a close combat weapon that model still gets +1 attack.

No they are treated as having a ccw. They do not actually have one nor do they count as having one.

Kevlar wrote:

jwolf wrote:Except of course that they are not given CCW - if they actually had CCW then there would be no argument in the negative. Similarly, since they do not have CCW, there is no valid argument in the affirmative, regardless of the tenacity of those flat out making stuff up.

There is no difference between "counts as" and "has". If you buy a pistol for a model that "counts as" having a close combat weapon that model still gets +1 attack.

That would be true.
If you can equate "counts as" and "treated as" that'd be great.
Until then, your assertion is wrong because the actual rule says that they are treated as having a CCW unless specifically stated otherwise. Giving them a pistol is specifically stating otherwise.
And you don't "check" at army list time, it's just a fact. It is not a one time thing, and there's no infinite self referential loop of fail like some people seem to infer.

Kevlar wrote:

jwolf wrote:Except of course that they are not given CCW - if they actually had CCW then there would be no argument in the negative. Similarly, since they do not have CCW, there is no valid argument in the affirmative, regardless of the tenacity of those flat out making stuff up.

There is no difference between "counts as" and "has". If you buy a pistol for a model that "counts as" having a close combat weapon that model still gets +1 attack.

Good job the rule says "treated as" then.

Or are you equating "Treated as" and "counts as"?

Kevlar wrote:

jwolf wrote:Except of course that they are not given CCW - if they actually had CCW then there would be no argument in the negative. Similarly, since they do not have CCW, there is no valid argument in the affirmative, regardless of the tenacity of those flat out making stuff up.

There is no difference between "counts as" and "has". If you buy a pistol for a model that "counts as" having a close combat weapon that model still gets +1 attack.

There is, however, a difference between what the rules say and what you (and others) pretend them to say.

With all the talk about the model's unmodifiable profile and all... Does the Wraith entry list a free CCW, imaginary or not?

You're never given permission to actually add a CCW to the model, just to treat it as having one when needed. So it doesn't have one before you need one, meaning if you took a pistol you don't get a free CCW.

We've been trying this argument for the past 5 pages. They are simply saying no.

There really is no legit arguement in favor of +1 attack

It can't be more simple. If you have a ccw you don't get the free one.

It doesn't matter how you try to spin it. The free ccw is conditional. If you have a ccw of any kind you don't meet the requirements to have the free one.

Indeed. There isnt a single, actual rules based argument for +1 Attack.

There is a lot of made up gak, claiming specific times to check, specific places you are allowed to check and only those places, etc, but no actual rules.

And that made up gak would also mean that GK's armed with special weapons can't make any attacks in CC:
1) GK has Nemesis Force Sword in it's profile.
2) No wargear has yet been purchased for that model
3) According to Kevlar (and some others), at this point we check if a model qualifies for the "Free CCW" rule. Their 'argument' doesn't work if it is checked after purchasing wargear.
4) GK has NFW and doesn't qualify.
5) GK replaces NFW and Storm Bolter with Psycannon
6) As wargear has already been purchased for the model, it cannot benefit from the "Free CCW" rule and thus cannot make any attacks in CC as it lacks a weapon with melee subtype.

Basically, the "Wraiths get +1 attack for having a single Pistol" argument is based on two things:
1) Deliberately misinterpreting rules so that Necrons can gain advantage. It's understandable, with Wraiths being so overcosted already
2) Mental gymnastics required for arguing that "Obviously, that rule can only take into account model's basic wargear. Purchased wargear cannot count" instead of the sane "Check (at any time) if model has Melee weapon. If it doesn't have a one, it is treated as it had single CCW instead".

Can some one explain to me the difference between "is treated as" and "has"? If a wraith has a pistol and is treated as also having a close combat weapon, it seems to me it would get the extra attack.

This is, of course, putting aside for the moment the question of weather or not it gets to keep being treated as having a close combat weapon when it buys a pistol. I want to deal with one point at a time.

greatergoodjones wrote:Can some one explain to me the difference between "is treated as" and "has"? If a wraith has a pistol and is treated as also having a close combat weapon, it seems to me it would get the extra attack.

That would be correct. But it's irrelevant because...

This is, of course, putting aside for the moment the question of weather or not it gets to keep being treated as having a close combat weapon when it buys a pistol. I want to deal with one point at a time.

It can't be. There's never a time that it has a pistol when it also is not specifically stated to have a CCW.

rigeld2 wrote:

greatergoodjones wrote:Can some one explain to me the difference between "is treated as" and "has"? If a wraith has a pistol and is treated as also having a close combat weapon, it seems to me it would get the extra attack.

That would be correct. But it's irrelevant because...

This is, of course, putting aside for the moment the question of weather or not it gets to keep being treated as having a close combat weapon when it buys a pistol. I want to deal with one point at a time.

It can't be. There's never a time that it has a pistol when it also is not specifically stated to have a CCW.

As I said, I was taking it one point at a time. I saw an argument that because the wraith didn't "have" but only "was treated as" having a close combat weapon, it wouldn't get the attack anyway. Even if this argument arrives at the correct conclusion, which is something I will now try to address, I am now fairly confident that it is wrong and can move on.

Next, I am going to try to state the two main arguments being presented. Someone tell me if I misunderstood one. The argument against the extra attack seems to be: "Since the wraith has no close combat weapon, it is treated as having one. When you buy the pistol upgrade, it now has a close combat weapon, and so is no longer treated as having the free one." The argument for the extra attack seems to be "Since the wraith has no close combat weapon, it is always treated as having the free one, as if it had "close combat weapon" listed under the wargear section of its profile. If it gains a close combat weapon from somewhere, it is still treated as having the free one because it never had to trade it in, and thus gains an extra attack." Would this be a correct way to state both arguments?

I would like to also take a moment to comment on how unnecessary this rule is. If indeed it can not be used to generate extra attacks, or used for any other real purpose, it seems like it can only lead to confusion. This is not an argument for the extra attacks, as Games Workshop sadly does often make things unclear and more confusing then they have to be. It is merely a statement of annoyance.

The pistol is only a close combat weapon when in the assault phase says pg 52 of the brb

Therefore when purchasing a pistol on a wraith I do not have a ccw yet, so I am treated as having one then we enter the assault phase now I have 2

Ub3rb3n wrote:so I am treated as having one then we enter the assault phase now I have 2

False.
As soon as you have something that is specifically stated to be a CCW you are no longer eligible for the free one.

OK, time to put this to rest. I think that the majority is in agreement that they do not get the +1A because the "pistol" type gives a weapon assault one and an additional profile identical to a ccw. (pg. 52) Due to this, when you purchase the Particle Caster, you then give the Wraith a specific melee weapon, meaning it does not get a "not specified" ccw. So, no +1A.

Are we in agreement?

UndeadRobotSkeleton wrote:OK, time to put this to rest. I think that the majority is in agreement that they do not get the +1A because the "pistol" type gives a weapon assault one and an additional profile identical to a ccw. (pg. 52) Due to this, when you purchase the Particle Caster, you then give the Wraith a specific melee weapon, meaning it does not get a "not specified" ccw. So, no +1A.

Are we in agreement?

Not at all, and we won't be until it shows in an FAQ.

Been watching this thread a while, it is very much a grey area and both sides have a valid point however "narrative" sections of the brb support the wraith getting +1A and this is why.

(normal)
Wraith with no wep - ohh you have lots of spikey bits and legs - yes you can attack 3 times (profile)

(not allowed +1)
Wraith with pistol - Ohh you have lots of spikey bits and legs - but you are only allowed to bonk they guy on the head with your underslung weapon (3 times) caus you have it.

(allowed +1)
wraith with pistol - ohh you have lots of Spikey bits and legs - stab the crap outa him (3 times) while the underslung weapon bonks the guy on the head (one time).

For everyone that still thinks the particle caster gives a wraith +1A, then why does a Lord or Overlord not get +1A when he exchanges his Staff of Light to a Voidblade, Gauntlet of fire, or phase sword?

Kevlar wrote:

UndeadRobotSkeleton wrote:OK, time to put this to rest. I think that the majority is in agreement that they do not get the +1A because the "pistol" type gives a weapon assault one and an additional profile identical to a ccw. (pg. 52) Due to this, when you purchase the Particle Caster, you then give the Wraith a specific melee weapon, meaning it does not get a "not specified" ccw. So, no +1A.

Are we in agreement?

Not at all, and we won't be until it shows in an FAQ.

And id bet it never gets FAQed.
Because the rules in this case are pretty clear. You havent cited anything yet that supports your statements. Instead, you've just made bold assertions that were either demonstrably irrelevant or plain wrong.

To all the people trying to be TFG and get +1 attack...



Wraiths are bad-ass enough. Stop trying to it.

To be fair, you are probably better off taking whip coils on all of them anyway...
(but that isn't a YMDC issue.)

I personally like the argument that they should either have them or they don't. The wraiths in this case do not lose their pointy bits just because you decided to purchase a pistol as well, so i find it reasonable to combine the two.

Neorealist wrote:To be fair, you are probably better off taking whip coils on all of them anyway...
(but that isn't a YMDC issue.)

I personally like the argument that they should either have them or they don't. The wraiths in this case do not lose their pointy bits just because you decided to purchase a pistol as well, so i find it reasonable to combine the two.

Fluff vs rules.

Neorealist wrote:I personally like the argument that they should either have them or they don't. The wraiths in this case do not lose their pointy bits just because you decided to purchase a pistol as well, so i find it reasonable to combine the two.

But couldn't you also argue that those pointy thingies and appendages are already represented in the model's Attacks profile?


I would like to present another position (which leads to a rather ludicrous result). The rule, as has been mentioned several times, states that a model which does not have a combat weapon is treated as having one (paraphrasing mine, most know the word for word rule). If we interpret this to mean that they are given one, doesn't the sentence "armed with a single close combat weapon" mean that I end up replacing a model's entire wargear with a single close combat weapon? So for the example of our necron warriors, right before they get into battle, their gauss flayer becomes a simple shiv. That, in my opinion, is the difference between "treated as" and "count as" occurs. It essentially states that if a model is not specifically stated as having a close combat weapon, in anywhere that it counts, it is treated as having one.

With that premise underway, how can the rule not be looped ad infinitum? just because I am treated as having something doesn't mean I actually possess one. So every time the status of a weapon changes, I can run the test again and ask "do I still treat myself as having a single close combat weapon?"

Also, to those who act like 6th has given a new avenue to gain close combat weapons, this rule is new, but not to gain a new advantage. The major change from 5th to 6th was that there was no such thing as a basic close combat weapon profile. Assault just assumed you used attacks and special weapons had detailed profile elsewhere. There was no "this weapon has X AP value" (prime example of this is power weapons: swords, axes, etc.). In this light, the writers had to find a way to rope in older codices that do not elaborate the profiles of close combat weapons.

Finally, I end with a question. where does it state you have to have a close combat weapon to fight in assault?

Another thing to check is the rules for close combat - when the time comes for a model to attack you also determine how many attacks it has. Surely this is the point where you apply the "treat it as having a single CCW" rule?

But no worries, if someone I play insists on trying this I can use this for any of my own models too. A SoB Canoness comes with bolter and bolt pistol, so I'll swap the pistol for a powersword. I'll just check the CCW status after giving up the pistol but before taking up the sword so I get +1A. And as someone else pointed out, since the pistols are melee weapons only in the assault phase all my basic bolter/pistol sisters seem to have gained a free attack too! Yay! ;-)

The problem with the logic that Wraith's have pistol/CCW is that is means all 'nillia SM now have CCW/Pistol in 6th. Just saying.

Lockark wrote:The problem with the logic that Wraith's have pistol/CCW is that is means all 'nillia SM now have CCW/Pistol in 6th. Just saying.

The argument against that is that the pistol is an upgrade, rather than a standard piece of wargear for the Wraiths. standard SM come base with a ccw in the form of the pistol.

Neorealist wrote:
I personally like the argument that they should either have them or they don't. The wraiths in this case do not lose their pointy bits just because you decided to purchase a pistol as well, so i find it reasonable to combine the two.

Yet you dont have any actual rules to back that up.

Fluff isnt usually rules.

Spetulhu wrote:Another thing to check is the rules for close combat - when the time comes for a model to attack you also determine how many attacks it has. Surely this is the point where you apply the "treat it as having a single CCW" rule?

But no worries, if someone I play insists on trying this I can use this for any of my own models too. A SoB Canoness comes with bolter and bolt pistol, so I'll swap the pistol for a powersword. I'll just check the CCW status after giving up the pistol but before taking up the sword so I get +1A. And as someone else pointed out, since the pistols are melee weapons only in the assault phase all my basic bolter/pistol sisters seem to have gained a free attack too! Yay! ;-)

I would agree with you and say they do, i think tatical marines should get one too

So there is no point to Assault Marines, is what youre saying? Yu know, the marines who are specifically loaded out with CCW + BP to get the extra attack? A normal tac marine should get that as well?

No, there is one way to read the rule that applies actual rules, and there is one wher eyou make things up and suddenly models gain additional attacks they are not entitled to.

This thread is crazy. Forgive me if this has been pointed out already, but is seems pretty black and white on page 51 of the BRB.
1. No specified melee weapon:. Any model not specified as having a melee is teated as having a single close combat weapon. (this is your basic Wraith model)
2. right under this is, Pistols as a close combat weapon. A pistol can be used as a close combat weapon. (this is you buying a partical caster in addition (not replacing) non specified weapon)
3. Directly under this is, More then one weapon. A model with two or more melee weapons gains +1 attack. (non specified weapon + partical caster(pistol) = +1 attack)

How is this up for debate?

jcroxford wrote:This thread is crazy. Forgive me if this has been pointed out already, but is seems pretty black and white on page 51 of the BRB.
1. No specified melee weapon:. Any model not specified as having a melee is teated as having a single close combat weapon. (this is your basic Wraith model)
2. right under this is, Pistols as a close combat weapon. A pistol can be used as a close combat weapon. (this is you buying a partical caster in addition (not replacing) non specified weapon)
3. Directly under this is, More then one weapon. A model with two or more melee weapons gains +1 attack. (non specified weapon + partical caster(pistol) = +1 attack)

How is this up for debate?

Because as soon as you buy the pistol (your step 2) you're specifically stated as having a CCW. Which invalidates your step 1, which means you don't get a second weapon, which means you don't get an attack.

How is this up for debate?
One side has actual rules, the other has hopes and dreams they've stretched into what they think might be a way for the rules to be interpreted as.

Because as soon as you buy the pistol (your step 2) you're specifically stated as having a CCW. Which invalidates your step 1, which means you don't get a second weapon, which means you don't get an attack.

How is this up for debate?
One side has actual rules, the other has hopes and dreams they've stretched into what they think might be a way for the rules to be interpreted as.

jcroxford wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Because as soon as you buy the pistol (your step 2) you're specifically stated as having a CCW. Which invalidates your step 1, which means you don't get a second weapon, which means you don't get an attack.

How is this up for debate?
One side has actual rules, the other has hopes and dreams they've stretched into what they think might be a way for the rules to be interpreted as.

You are drawing the conclusion that buying the pistol is replacing the original non specified weapon. How is that so? Where in the rules does it say that if you purchase a ranged weapon it replaces the original non-specified close combat one? You are not replacing a claw with a sword. You are adding a ranged weapon that has a special rule that you can use it as an additional close combat weapon.

False. I've never said it's replacing the "free" weapon.
The rules for the free weapon only apply if the model is not specifically stated that they have a CCW.
Having a pistol - wait for it - is specifically stating that the model has a CCW.

You could even go as far as to look at the model. Wraiths are clearly armed with claws (close combat weapons). If you model it with the (optional) partical caster it does not replace the original weapons. it is under-slung as an additional weapon.

That has literally nothing to do with the discussion at hand. It has two claws - clearly that's the 2 attacks base that it has. Right? Or does it have zero attacks base? Or ..?
Looking at the model doesn't matter 99% of the time.

I find your argument very weak, and unless you can show the rule that states what you are trying to pull off, it doesn't hold any weight.

You could read the thread, but I'll be nice and post it again for you.

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.

The model doesn't actually have a weapon, it's just treated as having one - until you equip it with something that specifically states it's a Melee weapon. Once you do that the model no longer qualifies for the "No Specified Melee Weapon" rule. Guess what Pistols have?

Pistols as Close Combat Weapons
A pistol can be used as a close combat weapon. If this is done, use the profile given above - the Strength, AP and special rules of the pistol's Shooting profile are ignored (see page 52).

(the referenced profile: )
Range: Close combat weapon S: User AP: - Type: Melee

What I don't get is people drawing the conclusion that you only check if it has a weapon once. That would be as logically absurd as saying "okay, in the second turn, we are going to check every model to see if its strength, toughness, or wounds is 0, and if it is, we'll remove it. After that, we won't check again."

As a rule, it is constantly in effect, and is acted upon whenever its condition is met.
A) I purchase a simple wraith. no close combat weapon? okay, It is going to be treated has having a single weapon.
B)I purchase the pistol upgrade for the wraith, run the check again. does it have a close combat weapon? yes? then I will no longer treat it as having a single close combat weapon, since it has the pistol, which can be treated as a close combat weapon.

Since it is a rule, the time we apply it is the only time it makes sense to do so; whenever a model's profile or status has changed.

I would just like to note that both sides continue to refrence the melee weapon as a "free weapon" which I think is breeding confusion. At no time is anyone gaining wargeer because of this rule. It states "treated as" which simply is allowing them to fight melee. There is no free weapon to gain or lose.


Don't have a melee weapon, now you are TREATED as having one for CC though do not COUNT as having one.

You have a melee weapon (pistol) you are TREATED as having one for CC as you also COUNT as having one.

Simple definition of words alone settles this argument.

So, by the arguments listed, I'll be nerfing my wraiths by taking pistols because the pistol is a melee weapon which replaces my "counts as having..." rule. Pistols do not grant 2 additional attacks, so the three attacks on my character sheet now make zero sense. What other models cone with a flat three base attacks? Dual weilding models, right?

Trying to argue this point using the model's base attacks is definitely a non-sequitur. Personally, I think sargeants et. al have 2 base attacks because they are armed with a pistol and close combat weapon, and most cannot change that, but many people read RAW and find that they get 3 attacks in CC, because they have 2 base and an additional one for having two weapons

thedunator wrote:So, by the arguments listed, I'll be nerfing my wraiths by taking pistols because the pistol is a melee weapon which replaces my "counts as having..." rule. Pistols do not grant 2 additional attacks, so the three attacks on my character sheet now make zero sense. What other models cone with a flat three base attacks? Dual weilding models, right?

Tyranid Warriors
Tyranid Shrikes
Tryanid Lictor
Tyranid Mawloc
Tyranid Tervigon
Tyranid Tyrant Guard
Tyranid Tyrannofex
GK Brother Captains
GK Grand Master
GK Nemesis DreadKnight
SM Captains
SM Chapter Champion
SM Chapter Master
Necron Destroyer Lords
Necron Overlords
SW Cyberwolfs

Those are just the codexes I have in front of me. I left out the special characters. None of the models above are dual wielding by default.
edit: Sorry, the DreadKnight does. I'll leave it there though because it just doesn't matter.
Purchasing a pistol does nothing for your Wraiths except give a ranged attack.

thedunator wrote:So, by the arguments listed, I'll be nerfing my wraiths by taking pistols because the pistol is a melee weapon which replaces my "counts as having..." rule. Pistols do not grant 2 additional attacks, so the three attacks on my character sheet now make zero sense. What other models cone with a flat three base attacks? Dual weilding models, right?

Erm, no. Your A stat is not affected - you still get 3

You just cannot get 4 attacks from duel wielding, because as soon as you buy a pistol, which IS a CCW, you lose your non-specified CCW. No actual change to anything.

Are all those models affected by the "counts as having a melee weapon" rule? I honestly don't know. Also, I've never given my wraiths an extra attack for pistols, I just find this rules argument intriguing.

thedunator wrote:Are all those models affected by the "counts as having a melee weapon" rule? I honestly don't know. Also, I've never given my wraiths an extra attack for pistols, I just find this rules argument intriguing.

No, none of them are. And it's "treated as having" not "counts as having" - there's a difference.
Does it matter if they are or not? Many of the models can get 2 CCWs and therefore an extra attack.
I'm not sure what your point is.

rigeld2 wrote:

thedunator wrote:Are all those models affected by the "counts as having a melee weapon" rule? I honestly don't know. Also, I've never given my wraiths an extra attack for pistols, I just find this rules argument intriguing.

No, none of them are. And it's "treated as having" not "counts as having" - there's a difference.
Does it matter if they are or not? Many of the models can get 2 CCWs and therefore an extra attack.
I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is that wraiths seem to be the only models in the game that are treated as having a ccw while having multiple attacks on their profile. All other models that are affected by this rule have one attack on their profile. My point is then that if I give my wraiths a pistol, then then have a melee weapon that gives them one attack in melee, not three. So if I'm treated as having a ccw and I have 3 attacks on my profile, I'm actually being treated as having two ccw based on every other non IC/MC I can think of. So if I take a pistol, and I'm no longer treated as having melee weapons, but I actually have one now that grants a single attack, and I can't dual wield it, I should be able to add an attack, or use the amount of attacks that weapon actually grants me: one. My argument is that by this rule, I either get four attacks or one attack.

thedunator wrote:My argument is that by this rule, I either get four attacks or one attack.

Except that argument has no basis in any rules whatsoever.
Think it does? Quote one. I'll wait.

edit:
Your misunderstanding is that you think having a CCW grants the attacks on your profile. That's false. Your profile grants you those attacks, your CCW modifies how those attacks are resolved.
Every Tyranid CCW is exactly the same. Every. Single. One.
And yet nids have all number of attacks - from 1 to 6. Which would be impossible with your interpretation.

The only reason why I argue base attacks is because the number can change based on the type and quantity of weapons you have equipped.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

thedunator wrote:My argument is that by this rule, I either get four attacks or one attack.

Except that argument has no basis in any rules whatsoever.
Think it does? Quote one. I'll wait.

Do the rules grant an additional attack while dual weilding? Can I dual weild melee weapons as a wraith?

thedunator wrote:The only reason why I argue base attacks is because the number can change based on the type and quantity of weapons you have equipped.

Seriously, quote a rule please. You're making stuff up at this point - find a rule that says your base attacks go down if you don't have a CCW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

thedunator wrote:Do the rules grant an additional attack while dual weilding? Can I dual weild melee weapons as a wraith?

Yes. No.

thedunator wrote:My point is that wraiths seem to be the only models in the game that are treated as having a ccw while having multiple attacks on their profile. All other models that are affected by this rule have one attack on their profile. My point is then that if I give my wraiths a pistol, then then have a melee weapon that gives them one attack in melee, not three. So if I'm treated as having a ccw and I have 3 attacks on my profile, I'm actually being treated as having two ccw based on every other non IC/MC I can think of. So if I take a pistol, and I'm no longer treated as having melee weapons, but I actually have one now that grants a single attack, and I can't dual wield it, I should be able to add an attack, or use the amount of attacks that weapon actually grants me: one. My argument is that by this rule, I either get four attacks or one attack.

Please explain the underlined part.
Also, if I give my Hive Tyrant two sets of twin-linked Deathspitters, it would have 4 attacks and be treated as having a ccw (as it has no specific ccw).

Except the rule in assault that states a model gets as many attacks as are included in its profile. It doesn't say it gets as many attacks as it has weapons.

Happyjew wrote:Also, if I give my Hive Tyrant two sets of twin-linked Deathspitters, it would have 4 attacks and be treated as having a ccw (as it has no specific ccw).

Wow. I just realized he doesn't have "Claws and Teeth" like most other Tyranids.
... and not every Tyranid has Claws and Teeth. My world, it is turned upside down.

rigeld2 wrote:

Happyjew wrote:Also, if I give my Hive Tyrant two sets of twin-linked Deathspitters, it would have 4 attacks and be treated as having a ccw (as it has no specific ccw).

Wow. I just realized he doesn't have "Claws and Teeth" like most other Tyranids.
... and not every Tyranid has Claws and Teeth. My world, it is turned upside down.

Welcome to the world of Cruddace =P

It's just... I thought I had everything in the codex (besides some point values) memorized... and now I find out that I've failed (granted it's a 100% irrelevant thing I failed on) but still... time to spend more time reading the army list in my codex...

Carnifex's are the only other unit (for Nids anyway) that can come be upgraded to no ccw.

Happyjew wrote:Carnifex's are the only other unit (for Nids anyway) that can come be upgraded to no ccw.

The Swarmlord doesn't have any at all - Bone Sabers aren't a CCW.

See why using the model to determine number of attacks/CCW is silly?

rigeld2 wrote:

thedunator wrote:My argument is that by this rule, I either get four attacks or one attack.

Except that argument has no basis in any rules whatsoever.
Think it does? Quote one. I'll wait.

edit:
Your misunderstanding is that you think having a CCW grants the attacks on your profile. That's false. Your profile grants you those attacks, your CCW modifies how those attacks are resolved.
Every Tyranid CCW is exactly the same. Every. Single. One.
And yet nids have all number of attacks - from 1 to 6. Which would be impossible with your interpretation.

Not impossible. They are actually equipped which the models will swing at varying speeds. I understand that's fluff and not rules, but they aren't adding an additional piece of CC wargear like wraiths are. That's where the confusion is coming from.

thedunator wrote:but they aren't adding an additional piece of CC wargear like wraiths are. That's where the confusion is coming from.

So you're inventing confusion because a model without a CCW is adding a CCW... and you are somehow thinking it should get a free attack added on?

rigeld2 wrote:

thedunator wrote:but they aren't adding an additional piece of CC wargear like wraiths are. That's where the confusion is coming from.

So you're inventing confusion because a model without a CCW is adding a CCW... and you are somehow thinking it should get a free attack added on?

I'm not inventing anything. I'm not the op, I haven't written 8 pages discussing this rule debate. It didn't even occur to me that it was possible until this debate. 40k is full of cheese, and I can see both sides of the argument. Just looking at different angles and trying to develop other avenues to think through. If they're wrong, then great, one more loop hole closed.

I have to say that I agree with the (no +1 attack) side and after all this reading. I have learned something very interesting.

A model, usually a character of some sort equipped with a power sword or power ax and a pistol (SM Libby in power armor with plasma pistol comes to mind) does not in fact get +1 attack in CC unless he chooses to use the pistol as a Melee weapon. Thus all that models attacks would use the pistol's profile and not the power weapon's profile.

Now here is my reasoning: a pistol is not a Melee weapon, unless you choose to use it as such at which point it's profile changes to a Melee weapon. The BRB says that models with more than one Melee weapon MUST choose which one to attack with because "you can not mix and match abilities" of weapons.

So if the model wants to use the power weapon the pistol stays as a ranged weapon thus no +1 attack.

Please correct me if I am wrong.
Sorry if I am hijacking the thread

40k-noob wrote:I have to say that I agree with the (no +1 attack) side and after all this reading. I have learned something very interesting.

A model, usually a character of some sort equipped with a power sword or power ax and a pistol (SM Libby in power armor with plasma pistol comes to mind) does not in fact get +1 attack in CC unless he chooses to use the pistol as a Melee weapon. Thus all that models attacks would use the pistol's profile and not the power weapon's profile.

Now here is my reasoning: a pistol is not a Melee weapon, unless you choose to use it as such at which point it's profile changes to a Melee weapon. The BRB says that models with more than one Melee weapon MUST choose which one to attack with because "you can not mix and match abilities" of weapons.

So if the model wants to use the power weapon the pistol stays as a ranged weapon thus no +1 attack.

Please correct me if I am wrong.
Sorry if I am hijacking the thread

Pg 24, middle of the paper.

". +1 Two Weapons: Engaged rnodels with two singlehanded
weapons (often a Melee weapon and\or pistol
in each hand) get +1 Attack. Models with more than two
weapons gain no additional benefit; you only get one extra
Attack, even if you have four arms and a sword in each."

Wow... just wow.

How many Necron players are so desperate for that extra attack that they will so cruely twist these rules to get one - is Necron not already powerful enough.

I can't see any argument supported by the rules that validates a free CCW for Wraiths, it's fairly simple

Actual # weapons | Treated as having
0 | 1 with default stats
1 | 1 with whatever stats you bought
2+ | 2 with whatever stats you have and choose to employ from those you own

Buying 1 weapon does not give you a 2nd weapon if you had 0 weapons - at no points do you actually receive a free CCW and add it to your profile, you just get an attack profile equivelant to a default CCW so that you can actually use your attacks, now that all close combat attacks are now resolved using gun like stat lines, you can't fight without one, you don't have one, here's a default one, no you can't use it to get a free attack you mook,

Kevin949 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:I have to say that I agree with the (no +1 attack) side and after all this reading. I have learned something very interesting.

A model, usually a character of some sort equipped with a power sword or power ax and a pistol (SM Libby in power armor with plasma pistol comes to mind) does not in fact get +1 attack in CC unless he chooses to use the pistol as a Melee weapon. Thus all that models attacks would use the pistol's profile and not the power weapon's profile.

Now here is my reasoning: a pistol is not a Melee weapon, unless you choose to use it as such at which point it's profile changes to a Melee weapon. The BRB says that models with more than one Melee weapon MUST choose which one to attack with because "you can not mix and match abilities" of weapons.

So if the model wants to use the power weapon the pistol stays as a ranged weapon thus no +1 attack.

Please correct me if I am wrong.
Sorry if I am hijacking the thread

Pg 24, middle of the paper.

". +1 Two Weapons: Engaged rnodels with two singlehanded
weapons (often a Melee weapon and\or pistol
in each hand) get +1 Attack. Models with more than two
weapons gain no additional benefit; you only get one extra
Attack, even if you have four arms and a sword in each."

Is that the only prerequisite for +1 attack right there on Pg 24? If that is the case then a lot of models will get +1. Regular Tact Marines have a pistol and a boltgun both "single-handed weapons." The part in parentheses is just an an example and not the rule.

There has to be more to it than what's on page 24.

The part you are missing is that it only requires that you have two single-handed weapons (not two single handed close-combat weapons), so yes, tac marines do get the extra attack for having a pistol and close combat weapon

SCvodimier wrote:The part you are missing is that it only requires that you have two single-handed weapons (not two single handed close-combat weapons), so yes, tac marines do get the extra attack for having a pistol and close combat weapon

Nope, most tac marines don't get a CCW. Bolter is not a single handed weapon or a CCW, only the pistol counts, most tac marines do not get the extra attack. I've heard lots of complaints because only some Codex's have the all important CCW on the profile for the extra attack (SW Grey Hunters and CSM I think)

Of course according to pg 52 "All pistols count as CCW during the Assault Phase" therefore according to Necron logic they do not count as CCW during the shooting phase so an extra CCW spontaneously appears, so by the assault phase they all have the extra attack anyway, as does every model that has any pistol listed - in fact the worst thing you can do for close combat is turn up with a CCW as that's always a CCW so the warp hole of spontaneous melee weapon creation never opens near you.

maxcarrion wrote:

SCvodimier wrote:The part you are missing is that it only requires that you have two single-handed weapons (not two single handed close-combat weapons), so yes, tac marines do get the extra attack for having a pistol and close combat weapon

Nope, most tac marines don't get a CCW. Bolter is not a single handed weapon or a CCW, only the pistol counts, most tac marines do not get the extra attack. I've heard lots of complaints because only some Codex's have the all important CCW on the profile for the extra attack (SW Grey Hunters and CSM I think)

Of course according to pg 52 "All pistols count as CCW during the Assault Phase" therefore according to Necron logic they do not count as CCW during the shooting phase so an extra CCW spontaneously appears, so by the assault phase they all have the extra attack anyway, as does every model that has any pistol listed - in fact the worst thing you can do for close combat is turn up with a CCW as that's always a CCW so the warp hole of spontaneous melee weapon creation never opens near you.

Right..don't know how I missed that...anyway, what he said

40k-noob wrote:

Is that the only prerequisite for +1 attack right there on Pg 24? If that is the case then a lot of models will get +1. Regular Tact Marines have a pistol and a boltgun both "single-handed weapons." The part in parentheses is just an an example and not the rule.

There has to be more to it than what's on page 24.

Well of course there is more to it, I was giving you the rule on that page that tells you when you can claim a bonus attack. You do, of course, still have to abide by the standard assault rules in which only melee classified weapons can be used in an assault and only melee classified weapons count towards anything in assault. Consequently speaking, you would not add an emperors champions' strength bonus (from his sword) to your bolt pistol in shooting, such is the same that you can't use your bolter in assault. In fact, there is an example below the entry detailing 5 space marines with bolters only getting 5 attacks (10 on the charge).

You first must cover the assault rules and then apply said bonuses as your models that meet the prerequisite. In this case, it is being equipped with two single-handed melee weapons.

To further note, on page 51 - "However, it's worth
remembering that if a model has two or more Melee weapons
he gains +1 Attack in close combat (see page24)."