Some weapons can be used in different ways, representing different power settings or types of ammo. Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon’s profile for each, and you can choose which to use each turn.
Rod of Covenant has two profiles, a melee and a ranged one.
Am I correct in assuming that a Triarch Praetorian can either fire or assault with the Rod, but not both in a single turn?
Asking this because I've read some discussions where people assumed they could fire and then assault with the Rod.
But that is not allowed, or is it?
They can fire and assault with it in the same round. There is no RAW preventing them from doing so.
The only unit I can recall that has such a rule are ork burna boyz where each model can opt to fire the burna or use it in assault, but not both. They have specific RAW for the weapon that causes this, otherwise they could do both in each round as well.
Well, he shouldn't have to read the BRB. I included the quote for a reason
Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon’s profile for each, and you can choose which to use each turn.
Could people please explain this quote from the BRB if they think that it's allowed to use the Rods in Shooting ánd CC?
Kangodo wrote: Well, he shouldn't have to read the BRB. I included the quote for a reason
Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon’s profile for each, and you can choose which to use each turn.
Could people please explain this quote from the BRB if they think that it's allowed to use the Rods in Shooting ánd CC?
Hmmmm, that certainly seems to support the RAW argument that praetorians can either shoot or charge but not both in the same turn. It might even be RAI, since the ability to fire and charge in the same turn (at S5 AP2 for both) without penalty was a bit much for a mere 28 points.
Kangodo wrote: Well, he shouldn't have to read the BRB. I included the quote for a reason
Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon’s profile for each, and you can choose which to use each turn.
Could people please explain this quote from the BRB if they think that it's allowed to use the Rods in Shooting ánd CC?
Well with that quote in hand it would appear players may not use the same weapon in shooting and assault in the same turn.
grendel083 wrote: Sme as Shining Spears, but Eldar players seem to "forget" that bit
And Singing Spears, and Scorpion's Claws... There are a number of Eldar weapons made "meh" by that rule.
It's not a new rule.
It was definitely in 6th ed Rulebook, possibly 5th as well.
docdoom77 wrote:I don't have my book with me. Does this affect pistols as well? They technically have two profiles: the shooting profile and the cc weapon profile.
No, can't remeber the exact wording, but the pistol rule has it different.
Kangodo wrote: Well, he shouldn't have to read the BRB. I included the quote for a reason
Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon’s profile for each, and you can choose which to use each turn.
Could people please explain this quote from the BRB if they think that it's allowed to use the Rods in Shooting ánd CC?
Hmmmm, that certainly seems to support the RAW argument that praetorians can either shoot or charge but not both in the same turn. It might even be RAI, since the ability to fire and charge in the same turn (at S5 AP2 for both) without penalty was a bit much for a mere 28 points.
Nothing in that rule restricts the weapon to once per turn. It gives permission to choose the profile you need. "Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting", clearly shows both can be used. If that rule said "you can choose which to use "ONCE" each turn, you would be correct.
Kangodo wrote: Well, he shouldn't have to read the BRB. I included the quote for a reason
Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon’s profile for each, and you can choose which to use each turn.
Could people please explain this quote from the BRB if they think that it's allowed to use the Rods in Shooting ánd CC?
Hmmmm, that certainly seems to support the RAW argument that praetorians can either shoot or charge but not both in the same turn. It might even be RAI, since the ability to fire and charge in the same turn (at S5 AP2 for both) without penalty was a bit much for a mere 28 points.
Nothing in that rule restricts the weapon to once per turn. It gives permission to choose the profile you need. "Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting", clearly shows both can be used. If that rule said "you can choose which to use "ONCE" each turn, you would be correct.
So the bit that says "...choose which to use each turn." means what, exactly?
There are ranged weapons with dual ranged profiles as well, such as the Triarch Stalker's heat ray. One is able to choose which shooting profile they want to use each turn.
If their intent was for Praetorians wielding Rods to be unable to shoot and assault with that weapon, why bother giving its shooting profile the Assault special rule?
They can charge after firing the Rod. They just cannot use the melee profile until their opponent's phase.
Meaning thy do not have a CCW to attack with. And they cannot "gain" a CCW because thy have one, they just cannot attack with it. Meaning...my head hurts.
Kangodo wrote: Well, he shouldn't have to read the BRB. I included the quote for a reason
Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon’s profile for each, and you can choose which to use each turn.
Could people please explain this quote from the BRB if they think that it's allowed to use the Rods in Shooting ánd CC?
Hmmmm, that certainly seems to support the RAW argument that praetorians can either shoot or charge but not both in the same turn. It might even be RAI, since the ability to fire and charge in the same turn (at S5 AP2 for both) without penalty was a bit much for a mere 28 points.
Nothing in that rule restricts the weapon to once per turn. It gives permission to choose the profile you need. "Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting", clearly shows both can be used. If that rule said "you can choose which to use "ONCE" each turn, you would be correct.
it gives the permission to pick one profile to use each turn. Not each phase.
Happyjew brings up an interesting problem. By already having a melee weapon, they lack a CCW. By lacking a CCW, can they even strike in combat based on this if they shoot and charge?
Kangodo wrote: Well, he shouldn't have to read the BRB. I included the quote for a reason
Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon’s profile for each, and you can choose which to use each turn.
Could people please explain this quote from the BRB if they think that it's allowed to use the Rods in Shooting ánd CC?
Hmmmm, that certainly seems to support the RAW argument that praetorians can either shoot or charge but not both in the same turn. It might even be RAI, since the ability to fire and charge in the same turn (at S5 AP2 for both) without penalty was a bit much for a mere 28 points.
Nothing in that rule restricts the weapon to once per turn. It gives permission to choose the profile you need. "Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting", clearly shows both can be used. If that rule said "you can choose which to use "ONCE" each turn, you would be correct.
it gives the permission to pick one profile to use each turn. Not each phase.
Nilok wrote: So either they can use the weapon when they charge after they shoot, or the rules break.
What, did 7th remove the clause that said "if you don't have a CCW, you count as having a CCW"? I know it was in 6th.
And before that, barely anyone ever argued that you needed anything besides an Attack stat to strike in melee
Crevab wrote: What, did 7th remove the clause that said "if you don't have a CCW, you count as having a CCW"?
They have a melee weapon, which means they don't get a default CCW. The problem arises when they are apparently disallowed from using the melee weapon if they've used it as a shooting weapon. This leaves them with no melee weapon and no CCW.
Nilok wrote: So either they can use the weapon when they charge after they shoot, or the rules break.
What, did 7th remove the clause that said "if you don't have a CCW, you count as having a CCW"? I know it was in 6th.
And before that, barely anyone ever argued that you needed anything besides an Attack stat to strike in melee
No Specified Melee weapon wrote:If a model is not specifically stated as have a weapon with the Melee type, it is treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon.
Rod of the Covenant wrote:Melee, Two-Handed
Triarch Praetorians are already armed with a Melee weapon and don't get a CCW.
The rules don't cover what happens if you try and fight in close combat without a melee weapon, thus the rules break.
Bojazz wrote: They have a melee weapon, which means they don't get a default CCW. The problem arises when they are apparently disallowed from using the melee weapon if they've used it as a shooting weapon. This leaves them with no melee weapon and no CCW.
But they don't have a melee weapon, since on that turn you use the ranged profile which means you ignore the melee profile.
Drakmord wrote: If their intent was for Praetorians wielding Rods to be unable to shoot and assault with that weapon, why bother giving its shooting profile the Assault special rule?
What other type would their weapon have?
This allows a single Praetorian to pick:
a) Shoot 1 S5AP2 and attack with 3 S5AP- attacks.
b) Attack with 3 S5AP2 attacks
Against WS4, T4, Sv4+ that would give you:
a) 0.94 unsaved wounds
b) 1 unsaved wound
That gives you two scenario's where shooting is good: After a Deep Strike (since you cannot assault) and against Sv5+ or worse.
And we should even factor in invulnerable saved, because AP2 won't help you against units that always have to take an inv-save; the additional attack might be more damage.
Vector Strike wrote: What a bizarre situation. Never saw anyone playing as if you couldn't use them in melee after shooting.
Apparently almost no one was aware of this rule.
I hardly believe people would force others to strictly follow it. I know in warhammer most rules don't make sense, but not letting a model to attack in melee (when it clearly has a weapon) because its weapon shot before the Assault phase... lel.
The way I see it (and HIWPI) is if the shooting profile is chosen, then that is the weapons profile for the turn.
It has no access to the melee profile, so can't be considered to have a melee weapon (hence would count as gaining a CCW for that turn).
Except that pistols don't have a special rule that says they can still be used in CC if they use their shooting profile. They just have a CC profile and a shooting profile.
If you shoot your pistol, by these rules, you can't use it to gain an extra attack in CC. Now assault marines are even more broken!
I don't think there is an actual requirement to have a melee weapon to fight in assault.
otherwise slews of models would not be able to fight like necron warriors, immortals, any beast pack, scarabs, wraiths, c'tan, most MCs, many daemons, etc.
nothing in the assault section actually requires you to use a weapon to fight in assault.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
grendel083 wrote: The way I see it (and HIWPI) is if the shooting profile is chosen, then that is the weapons profile for the turn.
It has no access to the melee profile, so can't be considered to have a melee weapon (hence would count as gaining a CCW for that turn).
From the posted quote that is the rules as written.
if it said either or
or
phase instead of turn.
the other thing that needs to be mentioned:
Whenever a rule refers to ‘a turn’ it always means ‘player turn’ unless it specifically refers to a ‘game turn’.
- from 'The turn' in BRB
therefore the rule quoted by the OP
Some weapons can be used in different ways, representing different power settings or types of ammo. Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon’s profile for each, and you can choose which to use each turn.
Would refer to play turn.
So you could choose which line of the profile to use each turn (player turn)
so you could shoot and fight in assault that player turn with models profile, if there is no other melee weapon, and then on your opponents turn would get the benefit for the melee profile.
grendel083 wrote: Pistols have their own rules for this.
See: "Pistols as Close Combat Weapons"
It just says it uses the profile of a cc weapon in assault. Which means it has two profiles. Sounds like this ridiculous revelation applies.
I'm of the opinion that this is probably not RAI for either case, just badly written rules.
I feel like the sentence that says "choose which to use each turn," should have been right after the sentence about different power settings and ammo, rather than where it is and is badly written/edited.
It is also possible this is just fail rules writing by GW. I'm assuming what they meant is some weapons, like weapons will multiple types of ammo, which are referenced in the same paragraph, have multiple profiles, and you have to choose which one to shoot when shooting. Or Logan Grimnar's (sp?) CC weapon, which can either be used as one of two profiles in the same phase. You have to pick which one to use. I think we're all taking this one specific line out of context. Otherwise, why would Burna Boys reference that they cant do both?
Some weapons can be used in different ways, representing different power settings or types of ammo. Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon’s profile for each, and you can choose which to use each turn.
Rod of Covenant has two profiles, a melee and a ranged one.
Am I correct in assuming that a Triarch Praetorian can either fire or assault with the Rod, but not both in a single turn?
Asking this because I've read some discussions where people assumed they could fire and then assault with the Rod.
But that is not allowed, or is it?
Would you mind posting page and paragraph of the BRB?
Would to see if there is something prior or after your quote that may explain in more detail.
He posted the entire paragraph, from under 'Type' in the 'Weapons' section of the rulebook. The preceding paragraph covers allowing a unit to decide which weapons they fire and those that do fire do so at full effect. The next paragraph covers weapons which have a randomly determined amount of shots. So no, there is no more explanation to be found in the rulebook.
Ghaz wrote: He posted the entire paragraph, from under 'Type' in the 'Weapons' section of the rulebook. The preceding paragraph covers allowing a unit to decide which weapons they fire and those that do fire do so at full effect. The next paragraph covers weapons which have a randomly determined amount of shots. So no, there is no more explanation to be found in the rulebook.
Thanks.
Funny how there are so many little rules that get over looked.
extremefreak17 wrote: Question: Does/will anyone actually play this way? I know I probably wont.
Absolutly yes!
This is the rule for duel-profile weapons. Orks have to deal with it, so do Shining Spears (when they remember), it's not a new rule, it was in the last edition.
It's not something I would enforce on pistols however, but on a Rod of Covenant yes 100%
There is another rule I think needs to be remembered by those that would like to say they can use it as both in the same turn. By saying both profiles are working at the same time you are making it impossible to fire it as a shooting weapon as weapons with the melee type can only be used in CC per pg 40. The only reason you can ever fire the Rod is due to using only a single profile in a turn as the other is not in use therefor not applicable.
grendel083 wrote: Pistols have their own rules for this.
See: "Pistols as Close Combat Weapons"
It just says it uses the profile of a cc weapon in assault. Which means it has two profiles. Sounds like this ridiculous revelation applies.
I'm of the opinion that this is probably not RAI for either case, just badly written rules.
I feel like the sentence that says "choose which to use each turn," should have been right after the sentence about different power settings and ammo, rather than where it is and is badly written/edited.
That's not accurate as you have no profile to pick and it doesn't actually have a Profile, I can't say I'm using my infernus pistol as a CC weapon and get the ST8.
extremefreak17 wrote: Question: Does/will anyone actually play this way? I know I probably wont.
I will, an AP2-shot with three AP2-attacks is probably way over the top for a 28-point model with Jump-type.
The rule is there for a reason, you cannot ignore it because it doesn't suit you.
There are a dozen easier ways to write it down if they wanted us to use the weapon in both phases.
The Rod also works with a force field, which fluff-wise could mean it would need to recharge after you fire it.
Crevab wrote: What, did 7th remove the clause that said "if you don't have a CCW, you count as having a CCW"?
They have a melee weapon, which means they don't get a default CCW. The problem arises when they are apparently disallowed from using the melee weapon if they've used it as a shooting weapon. This leaves them with no melee weapon and no CCW.
grendel083 wrote: Pistols have their own rules for this.
See: "Pistols as Close Combat Weapons"
It just says it uses the profile of a cc weapon in assault. Which means it has two profiles. Sounds like this ridiculous revelation applies.
I'm of the opinion that this is probably not RAI for either case, just badly written rules.
I feel like the sentence that says "choose which to use each turn," should have been right after the sentence about different power settings and ammo, rather than where it is and is badly written/edited.
That's not accurate as you have no profile to pick and it doesn't actually have a Profile, I can't say I'm using my infernus pistol as a CC weapon and get the ST8.
Sure, you can't use the profile for a ranged weapon as your CCW, but you can use the profile for your CCW to bash their skulls in.
Crevab wrote: What, did 7th remove the clause that said "if you don't have a CCW, you count as having a CCW"?
They have a melee weapon, which means they don't get a default CCW. The problem arises when they are apparently disallowed from using the melee weapon if they've used it as a shooting weapon. This leaves them with no melee weapon and no CCW.
No Specified Melee weapon wrote:If a model is not specifically stated as have a weapon with the Melee type, it is treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon.
Rod of the Covenant wrote:Melee, Two-Handed
Triarch Praetorians are already armed with a Melee weapon and don't get a CCW.
The rules don't cover what happens if you try and fight in close combat without a melee weapon, thus the rules break.
But you are incorrect, you need to pick a profile.
If you picked the ranged-profile they don't have a 'Melee weapon' which would give them a CCW and that would allow them to hit in CC.
Kangodo wrote: But you are incorrect, you need to pick a profile.
If you picked the ranged-profile they don't have a 'Melee weapon' which would give them a CCW and that would allow them to hit in CC.
They still have a melee weapon, they are just not allowed to use it, though I would like to know if GW even know this rule exists.
As a Necron player, I'm a little disappointed to see that the rod is a variable weapon per turn, but the arguments in this thread are solid; I will be playing them as being able to either shoot or melee with the weapon, not both.
As for the argument about "it doesn't actually have a melee weapon," give it a rest. The rod is the melee weapon, but cannot use its special melee profile. As such, it's just a standard CCW.
Kangodo wrote: Can you show me what melee weapon they have?
I only see a Rod of Covenant that has 12", S5 and AP2 with Assault 1.
You will find it under Rod of Covenant under Armoury of the Ancients.
Rod of Covenant wrote:Range:- S:User AP:2 Type: Melee, Two-handed
Shadelkan wrote: As a Necron player, I'm a little disappointed to see that the rod is a variable weapon per turn, but the arguments in this thread are solid; I will be playing them as being able to either shoot or melee with the weapon, not both.
As for the argument about "it doesn't actually have a melee weapon," give it a rest. The rod is the melee weapon, but cannot use its special melee profile. As such, it's just a standard CCW.
The problem is there ends up being a complete rules breakdown, which makes me wonder if they even knew if this rule existed.
Since they already have a melee weapon, they cannot have a CCW. Since they cannot have a CCW and can't use their melee weapon, we have no idea what happens when they are in close combat the turn they shoot.
Nilok wrote: You will find it under Rod of Covenant under Armoury of the Ancients.
Rod of Covenant wrote:Range:- S:User AP:2 Type: Melee, Two-handed
Confused.
If you chose the ranged profile, how are you still using the melee-profile to claim it has a CCW weapon?
Since you don't use the melee-profile, they don't have a melee weapon.
Models without a melee weapon get a CCW so they can hit in CC at Strength User and AP -
The problem is there ends up being a complete rules breakdown, which makes me wonder if they even knew if this rule existed.
Since they already have a melee weapon, they cannot have a CCW. Since they cannot have a CCW and can't use their melee weapon, we have no idea what happens when they are in close combat the turn they shoot.
This really needs to be touched on with an FAQ.
It's not that they cannot use their melee profile, they simply do not have the melee profile.
No melee profile = no melee weapon = 'free' CCW so they can still attack.
Nilok wrote: You will find it under Rod of Covenant under Armoury of the Ancients.
Rod of Covenant wrote:Range:- S:User AP:2 Type: Melee, Two-handed
Confused.
If you chose the ranged profile, how are you still using the melee-profile to claim it has a CCW weapon?
Since you don't use the melee-profile, they don't have a melee weapon.
Models without a melee weapon get a CCW so they can hit in CC at Strength User and AP -
The problem is there ends up being a complete rules breakdown, which makes me wonder if they even knew if this rule existed.
Since they already have a melee weapon, they cannot have a CCW. Since they cannot have a CCW and can't use their melee weapon, we have no idea what happens when they are in close combat the turn they shoot.
This really needs to be touched on with an FAQ.
It's not that they cannot use their melee profile, they simply do not have the melee profile.
No melee profile = no melee weapon = 'free' CCW so they can still attack.
This doesn't really need a FAQ, it's quite clear.
Simply because they can't use their Melee weapon, doesn't mean they don't have it. As long as they have a weapon with the Melee type in their wargear, they have a melee weapon.
No Specified Melee weapon wrote:If a model is not specifically stated as have a weapon with the Melee type, it is treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon.
In order for your statement to be correct, you need to prove that they no longer have a Rod of Covenant, thus they no longer are specifically stated as having a Melee weapon and have a CCW.
It's not that they no longer have a rod, it's that for that turn the Rod does not have a melee profile.
You choose a profile. That is the weapons profile for the turn. That profile does not list melee. If you wish to use the other profile, in order to deny a rule, you're going to have to find a rule allowing 2 profiles in a turn.
Shadelkan wrote: So, let's assume you're right Nilok... Now what? They can't attack in CC?
RAW, there is no answer, the rules simply break down. The rules are written expecting every model to have some sort of Melee or CCW it can use. Without one, there are no rules to cover what happens.
RAI, it's a coin flip IMO. Yes, the rule is there, however, no one I have ever seen has ever played it this way in a FLGS or a GW shop/bunker (did it also exist in 6e?) and I don't know if GW even knows it exists from all their copy/pasting.
I would honestly say you need to discuss this with your group since this affects more than just Necrons.
What we really need is the BRB to have an errata so this is clear. Either they can get a CCW if you fired the ranged/melee weapon that turn, or the rule is only per phase.
grendel083 wrote: It's not that they no longer have a rod, it's that for that turn the Rod does not have a melee profile.
You choose a profile. That is the weapons profile for the turn. That profile does not list melee. If you wish to use the other profile, in order to deny a rule, you're going to have to find a rule allowing 2 profiles in a turn.
Some weapons can be used in different ways, representing different power settings or types of ammo. Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon’s profile for each, and you can choose which to use each turn.
Just because you can't use it doesn't mean it isn't there. The profile never changed, you simply can't select the Melee profile.
the sentence you quoted is clearly intended to point you at the fact that you can choose between different ammunitions and weapon types, because this was the main intention of this paragraph.
Sorry, I think this is wishfull thinking by some who think the unit is too strong now, there is now way this is RAIimho.
stormcraft wrote: the sentence you quoted is clearly intended to point you at the fact that you can choose between different ammunitions and weapon types, because this was the main intention of this paragraph.
Sorry, I think this is wishfull thinking by some who think the unit is too strong now, there is now way this is RAIimho.
I want to think that may be closest to the truth, but it's written in such a way that is covers more than that. The problem is it says turn instead of phase which is where the problem arises.
Nilok wrote: Simply because they can't use their Melee weapon, doesn't mean they don't have it. As long as they have a weapon with the Melee type in their wargear, they have a melee weapon.
So what you are saying: I cannot use the melee profile when it benefits me, but I have to use it when it restricts me?
That is quite.. wrong.
You either use it or you don't.
In order for your statement to be correct, you need to prove that they no longer have a Rod of Covenant, thus they no longer are specifically stated as having a Melee weapon and have a CCW.
I don't need to proof they no longer have a Rod of Covenant.
We have to proof that they have a Rod of Covenant that is not using its Melee profile, which people did several times.
Some weapons can be used in different ways, representing different power settings or types of ammo. Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon’s profile for each, and you can choose which to use each turn.
The bolded part gives us permission to choose from a list of different profiles on each turn of the game. I am not seeing how people are getting "once per turn" from this.
Example: I choose the shooting profile in the shooting phase of turn 3. Did I choose a profile durring a game turn? Yes. Good to go. Next I choose to use the CC profile in the assault phase of turn 3. Did I choose a profile during a game turn? Yes. Good to go.
I don't understand why people seem to think choosing both is not an option either. It doesnt say "choose which one to use", or "choose only one to use."
If my sister were giving me some of her old N64 games and asked me, "Which of these would you like?" picking more than one is certainly an option.
Some weapons can be used in different ways, representing different power settings or types of ammo. Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon’s profile for each, and you can choose which to use each turn.
The bolded part gives us permission to choose between different profiles on each turn of the game. I am not seeing how people are getting "once per turn" from this.
Example: I choose the shooting profile in the shooting phase of turn 3. Did I choose a profile durring a game turn? Yes. Good to go. Next I choose to use the CC profile in the assault phase of turn 3. Did I choose a profile during a game turn? Yes. Good to go.
I don't understand why people seem to think choosing both is not an option. It doesnt say "choose which one to use", or "choose only one to use."
If my sister were giving me some of her old N64 games and asked me, "Which of these would you like?" picking more than one is certainly an option.
In this case you're choosing BOTH profiles each turn, which is not what the rule says.
You're trying to use both in a turn, and different one each phase. Both not allowed by the rule you highlighted.
Nilok wrote: Simply because they can't use their Melee weapon, doesn't mean they don't have it. As long as they have a weapon with the Melee type in their wargear, they have a melee weapon.
So what you are saying: I cannot use the melee profile when it benefits me, but I have to use it when it restricts me?
That is quite.. wrong.
You either use it or you don't.
In order for your statement to be correct, you need to prove that they no longer have a Rod of Covenant, thus they no longer are specifically stated as having a Melee weapon and have a CCW.
I don't need to proof they no longer have a Rod of Covenant.
We have to proof that they have a Rod of Covenant that is not using its Melee profile, which people did several times.
I think we need to look at the rule that grants CCW again.
If a model is not specifically stated as have a weapon with the Melee type, it is treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon.
The rule that grants models a CCW required that the model to not have a weapon with a Melee type. There is no timing, it simply cannot have it. If it said 'If a model is not using a weapon with a melee type', you would then be correct and what it should say if the other rule isn't changed.
It does not care you did or did not select the melee profile of the weapon, the model has a weapon with a Melee type and is not eligible for a CCW.
Some weapons can be used in different ways, representing different power settings or types of ammo. Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon’s profile for each, and you can choose which to use each turn.
The bolded part gives us permission to choose between different profiles on each turn of the game. I am not seeing how people are getting "once per turn" from this.
Example: I choose the shooting profile in the shooting phase of turn 3. Did I choose a profile durring a game turn? Yes. Good to go. Next I choose to use the CC profile in the assault phase of turn 3. Did I choose a profile during a game turn? Yes. Good to go.
I don't understand why people seem to think choosing both is not an option. It doesnt say "choose which one to use", or "choose only one to use."
If my sister were giving me some of her old N64 games and asked me, "Which of these would you like?" picking more than one is certainly an option.
In this case you're choosing BOTH profiles each turn, which is not what the rule says.
You're trying to use both in a turn, and different one each phase. Both not allowed by the rule you highlighted.
The rule says nothing of phases. It says choose which to use each turn. I am choosing to use both on turn 3.
Except it doesn't say that you get to choose both. It says you get to choose which profile you use and your not choosing which, you've trying to use both.
extremefreak17 wrote: The rule says nothing of phases. It says choose which to use each turn. I am choosing to use both on turn 3.
I know it says nothing about phases. Which is why you're breaking the rule chosing a different profile each phase. The rule doesn't allow that. Each turn it says.
And each turn, I am choosing to use both. "Which" does not have to be singular, and is not idicated as such here.
It's clear you don't like the rule, but I'm afraid it is a rule. And not a new one.
It doesn't say choose both, now does it? Where is permission granted to select both, and choose between phases? Nowhere.
Ghaz wrote: Except it doesn't say that you get to choose both. It says you get to choose which profile you use and your not choosing which, you've trying to use both.
The problem here is that you can not prove the author meant to write "which [profile]" vs. "which [profiles]" (singular vs plural) In this case, it can mean either, and because it doesn't specify, it is left open for iterpretation. I think the logical choice is to go with the plural reading because it doesn't break the game, and 99% of the population plays it that way.
Shadelkan wrote: So, let's assume you're right Nilok... Now what? They can't attack in CC?
RaW, the system breaks. You hit what programmers would cause a hard stop. The process hits a wall and the game hangs indefinitely. I can't think of another instance where a model has NO usable melee weapons. We'll have to fall back on HYWPI.
I would allow both profiles in one turn as I think it's the most reasonable thing to do. I'm basing this on the fact that Ork Burnas have an explicit wording limiting them to one or the other per turn. This implies that GW is under the impression that both profiles would normally be allowed.
Ghaz wrote: Except it doesn't say that you get to choose both. It says you get to choose which profile you use and your not choosing which, you've trying to use both.
The problem here is that you can not prove the author meant to write "which [profile]" vs. "which [profiles]" (singular vs plural) In this case, it can mean either, and because it doesn't specify, it is left open for iterpretation. I think the logical choice is to go with the plural reading because it doesn't break the game, and 99% of the population plays it that way.
This is fine. Just mark it as HYWPI so as not to confuse the issue for people who care about the actual RaW.
Ghaz wrote: Except it doesn't say that you get to choose both. It says you get to choose which profile you use and your not choosing which, you've trying to use both.
The problem here is that you can not prove the author meant to write "which [profile]" vs. "which [profiles]" (singular vs plural) In this case, it can mean either, and because it doesn't specify, it is left open for iterpretation. I think the logical choice is to go with the plural reading because it doesn't break the game, and 99% of the population plays it that way.
This is fine. Just mark it as HYWPI so as not to confuse the issue for people who care about the actual RaW.
Let me break it down for you.
Here is the actual RAW
Some weapons can be used in different ways, representing different power settings or types of ammo. Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon’s profile for each, and you can choose which to use each turn.
This can be read two ways
Some weapons can be used in different ways, representing different power settings or types of ammo. Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon’s profile for each, and you can choose which [profile] to use each turn.
or
Some weapons can be used in different ways, representing different power settings or types of ammo. Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon’s profile for each, and you can choose which [profiles] to use each turn.
Because the author failed to classify "which" as singular or plural, we have no way of knowing what he/she meant. Due to this, the RaW is unclear. For me, this makes the plural option a no-brainer as it does not break the game, and most people already play that way.
Except as soon as you choose both the Rod has the Melee type and cannot be used in shooting and is a shooting weapon which means it cannot be used in anything other than to make shooting attacks. There is no rule that allows you to ignore part of the weapon's profile. Since you are choosing to use both you have the limitations of both for the turn.
If you are choosing shooting profile in that phase, then stating you are using the other in the second phase are you using the shooting profile for the turn? The short answer is no which mean you have broken the rule for multiple profiles.
Ghaz wrote: And again, you're not even choosing. Your just using all of the profiles.
Wrong. I am making a choice. My options here are, 0, 1 or 2 profiles. I am choosing 2.
So a house rule, to completely ingore this rule. That's fine, as long as your opponent agrees.
"I don't like it, i'll ignore it and choose all of them, in different phases.
Please use relevant rules qoutes to show me that "which" must be a singular choice. You have failed to do so.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gravmyr wrote: Except as soon as you choose both the Rod has the Melee type and cannot be used in shooting and is a shooting weapon which means it cannot be used in anything other than to make shooting attacks. There is no rule that allows you to ignore part of the weapon's profile. Since you are choosing to use both you have the limitations of both for the turn.
If you are choosing shooting profile in that phase, then stating you are using the other in the second phase are you using the shooting profile for the turn? The short answer is no which mean you have broken the rule for multiple profiles.
You are simply choosing to use both in the same game turn, not the same phase.
Ghaz wrote: And again, you're not even choosing. Your just using all of the profiles.
Wrong. I am making a choice. My options here are, 0, 1 or 2 profiles. I am choosing 2.
So a house rule, to completely ingore this rule. That's fine, as long as your opponent agrees.
"I don't like it, i'll ignore it and choose all of them, in different phases.
Please use relevant rules qoutes to show me that "which" must be a singular choice. You have failed to do so.
Which - "used refering to something previously mentioned when introducing a clause giving further information."
Was "both" or "all" an option previously mentioned when told to choose between profiles?
You're trying to completely ignore this rule. Without it, all profiles would simply be available. Not liking a rule is no reason to ignore it.
I am not ignoring anything. Why do you keep going on this rant about "not liking rules?" I never said I did not like it.
I am not literally choosing the word "both." I am choosing the shooting profile and the CC profile, which are both "options previously mentioned." As above, the author did not specify plural, or singular, and you have not shown any other rules that indicate it is singular.
An Example:
I have a square, a circle, and a triangle. I then ask you to choose which shape you would like to use. You can only pick one here, because "shape" is singluar. If I were to say. "choose which shapes you would like to use," you could pick any combination of the three as "shapes" is plural.
In our rule, the phrase, "choose which," is not followed by either "profile" or "profiles." This means we don't knoiw if we are supposed to choose only one, or any combination of profiles to use each turn. I am asking you to show me something that indicates we can choose only one.
Except as soon as you choose both the Rod has the Melee type and cannot be used in shooting and is a shooting weapon which means it cannot be used in anything other than to make shooting attacks. There is no rule that allows you to ignore part of the weapon's profile. Since you are choosing to use both you have the limitations of both for the turn.
Gravmyr wrote: Except as soon as you choose both the Rod has the Melee type and cannot be used in shooting and is a shooting weapon which means it cannot be used in anything other than to make shooting attacks. There is no rule that allows you to ignore part of the weapon's profile. Since you are choosing to use both you have the limitations of both for the turn.
This is the rule you're refering to?
melee type wrote:Weapons with the Melee type can only be used in close combat
You're quite right, by choosing "both" or "multiple" profiles (without permission I'll note) the melee type stops the weapon being used at range.
grendel083 wrote: You are ignoring it. You're trying to completely circumvent the rule by choosing multiple profiles.
You can try and word it differently, but "both" is exactly what you're choosing.
"Both", "all", "multiple" - call it what you like, these aren't options given by the rule.
Use different words if you like, but "doesn't say I can't choose both" is what you're doing to completely get around this rule.
Again, rules quote, or anything that even suggests that I cant choose both. I have already proven that it can easily be plural, and you have yet to adress this.
Gravmyr wrote: Except as soon as you choose both the Rod has the Melee type and cannot be used in shooting and is a shooting weapon which means it cannot be used in anything other than to make shooting attacks. There is no rule that allows you to ignore part of the weapon's profile. Since you are choosing to use both you have the limitations of both for the turn.
This is the rule you're refering to?
melee type wrote:Weapons with the Melee type can only be used in close combat
You're quite right, by choosing "both" or "multiple" profiles (without permission I'll note) the melee type stops the weapon being used at range.
This is also wrong.
The rule tells us to choose which will be used each the turn. It does not specify what part of the turn, or durring which phase they will be used. Again, rules quotes people. Even if you
By choosing to use both you are using both for the turn. That is the rule. If you want to say otherwise please post a rule other than the one above that allows you to pick which to use during a phase.
Gravmyr wrote: By choosing to use both you are using both for the turn. That is the rule. If you want to say otherwise please post a rule other than the one above that allows you to pick which to use during a phase.
We are given permission to use both in the same turn. Nothing in that rule requires us to use both durring thew same phase.
Not what I asked but thanks for playing. How are you determining what the profile tells you?
Automatically Appended Next Post: What it breaks down to is what rule are you using that allows you to ignore one profile and just use the other then switch between phases?
Gravmyr wrote: Not what I asked but thanks for playing. How are you determining what the profile tells you?
Automatically Appended Next Post: What it breaks down to is what rule are you using that allows you to ignore one profile and just use the other then switch between phases?
Ahh. I see your point now.
To me allowing us to choose both is, in itself, permission to use option A in the shooting phase, and option B in the assualt phase. Though, this is a pretty large stretch and does not really hold up from an abosolute RaW point of view, as the rule in question is not that specific. It just seems to me that it would be obvious to the reader that each profile would be used in its respective phase.
So from a RaW standpoint it would seem that the rule is broken either way. The singular reading breaks down when the unit enters combat with no CC weapon after shooting, and the plural reading breaks down when you refer to the weapon profile.
Dont have the books on me ATM, but i am going to look further into this when I get home to see if I can find any similar weapons profile interactions anywhere else.
Some weapons can be used in different ways, representing different power settings or types of ammo. Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon’s profile for each, and you can choose which to use each turn.
The bolded part gives us permission to choose from a list of different profiles on each turn of the game. I am not seeing how people are getting "once per turn" from this.
Example: I choose the shooting profile in the shooting phase of turn 3. Did I choose a profile durring a game turn? Yes. Good to go. Next I choose to use the CC profile in the assault phase of turn 3. Did I choose a profile during a game turn? Yes. Good to go.
I don't understand why people seem to think choosing both is not an option either. It doesnt say "choose which one to use", or "choose only one to use."
If my sister were giving me some of her old N64 games and asked me, "Which of these would you like?" picking more than one is certainly an option.
This goes back to my point, Burnas specifically state that they can't use them in CC if they fired them. I'm sure even GW had a reason to put that in the codex. Also, some weapons have multiple profiles, like different types of ammo, which is mentioned in the same paragraph. You can't fire using both shooting profiles, obviously, which is what I believe this rule is trying to say. Just like if you have a melee weapon with 2 profiles, you choose which one to use while striking with it that turn. Otherwise, it makes a handful of units in the game not even worth taking, so I really doubt this was GWs intent, just poor choice of how to word it in the BRB.
As was mentioned, GW put that in the codex because at the time it wasn't I the main rules and they didn't remove the redundant wording when they updated the codex.
Ghaz wrote: As was mentioned, GW put that in the codex because at the time it wasn't I the main rules and they didn't remove the redundant wording when they updated the codex.
And how do you know that for sure? Why is that specifically wrong and the BRB is right, when either, or even both, could be wrong?
If you are looking at the profile for anything then you are using that profile. Once you choose to use the shooting profile that is the one you use. It doesn't state that you only use it for using the weapon.
Gravmyr wrote: If you are looking at the profile for anything then you are using that profile. Once you choose to use the shooting profile that is the one you use. It doesn't state that you only use it for using the weapon.
Again
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.
This rule does not care what you choose, or what you are using. It only cares what is actually listed on the unit data sheet. Choosing the ranged profile for the rod, does not mean that the melee profile disapears, it just means that it can not be used that turn. In short, come the assault phase, the model still has a weapon with a melee profile, but is disallowed from using it.
Gravmyr wrote: Then you are using the other profile to make a rule decision are you not? Why would you do that?
Im not using the melee profile to make a decision. Using the melee profile would be striking blows in combat.
I'm using a rule from the BRB. As I keep saying, this rule does not care what profile you are using. It only cares about what equipment you have listed in the unit entry.
Ghaz wrote: Except it doesn't say that you get to choose both. It says you get to choose which profile you use and your not choosing which, you've trying to use both.
The problem here is that you can not prove the author meant to write "which [profile]" vs. "which [profiles]" (singular vs plural) In this case, it can mean either, and because it doesn't specify, it is left open for iterpretation. I think the logical choice is to go with the plural reading because it doesn't break the game, and 99% of the population plays it that way.
This is fine. Just mark it as HYWPI so as not to confuse the issue for people who care about the actual RaW.
Let me break it down for you.
Here is the actual RAW
Some weapons can be used in different ways, representing different power settings or types of ammo. Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon’s profile for each, and you can choose which to use each turn.
This can be read two ways
Some weapons can be used in different ways, representing different power settings or types of ammo. Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon’s profile for each, and you can choose which [profile] to use each turn.
or
Some weapons can be used in different ways, representing different power settings or types of ammo. Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon’s profile for each, and you can choose which [profiles] to use each turn.
Because the author failed to classify "which" as singular or plural, we have no way of knowing what he/she meant. Due to this, the RaW is unclear. For me, this makes the plural option a no-brainer as it does not break the game, and most people already play that way.
Is that less confusing?
Actually, the which is referring back to "seperate line" earlier in the sentence. So, it should be read as you can choose which (seperate line) to use each turn.
Ghaz wrote: Except it doesn't say that you get to choose both. It says you get to choose which profile you use and your not choosing which, you've trying to use both.
The problem here is that you can not prove the author meant to write "which [profile]" vs. "which [profiles]" (singular vs plural) In this case, it can mean either, and because it doesn't specify, it is left open for iterpretation. I think the logical choice is to go with the plural reading because it doesn't break the game, and 99% of the population plays it that way.
This is fine. Just mark it as HYWPI so as not to confuse the issue for people who care about the actual RaW.
Let me break it down for you.
Here is the actual RAW
Some weapons can be used in different ways, representing different power settings or types of ammo. Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon’s profile for each, and you can choose which to use each turn.
This can be read two ways
Some weapons can be used in different ways, representing different power settings or types of ammo. Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon’s profile for each, and you can choose which [profile] to use each turn.
or
Some weapons can be used in different ways, representing different power settings or types of ammo. Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon’s profile for each, and you can choose which [profiles] to use each turn.
Because the author failed to classify "which" as singular or plural, we have no way of knowing what he/she meant. Due to this, the RaW is unclear. For me, this makes the plural option a no-brainer as it does not break the game, and most people already play that way.
Is that less confusing?
Actually, the which is referring back to "seperate line" earlier in the sentence. So, it should be read as you can choose which (seperate line) to use each turn.
Thats what I meant by "profile." Same logic apllies though.
Ghaz wrote: Except it doesn't say that you get to choose both. It says you get to choose which profile you use and your not choosing which, you've trying to use both.
The problem here is that you can not prove the author meant to write "which [profile]" vs. "which [profiles]" (singular vs plural) In this case, it can mean either, and because it doesn't specify, it is left open for iterpretation. I think the logical choice is to go with the plural reading because it doesn't break the game, and 99% of the population plays it that way.
This is fine. Just mark it as HYWPI so as not to confuse the issue for people who care about the actual RaW.
Let me break it down for you.
Here is the actual RAW
Some weapons can be used in different ways, representing different power settings or types of ammo. Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon’s profile for each, and you can choose which to use each turn.
This can be read two ways
Some weapons can be used in different ways, representing different power settings or types of ammo. Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon’s profile for each, and you can choose which [profile] to use each turn.
or
Some weapons can be used in different ways, representing different power settings or types of ammo. Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon’s profile for each, and you can choose which [profiles] to use each turn.
Because the author failed to classify "which" as singular or plural, we have no way of knowing what he/she meant. Due to this, the RaW is unclear. For me, this makes the plural option a no-brainer as it does not break the game, and most people already play that way.
Is that less confusing?
Actually, the which is referring back to "seperate line" earlier in the sentence. So, it should be read as you can choose which (seperate line) to use each turn.
Thats what I meant by "profile." Same logic apllies though.
But you want it to be read as a plural. Which seperate line and which profiles are two entirely different things. The second changes the meaning dramatically. I'm ok with you saying which profile (singular), but you can't just make it plural because you think that's what they probably meant to write.
And the authors did specify it as singular by tying the which back to seperate line. Which has to be singular or the sentence doesn't make sense.
Having said that, this is yet another example of how sloppy these rules are. I can't imagine GW expected their rules to limit the Rod of Covenant this way.
Having said that, this is yet another example of how sloppy these rules are. I can't imagine GW expected their rules to limit the Rod of Covenant this way.
Finally someone who gets it, praise The Silent King! (I know it doesn't work like that, but shush.)
Having said that, this is yet another example of how sloppy these rules are. I can't imagine GW expected their rules to limit the Rod of Covenant this way.
Finally someone who gets it, praise The Silent King! (I know it doesn't work like that, but shush.)
"
It seems like most people think there are two sides to these debates... Side 1 says "yes" and side 2 says "no". Side 3 says "yes, but should probably be no. G dubs screwed up again". I tend to be on side 3 in most of these arguments.
Having said that, this is yet another example of how sloppy these rules are. I can't imagine GW expected their rules to limit the Rod of Covenant this way.
Finally someone who gets it, praise The Silent King! (I know it doesn't work like that, but shush.)
"
It seems like most people think there are two sides to these debates... Side 1 says "yes" and side 2 says "no". Side 3 says "yes, but should probably be no. G dubs screwed up again". I tend to be on side 3 in most of these arguments.
Yeah, personally, until someone can come up with a good reason why Burna Boys have that ruling other than "GW copy pasted the codex", I'm going to be using them as I always have. But I agree, the rule is poorly written.
As a matter of interest, I put together a list of units and weapons that would be affected by this rule.
Spoiler:
Adeptus Sororitas
St Celestine's Ardent Blade
Chaos Space Marines
Abaddon's Talon of Horus
Huron Blackheart's The Tyrant's Claw
Eldar
Avatar's Wailing Doom
Jain Zar's Silent Death
Maugan Ra's Maugetar
Triskele
Chainsabres (fluff text indicates these are supposed to be used in shooting then melee)
Laser Lance
Scorpion's Claw
Singing Spear
Star Lance
Iyanden
Celestial Lance
Spear of Teuthlas
Necrons
Rod of the Covenant
Space Marines
Marneus Calgar's Gauntlets of Utramar
Farsight Enclaves
Fusion Blade
Grey Knights
Dreadnought Power Fists with built in Storm Bolter
Orks
Burna (specifically mentions may only use one profile)
Space Wolves
Bjorn the Fel Handed's Trueclaw
Dreadnought Power Fists with built in Storm Bolter
Dreadnought Wolf Claw with built in Storm Bolter
Murderfang's Murderclaws
Arjac Rockfist's Foehammer
Blood Angels
Librarian Dreadnought Power Fists with built in Storm Bolter
Dreadnought Power Fists with built in Storm Bolter
Dreadnought Power Fists with built in Heavy Flamer
Death Company Dreadnought Power Fists with built in Storm Bolter
Death Company Dreadnought Power Fists with built in Meltagun
Death Company Dreadnought Power Fists with built in Heavy Flamer
Death Company Dreadnought Blood Claws with built in Storm Bolter
Death Company Dreadnought Blood Claws with built in Meltagun
Death Company Dreadnought Blood Claws with built in Heavy Flamer
Furioso Dreadnought Power Fists with built in Storm Bolter
Furioso Dreadnought Power Fists with built in Meltagun
Furioso Dreadnought Power Fists with built in Heavy Flamer
Furioso Dreadnought Blood Claws with built in Storm Bolter
Furioso Dreadnought Blood Claws with built in Meltagun
Furioso Dreadnought Blood Claws with built in Heavy Flamer
Torquar, regarding the BA Dreadnoughts. They would not be affected by this rule as the built-in weapon is a different weapon then the CCW. So it is not one weapon with two profiles, it is two weapons each with one profile.
No one answered my question. Where does it state that a model needs a melee weapon to attack in Close Combat, anway. There's no rules breakdown here. The "every model has a CCW if unarmed" is superflous
Fair enough regarding the Dreadnoughts, though it does strain credibility a bit that a powerfist with built in storm bolter is so different to a chainsword with built in shuriken pistol (chainsabres).
Crevab wrote: No one answered my question. Where does it state that a model needs a melee weapon to attack in Close Combat, anway. There's no rules breakdown here. The "every model has a CCW if unarmed" is superflous
It's not that the rules state you need a melee weapon, however, you cannot roll to wound as you have no strength characteristic to roll to wound with, and (assuming you decide to use the model's Strength), there is no AP value to determine whether or not the enemy gets a save.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Torquar wrote: Fair enough regarding the Dreadnoughts, though it does strain credibility a bit that a powerfist with built in storm bolter is so different to a chainsword with built in shuriken pistol (chainsabres).
Kriswall wrote: Having said that, this is yet another example of how sloppy these rules are. I can't imagine GW expected their rules to limit the Rod of Covenant this way.
I don't know about that, the rod seems to fit perfectly with what the rule describes - a weapon that can be used for shooting and combat.
Ork Burnas and Eldar-shining-spear-lance-thingies have been effected by this for some time.
I can't think of any reason why the Rod wouldn't or shouldn't follow this rule.
Happyjew wrote: , however, you cannot roll to wound as you have no strength characteristic to roll to wound with, and (assuming you decide to use the model's Strength), there is no AP value to determine whether or not the enemy gets a save.
.
Kriswall wrote: Having said that, this is yet another example of how sloppy these rules are. I can't imagine GW expected their rules to limit the Rod of Covenant this way.
I don't know about that, the rod seems to fit perfectly with what the rule describes - a weapon that can be used for shooting and combat.
Ork Burnas and Eldar-shining-spear-lance-thingies have been effected by this for some time.
I can't think of any reason why the Rod wouldn't or shouldn't follow this rule.
Happyjew wrote: , however, you cannot roll to wound as you have no strength characteristic to roll to wound with, and (assuming you decide to use the model's Strength), there is no AP value to determine whether or not the enemy gets a save.
.
What? Now you're just being obtuse
So what AP value would you use? And where would you find that information?
Happyjew wrote: , however, you cannot roll to wound as you have no strength characteristic to roll to wound with, and (assuming you decide to use the model's Strength), there is no AP value to determine whether or not the enemy gets a save.
.
What? Now you're just being obtuse
The problem isn't that you are required to have a weapon, but the game expects you to have a weapon. If you are in close combat without a weapon, there are holes in the RAW.
Like when the rules tell you to refer to your weapon's profile for S and AP values.
They don't really, though...
Small Rulebook, page 50, Roll to Wound section - "In most cases, when rolling To Wound in close combat, you use the Strength on the attacker's profile regardless of what weapon he is using." It goes on to say that if you have a melee weapon with a strength bonus to use that instead.
Furthermore, as a models base attacks have no inherent AP, you'd use AP-.
I can't find anything actually requiring you to have a usable melee weapon to make close combat attacks. In essence, the wording about every model without a melee weapon being assumed to have a CCW has no effect as the CCW doesn't appear to be needed to make attacks.
insaniak wrote: A rule that says 'In most cases do this...' is useless for determining whether you're supposed to do that in the specific situation in front of you...
[sarcasm]Well then, I guess it's a useless rule and we can never, ever know how to roll To Wound. After all, how do I know that my case is one of the "most cases"?[/sarcam]
Realistically though, in the absence of something telling us to do something else, I think it's safe to say that you're good to follow the rules as written and just go ahead and use the model's strength characteristic.
Kriswall wrote: [sarcasm]Well then, I guess it's a useless rule and we can never, ever know how to roll To Wound. After all, how do I know that my case is one of the "most cases"?[/sarcam]
You don't need to know which cases are 'most cases' as we're generally given a S and AP for anything that is usable in melee anyway.
Realistically though, in the absence of something telling us to do something else, I think it's safe to say that you're good to follow the rules as written and just go ahead and use the model's strength characteristic.
Kriswall wrote: [sarcasm]Well then, I guess it's a useless rule and we can never, ever know how to roll To Wound. After all, how do I know that my case is one of the "most cases"?[/sarcam]
You don't need to know which cases are 'most cases' as we're generally given a S and AP for anything that is usable in melee anyway.
Realistically though, in the absence of something telling us to do something else, I think it's safe to say that you're good to follow the rules as written and just go ahead and use the model's strength characteristic.
Where is that in the rules?
In the rule I quoted telling us that in most cases we use the model's strength. Is there anything telling us to use something else? Nope. In that case, it seems best to fall back on the "in most cases" rule.
"Consult the chart on the left, cross-referencing the attacker's Strength characteristic with the Defender's toughness."
While the To Wound chart in the Shooting section and Reference section use "Weapon's Strength" as the y-axis, the To Wound in the Close Combat section uses "Attacker's or Weapon's Strength
Besides adding " no weapon? you get a ccw" in 7th. Did something get changed in the wording or should we never have been able to attack with non-Assault units in previous editions?
Tokhuah wrote: which: asking for information specifying one or more people or things from a definite set.
Tenant #6...
"6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out."
While interesting, your definition has no bearing on this rules debate.
Furthermore, as a models base attacks have no inherent AP, you'd use AP-.
Still looking for this in the rules as well.
Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick.
Ok then, it's obviously not in there. We're dealing with a situation that isn't covered in the rules. You try to attack, the game breaks when you don't have a melee weapon with a listed AP and you both pack up and go home. I'm assuming that's what you're looking for?
Models don't have an AP value on their profile. If they're attacking and they're not using a melee weapon... what do you propose the AP value is? I propose it to be null or "-", i.e. the absence of an AP value. I propose this as I ALSO can't find an AP value for models in the rule. The most reasonable interpretation is that they don't have one.
Since the 'No Specified Melee Weapon' states that models are not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee Type, it is treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon.'
Right above that it shows the rules for Close Combat Weapons and shows the profile for it as :
Close Combat Weapon (R) - (S) User (AP) - (Type) Melee
Reference: BRB, pg 41.
Which ties in nicely to my next point regarding Rod of Covenant. If you state that it has a shooting profile this turn , then you've not specified it to have the Melee type. Which leads me to believe that since for the turn, it's not specified as having a Melee weapon, it would get the CCW as per standard rules and have AP- were it to get into CC.
'Some weapons can be used in shooting as well as in Close Combat'. Where this is the case, there will be seperate line in the weapon's profile for each and you can choose which to use each turn' (BRB, pg 41)
I don't see how you can pick and change the profile during each phase, since phases make up the turn. Once you select a profile, you will have chosen for that turn.
Second debate on the Triarchs...I think I might be done with them xD
You're all forgetting that if the rule that states "you can choose which to use each turn" is followed as RAI then all models with pistols and a melee weapon would no longer benefit from duel wielding in CC if they fired the pistol in the shooting phase as nowhere does it state that a pistol is allowed to be used as a pistol and a CCWin the same turn.
A pistols profile is essentially the following:
Range S AP Type
12" 4 5 Pistol
- User - Melee
So if used as stated then a model with a pistol must choose which profile to use and if the shooting profile is used the CC one is ignored.
Plus, unlike the Rod of the Covenant which would make the model no longer have a specified CCW if used in the shooting phase, a model with a pistol and CCW would still have a CCW and so it would not gain a second due to being unable to use the pistol in CC as the rule states:
"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"
and it still has its originally CCW.
If followed as stated it not only breaks any weapon like the Rod of the Covenant but also any model equipped with a pistol and CCW would lose its bonus attack if you choose to use the pistol to shoot as well.
Thankfully me and my entire meta have unanimously agree that the rule stating you have to choose which profile to use is in fact referring to weapons with multiple shooting profiles and that all weapons with a shooting and a melee profile can in fact use both in the same turn, unless it specifically states otherwise as with burnas, and that the rule is simply written all sorts of wonky.
We have chosen to reword the rule in our meta as the following:
"Some weapons can be used in different ways, representing different power settings or types of ammo. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon's profile for each, and you can choose which to use each turn. Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting."
Mordaem wrote: You're all forgetting that if the rule that states "you can choose which to use each turn" is followed as RAI then all models with pistols and a melee weapon would no longer benefit from duel wielding in CC if they fired the pistol in the shooting phase as nowhere does it state that a pistol is allowed to be used as a pistol and a CCWin the same turn.
From the main rulebook:
Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon’s profile for each, and you can choose which to use each turn.
"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"
The profile it refers to is the one i posted. So it does in fact have 2 profiles as stated in the BRB and still does not state that it can be used as both in the same turn.
Please try to read your rulebooks before calling people liars or saying they are making things up.
"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"
The profile it refers to is the one i posted. So it does in fact have 2 profiles as stated in the BRB and still does not state that it can be used as both in the same turn.
Please try to read your rulebooks before calling people liars or saying they are making things up.
You did make it up.
The Pistol can be used as a CCW. That does not mean that all Pistols have 2 profiles.
"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"
The profile it refers to is the one i posted. So it does in fact have 2 profiles as stated in the BRB and still does not state that it can be used as both in the same turn.
Please try to read your rulebooks before calling people liars or saying they are making things up.
It doesn't have two profiles, it has one.
As per Pistol rules (BRB; pg 42) It also counts as a CCW, not that it also has the profile of a CCW
The Pistol can be used as a CCW. That does not mean that all Pistols have 2 profiles.
No I didn't, the rules on page 41 of the BRB give all weapons with the pistol type a second profile for CC. Read your rulebook man, its right there. I even gave you the page number and quoted it verbatim.
Torquar wrote: As a matter of interest, I put together a list of units and weapons that would be affected by this rule.
Spoiler:
Adeptus Sororitas
St Celestine's Ardent Blade
Chaos Space Marines
Abaddon's Talon of Horus
Huron Blackheart's The Tyrant's Claw
Eldar
Avatar's Wailing Doom
Jain Zar's Silent Death
Maugan Ra's Maugetar
Triskele
Chainsabres (fluff text indicates these are supposed to be used in shooting then melee)
Laser Lance
Scorpion's Claw
Singing Spear
Star Lance
Iyanden
Celestial Lance
Spear of Teuthlas
Necrons
Rod of the Covenant
Space Marines
Marneus Calgar's Gauntlets of Utramar
Farsight Enclaves
Fusion Blade
Grey Knights
Dreadnought Power Fists with built in Storm Bolter
Orks
Burna (specifically mentions may only use one profile)
Space Wolves
Bjorn the Fel Handed's Trueclaw
Dreadnought Power Fists with built in Storm Bolter
Dreadnought Wolf Claw with built in Storm Bolter
Murderfang's Murderclaws
Arjac Rockfist's Foehammer
Blood Angels
Librarian Dreadnought Power Fists with built in Storm Bolter
Dreadnought Power Fists with built in Storm Bolter
Dreadnought Power Fists with built in Heavy Flamer
Death Company Dreadnought Power Fists with built in Storm Bolter
Death Company Dreadnought Power Fists with built in Meltagun
Death Company Dreadnought Power Fists with built in Heavy Flamer
Death Company Dreadnought Blood Claws with built in Storm Bolter
Death Company Dreadnought Blood Claws with built in Meltagun
Death Company Dreadnought Blood Claws with built in Heavy Flamer
Furioso Dreadnought Power Fists with built in Storm Bolter
Furioso Dreadnought Power Fists with built in Meltagun
Furioso Dreadnought Power Fists with built in Heavy Flamer
Furioso Dreadnought Blood Claws with built in Storm Bolter
Furioso Dreadnought Blood Claws with built in Meltagun
Furioso Dreadnought Blood Claws with built in Heavy Flamer
Dread weapons not applying, did anyone seriously look at this list? It's pretty important to note.
The Pistol can be used as a CCW. That does not mean that all Pistols have 2 profiles.
No I didn't, the rules on page 41 of the BRB give all weapons with the pistol type a second profile for CC. Read your rulebook man, its right there. I even gave you the page number and quoted it verbatim.
The underlined is false - and you didn't quote a rule that says that.
rigeld2 wrote: The underlined is false - and you didn't quote a rule that says that.
So a rule stating a weapon has a specific profile doesn't mean that weapon has that profile? please explain how that can be as well as showing me where it states specifically that a pistol can used as both a shooting weapon and a CCW in the same turn.
rigeld2 wrote: The underlined is false - and you didn't quote a rule that says that.
So a rule stating a weapon has a specific profile doesn't mean that weapon has that profile? please explain how that can be as well as showing me where it states specifically that a pistol can used as both a shooting weapon and a CCW in the same turn.
The rule does not say it "has a specific profile".
The rule says that if it's used in CC, use the profile above. Meaning it doesn't always have that profile - only when it's used in CC. Meaning all of your statements so far have no basis in fact and you have, as I said, made things up.
rigeld2 wrote: The rule does not say it "has a specific profile".
The rule says that if it's used in CC, use the profile above. Meaning it doesn't always have that profile - only when it's used in CC. Meaning all of your statements so far have no basis in fact and you have, as I said, made things up.
I'm sorry, I was unaware that there was a rule that allowed weapons to use profiles they don't have. My bad.
rigeld2 wrote: The rule does not say it "has a specific profile".
The rule says that if it's used in CC, use the profile above. Meaning it doesn't always have that profile - only when it's used in CC. Meaning all of your statements so far have no basis in fact and you have, as I said, made things up.
I'm sorry, I was unaware that there was a rule that allowed weapons to use profiles they don't have. My bad.
I'm glad you could learn about the Pistol rule then. The profile only exists when it's used in CC - it doesn't exist normally.
Therefore it doesn't fall into the same rule as the Rod.
Ghaz wrote: The rule that let's a Pistol use a profile it doesn't have is right there in the Pistol rules.
That is your interpretation. Mine is that a weapon cannot use a profile it doesn't have and that the rules for pistols in fact gives pistols a CC profile (thus a second profile). Until I see a rule that states specifically a pistol can be used as both in the same turn then I see no difference between it and the Rod of the Covenant in terms of using it as both a shooting and a CCW.
Ghaz wrote: The rule that let's a Pistol use a profile it doesn't have is right there in the Pistol rules.
That is your interpretation. Mine is that a weapon cannot use a profile it doesn't have and that the rules for pistols in fact gives pistols a CC profile (thus a second profile). Until I see a rule that states specifically a pistol can be used as both in the same turn then I see no difference between it and the Rod of the Covenant in terms of using it as both a shooting and a CCW.
Except for the fact that they're explicitly different?
I can point to the melee profile for the Rod. Please do so for the Bolt Pistol listed under the explanation of Pistol Weapons (above the Gunslinger rule).
Tokhuah wrote: which: asking for information specifying one or more people or things from a definite set.
Tenant #6...
"6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out."
While interesting, your definition has no bearing on this rules debate.
People were incorrectly basing their argument around "which" meaning a choice between one of two. Thus, the posters were using the word incorrectly on a fundamental level. BTW, the meaning of "which" in this context is the same in England and the USA so you do not need to choose which one. See what I did there?
BRBpg 41 "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."
BRBpg 42 "A Pistol also counts as a close combat weapon in
the Assault phase."
Appears that a pistol never has the profile and only counts as a ccw in the assault phase where the shooting profile is ignored.
Ghaz wrote: The rule that let's a Pistol use a profile it doesn't have is right there in the Pistol rules.
That is your interpretation. Mine is that a weapon cannot use a profile it doesn't have and that the rules for pistols in fact gives pistols a CC profile (thus a second profile). Until I see a rule that states specifically a pistol can be used as both in the same turn then I see no difference between it and the Rod of the Covenant in terms of using it as both a shooting and a CCW.
No. That's what the rule actually says. When they say that "... a Pistol also counts as a close combat weapon in the Assault phase..." it means exactly that. It counts as a close combat weapon exactly when they say it does, and that is only in the Assault phase. Again, you have no support for a Pistol gaining a second profile.
Ghaz wrote: No. That's what the rule actually says. When they say that "... a Pistol also counts as a close combat weapon in the Assault phase..." it means exactly that. It counts as a close combat weapon exactly when they say it does, and that is only in the Assault phase. Again, you have no support for a Pistol gaining a second profile.
If a pistol is a ranged weapon one second and a CCW the next then why can't a Rod of Covenant? The argument is that because Pistols only have a ranged profile the rule that prevents a Pistol from being used in both doesn't count. However, the BRB states that it does have a CC profile as per the Pistols as Close Combat Weapons rule and the rules for CCW.
The rules for CCW states that Many weapons don't confer any Strength bonus, AP values or Special Rules. These weapons are simply referred to as Close Combat Weapons in the models wargear and have the following profile. The rules for pistols states it can be used as a CCW, ergo it gains the CCW profile.
It doesn't gain a profile when it pleases you. It either has it or it doesn't. In this case it does, so its subject to the same rules as Rod of the Covenant
Ghaz wrote: No. That's what the rule actually says. When they say that "... a Pistol also counts as a close combat weapon in the Assault phase..." it means exactly that. It counts as a close combat weapon exactly when they say it does, and that is only in the Assault phase. Again, you have no support for a Pistol gaining a second profile.
If a pistol is a ranged weapon one second and a CCW the next then why can't a Rod of Covenant? The argument is that because Pistols only have a ranged profile the rule that prevents a Pistol from being used in both doesn't count. However, the BRB states that it does have a CC profile as per the Pistols as Close Combat Weapons rule and the rules for CCW.
Pistols do not have a CC profile. You're not reading the rules correctly.
It's only a CCW in one specific instance - insisting that it has a CC profile at any other time is simply incorrect.
rigeld2 wrote: Pistols do not have a CC profile. You're not reading the rules correctly.
It's only a CCW in one specific instance - insisting that it has a CC profile at any other time is simply incorrect.
First of all, simply stating you're right and I'm wrong because I'm wrong is a terrible way to debate anything.
Secondly, a pistol can be used as a CCW with the CCW profile. This doesn't mean in only gains that profile in CC, this means it has the CCW profile so it does indeed have 2 profiles.
By your logic I could argue that the Rod of the Covenant is only a shooting weapon only gains its CC profile in CC.
rigeld2 wrote: Pistols do not have a CC profile. You're not reading the rules correctly.
It's only a CCW in one specific instance - insisting that it has a CC profile at any other time is simply incorrect.
First of all, simply stating you're right and I'm wrong because I'm wrong is a terrible way to debate anything.
Correct. It's a good thing rules quotes have been provided proving your statements incorrect.
Secondly, a pistol can be used as a CCW with the CCW profile. This doesn't mean in only gains that profile in CC, this means it has the CCW profile so it does indeed have 2 profiles.
According to the actual rules, the underlined is actually correct.
A Pistol also counts as a close combat weapon in the Assault phase.
This means that if you're in the Shooting phase, the pistol is not a CCW. Therefore it does not have a CCW profile in the Shooting phase.
By your logic I could argue that the Rod of the Covenant is only a shooting weapon only gains its CC profile in CC.
No you couldn't - that one actually and demonstrably has two profiles. Pistols only have one.
The Rod has a CCW profile in the Shooting phase.
I'm surprised you still can't tell the difference, despite even quoting the relevant rules.
Mordaem wrote: Secondly, a pistol can be used as a CCW with the CCW profile. This doesn't mean in only gains that profile in CC, this means it has the CCW profile so it does indeed have 2 profiles.
False. It only gains it's close combat profile when it counts as a close combat weapon. When does a pistol count as a close combat weapon? Per the rulebook "... a Pistol also counts as a close combat weapon in the Assault phase..." Where does it say that a pistol counts as a close combat weapon at any other time? You have nothing to support your claims.
Mordaem wrote: By your logic I could argue that the Rod of the Covenant is only a shooting weapon only gains its CC profile in CC.
Also false. Pistols and the Rod of Covenant have different wordings and hence different rules. The printed profile for the Rod of Covenant have its close combat profile. Pistols do not.
rigeld2 wrote: This means that if you're in the Shooting phase, the pistol is not a CCW. Therefore it does not have a CCW profile in the Shooting phase.
This is where we differ on our interpretation of the rules. I believe that it has the profile at all times based on the fact that the rules for Pistols in Close Combat says it "uses" the profile for CCW, not that it "gains" the profile. Just like it says you "Ignore" the shooting profile, not that its "removed"
I've read the rules over and over and I simply do not come to the same conclusion you do based on the wording of the rules.
rigeld2 wrote: This means that if you're in the Shooting phase, the pistol is not a CCW. Therefore it does not have a CCW profile in the Shooting phase.
This is where we differ on our interpretation of the rules. I believe that it has the profile at all times based on the fact that the rules for Pistols in Close Combat says it "uses" the profile for CCW, not that it "gains" the profile. Just like it says you "Ignore" the shooting profile, not that its "removed"
I've read the rules over and over and I simply do not come to the same conclusion you do based on the wording of the rules.
So you just ignore this rule?
A Pistol also counts as a close combat weapon in the Assault phase.
What permission do you have to count it as a close combat weapon at any other time? Surely you can give some rules support and you're not simply making things up, right?
Mordaem wrote: I believe that it has the profile at all times
"A Pistol also counts as a close combat weapon in the Assault phase."
So despite it literally saying it's in the Assault phase, you believe that it's all the time?
And despite it saying it counts as a CCW-weapon in the Assault phase you are still convinced it has two profiles all the time.
Even when it doesn't have two profiles anywhere.
Let's agree that nearly everyone disagrees with you so we can get back to the Rod of Covenant, which unlike a Pistol actually has two different profiles in the rulebooks?
Mordaem wrote: This is where we differ on our interpretation of the rules. I believe that it has the profile at all times based on the fact that the rules for Pistols in Close Combat says it "uses" the profile for CCW, not that it "gains" the profile.
Now to me that distinction has a profoundly different meaning. The fact that it uses a profile does not mean it has that profile, As I read it a pistol only ever has the shooting profile and it counts as a CCW in the assault phase. If used as a CCW in the fight subphase then it uses the provided profile, but it never gains or has that profile itself. This means that a pistol is not ever subject to the two profiles rule.
Further more, your interpretation of the pistol rule renders that rule redundant. If the RAI was for the pistol to have multiple profiles, it would actually have multiple profiles in the book. There would be no need for the pistol rule to exist. This is a fairly big indication that your interpretation is flawed.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for the Rod. Its my opinion that you choose the profile the weapon has that turn. If you choose the shooting profile then it is not a CCW that turn. The fact the rulebook instructs you to choose a the start of theeach turn makes it fairly clear both profiles are not available for use in the same turn. Even if they said start of theeach phase you would run into issues with the rod being used to fire overwatch. If the intent was to allow double profile weapons like to use both profiles in the same turn there would be no instruction to choose.
DJGietzen wrote: . The fact the rulebook instructs you to choose a the start of the turn makes it fairly clear both profiles are not available for use in the same turn. .
This statement is incorrect. The rule does not require you to choose anything at the start of the turn.
DJGietzen wrote: Now to me that distinction has a profoundly different meaning. The fact that it uses a profile does not mean it has that profile, As I read it a pistol only ever has the shooting profile and it counts as a CCW in the assault phase. If used as a CCW in the fight subphase then it uses the provided profile, but it never gains or has that profile itself. This means that a pistol is not ever subject to the two profiles rule.
I still don't see how you can use a profile for a weapon if the weapon does not have that profile. To me that just doesn't make any sense and nothing you or anyone else has said has managed to answer that question. How does a weapon use a profile it doesn't have?
DJGietzen wrote: Further more, your interpretation of the pistol rule renders that rule redundant. If the RAI was for the pistol to have multiple profiles, it would actually have multiple profiles in the book. There would be no need for the pistol rule to exist. This is a fairly big indication that your interpretation is flawed.
It doesn't render it redundant, it still explains how a weapon with a shooting profile gains an extra attack in the assault phase for having two CCWs without having to write in the profile for a basic CCW on every weapon that has the pistol type. Every other weapon with a shooting and a melee profile has something in the melee weapon profile that is not in the CCW profile otherwise they could simply be written in as pistols as well. For Rod of the Covenant its AP2 and Two handed, for Howling Banshee Triskele its AP3, For Scorpions Claw its STR x2 and AP2.
DJGietzen wrote: As for the Rod. Its my opinion that you choose the profile the weapon has that turn. If you choose the shooting profile then it is not a CCW that turn. The fact the rulebook instructs you to choose a the start of the turn makes it fairly clear both profiles are not available for use in the same turn. Even if they said start of the phase you would run into issues with the rod being used to fire overwatch. If the intent was to allow double profile weapons like to use both profiles in the same turn there would be no instruction to choose.
But your forgetting the first sentence of that paragraph where it talks about weapons with different power settings and ammo types. In my opinion choosing which power setting/ammo type is what you have to choose each turn.
Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon’s profile for each, and you canchoose which to use each turn.
While not necessarily chosen at the start, one is chosen each turn.
It is very important because your trying to add a timing factor to the rule which it does not have. If it did say "start of turn" or "once each turn", your interpretation would be correct.
However, the rule simply states to choose which to use each turn. I choose to use shooting in the shooting phase and then melee in the assault phase. There is no either/or requirement. The line before the one you quotes says you can use it in both, with no limiter.
Mordaem wrote: I still don't see how you can use a profile for a weapon if the weapon does not have that profile. To me that just doesn't make any sense and nothing you or anyone else has said has managed to answer that question. How does a weapon use a profile it doesn't have?
Normally I'd agree with you, except we have been given specific instruction to use a profile the weapon does not have. I'm not sure how it could be more clear. To me its no different then poison weapons always wounding on a fixed number, We've been told its a unique circumstance and how to handle it.
It doesn't render it redundant, it still explains how a weapon with a shooting profile gains an extra attack in the assault phase for having two CCWs without having to write in the profile for a basic CCW on every weapon that has the pistol type. Every other weapon with a shooting and a melee profile has something in the melee weapon profile that is not in the CCW profile otherwise they could simply be written in as pistols as well. For Rod of the Covenant its AP2 and Two handed, for Howling Banshee Triskele its AP3, For Scorpions Claw its STR x2 and AP2.
If they intended the pistol to have multiple profiles they would have either printed the second profile for each pistol or the pistol special rule would read something more along the lines of "These weapons have the following profile in addition to the one listed." Instead it explains how the weapon can be used outside the normal weapon rules.
But your forgetting the first sentence of that paragraph where it talks about weapons with different power settings and ammo types. In my opinion choosing which power setting/ammo type is what you have to choose each turn.
I'm not actually. They give a few different reasons why a weapon might have multiple profiles then 'when this is the case' (meaning anytime a weapon has more then one profile) it tells us to choose one per turn.
Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon’s profile for each, and you canchoose which to use each turn.
While not necessarily chosen at the start, one is chosen each turn.
It is very important because your trying to add a timing factor to the rule which it does not have. If it did say "start of turn" or "once each turn", your interpretation would be correct.
However, the rule simply states to choose which to use each turn. I choose to use shooting in the shooting phase and then melee in the assault phase. There is no either/or requirement. The line before the one you quotes says you can use it in both, with no limiter.
So you would allow a player with special ammo to choose hellfire founds in the shooting phase but then use vengeance rounds when firing overwatch?
Special ammo rule tells you exactly how long each ammo must be used for, which is until their next shooting phase. This rule has no such timing situation to it.
DJGietzen wrote: Normally I'd agree with you, except we have been given specific instruction to use a profile the weapon does not have. I'm not sure how it could be more clear. To me its no different then poison weapons always wounding on a fixed number, We've been told its a unique circumstance and how to handle it.
Once again our interpretations differ. For me the rule doesn't tell us to use a profile the weapon doesn't have, it tells us what profile it does have. Poison weapons are different because not all weapons that can use poison come with poison in the profile, hence the reason for a separate poison rule.
DJGietzen wrote: If they intended the pistol to have multiple profiles they would have either printed the second profile for each pistol or the pistol special rule would read something more along the lines of "These weapons have the following profile in addition to the one listed." Instead it explains how the weapon can be used outside the normal weapon rules.
Same as above. Your still assuming the rules for pistols tells you to use a profile without actually giving the weapon that profile and I just don't see it that way.
DJGietzen wrote: I'm not actually. They give a few different reasons why a weapon might have multiple profiles then 'when this is the case' (meaning anytime a weapon has more then one profile) it tells us to choose one per turn.
Except nowhere in the rule does it say to choose only one per turn, nor does it specify one per phase. If it did, this whole debate wouldn't exist.
An argument could also be made that the rule in question states that "some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting" but does not say "some weapons can be used in combat OR as shooting" therefore allowing weapons with both profiles to be used in shooting "as well as" in combat.
