I just read on a few different forums that the rod has been house ruled by a number of tournament organizers to have ap 2 in either the shooting or assault phase, but not both. Is this true? I understand some weapons in some codices have a ruling like this, but the Stat line and wording in the current necron codex is very clear, they should get ap 2 in both phases, I don't see how this reading is controversial in the slightest. But interested on community feedback, thanks.

BRB Page 41, under "Weapons", second paragraph: "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."

A lot of folk are reading that as that you have to choose one profile in one turn, so you wouldn't be able to use the other profile in the same turn.

I understand that to be true, but with all due respect to those individuals, that reasoning is utterly flawed. As you point out the BRB claims that weapons with this kind of utility will have two Stat lines in the profile to explain how each mode works, shooting or assaulting. The necron codex provides this double lined profile, one showing str 5, the other str user, BOTH ap 2. It indicates no where that a choice is to be made, nor does it indicate that the ap 2 is ever lost. This inference made by some has no compelling evidence or strength behind it in my opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In fact, if we take the BRB phrasing literally, it makes it sound like you pick one profile for the entire turn, meaning you can either shoot with it and not charge, or charge and not shoot. Which of course makes no sense as they are an assault unit with a shooting profile of assault 1, implying that the unit is intended to assault after shooting. I can't believe a poorly worded obscure sentence in the BRB would overrule a clearly stated and plainly worded codex profile.

IMO it is the same as a Star Lance or Laser Lance in C:CWE. They have the split weapon profile. It would not make sense if you could not charge with unit if you shot their laser lances.

In fairness, Ork Burnas did exactly that the last time their rules were spelled out in detail rather than referencing standard rules - if you used them as a flamer, you couldn't then use them as a power weapon in th same turn.

That's the Ork Codex, a completely different army, with completely different lore and technology.

There's no such wording in the codex that says you get to use both profiles. The weapon simply has two profiles and no further rules. The BRB says when you have a weapon like this, you must choose which profile to use. If you choose to use its ranged profile, you can't use the melee profile in the same turn. Since the model doesn't have a melee weapon it can use, it counts as having a single CCW in assault that turn.

I don't understand why you think the codex has to say anything about a choice having to be made or the weapon losing AP 2. Its a weapon with 2 profiles and is explained in the BRB.

If a TO said otherwise or if I was playing a pick up game and the person wanted to use both profiles in the same turn, I wouldn't mind. I think it's dumb and the rule should be rewritten to be applied per phase, but GW has bad rules that create never-ending arguments...so you know what; play how you want.

peteralmo wrote:
That's the Ork Codex, a completely different army, with completely different lore and technology.

I fail to see how fluff matters in a rules debate (which should be in YMDC).

Praetorians are still very good, despite being littered with errors (such as a Nightscythe DT). Judicator Battalion is still great to use.

Do you think the Judicator is still good? The only reason I thought the unit was viable was for a round of str 5 ap 2 shooting followed by 3 attacks each at str 5 ap 2. If its one or the other, in which case you'll almost always choose combat for many more attacks, you're completely vulnerable to a failed charge. With the ability to shoot and then charge with the weapon you mitigate being completely wasted if you fail the charge. I suppose you could send them against infantry so that you can shoot at str 5 ap 2 and then charge with str 5 ap - CCW's knowing you'll still be affective, but it begs the question of why are you sending ap 2 weapons against infantry and not elite units? It's another example of GW asking a unit to choose between two completely different roles - and also highlights why Eldar are so good (units with a clearly defined role that they are exceptionally good at).

Just keep in mind that if we go by this ruling of "not being used in both phases" then pistols also get hit by this as well. They do count as being a CC weapon (and in the BRB standard CC weapons have a clearly defined profile) so if you shoot a pistol in the shooting phase then you cant get the bonus attack in CC because by this logic you pick a profile (either shooting profile or CC profile) and that's what you get for the turn, not both. I find it very annoying that this "Split profile" debate didn't even come to light until the Necron's codex dropped and praetorian Rods turned out to be good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

peteralmo wrote:
Do you think the Judicator is still good? The only reason I thought the unit was viable was for a round of str 5 ap 2 shooting followed by 3 attacks each at str 5 ap 2. If its one or the other, in which case you'll almost always choose combat for many more attacks, you're completely vulnerable to a failed charge. With the ability to shoot and then charge with the weapon you mitigate being completely wasted if you fail the charge. I suppose you could send them against infantry so that you can shoot at str 5 ap 2 and then charge with str 5 ap - CCW's knowing you'll still be affective, but it begs the question of why are you sending ap 2 weapons against infantry and not elite units? It's another example of GW asking a unit to choose between two completely different roles - and also highlights why Eldar are so good (units with a clearly defined role that they are exceptionally good at).

To be fair, the Judicator would still be good but the Void blades would become the better option (which it's debatable that they already are). The +1 BS in a decurion plus the high amount of attacks the void blades have makes it justifiable to still bring.

Sounds like a dirty way to screw Necrons to me.

 Chosen Praetorian wrote:
Just keep in mind that if we go by this ruling of "not being used in both phases" then pistols also get hit by this as well. They do count as being a CC weapon (and in the BRB standard CC weapons have a clearly defined profile) so if you shoot a pistol in the shooting phase then you cant get the bonus attack in CC because by this logic you pick a profile (either shooting profile or CC profile) and that's what you get for the turn, not both. I find it very annoying that this "Split profile" debate didn't even come to light until the Necron's codex dropped and praetorian Rods turned out to be good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

peteralmo wrote:
Do you think the Judicator is still good? The only reason I thought the unit was viable was for a round of str 5 ap 2 shooting followed by 3 attacks each at str 5 ap 2. If its one or the other, in which case you'll almost always choose combat for many more attacks, you're completely vulnerable to a failed charge. With the ability to shoot and then charge with the weapon you mitigate being completely wasted if you fail the charge. I suppose you could send them against infantry so that you can shoot at str 5 ap 2 and then charge with str 5 ap - CCW's knowing you'll still be affective, but it begs the question of why are you sending ap 2 weapons against infantry and not elite units? It's another example of GW asking a unit to choose between two completely different roles - and also highlights why Eldar are so good (units with a clearly defined role that they are exceptionally good at).

To be fair, the Judicator would still be good but the Void blades would become the better option (which it's debatable that they already are). The +1 BS in a decurion plus the high amount of attacks the void blades have makes it justifiable to still bring.

Pistols don't have a dual profile, so you aren't using their profile in assault. They just have a special rule that gives the model an extra attack if it is armed with another assault weapon (that of course is not specialized/two handed/etc..)

Its the rules.

it is not making the unit choose between being good at two things, its making you choose to shoot or assault and not have the weapon do both each time you use it. If your already locked in assault, it does not matter. If you kill what you are shooting, it does not matter. I believe given the rules for picking weapons to fire you are not required to fire all the weapons of the same type in an unit so you can pick to fire some and use some in assault.

It's a rules interpretation that exists solely on the Internet. You can safely ignore it.

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
It's a rules interpretation that exists solely on the Internet. You can safely ignore it.

if by interpretation you mean exactly what the rules say you are correct

BRB Page 41, under "Weapons", second paragraph: "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."

if turn was replaced by phase, similar to how you replaced rules as written with interpretation, then you could use it in both phases a-ok

I really wish it did say phase, cause praetorians would be my go to for anti TEQ, with that rules interpretation I see them more as MEQ hunters at best, which other units do better imo.

Pretty sure this thread is in the wrong forum, but I agree totally with OP and others who say this is a dirty rules lawyer way to nerf necrons.
Anyone I play against who inforces this nerf loses the +1 Attacks from pistols, plus any other similar items (looking at eldar players here).
There are loads of examples of the exact same thing in other books, which has been cannon for years.
Praetorians can use the rod in shooting attacks, then charge and fight using the rod, it's the rules of the game. Anyone who says otherwise is just being TFG.

CaptainSuperglue wrote:
Pretty sure this thread is in the wrong forum, but I agree totally with OP and others who say this is a dirty rules lawyer way to nerf necrons.
Anyone I play against who inforces this nerf loses the +1 Attacks from pistols, plus any other similar items (looking at eldar players here).
There are loads of examples of the exact same thing in other books, which has been cannon for years.
Praetorians can use the rod in shooting attacks, then charge and fight using the rod, it's the rules of the game. Anyone who says otherwise is just being TFG.

Because your rule interpretation is 100% accurate and anyone who disagrees is just being a terrible person? You realize how looks? People who see the rules (using the wording within the rulebook) and draw a conclusion from it are not ''Dirty'' because they interpret it a certain way as long the wording supports it. In this case, the wording supports it. It's very rude to make sweeping assumptions of everyone over a single thing.

CaptainSuperglue wrote:
Pretty sure this thread is in the wrong forum, but I agree totally with OP and others who say this is a dirty rules lawyer way to nerf necrons.
Anyone I play against who inforces this nerf loses the +1 Attacks from pistols, plus any other similar items (looking at eldar players here).
There are loads of examples of the exact same thing in other books, which has been cannon for years.
Praetorians can use the rod in shooting attacks, then charge and fight using the rod, it's the rules of the game. Anyone who says otherwise is just being TFG.

Suddenly you cannot Throw Arjac's hammer, then use it in assault, making it's ranged ability pretty useless.

CaptainSuperglue wrote:
Pretty sure this thread is in the wrong forum, but I agree totally with OP and others who say this is a dirty rules lawyer way to nerf necrons.
Anyone I play against who inforces this nerf loses the +1 Attacks from pistols, plus any other similar items (looking at eldar players here).
There are loads of examples of the exact same thing in other books, which has been cannon for years.
Praetorians can use the rod in shooting attacks, then charge and fight using the rod, it's the rules of the game. Anyone who says otherwise is just being TFG.

It's clearly stated that Praetorians can shoot with their rod, that suddenly disappear while charging, so they're gonna kick the enemy
Also, when charged, thay can overwatch and then bite their foe to death

I have no problem in friendly games playing them the way I think they should be played, and my play group won't mind, but I also care about TO rules.

peteralmo wrote:
I have no problem in friendly games playing them the way I think they should be played, and my play group won't mind, but I also care about TO rules.

Ask your TO about the Eldar Chainsabers, Scorpian Claw, Triskele, Laser Lance, Singing Spear and any other of the dual profile weapons they have in their codex. I personally would have no issue with this Rod of Covenant ruling so long as it applied to all of these weapons as well. HIWPI in a friendly game however is you can use both profiles in the same turn unless the codex says otherwise (burna boyz)

 Javorra wrote:


Also, when charged, thay can overwatch and then bite their foe to death

Wow lots of hostility in this thread, I am sorry if I came accross as rude but I am just saying what I think.

Javorra you sum up my point better than I did, well done, and as you've pointed out if we play by this nonsense then if a unit of praetorians are charged, and perform an overwatch attack, then they would not be allowed to fight in the close combat using their Rods, which is pretty dumb in my book.
Silly rules lawyering at it's finest if you enforce this rule.

This thread is now a hiwpi thread

Sadly, from what I have seen of this debate those that only want one profile used a turn tend to side with those that think the Necrons are to strong a codex.

so until there is an FAQ to straighten it out (Fat chance that happening) There is a weapon that can shoot 12 in at ap 2 and hit in CC at ap2. pretty simple if you ask me.

RAW, one profile per turn.

HIWPI, one profile per phase. This means you can shoot with it and charge, or Overwatch and not be able to use it (that turn).

 jokerkd wrote:
This thread is now a hiwpi thread

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
RAW, one profile per turn.

HIWPI, one profile per phase. This means you can shoot with it and charge, or Overwatch and not be able to use it (that turn).

If everybody wrote their posts in this format, i think there would be so much less arguing

Yeah looks like it just needs to be FAQ'd, I just can't imagine you only get to use one mode per turn at full affect, makes some weapons terrible, like rod or singing spear.

 Happyjew wrote:
RAW, one profile per turn.

HIWPI, one profile per phase. This means you can shoot with it and charge, or Overwatch and not be able to use it (that turn).

I second this. Though actually, I might even say per sub-phase. It's silly to me to allow shooting + charge, but not overwatch + ensuing melee.

RAW though it's clear, one profile per turn. Not sure why so many people are getting angry at others pointing this out. The text could not be any clearer. The text could also not be any dumber, but there you go. No grudge needed.

Unahim wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
RAW, one profile per turn.

HIWPI, one profile per phase. This means you can shoot with it and charge, or Overwatch and not be able to use it (that turn).

I second this. Though actually, I might even say per sub-phase. It's silly to me to allow shooting + charge, but not overwatch + ensuing melee.

RAW though it's clear, one profile per turn. Not sure why so many people are getting angry at others pointing this out. The text could not be any clearer. The text could also not be any dumber, but there you go. No grudge needed.

If you want a fluff explanation, imagine there is a "switch". Models have time to toggle the switch between the shooting phase and fight sub-phase, but not between firing Overwatch and the fight sub-phase.

Oh yeah, there's certainly ways to explain it and it's totally a legit HIWPI. Just personal preference.

Yeah it's pretty obvious that such a interpretation is clutching at straws in the extreme, any tournament that wanted to make this an actual rule is not one any reasonable person would ever want to be a part of. Such a rule is a blatant and obvious attempt by petty people to try and subtly or not so subtly as it were nerf a codex people think is over powered.

lollie123 wrote:
any tournament that wanted to make this an actual rule is not one any reasonable person would ever want to be a part of.

You mean enforce something that is already an actual rule.......... in the current rulebook.

personally i wouldn't care, but if someone actually was to point this out in a tournament, it shouldn't even be an argument. the rule is clear. many TO's will read the rule, take it at face value, and shouldn't be criticised for doing so

Time to chime in.

This gets goofy when you get into assault after firing(or fire overwatch) with some of these units. With the raw, they have no weapons to make cc attacks.

RAW works like this: praetorians choose to use the shooting profile this turn, and then are later locked in combat. Next their initiative step comes up. They have no weapons with which they can attack.

Many would claim that they get to use a ccw profile, this is untrue. They have no ccw, and the rule that would give them a ccw does not apply because they do have a melee-type weapon(they just cannot use that profile).

If that's true that couldn't possibly be rules as intended. I don't think anyone would expect that to be a reasonable interpretation.

It is rules as intended and has been since at least 5th and has affected the orks since their 4th edition codex which was the first weapon, tmk, that was affected by it. This is not something that just sprung up it's been there. Stop framing it as something coming out of left field just to target our Crons.

That may be, but I think it seriously needs to be addressed, these represent significant nerfs.

What is there to address? You got the RAW ruling and don't like it.

House rule it however you want to keep you happy, but apply that house rule to similar weapons, or else that's just favouritism.

It's not a nerf, it's literally how the weapons were designed to work.

Gravmere: when the burnas came out with this rule we didn't have the weapons profiles for melee.

Now you can either shoot with burnas(the unit) or assault with them, never both(which is fine, and the weapon still has this specific rule)

Frozo: I am not arguing that this is not RAW, I am explaining how the RAW in this case simply fails to function.

Someone earlier mentioned the weapons as having a switch(fluff-justification). I see it more as the shooting expending thier charge(burnas do have to switch between flamethrowing and oxy-acetylene torch, and singing spears are literally thrown).

Which changes what about how they functioned? They functioned exactly in line with this rule before they made it a BRB rule instead of part of the weapon's rules as it was one of the only if not only weapon that worked as both ranged and melee.

Gravmyr wrote:
Which changes what about how they functioned? They functioned exactly in line with this rule before they made it a BRB rule instead of part of the weapon's rules as it was one of the only if not only weapon that worked as both ranged and melee.

All of the current ranged/melee dual profile weapons are old, only burnas ever had the restriction prior to 7th(possibly 6th); so yes the function has changed.

Also prior to 6th(at least) models in cc could simply make basic attacks (just ws, i, and str required), so burnas(the unit) could shoot and charge; again function has changed.

I'm not sure how you seem to think how the burna has changed. In 4th it was a flamer that could be a power weapon. In 7th it is a flamer that has a separate cc profile. You still have to choose which one to use for the turn. You can still charge and make normal cc attacks with your fists just as you could then. What makes you think you cannot make normal cc attacks in 7th? They are virtually identical weapons now except they have the whole profile spelled out for you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As an aside what other weapons are/were there that have/had dual profiles?

Gravmyr, I think you misunderstand what KK is saying.

There have been multiple weapons that could be used in both melee and at range. In 5th (I think), GW specifically said that Burnas could be used for one or the other in a given turn. However, also in 5th, if you did not have a melee weapon you attacked at Init, with the model's strength and no AP.
In 7th edition, GW has ruled that all dual function weapons could only use one mode per turn (which is a change for everything except Burnas). They also ruled that if you have no melee weapon, you are treated as having one.

So what happens is Burna Boyz use their Burnas to shoot. They then charge. They have a melee weapon, so they don't qualify for the "free ccw", however they cannot use their melee weapon so we are left with a break.

To answer your question, off the top of my head:
Laser Lance (Eldar)
Star Lance (Eldar)
Scorpion Claw (Eldar)
Singing Spear (Eldar)
Chainsabres* (Eldar)
Triskele (Eldar)
Silent Death* (Eldar)
Spear of Twilight (Eldar)
The Maugetar* (Eldar)
The Ardent Blade? (Sisters of Battle - St. Celestines Sword)
The Gauntlets of Ultramar (Space Marines)

Weapons marked with * have changed over the last few editions, for example in 4th and 5th, Chainsabres could not shoot (maybe it was discussed but never clarified by GW), however in 6th and 7th they have dual profiles.

There are a lot of sour grapes in this thread. It says one profile per turn, not phase. So that means your stuck with str base and ap -

I have had to deal with this on my burnas forever. I hardly think this cripples the necrons dex.

What is the exact wording of the dual profile rule? If you are using the shooting profile for the turn then are you using the CC profile? If yes then you are breaking a rule. There is no break.

 Orock wrote:
There are a lot of sour grapes in this thread. It says one profile per turn, not phase. So that means your stuck with str base and ap -

I have had to deal with this on my burnas forever. I hardly think this cripples the necrons dex.

Where do you get Str: User, AP-?

You cannot use the rules for "free ccw" because the model in question has a melee weapon and does not qualify.

 jokerkd wrote:

lollie123 wrote:
any tournament that wanted to make this an actual rule is not one any reasonable person would ever want to be a part of.

You mean enforce something that is already an actual rule.......... in the current rulebook.

personally i wouldn't care, but if someone actually was to point this out in a tournament, it shouldn't even be an argument. the rule is clear. many TO's will read the rule, take it at face value, and shouldn't be criticised for doing so

Except there's nothing to enforce.

 FL5 wrote:
BRB Page 41, under "Weapons", second paragraph: "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."

It says you can choose which to use each turn. There's nothing stating you can only choose one to use each turn. The Ork codex makes explicit mention that you can only choose one or another, and here, this apparent snippet from the BRB, states that you can choose which to use each turn. Simply meaning that you don't have to use both profiles.

Did you look at the cc profile to determine that? Then you broke the Dual profile rule which states I choose which to use for the turn.

I hate to do it but I am envoking the tenants of YMDC now .

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
It says you can choose which to use each turn. There's nothing stating you can only choose one to use each turn. The Ork codex makes explicit mention that you can only choose one or another, and here, this apparent snippet from the BRB, states that you can choose which to use each turn. Simply meaning that you don't have to use both profiles.

This is the third forum I've seen this argument used to prove that rods can be used at AP2 in both phases. I'm curious to know then, why I can't use all the shooting attacks on dual profiled weapons based on this application? If it's as simple as 'I don't have to use both profiles', then that implies I can use all of them? I can't speak for any of the Eldar weapons, I don't play them, have their codex, or know their rules.

I do play Necrons. Heat Rays and Doomsday Cannons have dual profiles so do I get to use both because the rule on pg. 41 doesn't limit the quantity of choices? There is nothing in either of these weapons descriptions that restricts me to one mode of fire. Sure the 'Divert Power' rule prevents me from using the larger shot if I move, but that is only applicable to that weapon. (Just keeping in line with any references to Burnas)

I'm still building my Rod Praetorians and there is no doubt in my mind that they if they shoot, they lose the AP2 in Melee, that same turn. That's the rule now. It's not the first rule that's changed that I've gotten wrong. I only found out 3 mos. ago that infiltration isn't optional, but still see Batreps where they put infiltrating units down during deployment.

I have no issues with house rules either, but I want to be clear. Using both profiles in the same turn is the house rule, and not the other way around until it gets FAQd.

I think rather than making it a rule in the BRB that leaves you saying, "huh? that sucks," they should just add a clause in each codex like the orks always had, "if you shoot with this profile you cannot use this other profile in the same turn." As is, if you read the codex profile by itself, you think, "sweet, I can shoot a str 5 ap 2 shot then assault with 3 attacks at str 5 ap 2, this unit is really strong." Then some one says guess again, look at this general rule on page 41 of the BRB and it's just disheartening. "So I have this weapon thats really strong, and it's the shooting phase, and I'm in range, but if I shoot I wont get the great profile in combat, and I do get more swings then shots, but I could also fail this charge, sooo...." It's just a frustrating design.

Let me try to clear a few things up.

1. Burnas have had the dual function and caveat against using both since at least 3rd.

2. Singing spears, laser lances, the exach's lance, and rods of the covenent have had dual function since 3rd(or 5th for the rod when it was created), and I am sure there are others I don't remember at the moment. All of these were able to shoot and be used in assault until at least 6th(again, cannot remember if the rule discussed was in 6th, it certainly wasn't argued about here)

3. Prior to melee wespon types and profiles your models could simply make their attacks at base str with no special rules(there was no ap involved in any way). This is where the burnas(unit) function has changed, they can now shoot or fight, never both(not ever, they have no melee type weapons that they can use).

4. I am not trying to say rods should be ap 2, I am saying all the rules as written simply do not function: cc attacks must now be made with a weapon, and you only get a base ccw if you have no weapon with the melee type. Praetorians(et al) who shoot have a weapon with the melee type, but cannot use it, therefore cannot fight in assault.

What you're saying is per the current rules a model with a melee weapon that is rendered unusable in melee because it was used in the shooting phase is not allowed to use his "fists," and thus cannot fight at all in assault. If this is true I can't imagine that is design as intended.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
cc attacks must now be made with a weapon.

Where is this stated? Several different people have mentioned it, but I have no idea where this 'rule' came from. The entire assault section instructs us to use the models stat line for everything, and the only place that weapons are mentioned is in the section about wounding. Even then, it doesn't require their use.

I'm genuinely not trying troll here, I honestly don't know when or how not having a CCW meant you didn't get to attack when one hasn't been required in the first place. It's difficult to debate when I can't find the source to justify the interpretation. The only response I've ever gotten is 'Well if you aren't attacking with a CCW, then what are you attacking with?'. This is a perfectly good response provided it has something to back it up, and I need help finding that.

On that note, the rule from previous editions where players were not forced to use their CCW rules if they didn't want to is also missing. I don't know when it disappeared, but it was used. A common example was power fist Termintors in cover being assaulted by Genestealers would often give up the power fist rules, to strike before Genstealers got to rend them off the table.

Only reason I mention it is that both using a models stat line in CC, or still using the CCW they have but without the bonuses would be both a Logical and Common Sense approach before declaring that a model needs a valid CCW to be able to attack. Irrespective of the outcome on this mechanic, none of it grants permission for a dual profile weapon to use both/all profiles in the same turn.

EDIT: I think this is one I'd like to see poll'd. Since it only has 2-3 answers. Maybe the OP could add it?

You'll find the rule in the weapons section between shooting and assault phase sections. I have ebook so cant give you a page number

Page 41 of the BRB under "No specified Melee Weapon," "If a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the melee type, it is treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon." This would suggest that no matter what they can always make basic attacks with there "fists" if you will. Which still sucks lol, STR 5 AP 2 in both phases or bust!

peteralmo wrote:Page 41 of the BRB under "No specified Melee Weapon," "If a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the melee type, it is treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon." This would suggest that no matter what they can always make basic attacks with there "fists" if you will. Which still sucks lol, STR 5 AP 2 in both phases or bust!

Happyjew wrote:

 Orock wrote:
There are a lot of sour grapes in this thread. It says one profile per turn, not phase. So that means your stuck with str base and ap -

I have had to deal with this on my burnas forever. I hardly think this cripples the necrons dex.

Where do you get Str: User, AP-?

You cannot use the rules for "free ccw" because the model in question has a melee weapon and does not qualify.

Ok I see, so you're saying they have a melee weapon, hence they don't get the count as having one CCW clause, and per a different rule there not allowed to use the melee weapon they have already chosen to shoot with, so if you take both rules as written if they shoot they can do nothing in the assault phase, I wonder if there even allowed to make a charge even if they have 0 attacks. This is interesting, and I'm willing to bet if we had a few GW rules lawyers in a room they wouldn't be saying, "yeah that's what we intended." They would need to just FAQ each individual weapon, since I don't believe they ever FAQ the BRB?

 jokerkd wrote:
You'll find the rule in the weapons section between shooting and assault phase sections.

Thank you for attempting a response, I went back an re-read the section, and the hang up seems to be on that 'Free CCW' line, but still failed to address how a model doesn't get to swing.

If you compare both the shooting and assault phases, in regards to how weapons work, there is a key difference. The shooting phase has a 'Select Weapon' step. Assaults have permissions to use them but no requirement to. It goes straight to 'Each engaged model makes a number of attacks (A) as indicated on its characteristics profile...' Having a CCW is not a requirement for this to happen.

Wounding tells us that most cases the models Strength will be used regardless of which weapon is used. If you're going to assume that models with no melee weapon, or with a melee weapon you can't use, doesn't get to attack, then by that same method you have to suggest that this line also covers which weapons are used or not used. (Defaulting to the models strength, should a CCW not be used)

Sticking to what is printed, and making no assumptions, we have several possible outcomes that we have when dealing specifically with the Melee profile, that aren't covered by the rules. Really just covering all the interpretations, not picking sides.

1) After using the shooting profile with the Rod, the Melee profile ceases to exist. Not covered by any rule, but the free CCW rule kicks in since they don't have one during their assault phase, so they get to use that because they temporarily don't have one.

2) The Weapon has a Shooting Profile in the Shooting phase, and a Melee profile in the Melee phase, and while this contradicts what pg 41 grants us permission to do, the rule ceases to function in its intent, so we choose to ignore it.. While two players can agree to this, which is allowed, if one player disagrees, he can still choose to dice off, or not run the unit.

3) The Weapons Melee profile can be used always since using the shooting doesn't remove it or prevent its use.. Pg 41 somehow suggests we don't get to use the AP2, but can still use it as a melee weapon? So the default application could be to treat it as a basic CCW?

4) After using the shooting profile, we are unable to use the Melee profile, but it IS still there. This is an equally valid interpretation as #1 since we don't have instructions one way or the other. As it's still there, this denies the benefit of the Free CCW because the model has a melee weapon that it can't use.

-----> So the issue with #4 is how do we deal with models not using CCWs. <-----
There is no rule saying they don't get to attack, with the presence of a CCW not being required. We also don't know how to implement attacking w/o a CCW since the Free CCW rule is supposed to cover those situations.

This is where I am at with this whole thing. I don't understand how we are supposed to treat 'Not able to attack' as the default result IF we choose to play by the rule on pg 41, when situation 1 and even 3, make more sense than saying 2 is the ONLY solution, because 4 somehow says we can't attack if we're not using a CCW, without any rule to support it.

My point here isn't to convince anyone yet, but to find all the solutions then see which one best allows us to play with the rule.

I think most people are making good points, but I have seen nothing to sway me from believing GW needs to provide further clarification to either the rule on page 41, or each individual weapon. For example, I just finished watching Reece's batrep with Pablo over on frontline gaming, ultramarines vs necrons with Reece using necrons running rods of covenant. Multiple times he shot with them and then went on to assault with them in the same turn using the str 5 ap 2 profile. Now I don't know for sure, he may be completely ignorant of this controversy, but I doubt it; Often I see Reece weighing in on all manner of rules jockeying. Does this mean the argument is settled? Of course not. But I find it compelling that he played them that way.

The argument that the unit gets no ccw attacks if it shot is flawed.

You MUST choose a profile each turn. This profile has to be considered the only profile that weapon has for that turn, lest you break the game.
To say the weapon has the melee type even when using the shooting profile is saying it cannot shoot at all.....ever......


"Melee Type

Weapons with the Melee type can only be used in close combat."

 jokerkd wrote:
The argument that the unit gets no ccw attacks if it shot is flawed.

You MUST choose a profile each turn. This profile has to be considered the only profile that weapon has for that turn, lest you break the game.
To say the weapon has the melee type even when using the shooting profile is saying it cannot shoot at all.....ever......


"Melee Type

Weapons with the Melee type can only be used in close combat."

Well put, but where does it clearly state that the profile of the weapon has been changed or that the weapon in question ignores the other part of its profile?

The Weapon profile in this case has two lines, but both of those lines are part of the weapon profile. So While I choose to use the shooting line in the shooting phase as per the rule (pg, 41, BRB) the weapon never looses the melee line and if I choose to charge (In that same turn) I am forced to use the melee line in the profile (Melee Rule PG 40 BrB), but am restricted from doing so by the rule on (pg, 41, BRB) because I shot with it, but the weapon profile still contains the (Melee Rule) and thus lose my attacks as I have a CCW(That has melee in its profile). As per the other rule on (Pg, 41, BRB) which states that if model does not have a Melee weapon then I can make attacks using my Str at Ap-. But the Model in this case does have weapon with the Melee type and thus I am restricted from using the (No Specified Melee Weapons Rule)

So GW needs to FAQ this.

Well put, but where does it clearly state that the profile of the weapon has been changed or that the weapon in question ignores the other part of its profile? 

It doesn't, and that's a problem, but one answer limits the weapons use in a reasonable (to some) manner. The other breaks the game.

 jokerkd wrote:

Well put, but where does it clearly state that the profile of the weapon has been changed or that the weapon in question ignores the other part of its profile? 

It doesn't, and that's a problem, but one answer limits the weapons use in a reasonable (to some) manner. The other breaks the game.

Yeah, Zhufor and Abbadon being able to use one of their weapons after shooting is pretty game-breaking.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:

Well put, but where does it clearly state that the profile of the weapon has been changed or that the weapon in question ignores the other part of its profile? 

It doesn't, and that's a problem, but one answer limits the weapons use in a reasonable (to some) manner. The other breaks the game.

Yeah, Zhufor and Abbadon being able to use one of their weapons after shooting is pretty game-breaking.

Not sure if joking or genuinely doesn't get the point

As I've said, I believe whatever iteration of explanation one contrives, there is no way of avoiding the legitimate call of a FAQ on this.

 BLADERIKER wrote:
Well put, but where does it clearly state that the profile of the weapon has been changed or that the weapon in question ignores the other part of its profile?

When you choose which profile to use for the turn it ends that issue. If I choose the shooting profile and then you state that it still has melee then you are using the other profile which breaks the rules as I chose to use the shooting profile.

Gravmyr wrote:

 BLADERIKER wrote:
Well put, but where does it clearly state that the profile of the weapon has been changed or that the weapon in question ignores the other part of its profile?

When you choose which profile to use for the turn it ends that issue. If I choose the shooting profile and then you state that it still has melee then you are using the other profile which breaks the rules as I chose to use the shooting profile.

This. To me this sounds something like: "If a weapon has two profile options, choose one to use per turn." Meaning that you no longer have the second option for the remainder of the turn, it's just not applied since you've chosen to function in one manner or the other. You're using one option and therefore the weapon has those rules as stated, not the other profile's rules.

And then we get back into the issue where the model has a weapon with a melee type in its profile, therefore cannot use the "free ccw" rule, and therefore cannot make any attacks with a weapon.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
And then we get back into the issue where the model has a weapon with a melee type in its profile, therefore cannot use the "free ccw" rule, and therefore cannot make any attacks with a weapon.

Well, that's my point. The way it sounds to me is that when you choose the shooting phase profile, the weapon has the characteristics listed under the ranged profile and NOT the melee profile, therefore it isn't a melee weapon in that turn and should be able to use the "free ccw" rule. Maybe I missed something, but doesn't choosing one or the other mean that the one not chosen is not in effect? How can you claim that it still has the attributes of one profile even when you've chosen to have your weapon function as the other profile?

I must be missing something or I just can't wrap my head around something, but it seems like in order to not qualify for the "free ccw" rule, you're cherry picking a piece of one profile and applying it even when it's not in effect.

Gravmyr wrote:
When you choose which profile to use for the turn it ends that issue. If I choose the shooting profile and then you state that it still has melee then you are using the other profile which breaks the rules as I chose to use the shooting profile.

What part of "you can choose which to use each turn" carries a quantitative value?

At what point is the word "one" or "profile" used to indicate singular?

Consider this, I can put any version or value in there and it will not change the sentence's flow.

"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."

"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."

The only limitations to the use of a profile are involved with Actions. In the Shooting Sequence, you cannot shoot a Weapon you've already fired. In the Fight sub-phase, you choose one Weapon to fight with. Those are actual limitations delineated with specific terms. Not as above.

Considering that every Weapon like this I know of, including Pistols (yes, they have two profiles, even if one isn't listed in another line), has a range of 18" or less (most 12" or less), it would be remarkably stupid design that they couldn't.

Also consider that the Ork Burna Weapon STILL has the rule to prevent this from happening. Why prevent something that's already in the rules? And it's not even listed as a reminder. Should Boltguns have a rule disallowing a Charge when Fired unless Slow and Purposeful or Relentless? What about Lascannons?

It breaks no rules to allow the Rod to Fire, Charge and use the Rod in Melee unless you choose to make it so. It's easier to use and set up than having to find reasons to justify they get a "free CCW" around the fact that they already have a defined Melee Weapon.

Parsalian wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
And then we get back into the issue where the model has a weapon with a melee type in its profile, therefore cannot use the "free ccw" rule, and therefore cannot make any attacks with a weapon.

Well, that's my point. The way it sounds to me is that when you choose the shooting phase profile, the weapon has the characteristics listed under the ranged profile and NOT the melee profile, therefore it isn't a melee weapon in that turn and should be able to use the "free ccw" rule. Maybe I missed something, but doesn't choosing one or the other mean that the one not chosen is not in effect? How can you claim that it still has the attributes of one profile even when you've chosen to have your weapon function as the other profile?

I must be missing something or I just can't wrap my head around something, but it seems like in order to not qualify for the "free ccw" rule, you're cherry picking a piece of one profile and applying it even when it's not in effect.

Ok the bit your missing is the use vs has bit.

The weapon has 2 profiles; 1 melee, 1 ranged(generally assault). You are able to choose which you use per turn, it still has the other profile it is just unavailable for use.

The free ccw rule is for models that do not have a melee profile weapon.

In the case of these dual profile weapons that you have chosen to shoot, you still have a weapon with a melee profile but it is unavailable for use. Ergo, no free ccw.

This btw is not really hiwpi; just how the RAW fails to function(I'd play it with a free ccw, and that unit has the choice of shoot or assault; the free ccw comes into play via overwatch).

 Happyjew wrote:

 Orock wrote:
There are a lot of sour grapes in this thread. It says one profile per turn, not phase. So that means your stuck with str base and ap -

I have had to deal with this on my burnas forever. I hardly think this cripples the necrons dex.

Where do you get Str: User, AP-?

You cannot use the rules for "free ccw" because the model in question has a melee weapon and does not qualify.

It says that you cannot use that weapon any other way for the rest of the turn, that means you discard ALLLLL stats of it. It will be base str and ap -. It works the same way with the burnas.Weither you want to accept it is irrelivent. You cant benefit from the higher str on the stat line because you used it as a gun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

peteralmo wrote:
I think most people are making good points, but I have seen nothing to sway me from believing GW needs to provide further clarification to either the rule on page 41, or each individual weapon. For example, I just finished watching Reece's batrep with Pablo over on frontline gaming, ultramarines vs necrons with Reece using necrons running rods of covenant. Multiple times he shot with them and then went on to assault with them in the same turn using the str 5 ap 2 profile. Now I don't know for sure, he may be completely ignorant of this controversy, but I doubt it; Often I see Reece weighing in on all manner of rules jockeying. Does this mean the argument is settled? Of course not. But I find it compelling that he played them that way.

reese, the guy who with 250 bucks on the line, forgot a super basic rule about his eldar that would have won him the game and kept his money in his pockets? that reese? everyone makes mistakes. You cant watch a single miniwargaming batrep without getting mad at the 3 or 4 huge game changing mistakes they make.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If the weapon was intended to be str 5 ap 2 in both shooting and meelee, the rule would state this.

This weapon may be used in the shooting phase. str 5 ap 2 12 inch range. It may also be used in the assault phase as str 5 ap 2.

It says choose for the turn. It is clear as crystal they intended for you to only use it as one statline per turn.

You are able to choose which you use per turn is the ONLY part of this that matters.

It does not say choose which type you use it as per turn. Then ignore this and use the other stat line too.

The problem with saying they can just do both is the fact that if you count the Rod as doing both then it has both profiles all the time. If it has both profiles then it cannot shoot ever as it is restricted to only CC if it has melee. Until you can provide a rule that states that you can choose not to look at the profile that states it has melee you have no backing for shooting with it after choosing both for the turn.

On the flip side if I choose to use the shooting profile then you have no permission to look at any profile except the one I have chosen to use. If you do then you are using it and breaking the rule that allows me to choose.

Check your pistol as CC weapon rule as well, they only use the profile if it is used as a CC weapon. Sound a lot like choosing which profile to use for the turn for dual profile weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Why do skimmers have a rule about moving off other models when the only time it could happen is a failed tank shock and by the rules you would have to move those models from under it. If you look at many codex they cut and paste from older editions even if the rules have changed that make it a moot point. Saying that they never print redundancies to rules is incorrect.

Yes, that very same reese. The best players all make mistakes from time to time, I dont think his mistake negates any validity to his judgement. Have you read any of his articles? He's a details guy who loves knowing all the possible iterations of cheese available to every army. I'm simply betting he isn't ignorant of this controversy.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

Parsalian wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
And then we get back into the issue where the model has a weapon with a melee type in its profile, therefore cannot use the "free ccw" rule, and therefore cannot make any attacks with a weapon.

Well, that's my point. The way it sounds to me is that when you choose the shooting phase profile, the weapon has the characteristics listed under the ranged profile and NOT the melee profile, therefore it isn't a melee weapon in that turn and should be able to use the "free ccw" rule. Maybe I missed something, but doesn't choosing one or the other mean that the one not chosen is not in effect? How can you claim that it still has the attributes of one profile even when you've chosen to have your weapon function as the other profile?

I must be missing something or I just can't wrap my head around something, but it seems like in order to not qualify for the "free ccw" rule, you're cherry picking a piece of one profile and applying it even when it's not in effect.

Ok the bit your missing is the use vs has bit.

The weapon has 2 profiles; 1 melee, 1 ranged(generally assault). You are able to choose which you use per turn, it still has the other profile it is just unavailable for use.

The free ccw rule is for models that do not have a melee profile weapon.

In the case of these dual profile weapons that you have chosen to shoot, you still have a weapon with a melee profile but it is unavailable for use. Ergo, no free ccw.

This btw is not really hiwpi; just how the RAW fails to function(I'd play it with a free ccw, and that unit has the choice of shoot or assault; the free ccw comes into play via overwatch).

RAW you would always have cc attacks because you would not be able to shoot the weapon at all

Charistoph wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
When you choose which profile to use for the turn it ends that issue. If I choose the shooting profile and then you state that it still has melee then you are using the other profile which breaks the rules as I chose to use the shooting profile.

What part of "you can choose which to use each turn" carries a quantitative value?

At what point is the word "one" or "profile" used to indicate singular?

Consider this, I can put any version or value in there and it will not change the sentence's flow.

"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."

"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."

The only limitations to the use of a profile are involved with Actions. In the Shooting Sequence, you cannot shoot a Weapon you've already fired. In the Fight sub-phase, you choose one Weapon to fight with. Those are actual limitations delineated with specific terms. Not as above.

Considering that every Weapon like this I know of, including Pistols (yes, they have two profiles, even if one isn't listed in another line), has a range of 18" or less (most 12" or less), it would be remarkably stupid design that they couldn't.

Also consider that the Ork Burna Weapon STILL has the rule to prevent this from happening. Why prevent something that's already in the rules? And it's not even listed as a reminder. Should Boltguns have a rule disallowing a Charge when Fired unless Slow and Purposeful or Relentless? What about Lascannons?

It breaks no rules to allow the Rod to Fire, Charge and use the Rod in Melee unless you choose to make it so. It's easier to use and set up than having to find reasons to justify they get a "free CCW" around the fact that they already have a defined Melee Weapon.

regarding orks, I am guessing you do not play orks.

the rule in question regarding dual profile weapons has existed in the rules for multiple editions now.

However-In 6th edition and before orks had to as an UNIT pick to fire burnas as one profile or the other- as such you could not opt to not fire some models weapons and use the other profile. Which is different than the basic rules. In the basic rules as you fire weapons in groupings based on models you could pick not to fire some models weapons to use the other profile which orks were prevented from doing. It is possible the people whom wrote the ork codex put the wording in there to point out to ork players that they could now in fact pick based on models firing like everyone else. Considering many people who play 40k seem to have a hard time letting go of rules from old editions/old codexes and would think not putting the rule in there might actually not mean they can fire as per the rulebook until a faq came out there I can see why the people whom wrote the codex might have included it. IE "HEY GUYS ITS OKAY TO PICK MODELS TO SHOOT AND THE OTHERS CAN USE THE ASSAULT PROFILE NOW!" versus silence on the rule change.

also regarding REESE.

Reese plays that FMC are immune to blasts and templates, which they are not by the rules as written its a house rule that completely changes core rules. You cannot base the house rules a group plays on as a reflection of how the rules work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

Parsalian wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
And then we get back into the issue where the model has a weapon with a melee type in its profile, therefore cannot use the "free ccw" rule, and therefore cannot make any attacks with a weapon.

Well, that's my point. The way it sounds to me is that when you choose the shooting phase profile, the weapon has the characteristics listed under the ranged profile and NOT the melee profile, therefore it isn't a melee weapon in that turn and should be able to use the "free ccw" rule. Maybe I missed something, but doesn't choosing one or the other mean that the one not chosen is not in effect? How can you claim that it still has the attributes of one profile even when you've chosen to have your weapon function as the other profile?

I must be missing something or I just can't wrap my head around something, but it seems like in order to not qualify for the "free ccw" rule, you're cherry picking a piece of one profile and applying it even when it's not in effect.

Ok the bit your missing is the use vs has bit.

The weapon has 2 profiles; 1 melee, 1 ranged(generally assault). You are able to choose which you use per turn, it still has the other profile it is just unavailable for use.

The free ccw rule is for models that do not have a melee profile weapon.

In the case of these dual profile weapons that you have chosen to shoot, you still have a weapon with a melee profile but it is unavailable for use. Ergo, no free ccw.

This btw is not really hiwpi; just how the RAW fails to function(I'd play it with a free ccw, and that unit has the choice of shoot or assault; the free ccw comes into play via overwatch).

the rules for assault do not actually give you a free ccw. They just tell you how to resolve attacks from models that do not have an available ccw. If you choose the shooting profile, you do not have an available ccw profile.

therefore there are rules on how to resolve the models assault.

So I have a unit of 10, fire with 5 in the shooting phase then charge and use 5 rods in close combat. Are we cool with that at least?
This needs an FAQ, and also needs to be applied equally to the other armies weapons that have this error.
If armed with a pistol and a chainsword, fire the bolt pistol then charge, I no longer can have +1 attacks, because the bolt pistol can't be used as a CCW in the same phase. Suck it marines?
Sillyness.

CaptainSuperglue wrote:
If armed with a pistol and a chainsword, fire the bolt pistol then charge, I no longer can have +1 attacks, because the bolt pistol can't be used as a CCW in the same phase. Suck it marines?
Sillyness.

This is a slightly different argument since the pistol isn't the weapon that you'd actually be attacking with. You're attacking with a completely different weapon, and by the explanations other have provided (not necessarily what i believe/agree with) the pistol still counts as your second melee weapon, so it provides the bonus attack even though you're not attacking with it. That's just my understanding of the interpretation that others are providing.

The logic here is that you can only ever attack with a single weapon profile per model per phase

CaptainSuperglue wrote:
So I have a unit of 10, fire with 5 in the shooting phase then charge and use 5 rods in close combat. Are we cool with that at least?
This needs an FAQ, and also needs to be applied equally to the other armies weapons that have this error.
If armed with a pistol and a chainsword, fire the bolt pistol then charge, I no longer can have +1 attacks, because the bolt pistol can't be used as a CCW in the same phase. Suck it marines?
Sillyness.

the problem with pistols is the +1 attack is not coming from the use of different profile so it's not a valid comparison.

pistols do not have a dual profile of (shooting) then (generic ccwpn or +1 attack as an additional weapon) they are just 1 profile with a special rule that gives a bonus attack in assault. For example the unit in question that can have rod of covenant can also get hyperphase sword and a pistol. they could shoot with the pistol and charge in assault and attack with their sword profile and have the special rule from pistols give them +1 attack as they are not using some dual other profile of the pistol[because there isnt one..] to make an attack with. As you can only use one weapon to strike with in assault you cannot even pick a profile of the pistol to be using as well...

but this would affect many eldar units with spear type weapons they can throw and use in assault and some other units as well.

If a weapon profile can only be used once in the shooting phase or the assault phase, then by firing with a pistol in the shooting phase you cannot use the profile for 'bolt pistol' in the assault phase, including the 'pistol' special rule, as it is part of the weapon profile. Thus no +1 attacks.
That's a devils advocate argument, because I think this whole thing is silly, but can anyone use RAW to argue against it?

I think I broke the game with that sentence.

CaptainSuperglue wrote:
If a weapon profile can only be used once in the shooting phase or the assault phase, then by firing with a pistol in the shooting phase you cannot use the profile for 'bolt pistol' in the assault phase, including the 'pistol' special rule, as it is part of the weapon profile. Thus no +1 attacks on the charge.
That's a devils advocate argument, because I think this whole thing is silly, but can anyone use RAW to argue against it?

I think that this is actually a misunderstanding of the rule. The argument is that the Rods have two separate profiles and NO other weapons. Pistols + Swords means that you can still attack with the benefit of the other profile, whereas with the Rod, people are saying that you can't attack at all, so it doesn't matter that it's also a melee weapon since you've used its possible action already that turn. Since the pistol's profile still counts on the model, you apply the bonus attack since it doesn't use the pistol's profile to actually perform the attack, you're using the chain sword. The rules simply give you a bonus attack with the weapon you're already attacking with. Since shooting with the Rod would prevent you from being able to use it as a melee weapon, it's a different argument.

CaptainSuperglue wrote:
If a weapon profile can only be used once in the shooting phase or the assault phase, then by firing with a pistol in the shooting phase you cannot use the profile for 'bolt pistol' in the assault phase, including the 'pistol' special rule, as it is part of the weapon profile. Thus no +1 attacks.
That's a devils advocate argument, because I think this whole thing is silly, but can anyone use RAW to argue against it?

I think I broke the game with that sentence.

its different than the rod as the rod has 2 profiles, the pistol has 1 profile. You can choose to fire with the pistols profile and still use the special rule of the pistol. The pistol has no second profile that is actually chooseable to use in assault.

the rod has two profiles, by the RAW if you pick the shooting profile you cannot pick the assault profile.

This does not mean you cannot fight in assault, but it does mean you cannot use the assault profile of the rod in assault that turn.

blaktoof wrote:


its different than the rod as the rod has 2 profiles, the pistol has 1 profile. You can choose to fire with the pistols profile and still use the special rule of the pistol. The pistol has no second profile that is actually chooseable to use in assault.

the rod has two profiles, by the RAW if you pick the shooting profile you cannot pick the assault profile.

This does not mean you cannot fight in assault, but it does mean you cannot use the assault profile of the rod in assault that turn.

"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."

So you're saying the bolt pistol has no close combat profile, and you used the shooting profile in the shooting phase... so where is the allowence to use that same profile in the assault phase for the 'pistol' special rule?
The rule states that a weapon that can be used in both phases will have 2 profiles, a bolt pistol only has 1 profile, and therefore cannot be used in the assault phase and shooting phase because it does not meet this criteria, so we're back at square 1 with even more mud in the water.

CaptainSuperglue wrote:

blaktoof wrote:


its different than the rod as the rod has 2 profiles, the pistol has 1 profile. You can choose to fire with the pistols profile and still use the special rule of the pistol. The pistol has no second profile that is actually chooseable to use in assault.

the rod has two profiles, by the RAW if you pick the shooting profile you cannot pick the assault profile.

This does not mean you cannot fight in assault, but it does mean you cannot use the assault profile of the rod in assault that turn.

"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."

So you're saying the bolt pistol has no close combat profile, and you used the shooting profile in the shooting phase... so where is the allowence to use that same profile in the assault phase for the 'pistol' special rule?
The rule states that a weapon that can be used in both phases will have 2 profiles, a bolt pistol only has 1 profile, so we're back at square 1 with even more mud in the water.

Does a pistol have two profiles? If false, the rule does not apply.
Does a pistol have a specific exception? If true, use that instead.

Game rules are a lot like computer code, just a lot of if statements and booleans.

To correct blaktoof - at no points was an entire unit of burnsboyz required to choose one or the other profile. In the 4th edition codes it simply allowed any non fired weapon to be used as a power weapon.

CaptainSuperglue wrote:

blaktoof wrote:


its different than the rod as the rod has 2 profiles, the pistol has 1 profile. You can choose to fire with the pistols profile and still use the special rule of the pistol. The pistol has no second profile that is actually chooseable to use in assault.

the rod has two profiles, by the RAW if you pick the shooting profile you cannot pick the assault profile.

This does not mean you cannot fight in assault, but it does mean you cannot use the assault profile of the rod in assault that turn.

"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."

So you're saying the bolt pistol has no close combat profile, and you used the shooting profile in the shooting phase... so where is the allowence to use that same profile in the assault phase for the 'pistol' special rule?
The rule states that a weapon that can be used in both phases will have 2 profiles, a bolt pistol only has 1 profile, and therefore cannot be used in the assault phase and shooting phase because it does not meet this criteria, so we're back at square 1 with even more mud in the water.

You're ignoring my above explanation of why this is incorrect. You can even if you can't use the weapon to attack, it doesn't matter! Pistols are almost always paired with an actual ccw, which is (again) almost always the weapon chosen to make your attacks. You can only attack with a single weapon profile in the assault phase just like in the shooting phase. The bonus attack awarded from having a second melee weapon is taken USING THE SAME WEAPON PROFILE as the weapon you already chose. Meaning that having the +1 attack bonus from a pistol adds that extra attack to the SECOND melee weapon option's available attacks for the turn.

Example: Praetorian with Particle Caster and Void Blade

Shooting phase: you fire at the squad you're about to assault.
Assault phase: you elect to take melee attacks with your Voidblade (obviously)
You charged into combat, granting every model + 1 attack (base 2, so 3 attacks). You have your Particle casters and Voidblades providing an extra attack per model (now up to 4 attacks each).
ALL 4 ATTACKS are taken using the profile for the Voidblade from each model. 0 attacks actually use the Particle Caster as the attacking profile, therefore even though the pistol was fired and cannot be used to make an attack, the profile is still providing the "two melee weapon" bonus attack for having it on each model.

 Nilok wrote:

Does a pistol have two profiles? If false, the rule does not apply.
Does a pistol have a specific exception? If true, use that instead.

Game rules are a lot like computer code, just a lot of if statements and booleans.

I agree, but in this case there is a conflict between the two, which is ignored by everyone because it makes sense to ignore it.

"Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting"
Yup, bolt pistol is fine so far. Lets gun down some xenos in the shooting phase.

"Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon's profile "
Riiight so where is the separate profile which we can use for the weapon 'bolt pistol' during the assault phase? Without using the same profile as we used in the shooting phase, to get the 'pistol' special rule, which will allow an extra attack dice.


Without 2 profiles you can't use any pistol as a close combat weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn, because it fails to meet the rule for weapons that can be used in both phases.

Why is this? Because they did not expect people on forums to pick apart every aspect of the rules. I'd say it's the same for the Rod, this rule is being dissected so much that there are some fairly good arguments to say that praetorians cannot make any form of close combat attack if they are charged (following an overwatch), and given that they are the necron equivalent of an assault squad, it's just silly. The necron codex is probably the worst in terms of rules writing they have released in a long while though, so who knows what they expected to happen with it. FAQ is required, and the answer that makes the most sense to me is to simply retract the BRB rule, as it conflicts with loads of the newer codexes.

This is going to sound childish and whiny, but omg stop ignoring my comment, lol.

pistols are never the "attacking weapon" and therefore don't technically need a second profile. They have 1 profile which also labels them as "melee." This bonus attack is taken ON THE OTHER MELEE WEAPON'S STAT LINE. This means that you're still following the rule of "use-able in only one phase per turn."

Parsalian wrote:
This is going to sound childish and whiny, but omg stop ignoring my comment, lol.

pistols are never that "attacking weapon" and therefore don't technically need a second profile. They have 1 profile which also labels them as "melee." This bonus attack is taken ON THE OTHER MELEE WEAPON'S STAT LINE.

I am sorry, I was not trying to be rude, I was worried I may be posting too much and didn't want to ruin the thread. I didn't exactly ignore you though, my point in the last post still applys to your reply, in that a weapon that can be used in more than one phase should have two profiles (BRB P41) and the pistol only has 1 profile. Therefore it cannot be used in both phases, 'attacking weapon' or not, you'd have to select which phase to use the single given profile in, unless you can find something that lets you use the same weapon profile in two phases with a melee weapon.... which would apply to the RoC too... which gets us back on topic instead of talking about bolt pistols!

CaptainSuperglue wrote:
I agree, but in this case there is a conflict between the two, which is ignored by everyone because it makes sense to ignore it.

There is no conflict. From 'More Than One Weapon' in the Weapons section of the main rulebook:

If a model has more than one Melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with when he comes to strike blows - he cannot mix and match the abilities of several different Melee weapons. However, it's worth remembering that if a model has two or more Melee weapons he gains +1 attack in close cobat.

He's not trying to use the Melee profile of a pistol he shot in the Shooting phase/Overwatch. He still has two or more Melee weapons so he gets the +1 attack in close combat even though he shot with the pistol.

CaptainSuperglue wrote:

Parsalian wrote:
This is going to sound childish and whiny, but omg stop ignoring my comment, lol.

pistols are never that "attacking weapon" and therefore don't technically need a second profile. They have 1 profile which also labels them as "melee." This bonus attack is taken ON THE OTHER MELEE WEAPON'S STAT LINE.

I am sorry, I was not trying to be rude, I was worried I may be posting too much and didn't want to ruin the thread. I didn't exactly ignore you though, my point in the last post still applys to your reply, in that a weapon that can be used in more than one phase should have two profiles (BRB P41) and the pistol only has 1 profile. Therefore it cannot be used in both phases, you'd have to select which phase to use the single given profile in, unless you can find something that lets you use the same profile in two turns with a melee weapon.... which would apply to the RoC too... which gets us back on topic instead of talking about bolt pistols!

All good! I think one thing to keep in mind is that within my example at least, the Particle caster has only 1 profile, but in that profile it explicitly labels it as a pistol. Even when using the weapon, the profile remains in effect after it has been used (it would remain in effect until the turn ends) and therefore you still have that melee weapon equipped. You're not actually USING the pistol, you're simply gaining the benefit for HAVING it, which is all that's required for gaining the "two melee weapons" bonus.

The rules for pistol clearly state in the rulebook "Pistols are effectively Assault 1 weapons. A Pistol also counts as a ccw IN THE ASSAULT PHASE. (pg. 41 and 44)." Even if you're forced to choose which action you want to take per turn, the rules here clearly state that in different phases, you're gaining different special rules for having that weapon. In the assault phase, it counts as a ccw and therefore provides the benefit for two weapons even though you're not electing to attack with that profile (and likely can't if the rule in question for this thread is taken literally).

In the end, this means that if you shoot with a pistol in the shooting phase, you can still confer the +1 attack bonus while attacking with a different weapon since your combined weapon profiles have two melee weapons present.

Yeah and I doubt anyone would seriously play it that way, but you can't apply half a rule to one army and not apply it to others, even if it makes no sense to do so, and, this is as close to doing that as you can get. The melee weapon on a praetorian just disappears after being fired, leaving the necron with no ability RAW to attack back in close combat at all after overwatching, but the bolt pistol still 'counts as' a CCW for a marine, giving him a +1 attack.
If it doesn't make sense when applied to everyone, it probably isn't correct when applied to the few units like shining spears, praetorians and scorpians where the conflict takes place.

Gravmyr wrote:

 BLADERIKER wrote:
Well put, but where does it clearly state that the profile of the weapon has been changed or that the weapon in question ignores the other part of its profile?

When you choose which profile to use for the turn it ends that issue. If I choose the shooting profile and then you state that it still has melee then you are using the other profile which breaks the rules as I chose to use the shooting profile.

There is only one profile, where are you getting the other profile('s) from. The one profile has two lines as per the BRB Pg 41, and a player chooses which line from the profile to use in a given turn. The Weapon's profile still has Melee in it as part of one of its lines.

CaptainSuperglue wrote:
Yeah and I doubt anyone would seriously play it that way, but you can't apply half a rule to one army and not apply it to others, even if it makes no sense to do so, and, this is as close to doing that as you can get. The melee weapon on a praetorian just disappears after being fired, leaving the necron with no ability RAW to attack back in close combat at all after overwatching, but the bolt pistol still 'counts as' a CCW for a marine, giving him a +1 attack.
If it doesn't make sense when applied to everyone, it probably isn't correct when applied to the few units like shining spears, praetorians and scorpians where the conflict takes place.

Well that's why you might advocate for taking the Particle Caster and Voidblade instead of the rod. You can actually take advantage of the formation benefit in the shooting phase, plus you can shoot and assault and even benefit from having additional attacks...so basically RAW means that going w/ Particle Casters + Voidblades is the only thing that currently makes sense.

CaptainSuperglue wrote:
The melee weapon on a praetorian just disappears after being fired, leaving the necron with no ability RAW to attack back in close combat at all after overwatching, but the bolt pistol still 'counts as' a CCW for a marine, giving him a +1 attack.

The Melee profile on the Rod of Covenant does not 'disappear' if the Triarch Praetorian decides to shoot with the Rod. It still has a Melee profile, it just can't use that profile.

The bottom line is GW has a number of rules between BRB and codices that completely conflict. Compounding this is their apparent disregard for checking over these discrepancies before publishing new content. Case in point are the rods of covenant, why make them assault 1, it completely begs a debate over the page 41 rule in the BRB. If that rule is intended to do what it plainly says, and it's not a typo, the shooting profile of a duel profile weapon should never be assault x, since if you shoot it assaulting with it is rendered moot. Make them rapid fire, or heavy 1 with a special rule that says they can still move and shoot. Something that doesn't cause the mind to immediately connect shooting with them and then assaulting with them - thus making the discovery of the rule on page 41 of the BRB that much harder to swallow.

This issue does not just affect Rods it affects many other split profile weapons. Gauntlets of Ultramar are the exact same way in that they have a line for shooting and a line for melee in their profile.

Then Sm players using Marn Cal shot before charging he cannot use the Melee line in the profile and loses the Power fist attacks.

While I have not seen the new Craftworld Codex I know there are many weapons used by the Eldar that are affected in the same way.

Orock wrote:It says that you cannot use that weapon any other way for the rest of the turn, that means you discard ALLLLL stats of it. It will be base str and ap -. It works the same way with the burnas.Weither you want to accept it is irrelivent. You cant benefit from the higher str on the stat line because you used it as a gun.

It never says that. At all. Period. It only says "you can choose which to use", not "once a weapon uses one of its profiles it cannot be used any other way", or "you choose which one to use".

blaktoof wrote:pistols do not have a dual profile of (shooting) then (generic ccwpn or +1 attack as an additional weapon) they are just 1 profile with a special rule that gives a bonus attack in assault.

This is incorrect. Pistols are considered to be a CCW in the Assault Phase. In fact it says this twice. This is the same whether being the BP/Chainsword of the Assault Marine, or the Bolt Pistol of the Tactical or Devastator Marine. Instead of cluttering up every single Pistol Profile with a second profile, it is condensed in the Pistol Type. This is not exclusive to those who wish to just add an Attack.

So Tacticals who fire their Pistols than Charge are in the same boat as Rodtorians, having a dual-profile weapon they've already shot with that turn.

Charistoph wrote:

blaktoof wrote:pistols do not have a dual profile of (shooting) then (generic ccwpn or +1 attack as an additional weapon) they are just 1 profile with a special rule that gives a bonus attack in assault.

This is incorrect. Pistols are considered to be a CCW in the Assault Phase. In fact it says this twice. This is the same whether being the BP/Chainsword of the Assault Marine, or the Bolt Pistol of the Tactical or Devastator Marine. Instead of cluttering up every single Pistol Profile with a second profile, it is condensed in the Pistol Type. This is not exclusive to those who wish to just add an Attack.

So Tacticals who fire their Pistols than Charge are in the same boat as Rodtorians, having a dual-profile weapon they've already shot with that turn.

Again, read above, this is not the same thing. Pistol + [insert other weapon here] falls into its own category, since you're going to use the second melee weapon as your attacking weapon for assault. The pistol's benefit is solely in the bonus attack which adds to the second weapons total attack count. You're not attacking a second time in the same turn with the pistol. You've attacked only once and then attacked with a DIFFERENT melee weapon. This does not break the rule for "once per turn" but you still gain the benefit listed since it explicitly lists it as a ccw.

Parsalian wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

Orock wrote:It says that you cannot use that weapon any other way for the rest of the turn, that means you discard ALLLLL stats of it. It will be base str and ap -. It works the same way with the burnas.Weither you want to accept it is irrelivent. You cant benefit from the higher str on the stat line because you used it as a gun.

It never says that. At all. Period. It only says "you can choose which to use", not "once a weapon uses one of its profiles it cannot be used any other way", or "you choose which one to use".

blaktoof wrote:pistols do not have a dual profile of (shooting) then (generic ccwpn or +1 attack as an additional weapon) they are just 1 profile with a special rule that gives a bonus attack in assault.

This is incorrect. Pistols are considered to be a CCW in the Assault Phase. In fact it says this twice. This is the same whether being the BP/Chainsword of the Assault Marine, or the Bolt Pistol of the Tactical or Devastator Marine. Instead of cluttering up every single Pistol Profile with a second profile, it is condensed in the Pistol Type. This is not exclusive to those who wish to just add an Attack.

So Tacticals who fire their Pistols than Charge are in the same boat as Rodtorians, having a dual-profile weapon they've already shot with that turn.

Again, read above, this is not the same thing. Pistol + [insert other weapon here] falls into its own category, since you're going to use the second melee weapon as your attacking weapon for assault. The pistol's benefit is solely in the bonus attack which adds to the second weapons total attack count. You're not attacking a second time in the same turn with the pistol. You've attacked only once and then attacked with a DIFFERENT melee weapon. This does not break the rule for "once per turn" but you still gain the benefit listed since it explicitly lists it as a ccw.

Tactical marines have no "normal" ccw. So when they charge having fired their pistol, what do they attack with?

my apologies, I conflated both of those statements. You're correct. For the Tactical marines, they'd fall into this ruling of having no more available weapons with which to attack. But for the Bolt Pistol/Chain sword combo for which I intended to reply, they can still attack.

Parsalian wrote:
my apologies, I conflated both of those statements. You're correct. For the Tactical marines, they'd fall into this ruling of having no more available weapons with which to attack. But for the Bolt Pistol/Chain sword combo for which I intended to reply, they can still attack.

This would only apply, though, if one insists that the multiple profile rule states a weapon can only use one profile per turn.

But the rule is not explicit in stating this. It is an assumption made by people putting their own view on it, or those who choose to limit themselves or others.

Charistoph wrote:

Parsalian wrote:
my apologies, I conflated both of those statements. You're correct. For the Tactical marines, they'd fall into this ruling of having no more available weapons with which to attack. But for the Bolt Pistol/Chain sword combo for which I intended to reply, they can still attack.

This would only apply, though, if one insists that the multiple profile rule states a weapon can only use one profile per turn.

But the rule is not explicit in stating this. It is an assumption made by people putting their own view on it, or those who choose to limit themselves or others.

Okay well to reiterate something I said before, I don't personally agree with it, but RAW states that you must choose one profile to use per turn. I don't remember the specific word-for-word explanation, but RAW also states that you can't use a weapon twice in a turn. This overlap leads to the dilemma that if a weapon has two profiles, you choose one and won't be able to use the other even though you still count as having both profiles. This is why pistols allow you to gain the benefit of multiple ccws even after firing.

Neither of those things are "personal views" or an attempt to "limit" anyone. It's simply RAW.

Parsalian wrote:
Okay well to reiterate something I said before, I don't personally agree with it, but RAW states that you must choose one profile to use per turn. I don't remember the specific word-for-word explanation, but RAW also states that you can't use a weapon twice in a turn. This overlap leads to the dilemma that if a weapon has two profiles, you choose one and won't be able to use the other even though you still count as having both profiles. This is why pistols allow you to gain the benefit of multiple ccws even after firing.

Neither of those things are "personal views" or an attempt to "limit" anyone. It's simply RAW.

Here is the paragraph:
"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."

Not once in the bolded section is a quantitative value used. In fact, I could put quantitative values, singular or plural, in the bolded section, and while it would change the meaning, it would not change the flow of the sentence. The only limitation here is one you the player decide to make.

Now, the Shooting Sequence simply states:
"First, select a weapon that one or more models in your unit are equipped with. The selected weapon cannot be one that the unit has shot with during this phase."

So, you cannot Shoot the same weapon twice in the same Phase. But if I use my Deathmarks to counter-Deep Strike and fire on a target, they can still fire Overwatch if they get charged.

For the Assault Phase, the only limitation is under More Than One Weapon in the Weapons section:
"If a model has more than one Melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with when he comes to strike blows – he cannot mix and match the abilities of several different Melee weapons."

So the only actual quantitative rules that give a specific limit are those involved with Phases, and nothing to do with Turns. There is an assumption that can be made, but it can be read many different ways, and is not specific.

This argument was already discussed, and unless I completely misunderstood, I thought that it was more or less stated that this isn't correct. Again, I'm no expert, nor do I know the rules any better than most, but I'd rather not go in circles over and over.

No no no no

If you get to do something "each turn" you cant assume that you can do it more than once each turn. That would break the game in a lot of other examples.
Grimoire of true names can be be used during the movement phase. Whats to say i cant use it 5 times during the phase? Common sense! And not breaking the game.

As for having comments ignored. I've twice pointed out that RAW any weapon with the melee type cannot be used outside of close combat!

And people are still arguing that you do or dont get to attack in close combat. If you ignore that, why not ignore the need for a ccw to attack?

 jokerkd wrote:
No no no no

If you get to do something "each turn" you cant assume that you can do it more than once each turn. That would break the game in a lot of other examples.
Grimoire of true names can be be used during the movement phase. Whats to say i cant use it 5 times during the phase? Common sense! And not breaking the game.

The Grimiore has a timing when it occurs, yes?

When is the timing for choosing the profile of a Weapon? When it asks for one.

And there is no limit as to how many profiles can be chosen each turn.

Seriously why do people think you need to have a close combat weapon to make melee attacks????

SERIOUSLY! Some people are assuming this with no real basis. If there's rule that states please give the page number.

 Silent_Tempest wrote:
Seriously why do people think you need to have a close combat weapon to make melee attacks????

SERIOUSLY! Some people are assuming this with no real basis. If there's rule that states please give the page number.

Let me ask you this. Assume we both have models (with SM statlines) in melee. One model each. Mine has a melee weapon, yours has no weapon (and for sake of this experiment does not have the "free ccw").

At the same Initiative step we both get our 1 attack. We both roll to hit comparing WS, we both hit. I roll To Wound, using the Strength of my weapon vs your Toughness. What strength do you use to roll To Wound? Remember, the rules for assault say to use the strength of the weapon.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Silent_Tempest wrote:
Seriously why do people think you need to have a close combat weapon to make melee attacks????

SERIOUSLY! Some people are assuming this with no real basis. If there's rule that states please give the page number.

Let me ask you this. Assume we both have models (with SM statlines) in melee. One model each. Mine has a melee weapon, yours has no weapon (and for sake of this experiment does not have the "free ccw").

At the same Initiative step we both get our 1 attack. We both roll to hit comparing WS, we both hit. I roll To Wound, using the Strength of my weapon vs your Toughness. What strength do you use to roll To Wound? Remember, the rules for assault say to use the strength of the weapon.

Reading page 50 "Rolling to wound" I see no mention of a weapon requirement. It does say "use the attacker's strength".

What are some examples of actual units with no melee weapon and no free ccw ?

Charistoph wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
No no no no

If you get to do something "each turn" you cant assume that you can do it more than once each turn. That would break the game in a lot of other examples.
Grimoire of true names can be be used during the movement phase. Whats to say i cant use it 5 times during the phase? Common sense! And not breaking the game.

The Grimiore has a timing when it occurs, yes?

When is the timing for choosing the profile of a Weapon? When it asks for one.

And there is no limit as to how many profiles can be chosen each turn.

Yes there is. Choose which line to use each turn only permits one each turn. When in the turn depends on when you need to.
The timing for the grimoire is only different in that you have a whole phase to use it, not a whole turn. If there is no limit on how many times you can choose profiles, then the same argument applies to me giving every unit in my army a 3++ in one phase

 jokerkd wrote:
Yes there is. Choose which line to use each turn only permits one each turn.

If that is what it said, than you would be correct.

Only, it doesn't say "choose which line to use each turn", just "choose which to use each turn". No number is mentioned or used. The addition of "line", "one", or "profile", has been constantly used as "proof" for this. And if adding words was a way to prove a theory, than I can also add my own to say, "choose which lines to use each turn". So, proven wrong in the same way.

 jokerkd wrote:
The timing for the grimoire is only different in that you have a whole phase to use it, not a whole turn. If there is no limit on how many times you can choose profiles, then the same argument applies to me giving every unit in my army a 3++ in one phase.

Except that choosing a weapon profile and line do occur at specific times. Nothing in that paragraph states that the choice of Weapon Profile line lasts the duration of the turn and alternate lines cannot be chosen.

The bottom line is GW has a number of rules between BRB and codices that completely conflict. Compounding this is their apparent disregard for checking over these discrepancies before publishing new content. Case in point are the rods of covenant, why make them assault 1, it completely begs a debate over the page 41 rule in the BRB. If that rule is intended to do what it plainly says, and it's not a typo, the shooting profile of a duel profile weapon should never be assault x, since if you shoot it assaulting with it is rendered moot. Make them rapid fire, or heavy 1 with a special rule that says they can still move and shoot. Something that doesn't cause the mind to immediately connect shooting with them and then assaulting with them - thus making the discovery of the rule on page 41 of the BRB that much harder to swallow.

Charistoph wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
Yes there is. Choose which line to use each turn only permits one each turn.

If that is what it said, than you would be correct.

Only, it doesn't say "choose which line to use each turn", just "choose which to use each turn". No number is mentioned or used. The addition of "line", "one", or "profile", has been constantly used as "proof" for this. And if adding words was a way to prove a theory, than I can also add my own to say, "choose which lines to use each turn". So, proven wrong in the same way.

there will be a separate line in the weapon’s profile for each, and you can choose which to use each turn.

Yeah i dont know where everyone gets the words "line" and "profile" from........

Peteralmo, they are assault weapons because they can assault after shooting. They do get to attack but without the strength and ap of the rod. It's been explained that either choosing which line to use means you count as only having that line, or it counts as having both and therefore can never shoot because the melee type rule forbids it

Whilst I agree RaW you can't use the Rod in shooting and assault in the same turn due to a poorly worded rule. Applying this rule causes many huge issues. Firstly it stops the unit from being /able to resolve its close combat attacks (as it can't use its melee weapon, but still has a melee weapon so doesn't get a free one). This causes problems for a whole host of weapons (scorpion claws, singing spears, dread CCWs with built in storm bolters/flamers etc), it also breaks the game. As pistols no longer work (they have a special rule allowing them to count as a CCW, a CCW has a profile so as soon as they count as a CCW they gain two profiles and are hit by this rule). For all these reasons we should ignore the RaW here just like we do for say D Weapons or the Psychic Phase.

Fling, I would like to point out an issue with your three examples (Scorp claw, spear and DCCW).
Scorpions come with pistol/sword. the claw replaces the pistol, so you still have the sword to attack with.
Farseers/Warlocks replace their witchblade for the spear, so they still have a pistol (unless they swap it for a relic weapon, but even then they would have either a pistol or melee weapon).
Dread CCW with built-in weapons are two different weapons. This is why you can destroy either the CCW or the built-in weapon.

Not important to the topic on hand, but...


Also I disagree with your interpretation regarding pistols. All pistols have a single profile (unless they have the option to fire different ammunition). I don't know of any pistol that has a shooting and melee profile. As such you can never choose which profile to use - in the shooting phase you have a single profile. Once you get into assault you no longer have a pistol - it is treated as a ccw instead. As such in the assault phase you have a weapon with a single profile.

As a flip side Fling you could just read all those things as short hand. When the book says choose a line to use for the turn as use the line for everything. When it says psychic units read units with models that have..... See how that actually makes the game work as I believe most people are playing it without actually changing the wording? This would also clear up the No Specified Melee Weapon that people seem to be hung up on as you couldn't use that line to say they had a melee weapon.

 Happyjew wrote:
Fling, I would like to point out an issue with your three examples (Scorp claw, spear and DCCW).
Scorpions come with pistol/sword. the claw replaces the pistol, so you still have the sword to attack with.
Farseers/Warlocks replace their witchblade for the spear, so they still have a pistol (unless they swap it for a relic weapon, but even then they would have either a pistol or melee weapon).
Dread CCW with built-in weapons are two different weapons. This is why you can destroy either the CCW or the built-in weapon.

Not important to the topic on hand, but...


Also I disagree with your interpretation regarding pistols. All pistols have a single profile (unless they have the option to fire different ammunition). I don't know of any pistol that has a shooting and melee profile. As such you can never choose which profile to use - in the shooting phase you have a single profile. Once you get into assault you no longer have a pistol - it is treated as a ccw instead. As such in the assault phase you have a weapon with a single profile.

Does it say treated as a CCW instead? Or counts as a CCW and has the CCW profile (whilst never being told it loses it's pistol profile).

Per pg 41 the other profile is ignored when making CC attacks with pistols.

Gravmyr wrote:
Per pg 41 the other profile is ignored when making CC attacks with pistols.

Bingo so we know it is there. It is ignored (therefore not used) but still existent therefore the multiple profile rules is triggered.

If you acknowledge it's there are you ignoring it? Simple answer, no by definition.

jokerkd wrote:

there will be a separate line in the weapon’s profile for each, and you can choose which to use each turn.

Yeah i dont know where everyone gets the words "line" and "profile" from........

It still does not specify you cannot choose both or all. Especially when the subject of the sentence is multiple lines.

jokerkd wrote:Peteralmo, they are assault weapons because they can assault after shooting. They do get to attack but without the strength and ap of the rod. It's been explained that either choosing which line to use means you count as only having that line, or it counts as having both and therefore can never shoot because the melee type rule forbids it

Not true. Not every weapon like this just converts to the "free CCW" because they cannot use the melee line of the profile. That is not written anywhere any more than "you choose which line to use".

In addition, just because you choose to use one line in one Phase, does not mean you have to continue using that line for the duration of the Turn. Absolutely NO WHERE does it state this. This is adding a rule that does not exist.

Happyjew wrote:Also I disagree with your interpretation regarding pistols. All pistols have a single profile (unless they have the option to fire different ammunition). I don't know of any pistol that has a shooting and melee profile. As such you can never choose which profile to use - in the shooting phase you have a single profile. Once you get into assault you no longer have a pistol - it is treated as a ccw instead. As such in the assault phase you have a weapon with a single profile.

Actually, they have two. It says it twice. I don't understand why this is so difficult any more than I understand why everyone is choosing to add words to a line.

From the BRB under 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."

From the Pistol Weapons:
"A Pistol also counts as a close combat weapon in the Assault phase."

It only ever has one profile reread what you just posted. It only gets a cc profile when making cc attacks with it and you ignore the other profile at that time.

Gravmyr wrote:
It only ever has one profile reread what you just posted. It only gets a cc profile when making cc attacks with it and you ignore the other profile at that time.

Nope it has 2 profiles just the S, AP and special rules of the pistol profile are ignored. Not the entire profile.

Charistoph wrote:
Actually, they have two. It says it twice. I don't understand why this is so difficult any more than I understand why everyone is choosing to add words to a line.

I think that you're ignoring some basic tenants of the english language. There is such a thing as contextual implication, meaning that based on the current context of the conversation/statement/passage a sentence may not be required to explicitly state things in order to convey its meaning. People are adding the words "line" or "phase" because they're contextually implied by both the sentence itself and the rest of the content that is being explained in the surrounding passages.

In this specific example, people have been leaving off the beginning of the sentence, which already uses the word "line:"

"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. When 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."

Here it states that there will be separate (i.e. 2) lines in the weapon's profile (1 line for each). Stating that you choose LOGICALLY IMPLIES that you pick one. It's irrelevant that the number "one" isn't stated and it's irrelevant that there's no other quantitative value in the sentence since contextual implication tells us that it's referring to those separate lines previously mentioned in the same sentence. "Choose which" doesn't mean "choose as many as you want."

It's also worth noting that it is a logical falacy to state that because something isn't explicitly stated then it must be the opposite, i.e. I can't claim that i'm allowed to steal an opponent's turn simply because it never says that I can't. Likewise, you can't claim that you're allowed to choose both profiles simply because it doesn't explicitly forbid it. If that were a requirement for prohibition, then the rulebook would be a million pages to cover every possible scenario. The rules tell you only what you CAN do, not everything you can't do.

We're never instructed to give pistols a second profile, then choose.

Weapons with dual profiles have to give up their Melee option to be used as a CCW by picking one of the non Melee profiles for the turn.

Pistols retain the ability to be used as a CCW when using its one profile. If a player chooses to use it as a CCW, then he is specifically instructed to use the Melee profile, not apply the profile then see if the previous rule then prevents it's use. Counting as a CCW is not tied to any profile.

As Happyjew pointed out, most models with pistols usually have a CCW with them. MT, Skitarii, and maybe cultists and Grotz are the only units that might ONLY be equipped with pistols. Don't have their rules so can't confirm.

Parsalian wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
Actually, they have two. It says it twice. I don't understand why this is so difficult any more than I understand why everyone is choosing to add words to a line.

I think that you're ignoring some basic tenants of the english language. There is such a thing as contextual implication, meaning that based on the current context of the conversation/statement/passage a sentence may not be required to explicitly state things in order to convey its meaning. People are adding the words "line" or "phase" because they're contextually implied by both the sentence itself and the rest of the content that is being explained in the surrounding passages.

In this specific example, people have been leaving off the beginning of the sentence, which already uses the word "line:"

"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. When 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."

Here it states that there will be separate (i.e. 2) lines in the weapon's profile (1 line for each). Stating that you choose LOGICALLY IMPLIES that you pick one. It's irrelevant that the number "one" isn't stated and it's irrelevant that there's no other quantitative value in the sentence since contextual implication tells us that it's referring to those separate lines previously mentioned in the same sentence. "Choose which" doesn't mean "choose as many as you want."

Not entirely true. In most cases where "choose which" is limited to one, there are indications or limits that only one may be chosen. This is not the case here, except where you choose to put it in.

If I say you may have fruit, and you can choose which you want, and I have a selection of apples, oranges, bannanas, or mangos. It doesn't mean you can only have one piece of fruit. Nor does it mean that if you pick an apple, you cannot also pick an orange or a mango. Courtesy would tell you to only take one and ask if you may take more, but that is courtesy talking, not me. If one chose, one could pick one of all four, four of one, or 10 of a mixture of them.

So, too, we have a case where we may choose which to use each turn. Each situation will define the limits of the choice. This paragraph does not provide any explicit limits on its own.

Parsalian wrote:
It's also worth noting that it is a logical falacy to state that because something isn't explicitly stated then it must be the opposite, i.e. I can't claim that i'm allowed to steal an opponent's turn simply because it never says that I can't. Likewise, you can't claim that you're allowed to choose both profiles simply because it doesn't explicitly forbid it. If that were a requirement for prohibition, then the rulebook would be a million pages to cover every possible scenario. The rules tell you only what you CAN do, not everything you can't do.

Also not entirely true. If I am told to do something in one area, and then do something similar in another area, then I feel free to do so within the limits provided. I am using those permissions or requirements as they are stated. I do not recognize a fence when there is none.

Just as a popular movie once stated, "There is no spoon", so too in this case, "there is no limit where you are looking for it".

Charistoph wrote:

Parsalian wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
Actually, they have two. It says it twice. I don't understand why this is so difficult any more than I understand why everyone is choosing to add words to a line.

I think that you're ignoring some basic tenants of the english language. There is such a thing as contextual implication, meaning that based on the current context of the conversation/statement/passage a sentence may not be required to explicitly state things in order to convey its meaning. People are adding the words "line" or "phase" because they're contextually implied by both the sentence itself and the rest of the content that is being explained in the surrounding passages.

In this specific example, people have been leaving off the beginning of the sentence, which already uses the word "line:"

"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. When 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."

Here it states that there will be separate (i.e. 2) lines in the weapon's profile (1 line for each). Stating that you choose LOGICALLY IMPLIES that you pick one. It's irrelevant that the number "one" isn't stated and it's irrelevant that there's no other quantitative value in the sentence since contextual implication tells us that it's referring to those separate lines previously mentioned in the same sentence. "Choose which" doesn't mean "choose as many as you want."

Not entirely true. In most cases where "choose which" is limited to one, there are indications or limits that only one may be chosen. This is not the case here, except where you choose to put it in.

If I say you may have fruit, and you can choose which you want, and I have a selection of apples, oranges, bannanas, or mangos. It doesn't mean you can only have one piece of fruit. Nor does it mean that if you pick an apple, you cannot also pick an orange or a mango. Courtesy would tell you to only take one and ask if you may take more, but that is courtesy talking, not me. If one chose, one could pick one of all four, four of one, or 10 of a mixture of them.

So, too, we have a case where we may choose which to use each turn. Each situation will define the limits of the choice. This paragraph does not provide any explicit limits on its own.

This argument is slightly different. In your example, there is no set number of objects and we're talking about food and social behavior, not spoken language, so the rules are very different. I'd ask you to come up with linguistic examples since they'll actually apply directly. The argument that you could choose 10 of 1 item etc is very different since we're dealing explicitly with two lines of text (the two profiles) from which you can choose. There is only one iteration of each as specified in other rules which limit your use of any weapon during any phase (shooting can only be made from a single weapon once in a shooting phase, and likewise in the assault phase a model can only attack with a weapon the specified number of times in a single iteration). You've ignored both of those stipulations in your example, thereby making it an inapplicable example.

Parsalian wrote:
It's also worth noting that it is a logical falacy to state that because something isn't explicitly stated then it must be the opposite, i.e. I can't claim that i'm allowed to steal an opponent's turn simply because it never says that I can't. Likewise, you can't claim that you're allowed to choose both profiles simply because it doesn't explicitly forbid it. If that were a requirement for prohibition, then the rulebook would be a million pages to cover every possible scenario. The rules tell you only what you CAN do, not everything you can't do.

Also not entirely true. If I am told to do something in one area, and then do something similar in another area, then I feel free to do so within the limits provided. I am using those permissions or requirements as they are stated. I do not recognize a fence when there is none.

Just as a popular movie once stated, "There is no spoon", so too in this case, "there is no limit where you are looking for it".

This example is incredibly vague and I'm not even sure what you're really getting at by saying it. If taken literally, "area" means a specified location, which implicitly tells us that it's been sectioned off (even if not physically) by someone's decision. That's not my addition, that's actually how the term "area" is defined. You do not need a fence to know that two different areas are delineated by context.

I like your quote but I don't think it applies since you've ignored other rules that directly relate to our debate as well as used examples outside of the context which impose separate and unrelated restrictions (social rules vs linguistic rules).

Charistoph wrote:
Not entirely true. In most cases where "choose which" is limited to one, there are indications or limits that only one may be chosen. This is not the case here, except where you choose to put it in.

. We have lines to choose from. (Not profile, which is confusing when reading the rule). So you're still trying to argue that when we are told which lines to use, we as players have the option to use the Shooting Profile or the Melee profile, or both?

Two HUGE flaws in this argument.

Heat Rays / Doomsday Cannons also have dual shooting lines. So when I get to choose which line to use, I'm not restricted from choosing both. I'm still only firing the one weapon, and using one line in its profile doesn't restrict me from using the other. Good luck getting this on to pass in games.

If players do have the option to choose both/all lines in a profile, then why would they ever choose to NOT use both since this removes the penalty for being forced to pick one? You've effectively treated the rule as non existent, so rather than choose to apply it, you're perfectly okay believing that it still allows you to use it as if it weren't there? Nice try, but it's there for a reason and not to loop itself out of being relevant.

Edit: I used the term profile differently than the book.

Parsalian wrote:This argument is slightly different. In your example, there is no set number of objects and we're talking about food and social behavior, not spoken language, so the rules are very different. I'd ask you to come up with linguistic examples since they'll actually apply directly. The argument that you could choose 10 of 1 item etc is very different since we're dealing explicitly with two lines of text (the two profiles) from which you can choose. There is only one iteration of each as specified in other rules which limit your use of any weapon during any phase (shooting can only be made from a single weapon once in a shooting phase, and likewise in the assault phase a model can only attack with a weapon the specified number of times in a single iteration). You've ignored both of those stipulations in your example, thereby making it an inapplicable example.

Only slightly different in the subjects introduced, but the linguistic examples are still pertinent. The point is that line is the tail end of a paragraph which is not limited to just two lines, but covers every instance of a weapon with multiple lines, such as the Missile Launcher, and not just the hybrid weapons.

As I said, in the first statement, there is no limit specified. The limit is provided by other rules, in the case of the fruit example, this is courtesy.

So, too, do the limitations on what you can choose are provided by the phases the weapon is involved in. Nor have I ignored any stipulations from the rules, just those imposed by those misquoting or inadvertently misrepresenting. The concept being promulgated here is this, "You can chose one line to use for the turn". Yet, no where is this stated, and only barely implied. But from this misquote, we get two "rules". 1) You can only choose one line of the profile for the turn. 2) This choice is for the duration of the turn. Yet, that phrase is not the one in the rules.

Nothing in the rules for the Shooting Phase (much less the Shooting Sequence) state that I cannot use a different line of the same weapon in a different phase. No where in the Assault Phase does it state that if I shot with a Weapon, I cannot use the Melee profile in the Fight Sub-Phase.

The phrase that is continuously misquoted does not provide any limits of its own. In fact, if read contextually, it is actually allowing you to choose which line(s) to use each turn instead of specifying a certain order or other limitation.

Parsalian wrote:

Parsalian wrote:
It's also worth noting that it is a logical falacy to state that because something isn't explicitly stated then it must be the opposite, i.e. I can't claim that i'm allowed to steal an opponent's turn simply because it never says that I can't. Likewise, you can't claim that you're allowed to choose both profiles simply because it doesn't explicitly forbid it. If that were a requirement for prohibition, then the rulebook would be a million pages to cover every possible scenario. The rules tell you only what you CAN do, not everything you can't do.

Also not entirely true. If I am told to do something in one area, and then do something similar in another area, then I feel free to do so within the limits provided. I am using those permissions or requirements as they are stated. I do not recognize a fence when there is none.

Just as a popular movie once stated, "There is no spoon", so too in this case, "there is no limit where you are looking for it".

This example is incredibly vague and I'm not even sure what you're really getting at by saying it. If taken literally, "area" means a specified location, which implicitly tells us that it's been sectioned off (even if not physically) by someone's decision. That's not my addition, that's actually how the term "area" is defined. You do not need a fence to know that two different areas are delineated by context.

I like your quote but I don't think it applies since you've ignored other rules that directly relate to our debate as well as used examples outside of the context which impose separate and unrelated restrictions (social rules vs linguistic rules).

In this case, the "areas" were "Phases". In the Shooting Sequence, I may choose a weapon I have not shot yet. There is the limit. In the Fight sub-phase, I may only choose one weapon to fight with. There are the limits.

What you are saying is that one misquoted line (and make no mistake, it has been repeatedly misquoted in this thread) is providing an additional limit, when the actual rule provides no express numerical or quantitative limit. You only see what you choose to see.

Akar wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
Not entirely true. In most cases where "choose which" is limited to one, there are indications or limits that only one may be chosen. This is not the case here, except where you choose to put it in.

Clearly, the singular use of 'Profile' indicates that more than one profile can be chosen? Or is 'Profile' both the individual and plural use of the term?

We've have both a defined set of options, and a specified quantity that are available each turn.

Read the entire paragraph for context to get my point, then. Taking one half of a sentence can totally ruin the intention, especially when people add words to it.

Here is the original:
"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."

Or here, let me translate it a smidge to show you what I see, as opposed to what people have been misquoting:
"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 lines to use each turn."

Whereas, what some have been reading it as:
"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 line to use for the turn."

Now, the bolded sections show the perspectives. Notice how neither one really disrupts the flow of the sentence (flow, not meaning). Yet, one sees it as limiting, and one does not. The limiting interpretation one makes a mockery of weaponry designed for close in shooting and melee combat, and in order to make it work requires granting permissions to consider other lines as non-existent. While the non-limiting version allows one to shoot with Rods, Pistols and other hybrid weapons, and then use them in close combat without any muss or fuss.

 Akar wrote:
We have lines to choose from. (Not profile, which is confusing when reading the rule). So you're still trying to argue that when we are told which lines to use, we as players have the option to use the Shooting Profile or the Melee profile, or both?

Two HUGE flaws in this argument.

Heat Rays / Doomsday Cannons also have dual shooting lines. So when I get to choose which line to use, I'm not restricted from choosing both. I'm still only firing the one weapon, and using one line in its profile doesn't restrict me from using the other. Good luck getting this on to pass in games.

If players do have the option to choose both/all lines in a profile, then why would they ever choose to NOT use both since this removes the penalty for being forced to pick one? You've effectively treated the rule as non existent, so rather than choose to apply it, you're perfectly okay believing that it still allows you to use it as if it weren't there? Nice try, but it's there for a reason and not to loop itself out of being relevant.

The Doomsday Cannon is a poor example, since it actually has rules as to how one of the lines can be used.

But let's use Heat Rays and Missile Launchers as another example since there are no actual issues. Other than enforcing a non-written rule, where is the actual defined limit? The Shooting Phase considers them both different Weapons, after all. This wasn't at issue in the previous edition, since all weapons from a unit fired at the same time, but now, they do not. Most Infantry cannot fire more than one Weapon, so we're mostly looking at Vehicles. So, why not? Other than previous edition perspective?

But considering your statement: "Good luck getting this on to pass in games" means that it has to pass HIWPI muster, which is not why we are here.

Consider this another miss in the GW proofreading abilities if you like. I sure do. The new Shooting Sequence has made a huge mess of numerous aspects of this game.

Charistoph, quite frankly I agree with your interpretation. I have from the start. The point I'm trying to make is that "your interpretation" vs "other people's interpretations" are somewhat different in nature.

The other interpretation isn't actually adding outside limitations since they're implications made via other rules and context of the English language and the preceding paragraph. You're choosing to believe that those implications are not being made (not a judgement, others choose to believe that they are being made).

For the example of the missile launcher, the same rule still applies that you choose one of those lines to use for that turn, since you can't actually fire the weapon multiple times per phase. You choose which line of the profile you want to use and that's what you fire with. You don't then go back and choose a second (or third) line from the profile.

The reason why it is being argued that you can't use a weapon in the shooting phase and then again in the fight sub phase is because of the implication that you can only select one of the possibly multiple lines in the weapon profile for the turn. If that's the case, then you're not able to go back and change it later since it's already been chosen, and therefore would not have the ability to use the other lines of it's profile.

At this point, we're talking about meaning and intent, and it stops being logical and starts becoming speculative since we can't really know what GW was actually thinking or truly intended. We infer what we believe to be the intentions behind the rules, and now obviously here we are at a point where you have a valid point in some of your arguments, but others believe that you're excluding their viewpoint due to disbelief in their inferences. (my god that was a convoluted sentence, sorry...)

Frankly, I think that we've both highlighted the sides of the argument fairly well and there isn't much left to debate since, at this point, it really just comes down to what we believe the intent was -- whether they are implying that you must choose one and only one for the turn, or you must choose for only the particular and immediate action you're taking within this turn.

p.s. I thoroughly enjoy this logic argument, thanks for that!

Parsalian wrote:
Charistoph, quite frankly I agree with your interpretation. I have from the start. The point I'm trying to make is that "your interpretation" vs "other people's interpretations" are somewhat different in nature.

Agreed. I've even said that the only limitation is one they chose to make.

My main wonder on this is threefold:
1) Why limit yourself in such a stupid manner? I can see deliberately limiting yourself in cases like Missile Launchers or the aforementioned Heat Ray. It's a way not to be a from how things used to be. But when you're taking a weapon that is meant to be used in close combat, but won't because you shot it seems stupid, especially when in previous editions, this was not a problem. It's a weird dichotomy.

2) Why people insist on adding words to the rules and treating them as "proof". This is not just interpretations, they have literally stated them as such in this thread (and others I've been involved in).

3) Lack of desire to see it from the other side of the coin and actually think about what is being said. They blindly stick to the misquote as gospel.

Parsalian wrote:
p.s. I thoroughly enjoy this logic argument, thanks for that!

I have no problem keeping it to logic, but not enough is being used in this concept.

------------------

Another interesting point is that Combi-Weapons are specifically listed as not being able to use both lines in a Turn. Since the only wielders of these weapons that could use them that way are Vehicles, why would they need to point it out if it was already covered in the base rules?

Just food for thought.

Charistoph wrote:
"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 lines to use each turn."

Once you apply this, you defeat any possible reason for the rule to be written in the first place. This DOES change the outcome of the rule by allowing all weapons with multiple lines to use every line in its profile. The result is the same as ignoring the rule. A different interpretation therefore has to be applied or there would be no reason for the rule to exist. This application creates more questions than it solves, the first being 'Why is this rule even here to begin with'. How do you deal with Multiple shooting profiles w/o having this interpretation cave in on itself? If a weapon has multiple Melee lines do I get to choose which lines to use? Why not just say 'Weapons with multiple lines get each line available?' or 'We get to pick which line to use in each phase (and not turn). Why not just make the Rod Profile 12" Str 5, AP2 , Melee so that it IS both at the same time?

Charistoph wrote:
Whereas, what some have been reading it as:
"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 line to use for the turn."

Here again you speak with authority as if this isn't the correct interpretation, when this is the only interpretation that allows the rule to function without canceling itself out, or granting permission to do what you want to do anyways. It needs to say 'All people read it as this', but since that's not the case the 'Majority' will be in there. When you choose which line to use, the purpose of the rule clarifies itself, by preventing the use/exclusion of any other lines for the duration listed, which is the turn. You're made up your mind on how you want the rules to function. You're straining to make the rule function to meet that conclusion, instead of figuring out what the rule is supposed to do, and then applying it. This 'reading', is the RAW interpretation, its also the simplest which doesn't cause further confusion, and as above, it's plain English. I'd venture to say that translated BRBs fit into this reading as well.

As seen here, many people will play it against the RAW. While it does break the rule, it doesn't break the game. I have seen 1, maybe 2 people who play against the RAW, choose your interpretation. I've mentioned this before, while I have no intention of breaking the RAW, I'll probably end up playing it that way in the end. If I came upon a strict RAW player, he would be absolutely correct, but it makes no difference since NOT being able to use them wont break the game or the rules either. I think most of the people here who've already stated that have walked away.

What makes your explanation tiresome has nothing to do with whether you're right or not. Who HONESTLY wants to listen to that lecture on how you've circumnavigated the rule ANY time someone disagrees with you. That alone makes your argument cave in on itself, because all interest in actually playing the game was just been killed because you had to ram all of that down our throats instead of just asking if you could ignore the RAW like the rest of us. Other options would be to not run Rods, not run Praetorians, or not play at all. ANY of these would be better than listen to you explain, repeatedly, why you think you're right.

 Akar wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
"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 lines to use each turn."

Once you apply this, you defeat any possible reason for the rule to be written in the first place. This DOES change the outcome of the rule by allowing all weapons with multiple lines to use every line in its profile. The result is the same as ignoring the rule. A different interpretation therefore has to be applied or there would be no reason for the rule to exist. This application creates more questions than it solves, the first being 'Why is this rule even here to begin with'. How do you deal with Multiple shooting profiles w/o having this interpretation cave in on itself? If a weapon has multiple Melee lines do I get to choose which lines to use? Why not just say 'Weapons with multiple lines get each line available?' or 'We get to pick which line to use in each phase (and not turn). Why not just make the Rod Profile 12" Str 5, AP2 , Melee so that it IS both at the same time?

Because in this usage, it is granting permission for you to choose or not, as opposed to defining a limit. If this was not present somewherw, than some would argue you must use all the lines of the profile in order and no other way, or some other argument.

Charistoph wrote:
Whereas, what some have been reading it as:
"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 line to use for the turn."

Here again you speak with authority as if this isn't the correct interpretation, when this is the only interpretation that allows the rule to function without canceling itself out, or granting permission to do what you want to do anyways. It needs to say 'All people read it as this', but since that's not the case the 'Majority' will be in there. When you choose which line to use, the purpose of the rule clarifies itself, by preventing the use/exclusion of any other lines for the duration listed, which is the turn. You're made up your mind on how you want the rules to function. You're straining to make the rule function to meet that conclusion, instead of figuring out what the rule is supposed to do, and then applying it. This 'reading', is the RAW interpretation, its also the simplest which doesn't cause further confusion, and as above, it's plain English. I'd venture to say that translated BRBs fit into this reading as well.

Well, is it the rule, or an interpretation? Make up your mind.

See, part of my problem with this interpretation is that it implies rules and limits never explicitly written at any point. It relies more on a misquote than the rules. You want to talk about interpretation, that's for your group. I will stick to the actual written limitations.

But, it would be nice if we could see a translation of it, but considering how misquoted the English version has been here, I would wonder.

What makes your explanation tiresome has nothing to do with whether you're right or not. Who HONESTLY wants to listen to that lecture on how you've circumnavigated the rule ANY time someone disagrees with you. That alone makes your argument cave in on itself, because all interest in actually playing the game was just been killed because you had to ram all of that down our throats instead of just asking if you could ignore the RAW like the rest of us. Other options would be to not run Rods, not run Praetorians, or not play at all. ANY of these would be better than listen to you explain, repeatedly, why you think you're right.

Odd. I've stuck to what is written, and went with the simplest interpretation. That is hardly circumnavigating the rules. It doesn't require making up new rules like "if you cannot use a Melee Weapon, you are not considered to have one", which is what half this thread has tried to do.

So why should I or anyone else watch and listen to rules being turned in to a pretzel just so you can deny a Weapon its use for a Phase or two? Especially when it is based on standards of a previous edition? Should we then not allow Rapid Fire weapons to shoot full range if the model moved? Should Slow and Purposeful units move like in Difficult Terrain?

Charistoph wrote:

 Akar wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
"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 lines to use each turn."

Once you apply this, you defeat any possible reason for the rule to be written in the first place. This DOES change the outcome of the rule by allowing all weapons with multiple lines to use every line in its profile. The result is the same as ignoring the rule. A different interpretation therefore has to be applied or there would be no reason for the rule to exist. This application creates more questions than it solves, the first being 'Why is this rule even here to begin with'. How do you deal with Multiple shooting profiles w/o having this interpretation cave in on itself? If a weapon has multiple Melee lines do I get to choose which lines to use? Why not just say 'Weapons with multiple lines get each line available?' or 'We get to pick which line to use in each phase (and not turn). Why not just make the Rod Profile 12" Str 5, AP2 , Melee so that it IS both at the same time?

Because in this usage, it is granting permission for you to choose or not, as opposed to defining a limit. If this was not present somewherw, than some would argue you must use all the lines of the profile in order and no other way, or some other argument.

Charistoph wrote:
Whereas, what some have been reading it as:
"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 line to use for the turn."

Here again you speak with authority as if this isn't the correct interpretation, when this is the only interpretation that allows the rule to function without canceling itself out, or granting permission to do what you want to do anyways. It needs to say 'All people read it as this', but since that's not the case the 'Majority' will be in there. When you choose which line to use, the purpose of the rule clarifies itself, by preventing the use/exclusion of any other lines for the duration listed, which is the turn. You're made up your mind on how you want the rules to function. You're straining to make the rule function to meet that conclusion, instead of figuring out what the rule is supposed to do, and then applying it. This 'reading', is the RAW interpretation, its also the simplest which doesn't cause further confusion, and as above, it's plain English. I'd venture to say that translated BRBs fit into this reading as well.

Well, is it the rule, or an interpretation? Make up your mind.

See, part of my problem with this interpretation is that it implies rules and limits never explicitly written at any point. It relies more on a misquote than the rules. You want to talk about interpretation, that's for your group. I will stick to the actual written limitations.

But, it would be nice if we could see a translation of it, but considering how misquoted the English version has been here, I would wonder.

What makes your explanation tiresome has nothing to do with whether you're right or not. Who HONESTLY wants to listen to that lecture on how you've circumnavigated the rule ANY time someone disagrees with you. That alone makes your argument cave in on itself, because all interest in actually playing the game was just been killed because you had to ram all of that down our throats instead of just asking if you could ignore the RAW like the rest of us. Other options would be to not run Rods, not run Praetorians, or not play at all. ANY of these would be better than listen to you explain, repeatedly, why you think you're right.

Odd. I've stuck to what is written, and went with the simplest interpretation. That is hardly circumnavigating the rules. It doesn't require making up new rules like "if you cannot use a Melee Weapon, you are not considered to have one", which is what half this thread has tried to do.

So why should I or anyone else watch and listen to rules being turned in to a pretzel just so you can deny a Weapon its use for a Phase or two? Especially when it is based on standards of a previous edition? Should we then not allow Rapid Fire weapons to shoot full range if the model moved? Should Slow and Purposeful units move like in Difficult Terrain?

No.

The rule as written is clear, and quantitatively states a weapon with a dual profile picks a single fire mode per turn- a quantitative amount of time with measured end and start points during the game, during said time the other profile is unavailable.

You dislike the easily readable clearly worded rule and are trying to circumvent it with faulty reasoning based an a highly alternative interpretation you have come up with of a plainly written rule.

No one is turning the single sentence rule into a pretzel to stop you from shooting something, its not rules lawyering, and is simply the rule as written.

You are rules lawyering and making up interpretations assumptions to ignore the rule and create a scenario where you can gain use of something for an extra phase when normally you would not be able to as per the plainly written rule.

just admit to yourself- not even here in a post-you are wanting the rule to work a certain way that is is not written to work because it is more useful to a certain model with a certain weapon you want to use and are supporting a HYWPI stance because you benefit from it and like it, and then move on.

blaktoof wrote:
The rule as written is clear, and quantitatively states a weapon with a dual profile picks a single fire mode per turn- a quantitative amount of time with measured end and start points during the game, during said time the other profile is unavailable.

Except it literally does not. The portion which describes the action does not provide a quantity. It does not state I cannot use more than one that it says that must use more than one. Nor does it state anywhere that the "other profile" is unavailable.

Quote the actual phrase. Read the phrase. Read the paragraph. The only actual quantities involved there are in the description of the situation, not in the choice.

And this is not just not for dual "profile" weapons, either, this affects weapons with three or more "profiles" as well.

blaktoof wrote:
You dislike the easily readable clearly worded rule and are trying to circumvent it with faulty reasoning based an a highly alternative interpretation you have come up with of a plainly written rule.

If it was a plainly written, than how can I argue against it? Oh, right. It's in the interpretation you present cannot be quoted properly.

blaktoof wrote:
No one is turning the single sentence rule into a pretzel to stop you from shooting something, its not rules lawyering, and is simply the rule as written.

Saying "choose which to use each turn" actually says (not infers, not implies, actually says) "choose which one to use for the turn" is twisting the rule and misquoting. It is not how it is written.

blaktoof wrote:
You are rules lawyering and making up interpretations assumptions to ignore the rule and create a scenario where you can gain use of something for an extra phase when normally you would not be able to as per the plainly written rule.

Ignore? Who said anything about me ignoring a rule? This is an assumption on your part. Much like the assumption some have made that "if I can't use my Melee Weapon, I must not have a Melee Weapon".

I have continued to quote the rule as written, and only added to it once for perspective and example. I have quoted the entire paragraph to give context. I have recognized that it could be interpreted as one way, but never at any point have I actually ignored the written text.

What has been done in this thread is ignore the possibility that phrase in question could include the possibilities of multiple "profiles" of a weapon may be used, saved by a few not blinded by misquoting. That a profile is assumed to be the only profile the weapon has once it is chosen. That even though a model may have a weapon with the Melee Type, that can be ignored to give it the "free" CCW because some would deny its use. You want to talk about assumptions, ignoring rules, and rules lawyering? That there is your evidence since none of it has been properly supported by any written text from the rulebook.

blaktoof wrote:
just admit to yourself- not even here in a post-you are wanting the rule to work a certain way that is is not written to work because it is more useful to a certain model with a certain weapon you want to use and are supporting a HYWPI stance because you benefit from it and like it, and then move on.

No, I cannot, for that would be lying to myself. Especially when continuous misquoting is used as the only "proof". I've gone up and down this rule backwards and forwards looking for the actual defined and written limits since I first learned of this. I'm not looking to make it work a certain way, I'm looking to make it work, period. And I cannot see it work when one has to ignore rule triggers to allow a model to Fight at all. I cannot see it work when one is disallowed from using aspects of its Wargear when it is called upon to use them.

Where I can see it work is when the model is able to choose which to use when that portion of the profile is called upon in the rules and not otherwise forbidden.

so by adding to a rule as written you can add 'context'.

ie

by changing what a rule is you can add 'context'

context in this sense is an alteration of the rule, and not context at all.

there is no ignoring of the possibility of multiple choices, the use of the word which in any country that speaks english on our planet means the choice has to be singular unless the reference choice gives a plural option.

as it gives a singular option of "each" from the multiple profiles it cannot be multiple choices.

as you are unable to discuss the rule without changing it and discussing your altered version that is not a rule, there is no point in discussing the obvious RAW answer to this question with you- by anyone.

blaktoof wrote:
so by adding to a rule as written you can add 'context'.

ie

by changing what a rule is you can add 'context'

context in this sense is an alteration of the rule, and not context at all.

there is no ignoring of the possibility of multiple choices, the use of the word which in any country that speaks english on our planet means the choice has to be singular unless the reference choice gives a plural option.

as it gives a singular option of "each" from the multiple profiles it cannot be multiple choices.

as you are unable to discuss the rule without changing it and discussing your altered version that is not a rule, there is no point in discussing the obvious RAW answer to this question with you- by anyone.

So you play that an Assault Marine that fires his bolt pistol does not get the +1A for having 2 CCWs in the following fight phase? Is that really how you play it?

blaktoof wrote:
so by adding to a rule as written you can add 'context'.

ie

by changing what a rule is you can add 'context'

context in this sense is an alteration of the rule, and not context at all.

So why was this repeatedly done in this thread by others supporting your position? I did once, for perspective only, and I was explicit when I did it. Almost everyone else has quoted their perception, not the actual rule.

blaktoof wrote:
there is no ignoring of the possibility of multiple choices, the use of the word which in any country that speaks english on our planet means the choice has to be singular unless the reference choice gives a plural option.

Not entirely true. When making selections, unless otherwise defined or limited, "all" or "some" is always an option. I do not see a defined limit or quantity in "choose which to use". I do see limits elsewhere, but they do not seem to affect each other directly in the case of hybrid weapons.

blaktoof wrote:
as it gives a singular option of "each" from the multiple profiles it cannot be multiple choices.

The "each" is for the turn, not for the "profiles". And that doesn't always mean that the choice is always in affect for the duration of "each turn". There is no numerical or quantitative word in the middle of "choose which to use" aside from what the reader choose to insert.

blaktoof wrote:
as you are unable to discuss the rule without changing it and discussing your altered version that is not a rule, there is no point in discussing the obvious RAW answer to this question with you- by anyone.

I have not actually altered it once, save the aforementioned perspective position. I have offered a different perspective is all. I have not misrepresented this perspective a single time.

 FlingitNow wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
so by adding to a rule as written you can add 'context'.

ie

by changing what a rule is you can add 'context'

context in this sense is an alteration of the rule, and not context at all.

there is no ignoring of the possibility of multiple choices, the use of the word which in any country that speaks english on our planet means the choice has to be singular unless the reference choice gives a plural option.

as it gives a singular option of "each" from the multiple profiles it cannot be multiple choices.

as you are unable to discuss the rule without changing it and discussing your altered version that is not a rule, there is no point in discussing the obvious RAW answer to this question with you- by anyone.

So you play that an Assault Marine that fires his bolt pistol does not get the +1A for having 2 CCWs in the following fight phase? Is that really how you play it?

Already covered in this thread.

Charistoph wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
as it gives a singular option of "each" from the multiple profiles it cannot be multiple choices.

The "each" is for the turn, not for the "profiles". And that doesn't always mean that the choice is always in affect for the duration of "each turn". There is no numerical or quantitative word in the middle of "choose which to use" aside from what the reader choose to insert.

"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. When 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."

each is used twice.

the first time to denote each profile [singular] for some weapons that can be used in combat as well as shooting.

the second is for each turn.

stating that you have not altered something once, save for this one time when you used it for the basis of your discussion. means you altered it.

you have not offered a different perspective, you offered a perspective of a rule that you changed the wording as written to create a different rule in an attempt to justify something you would like to happen.

As Ghaz stated, the Pistols argument has been covered multiple times, and really needs to stop being referenced. It's a completely different argument.

The Rod of Covenant argument that is meant to be discussed pertains only to the situation in which a model has only 1 possible option for melee weapons. Having two weapons creates a completely different scenario and can not possibly be used as the basis for an argument in this case.

 Ghaz wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
so by adding to a rule as written you can add 'context'.

ie

by changing what a rule is you can add 'context'

context in this sense is an alteration of the rule, and not context at all.

there is no ignoring of the possibility of multiple choices, the use of the word which in any country that speaks english on our planet means the choice has to be singular unless the reference choice gives a plural option.

as it gives a singular option of "each" from the multiple profiles it cannot be multiple choices.

as you are unable to discuss the rule without changing it and discussing your altered version that is not a rule, there is no point in discussing the obvious RAW answer to this question with you- by anyone.

So you play that an Assault Marine that fires his bolt pistol does not get the +1A for having 2 CCWs in the following fight phase? Is that really how you play it?

Already covered in this thread.

Nice try how are you getting +1 attacking without referencing the melee profile which you can't do if you shot the pistol under your interpretation of choosing 1 profile for multi profile weapons.

This is a good example of just how crazy BAD it can really get here .

Fling sorry for the mispeak earlier. I really should only post after my coffee. We know a pistol only has a single profile during all but the Assault phase. During the Assault phase it it can be used as a CC weapon. If it is used as a CC weapon you are told to use the provided profile. At this point in order for the pistol to be able to be used at all you need to be able to ignore the other profile entirely. If you can't you end up with a dual shooting weapon / CC weapon. As we know if that is the case it cannot be used at all. The only way it works is if we take the statement "use the profile given above" to mean for all rules. The same goes for the rule about choosing a profile for each turn. Do you know of a rule that allows you to look at only part of a profile other than this reading?

blaktoof wrote:

"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. When 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."

each is used twice.

the first time to denote each profile [singular] for some weapons that can be used in combat as well as shooting.

Not quite. It is for any weapon that has multiple lines or "profiles". But that "each" is referring to the lines representing each option, not to the limit of the choice.

blaktoof wrote:
stating that you have not altered something once, save for this one time when you used it for the basis of your discussion. means you altered it.

And if you notice, when I said that I did not alter it, I included the caveat. I was demonstrating how it could be read. My main case has been that the choice is not quantified nor limited in this sentence, and it is not unless you choose to perceive it that way. As opposed to those who said that "the rules say, chose 1 profile to use for the duration of the turn", that isn't even worth mentioning.

blaktoof wrote:
you have not offered a different perspective, you offered a perspective of a rule that you changed the wording as written to create a different rule in an attempt to justify something you would like to happen.

Okay, so did I offer a different perspective or not? Which is it? Make up your mind.

But the main perspective I offered is this, the choice is not quantified nor defined in this sentence, just that a choice is available. It is what I have said repeatedly. That perspective does not require the changing of wording, just recognizing what is and is not there.

That is a far sight closer to RAW than adding "one" to the phrase or "for the duration of" that some have been doing this entire thread and others.

Gravmyr wrote:
Do you know of a rule that allows you to look at only part of a profile other than this reading?

The Shooting Sequence is very specific on that. We are to treat each option as a different weapon name for the purposes of selecting a weapon to shoot. So Frag Missiles and Krak Missiles cannot fired from the same unit at the same time, one will have to wait until after the resolution of the other. And in the case of the Rod of the Covenant, the Melee portion of the profile is considered a completely different weapon when you go to shoot.

Melee weapons technically have no specific ruling like this, unless you are willing to share the same concept from the Shooting Sequence that each sub-profile is a different weapon name for these purposes. But there is no specific tie in.

Gravmyr wrote:
Fling sorry for the mispeak earlier. I really should only post after my coffee. We know a pistol only has a single profile during all but the Assault phase. During the Assault phase it it can be used as a CC weapon. If it is used as a CC weapon you are told to use the provided profile. At this point in order for the pistol to be able to be used at all you need to be able to ignore the other profile entirely. If you can't you end up with a dual shooting weapon / CC weapon. As we know if that is the case it cannot be used at all. The only way it works is if we take the statement "use the profile given above" to mean for all rules. The same goes for the rule about choosing a profile for each turn. Do you know of a rule that allows you to look at only part of a profile other than this reading?

also it is a completely different discussion than the thread topic, as in the case of an assault marine with chainsword/pistol[brought up by fling..] the chosen weapon to strike with [and the profile used to make the attack] is the chainsword, not the pistol. The only RAW requirement to get the additional attack from having an additional weapon, is to have an additional weapon. The weapon is still an additional weapon when not being used for its profile. While in the case of the rod of covenant you are using its profile to strike with in assault, so the two are not analogous rules discussions.

Charistoph wrote:

The Shooting Sequence is very specific on that. We are to treat each option as a different weapon name for the purposes of selecting a weapon to shoot. So Frag Missiles and Krak Missiles cannot fired from the same unit at the same time, one will have to wait until after the resolution of the other. And in the case of the Rod of the Covenant, the Melee portion of the profile is considered a completely different weapon when you go to shoot.

Melee weapons technically have no specific ruling like this, unless you are willing to share the same concept from the Shooting Sequence that each sub-profile is a different weapon name for these purposes. But there is no specific tie in.

It is very specific to only modes of fire and ammo. Since a profile for Melee is neither it does not apply. Therefor you have to look at the entire profile in these cases which makes them unusable or use the reading that has been put forth.

Gravmyr wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

The Shooting Sequence is very specific on that. We are to treat each option as a different weapon name for the purposes of selecting a weapon to shoot. So Frag Missiles and Krak Missiles cannot fired from the same unit at the same time, one will have to wait until after the resolution of the other. And in the case of the Rod of the Covenant, the Melee portion of the profile is considered a completely different weapon when you go to shoot.

Melee weapons technically have no specific ruling like this, unless you are willing to share the same concept from the Shooting Sequence that each sub-profile is a different weapon name for these purposes. But there is no specific tie in.

It is very specific to only modes of fire and ammo. Since a profile for Melee is neither it does not apply. Therefor you have to look at the entire profile in these cases which makes them unusable or use the reading that has been put forth.

It references the same things in that paragraph on page 41, though. Do not dismiss it out of hand out of peak.

Not to mention, that same paragraph on page 41 does allow me to choose which to use. It does not provide a limit to the number of phases that the choice makes, either. In other words, if I choose to use both sub-profiles of a hybrid weapon, I can choose to use the shooting version when shooting and the melee version when in close combat.

Not that many will really care about this concept. They are too busy trying to use it as means to not allow the weapon to actually do its job.

You are still stating that for the turn doesn't mean for the turn. Once you have made the decision it is made, just like moving models. Once you have moved them in the movement phase without a specific rule allowing you to move them again there is no permission to change that position. Secondly this game is not built on this is similar so that rule should apply to this. You need a rule to tell you exactly what you can do with it to do it. You are not given permission to change your mind on which to use for the turn. You are not given permission to apply a rule about modes of fire and ammo types to other profile options. Without a rule telling you that you can do something you can't, plain and simple. You need to provide an actual rule that states you can pick the profile to use for each phase and then not for the other phases. Without that it's not allowed. This is a basic premise of dakkadakka and all permissive rule sets.

Gravmyr wrote:
You are still stating that for the turn doesn't mean for the turn.

To be accurate, I am stating that "for each turn" doesn't mean "for all phases of the turn", or rather, that if one chooses to use both sub-profiles of a hybrid weapon in a turn, it doesn't mean you have to use both at every point a weapon is called for.

The reason for this is two-fold:
1) It doesn't state "for the turn".
2) It doesn't actually state that this happens.

So my question to you is, why do you continue to push a misquote?

Gravmyr wrote:
Once you have made the decision it is made, just like moving models. Once you have moved them in the movement phase without a specific rule allowing you to move them again there is no permission to change that position.

Funny, Running, Turbo-Boost, Flat Out, Thrust, and Charging seem to provide those permissions for moving. But that's diverging.

And who is to say that decision to use both profiles is not made when you decide to shoot? At the ranges these weapons operate at, one knows a Charge is likely at some point, and most definitely exists in Overwatch. Where does it say I only get to choose once in the turn? Where does it say that this choice is final? Heck, where does it state WHEN this choice is made?

Gravmyr wrote:
Secondly this game is not built on this is similar so that rule should apply to this. You need a rule to tell you exactly what you can do with it to do it. You are not given permission to change your mind on which to use for the turn. You are not given permission to apply a rule about modes of fire and ammo types to other profile options. Without a rule telling you that you can do something you can't, plain and simple. You need to provide an actual rule that states you can pick the profile to use for each phase and then not for the other phases. Without that it's not allowed. This is a basic premise of dakkadakka and all permissive rule sets.

Well, here's the point. I have those permissions, but only if you look at that paragraph on page 41 as a permission, not a restriction, and actually look at the connections in the rules. But it doesn't help to point them out if you continue to ignore the connections, and add other connections that have never been stated by me or the rulebook.

I can use the rule about modes of fire and ammo types for other profile options, because that the sentence that we have been so adamantly investigating (or at least some have been investigating, others have been tabloiding) is in a paragraph that specifically starts with modes of fire and ammo types.

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 is the connection between the Shooting Sequence and choosing sub-profiles that you missed.

Now, the fun part here is, that line in page 41, also gives me permission to not use the shooting sub-profile when it is time for the model to engage in the Fight sub-phase, just as much as it allows me to not use the melee sub-profile in the Shooting Sequence.

Otherwise, when I choose to use a weapon, I would have to use every version of the weapon. Remember, the Number of Shots rule states right before this paragraph, "if a model does fire, it must do so at full effect".

Considering that this paragraph about choosing sub-profiles is actually in Number of Shots, and takes place right after that phrase (ignoring the example), it starts putting a little more context in to this statement than just using it as a denial of every sub-profile but one of a weapon.

Charistoph wrote:
To be accurate, I am stating that "for each turn" doesn't mean "for all phases of the turn", or rather, that if one chooses to use both sub-profiles of a hybrid weapon in a turn, it doesn't mean you have to use both at every point a weapon is called for.

The reason for this is two-fold:
1) It doesn't state "for the turn".
2) It doesn't actually state that this happens.

So my question to you is, why do you continue to push a misquote?

It's only a misquote as you put it if you are defining a turn as something other than what the game defines it as. Per pg 17 each player turn is divided into Movement, Psychic, Shooting and Assault phases. To define turn as anything else is to break that rule.

Charistoph wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
Once you have made the decision it is made, just like moving models. Once you have moved them in the movement phase without a specific rule allowing you to move them again there is no permission to change that position.

Funny, Running, Turbo-Boost, Flat Out, Thrust, and Charging seem to provide those permissions for moving. But that's diverging.

Which as I stated are all specific rules allowing you to move them again. See what I mean about specific allowances?

Charistoph wrote:
And who is to say that decision to use both profiles is not made when you decide to shoot? At the ranges these weapons operate at, one knows a Charge is likely at some point, and most definitely exists in Overwatch. Where does it say I only get to choose once in the turn? Where does it say that this choice is final? Heck, where does it state WHEN this choice is made?

It really doesn't matter when you make said decision, as the rule states it's for each turn. Without a different definition then the one above it's for all the portions of it unless it states otherwise. Does the rule give you a limit other than each turn? You can decide to change which profile you are using but it still doesn't change the fact that you made the choice to use it for the turn, it's basically an on/off switch. Once it's on it's on for that turn. You choose to use the shooting profile great, it's on for that turn. When you decide to change it to use the melee you are still using the shooting profile as it's still being used for the turn and nothing in the rule changes that. You are still using the shooting profile and now you are also using the CC profile. We know what happens then, we look at the profile and both types limit the weapon to unusability.

Charistoph wrote:

Well, here's the point. I have those permissions, but only if you look at that paragraph on page 41 as a permission, not a restriction, and actually look at the connections in the rules. But it doesn't help to point them out if you continue to ignore the connections, and add other connections that have never been stated by me or the rulebook.

40k is a permissive ruleset, there is no such thing as a connection in the rules. There are rules and there are implications. Implications are not rules nor can they or should they be used to justify your position.

Charistoph wrote:
I can use the rule about modes of fire and ammo types for other profile options, because that the sentence that we have been so adamantly investigating (or at least some have been investigating, others have been tabloiding) is in a paragraph that specifically starts with modes of fire and ammo types.

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 is the connection between the Shooting Sequence and choosing sub-profiles that you missed.

Again at best this is an implication. You need a rule that actively states you can do so not one that says you can do so under certain circumstances and has similarities to others.

Charistoph wrote:
Now, the fun part here is, that line in page 41, also gives me permission to not use the shooting sub-profile when it is time for the model to engage in the Fight sub-phase, just as much as it allows me to not use the melee sub-profile in the Shooting Sequence.

Please quote that exact statement. Not under those circumstances I can do x so because these attributes are listed the same way I can do x affecting these other attributes even though I am not meeting the requirements of being a mode of fire or ammo. If you can do that rather than relying on "connections", read implication, then you may have a leg to stand on.

Charistoph wrote:
Otherwise, when I choose to use a weapon, I would have to use every version of the weapon. Remember, the Number of Shots rule states right before this paragraph, "if a model does fire, it must do so at full effect".

That is exactly right without a rule telling you otherwise you use the entire profile. Since there is a rule about modes and ammo in the shooting section we don't have to worry about it for those types of weapons. The onus falls to you to provide a rule that allows you to do the same for weapons with dual type profiles. The only one I am aware of is the ability to choose which profile to use for the turn.

Charistoph wrote:
Considering that this paragraph about choosing sub-profiles is actually in Number of Shots, and takes place right after that phrase (ignoring the example), it starts putting a little more context in to this statement than just using it as a denial of every sub-profile but one of a weapon.

It is also entirely under the type section. This still does not actually change the wording on in the shooting section nor of the profile section. Again you are trying to use implication instead of rules.

Where this is the case, there will be separate will be a separate line in the weapon's profile for each, and you can choose which to use each turn.

Nothing in this section states you ignore any part of the profile without permission. To be RAW you need that to actually be spelled out. For it to be a phase it would literally have to say a phase. It tells you how log your choice is for, the turn. To be anything else, again, you need to provide a book definition of turn to be other than what I posted above.

Can you define a turn as something other than The 4 phases it is comprised of?
Can you provide a rule that changes how long your choice lasts for?

I'm not seeing any rules as written argument for them being able to use both profiles in a turn...

Can't really argue RAI since none of us work in the design studio in Nottingham. I'd like to think that they write a codex with the rules in mind. Or at least have proof readers that know the rules and would fix anything.

Hiwpi is that if they fire the weapon and then assault, as per p41 they wouldn't be able to use the melee weapon profile. However, I would be fine with them making the attacks in the assault phase at s:user ap:-.

If you want to argue of how that doesn't make any logical sense, nothing in 40k does. Maybe the weapon has to recharge or cycle. Maybe it was just the designers way of making you choose between the stronger but more limited rod and the weaker but more flexible pistol and sword.

 Crazyterran wrote:
I'm not seeing any rules as written argument for them being able to use both profiles in a turn...

My question is where is the RAW argument that actually denies it without resorting to implication or assumption?

I'm not going to bother answering Gravmyr anymore. He is under some crazy assumptions about my position that have only been written by him.

I agree choosing which [profile] to use each turn is exclusive of using both.

If we look at other uses of the phrase...

Missile Launchers;

Each time a missile launcher fires, the
controlling player must choose which type of missile is being used.

How many missiles can be used out of the X many you have?


Allocating wounds;

The Space Marine
player can choose which weapon to shoot first.

Again you can have many weapons but you choose which.


Warlord trait:

To determine which trait your Warlord has, you need to choose which Warlord Traits
table to roll on.

There are 3 in the BRB. You can choose which. How many can you choose to roll on?


When you have many, and are told you can choose which to use/fire/roll... it is always choose one, 'choose which' can never actually be more than one without further wording (for example 'choose which three...'). The phrasing goes on to say what it is chosen for, IE. Shoot first, being used, roll on, for the turn. This is common use of the phrase. In fact, it is a completely obsolete wording in the BRB if it does not do so.


Just going to pop up and say this has been brought up a good few times before whatever this Necron thing is, I just think people didn't really care so much about the profiles of pistols for it to go beyond one page.

Gravmyr wrote:
Fling sorry for the mispeak earlier. I really should only post after my coffee. We know a pistol only has a single profile during all but the Assault phase. During the Assault phase it it can be used as a CC weapon. If it is used as a CC weapon you are told to use the provided profile. At this point in order for the pistol to be able to be used at all you need to be able to ignore the other profile entirely. If you can't you end up with a dual shooting weapon / CC weapon. As we know if that is the case it cannot be used at all. The only way it works is if we take the statement "use the profile given above" to mean for all rules. The same goes for the rule about choosing a profile for each turn. Do you know of a rule that allows you to look at only part of a profile other than this reading?

No I don't know of another example but this is clear. If you take the read that choose a profile for a turn forces 1 profile for the turn then firing your pistol prevents you from gaining an attack from it in the following fight phase. So if you want to break the Rod and Singing Soear and Scorpion Claw etc, remember you break pistols at tge same time. That is what I'm saying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crazyterran wrote:
I'm not seeing any rules as written argument for them being able to use both profiles in a turn...

Can't really argue RAI since none of us work in the design studio in Nottingham. I'd like to think that they write a codex with the rules in mind. Or at least have proof readers that know the rules and would fix anything.

It doesn't require us to work at the design studio to work out RaI all it requires is an ability to understand English at a level beyond the purely literal. Like when some one asks "can you tell me the time?" We know they are not enquiring about our ability to read a watch...

If you think they have proof readers then there is no helping you.

Hiwpi is that if they fire the weapon and then assault, as per p41 they wouldn't be able to use the melee weapon profile. However, I would be fine with them making the attacks in the assault phase at s:user ap:-.

How are they making attacks at S:user Ap:- where are you getting that profile? Also I assume you will take the same tac with a Pistol (so someone firing their pistol can not gain +1 attack from it in the ensuing phase) and also a Singing Spear, Scorpionclaw etc?

If you want to argue of how that doesn't make any logical sense, nothing in 40k does. Maybe the weapon has to recharge or cycle. Maybe it was just the designers way of making you choose between the stronger but more limited rod and the weaker but more flexible pistol and sword.

It is not about sense it is about understanding how the rules are written. Then understanding the full implications of you choosing a particular interpretation.

So just jumping in here and I took a look at all the posts and the rules. The wording for dual profiles says you can choose which to use each turn. Doesn't say you can only pick one. Just choose to use both. Things like special issue ammo for sternguard with multiple shooting profiles, well you can only make the one shooting attack anyway so you can pick to use all but you'll only get the benefit of one type. Don't know if this helps at all it's just some people are going on about hiwpi and raw, this is a bit of both I guess.

Fling again please read the the pistol rules. It is only a CC weapon in the assault phase per the rules. It only uses the CC profile when used as a CC weapon. If you read how I put it forth as being told to use the profile then you cannot look at the other other profile. Pistol are actually worded entirely different from other dual profile weapons in that you choose how to use them which then changes their profile. The Rods and anything else that is dual profile, that does not have a special rule such as impact or being a pistol, you would choose the profile then be able to use it as appropriate.

Gravmyr wrote:
Fling again please read the the pistol rules. It is only a CC weapon in the assault phase per the rules. It only uses the CC profile when used as a CC weapon. If you read how I put it forth as being told to use the profile then you cannot look at the other other profile. Pistol are actually worded entirely different from other dual profile weapons in that you choose how to use them which then changes their profile. The Rods and anything else that is dual profile, that does not have a special rule such as impact or being a pistol, you would choose the profile then be able to use it as appropriate.

That means it gains its second sub-profile in the Assault Phase. That doesn't change the fact that it is there.

Of course, the sentence in the Pistol Type says, "A Pistol also counts as a close combat weapon in the Assault phase."

Technically speaking, this means either it has a dual profile or you cannot use it in Overwatch.

 Nem wrote:
If we look at other uses of the phrase...

Missile Launchers;

Each time a missile launcher fires, the controlling player must choose which type of missile is being used.

How many missiles can be used out of the X many you have?

Within the limitations of the system. Most units can only fire one weapon a Phase. Where this gets interesting is for Vehicles. Still, that phrase does not actually specify that only one may be fired any more than page 41.

Maybe Dreadnoughts with Missile Launchers can become a little more viable, then? Of course, Land Speeders become REALLY deadly, too.

 Nem wrote:
Allocating wounds;

The Space Marine
player can choose which weapon to shoot first.

Again you can have many weapons but you choose which.

Using an example is poor proof, especially when the Shooting Sequence states, "First, select a weapon that one or more models in your unit are equipped with. The selected weapon cannot be one that the unit has shot with during this phase" at the very beginning of selecting a weapon. Yeah, that's right, "a weapon" as in singular.

 Nem wrote:
Warlord trait:

To determine which trait your Warlord has, you need to choose which Warlord Traits
table to roll on.

There are 3 in the BRB. You can choose which. How many can you choose to roll on?

Actually 4 tables in the BRB now. But the word "table" is singular in this case. "Choose which to use" does not have any conjugated noun from which to make the same stipulation

 Nem wrote:
When you have many, and are told you can choose which to use/fire/roll... it is always choose one, 'choose which' can never actually be more than one without further wording (for example 'choose which three...'). The phrasing goes on to say what it is chosen for, IE. Shoot first, being used, roll on, for the turn. This is common use of the phrase. In fact, it is a completely obsolete wording in the BRB if it does not do so.

Right, a point I have actually made. The restrictions regarding weapon use are actually in regards to the specific actions or Types, not in the definition of the multi-lined profiles.

I stand corrected, which actually makes them a Hybrid. During normal shooting they only have a shooting profile there is no choice and no selection based on being a dual profile weapon. During assault though you would have to choose between getting an overwatch shot(s) off or getting the extra attack. I believe that this falls in line with the Ork weapons and Rods as a one or the other choice at that point.

This makes a difference from other Dual Profile weapons, as by choosing the shooting profile in the Shooting phase, you are making a statement that you are using said profile for a turn. Trying to change this at a later date, by choosing to use the melee profile for a turn, does not negate that you are still using the shooting profile. There is nothing in the melee section about choosing which profile to use,under type we have the one you have already used, which means you are now wielding a melee/shooting weapon which eliminates it's ability to do either.

Gravmyr wrote:
I stand corrected, which actually makes them a Hybrid. During normal shooting they only have a shooting profile there is no choice and no selection based on being a dual profile weapon. During assault though you would have to choose between getting an overwatch shot(s) off or getting the extra attack. I believe that this falls in line with the Ork weapons and Rods as a one or the other choice at that point.

Not entirely true with Pistols. Provided they have another weapon, they can still get the extra attack from the pistol. The weapon just has to exist. If the model has a Chainsword and Power Fist, and choses the Chainsword, the +1 Attack still comes in, as the Chainsword doesn't care if the Fist is Specialist, usable, or not, just that it is there.

But in cases like Tactical Marines who have no other Melee Weapon but the Pistol, it puts it in a whole new light.

Gravmyr wrote:
This makes a difference from other Dual Profile weapons, as by choosing the shooting profile in the Shooting phase, you are making a statement that you are using said profile for a turn. Trying to change this at a later date, by choosing to use the melee profile for a turn, does not negate that you are still using the shooting profile. There is nothing in the melee section about choosing which profile to use,under type we have the one you have already used, which means you are now wielding a melee/shooting weapon which eliminates it's ability to do either.

Again, misquoting and using it to misdirect yourself. But then, from this perspective, you cannot use hybrid weapons in melee anyway, since you cannot choose to separate the Melee sub-profile from the Shooting sub-profile.

Charistoph wrote:

Not entirely true with Pistols. Provided they have another weapon, they can still get the extra attack from the pistol. The weapon just has to exist. If the model has a Chainsword and Power Fist, and choses the Chainsword, the +1 Attack still comes in, as the Chainsword doesn't care if the Fist is Specialist, usable, or not, just that it is there.

But in cases like Tactical Marines who have no other Melee Weapon but the Pistol, it puts it in a whole new light.

Hardly a new light again as I stated it brings it in line with how the Orks have always worked.

Gravmyr wrote:

Again, misquoting and using it to misdirect yourself. But then, from this perspective, you cannot use hybrid weapons in melee anyway, since you cannot choose to separate the Melee sub-profile from the Shooting sub-profile.

What exactly was quoted there? There needs to be a quote for there to be a misquote. Again read everything I say in the thread not just a single post. You need to actually read what I stated about the type being read for the terms of use. If you continue to state that it is incorrect please post an actual quote and back it up and spell out your reasoning as it took you a large number of pages on Necrotyr to make your statements clear. If you would take the time to do so instead of I use this rule cause... then we might be able to get somewhere. You said there is a misquote where and how? We can't actually debate this without you know an exchange of information instead of opinion.

Gravmyr wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

Not entirely true with Pistols. Provided they have another weapon, they can still get the extra attack from the pistol. The weapon just has to exist. If the model has a Chainsword and Power Fist, and choses the Chainsword, the +1 Attack still comes in, as the Chainsword doesn't care if the Fist is Specialist, usable, or not, just that it is there.

But in cases like Tactical Marines who have no other Melee Weapon but the Pistol, it puts it in a whole new light.

Hardly a new light again as I stated it brings it in line with how the Orks have always worked.

Except for Orks, that is only one weapon that restricts the hybrid weapon, and it is explicit to do so. Rods and pistols do not actually have the stipulation that the Ork Burnas do. The rules for one weapon of one codex do not affect the rules of a weapon in another codex (except for WS special rules, of course). Only the rulebook rules can be used across all codices equally. And there is another weapon in the rulebook which does explicitly state to not use both sub-profiles in the same Phase, the Combi-Weapon:
"A model armed with a combi-weapon can choose to fire either the main boltgun, or the secondary weapon. You cannot fire both in the same turn. Each combi-weapon has only one secondary weapon. The main and secondary weapons of a combi-weapon fire at the same time as all other similarly named weapons in that unit. For example, the ‘boltgun’ part of a combi-weapon fires at the same time as all other boltguns in the unit."

And that version was out before the current Burna (even though the current Burna was just carrying on the tradition of the previous version).

Gravmyr wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:

Again, misquoting and using it to misdirect yourself. But then, from this perspective, you cannot use hybrid weapons in melee anyway, since you cannot choose to separate the Melee sub-profile from the Shooting sub-profile.

What exactly was quoted there? There needs to be a quote for there to be a misquote. Again read everything I say in the thread not just a single post. You need to actually read what I stated about the type being read for the terms of use. If you continue to state that it is incorrect please post an actual quote and back it up and spell out your reasoning as it took you a large number of pages on Necrotyr to make your statements clear. If you would take the time to do so instead of I use this rule cause... then we might be able to get somewhere. You said there is a misquote where and how? We can't actually debate this without you know an exchange of information instead of opinion.

When you said, "you are making a statement that you are using said profile for a turn."

The phrase "for the turn" or "for a turn" carries the connotation that it continues through every part of the turn, or in other words, it is a shortened form of "for the duration of the turn" or "for the duration of a turn". "For each turn" is not quite as locked in in concept.

If I tell someone to do a task "for the hour", they are to do it for the entire hour till the turn of the clock. If I tell someone to do a task "for an hour", they are to perform the task for 60 minutes. But if I tell them, do a task "for each hour", they just need to do it within that hour and between every turn of the clock, but other tasks may be performed. So, too, the choice "for each turn" does not necessarily mean that all aspects of that choice are in play at every juncture, especially when other rules provide sufficient limits on the situation, like being unable to shoot with a Melee type, and only using a melee type in combat.

Gravmyr wrote:
Fling again please read the the pistol rules. It is only a CC weapon in the assault phase per the rules. It only uses the CC profile when used as a CC weapon. If you read how I put it forth as being told to use the profile then you cannot look at the other other profile. Pistol are actually worded entirely different from other dual profile weapons in that you choose how to use them which then changes their profile. The Rods and anything else that is dual profile, that does not have a special rule such as impact or being a pistol, you would choose the profile then be able to use it as appropriate.

It has 2 profiles as soon as it becomes a CCW read the pistol rules it spells out that it retains the pistol profile (as you must ignore certain parts of that profile when attacking in CC). So the ruling must be the same for both.

Everyone should just agree this with the opponent how you're gonna play this before insults are thrown in this shouting match.

If you look at combi weapons you will see that they are in fact two weapons in one slot. They do not fall under the purview of the Dual Profile weapons section.

That is not a quote that is my interpretation of the rule evidenced by the fact that it is not listed in quotation marks.

Other rules of the book which apply to all situations where it is applicable do not have anything mentioned about time. Why would you do so here if not to tie the use of the profile to the weapon for the turn? It's really where you and I differ. Is there a reasonable explanation as to why this rule has a timing aspect where the rest of them do not? Without that ignoring the inclusion makes as little sense to me as possible and why I cannot read the rule as having no timing component.

I have not seen a single user arguing "no cc attacks" address the fact that melee weapons cannot be used in the shooting phase

That alone suggests it is a flawed argument

 jokerkd wrote:
I have not seen a single user arguing "no cc attacks" address the fact that melee weapons cannot be used in the shooting phase

That alone suggests it is a flawed argument

Sorry what is your point here?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
I have not seen a single user arguing "no cc attacks" address the fact that melee weapons cannot be used in the shooting phase

That alone suggests it is a flawed argument

Sorry what is your point here?

My point, again, is that if you can't ignore the "melee" type when choosing the ranged profile, then you cannot ignore the rule that states you can only use weapons with the melee type in close combat. Meaning that you cannot use it in the shooting phase at all. Ever.

Choosing one profile or the other each turn (raw) does not break the game. It doesn't even make the weapon pointless.
Not ignoring the other profile completely for that turn (raw still counts as HAVING both) does break the game and makes the weapon pointless.

Raw is broken. You have to rule on it to play. The "each turn" doesn't need fixing, the always has the melee type is the only thing that does.

 jokerkd wrote:
My point, again, is that if you can't ignore the "melee" type when choosing the ranged profile, then you cannot ignore the rule that states you can only use weapons with the melee type in close combat. Meaning that you cannot use it in the shooting phase at all. Ever.

Actually, you can ignore a sub-profile of a weapon during the Shooting Sequence. It's in the third paragraph, right after it tells you to select a weapon that has not fired. It identifies that weapons with more than one mode (which a melee mode would qualify as), treats it as a different named weapon. Then add the restriction of only being able to shoot one weapon a Phase under normal circumstances from More Than One Weapon, and it becomes clear, that for most models, they would only be able to engage in using one mode when making a shot.

Where it gets a little weird is with Vehicles, Monstrous Creatures, and Tau Battlesuits who CAN fire more than one weapon in some Phases.

But the fun part is that even if one chooses to use both sub-profiles during a turn, there's nothing that states that you have to use both during the same Phase, or even the same section of the Phase (see Overwatch and Fighting for a time where this may happen).

 jokerkd wrote:
Choosing one profile or the other each turn (raw) does not break the game.

The game? No.

 jokerkd wrote:
It doesn't even make the weapon pointless.

I disagree on this point. If we were talking about the Rod of the Covenant having Range 72" and being Heavy 1 (as an example), than you would be correct.

But how many of these hybrid weapons qualify as that? Not even including Pistols in the list, the longest range I have seen is 18", with the average at 12" (Rods used to be 6"!). That's a Move and a maximum Charge. If you consider the fact that models need to be closer than that to actually be Wounded when shot at with these Weapons, it actually means they are meant to be used at a point where a Charge will be in play, either this turn or the next.

Then add to that fact that they are also Assault, which means that a Charge would be desirable after firing the weapon, and it starts coming clear that Shooting with and then Attacking with the weapon in the same turn is a point of it.

However, that is theorycrafting on the intention of the developers, no matter which side of the preference of this debate you are on.

 jokerkd wrote:
Not ignoring the other profile completely for that turn (raw still counts as HAVING both) does break the game and makes the weapon pointless.

Raw is broken. You have to rule on it to play. The "each turn" doesn't need fixing, the always has the melee type is the only thing that does.

Not true. It only breaks the system if you have the obscure belief that if one can access to both modes than one MUST use both every single time it is used. Where does it say that specifically?

------

On a more obscure point, regarding developer intentions, to provide food for thought. The developers were probably not thinking anything about how this would work in 7th Edition when they wrote it. Why? Because it was actually written for 6th Edition where things operated a little more differently, especially in the Shooting Phase. In fact, the whole Number of Shots section is completely the same (including examples), except for the last paragraph addressing random number of shots was reduced to the first sentence, and they dropped the sentences for rolling once for random number of shots for the entire unit.

Welcome to the Copy and Paste Edition where the only things different were the parts they intended to change the mechanic for, and everything related to it can go hang itself.

The shooting phase rule you're referring to states that different profiles that can be fired are treated as separate weapons.
It does not, for obvious reasons, mention melee profiles or any reason to be believe they could be included.

I totally agree that the profiles should be used completely separately. But the rules simply do not specifically say that

 jokerkd wrote:
The shooting phase rule you're referring to states that different profiles that can be fired are treated as separate weapons.
It does not, for obvious reasons, mention melee profiles or any reason to be believe they could be included.

It does when it states "different modes". I would definitely call a Melee sub-profile a different mode to a 12" sub-profile, wouldn't you?

But it is separated out in the Shooting Sequence. However, the definition of "one weapon" for melee isn't defined as such, which is part of the problem.

The only reason that the Melee mode would be a problem in shooting is if you believed that choosing to use it in the Assault Phase (or Fight Sub-Phase) means you have to try and shoot with it, even if you were going to shoot with the other sub-profile. Nothing actually states that, though, even though some are making that assumption.

Charistoph wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
The shooting phase rule you're referring to states that different profiles that can be fired are treated as separate weapons.
It does not, for obvious reasons, mention melee profiles or any reason to be believe they could be included.

It does when it states "different modes". I would definitely call a Melee sub-profile a different mode to a 12" sub-profile, wouldn't you?

But it is separated out in the Shooting Sequence. However, the definition of "one weapon" for melee isn't defined as such, which is part of the problem.

"If a weapon can FIRE in more than one mode, or can fire more than one type of ammo,"

it does not say what you're implying

The only reason that the Melee mode would be a problem in shooting is if you believed that choosing to use it in the Assault Phase (or Fight Sub-Phase) means you have to try and shoot with it, even if you were going to shoot with the other sub-profile. Nothing actually states that, though, even though some are making that assumption.

You have either created a straw man, or do not understand the opposing argument.

those of us that disagree with you, as i'm sure you are aware, do not read anywhere that you can choose more than one profile in a turn.
the fact that you can choose a line in the profile does not (RAW) mean that the other lines stop existing. (though HIWPI, it has to). this means that, although it isn't using the melee line, it still HAS the melee line, therefore still HAS the melee type, therefore cannot be used outside of close combat.

hence why i argue that RAW is broken, and need to be addressed

This does not mean that how often you can choose a line from a weapons profile needs addressing.

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.

"which" quite clearly (although apparently not) refers to the "line" mentioned in the same sentence

 jokerkd wrote:

The only reason that the Melee mode would be a problem in shooting is if you believed that choosing to use it in the Assault Phase (or Fight Sub-Phase) means you have to try and shoot with it, even if you were going to shoot with the other sub-profile. Nothing actually states that, though, even though some are making that assumption.

You have either created a straw man, or do not understand the opposing argument.

Not really, since this is the reason given why being able to choose multiple modes in a turn won't work. Hard for me set it up as a strawman when other people are using it as their lawyer.

 jokerkd wrote:
those of us that disagree with you, as i'm sure you are aware, do not read anywhere that you can choose more than one profile in a turn.

And you also do not read where it says you cannot choose more than one mode in a turn, since it is not there. Some choose to interpret it in this manner because of how people have been trained to understand a phrase while a little kid. A training I've been partially disabused of in critical thinking courses older than this game.

 jokerkd wrote:
the fact that you can choose a line in the profile does not (RAW) mean that the other lines stop existing. (though HIWPI, it has to). this means that, although it isn't using the melee line, it still HAS the melee line, therefore still HAS the melee type, therefore cannot be used outside of close combat.

Conversely, the same could be said in the other direction, unless you choose to accept that line in the Shooting Sequence to include Melee modes as well. In other words, you can't use the weapon in Melee because it has a Shooting Mode, and you cannot Shoot while in Engaged or in to close combat.

 jokerkd wrote:
hence why i argue that RAW is broken, and need to be addressed

There is no argument from me on that score.

Look, a lot of this is based on interpretation of the language, and it is clear that GW has no good game engineers when they design their games. Such as not tracing the interactions their rules will come across. This is one point where Privateer Press excels at, no matter how you actually feel about WarmaHordes' mechanics and concepts. GW writes like they were talking to their friends over a beer, and leave stuff out that they had talked over and resolved by their own side-discussions, but not actually written in the rules.

 jokerkd wrote:
This does not mean that how often you can choose a line from a weapons profile needs addressing.

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.

"which" quite clearly (although apparently not) refers to the "line" mentioned in the same sentence

Except for the fact that one "line" is not the subject of the sentence, just a reference of representation, it is that group of lines referenced by the two sentences before.

Let's put the paragraph in to one sentence for perspective, shall we? It seems that some people forget that this paragraph addresses weapons like Missile Launchers as much as it does Hybrid weapons, and start the quote off on the second sentence (I've been guilty of this, too).

Where some weapons can be used in different ways, representing different power settings, ammo, or being able to be used in combat as well as shooting, there will be a separate line in the weapon's profile for each, and you can choose which to use each turn.

There is still no defined number in the important part of this statement which provides an exclusive limit, either to the number of modes chosen, nor, if multiple are chosen, that they would apply to every use of the weapon.

Took a while, but vindicated!


http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2016/08/breaking-new-40k-necron-faq.html

With that dynamic necronization I think we can wrap up this thread!

Thread is being locked due to thread necromancy.