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

Tankbustas don't have melee weapons per se.

One model may be upgraded to a Boss Nob.

The Boss Nob may take weapons from the Melee Weapons lis

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

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

Big Rule Book states: "No Specified Melee Weapon: If a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the melee type, it is treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon."

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

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




.

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

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

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

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

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

Tankbustas don't have melee weapons per se.

One model may be upgraded to a Boss Nob.

The Boss Nob may take weapons from the Melee Weapons lis

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

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

Big Rule Book states: "No Specified Melee Weapon: If a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the melee type, it is treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon."

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

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

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


Another example which should be clearer:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

His Melta Bomb is a melee weapon

Yeah he replaces that

ALRIGHT LET'S DO THIS WAAAAAAGGHH!

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


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

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

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

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

 Rismonite wrote:
His Melta Bomb is a melee weapon

Yeah he replaces that

ALRIGHT LET'S DO THIS WAAAAAAGGHH!

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

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

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


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

You have two requirements to meet. Not one.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does he have one?

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

pg 41 No specified melee weapon

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

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

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

pg 41 No specified melee weapon

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

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

And when does that get applied?

 DeathReaper wrote:


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

Does he have one?

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

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

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

The joke is appreciated!

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

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

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

Fixed that for you.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:


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

Does he have one?

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

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

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

The joke is appreciated!

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

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

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nosferatu1001 wrote:

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

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

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

That is absolute.

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

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

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

That's a very misleading example where you are not punished for disobeying the rule of "wear your frigging tutu". Let's try that again:

Your GF tells you "You may bring me ice cream from the supermarket". First of all you can either go to the supermarket or challenge the dragon by staying home.
You run to the supermarket, which has a rather annoying "You only get ice cream (and other dairy products) in exchange for money" policy. If you simply take the ice cream without paying, you're breaking the rules. A random cop already noticed you being shady af next to the ice cream. Since you don't have any money on you, you have to return empty-handed and face the wrath of your girlfriend.

TL;DR: You can't just decide to ignore a written rule just because it's inconvenient to you.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:


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

Does he have one?

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

He also needs a Melee weapon.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

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

False. you need a Melee weapon to trade for a different melee weapon and clearly he does not have one.


Lets look at the actual rules from the Ork Codex:

1) "The Boss Nob may take items from the Melee Weapons list."
and
2) "A model may replace its melee weapon with one of the following:"

#1 tells him that he is allowed to access that list.

#2 tells him what he needs to do to get a weapon from that list...

If he does not have a melee weapon, he can not " replace its melee weapon with one of the following:" and as such is breaking the rules.

Does anyone as sent a mail to GW about this point?

They're working on FAQ, it may time to see what they think about this point beacause I think we may never agree on this point and both side can play with words as they want to confort their positions.

Another approach: did any of you play Orks in a tournament? And as the referees authorize a list with a tank busta nob with PK ?

On my side, in the 3 or 4 different tournaments I do this year: the PK on a boss tank busta was allowed.

O I git it.

He takes a weapon from the list

He takes it

Takes

Like taking a powerklaw from a baby. The entry gives you permission to ignore the melee weapon list rule and you simply just take it. Like any true ork would. Punch that no good weapon dealing grot right in the mouth and acquire powerklaw.

Just take it

Yeah exactly... "The Boss Nob may take items from the Melee Weapons list."

Doesn't say you have to pay for it right? Let's just ignore all the instructions about how to purchase items in the list and take whatever items we want without paying for them because that's what we're told to do.

/sarcasm

But nonetheless, this points out the logical fallacy in ignoring the "A model may replace its melee weapon with one of the following:". If you're going to ignore that, then you might as well ignore the points cost too.

There is then no point in the saying he can take a melee weapon from the list then if he doesn't count as having a close combat weapon. Some say you can equip him with a tankhammer, but Boss Nobs can't take tankhammers, only tankbustas. The same would be for my wolf guard pack leader and my scouts. Scouts can take camo cloaks, but a wolf guard pack leader does not access to them and therefore cannot be equipped with one. Therefore with the argument of the Boss Nob not having a weapon to trade he can't ever access the list despite it saying so in the codex entry.

biggie_reg wrote:
There is then no point in the saying he can take a melee weapon from the list then if he doesn't count as having a close combat weapon.

However saying that he can take a melee weapon doesn't override the requirement in the Melee Weapon list.

This is one of those cases where rules and intent have gone in opposite directions.

Does this really need a debate?
GW doesn't write good rules, RaW says one thing but one look at the codex and the intent is crystal. Would anyone seriously challenge this in an actual game?

GW have kicked Ork players with enough bad rules. Move along..

 grendel083 wrote:
This is one of those cases where rules and intent have gone in opposite directions.

Does this really need a debate?
GW doesn't write good rules, RaW says one thing but one look at the codex and the intent is crystal. Would anyone seriously challenge this in an actual game?

GW have kicked Ork players with enough bad rules. Move along..

Is the intent 'crystal clear'? Was the fact that he has no melee weapon to trade the error or is the option to take an item from the Melee Weapon list the error?

 Ghaz wrote:
Is the intent 'crystal clear'?

Looking at my codex right now, yes it is.

Now I'm not arguing RaW, but intent.
The Tankbusta Boss Nob is listed as being able to take a melee weapon.
This isn't a generic Boss Nob entry, but one specifically tailored for the Tankbusta entry (enhanced edition codex).

Quite simply, they wouldn't say he can take one, if he isn't intended to take one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's Wednesday night, you've got your best bud coming round for a friendly game.
You've taken 3 Riptides and enough daft rules to fill 3 novels (very friendly). Your poor friend is bringing Orks, you've even made him pay for the beers. Thanks to GWs idea of "balance" and and poor rules writing, this game is only going one way and you both know it..

His (one and only) mob of Tankbustas has a Boss Nob with a Klaw. Looking at the codex, you see his entry:



Now are you going to seriously say "Nope, that's not right. RaW says..."?

With GW's track record? No, the intent is not clear. As I've stated, its a toss up if the error is the lack of a weapon to trade or the permission to take items from the Melee Weapons list.

Everybody! I have fixed it!

Turn your Ork Codex to page 93 and you will clearly find the melee weapon list! There on that page your Boss Nob will find a choppa in the melee weapon list that GW is inspecific about.

Yes! Take one! Take two! Swap them for power klaws!

 Rismonite wrote:
Everybody! I have fixed it!

Turn your Ork Codex to page 93 and you will clearly find the melee weapon list! There on that page your Boss Nob will find a choppa in the melee weapon list that GW is inspecific about.

Yes! Take one! Take two! Swap them for power klaws!

My digital edition does not have page numbers.

Care to be more specific where I can find the information?

Under Ork Wargear list I see this:

Melee Weapons
A model may replace its melee weapon with one of the following:
- Big choppa…(A number of) pts
- Power klaw…(A number of) pts

and that is it. nothing about a choppa...

there is a separate list on page 93 that specifies the strength of Choppas and Big Choppa etc. No points costs.

It's a second Melee weapons list in effect and list the Choppa as S user, type Melee.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
there is a separate list on page 93 that specifies the strength of Choppas and Big Choppa etc. No points costs.

It's a second Melee weapons list in effect and list the Choppa as S user, type Melee.

Except that is not the Melee Weapons list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The only way I can see this working, is if you upgrade a Tankbusta to have a Tankhammer, upgrade the same Tankbusta to be a Nob, and then trade the hammer for a melee weapon.

And before anyone jumps on me about the Nob having a hammer when it is an option for Tankbustas, I'm staying consistent with the belief that upgrades are taken in the order listed on the datasheet.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
there is a separate list on page 93 that specifies the strength of Choppas and Big Choppa etc. No points costs.

It's a second Melee weapons list in effect and list the Choppa as S user, type Melee.

That has the weapon descriptions yes, but that is not the melee weapons list.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
there is a separate list on page 93 that specifies the strength of Choppas and Big Choppa etc. No points costs.

It's a second Melee weapons list in effect and list the Choppa as S user, type Melee.

That has the weapon descriptions yes, but that is not the melee weapons list.

It says Melee Weapons and is a list just like on the page before the warboss says Melee Weapons and is a list.

Yes I am being difficult deliberately.

RAW, yeah okay guys we know

RAI obviously meant to pay 25 points and get a klaw like every nob entry in the book k?

Comon ork faq, I need your rules to build my tankbusta nob inefficiently.

 Rismonite wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
there is a separate list on page 93 that specifies the strength of Choppas and Big Choppa etc. No points costs.

It's a second Melee weapons list in effect and list the Choppa as S user, type Melee.

That has the weapon descriptions yes, but that is not the melee weapons list.

It says Melee Weapons and is a list just like on the page before the warboss says Melee Weapons and is a list.

Yes I am being difficult deliberately.

RAW, yeah okay guys we know

RAI obviously meant to pay 25 points and get a klaw like every nob entry in the book k?

Comon ork faq, I need your rules to build my tankbusta nob inefficiently.

If you're talking RAI / HIWPI please state that you do, otherwise everyone assumes you're arguing RAW. It wasn't indicated by anyone from the "can take klaw" camp that we've switched to RAI territory. And Oblivion for sure looks like he's still arguing RAW.

nekooni wrote:

 Rismonite wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
there is a separate list on page 93 that specifies the strength of Choppas and Big Choppa etc. No points costs.

It's a second Melee weapons list in effect and list the Choppa as S user, type Melee.

That has the weapon descriptions yes, but that is not the melee weapons list.

It says Melee Weapons and is a list just like on the page before the warboss says Melee Weapons and is a list.

Yes I am being difficult deliberately.

RAW, yeah okay guys we know

RAI obviously meant to pay 25 points and get a klaw like every nob entry in the book k?

Comon ork faq, I need your rules to build my tankbusta nob inefficiently.

If you're talking RAI / HIWPI please state that you do, otherwise everyone assumes you're arguing RAW. It wasn't indicated by anyone from the "can take klaw" camp that we've switched to RAI territory. And Oblivion for sure looks like he's still arguing RAW.

Oh yeah RAW yeah goto the weapon list on pg 93 and acquire choppa.

Then, I goto the other weapon list, and exchange my newly acquired choppa for a power klaw for 25 points.

RAW correct

 Rismonite wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Rismonite wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
there is a separate list on page 93 that specifies the strength of Choppas and Big Choppa etc. No points costs.

It's a second Melee weapons list in effect and list the Choppa as S user, type Melee.

That has the weapon descriptions yes, but that is not the melee weapons list.

It says Melee Weapons and is a list just like on the page before the warboss says Melee Weapons and is a list.

Yes I am being difficult deliberately.

RAW, yeah okay guys we know

RAI obviously meant to pay 25 points and get a klaw like every nob entry in the book k?

Comon ork faq, I need your rules to build my tankbusta nob inefficiently.

If you're talking RAI / HIWPI please state that you do, otherwise everyone assumes you're arguing RAW. It wasn't indicated by anyone from the "can take klaw" camp that we've switched to RAI territory. And Oblivion for sure looks like he's still arguing RAW.

Oh yeah RAW yeah goto the weapon list on pg 93 and acquire choppa.

Then, I goto the other weapon list, and exchange my newly acquired choppa for a power klaw for 25 points.

RAW correct

Sure. Why don't you just aquire twin Killsaws?

nekooni wrote:

 Rismonite wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Rismonite wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
there is a separate list on page 93 that specifies the strength of Choppas and Big Choppa etc. No points costs.

It's a second Melee weapons list in effect and list the Choppa as S user, type Melee.

That has the weapon descriptions yes, but that is not the melee weapons list.

It says Melee Weapons and is a list just like on the page before the warboss says Melee Weapons and is a list.

Yes I am being difficult deliberately.

RAW, yeah okay guys we know

RAI obviously meant to pay 25 points and get a klaw like every nob entry in the book k?

Comon ork faq, I need your rules to build my tankbusta nob inefficiently.

If you're talking RAI / HIWPI please state that you do, otherwise everyone assumes you're arguing RAW. It wasn't indicated by anyone from the "can take klaw" camp that we've switched to RAI territory. And Oblivion for sure looks like he's still arguing RAW.

Oh yeah RAW yeah goto the weapon list on pg 93 and acquire choppa.

Then, I goto the other weapon list, and exchange my newly acquired choppa for a power klaw for 25 points.

RAW correct

Sure. Why don't you just aquire twin Killsaws?

Great idea! lol

RAW is soo fun

EDIT

They better faq this, or all ork Nobz are definately gonna win the next major tourney dual wielding two free powerklaws

(Is it sad that I think every nob could be dual wielding two free powerklaws and orkz still not win a tournie?)

Double edit, I guess I'll stop I fear I am making others angry. My apologies

 Rismonite wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Rismonite wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Rismonite wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
there is a separate list on page 93 that specifies the strength of Choppas and Big Choppa etc. No points costs.

It's a second Melee weapons list in effect and list the Choppa as S user, type Melee.

That has the weapon descriptions yes, but that is not the melee weapons list.

It says Melee Weapons and is a list just like on the page before the warboss says Melee Weapons and is a list.

Yes I am being difficult deliberately.

RAW, yeah okay guys we know

RAI obviously meant to pay 25 points and get a klaw like every nob entry in the book k?

Comon ork faq, I need your rules to build my tankbusta nob inefficiently.

If you're talking RAI / HIWPI please state that you do, otherwise everyone assumes you're arguing RAW. It wasn't indicated by anyone from the "can take klaw" camp that we've switched to RAI territory. And Oblivion for sure looks like he's still arguing RAW.

Oh yeah RAW yeah goto the weapon list on pg 93 and acquire choppa.

Then, I goto the other weapon list, and exchange my newly acquired choppa for a power klaw for 25 points.

RAW correct

Sure. Why don't you just aquire twin Killsaws?

Great idea! lol

RAW is soo fun

Oh, but I thought we were ignoring restrictions and just bullshiting around, because the rules as written say otherwise.
You need to have permission to do anything in 40k.

nekooni wrote:



Sure. Why don't you just acquire twin Killsaws?

No-one's arguing that, so to suggest this seems to be just wasting time. The point about the second Melee list is that it defines the free choppa. There is no points cost in the second Melee Weapons list and it only really has relevance in that respect. There is only a points cost in the First Melee Weapons list - the list that also contains an instruction that you believe is "part" of the list, and that I contend is only an "instruction" (which explicitly contradicts the instruction which refers us to this list) and is not an item on the list.

I contend RAW is clear - but that we are both in essence arguing RAI regarding that second instruction, and indeed we can only argue RAI because there are clearly two contradictory statements if we take the second instruction as RAW.

I think we've all established our arguments. It would of course be fascinating if anyone has access to the iBook Ork Codex - which if memory serves has a basic Army Builder function and might allow this build. I wonder if it's as packed with errors as the print version.

.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

nekooni wrote:



Sure. Why don't you just acquire twin Killsaws?

No-one's arguing that, so to suggest this seems to be just wasting time. The point about the second Melee list is that it defines the free choppa. There is no points cost in the second Melee Weapons list and it only really has relevance in that respect. There is only a points cost in the First Melee Weapons list - the list that also contains an instruction that you believe is "part" of the list, and that I contend is only an "instruction" (which explicitly contradicts the instruction which refers us to this list) and is not an item on the list.

I contend RAW is clear - but that we are both in essence arguing RAI regarding that second instruction, and indeed we can only argue RAI because there are clearly two contradictory statements if we take the second instruction as RAW.

I think we've all established our arguments. It would of course be fascinating if anyone has access to the iBook Ork Codex - which if memory serves has a basic Army Builder function and might allow this build. I wonder if it's as packed with errors as the print version.

.

Why AREN'T you arguing that your Nob can take 2 Killsaws? it's in the list you claim is a valid source of items for you. It's plain ridiculous that you consider this list in the first place, and then go on to simply ignore instructions which clearly limit the list you're supposed to use.
If I follow your logic there is no problem with a Nob with 2 Killsaws or any other kind of Melee weapon documented in the Ork codex. That should be an indicator as to of how viable your argument is.

Hivefleet - so given you feel you can ignore rules, why arent you ginoring the points costs as well? That would at least be consistent.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Hivefleet - so given you feel you can ignore rules, why arent you ginoring the points costs as well? That would at least be consistent.

Why are you asking people to repeat themselves?

I've explained the difference between an item on a specified list, and an instruction (which is not part of that list). You can disagree with that, and that is your prerogative. You dislike my interpretation, fine; I disagree with yours, which in any case lands you in a logical impasse.

it's interesting how sometimes these issues become ts emotive, with arguments like "you feel you can ignore rules" [which is a way of avoiding genuine debate about the meaning of terms]. Meanwhile, the meaning of many terms and instructions isn't even discussed - as, for instance, the clear facility for the Nob to take a Tankhammer, which he can then, even with your instruction on the list, exchange - albeit for a points premium.

Hey its 2 contradicting rules:

He can take one...

He can't take one....

So they cancel each other out! haha

Seriously though replacing can also mean putting something where nothing was there before. It doesn't actually mean that it is cancelled if there was nothing there.

Also, his entry clearly bypasses the restriction.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Hivefleet - so given you feel you can ignore rules, why arent you ginoring the points costs as well? That would at least be consistent.

Why are you asking people to repeat themselves?

I've explained the difference between an item on a specified list, and an instruction (which is not part of that list). You can disagree with that, and that is your prerogative. You dislike my interpretation, fine; I disagree with yours, which in any case lands you in a logical impasse.

it's interesting how sometimes these issues become ts emotive, with arguments like "you feel you can ignore rules" [which is a way of avoiding genuine debate about the meaning of terms]. Meanwhile, the meaning of many terms and instructions isn't even discussed - as, for instance, the clear facility for the Nob to take a Tankhammer, which he can then, even with your instruction on the list, exchange - albeit for a points premium.

But your argument is literally that you can ignore the "Instruction" on the Melee Weapon List. You simply can't just choose to ignore this, like I explained much earlier with a more concise example - multiple times, one with your shopping example and one with the Space Marine Standards - which you conveniently missed apparently.

Discussion can only happen when both sides actually pick up the other sides arguments and not just repeat their own statement.

 chaosmarauder wrote:
Hey its 2 contradicting rules:

He can take one...

He can't take one....

So they cancel each other out! haha

Roll each turn to find out if he has it that turn. On a 4+, he's got it!

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Hivefleet - so given you feel you can ignore rules, why arent you ginoring the points costs as well? That would at least be consistent.

Why are you asking people to repeat themselves?

I've explained the difference between an item on a specified list, and an instruction (which is not part of that list). You can disagree with that, and that is your prerogative. You dislike my interpretation, fine; I disagree with yours, which in any case lands you in a logical impasse.

it's interesting how sometimes these issues become ts emotive, with arguments like "you feel you can ignore rules" [which is a way of avoiding genuine debate about the meaning of terms]. Meanwhile, the meaning of many terms and instructions isn't even discussed - as, for instance, the clear facility for the Nob to take a Tankhammer, which he can then, even with your instruction on the list, exchange - albeit for a points premium.

Yes, and I've explained that one is permission to access the lsit, and the other is instructions on how to actually take items from that list. Which includes the requirement to swap a weapon, and pay points.

Givne you are ignoring the requirement to swap a weapon, you may as well ignore the points cost as well.

It isnt a logicl impasse: you literally have no credible argument here. Nothing.

nosferatu1001 wrote:


Givne you are ignoring the requirement to swap a weapon, you may as well ignore the points cost as well.

Illogical. The list includes points cost. NB: the logical impasse is two contradictory instructions, one to use a list, the other an instruction on the same page that tells you you may not use the list.

The decision to ignore the fact the Nob can, even obeying the instruction, access a Power Klaw via the Tankhammer, also appears illogical.

That is not an accurate statement of the position, however

You are told you may access the list, and take items from it. It does nto give you blanket permission to take any item from that list, regardless of other restrictions. Such as points

If you have already spent 1500 points of your 1500 points limit, may you still take items from the list? According to you, yes.

You may assault when you disembark from an Assault vehicle. Does that mean I can do so having turned up from reserves? According to your concept, general permission can override very specific requirements that state otherwise...

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:


Givne you are ignoring the requirement to swap a weapon, you may as well ignore the points cost as well.

Illogical. The list includes points cost. NB: the logical impasse is two contradictory instructions, one to use a list, the other an instruction on the same page that tells you you may not use the list.

The decision to ignore the fact the Nob can, even obeying the instruction, access a Power Klaw via the Tankhammer, also appears illogical.

nosferatu1001 wrote:That is not an accurate statement of the position, however

You are told you may access the list, and take items from it. It does nto give you blanket permission to take any item from that list, regardless of other restrictions. Such as points

If you have already spent 1500 points of your 1500 points limit, may you still take items from the list? According to you, yes.

You may assault when you disembark from an Assault vehicle. Does that mean I can do so having turned up from reserves? According to your concept, general permission can override very specific requirements that state otherwise...

I enjoy how civilized this entire debate has been, the above exemplifies that well.


reading this thread, I suppose I'd never even considered this question: I'd assumed that upgrading a Burna boy/tankbusta/ etc to a Nob didn't change the unit type of that particular model, and didn't "swap" out a tankbusta for a nob - but rather that one of the tankbustas was bigger and louder than the rest and was the boss of that mob - but still a tankbusta. Hence, I assumed I could never take other upgrades like PKs, etc.

I have checked my ork codex (I play tau and witch hunters but I own most codices) and I have not changed my opinion.

I can however definitely see the issue here and it isn't as clear as what nos is saying it is.

I can definitely see why there's confusion. However, upon looking at the codex it appears this might be a bad copy paste job.

Every instance I see of "One model may be upgraded to a Boss Nob" is immediately followed by "The Boss Nob may take items from the Melee Weapons list."

It seems they just pasted this for each unit with the option for a boss nob and didn't think about the fact that the tankbusta boss nob wouldn't have a melee weapon to swap.

I myself will not get into the debate over buying the tankhammer then upgrading. I have never really seen much in any debate to make me agree with either side.

 Rismonite wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

That has the weapon descriptions yes, but that is not the melee weapons list.

It says Melee Weapons and is a list just like on the page before the warboss says Melee Weapons and is a list.

But it is not THE Melee Weapons list.

the Melee Weapons list. is located under the Orks Wargear list heading.

Nothing about the descriptions says it is the Melee Weapons list.

Gubbinz and gunz says:
"This section of Codex: Orks lists all the weapons and equipment used by the Orks"

it is a weapon list, but it is not the Melee Weapons list as that is in the Orks Wargear list heading.

Ok so under Weapons in the brb:

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.

And also says:
......................................Range S AP Type
Close combat weapon - User - Melee

So if the tankbusta nob has this, he can legitimately replace that with the klaw (because he does, in fact, have a 'melee' weapon)

 chaosmarauder wrote:
Ok so under Weapons in the brb:

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.

And also says:
......................................Range S AP Type
Close combat weapon - User - Melee

So if the tankbusta nob has this, he can legitimately replace that with the klaw (because he does, in fact, have a 'melee' weapon)

But you can not trade that because they are only treated as having a weapon, there is still nothing to trade.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 chaosmarauder wrote:
Ok so under Weapons in the brb:

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.

And also says:
......................................Range S AP Type
Close combat weapon - User - Melee

So if the tankbusta nob has this, he can legitimately replace that with the klaw (because he does, in fact, have a 'melee' weapon)

But you can not trade that because they are only treated as having a weapon, there is still nothing to trade.

Hmm, I just read every defintion of treat/treating/treated that I can find and I believe that by treating the nob as having it actually gives it to him. And if he has it he can trade it/replace it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Because of this rule - there is actually no point in them listing a 'close combat weapon' in his profile that he could have traded - by leaving him with no melee weapon entry it defaults to him having this anyway.

When is he 'treated' as having a close combat weapon? If its not during list building, then you don't have a close combat weapon to trade.

Yep. Depends on the definition for "treated," unfortunately. Some rules say "treated for all rules purposes", but this one doesn't, so we don't know when he is "treated."

 Ghaz wrote:
When is he 'treated' as having a close combat weapon? If its not during list building, then you don't have a close combat weapon to trade.

Its just under the Weapons section in the brb:

Weapons

Close Combat Weapons

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.

So I would say this is in effect at all times, even list building.

Because of this, they would have no need to put 'close combat weapon' in his wargear.

 chaosmarauder wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 chaosmarauder wrote:
Ok so under Weapons in the brb:

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.

And also says:
......................................Range S AP Type
Close combat weapon - User - Melee

So if the tankbusta nob has this, he can legitimately replace that with the klaw (because he does, in fact, have a 'melee' weapon)

But you can not trade that because they are only treated as having a weapon, there is still nothing to trade.

Hmm, I just read every defintion of treat/treating/treated that I can find and I believe that by treating the nob as having it actually gives it to him. And if he has it he can trade it/replace it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Because of this rule - there is actually no point in them listing a 'close combat weapon' in his profile that he could have traded - by leaving him with no melee weapon entry it defaults to him having this anyway.

and endless CCW's so you can trade out?

No. Treated as just means he still has a weapon to attack with. It does not mean he can trade out a non-existent weapon.

 chaosmarauder wrote:
Because of this, they would have no need to put 'close combat weapon' in his wargear.

Then why are so many models listed as having a close combat weapon? And why not just say all models have a close combat weapon instead of being 'treated' as having one?

 Ghaz wrote:

 chaosmarauder wrote:
Because of this, they would have no need to put 'close combat weapon' in his wargear.

Then why are so many models listed as having a close combat weapon? And why not just say all models have a close combat weapon instead of being 'treated' as having one?

I think a lot of those models also have pistols, so you'd get +1 attack for both. And if it had a pistol or any other weapon then it wouldn't automatically get a 'close combat weapon'

I think the 'no specified melee weapon rule' means there is no model in the game that has no melee weapon in its wargear. So the tankbuster nob can replace that with a klaw.

I know we aren't supposed to bring dictionary definitions into things but as an English major I can confirm that "treated as having" never means "has"If they meant that he was to have a ccw then why wouldn't they simplify it down to

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

Much easier eh? But if it says

"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. "

then he doesn't actually have a weapon.

Treated as being armed does not equal being armed.

Zarroc1733 wrote:
I know we aren't supposed to bring dictionary definitions into things but as an English major I can confirm that "treated as having" never means "has"If they meant that he was to have a ccw then why wouldn't they simplify it down to

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

Much easier eh? But if it says

"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. "

then he doesn't actually have a weapon.

Treated as being armed does not equal being armed.

Ok but now you're getting into some philosophical discussion.

Does he actually have a weapon or doesn't he?

He ACTUALLY has a close combat weapon.

According to the BRB he has some kind of combat knife, mace, axe or other imrpovised or primitive weapon:

BRB:

CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS
Many weapons (combat knives, maces, axes and other improvised or primitive weapons) don’t confer any
Strength bonuses, AP values or special rules. These weapons are simply referred to as ‘close combat
weapon’ in the model’s wargear and have the following profile:

In this case, treated means he has one and not that he doesn't have one.

 chaosmarauder wrote:

Zarroc1733 wrote:
I know we aren't supposed to bring dictionary definitions into things but as an English major I can confirm that "treated as having" never means "has"If they meant that he was to have a ccw then why wouldn't they simplify it down to

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

Much easier eh? But if it says

"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. "

then he doesn't actually have a weapon.

Treated as being armed does not equal being armed.

Ok but now you're getting into some philosophical discussion.

Does he actually have a weapon or doesn't he?

He ACTUALLY has a close combat weapon.

According to the BRB he has some kind of combat knife, mace, axe or other imrpovised or primitive weapon:

BRB:

CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS
Many weapons (combat knives, maces, axes and other improvised or primitive weapons) don’t confer any
Strength bonuses, AP values or special rules. These weapons are simply referred to as ‘close combat
weapon’ in the model’s wargear and have the following profile

In this case, treated means he has one and not that he doesn't have one.

No the brb does not say he actually has one, only that he is treated as having one. When those weapons you referenced appear they actually appear in a model's wargear. I highlighted the part the proves that in red. No where in any book does it actually say he has a CCW just that he can attack as if he did.

 chaosmarauder wrote:


Ok but now you're getting into some philosophical discussion.

Does he actually have a weapon or doesn't he?

He ACTUALLY has a close combat weapon.

No he does not ACTUALLY have a close combat weapon, he is treated as if he had one though.

 chaosmarauder wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 chaosmarauder wrote:
Because of this, they would have no need to put 'close combat weapon' in his wargear.

Then why are so many models listed as having a close combat weapon? And why not just say all models have a close combat weapon instead of being 'treated' as having one?

I think a lot of those models also have pistols, so you'd get +1 attack for both. And if it had a pistol or any other weapon then it wouldn't automatically get a 'close combat weapon'

I think the 'no specified melee weapon rule' means there is no model in the game that has no melee weapon in its wargear. So the tankbuster nob can replace that with a klaw.

So then why does the Ork Deffkopta have a Choppa listed in his wargear if he doesn't have a Pistol? Why are Dark Eldar Mandrakes listed as having a close combat weapon when they don't have Pistols? Need I go on?

 Ghaz wrote:

 chaosmarauder wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 chaosmarauder wrote:
Because of this, they would have no need to put 'close combat weapon' in his wargear.

Then why are so many models listed as having a close combat weapon? And why not just say all models have a close combat weapon instead of being 'treated' as having one?

I think a lot of those models also have pistols, so you'd get +1 attack for both. And if it had a pistol or any other weapon then it wouldn't automatically get a 'close combat weapon'

I think the 'no specified melee weapon rule' means there is no model in the game that has no melee weapon in its wargear. So the tankbuster nob can replace that with a klaw.

So then why does the Ork Deffkopta have a Choppa listed in his wargear if he doesn't have a Pistol? Why are Dark Eldar Mandrakes listed as having a close combat weapon when they don't have Pistols? Need I go on?

Are you suggesting they purposefully left a close combat weapon out of the tankbusta nob profile on purpose just so he wouldn't have a weapon to trade in?

Also, treated as having a close combat weapon could also apply to the wargear swap in addition to when he makes a close combat attack (it has to work for both or neither)

For example:

Can your model make a close combat attack?
-He doesn't have a close combat weapon
Thats ok, hes treated as having 1, so go ahead!

Can your model replace his close combat weapon for a klaw?
-He doesn't have a close combat weapon
Thats ok, hes treated as having 1, so go ahead!

You can't say its ok for one situation and not the other.

 chaosmarauder wrote:
Hmm, I just read every defintion of treat/treating/treated that I can find and I believe that by treating the nob as having it actually gives it to him. And if he has it he can trade it/replace it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Because of this rule - there is actually no point in them listing a 'close combat weapon' in his profile that he could have traded - by leaving him with no melee weapon entry it defaults to him having this anyway.

And yet, many units still do, even though that rule has been around a long time.

Part of the reason is, and I asked this earlier, WHEN are you treated as having a Close Combat Weapon?

A Tactical Marine isn't treated as having one when list building, even though every weapon he carries that can be classed as one (Krak Grenades and Bolt Pistol) in very specific scenarios. Pistol Carriers aren't considered to have the "no-CCW" CCW in the Assault Phase.

So, does he lose a piece of Wargear that he "has" when another fills its spot? Or is this "treated as having a Close Combat Weapon" only apply when the model is called upon to use a Close Combat Weapon, i.e. the Fight Sub-Phase?

If the latter, then you have nothing to replace with when building your Army List.

 chaosmarauder wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 chaosmarauder wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 chaosmarauder wrote:
Because of this, they would have no need to put 'close combat weapon' in his wargear.

Then why are so many models listed as having a close combat weapon? And why not just say all models have a close combat weapon instead of being 'treated' as having one?

I think a lot of those models also have pistols, so you'd get +1 attack for both. And if it had a pistol or any other weapon then it wouldn't automatically get a 'close combat weapon'

I think the 'no specified melee weapon rule' means there is no model in the game that has no melee weapon in its wargear. So the tankbuster nob can replace that with a klaw.

So then why does the Ork Deffkopta have a Choppa listed in his wargear if he doesn't have a Pistol? Why are Dark Eldar Mandrakes listed as having a close combat weapon when they don't have Pistols? Need I go on?

Are you suggesting they purposefully left a close combat weapon out of the tankbusta nob profile on purpose just so he wouldn't have a weapon to trade in?

Also, treated as having a close combat weapon could also apply to the wargear swap in addition to when he makes a close combat attack (it has to work for both or neither)

For example:

Can your model make a close combat attack?
-He doesn't have a close combat weapon
Thats ok, hes treated as having 1, so go ahead!

Can your model replace his close combat weapon for a klaw?
-He doesn't have a close combat weapon
Thats ok, hes treated as having 1, so go ahead!

You can't say its ok for one situation and not the other.

How does that work as at all? I can be treated as if I had a million dollars but would GW give me free sisters? To exchange something you have to have that something.

 chaosmarauder wrote:
Are you suggesting they purposefully left a close combat weapon out of the tankbusta nob profile on purpose just so he wouldn't have a weapon to trade in?

Yes. So answer my question as to why the models I've listed specifically have close combat weapons in their profile when they have absolutely no option to add another weapon to provide an additional attack in close combat. Your position would make that superfluous and GW would not do so due to the 'No Specified Melee Weapon' rule.

 Ghaz wrote:

 chaosmarauder wrote:
Are you suggesting they purposefully left a close combat weapon out of the tankbusta nob profile on purpose just so he wouldn't have a weapon to trade in?

Yes. So answer my question as to why the models I've listed specifically have close combat weapons in their profile when they have absolutely no option to add another weapon to provide an additional attack in close combat. Your position would make that superfluous and GW would not do so due to the 'No Specified Melee Weapon' rule.

I believe that those entries are superfluous, as you say, because of the 'No Specified Melee Weapon' rule.

It is not the first time that GW has made rules like that, there are several examples.

Painboys with cybork bodies.

Black legion formation giving fearless to units with chaos lords in them that aren't allowed to leave the unit.

But back to the original point - if you are treated as having something then you are allowed to use it how you want - whether it is to attack something in close combat or trade it for a klaw during list building.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

 chaosmarauder wrote:
Hmm, I just read every defintion of treat/treating/treated that I can find and I believe that by treating the nob as having it actually gives it to him. And if he has it he can trade it/replace it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Because of this rule - there is actually no point in them listing a 'close combat weapon' in his profile that he could have traded - by leaving him with no melee weapon entry it defaults to him having this anyway.

And yet, many units still do, even though that rule has been around a long time.

Part of the reason is, and I asked this earlier, WHEN are you treated as having a Close Combat Weapon?

A Tactical Marine isn't treated as having one when list building, even though every weapon he carries that can be classed as one (Krak Grenades and Bolt Pistol) in very specific scenarios. Pistol Carriers aren't considered to have the "no-CCW" CCW in the Assault Phase.

So, does he lose a piece of Wargear that he "has" when another fills its spot? Or is this "treated as having a Close Combat Weapon" only apply when the model is called upon to use a Close Combat Weapon, i.e. the Fight Sub-Phase?

If the latter, then you have nothing to replace with when building your Army List.

If a model is treated as having a close combat weapon then it is allowed to attack with it in close combat, or replace it with a klaw during list building. If he couldn't do either then it is not being treated as though it had one. The rule does not specify a particular duration or phase that the 'No Specified Melee Weapon' rule is in effect.

So you want to believe those entries are superfluous and not the Tankbusta Nob's option to take items from the Melee Weapon list when you don't have a weapon to exchange?

 Ghaz wrote:
So you want to believe those entries are superfluous and not the Tankbusta Nob's option to take items from the Melee Weapon list when you don't have a weapon to exchange?

They are superfluous - by definition if they did not have the entry they would get a CC weapon anyway due to 'No Specified Melee Weapon'.

Answer me this - 'No Specified Melee Weapon' treats the model as having a CC weapon. If you do not allow it to replace it with a klaw during list buliding - are you treating it as though it had a CC weapon?

 chaosmarauder wrote:
If a model is treated as having a close combat weapon then it is allowed to attack with it in close combat, or replace it with a klaw during list building. If he couldn't do either then it is not being treated as though it had one. The rule does not specify a particular duration or phase that the 'No Specified Melee Weapon' rule is in effect.

So it is your opinion that a model can have a piece of Wargear that disappears when it is normally used.

Got it.

 chaosmarauder wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
So you want to believe those entries are superfluous and not the Tankbusta Nob's option to take items from the Melee Weapon list when you don't have a weapon to exchange?

They are superfluous - by definition if they did not have the entry they would get a CC weapon anyway due to 'No Specified Melee Weapon'.

Answer me this - 'No Specified Melee Weapon' treats the model as having a CC weapon. If you do not allow it to replace it with a klaw during list buliding - are you treating it as though it had a CC weapon?

Yes, because you've yet to prove that you treat them as having a close combat weapon during listbuilding. You're giving every model with a Pistol and no listed close combat weapon a free bonus attack in close combat since a Pistol only counts as a a close combat weapon "... in the Assault phase..." according to the rules.

So tell me, why isn't the Tankbusta Nob's option to take items from the Melee Weapon list superfluous? Why do you insist it has to do something when you have no Melee weapon to trade when he's not listed as having a close combat weapon in his Wargear?

 Ghaz wrote:

 chaosmarauder wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
So you want to believe those entries are superfluous and not the Tankbusta Nob's option to take items from the Melee Weapon list when you don't have a weapon to exchange?

They are superfluous - by definition if they did not have the entry they would get a CC weapon anyway due to 'No Specified Melee Weapon'.

Answer me this - 'No Specified Melee Weapon' treats the model as having a CC weapon. If you do not allow it to replace it with a klaw during list buliding - are you treating it as though it had a CC weapon?

Yes, because you've yet to prove that you treat them as having a close combat weapon during listbuilding. You're giving every model with a Pistol and no listed close combat weapon a free bonus attack in close combat since a Pistol only counts as a a close combat weapon "... in the Assault phase..." according to the rules.

So tell me, why isn't the Tankbusta Nob's option to take items from the Melee Weapon list superfluous? Why do you insist it has to do something when you have no Melee weapon to trade when he's not listed as having a close combat weapon in his Wargear?

Because the 'No Specified Melee Weapon' rule is not under any particular phase in the rulebook it is applied at all times. It is under the 'Weapons' section - they could have easily put it in the Assault section but they did not. And therefor the model is treated as having a CC weapon at all times.

The moment you go to reference a weapon under the Nob for any reason, the CC weapon will appear there due to this rule. Otherwise it is not being treated as having one.

So then please answer Charistoph's question. Does this 'No Specified Melee Weapon' disappear in the Assault phase when you have a Pistol? If not why doesn't it apply then?

 Ghaz wrote:
So then please answer Charistoph's question. Does this 'No Specified Melee Weapon' disappear in the Assault phase when you have a Pistol? If not why doesn't it apply then?

Hmm lets take a look back at the rule:

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.

and funny enough, the following is directly under the above in the BRB

Pistols as Close Combat Weapons
A pistol can be used as a close combat weapon. If this is done, use the profile given above – the Strength,
AP and special rules of the pistol’s shooting profile are ignored.

The profile points to the same CC weapon as the one referenced in 'No Special Melee Weapon' on the same page of the BRB. So it looks like no, you would not get an additional CC weapon if you had a pistol since the pistol actually counts as a melee weapon all the time. It has 2 profiles.

From 'Pistol Weapons' (pg. 44, main rulebook - emphasis added):

A Pistol also counts as a close combat weapon in the Assault phase (pg 41 and 44).

So no, they're not always considered close combat weapons. So again, does the 'No Specified Melee Weapon' suddenly disappear in the Assault phase?

 Ghaz wrote:
From 'Pistol Weapons' (pg. 44, main rulebook - emphasis added):

A Pistol also counts as a close combat weapon in the Assault phase (pg 41 and 44).

So no, they're not always considered close combat weapons. So again, does the 'No Specified Melee Weapon' suddenly disappear in the Assault phase?

Hmm, reading both the 'Pistols as Close Combat Weapons' and the 'Pistol Weapons' i'm not sure - one specifies the assault phase, the other doesn't. So does a pistol count as a melee weapon all the time? Not sure might need an FAQ.

Who would this actually effect? Can't think top of my head what models have a pistol weapon and no other stated melee weapon. Cause it is not clear if they would get one or not from the 'No Specified Melee Weapon' rule.

Interesting.

Not sure why anyone cares.

We're arguing about the esoteric subtleties emitted by a group of people with the literary skills of raving drunks.

What these rules actually meant is hardly knowable, and contradictory rules have no force other than what you and your opponent hash out at the table.

 JimOnMars wrote:
Not sure why anyone cares.

We're arguing about the esoteric subtleties emitted by a group of people with the literary skills of raving drunks.

What these rules actually meant is hardly knowable, and contradictory rules have no force other than what you and your opponent hash out at the table.

lol thats what the YMDC forum is for! hashing out these small subtle details in the rules

Heh, this thread.

We can't use take as steal

But we can use treats as "only in the assault phase and definitely not while list building ork tankbustas"

And yet, while the intent is clear, and the RAW people are proposed a legitimate 'as written' interpretation there will be some who will interpret a word differently deliberately to kick a weak army in nads.

Ok so if "treated as having" = "has" then:
Nob does not have a melee weapon.
Therefore, the nob is treated as having a melee weapon.
Therefore, the Nob no longer qualifies for the "no melee weapon" and does not get to be treated as having a melee weapon.
Therefore, he does not have a melee weapon
Therefore, the nob is treated as having a melee weapon.
Therefore, the Nob no longer qualifies for the "no melee weapon" and does not get to be treated as having a melee weapon.
Therefore, he does not have a melee weapon
Therefore, the nob is treated as having a melee weapon.
Therefore, the Nob no longer qualifies for the "no melee weapon" and does not get to be treated as having a melee weapon.
Therefore, he does not have a melee weapon
continue ad infinitum.

Being treated as having something does not equate him having something. I'm waiting for you to prove that to me.

In an exchange you can be treated as having something but unless you really have it you cannot exchange. It's like me telling a store clerk I have money, then just trying to take a jug of milk without paying.

I'm all for orks getting a big buff, but RAW he cannot trade his CCW because he doesn't actually have one. If he had a CCW in his wargear he could trade it. But he doesn't.


I pointed this out before

CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS
Many weapons (combat knives, maces, axes and other improvised or primitive weapons) don’t confer any
Strength bonuses, AP values or special rules. These weapons are simply referred to as ‘close combat
weapon’ in the model’s wargear and have the following profile

This rule here states that if a model has this weapon it appears in it's wargear. The nob doesn't have a ccw just treated as if he did. If you can show me in any way that, treated as having = has, then I'll agree and I'll do so happily.

Its simple:
You can exchange for a klaw even though a CC weapon isnt in his wargear because a rule in the BRB treats him as having one.

Done - plain english.

Except if they have one during list building, they dont have one any longer

You are stating you can generate infinite ccw as needed. That is an obvious easter egg youre trying to find.

 chaosmarauder wrote:
Its simple:
You can exchange for a klaw even though a CC weapon isnt in his wargear because a rule in the BRB treats him as having one.

Done - plain english.

No actually plain English (again I'm an English major) does not mean he has one, it means he is treated as having one. Using plain English actually shows that the terminology used dictates he doesn't have one.

Being treated as anything is not the same as being that thing. It's like the milk jug example, I can be treated as having the money but is the store keeper gonna let me take it because I'm treated as having the money?

No, just like the rules don't let you take a weapon just because you're treated as having a CCW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I will add if I was playing the orks I'd let the nob take the klaw. But RAW I see no way other than the tankhammer if that does indeed work, (I'm not convinced either way)

Once the Melee Weapon list dealer decides to actually treat the Nob as if he has a CCW per the unspecified melee weapon blurb. He gives the Nob a Powerklaw (for 25 points, since I can't just take it).

Once the Nob has a Powerklaw, he now has a Close Combat weapon with the melee weapon type and no longer qualifies for the Unspecified melee weapon blurb. This is not some trolltastic backdoor easter egg method of acquiring infinite close combat weapons here.

Zarroc1733 wrote:

I will add if I was playing the orks I'd let the nob take the klaw. But RAW I see no way other than the tankhammer if that does indeed work, (I'm not convinced either way)

What is this statement seriously?

I can be treated as having the money but is the store keeper gonna let me take it because I'm treated as having the money?

Yes, actually, yes because you are treated as having the money, you get milk.

`So instead of this being an error, the error is on every other model with a CCW?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
`So instead of this being an error, the error is on every other model with a CCW?

'this'

elaborate please

 Rismonite wrote:
Once the Melee Weapon list dealer decides to actually treat the Nob as if he has a CCW per the unspecified melee weapon blurb. He gives the Nob a Powerklaw (for 25 points, since I can't just take it).

Once the Nob has a Powerklaw, he now has a Close Combat weapon with the melee weapon type and no longer qualifies for the Unspecified melee weapon blurb. This is not some trolltastic backdoor easter egg method of acquiring infinite close combat weapons here.

And if he could trade said close combat weapon for a ranged weapon? Infinite close combat weapons.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Rismonite wrote:
Once the Melee Weapon list dealer decides to actually treat the Nob as if he has a CCW per the unspecified melee weapon blurb. He gives the Nob a Powerklaw (for 25 points, since I can't just take it).

Once the Nob has a Powerklaw, he now has a Close Combat weapon with the melee weapon type and no longer qualifies for the Unspecified melee weapon blurb. This is not some trolltastic backdoor easter egg method of acquiring infinite close combat weapons here.

And if he could trade said close combat weapon for a ranged weapon? Infinite close combat weapons.

Heh, he can only still fire one though. But Orkz can't make that trade.

Quick! Someone go find some obscure entry with the Easter Egg gooo!

EDIT, Immediately coming to mind are vangaurd vets.

Ok here is a story illustrating the point:

All the Nobs in the Waaagh line up at the grot weapon booth to trade in their close combat weapon for a Klaw. Everything is going fine until one Nob, the tankbusta Nob, gets to the head of the line and doesn't have a CC weapon to trade.

The grot says, no you don't get one.

The Warboss looks over at the line and shouts at the grot to treat the tankbusta like he has a CC weapon.

The grot still refuses to give him a klaw, claiming the Nob doesn't have one to trade.

The Warboss eats the grot and hands the tankbusta nob a klaw.

The tankbusta nob happily joins in the Waaagh with his new shiny klaw.

"This" - giving the tankbuster nob access to a list without the requisite close combat weapon

It is definitely an easter egg hunt, to use the fact they dont have a melee weapon to give them a melee weapon to then swap for something that requires a melee weapon. And the melee weapons list ABSOLUTELY requires a melee weapon.

 Rismonite wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Rismonite wrote:
Once the Melee Weapon list dealer decides to actually treat the Nob as if he has a CCW per the unspecified melee weapon blurb. He gives the Nob a Powerklaw (for 25 points, since I can't just take it).

Once the Nob has a Powerklaw, he now has a Close Combat weapon with the melee weapon type and no longer qualifies for the Unspecified melee weapon blurb. This is not some trolltastic backdoor easter egg method of acquiring infinite close combat weapons here.

And if he could trade said close combat weapon for a ranged weapon? Infinite close combat weapons.

Heh, he can only still fire one though. But Orkz can't make that trade.

Quick! Someone go find some obscure entry with the Easter Egg gooo!

EDIT, Immediately coming to mind are vangaurd vets.

Model can trade infinite close combat weapons for ranged weapons. Model now has a ranged weapon for any situation (hordes, tankbusting, anti-air, long range, etc). It doesn't matter if its not an option for Orks, its a side effect of giving the model an infinite supply of close combat weapons.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"This" - giving the tankbuster nob access to a list without the requisite close combat weapon

I mean I don't see how your statement makes all unit entries with model's they remembered to give a CCW somehow erroneous. It is likely they goofed and don't intend for us to use the 'unspecified melee weapon' blurb to treat ourselves to a tankbusta Powerklaw. It is just what an ork has gotta do to build his Tankbusta nob inefficiently (with powerklaw). It could also very well be they wanted us to buy a 15 Point Tankhammer then a powerklaw, since the tankbusta unit has tankhunter's it might be have been a way to add a silent tax to balance out a powerklaw getting tankhunter's. Considering the latest FAQ is implying we were only ever meant to use one grenade in assault, it's possible we were meant to turn our melee only tankbusta bomb in for a powerklaw. All of which can be argued in circles.

One this is for sure, if they make grenades one per assault phase only, Orkz that still bother to run Tankbustas are going to want to run a Nob with Klaw and two Tank Hammer Boyz to make the unit still somewhat usable. That need will likely stay like that until an ork FAQ/errata (hopefully) adds a Choppa to Tankbusta's Wargear(which is the likely mistake if there even is one imo).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Rismonite wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Rismonite wrote:
Once the Melee Weapon list dealer decides to actually treat the Nob as if he has a CCW per the unspecified melee weapon blurb. He gives the Nob a Powerklaw (for 25 points, since I can't just take it).

Once the Nob has a Powerklaw, he now has a Close Combat weapon with the melee weapon type and no longer qualifies for the Unspecified melee weapon blurb. This is not some trolltastic backdoor easter egg method of acquiring infinite close combat weapons here.

And if he could trade said close combat weapon for a ranged weapon? Infinite close combat weapons.

Heh, he can only still fire one though. But Orkz can't make that trade.

Quick! Someone go find some obscure entry with the Easter Egg gooo!

EDIT, Immediately coming to mind are vangaurd vets.

Model can trade infinite close combat weapons for ranged weapons. Model now has a ranged weapon for any situation (hordes, tankbusting, anti-air, long range, etc). It doesn't matter if its not an option for Orks, its a side effect of giving the model an infinite supply of close combat weapons.

I like it.

Let the world burn I say.

"Which model did you say has 85 points of ranged weapons?"

So you really think GW intended for models to potentially carry a bucketload of ranged weapons or you can't support your argument in light of the absurd result that can occur?

 Ghaz wrote:

 Rismonite wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Rismonite wrote:
Once the Melee Weapon list dealer decides to actually treat the Nob as if he has a CCW per the unspecified melee weapon blurb. He gives the Nob a Powerklaw (for 25 points, since I can't just take it).

Once the Nob has a Powerklaw, he now has a Close Combat weapon with the melee weapon type and no longer qualifies for the Unspecified melee weapon blurb. This is not some trolltastic backdoor easter egg method of acquiring infinite close combat weapons here.

And if he could trade said close combat weapon for a ranged weapon? Infinite close combat weapons.

Heh, he can only still fire one though. But Orkz can't make that trade.

Quick! Someone go find some obscure entry with the Easter Egg gooo!

EDIT, Immediately coming to mind are vangaurd vets.

Model can trade infinite close combat weapons for ranged weapons. Model now has a ranged weapon for any situation (hordes, tankbusting, anti-air, long range, etc). It doesn't matter if its not an option for Orks, its a side effect of giving the model an infinite supply of close combat weapons.

I, for one, welcome my new Ultra-Command Squad. Guess I'll use Techmarines with a Servo Harnish for the model, one Weapon on each arm.
4 Guys with a Boltgun, Flamer, a Meltagun and a Grav-Gun plus a Power Axe and an Apothecary - and while we're at it, I'll give him the same loadout as well. Put it all in the new IH thingy, slap a Librarian on for the +1 FnP and there you go. 3+FnP Command Squad, and the Libby should be able to give them a 3++ or something like that on top of it. Or just buy a bunch of Stormshields for them.

lol looking at the last couple pages of posts this thread has seriously gone down the rabbit hole

You start with the tank busta entry saying that he is allowed to take a melee weapon - it should end there.

The argument that the list sends him back with nothing because he needs to replace a CC weapon is where the back and forth deeper into the rabbit hole starts.

lol to the point where we are at - 'Well he can't have a klaw because otherwise all other characters get infinite ranged weapons!'

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_hole

At the end of the day, no matter who is right, I just hope the ork faq gives them something. I love the orks and wish they were better.

Do people generally agree the Nob can access a Power Klaw by first purchasing a Tankhammer?

 chaosmarauder wrote:
lol looking at the last couple pages of posts this thread has seriously gone down the rabbit hole

You start with the tank busta entry saying that he is allowed to take a melee weapon - it should end there.

The argument that the list sends him back with nothing because he needs to replace a CC weapon is where the back and forth deeper into the rabbit hole starts.

lol to the point where we are at - 'Well he can't have a klaw because otherwise all other characters get infinite ranged weapons!'

Every army list has to tell you you can go take item ps from a list

It's the exact same flawed, rehashed argument as claiming the one relic limit doesn't apply when told you can take "items" from said list

1) one rule tells you you can access the list
2) the other tells you HOW you take items from the list

That's where this argument ends. With rules, not Easter egg hunting gak.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
Do people generally agree the Nob can access a Power Klaw by first purchasing a Tankhammer?

It is theoretically doable however some people will argue that only tankbusters can take the hammer, and the nob is not a tankbuster. That said, if you follow the upgrades as presented, then it is doable since the option to take a hammer comes before the option to upgrade to a nob (unlike a SM Command Squad where the Apothecary/Champion upgrades are before th special weapon options).

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Every army list has to tell you you can go take item ps from a list

It's the exact same flawed, rehashed argument as claiming the one relic limit doesn't apply when told you can take "items" from said list

1) one rule tells you you can access the list
2) the other tells you HOW you take items from the list

That's where this argument ends. With rules, not Easter egg hunting gak.

1) Its not nice to insult people who read the rules and apply the rules - 'Ester egg hunting gak' I guess actually just means finding a rule which doesn't fit with your belief

2) There is a rule in the BRB which treats the nob as having a close combat weapon if he doesn't have one - so guess what - he can trade it if he wants to

He can be a bit crabby but he did insult the argument, not you personally.

And we have debated "treated as" so simply saying "guess what, I'm right" does take us round in circles somewhat.

 chaosmarauder wrote:
2) There is a rule in the BRB which treats the nob as having a close combat weapon if he doesn't have one - so guess what - he can trade it if he wants to

No he can not trade because he does not actually have the weapon.

Lets say there is a convention and the only people allowed to enter are people with hats.

Bob has a hat.

Jack does not have a hat, but he is treated a having a hat.

Lenny does not have a hat.


Bob gets in.

Jack gets in even though he does not actually have a hat because he is treated as if he had a hat.

Lenny does not get in.


In the convention there is a booth. this booth will give you a hundred crayons if you give them your hat.

Bob walks up to the booth and trades his hat for a hundred crayons.

Jack walks up to the booth but does not get a hundred crayons because he does not have a hat, even though he is treated as if he had a hat.

I personally tend to agree with you but...

Jack is not selling his hat. He needs a hat in order to buy the crayons. He has the money for the crayons, goes up to the till and say, here's your cash, and you are obliged to treat me as if I had a hat. He gets his crayons.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
I personally tend to agree with you but...

Jack is not selling his hat. He needs a hat in order to buy the crayons. He has the money for the crayons, goes up to the till and say, here's your cash, and you are obliged to treat me as if I had a hat. He gets his crayons.

That's not at all accurate.



He is treated as if he had a hat(Melee Weapon).

He needs to have a hat to get in, he is treated as if he had one so he gets in. But when it comes time to trade his hat for Crayons (A Power Klaw) he can not do that because he does not actually have a hat to trade.

@Deathreaper

If he is treated as having one, he has one.

Somewhere out there is a Nob walking around with a list of wargear. He goes to attack something - he uses the CC weapon the BRB gave him.

Its something he has on him, its not there sometimes and others not. That is not logical.

The BRB does not say he is treated as having one during the assault phase, or define any other restrictions. This means he is treated as having one even during list building. It is there and it does not vanish at different times.

The BRB is basically saying, treat him like a warrior, make sure he has a weapon and gives him the CC weapon. It even provides a profile and says it is a knife, axe or something else. Its a physical item he is actually carrying.

 chaosmarauder wrote:
If he is treated as having one, he has one.

That is only an assumption that he has one to trade. This is never really supported in how the rest of the game considers "treats as". "Treats as" is only considered active when it is needed to be used, not necessarily at all times.

It didn't work for Space Marine Bikers and was FAQ'd before Orks, I am surprised they missed it here.

 chaosmarauder wrote:
@Deathreaper

If he is treated as having one, he has one.

Incorrect. He is only treated as having one. He does not actually have one but they pretend he does.

And you think thats more realistic than him being given a weapon that he actually carries around?

I dont think the answer is that he has a weapon that phases in and out.

 chaosmarauder wrote:
And you think thats more realistic than him being given a weapon that he actually carries around?

I dont think the answer is that he has a weapon that phases in and out.

What would make sense in the real world does not matter.

Real World Common Sense/Real World Logic/How it works in the real world has no bearing on the 40k Ruleset.

Remember: The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now. (and maybe not even on a planet with the same physical makeup as our earth, and probably different physics as well).


That being said I think what is more realistic is the Nob Head butting things instead of using a knife or sword. But fluff has no bearing on the actual rules.

 chaosmarauder wrote:
And you think thats more realistic than him being given a weapon that he actually carries around?

I dont think the answer is that he has a weapon that phases in and out.

I imagine the "counts as having a ccw" as "he hurts the enemy with his natural weapons" - fists, feet, teeth and so on. And you can't swap your fists for a power weapon per the rules.

Is that equivalent to a chainsword? no - but a combat knife is just as "not equal" to a chainsword as an Orks teeth. And the rules never cared for realism, nor is realism a valid argument in a rules discussion at all.

nekooni wrote:

 chaosmarauder wrote:
And you think thats more realistic than him being given a weapon that he actually carries around?

I dont think the answer is that he has a weapon that phases in and out.

I imagine the "counts as having a ccw" as "he hurts the enemy with his natural weapons" - fists, feet, teeth and so on. And you can't swap your fists for a power weapon per the rules.

Is that equivalent to a chainsword? no - but a combat knife is just as "not equal" to a chainsword as an Orks teeth. And the rules never cared for realism, nor is realism a valid argument in a rules discussion at all.

This exactly.

He is treated as having one, but he doesn't have it. If I offer to trade someone one of my models (melee weapon) and some money (points) for a model (melee weapon) and everyone treats me as I have that model, when it comes time to trade, I say "sorry I don't actually have the model, I'm just treated as having it" do you think they'll give me the model for just the cash?

I doubt it, they'd probably be mad. You cannot exchange something you do not have. So if you can prove that "treated as having" = "has" I'm good. But even the BRB says that when a model actually has a CCW it appears in their wargear. The no melee weapon blurb in the BRB just allows them to have the ability to fight in assaults.

Post withdrawn

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - ALPHARIUS]

nekooni wrote:

 chaosmarauder wrote:
And you think thats more realistic than him being given a weapon that he actually carries around?

I dont think the answer is that he has a weapon that phases in and out.

I imagine the "counts as having a ccw" as "he hurts the enemy with his natural weapons" - fists, feet, teeth and so on. And you can't swap your fists for a power weapon per the rules.

Is that equivalent to a chainsword? no - but a combat knife is just as "not equal" to a chainsword as an Orks teeth. And the rules never cared for realism, nor is realism a valid argument in a rules discussion at all.

Hence my point regarding a piece of Wargear that disappears when you actually would need it.