Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

10 Sternguard all with combi-meltas. Turn one, you blast 5 off at the Land Raider just to make sure. Landraider goes poof, and you get rapid-fired in return. Do you have to allocate based on the 5 with Meltas gone, and 5 with meltas left, or is a combi-melta a combi-melta, and you can just roll your saves, and pull the 5 expended ones first?

This is kind of a gray area, but I would say that the wound buckets are troops as they are modeled/bought in points. So all would be the same, even if their combis had already been shot. Just my unofficial $.02

I'd say yes, purely in the name of fair play.

There is nothing wrong with removing only the expended ones, and there is nothing to my knowledge in the rules about it.

But it's the same in Warhammer Fantasy, with the 'Dispel Scroll Pool'. Trust me. No matter how many he does or doesn't use, the Mage you finally run to ground in turn 3 has always used up the allocation.....

A combi-weapon that has been used is different from one that hasn't used its charge; the difference is precisely whether the combi-weapon gets to use its Plasma/Melta/Flamethrower component again.

After all, if the models whose combi-weapon hasn't been used are removed from the board, they don't get to use those combi-weapons. And models that have used their combi-weapons are functionally the same as models armed with bolters/shootas (though not actually identical in game terms).

Have anything to back that up Nurglitch?

Breton, back what up? Could you be more specific?

There's nothing in the rules that would imply that one would have to follow what Nurglitch said. Just by expending the combi round doesn't change the weapon. A combi weapon is always a combi weapon until GW writes otherwise.

Your opinion... from the rule book.. anything from the section about different equipment and so forth.

A combi-weapon is a type of wargear. The description on the weapon does not state that it has been destroyed or removed once used, it is merely unable to fire again. So a Marine equipped with a combi-flamer that has been expended and one equipped with a combi-flamer that is still charged still have the same load out.

Complex Units, p.25, Rulebook wrote:The rules for taking saving throws and removing casualties, as presented so far, assume that all the models in the target unit are identical in gaming terms. By this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear.

What we can take away from this is that models are identical when:

1. Same profile
2. Same special rules
3. Same weapons/wargear

A Sternguard Veteran has the same profile as another Sternguard Veteran. So condition 1 is satisfied.

A Sternguard Veteran has the same special rules as another Sternguard Veteran. So condition 2 is satisfied.

Does a Sternguard Veteran armed with a Combi-Melta have the same weapons/wargear as another Sternguard Veteran armed with a Combi-Melta?

On one hand they both have the same wargear: Frag and Krak grenades, Bolt Pistols, Combi-Meltas, Power Armour, and Special Issue Ammunition.

On the other hand, a Combi-Melta can only fire the Melta part once a battle (p.97, Codex: Space Marines), so once it's been used the Sternguard Veteran it's different from a Combi-Melta that has yet to be moved. It's still a Combi-Melta, but for the purposes of the game, it's not actually identical since it cannot fire again.

So, as I said, they change functionally, but not in game terms.

Given that they change functionally, I recommend playing it as though Sternguard that have spent their Combi-Weapons are no longer identical to Sternguard that have not. After all, the point of the rules for complex units is to solve the problem of determining which warriors have been hit by which weapons. As it says:

"Of course many units include different models, and when this is the case an extra step is needed to determine which warriors have been hit by which weapons."

They have the same wargear.

But, even so, it is still sporting and gentlemanly to seperate them out into two even batches 'spent and ready' if you like.

As I mentioned, there is nothing in the rules forcing you to do so, but it's just polite. And you don't want your opponent to think your a bumhat, do you?

No, it would be unfair in the extreme to your opponent if you split them up like that because now you can lump all the wounds on the 'spent' combi weapons troopers and leave the unspent ones to still kill everything on their next turn.

sourclams:

Yeah, that's what I've been saying. But as Mad Doc Grotsnik says, and as the rules for Complex Units declare, for game purposes you should treat them as non-identical.

sourclams:

You mean unlike where the Space Marine player rolls saves for the Sternguard w/Combi-Melta bucket and removes the models with spent Combi-Meltas?

If that's how you want to play it, that's great, it's your game. Not RAW, however, and I'd find it easier to abuse a complex squad with 3 groups (used, unused, and none) than with 2 groups (have and have not).

i'd remove spent combi weapons leaving the unspent ones and it would be perfectly legal.
people would expect something different?

sourclams:

Considering that this is one of the few situations where the rules states its intent in no uncertain terms, and that intent is to distinguish between functionally different models, I'd say that dividing Sternguard with the same wargear into models that have used their one-shot wargear and models that have not used their one-shot wargear is the best way to follow the rules stated in the book.

I'm split on this. In the spirit of the new wound allocation I'd say that firing changes the weapon and thus you could lose those who have not fired the melta charge.

However, what is to say that the marine who didn't die, expanded his charge won't pick up the other weapon and still have a charge. I recall GW stating that if the "special weapon guy" dies, then you lose that weapon as only he/she knew how to use it properly.

I'd leave that one to a die roll until there is something official.

Hornet's Nest meet Dakka. Dakka, meet Hornet's Nest.

Ok maybe its not a hornet's nest. Yet. But I'm so on the fence on this one. The worst part is no matter which way you play it, it has the potential to be "fairer" the other way depending on the situation.

Yeah, and that's my opinion too. That's why I stick with strict RAW.

The big sticking point here is: "Does one player gain a mechanical advantage by having spent combi-weapons count as different from primed combi-weapons for the purposes of wound allocation?"

And the answer to this question is: it depends. Depending on how many guys you've got left, how many of them are like each other, and how many wounds you've taken, either the marine player or his opponent can claim the advantage.

So if the ruling is advantageous sometimes, and disadvantageous other times, to both players, then why not just stick with strict RAW?

And that's why I asked. I can see both sides of "Different" A combi-melta is a combi-melta... but is an expended combi-melta different than an unexpended one? Thus if there are 5 bolter marines and 5 combi-melta marines, and 2 fire... so you have two groups, or three? :p I see that going both ways too.

Yeah, and that's my opinion too. That's why I stick with strict RAW.

Not quite. You are sticking to *your interpretation* of what the written rules mean.

I am using the exact same rules, and coming to a very different interpretation.

the rules ask if the models are the same in "game terms";

In "game terms", is a spent combi-melta the same as an unspent combi-melta?
In "game terms" is a spent combi-melta the same as a bolter?


I do not disagree with your conclusion, (I actually would play it that way), but your confidence that you are playing it by the "correct" RAW, is a misplaced.

Complex Units, p.25, Rulebook wrote:Of course many units include different models, and when this is the case an extra step is needed to determine which warriors have been hit by which weapons.

If the point of the Complex Units rule is to determine which warriors have been hit by which weapons, then in applying this rule we should differentiate between warriors that have expended their one-shot weapon and those that have yet to do so.

Grouping them by profile, special rules, and wargear is simply a way of speeding things up.

coredump wrote:

Yeah, and that's my opinion too. That's why I stick with strict RAW.

Not quite. You are sticking to *your interpretation* of what the written rules mean.

I am using the exact same rules, and coming to a very different interpretation.

the rules ask if the models are the same in "game terms";

In "game terms", is a spent combi-melta the same as an unspent combi-melta?
In "game terms" is a spent combi-melta the same as a bolter?


I do not disagree with your conclusion, (I actually would play it that way), but your confidence that you are playing it by the "correct" RAW, is a misplaced.

The thing is, the rules for complex units specify in no uncertain terms exactly what they mean:

"By this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear."


So while a spent combi-bolter is functionally different from a combi-bolter that has yet to fire it's one-shot component, by the "gaming terms" standards written in the rules themselves, the two models are still identical.

Yes, Yakface, and this is most likely going to devolve into a regional way of playing it... is a spent combi-weapon the same weapon as an unspent one? Could go either way. I'm not sure there is a "right" answer until/unless its FAQ'ed.

Breton wrote:Yes, Yakface, and this is most likely going to devolve into a regional way of playing it... is a spent combi-weapon the same weapon as an unspent one? Could go either way. I'm not sure there is a "right" answer until/unless its FAQ'ed.

I'm not disputing the fact that many people may choose to play it differently.

However, a "combi-weapon" is still a "combi-weapon" even it has fired it's one shot component, which is what rules are asking for when determining if a model is the same in game terms.

Another argument against is WYSIWYG. There is no marker for specific spent combi-weapons. For instance, you do not exchange the model.

I say no, agreeing with the above.

Basically, does a spent Combi-weapon stay a Combi-weapon or does it become a Bolter marine, or does it become something else.

yakface wrote:"By this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear."

It seems clear that it "stays" a Combi-weapon.

To me it is an issue of context.

They need to have the same weapons.

Is a spent combi-melta the same as an unused combi-melta? In general I would say yes. But in this case I look at the overall context of the rule.

The models need to be "identical in game terms", and within that context, I am not convinced they would be considered the 'same' weapon.