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.

Let's get this cleared up once and for all.

RAW -
If a power weapon has its own unique close combat rules, treat it as an AP 3 Melee weapon with the additional rules and characteristics presented in its entry.

Let's not distort the actual definition. Accept it for what it is.

When reading unusual power weapons it is clearly defined to ONLY apply to weapons that have special rules for close combat if it does NOT have any special rules affecting close combat then it does NOT count as 'unusual' and follows the standard rules for power/force weapons. There are many examples of weapons that have extra benefits in close combat that follow this rule.

So this brings me to my next subject.

The Ork Burna is a FLAMER first and foremost with a special rule allowing it to be used as a power weapon. There is no special rules for close combat, there are no additional rules to the power weapon or characteristics as such it is a normal power weapon by RAW.

The debate would reside in 'what type of power weapon does it count as' being that it IS a flamer is what makes it unusual but this again has no bearing on the "Unusual Power Weapons" rule because it clearly states it only affects those with special rules for close combat.

So again what does the Burna count as?

Do we all agree that the RAW definition of unusual power weapons ONLY affects weapons with special close combat rules and not just any weapon that has a special rule as it seems a lot of people seem to be interpreting it.

Given the way the Burna is built I am inclined to call it a Lance type power weapon. Though I can potentially see it being swung around like an axe or sword as well (kind of like a light saber made from an extended beam of hot fire) but it mostly screams lance to me if we assume that it has a pointy fire thing at the tip and it's used to pierce rather than to slash which makes a lot of sense to me.

This would indicate that a unit of Burna Boyz initiating an assault have S5 AP3 weapons on the charge. What do the rest of you think? And again let's stick to the RAW definition enough with the assumptions and misinterpretations, address the rule as written.

Akaiyou wrote:then I thought 'mmm the burnas can count as power weapons

What?

EDIT: I am an idiot.

Thats funny.

Burnas count as power weapons if the model did not use the template profile during the shooting phase. So seriously, I'm really tempted to put a cutting axe head on each of those flamers. I1 is not that far removed from I2 and always swinging at S4 or S5 would be sweet.

However, these things might fit under unusual power weapons and will have to follow the rules for those (don't have a book to look it up exactly what that does).

It's definitely an unusual power weapon, probably the most unusual of all. S: User, Ap3.

It's not an unusual power weapon because the weapon is an actual flamer with a special rule to make it a power weapon. Not the other way around.

Unusual Power Weapon are described as "If a power weapon has it's own unique close combat rules, treat it as an AP3 Melee weapon...."

This applies to power weapons that have some special rule on them during close combat, it's quite clear cut.

A Burna is NOT a power weapon that some times fires like a flamer. Quite the opposite it is a FLAMER that can count as a normal power weapon there is no special attribute during combat or anything to make it unusual.

It seems to me that people haven taken 'unusual' too literal instead of actually following the wording.

The burna doesnt count as unusual just because it doesnt look like a power weapon, or because it's a flamer. Shooting has no bearing on the actual rule. It only relates to it having special properties during close combat and since it doesnt then the question is...

What kind of power weapon does the burna count as? I can see it working as a lance/axe/sword considering the way the model would have to hold it in a close combat fight.

Yea, your never getting away with that Akaiyou.

Its an unusual as hell power weapon.

Treat it as AP3.

If you TRY to tell me its a power ax, I'll stop playing with you and leave. If a TO tries to tell me its a power ax, I'll leave that store and never return.

Well then you should stop playing 40k now and might as well close your dakkadakka account while you are at it.

Because the unusual power weapon rule is very clear that it only applies if a power weapon has unique CLOSE COMBAT RULES which there are PLENTY of examples of weapons such as that.

The Burna is a flamer first and foremost. And can be used as a power weapon with no other special characteristic to it during close combat. Thus it is NOT an unusual power weapon because that is NOT what the rule says to apply it to.

So you can either follow the FACTS and stick to the rules or you can whine and quit the game as a whole the choice is yours.

Would it not be unusual in so far as it is only a power weapon when the flamer has not been fired?
Just curious.

Lightcavalier wrote:Would it not be unusual in so far as it is only a power weapon when the flamer has not been fired?
Just curious.

That would not apply. Read the unusual weapon rule the only thing that affects it is if it has a special rule for close combat. Which it doesn't. It is very specific and the burna just does not fit into what an unusual power weapon is defined as being in the BRB.

It is definetly not your typical power weapon i mean after all it IS a flamer, but this is irrelevant in regards to the actual rule. All 40k players know by now that we don't apply rules based off fluff

When I read this I see the flamer is a weapon with a special rule for close combat. That special rule is that it is being used as a power weapon. Acting as a power weapon is the special rule that makes the weapon an unusual power weapon and AP3.

Celticwelsh wrote:When I read this I see the flamer is a weapon with a special rule for close combat. That special rule is that it is being used as a power weapon. Acting as a power weapon is the special rule that makes the weapon an unusual power weapon and AP3.

Special rule for close combat? Where? I don't see it. Saying that it can be used as a power weapon in close combat does not mean it has a special rule in close combat. That's 2 completely different things that you are twisting together

Akaiyou wrote:
Because the unusual power weapon rule is very clear that it only applies if a power weapon has unique CLOSE COMBAT RULES which there are PLENTY of examples of weapons such as that.

That is NOT what the rulebook says at all.
It does not say CLOSE COMBAT RULES, it says "no further special rules". Doesn't say these rule have to be about close combat. The Burna has a whole host of special rules, doesn't matter if they relate to close combat or not.

You keep saying how it is a Flamer that can be used as a power weapon.

Unfortunately, you have fabricated from your bias.

the rules for Burna just says it can be used one of two ways. The rules does not make one way "first and foremost" no matter how many times you say it does.

Further, it has a rule that it can only be used sometimes in CC. That seems to be a pretty unique rule, and applies to CC. Which pretty much makes it a Unique Close Combat rule.

User Str, AP3

Akaiyou wrote:Because the unusual power weapon rule is very clear that it only applies if a power weapon has unique CLOSE COMBAT RULES which there are PLENTY of examples of weapons such as that.

Well that is not what it says, but even if it did, It would be an unusual power weapon, because it actually does have unique close combat rules.

The rules that state it is a regular CCW in some assault phases, and a Power weapon some assault phases makes the weapon unique.

Unless you know of another CCW that is a regular CCW one combat, and a Power weapon the next...

I think its a power weapon that can be used as a unique flamer..

Please Gw.. FAQ please.. before the universe implodes...... I just want this and the wound overflow discussion to go away..... I dont care if its a 2 sentance FAQ.. Its not that hard to update a PDF file....

So for just a moment, assuming that a burn is NOT an unusual power weapon, what would it be classed as? It's not a sword, mace, lance or axe (unless it's been modded to look like one) so we cannot look at it to see what kind it is. It's not unusual (in this hypothetical situation) so we cannot use those rules. So now the game comes to a stop.
Good job.
Or we could just say since the burna can be used as a power weapon or flamer, it has a unique rule and is categorised as an unusual power weapon, and thus usable in close combat.

Actually bro, if you read the entry of the burna, it's a cutting tool that can be used like a flamer. It's primary purpose is as a torch for cutting up scrap and welding it back together, so the Meks can make sumtin' krumpy an' killy.

The rule book also states something to the effect of shooting weapons count as single close combat weapons, such as a lasgun bayonet, or bolter slapping someone. So we can infer that burna is a close combat weapon.

The special rule stated in the codex is that if it was not used as a flamer, it can be used as a power weapons.

That seems like a special close combat rule.

Akaiyou & others,

Is this thread solely about Burnas, or can we include others for clarification?

DE
a. Agonizer? Wounds on 4+ , AP3 or AP 2? (pretty sure this fits under the paragraph on page 61, Unusual PWs, so AP3)
b. Lilith Hesperax - She ignores armor (not her non-descript weps), but actually *her* - do her attacks resolve at AP 3 or 2? She's mentioned in the DE FAQ, but it only clarifies her "A League Apart" number of attacks. Her relevant Codex listing says "Her attacks ignore armor saves."


And BTW, (no sarcasm, nor being preachy, at least I hope):
the back and forth over whether a burna is a flamer 1st, then a PW or it's a PW 1st, then a flamer or it's hair curler relic technology secretly sought after by Sisters of Battle ... very sad, guys. Yer trashing each other on the semantics of what it's called. Thanks to Happyjew for just bringing it back to the mechanics.

In regards to Lelith, not sure why that needs FAQing. The Codex is pretty clear

Shas'o_Longshot wrote:In regards to Lelith, not sure why that needs FAQing. The Codex is pretty clear

A non-answer, (sarcasm) Thanks!

(serious) Shas0L, this is YMDC, not "the codex is pretty clear". Yes, the DE codex *is* very clear (cuz is was written by Phil Kelly! ), but we've had a game mechanic redefined (PWs and ignoring armor, because now power swords can't by-pass Termie-shells) with the new game rules, so what *was* clear, ain't quite clear now, thus GW's sorry attempt with the rather too short paragraph on page 61 for 'unusual PWs' to clarify things.

So, please, contribute positively, eh?

grendel083 wrote:

Akaiyou wrote:
Because the unusual power weapon rule is very clear that it only applies if a power weapon has unique CLOSE COMBAT RULES which there are PLENTY of examples of weapons such as that.

That is NOT what the rulebook says at all.
It does not say CLOSE COMBAT RULES, it says "no further special rules". Doesn't say these rule have to be about close combat. The Burna has a whole host of special rules, doesn't matter if they relate to close combat or not.

The power weapon version of the burna has no further special rules on it. Simply says it may be used as a power weapon.
What i'm quoting is the UNUSUAL POWER WEAPON entry. Read it...i've quoted it several times, you'll find that im not misquoting your simply looking at the wrong thing while looking for the quote in question.

The UPW entry says it applies only IF the weapon has a unique close combat rule.

coredump wrote:You keep saying how it is a Flamer that can be used as a power weapon.

Unfortunately, you have fabricated from your bias.

the rules for Burna just says it can be used one of two ways. The rules does not make one way "first and foremost" no matter how many times you say it does.

Further, it has a rule that it can only be used sometimes in CC. That seems to be a pretty unique rule, and applies to CC. Which pretty much makes it a Unique Close Combat rule.

User Str, AP3

When you look up the burna in the rulebook what is it classified as? A Flamer, correct? So what part am i fabricating exactly?
It's not classified as a power weapon. Again...what am i fabricating other than facts?

Thus it is a flamer with a special rule allowing you to use it as a power weapon.

It is NOT a power weapon with a unique close combat rule that allows you to wield it as a CCW in order to shoot a flamer.

This is important.

So how do we define 'unique close combat rule' ? That seems to be the disagreement here, I believe those rules are very clear cut and are activated during actual combat. You guys are claiming that the Burna is so uber unique that it's unique close combat rule is activated during the shooting phase...

That to me makes 0 sense.

Shas'o has a point

Lelith's attacks ignore armour saves. Full stop. Same as Bone Swords, the Duke rolling a 5+, etc. No FAQ is required.

Just because PWs are AP3 does not suddenly modify the statement "ignores armour saves" to mean anything else.

Lightcavalier wrote:Lelith's attacks ignore armour saves. Full stop. Same as Bone Swords, the Duke rolling a 5+, etc. No FAQ is required.

Just because PWs are AP3 does not suddenly modify the statement "ignores armour saves" to mean anything else.

Now this I can get behind. Thanks, LightC.

The rule of being able to switch back and forth between PW and CCW is a unique close combat rule(no other weapon has the same rule). So, because it has 1 or more unique rule and is a PW with its own unique close combat rules, we are to treat it as an AP 3 melee weapon.

Anything else is just arguing to argue. It is clearly not a sword, an axe, a maul, or a lance, so you cannot claim it to be any of those. The only other solution happens to be the one that fits the best, so go with Unusual Power Weapon.

-cgmckenzie

It doesnt matter if you model it as an axe, sword or mace. Its clear the power weapon part of this comes from a concentrated burst of flame (its a cutting torch!). A flame jet is neither a sword, axe, maul or lance. Therefore you must treat it as an unusual power weapon.

Strength as user, AP 3.

If you model it as an axe, all you have is a cool looking conversion.

I think a bigger question about the Burna is why you can overwatch with it and still count as a power weapon if you didnt shoot it in your shooting phase. But these rules are full of holes like that (same with Dire Avenger Bladestorm)

Does anybody know the stats of Abbadon the despoiler, for his weapons, do they have ap3, does the claws still reroll for not wounding......i need clarification.......

Unusual due to the dual nature of being used as a regular ccw or a power weapon if the flamer is not used.

User str/init, ap3.

@jakingo: Check the CSM FAQ Abbadon's sword is a power weapon (so AP3) and a Daemon weapon. I don't think anything has changed in regards to the reroll to wound.

Yes i'm arguing that it's not a close combat rule...it is decided in the shooting phase. That makes it not a close combat rule.

Wether I shoot the burna or not in the shooting phase is the determining factor to wether i have a power weapon or not. We all agree there right?

So how is that a 'close combat rule' ? It's not affecting close combat at all, the "power weapon" doesn't exist until after the shooting phase, once I forgo my shooting then I have a power weapon...with NO additional features.

By that same token if I shoot, then I have no power weapon. So once more...you are taking a rule that happens in the shooting phase and trying to pass it along as an assault phase special rule. Makes no sense

Not just any rule is a 'close combat' rule specially one that itsn't even determined during close combat that's my point.

Akaiyou wrote:Yes i'm arguing that it's not a close combat rule...it is decided in the shooting phase. That makes it not a close combat rule.

Wether I shoot the burna or not in the shooting phase is the determining factor to wether i have a power weapon or not. We all agree there right?

So how is that a 'close combat rule' ? It's not affecting close combat at all

Actually it is affecting CC, Because if you fire the flamer, it is a regular CCW.

If you do not then it is a power weapon.

So it has different 'close combat rules' depending on weather you fire the flamer or not.

That is why it is a close combat rule.