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.

Neorealist wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Neorealist - yes, its called the characteristics plus any wargear you purchase

You then check once.

Really not tricky.

Your position still claims that MoN Marines are T4, not T5, and when you roll for sweeping advance with a Slaanesh icon marine you only look at I4.

An absurd result like that should give you a clue that your argument is absurd

I apologise if i've been unclear, but i am not attributing any such thing. The wargear you mentioned should function fine and i have not (nor have any reason to) insist that my contention effects that in any way.

Except your contention is that you can only look on the printed characteristics for a model in order to determine what it has and what rules apply to it.

In order for your contention to be at all valid, it has to be consistent. You have created a standard out of whole cloth, so the only reasonable test is to apply this standard consistently to see if it makes any form of sense.

The two items of wargear I mentioned alter the printed stat to something else. As does a space marine bike. As does a TWC mount for a SW Lord.

So, as I pointed out - your contention is absurd, because when it is applied consistently it leads to the absurd result that a SM on a bike is no tougher than one that is not on a bike - despite that being one of the stated benefits of the wargear. A slaanesh marine is no faster in combat than a normal chaos space marine, despite that being one of the stated benefits of the wargear. And so on.

Neorealist wrote:The 'plus any wargear you purchase' is not a specific location where you can find relevent rules-text though, for what it's worth. I'd also appreciate if you would not refer to my arguments as 'absurd' going forward, that is pointlessly offensive and inflammatory.

It is specified by the codex. It is an explicit location for you to check - if you have purchased a piece of wargear it is entirely logical to refer to the codex to tell you what that item of wargear is, xref to the BRB as required.

I will continue to use the word "absurd" as it is being used correctly - you are positing an argue that, prima facie, is absurd because it cannot be applied to anything without giving incorrect results. The ones we have given above are direct, unarguable faults with your contention, showing that contention to be an absurd one.

rigeld2 wrote:False.

Point A. The model is treated as having a CCW - it does not actually have one.
Point B. You buy the model a pistol. It is now specifically stated to have a CCW and therefore you do not treat it as having the CCW from point A.

RAW that's how it works in 6th edition.

You have stated your opinion 20 something times already. Stop being a broken record. Your reasoning is your own, and in my opinion not very sound at all. Posting it 50 more times won't make it more relevant.

Kevlar wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:False.

Point A. The model is treated as having a CCW - it does not actually have one.
Point B. You buy the model a pistol. It is now specifically stated to have a CCW and therefore you do not treat it as having the CCW from point A.

RAW that's how it works in 6th edition.

You have stated your opinion 20 something times already. Stop being a broken record. Your reasoning is your own, and in my opinion not very sound at all. Posting it 50 more times won't make it more relevant.

Not sound? It's the literal text out of the rulebook.
How about you offer actual rules instead of telling me to stop posting?

rigeld2 wrote:Not sound? It's the literal text out of the rulebook.
How about you offer actual rules instead of telling me to stop posting?

How about you calm down and let other people chime in instead of playing "nanner nanner is not, is too" with every post in this thread?

Kevlar wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Not sound? It's the literal text out of the rulebook.
How about you offer actual rules instead of telling me to stop posting?

How about you calm down and let other people chime in instead of playing "nanner nanner is not, is too" with every post in this thread?

Right, so no rules. That's cool. Just checking.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except your contention is that you can only look on the printed characteristics for a model in order to determine what it has and what rules apply to it.

In order for your contention to be at all valid, it has to be consistent. You have created a standard out of whole cloth, so the only reasonable test is to apply this standard consistently to see if it makes any form of sense.

The two items of wargear I mentioned alter the printed stat to something else. As does a space marine bike. As does a TWC mount for a SW Lord.

So, as I pointed out - your contention is absurd, because when it is applied consistently it leads to the absurd result that a SM on a bike is no tougher than one that is not on a bike - despite that being one of the stated benefits of the wargear. A slaanesh marine is no faster in combat than a normal chaos space marine, despite that being one of the stated benefits of the wargear. And so on.

It is specified by the codex. It is an explicit location for you to check - if you have purchased a piece of wargear it is entirely logical to refer to the codex to tell you what that item of wargear is, xref to the BRB as required.

I will continue to use the word "absurd" as it is being used correctly - you are positing an argue that, prima facie, is absurd because it cannot be applied to anything without giving incorrect results. The ones we have given above are direct, unarguable faults with your contention, showing that contention to be an absurd one.

Duly noted, i have reported your continued use of that offensive term.

As I've already stated: my contention is that one should refer to the printed word to verify if something is 'specifically stated' (as per the wording in the Default CCW' rule.) i have not and do not contend that you should not apply the effects of optional purchased wargear to the model. If you wish to continue to debate with me, i'd suggest not trying to 'interpret' my words in a fashion that apparently sounds rediculous to you so much as 'reading' it and responding to the points i've actually made.

rigeld2 wrote:Right, so no rules. That's cool. Just checking.

I don't know if you are intentionally being dense. I posted my interpretation of the rule in my first post in this thread. For some reason you seem to enjoy posting your interpretation numerous times in the same thread in order to prove to yourself that you are right. (When in fact you are just repeatedly giving all of us your opinion).

The wraith model does not come with a pistol or any other close combat weapon. It therefore is treated as having a close combat weapon per the BRB p51.

This is now the default state of the model.

If you then buy additional wargear of the type "pistol" for a model that already "counts as" having a close combat weapon, then that model gains +1 attack.

This is not the same thing as a unit like a standard space marine that comes standard with a pistol which then counts as its close combat weapon.



You are the one adding an additional rule to the unit. "Buying a pistol as wargear replaces the default close combat weapon". No where does this rule exist, at least outside of your head.

Kevlar wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Right, so no rules. That's cool. Just checking.

I don't know if you are intentionally being dense.

No, I'm not. Your first post contained no rules references. This one does. Thanks!

The wraith model does not come with a pistol or any other close combat weapon. It therefore is treated as having a close combat weapon per the BRB p51.

Correct.

This is now the default state of the model.

"Default" is a strange term, so I'll leave this sentence alone for now.

If you then buy additional wargear of the type "pistol" for a model that already "counts as" having a close combat weapon, then that model gains +1 attack.

Annnnd... stop. He does not "count as" having a CCW. He is "treated as" having a CCW. I'm pretty sure you can't equate those two phrases.
Even if you could - he's treated as having one unless specifically stated otherwise. Once you purchase a CCW for him, he's specifically stated to have a CCW and therefore cannot be treated as having one in addition to the purchased one.

This is not the same thing as a unit like a standard space marine that comes standard with a pistol which then counts as its close combat weapon.

... Random example, but ok.

You are the one adding an additional rule to the unit. "Buying a pistol as wargear replaces the default close combat weapon". No where does this rule exist, at least outside of your head.

False. I have not added that rule anywhere. Cite me saying that.
The "free" CCW only exists as long as you are not specifically stated as having one.
Answer one simple question: If you purchase a Particle Caster for a Wraith, are you specifically stated as having a CCW?

Kevlar wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Right, so no rules. That's cool. Just checking.

I don't know if you are intentionally being dense. I posted my interpretation of the rule in my first post in this thread. For some reason you seem to enjoy posting your interpretation numerous times in the same thread in order to prove to yourself that you are right. (When in fact you are just repeatedly giving all of us your opinion).

The wraith model does not come with a pistol or any other close combat weapon. It therefore is treated as having a close combat weapon per the BRB p51.

This is now the default state of the model.

If you then buy additional wargear of the type "pistol" for a model that already "counts as" having a close combat weapon, then that model gains +1 attack.

This is not the same thing as a unit like a standard space marine that comes standard with a pistol which then counts as its close combat weapon.



You are the one adding an additional rule to the unit. "Buying a pistol as wargear replaces the default close combat weapon". No where does this rule exist, at least outside of your head.

Your interpretation is absolutely no different than the others in this thread that think all models now "get a free melee weapon". It's flat out wrong, they do not HAVE a melee weapon, they are TREATED as having one. The same way a model is "treated" as moving through difficult terrain if they have Slow and Purposeful.

Yes, buying a pistol DOES remove the RULE granting a TREATED AS melee weapon because the model ACTUALLY has a melee weapon now. You tell me how I can give a model a melee weapon AND treat it as having a melee weapon so that it gets +1a. Explain to me how HAVING a melee weapon is not the same thing as being treated as having one. Explain to me how you aren't breaking the first line of the rule that states "if a model doesn't specifically state it has a melee weapon..." when you give them a pistol, or any melee weapon.

And yes, it IS the same as a marine that comes with a pistol because the increased cost of a marine over other standard troops is including that extra bit of wargear. Just because they come with it out of the box does not mean they are "any" different than a model that purchases a melee/ccw as extra wargear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry, I just have to add...this discussion is ridiculous.

Personally, I get how the rule is supposed to be played. I'm sure pretty much everyone I play against will know as well. I'm sure any events I go to will know as well.

So, I'm good. Have fun.

Neorealist wrote:Duly noted, i have reported your continued use of that offensive term.

Thats what the yellow icon is for. Note it isnt actually an offensive term when applied to a debate in its correct use, which is that a prima facie "wrong" argument is an absurd one. I would avoid taking it personally, as it was not stated as such. The argument is absurd, not the person.

Neorealist wrote:As I've already stated: my contention is that one should refer to the printed word to verify if something is 'specifically stated' (as per the wording in the Default CCW' rule.) i have not and do not contend that you should not apply the effects of optional purchased wargear to the model. If you wish to continue to debate with me, i'd suggest not trying to 'interpret' my words in a fashion that apparently sounds rediculous to you so much as 'reading' it and responding to the points i've actually made.

So, again, the Wargear given to a model as part of its options is not enough to "specifically state" that it comes with a CCW? Even though the rulebook "specifically states" that a model equpped with a pistol is equipped with a close combat weapon?

If you pay the points for a wraith to have a pistol, it is specifically stated to have a CCW by the very fact you have paid the points for it, and is now parrt of the wargear for that model.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So, again, the Wargear given to a model as part of its options is not enough to "specifically state" that it comes with a CCW? Even though the rulebook "specifically states" that a model equpped with a pistol is equipped with a close combat weapon?

If you pay the points for a wraith to have a pistol, it is specifically stated to have a CCW by the very fact you have paid the points for it, and is now parrt of the wargear for that model.

Correct: my contention is that the act of purchasing optional wargear in and of itself does not alter what is 'specifically state'-ed in the characteristics profile/block of rules-text for a given model regarding wether or not it includes (or not) a Melee-type weapon.



Perhaps this will help.
Step 1:
Check if the model has any CCWs listed in it's block of rules text.
Step 2:
If it doesn't, it now 'counts as' having a default one.
Step 3:
If it does, it does not 'counts as' having a default one.

There; the rule has been applied, and finished resolving it's effect on the game.

If you choose to purchase additional wargear for that model, (including but not limited to another CCW) why would you then have to check again to see if you can apply the 'Default CCW' rule a second time?
Wouldn't that run into the problem of the rule invalidating itself? (Of course it has a CCW the second time you check, it 'counts as' having one by virtue of the rule itself from the first time you checked!)

In addition, how does purchasing optional wargear change what is written (the literal words found on the page) in your codex?


I have to agree with other posters that have indicated that this effect is probably not RAI. I do however think i make a decent argument for it being RAW.

Neorealist wrote:
Perhaps this will help.
Step 1:
Check if the model has any CCWs listed in it's block of rules text.
Step 2:
If it doesn't, it now 'counts as' having a default one.
Step 3:
If it does, it does not 'counts as' having a default one.

"counts as" != "treated as" - unless you've got some rules based reason to equate them?

There; the rule has been applied, and finished resolving it's effect on the game.

What's your basis for only ever applying it before purchasing wargear?

If you choose to purchase additional wargear for that model, (including but not limited to another CCW) why would you then have to check again to see if you can apply the 'Default CCW' rule a second time?
Wouldn't that run into the problem of the rule invalidating itself? (Of course it has a CCW the second time you check, it 'counts as' having one by virtue of the rule itself from the first time you checked!)

No, as I've proven and you never responded to. It does not have a specifically stated CCW the second time you check.

In addition, how does purchasing optional wargear change what is written (the literal words found on the page) in your codex?

Why do you keep asserting that wargear cannot change your profile, when you've been shown that it must?

I'm sorry Rigeld2; i've gotten tired of repeating myself in response to your posts so i'm only going to address your last point here; as it is the only one relevant to something another poster was saying.

rigeld2 wrote:Why do you keep asserting that wargear cannot change your profile, when you've been shown that it must?

Why do I keep seeing this argument in response to my posts? Is it literally such a leap of logic to take for granted that the words on the codex page are unmodifiable 'without' automatically assuming that means that purchased wargear never has any effect?

So if we invent a specific time when the check to see if you have a CCW that isn't after you've got your list built and you're ready to play the game AND equate "treated as" with "is equipped with" AND we assume that we determine that the "treated as" check occurs BEFORE we buy wargear, then we must agree with Neorealist et al.

I have high confidence that the set of 40K judges for major US tournaments who agree with Neorealist will be null, and assume that will be the case for judges in other countries as well. Any decision that has to invent a very strict order of operations that is not required by the rules is highly unlikely to be widely accepted without direct instruction to do so from a GW FAQ.

Neorealist wrote:Why do I keep seeing this argument in response to my posts? Is it literally such a leap of logic to take for granted that the words on the codex page are unmodifiable 'without' automatically assuming that means that purchased wargear never has any effect?

Neorealist wrote:A) The reason i refer to the profile of the model is because that is where we are told to look for the models' applicable rules. Without the characteristics profile, the model has no way to interact with the game. if you are not referring to the profile of the model to determine wether or not it has a CCW already, then where 'are' you looking to find out that information?

Neorealist wrote:I'm not 'hung up' on it so much as i see it as the only place to 'specifically state' a given model has something.

I'll ask you the same question i asked the other poster: If you are not looking at the characteristics profile of the model in order to determine if it is stated to have a CCW, where 'are' you looking for that information?

Neorealist wrote:I did not say optional purchased wargear doesn't modify the units characteristics. I said optional purchased wargear does not modify what is printed in a given book in the form of the 'characteristics profile'.

Yes, it absolutely is a leap of logic to say that you reference an "unmodifiable" codex page for one thing and never for anything else.

Where am I supposed to look up the Toughness for my unit?
Where am I supposed to look up the Initiative for my unit?
Where am I supposed to look up the Wound value for my unit?

You're the one that has asserted the profile is unmodifable. You haven't yet provided anything to back that statement up - in fact, where do I reduce a unit's Wounds as required by page 15? I obviously can't modify the profile according to you...

jwolf wrote:So if we invent a specific time when the check to see if you have a CCW that isn't after you've got your list built and you're ready to play the game AND equate "treated as" with "is equipped with" AND we assume that we determine that the "treated as" check occurs BEFORE we buy wargear, then we must agree with Neorealist et al.

I have high confidence that the set of 40K judges for major US tournaments who agree with Neorealist will be null, and assume that will be the case for judges in other countries as well. Any decision that has to invent a very strict order of operations that is not required by the rules is highly unlikely to be widely accepted without direct instruction to do so from a GW FAQ.

I didn't invent a specific time to check, i just picked a specific 'place'. You can check any time you like, you are still going to get the same result if the only place you are looking for that information is in your codex on the models' listed characteristics profile.

I don't see what is so 'strict' about looking in your book to check if the model already has a melee weapon, let alone even if it 'was' strict, why that would perforce make my argument any less 'right' or 'wrong'.

Neorealist wrote:I don't see what is so 'strict' about looking in your book to check if the model already has a melee weapon, let alone even if it 'was' strict, why that would perforce make my argument any less 'right' or 'wrong'.

Because you're completely ignoring optional wargear - intentionally.
When you're completely ignoring part of the army building process to make your point it should be a clue that you're wrong.

Neorealist wrote:
Correct: my contention is that the act of purchasing optional wargear in and of itself does not alter what is 'specifically state'-ed in the characteristics profile/block of rules-text for a given model regarding wether or not it includes (or not) a Melee-type weapon.

Rules backing for that? For the first time this thread?

Neorealist wrote:Perhaps this will help.
Step 1:
Check if the model has any CCWs listed in it's block of rules text.

Rules quote as to why this is the only place you can check?

Neorealist wrote:Step 2:
If it doesn't, it now 'counts as' having a default one.

Try to get this correct: Treats as is not the same as Counts as, unless you have some rules backing

Neorealist wrote:Step 3:
If it does, it does not 'counts as' having a default one.

There; the rule has been applied, and finished resolving it's effect on the game.

So, now you've shown zero rules support for why you made this arbitrary decision to a) only check the initial wargear given to a model and b) only once, before you've even written a list to include said model, care to provide any?

Neorealist wrote:If you choose to purchase additional wargear for that model, (including but not limited to another CCW) why would you then have to check again to see if you can apply the 'Default CCW' rule a second time?

Or, and heres the rub: this isnt the second time you check. You check once, after purchasing the model.


You make not one single arugmetn for it being RAW, because you dont ever include a single rule for any of the assertions and assumptions you have made.

Neorealist wrote:

jwolf wrote:So if we invent a specific time when the check to see if you have a CCW that isn't after you've got your list built and you're ready to play the game AND equate "treated as" with "is equipped with" AND we assume that we determine that the "treated as" check occurs BEFORE we buy wargear, then we must agree with Neorealist et al.

I have high confidence that the set of 40K judges for major US tournaments who agree with Neorealist will be null, and assume that will be the case for judges in other countries as well. Any decision that has to invent a very strict order of operations that is not required by the rules is highly unlikely to be widely accepted without direct instruction to do so from a GW FAQ.

I didn't invent a specific time to check, i just picked a specific 'place'. You can check any time you like, you are still going to get the same result if the only place you are looking for that information is in your codex on the models' listed characteristics profile.

I don't see what is so 'strict' about looking in your book to check if the model already has a melee weapon, let alone even if it 'was' strict, why that would perforce make my argument any less 'right' or 'wrong'.

I make no claim of the strictness of looking in your book. It's the very exacting order in which you claim checks must be made that is strict. Your argument requires an exact order of operations, whereas the correct position requires only that when we place models on the table that we treat all models with a weapon skill, even those with no listed close combat weapons, as having one (and being able to fight in close combat).

jwolf wrote:I make no claim of the strictness of looking in your book. It's the very exacting order in which you claim checks must be made that is strict. Your argument requires an exact order of operations, whereas the correct position requires only that when we place models on the table that we treat all models with a weapon skill, even those with no listed close combat weapons, as having one (and being able to fight in close combat).

I don't think it's terribly 'strict' to presume one is following the rule in the fashion it is printed either (as written there is only one 'check' in this rule), but you are of course free to continue to assign that adjective to it if you wish.

Also: if you only apply the rule after all the models placed on the table; isn't that 'you' arbitrarily picking a specific time to apply it? ie: the very same thing you indicated was wrong with 'my' argument?



Sure thing, here you go nosferatu1001: (though I would like to note this isn't the first time i've said this in this thread...)

nosferatu1001 wrote:Rules backing for that? For the first time this thread?

(6th ed rulebook page 3) "Characteristics Profile: Every model in warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics. At the back of this book, and in the codexes for each army, you will find the profiles for warriors and heroes drawn from many different races."

For here it's quite simple really; Every model has a characteristics profile. It's either found in the main book, or in the codex. The printed word found in each of these locations is not an opensource document and cannot be editted short of vandalizing your book with a sharpie. With me so far?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Rules quote as to why this is the only place you can check?

That is where the book says the information is listed. That said, can you think of anywhere 'else' that could be definitively said to 'specifically state' this information? I've asked several times.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Try to get this correct: Treats as is not the same as Counts as, unless you have some rules backing

What difference does it make to my argument if you equate 'treated as' with 'counts as' or not? Go with whatever interpretation you prefer.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So, now you've shown zero rules support for why you made this arbitrary decision to a) only check the initial wargear given to a model and b) only once, before you've even written a list to include said model, care to provide any?

a) It doesn't matter when you check to determine if the model has a CCW for my argument either before or after you purchase wargear, only 'where' you look for that information. I've never claimed a specific time when that is supposed to occur.
b) You can only do it once, as doing it multiple times runs into the problem of the rule invalidating itself. I've already explained this effect in a prior post.

Checking what models have what gear at the start of a game happens in every game I play, so that check is going to happen every game automatically. In fact, models don't exist until they're in a game, in game terms. So while you might view checking the wargear on models at the start of a game as an arbitrary time, it at least de facto is a time that the rules support existing. Your timeline for checking requires a preconstruction check that cannot happen after the assignment of optional wargear - nothing in the rules supports your timeline, whereas mine is a standard part of playing the game.

Your continued assertion that you only ask where to check, not when, does not hold water. If you check the model's profile after assigning wargear, then the model has a CCW weapon on it's profile, and your +1 attack argument is invalid.

I'll go so far as to say there is no specific time to check. It's just a fact.

No CCW? Pretend you have one. Have a CCW? You're gtg.

rigeld2 wrote:I'll go so far as to say there is no specific time to check. It's just a fact.

No CCW? Pretend you have one. Have a CCW? You're gtg.

Wait so having a ccw makes you go to ground? Interesting....

JK, I know what gtg means in this situation.

Happyjew wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:I'll go so far as to say there is no specific time to check. It's just a fact.

No CCW? Pretend you have one. Have a CCW? You're gtg.

Wait so having a ccw makes you go to ground? Interesting....

Sorry, just felt an orkmoticon frenzy.

Clearly the only way to resolve this is a duel.
Pistols at dawn?
Oh, wait, right, sore subject.

Nightbringer's Chosen wrote:Clearly the only way to resolve this is a duel.
Pistols at dawn?
Oh, wait, right, sore subject.

Sounds like fun to me!

Yeah, there is no specific time to check, it is a rule that is absolute in nature.

So if a model only has a pistol, for example, and that pistol somehow gets destroyed by a special rule, then when he charges into combat, guess what? He counts as having a close combat weapon.

If he some later magically materializes a pistol back again, guess what? He no longer has the free close combat weapon as he no actually has one.

yakface wrote:Yeah, there is no specific time to check, it is a rule that is absolute in nature.

So if a model only has a pistol, for example, and that pistol somehow gets destroyed by a special rule, then when he charges into combat, guess what? He counts as having a close combat weapon.

If he some later magically materializes a pistol back again, guess what? He no longer has the free close combat weapon as he no actually has one.

The problem with that is that is the rule itself gives the unit a free CCW, or at least treats it as having such. You check it multiple times? well it has a CCW this time, and so does not benefit from the rule. You check it again, and 'bam' mysteriously does not have one and so has a CCW again! Repeat until sick of self-referential rules.

It's very easy to say that the default CCW rule 'shouldn't' do this, but as written there doesn't seem to be a reason why it doesn't.

Neorealist wrote:You check it multiple times? well it has a CCW this time, and so does not benefit from the rule. You check it again, and 'bam' mysteriously does not have one and so has a CCW again! Repeat until sick of self-referential rules.

That's.
Not.
True.

The model is treated as having a CCW - it is not specifically stated to have a CCW. Therefore no matter how many times you look at a model without a CCW it will never actually have one.

You're making up an issue with a self referential rule where there isn't one.

Pg 52 brb says "a pistol counts as a close combat weapon in the assault phase."

So my wraith has a partial caster and is equipped with no specified ccw so therefor has 1 then we enter the assault phase and blam I have an extra attack bcz I have my non specifies ccw and a pistol that counts as a close comat weapon in the assault phase. Then we leave the assault phase now I only have my non specified ccw and a pistol again.

It seems people do not like the 6th Ed changes so they are trying to hold onto the 5th Ed.
I believe regular tactical marines have an extra attack now, since grey hunters and chaos marines have had it forever no additional point cost looks like gw is trying to make it more balanced