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.

Page 51 of BRB says "A pistol can be used as close combat weapon." No restrictions about when.
So no extra attacks for normal Marines or for Wraiths with only 1 pistol and no second CCW.

Essentially a particle caster's profile is this:

Range Strength AP Type
- user - Melee
12" 6 5 Assault 1

This is because, according to pg 52, "All Pistols are effectively Assault I weapons. A Pistol also counts as a close combat weapon in the Assault phase." Thus giving the weapon a duel profile, just like some other weapons, such as a Rod of Covenant.

Because of this, a model armed with a Particle caster has a melee weapon and does not get a +1A.

I just spent a large amount of time looking up and verifying rules to give an answer to this situation and an even larger amount of time trying to organize it and make it easy to read ,to address the specific points brought up earlier in this thread, and to answer in a detailed and polite manner, to make it easy to reference all related rules to the situation, and the computer crashed!!! On top of that someone posted one of my most important observations before I could. So here is my not so detailed, summary of what my perspective is on the situation. As stated recently, Pistols only count as close combat weapons during the assault phase. Also, the rule about the "free melee weapon" states that it will not gain it if the model already has a weapon of the MELEE TYPE. Pistols are PISTOL and ASSAULT 1 TYPE. In general, and I mean very general, at this point my conclusion is, that yes, wraiths with a particle caster get the +1 attack.

As for rules references, read in the BRB, pg. 24, 50,51,52,61 The Necron FAQ and The Necron codex at any page that mentions fabricator claw array, gauntlet of fire, warscythe, rod of covenant, particle caster, warscythe, voidblade, hyperphase sword, and staff of tomorrow. They all tie in, in some way. Also, think about how the particle caster, gauntlet of fire and rod of covenant all share in common having both a shooting and melee profile. Sorry for the general rules references, I'm still frustrated at the huge amount of time and effort that got wasted from the crash. I would walk you through all of it piece by piece, but I'm not in the mood to restart the whole thing. The least I could do is provide a hint where to look. I wish I could have contributed my much more thorough explanation.

Maybe in a few days if anyone would like to hear it, I will consider reconstructing it. Otherwise if anyone has any specific questions as to how I arrived at my conclusion I would be glad to share it, if not, I don't want to waste any more time. I know this might sound like a cheap attempt to validate my point, but please consider that I truly did put some very serious effort into this before the crash. I am a contract manager and I deal with multi-million dollar contracts and FCC tariffs. I interpret rules for a living. I'm not perfect, but my work requires that I'm at least as close as humanly possible when it comes to understanding rules. Right now though I'm just really frustrated and tired and needed to vent a little.

Edit: spelling

Neo - and, again, you have been provided the answer MULTIPLE TIMES

When you write the list, any wargear you purchase for the model definitively states what additions you have made to the book

Your made up loop is just that, MADE UP.

When something is a fact, it is a fact. You have no RAW argument.

It's really impressive how so many people try to 'break' the game and find loopholes when something new comes out. Does a wraith have an extra attack? No, or GW would have made it clear.


It's entertaining, and I guess poking around is how the finer parts of the new rules are learned, but sometimes I wonder how the games must go at some of these tables...

The biggest issue with a "free ccw" we have is that we are not told when to look for another ccw. By default, you should look and see if you are equipped with a ccw every time you get into cc, which is where a pistol is a ccw.

Pdelski, I recomend re-reading page 51. Specifically on the left side the paragraph entitled "Pistols as Close Combat Weapons". Pistols ARE of the Melee type.

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:The biggest issue with a "free ccw" we have is that we are not told when to look for another ccw. By default, you should look and see if you are equipped with a ccw every time you get into cc, which is where a pistol is a ccw.

No, you check when you build your list. If you buy a pistol for a model that already has a close combat weapon then that model gets +1 attack. That is the way the game has always been played. The only thing that changed from fifth to sixth was that models like the wraiths were not given close combat weapons. Now they are.

Kevlar wrote:

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:The biggest issue with a "free ccw" we have is that we are not told when to look for another ccw. By default, you should look and see if you are equipped with a ccw every time you get into cc, which is where a pistol is a ccw.

No, you check when you build your list. If you buy a pistol for a model that already has a close combat weapon then that model gets +1 attack. That is the way the game has always been played. The only thing that changed from fifth to sixth was that models like the wraiths were not given close combat weapons. Now they are.

Except of course that they are not given CCW - if they actually had CCW then there would be no argument in the negative. Similarly, since they do not have CCW, there is no valid argument in the affirmative, regardless of the tenacity of those flat out making stuff up.

jwolf wrote:Except of course that they are not given CCW - if they actually had CCW then there would be no argument in the negative. Similarly, since they do not have CCW, there is no valid argument in the affirmative, regardless of the tenacity of those flat out making stuff up.

There is no difference between "counts as" and "has". If you buy a pistol for a model that "counts as" having a close combat weapon that model still gets +1 attack.

Kevlar wrote:

jwolf wrote:Except of course that they are not given CCW - if they actually had CCW then there would be no argument in the negative. Similarly, since they do not have CCW, there is no valid argument in the affirmative, regardless of the tenacity of those flat out making stuff up.

There is no difference between "counts as" and "has". If you buy a pistol for a model that "counts as" having a close combat weapon that model still gets +1 attack.

No they are treated as having a ccw. They do not actually have one nor do they count as having one.

Kevlar wrote:

jwolf wrote:Except of course that they are not given CCW - if they actually had CCW then there would be no argument in the negative. Similarly, since they do not have CCW, there is no valid argument in the affirmative, regardless of the tenacity of those flat out making stuff up.

There is no difference between "counts as" and "has". If you buy a pistol for a model that "counts as" having a close combat weapon that model still gets +1 attack.

That would be true.
If you can equate "counts as" and "treated as" that'd be great.
Until then, your assertion is wrong because the actual rule says that they are treated as having a CCW unless specifically stated otherwise. Giving them a pistol is specifically stating otherwise.
And you don't "check" at army list time, it's just a fact. It is not a one time thing, and there's no infinite self referential loop of fail like some people seem to infer.

Kevlar wrote:

jwolf wrote:Except of course that they are not given CCW - if they actually had CCW then there would be no argument in the negative. Similarly, since they do not have CCW, there is no valid argument in the affirmative, regardless of the tenacity of those flat out making stuff up.

There is no difference between "counts as" and "has". If you buy a pistol for a model that "counts as" having a close combat weapon that model still gets +1 attack.

Good job the rule says "treated as" then.

Or are you equating "Treated as" and "counts as"?

Kevlar wrote:

jwolf wrote:Except of course that they are not given CCW - if they actually had CCW then there would be no argument in the negative. Similarly, since they do not have CCW, there is no valid argument in the affirmative, regardless of the tenacity of those flat out making stuff up.

There is no difference between "counts as" and "has". If you buy a pistol for a model that "counts as" having a close combat weapon that model still gets +1 attack.

There is, however, a difference between what the rules say and what you (and others) pretend them to say.

With all the talk about the model's unmodifiable profile and all... Does the Wraith entry list a free CCW, imaginary or not?

You're never given permission to actually add a CCW to the model, just to treat it as having one when needed. So it doesn't have one before you need one, meaning if you took a pistol you don't get a free CCW.

We've been trying this argument for the past 5 pages. They are simply saying no.

There really is no legit arguement in favor of +1 attack

It can't be more simple. If you have a ccw you don't get the free one.

It doesn't matter how you try to spin it. The free ccw is conditional. If you have a ccw of any kind you don't meet the requirements to have the free one.

Indeed. There isnt a single, actual rules based argument for +1 Attack.

There is a lot of made up gak, claiming specific times to check, specific places you are allowed to check and only those places, etc, but no actual rules.

And that made up gak would also mean that GK's armed with special weapons can't make any attacks in CC:
1) GK has Nemesis Force Sword in it's profile.
2) No wargear has yet been purchased for that model
3) According to Kevlar (and some others), at this point we check if a model qualifies for the "Free CCW" rule. Their 'argument' doesn't work if it is checked after purchasing wargear.
4) GK has NFW and doesn't qualify.
5) GK replaces NFW and Storm Bolter with Psycannon
6) As wargear has already been purchased for the model, it cannot benefit from the "Free CCW" rule and thus cannot make any attacks in CC as it lacks a weapon with melee subtype.

Basically, the "Wraiths get +1 attack for having a single Pistol" argument is based on two things:
1) Deliberately misinterpreting rules so that Necrons can gain advantage. It's understandable, with Wraiths being so overcosted already
2) Mental gymnastics required for arguing that "Obviously, that rule can only take into account model's basic wargear. Purchased wargear cannot count" instead of the sane "Check (at any time) if model has Melee weapon. If it doesn't have a one, it is treated as it had single CCW instead".

Can some one explain to me the difference between "is treated as" and "has"? If a wraith has a pistol and is treated as also having a close combat weapon, it seems to me it would get the extra attack.

This is, of course, putting aside for the moment the question of weather or not it gets to keep being treated as having a close combat weapon when it buys a pistol. I want to deal with one point at a time.

greatergoodjones wrote:Can some one explain to me the difference between "is treated as" and "has"? If a wraith has a pistol and is treated as also having a close combat weapon, it seems to me it would get the extra attack.

That would be correct. But it's irrelevant because...

This is, of course, putting aside for the moment the question of weather or not it gets to keep being treated as having a close combat weapon when it buys a pistol. I want to deal with one point at a time.

It can't be. There's never a time that it has a pistol when it also is not specifically stated to have a CCW.

rigeld2 wrote:

greatergoodjones wrote:Can some one explain to me the difference between "is treated as" and "has"? If a wraith has a pistol and is treated as also having a close combat weapon, it seems to me it would get the extra attack.

That would be correct. But it's irrelevant because...

This is, of course, putting aside for the moment the question of weather or not it gets to keep being treated as having a close combat weapon when it buys a pistol. I want to deal with one point at a time.

It can't be. There's never a time that it has a pistol when it also is not specifically stated to have a CCW.

As I said, I was taking it one point at a time. I saw an argument that because the wraith didn't "have" but only "was treated as" having a close combat weapon, it wouldn't get the attack anyway. Even if this argument arrives at the correct conclusion, which is something I will now try to address, I am now fairly confident that it is wrong and can move on.

Next, I am going to try to state the two main arguments being presented. Someone tell me if I misunderstood one. The argument against the extra attack seems to be: "Since the wraith has no close combat weapon, it is treated as having one. When you buy the pistol upgrade, it now has a close combat weapon, and so is no longer treated as having the free one." The argument for the extra attack seems to be "Since the wraith has no close combat weapon, it is always treated as having the free one, as if it had "close combat weapon" listed under the wargear section of its profile. If it gains a close combat weapon from somewhere, it is still treated as having the free one because it never had to trade it in, and thus gains an extra attack." Would this be a correct way to state both arguments?

I would like to also take a moment to comment on how unnecessary this rule is. If indeed it can not be used to generate extra attacks, or used for any other real purpose, it seems like it can only lead to confusion. This is not an argument for the extra attacks, as Games Workshop sadly does often make things unclear and more confusing then they have to be. It is merely a statement of annoyance.

The pistol is only a close combat weapon when in the assault phase says pg 52 of the brb

Therefore when purchasing a pistol on a wraith I do not have a ccw yet, so I am treated as having one then we enter the assault phase now I have 2

Ub3rb3n wrote:so I am treated as having one then we enter the assault phase now I have 2

False.
As soon as you have something that is specifically stated to be a CCW you are no longer eligible for the free one.

OK, time to put this to rest. I think that the majority is in agreement that they do not get the +1A because the "pistol" type gives a weapon assault one and an additional profile identical to a ccw. (pg. 52) Due to this, when you purchase the Particle Caster, you then give the Wraith a specific melee weapon, meaning it does not get a "not specified" ccw. So, no +1A.

Are we in agreement?

UndeadRobotSkeleton wrote:OK, time to put this to rest. I think that the majority is in agreement that they do not get the +1A because the "pistol" type gives a weapon assault one and an additional profile identical to a ccw. (pg. 52) Due to this, when you purchase the Particle Caster, you then give the Wraith a specific melee weapon, meaning it does not get a "not specified" ccw. So, no +1A.

Are we in agreement?

Not at all, and we won't be until it shows in an FAQ.

Been watching this thread a while, it is very much a grey area and both sides have a valid point however "narrative" sections of the brb support the wraith getting +1A and this is why.

(normal)
Wraith with no wep - ohh you have lots of spikey bits and legs - yes you can attack 3 times (profile)

(not allowed +1)
Wraith with pistol - Ohh you have lots of spikey bits and legs - but you are only allowed to bonk they guy on the head with your underslung weapon (3 times) caus you have it.

(allowed +1)
wraith with pistol - ohh you have lots of Spikey bits and legs - stab the crap outa him (3 times) while the underslung weapon bonks the guy on the head (one time).

For everyone that still thinks the particle caster gives a wraith +1A, then why does a Lord or Overlord not get +1A when he exchanges his Staff of Light to a Voidblade, Gauntlet of fire, or phase sword?

Kevlar wrote:

UndeadRobotSkeleton wrote:OK, time to put this to rest. I think that the majority is in agreement that they do not get the +1A because the "pistol" type gives a weapon assault one and an additional profile identical to a ccw. (pg. 52) Due to this, when you purchase the Particle Caster, you then give the Wraith a specific melee weapon, meaning it does not get a "not specified" ccw. So, no +1A.

Are we in agreement?

Not at all, and we won't be until it shows in an FAQ.

And id bet it never gets FAQed.
Because the rules in this case are pretty clear. You havent cited anything yet that supports your statements. Instead, you've just made bold assertions that were either demonstrably irrelevant or plain wrong.

To all the people trying to be TFG and get +1 attack...



Wraiths are bad-ass enough. Stop trying to it.