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.

To be fair, you are probably better off taking whip coils on all of them anyway...
(but that isn't a YMDC issue.)

I personally like the argument that they should either have them or they don't. The wraiths in this case do not lose their pointy bits just because you decided to purchase a pistol as well, so i find it reasonable to combine the two.

Neorealist wrote:To be fair, you are probably better off taking whip coils on all of them anyway...
(but that isn't a YMDC issue.)

I personally like the argument that they should either have them or they don't. The wraiths in this case do not lose their pointy bits just because you decided to purchase a pistol as well, so i find it reasonable to combine the two.

Fluff vs rules.

Neorealist wrote:I personally like the argument that they should either have them or they don't. The wraiths in this case do not lose their pointy bits just because you decided to purchase a pistol as well, so i find it reasonable to combine the two.

But couldn't you also argue that those pointy thingies and appendages are already represented in the model's Attacks profile?


I would like to present another position (which leads to a rather ludicrous result). The rule, as has been mentioned several times, states that a model which does not have a combat weapon is treated as having one (paraphrasing mine, most know the word for word rule). If we interpret this to mean that they are given one, doesn't the sentence "armed with a single close combat weapon" mean that I end up replacing a model's entire wargear with a single close combat weapon? So for the example of our necron warriors, right before they get into battle, their gauss flayer becomes a simple shiv. That, in my opinion, is the difference between "treated as" and "count as" occurs. It essentially states that if a model is not specifically stated as having a close combat weapon, in anywhere that it counts, it is treated as having one.

With that premise underway, how can the rule not be looped ad infinitum? just because I am treated as having something doesn't mean I actually possess one. So every time the status of a weapon changes, I can run the test again and ask "do I still treat myself as having a single close combat weapon?"

Also, to those who act like 6th has given a new avenue to gain close combat weapons, this rule is new, but not to gain a new advantage. The major change from 5th to 6th was that there was no such thing as a basic close combat weapon profile. Assault just assumed you used attacks and special weapons had detailed profile elsewhere. There was no "this weapon has X AP value" (prime example of this is power weapons: swords, axes, etc.). In this light, the writers had to find a way to rope in older codices that do not elaborate the profiles of close combat weapons.

Finally, I end with a question. where does it state you have to have a close combat weapon to fight in assault?

Another thing to check is the rules for close combat - when the time comes for a model to attack you also determine how many attacks it has. Surely this is the point where you apply the "treat it as having a single CCW" rule?

But no worries, if someone I play insists on trying this I can use this for any of my own models too. A SoB Canoness comes with bolter and bolt pistol, so I'll swap the pistol for a powersword. I'll just check the CCW status after giving up the pistol but before taking up the sword so I get +1A. And as someone else pointed out, since the pistols are melee weapons only in the assault phase all my basic bolter/pistol sisters seem to have gained a free attack too! Yay! ;-)

The problem with the logic that Wraith's have pistol/CCW is that is means all 'nillia SM now have CCW/Pistol in 6th. Just saying.

Lockark wrote:The problem with the logic that Wraith's have pistol/CCW is that is means all 'nillia SM now have CCW/Pistol in 6th. Just saying.

The argument against that is that the pistol is an upgrade, rather than a standard piece of wargear for the Wraiths. standard SM come base with a ccw in the form of the pistol.

Neorealist wrote:
I personally like the argument that they should either have them or they don't. The wraiths in this case do not lose their pointy bits just because you decided to purchase a pistol as well, so i find it reasonable to combine the two.

Yet you dont have any actual rules to back that up.

Fluff isnt usually rules.

Spetulhu wrote:Another thing to check is the rules for close combat - when the time comes for a model to attack you also determine how many attacks it has. Surely this is the point where you apply the "treat it as having a single CCW" rule?

But no worries, if someone I play insists on trying this I can use this for any of my own models too. A SoB Canoness comes with bolter and bolt pistol, so I'll swap the pistol for a powersword. I'll just check the CCW status after giving up the pistol but before taking up the sword so I get +1A. And as someone else pointed out, since the pistols are melee weapons only in the assault phase all my basic bolter/pistol sisters seem to have gained a free attack too! Yay! ;-)

I would agree with you and say they do, i think tatical marines should get one too

So there is no point to Assault Marines, is what youre saying? Yu know, the marines who are specifically loaded out with CCW + BP to get the extra attack? A normal tac marine should get that as well?

No, there is one way to read the rule that applies actual rules, and there is one wher eyou make things up and suddenly models gain additional attacks they are not entitled to.

This thread is crazy. Forgive me if this has been pointed out already, but is seems pretty black and white on page 51 of the BRB.
1. No specified melee weapon:. Any model not specified as having a melee is teated as having a single close combat weapon. (this is your basic Wraith model)
2. right under this is, Pistols as a close combat weapon. A pistol can be used as a close combat weapon. (this is you buying a partical caster in addition (not replacing) non specified weapon)
3. Directly under this is, More then one weapon. A model with two or more melee weapons gains +1 attack. (non specified weapon + partical caster(pistol) = +1 attack)

How is this up for debate?

jcroxford wrote:This thread is crazy. Forgive me if this has been pointed out already, but is seems pretty black and white on page 51 of the BRB.
1. No specified melee weapon:. Any model not specified as having a melee is teated as having a single close combat weapon. (this is your basic Wraith model)
2. right under this is, Pistols as a close combat weapon. A pistol can be used as a close combat weapon. (this is you buying a partical caster in addition (not replacing) non specified weapon)
3. Directly under this is, More then one weapon. A model with two or more melee weapons gains +1 attack. (non specified weapon + partical caster(pistol) = +1 attack)

How is this up for debate?

Because as soon as you buy the pistol (your step 2) you're specifically stated as having a CCW. Which invalidates your step 1, which means you don't get a second weapon, which means you don't get an attack.

How is this up for debate?
One side has actual rules, the other has hopes and dreams they've stretched into what they think might be a way for the rules to be interpreted as.

Because as soon as you buy the pistol (your step 2) you're specifically stated as having a CCW. Which invalidates your step 1, which means you don't get a second weapon, which means you don't get an attack.

How is this up for debate?
One side has actual rules, the other has hopes and dreams they've stretched into what they think might be a way for the rules to be interpreted as.

jcroxford wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Because as soon as you buy the pistol (your step 2) you're specifically stated as having a CCW. Which invalidates your step 1, which means you don't get a second weapon, which means you don't get an attack.

How is this up for debate?
One side has actual rules, the other has hopes and dreams they've stretched into what they think might be a way for the rules to be interpreted as.

You are drawing the conclusion that buying the pistol is replacing the original non specified weapon. How is that so? Where in the rules does it say that if you purchase a ranged weapon it replaces the original non-specified close combat one? You are not replacing a claw with a sword. You are adding a ranged weapon that has a special rule that you can use it as an additional close combat weapon.

False. I've never said it's replacing the "free" weapon.
The rules for the free weapon only apply if the model is not specifically stated that they have a CCW.
Having a pistol - wait for it - is specifically stating that the model has a CCW.

You could even go as far as to look at the model. Wraiths are clearly armed with claws (close combat weapons). If you model it with the (optional) partical caster it does not replace the original weapons. it is under-slung as an additional weapon.

That has literally nothing to do with the discussion at hand. It has two claws - clearly that's the 2 attacks base that it has. Right? Or does it have zero attacks base? Or ..?
Looking at the model doesn't matter 99% of the time.

I find your argument very weak, and unless you can show the rule that states what you are trying to pull off, it doesn't hold any weight.

You could read the thread, but I'll be nice and post it again for you.

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.

The model doesn't actually have a weapon, it's just treated as having one - until you equip it with something that specifically states it's a Melee weapon. Once you do that the model no longer qualifies for the "No Specified Melee Weapon" rule. Guess what Pistols have?

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 (see page 52).

(the referenced profile: )
Range: Close combat weapon S: User AP: - Type: Melee

What I don't get is people drawing the conclusion that you only check if it has a weapon once. That would be as logically absurd as saying "okay, in the second turn, we are going to check every model to see if its strength, toughness, or wounds is 0, and if it is, we'll remove it. After that, we won't check again."

As a rule, it is constantly in effect, and is acted upon whenever its condition is met.
A) I purchase a simple wraith. no close combat weapon? okay, It is going to be treated has having a single weapon.
B)I purchase the pistol upgrade for the wraith, run the check again. does it have a close combat weapon? yes? then I will no longer treat it as having a single close combat weapon, since it has the pistol, which can be treated as a close combat weapon.

Since it is a rule, the time we apply it is the only time it makes sense to do so; whenever a model's profile or status has changed.

I would just like to note that both sides continue to refrence the melee weapon as a "free weapon" which I think is breeding confusion. At no time is anyone gaining wargeer because of this rule. It states "treated as" which simply is allowing them to fight melee. There is no free weapon to gain or lose.


Don't have a melee weapon, now you are TREATED as having one for CC though do not COUNT as having one.

You have a melee weapon (pistol) you are TREATED as having one for CC as you also COUNT as having one.

Simple definition of words alone settles this argument.

So, by the arguments listed, I'll be nerfing my wraiths by taking pistols because the pistol is a melee weapon which replaces my "counts as having..." rule. Pistols do not grant 2 additional attacks, so the three attacks on my character sheet now make zero sense. What other models cone with a flat three base attacks? Dual weilding models, right?

Trying to argue this point using the model's base attacks is definitely a non-sequitur. Personally, I think sargeants et. al have 2 base attacks because they are armed with a pistol and close combat weapon, and most cannot change that, but many people read RAW and find that they get 3 attacks in CC, because they have 2 base and an additional one for having two weapons

thedunator wrote:So, by the arguments listed, I'll be nerfing my wraiths by taking pistols because the pistol is a melee weapon which replaces my "counts as having..." rule. Pistols do not grant 2 additional attacks, so the three attacks on my character sheet now make zero sense. What other models cone with a flat three base attacks? Dual weilding models, right?

Tyranid Warriors
Tyranid Shrikes
Tryanid Lictor
Tyranid Mawloc
Tyranid Tervigon
Tyranid Tyrant Guard
Tyranid Tyrannofex
GK Brother Captains
GK Grand Master
GK Nemesis DreadKnight
SM Captains
SM Chapter Champion
SM Chapter Master
Necron Destroyer Lords
Necron Overlords
SW Cyberwolfs

Those are just the codexes I have in front of me. I left out the special characters. None of the models above are dual wielding by default.
edit: Sorry, the DreadKnight does. I'll leave it there though because it just doesn't matter.
Purchasing a pistol does nothing for your Wraiths except give a ranged attack.

thedunator wrote:So, by the arguments listed, I'll be nerfing my wraiths by taking pistols because the pistol is a melee weapon which replaces my "counts as having..." rule. Pistols do not grant 2 additional attacks, so the three attacks on my character sheet now make zero sense. What other models cone with a flat three base attacks? Dual weilding models, right?

Erm, no. Your A stat is not affected - you still get 3

You just cannot get 4 attacks from duel wielding, because as soon as you buy a pistol, which IS a CCW, you lose your non-specified CCW. No actual change to anything.

Are all those models affected by the "counts as having a melee weapon" rule? I honestly don't know. Also, I've never given my wraiths an extra attack for pistols, I just find this rules argument intriguing.

thedunator wrote:Are all those models affected by the "counts as having a melee weapon" rule? I honestly don't know. Also, I've never given my wraiths an extra attack for pistols, I just find this rules argument intriguing.

No, none of them are. And it's "treated as having" not "counts as having" - there's a difference.
Does it matter if they are or not? Many of the models can get 2 CCWs and therefore an extra attack.
I'm not sure what your point is.

rigeld2 wrote:

thedunator wrote:Are all those models affected by the "counts as having a melee weapon" rule? I honestly don't know. Also, I've never given my wraiths an extra attack for pistols, I just find this rules argument intriguing.

No, none of them are. And it's "treated as having" not "counts as having" - there's a difference.
Does it matter if they are or not? Many of the models can get 2 CCWs and therefore an extra attack.
I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is that wraiths seem to be the only models in the game that are treated as having a ccw while having multiple attacks on their profile. All other models that are affected by this rule have one attack on their profile. My point is then that if I give my wraiths a pistol, then then have a melee weapon that gives them one attack in melee, not three. So if I'm treated as having a ccw and I have 3 attacks on my profile, I'm actually being treated as having two ccw based on every other non IC/MC I can think of. So if I take a pistol, and I'm no longer treated as having melee weapons, but I actually have one now that grants a single attack, and I can't dual wield it, I should be able to add an attack, or use the amount of attacks that weapon actually grants me: one. My argument is that by this rule, I either get four attacks or one attack.

thedunator wrote:My argument is that by this rule, I either get four attacks or one attack.

Except that argument has no basis in any rules whatsoever.
Think it does? Quote one. I'll wait.

edit:
Your misunderstanding is that you think having a CCW grants the attacks on your profile. That's false. Your profile grants you those attacks, your CCW modifies how those attacks are resolved.
Every Tyranid CCW is exactly the same. Every. Single. One.
And yet nids have all number of attacks - from 1 to 6. Which would be impossible with your interpretation.

The only reason why I argue base attacks is because the number can change based on the type and quantity of weapons you have equipped.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

thedunator wrote:My argument is that by this rule, I either get four attacks or one attack.

Except that argument has no basis in any rules whatsoever.
Think it does? Quote one. I'll wait.

Do the rules grant an additional attack while dual weilding? Can I dual weild melee weapons as a wraith?

thedunator wrote:The only reason why I argue base attacks is because the number can change based on the type and quantity of weapons you have equipped.

Seriously, quote a rule please. You're making stuff up at this point - find a rule that says your base attacks go down if you don't have a CCW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

thedunator wrote:Do the rules grant an additional attack while dual weilding? Can I dual weild melee weapons as a wraith?

Yes. No.

thedunator wrote:My point is that wraiths seem to be the only models in the game that are treated as having a ccw while having multiple attacks on their profile. All other models that are affected by this rule have one attack on their profile. My point is then that if I give my wraiths a pistol, then then have a melee weapon that gives them one attack in melee, not three. So if I'm treated as having a ccw and I have 3 attacks on my profile, I'm actually being treated as having two ccw based on every other non IC/MC I can think of. So if I take a pistol, and I'm no longer treated as having melee weapons, but I actually have one now that grants a single attack, and I can't dual wield it, I should be able to add an attack, or use the amount of attacks that weapon actually grants me: one. My argument is that by this rule, I either get four attacks or one attack.

Please explain the underlined part.
Also, if I give my Hive Tyrant two sets of twin-linked Deathspitters, it would have 4 attacks and be treated as having a ccw (as it has no specific ccw).

Except the rule in assault that states a model gets as many attacks as are included in its profile. It doesn't say it gets as many attacks as it has weapons.

Happyjew wrote:Also, if I give my Hive Tyrant two sets of twin-linked Deathspitters, it would have 4 attacks and be treated as having a ccw (as it has no specific ccw).

Wow. I just realized he doesn't have "Claws and Teeth" like most other Tyranids.
... and not every Tyranid has Claws and Teeth. My world, it is turned upside down.

rigeld2 wrote:

Happyjew wrote:Also, if I give my Hive Tyrant two sets of twin-linked Deathspitters, it would have 4 attacks and be treated as having a ccw (as it has no specific ccw).

Wow. I just realized he doesn't have "Claws and Teeth" like most other Tyranids.
... and not every Tyranid has Claws and Teeth. My world, it is turned upside down.

Welcome to the world of Cruddace =P

It's just... I thought I had everything in the codex (besides some point values) memorized... and now I find out that I've failed (granted it's a 100% irrelevant thing I failed on) but still... time to spend more time reading the army list in my codex...