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.

If a model fires the Melta part, it does not stop being a Combi-Melta. It is still a bolter that houses another weapon (in this case a Metla), the model just can't fire the other weapon again for that game.

Are there any weapons with, for example, 3 charges? If so, is a weapon with 1 charge left different from one with 3 left?

I don't think anyone is saying that a spent Combi-Melta is no longer a Combi-Melta.

When rules fail, I consider the minds of the models themselves. The shooters wont know precise load-outs and their status, the shootees will. Given that then, the shootees will recognise the difference: the wargear is different.
The rules clearly, to me, are for rude process not to manipulate or trample rough-shod over the 'minds' of the models.

Now all you have to do is convince your opponent that you're not a prick.

A little foresight is probably wise with the problem and therefore, I'd suggest pointing at those 5 that fire combi-melta at the landraider and leaving them in front. When they become shootees, immediately allocate wounds from front to back... as if they were the same. this will reinforce the idea that the shootees know who to protect with their own bodies within the squad.

As for a firm universal ruling... lol, no clue.

I think the point being raised about Combi-Melta no longer being a Combi-Melta was about if a spent Combi-Melta Sternie was in the same wound pool or a different wound pool to a bolter armed Sternie in the same squad.

there is no wound pool all the figs take there licks on there own my 2 coppers

coredump wrote: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.

The problem, though, is that this is a case where GW explains in the next sentence what they mean by being the same in game terms. Yak quoted the relevant clarification from the rule book earlier in the thread. There are three requirements for models to be considered identical in game terms:

1. same profile of characteristics
2. same special rules
3. same weapons and wargear.

In the situation cited by the OP, does having a group of combi-weapon wielding Sterngard with some fired and some not fired meet the above requirement to be considered identical for game terms?

1. The sterngard still have the identical profile of characteristics to each other .

2. The sterngard still have the same special rules

2a. Even if you transfer the special rules of the combi-weapon to the model, they all still have the ability to fire one combi-shot. This has to be the case, even if they have already fired. If you remove the one-shot restriction once they have fired, then they could continue shooting. Therefore, they all still have the "special rule" that allows them to fire a single combi-shot, so there is no sudden change in the model's special rules. Personally, I don't think this even applies, as I believe they are referring to the model's special rules, rather than effects of upgrade wargear.

3. The sterngard in question are still armed with combi-weapons. There is nothing in the combi-weapon rule that I can recall that states that, once fired, the combi-weapon becomes something different.

These are the only differences that GW recognizes in the rules to determine if models are the same in game terms. Any other difference we try to inject as players is something we are putting into the mix, rather than reading the actual rule.

3 Same Weapons and Wargear.

I think we can all agree that logically, and intellectually a spent combi-weapon and an unspent one are different. What we honestly don't know, and probably wouldn't be able to figure out is if that makes them different enough to qualify as different weapons for the purposes of Point 3.

And you could run three different theory hammer scenarios and end up with three different ways to play it that's "fair".

As I've said before, if there's no "best way". You could create scenarios that benefit a different ruling, as well as scenarios where a different ruling would be harmful.

So just stick with RAW. Anything else is purely a thinking exercise.

And as we've been saying Sourclams the RAW can be logically, and honestly interpreted a couple different ways.

I don't see the room for an alternative interpretation from strict RAW.

1. same profile of characteristics
2. same special rules
3. same weapons and wargear.

These are the only criteria GW gives for deciding whether or not the wound pool is splittable, and by these criteria the models are identical. The RAW argument is pretty much done.

Now, I certainly understand where you're coming from in that a reasonable person can see a difference between a fired and a charged combi model, but this difference does not really affect gameplay in a way that is significantly and consistently different and creates a rules or powergaming imbalance for one player.

So if even the "what is reasonable" argument doesn't yield rules that are better or worse, but rather just different from current play, I really don't see any reason to diverge from Rules As Written.

You don't see it as different, but others can and do see a charged and expended combi-weapon as different. I can see both sides.

they become a complex unit...


________________________________________
From: John Spencer [mailto:John.Spencer@Games-Workshop.com] On Behalf Of askyourquestion
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 12:52 PM
To:
Subject: RE: complex unit?

Hello,
You would have to allocate wounds as two separate groups, 5 with expended combi-meltas and 5 with un-expended combi-meltas. This is not clearly stated in the rulebook, so this may change with a FAQ.

Thanks!
John Spencer
Customer Service Specialist
Please do not delete previous email threads as this will help us serve you better!
Games Workshop
Customer Service
6711 Baymeadow Drive Suite A
Glen Burnie MD 21060
Games Workshop Customer Service is open:
Monday through Friday 9:00 Am to 7:00 PM EST
Contact info:
1-888-248-2335
custserv@games-workshop.com

Or visit us online at:

www.games-workshop.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 7:12 PM
To: askyourquestion
Subject: complex unit?

Say you have 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 wounds 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?

Thanks,
JW

Now that's interesting.

sourclams wrote:Now that's interesting.

i was surprised too. i voted the other way.

Yeah, but its that John Spencer guy again You can never tell which side of an issue he'll come down on

At least Mr. Spencer has the good graces to acknowledge that the main rule book does a crap job of explaining this

John Spencer is ruining YMDC!! This thread wasn't nearly entertaining enough when he gave his ruling!

Last time I checked, Rules as Written meant, like. The Rules as Written. As opposed to what some jerk says in an e-mail. No disrespect to jerks who write e-mails.

Tacobake wrote:Last time I checked, Rules as Written meant, like. The Rules as Written. As opposed to what some jerk says in an e-mail. No disrespect to jerks who write e-mails.

rofl...

Yeah, the problem with the rules, as has been mentioned, is that they don't do what they say they're supposed to do.

Until I read this thread, I'd been playing my spent combi-weapons wounds lumped in with my normal bolter marine wounds. However, this thread convinced me that spent combi-weapons are different wargear from bolters, and so spent combi-weapons wounds must be allocated differently.

That being said, I'm not convinced that combi-weapons and spent combi-weapons are the same wargear. I think spent combi-weapons wounds should be allocated separately from any others. I have two main reasons for this:

First, IMO, wargear is only the same if it is capable of doing the same thing. A spent combi-weapon can't do the same thing as an unspent combi-weapon.

Second, IMO, allowing spent combi-weapon wounds to be lumped with unspent conveys an advantage to the controller of those models. It effectively adds ablative wounds to the combi-weapon pool.

Yes, according to John Spencer, spent combiweapons form their own pool, sharing with neither the bolters, nor the unspent combi-weapons. Entertaining.

My logic is the same as wounds logic. If I have a squad with a group of 5 models all with 3 wounds, if, for argument's sake, there are three on two wounds, (Blame tellion if you must point out how that could not work. Pointing it to the talos works fine too), one on three wounds and one on one wound. I roll them all as the same pile when I take damage. I don't end up rolling for the one wound models differently. Get it? They loose wounds, like combi weapons loose ammo, but they still are one group.