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.

It's not the warscythe that's doing the shooting, it's the "built in gauss blaster."

Gauss blasters have their own weapon profile, and just because it's "built in" doesn't change that profile.

willydstyle wrote:It's not the warscythe that's doing the shooting, it's the "built in gauss blaster."

Gauss blasters have their own weapon profile, and just because it's "built in" doesn't change that profile.

I'm not suggesting that it does anything to the profile. I'm suggesting that it uses the special rules for a warscythe, since you would be attempting to take saves against a type of warscythe, which is clearly prohibited.

No, you're taking saves against a "built in gauss blaster" which is clearly permitted discounting where the AP beats your armor.

ajfirecracker wrote:Actually a DCCW with a built-in flamer is considered 1 weapon for most game purposes (possibly all).

Rules Quote Please. The only mention of built in weapons is what to do if the "main" weapon is destoyed. There is nothing to suggest what you are claiming.

No, you're taking saves against a warscythe with a built-in gauss blaster. There's no rule to allow you to separate the weapon and only follow the rules for the components of it that benefit you.

Also, the wording on 2D6+S has not been mentioned by anyone. Should I assume that since the warscythe entry makes no mention of a requirement that the warscythe is attacking, that the blaster does indeed get 2D6+5?

Why are you still posting? We have refuted every one of your points yet you ignore it and just post the same thing again and again.

Gwar! wrote:Rules Quote Please.

I was referring, of course, to the damage results for walkers. P. 73: If a walker suffers a weapon destroyed result and the player chooses the CCW, the walker loses the bonuses conferred by by the DCCW (and any other weapon built into the same arm). I do see now, that the two weapons are not treated as exactly the same, so perhaps my earlier statements should have been a little softer.

However, the above rule implies quite strongly that the weapon is not mounted on the CCW or built into it, but mounted on the same arm. The gauss blaster is "built in" the warscythe, which is a different case.
The point of my criticism of the DCCW analogy, of course, was that it's not RaW for the warscythe and it's not quite the same scenario, so we cannot make RaI judgments based on the DCCW rules.

ajfirecracker wrote:However, the above rule implies quite strongly that the weapon is not mounted on the CCW or built into it

Yes, I can see how the Name "Built In Weapon" could imply that it is not built in. A SM DCCW has a Built in Storm Bolter. Does that mean my storm Bolter is S8 and Ignores Armour Saves?

ajfirecracker wrote:No, you're taking saves against a warscythe with a built-in gauss blaster. There's no rule to allow you to separate the weapon and only follow the rules for the components of it that benefit you.

Also, the wording on 2D6+S has not been mentioned by anyone. Should I assume that since the warscythe entry makes no mention of a requirement that the warscythe is attacking, that the blaster does indeed get 2D6+5?

Where does it say in the rules that the warscythe's properties are shared with the built-in gauss blaster. I just don't see how you're shooting the "warscythe" at the enemy, and I do see how you're shooting a gauss blaster at the enemy. That's the idea that your argument hinges on, and I don't think it holds up, since warcythes don't have a ranged profile at all... only gauss blasters do.

Gwar, you have not actually refuted any of my points. There has been no rule or precedent cited which would lead me to believe that the gauss blaster is not the warscythe. On the contrary, all you (collectively) have done is say that they are not the same, without providing any rules reasoning as to why.

I, on the other hand, have pointed out numerous things about the rules wording that leads me to my conclusion, and made analogies which are directly relevant to the situation.

The ultimate question is this: How are you determining that the shots are not counted as coming from the warscythe as well as a normal gauss blaster? What rule or FAQ or errata would lead you to that opinion? Is your opinion on this point based on anything other than assumptions and the way it has been played in the past?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
DCCW are not phrased to give any bonuses outside of assault, unlike warscythes. I've made this point numerous times. They double strength in assault and ignore armor in assault. This cannot be construed as to give a shooting benefit.

The warscythe does not suffer the same restrictions.

Therefore the analogy is misleading at best. The rules are purely different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@wildstyle: my claim is that "warscythe with built-in gauss blaster" is a single weapon. If it is, then either it should not follow warscythe rules in assault (because it is not exactly a "warscythe") or it should follow them all the time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
also @wildstyle it says that no saves are allowed against warscythes. If it is still a warscythe when you're shooting it then you may not take armor saves against it. This hinges on whether or not it is 1 weapon or 2.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@wildstyle, concerning the lack of a ranged profiole: Since there are not RaW for warscythe with built-in gauss blaster (only warscythes and gauss blasters), having a gauss blaster built in must either confer the ranged profile of a gauss blaster, or the whole thing has no effect in-game whatsoever, since it does not have its own codex entry


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:Yes, I can see how the Name "Built In Weapon" could imply that it is not built in. A SM DCCW has a Built in Storm Bolter. Does that mean my storm Bolter is S8 and Ignores Armour Saves?

The rule I quoted describes it as a weapon mounted on the same arm, not one mounted on the CCW or built into it.

LunaHound wrote:

ajfirecracker wrote:
A warscythe ignores all saves, and a warscythe with built-in gauss blaster is most certainly a warscythe.

Does that mean war scythe have a melee range of 24" ?
see what i did there?

I see what you did there


Also

They melee like this.
See what I did there?

ajfirecracker wrote:also @wildstyle it says that no saves are allowed against warscythes. If it is still a warscythe when you're shooting it then you may not take armor saves against it. This hinges on whether or not it is 1 weapon or 2.

Again , you are telling me they can melee 24" away right? because you are saying its 1 weapon right?
Say according to what you said and its " one same weapon"

Then if the ranged attack can benefit from the CC rules
why cant the melee attack benefit from the Ranged rules?

You cant pick and choose which to apply to favor your argument while ignoring the other .

@n0t_u : I certainly do , the question is does OP see it . ( take this! she cut a planet in 2 )

@LunaHound et. al: You cannot assault 24" because the rules make no mention of this ability. The rules do, however, explicitly state that you may not take saves against this weapon.

The analogy is faulty: I'm trying to claim a particular ability is transferred. You're showing that if all abilities are transferred, then absurd things happen. This has 2 problems: if I embrace the absurd things, then I'm logically consistent under your interpretation. If I reject them, however, I can still avoid caring about your interpretation because it's criticizing a process I'm not advocating. (transferring all of the rules)

To be more specific: the rules state you may not save against warscythes. If I can somehow "shoot" a warscythe, then you can not save against it. The rules for the warscythe make no mention of an assault requirement, so I'm not ignoring any rules.

I believe its called common sense.
Many rules are written in mind that common sense exists , or else i cannot imagine how big the rule book / codex should be.

Common sense is not allowed in YMDC, which is where you now are.

ajfirecracker wrote:Common sense is not allowed in YMDC, which is where you now are.

Actually, it is.

Gwar! am i allowed to bring in the fluff into this argument?
( are fluff worth anything in these type of things? )

LunaHound wrote:
Gwar! am i allowed to bring in the fluff into this argument?
( are fluff worth anything in these type of things? )

Not fluff, but common sense is allowed.

Btw, the Warscythe is limited to the assault phase, as I said, it is listed as a CLOSE COMBAT WEAPON.

Yes it's been used a few times especially where skimmers are involved.

They don't assault 24" and their shots don't ignore all saves. I think that was the point about the assaulting 24" thing.

The words "built in" have no in-game rules definition other than that which pertains to DCCWs and losing the "built-in" weapon on a "weapon destroyed" result.

Because of this, I don't see how the words "built in" confers the warscythe's abilities onto the gauss blaster.

What you're trying to say is that the model is shooting with a "warscythe" with special ranged properties.

What I'm saying is that the model is shooting with a gauss blaster that is connected to a warscythe by meaningless fluffy words.

Not really, Gwar. Common sense might indicate to me, for example, that SMurfs are too big to fit through the Rhino's doors, and thus become stuck once embarked. Common sense might indicate to me that DCCW confer bonuses to shooting attacks, despite the patently clear rules that they do not.

In a certain sense, common sense is allowed. Namely, subject to the rules as they are written, and the errata GW have issued to fix the numerous problems in the rules as they are written. Common sense might consist, for example, of allowing a LRBT in a DH army. While I think common sense makes for great play, it makes for terrible rules debates.

Being listed as a CCW does not limit it to the assault phase. It has rules that apply to all wounds, therefore all wounds that can be said to have been caused by the warscythe are affected. Singing spears are CCW that can be used outside of the assault phase, as are pistols (in a certain sense).

The phrase built-in in describes when something is part of something else. For a gauss blaster to be built into a warscythe, it must be part of the warscythe. There is simply no other way to build something into something else.

@those who say that the description "built-in" is just fluff, where are the rules for what weapon descriptions are just fluff, and which weapon descriptions actually enumerate the weapons? If there is no rule for this, then you're making RaI calls as to whether or not the weapon (part of the unit's profile) is fluff.

Gwar! wrote:

LunaHound wrote:
Gwar! am i allowed to bring in the fluff into this argument?
( are fluff worth anything in these type of things? )

Not fluff, but common sense is allowed.

Btw, the Warscythe is limited to the assault phase, as I said, it is listed as a CLOSE COMBAT WEAPON.

Well fluff says the materials of warscythe is necron necodimus ( or w/e you spell it )
so just the blade itself , NOT the stupid blaster attached to it.

Common sense GW would be specific about an ability that carries into more then 1 situation of it been used.

Anyways Gwar! , my dred is going to fire a template weapon at you! and its str 10 with no armor save allowed.

And to add to the argument " oh av 12 ( is it? ) Dreds would be so much more worth their points now because this rule makes sense "

AND lastly , im going run off now and let someone else do the arguing , im awful at this type of things :3 ( no huggles )

As I've said repeatedly, dreds get no shooting bonuses because DCCW are written to have "double S in CC" and are "power weapons". If it instead said that they ignored armor, you might be able to argue the point.

As it is, the analogy is a false one.

Before anyone thinks to ask, MC's are the same. They cannot ignore armor saves when shooting because their rules clearly limit them to CC (p. 51).

I still cant understand whats so confusing about war scythe = a phase blade which = a CC weapon with special CC rules.
think of it like a bayonet on a lasgun -_-

Luna, nothing is confusing about it. I agree that the designers probably intended for it to be used solely in assault in this manner. However, as I am not clairvoyant, I would rather stick to what exactly the rules say rather than what is intended (or at least be able to do so), even if this doesn't always match common sense.

For an example of the difference, ask Gwar! whether or not the rules allow Daemonhunters to take a Leman Russ Battle Tank. Then read Codex: Daemonhunters. (better yet, read the codex first, and see if you can spot my point)

Also, Gwar, while the warscythe is a CCW, I don't see any rules that limit its effects to the assault phase. Surely singing spears can be used in the shooting phase? And just as surely, "warscythe with a built-in gauss blaster" has some effect in the shooting phase, does it not?

ajfirecracker wrote:I would rather stick to what exactly the rules say rather than what is intended (or at least be able to do so), even if this doesn't always match common sense.

Then mister , You Are the TFG .

Wow...this could be the most intelligent thread ever

I'd say only one person believes that a warscythe=a gauss blaster and nothing anyone ever says will change that...no matter how logical.

I do find the title of the thread "Necron shutting up TFG tips..." very funny because if this is to shut TFG up then how will they ever explain how this amazing item works

Luna beat me to it by like 5 seconds

Bat Manuel, "warscythe with a built-in gauss blaster" is the weaponry of the Pariah. In this case, their warscythe does in fact = a gauss blaster (at least in some respects).

Luna, the term TFG should not be used as a label for someone taking part in an argument in YMDC, regardless of your personal feelings.

Collectively: I do realize that I'm not agreeing with you, despite the fact that you passionately believe you are right. This is frustrating. I am aware. However, I have yet to see any rules-based reason why the gauss blaster does not get the bonus, aside from RaI calls (such as whether you're shooting a warscythe with a built-in gauss blaster or a gauss blaster). Gwar has come close with his CCW argument, but there is no reason to limit the bonuses from weapons to the assault phase.

For example, if I were tank shocked, I would still get the bonuses for using a warscythe (if I chose to Death or Glory), even though it is not the assault phase. If I had a weapon which added to my strength (there are many of these), they would affect my strength for strength tests (which GW mentions, although I don't know if any currently exist).

I think saying that it should have a 24" ranged attack that ignores any type of saves is, in fact, living up to the title TFG. The rules require common sense, where needed, because they were written without any, or mostly at least.

That's why I said this

Bat Manuel wrote:
I'd say only one person believes that a warscythe=a gauss blaster and nothing anyone ever says will change that...no matter how logical.
/quote]
and it also says that arguing with you would be pointless