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.

Yes, all marines have bolt pistols unless given an upgrade.

Yes, basically every SM nowadays comes with both a bolter and bolt pistol.

As above, a bolt pistol means you have a CCW, and are not eligible for the non-specific CCW rule. Otherwise every basic tac marine in the game would be getting +1A right now.

As Ghaz said before, it's just an explanation of how/why models which don't have a CCW listed in their equipment are still able to attack. WHFB has the same rule; technically I can say that my Treeman is hitting people with a club.

I thought all basic marines had bolter, pistol, -and- CCW. I guess I play against space wolves too often or misread it or something.
Not that this changes the answer to this question...it just makes the answer more far-reaching. Still not convinced either way.

I really wish GW had an active rules team or something. Someone who could make actual, official rulings for this kind of thing, and update the FAQ/errata more than once every couple of years.

ONnly GH and Chaos SM get all 3. Basic Tactical marines get BP+Bolter.

nosferatu1001 wrote:ONnly GH and Chaos SM get all 3. Basic Tactical marines get BP+Bolter.

Which stinks, but since I field sternguard and scouts, it really doesn't affect me. I do like that CSM get the extra attack (being thousands of years old should count for something), but I've never understood why GH get it AND counter attack with no significant raise in cost. Oh well.

Lobukia wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:ONnly GH and Chaos SM get all 3. Basic Tactical marines get BP+Bolter.

Which stinks, but since I field sternguard and scouts, it really doesn't affect me. I do like that CSM get the extra attack (being thousands of years old should count for something), but I've never understood why GH get it AND counter attack with no significant raise in cost. Oh well.

Perhaps part of the reason for the rule is to patch this inconsistency, giving all those Marines with a pistol and nothing but a fist something to put into that fist. But we may never know because GW doesn't talk to anyone.

Pretty cut and dry on this one...

If the model has no listed ccw, then you are given one at XS -AP, where X = model's base S value.

Now look at the wraith's equipment in the codex. Does it start with a ccw? Does it have one listed in the profile? No. It doesn't. So it is given a ccw that is 6S -AP.

What else is there to argue? That ccw isn't removed from the profile now, ever. It is a part of the wraith's starting wargear. ***The rule doesn't tell you that this "granted" ccw is predicated on the model not being able to be given a ccw via added wargear, it gives models without a ccw, one.***

If a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon of the Melee type, it is treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon.

First, as soon as you give a model a pistol, you are now specifically stating that it has a weapon of the Melee type. So it doesn't qualify.

Second, the above passage tells us that the model is "treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon". If you're armed with a single close combat weapon, by definition you can't get a bonus for being armed with two close combat weapons. The two states are mutually contradictory.

'You' may be saying that the model has a pistol and therefore now has a CCW, but it's profile still does not say such regardless of what wargear you've chosen for it. If the default profile of the unit is used (given the verbiage of the rule it's a good possibility, as it's the only place it's guaranteed to be 'specifically stated' in) then anything without one listed would now have a default one for all subsequent purposes you wish to use one for.

Also having a 'single' CCW does not as written preclude a model from having multiple CCWs, it just indicates they have at least one.

A) I don't know why you're bringing the profile into it. It doesn't factor into the rule.
B) No matter how many weapons you actually have, if a special rule states that you are "treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon", you're not getting a bonus attack for multiple weapons. Because you're being treated as just having one.

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?

B) As i said above, those two rules are not mutually exclusive. If a model has two or more CCWs, it is and can be treated as having at least one CCW as well. By your logic anyone with a pistol or another close combat weapon without unique rules (they all use the same profile as the default CCW) would essentially ignore any other CCWs present on the model.

Mannahnin wrote:A) I don't know why you're bringing the profile into it. It doesn't factor into the rule.
B) No matter how many weapons you actually have, if a special rule states that you are "treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon", you're not getting a bonus attack for multiple weapons. Because you're being treated as just having one.

Isn't the full line (my book is at home, and I'm not!) something involving: "A single close combat weapon of XS -AP?" I was under the impression this ccw was not something that would disappear and appear based on my wargear choices. It doesn't make sense to me!

1) half my wraiths would have a ccw and half my wraiths wouldn't?
2) that a pistol, while a close combat weapon, is the same as a specifically stated type of CCW?

Also, isn't a pistol still a pistol?

I don't remember the pistol entry as having made it clear that it is a close combat weapon 100% of the time, I seem to recall it's only a close combat weapon in actual combat?

Regardless, it just seems arbitrary to me that the foundation for an argument that seems counter intuitive:

The 5th ed necron codex was 100% written for 6th, there is absolutely no reason to have the pistol on the wraith gear options instead of an assault 12" gun, same with the spyder and his ccw on a piece of wargear that has it's own purpose before being a ccw. Imotekh's rules also are written for 6th ed challenges, if you need further proof. In 5th ed there was no point to his special ability "Humiliating Defeat." Then you have the pref. enemy rules on destroyers. The evidence, in my humbleness seems stacked in favor that the attack given by the rulebook is a unique attack, and it's meant, maybe only in my reading of its intent sadly, to give models without "claws and teeth" something to count for in melee.

I can see the argument you've got holds water on the forums, Mannahnin, but without my book to look at specifics I can only argue so much before just having to give up and wait till I'm back with it!

Nightbringer's Chosen wrote:

Lobukia wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:ONnly GH and Chaos SM get all 3. Basic Tactical marines get BP+Bolter.

Which stinks, but since I field sternguard and scouts, it really doesn't affect me. I do like that CSM get the extra attack (being thousands of years old should count for something), but I've never understood why GH get it AND counter attack with no significant raise in cost. Oh well.

Perhaps part of the reason for the rule is to patch this inconsistency, giving all those Marines with a pistol and nothing but a fist something to put into that fist. But we may never know because GW doesn't talk to anyone.

Unlikely, Chaos has had the full set on their marines for ages, well since before the current marines codex, and it was a bone of contention back then among some players too, it was well documented, and carried over into the new Codex.

The point of the pistol was only ever to give them a weapon that could be fired before assaulting, not to give them two close combat weapons for +1 attack.

Seriously. You can go through all the gymnastics you'd like, but the second you upgrade either a Wraith to have a pistol (which is a weapon with the melee type) or a Canoptek Spyder with a Fabricator Claw Array (which is a close combat weapon and therefore a weapon with the melee type) then you have models that have weapons with the melee type.

So there is no logical way to conclude that Wraiths or Spyders are able to get the +1 Attack bonus for having two close combat weapons.

As above. No +1 attack, no matter how many contortions you go through

Is it just me, or are a lot of people here reading the rule incorrectly?

Pg. 52: 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.

Take a look at any pistol. Does it have the Melee type?

Now, I agree that this interpretation should be wrong, and will probably be FAQed. But the point stands. Yes, a pistol counts as a CCW in the Assault phase, and yes, a CCW has the melee type, but when you are making your army and checking this rule, is a pistol a Melee type weapon? I would say no, but it should be considered as one.

yakface wrote:
Seriously. You can go through all the gymnastics you'd like, but the second you upgrade either a Wraith to have a pistol (which is a weapon with the melee type) or a Canoptek Spyder with a Fabricator Claw Array (which is a close combat weapon and therefore a weapon with the melee type) then you have models that have weapons with the melee type.

'Gymnastics'? Seriously? I'm going to ignore that, since it doesn't have anything to do with any kind of rules discussion.

As for the rules in question: They do not ask you to check if the model has been given any kind of melee weapon at any time. I'm going to quote the rule again for reference: "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."

What i've been saying is:
1) The only place you can check if the model has been 'specifically stated' to have a melee-type weapon is it's characteristics profile.
2) The characteristics profile of the unit does not change if you've purchased wargear for a model or not. (indeed, how can it given it's a static description of the models wargear and abilities?)
3) Therefore any model without a listed CCW now has the default listed one regardless of how much or how little wargear you subsequently purchased for it, 'including' a second (or more) CCW of some kind.

Neorealist wrote:

yakface wrote:
Seriously. You can go through all the gymnastics you'd like, but the second you upgrade either a Wraith to have a pistol (which is a weapon with the melee type) or a Canoptek Spyder with a Fabricator Claw Array (which is a close combat weapon and therefore a weapon with the melee type) then you have models that have weapons with the melee type.

'Gymnastics'? Seriously? I'm going to ignore that, since it doesn't have anything to do with any kind of rules discussion.

As for the rules in question: They do not ask you to check if the model has been given any kind of melee weapon at any time. I'm going to quote the rule again for reference: "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."

What i've been saying is:
1) The only place you can check if the model has been 'specifically stated' to have a melee-type weapon is it's characteristics profile.
2) The characteristics profile of the unit does not change if you've purchased wargear for it or not. (indeed, how can it given it's a static description of the models wargear and abilities)
3) Therefore any model without a listed CCW now has the default listed one regardless of how much or how little wargear you subsequently purchase for it, 'including' a second CCW of some kind.

Also, iirc, pistols may be used as close combat weapons. Therefore, while they count as combat weapons in combat, they are not combat weapons and as such would still receive the default combat weapon.

Neorealist wrote:

yakface wrote:
Seriously. You can go through all the gymnastics you'd like, but the second you upgrade either a Wraith to have a pistol (which is a weapon with the melee type) or a Canoptek Spyder with a Fabricator Claw Array (which is a close combat weapon and therefore a weapon with the melee type) then you have models that have weapons with the melee type.

'Gymnastics'? Seriously? I'm going to ignore that, since it doesn't have anything to do with any kind of rules discussion.

As for the rules in question: They do not ask you to check if the model has been given any kind of melee weapon at any time. I'm going to quote the rule again for reference: "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."

What i've been saying is:
1) The only place you can check if the model has been 'specifically stated' to have a melee-type weapon is it's characteristics profile.
2) The characteristics profile of the unit does not change if you've purchased wargear for a model or not. (indeed, how can it given it's a static description of the models wargear and abilities?)
3) Therefore any model without a listed CCW now has the default listed one regardless of how much or how little wargear you subsequently purchased for it, 'including' a second (or more) CCW of some kind.

You're so hung up on "default profile", as others are, but if your wording above is the correct wording for the rule it doesn't even say the word profile, let alone default.

It's a very simple thing to comprehend here. If a model has no melee weapon, it is treated as having a single close combat weapon. So, if you give that model a melee weapon (which FCA and Pistols are) how could that model possibly qualify for the rule in question?

Kevin949 wrote:[You're so hung up on "default profile", as others are, but if your wording above is the correct wording for the rule it doesn't even say the word profile, let alone default.

It's a very simple thing to comprehend here. If a model has no melee weapon, it is treated as having a single close combat weapon. So, if you give that model a melee weapon (which FCA and Pistols are) how could that model possibly qualify for the rule in question?

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:2) The characteristics profile of the unit does not change if you've purchased wargear for a model or not. (indeed, how can it given it's a static description of the models wargear and abilities?)

I don't understand that assertion.

A unit's wargear list does change based on wargear purchased. It must.

Neorealist wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:[You're so hung up on "default profile", as others are, but if your wording above is the correct wording for the rule it doesn't even say the word profile, let alone default.

It's a very simple thing to comprehend here. If a model has no melee weapon, it is treated as having a single close combat weapon. So, if you give that model a melee weapon (which FCA and Pistols are) how could that model possibly qualify for the rule in question?

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?

I never said not to, but "specifically stating" something doesn't mean it is the default, it simply means that something specifically states it has the melee weapon type and is on the model.

I say again though (since you didn't address it), if a model [at any point of the game] has a melee weapon equipped how could it qualify for a rule that requires a model to not have a melee weapon equipped?

Kevin949 wrote:I never said not to, but "specifically stating" something doesn't mean it is the default, it simply means that something specifically states it has the melee weapon type and is on the model.

I say again though (since you didn't address it), if a model [at any point of the game] has a melee weapon equipped how could it qualify for a rule that requires a model to not have a melee weapon equipped?

I thought i had addressed it, but i'll happily recap: I'm saying that there is only one place where a model can be 'specifically stated' to have something definitively. I believe this location to be the characteristics profile of the unit. I'll say it again: if you are not looking at the models profile to determine what it has, where 'are' you getting that information from? Please quote any and all locations where that information could be found apart from the profile of the unit.

I do not believe you are required to verify throughout the game wether or not the model still qualifies for the 'default CCW' rule. One reason for this is because the model is armed with a melee type weapon as a part of the rule, which would invalidate itself the next time you checked to see if it was following that very same rule. The other reason is that i contend you need to look at the models' characteristics profile to determine if it has a weapon and regardless of how much wargear you subsequently purchase for the game, the profile itself remains static.

Neorealist wrote:The other reason is that i contend you need to look at the models' characteristics profile to determine if it has a weapon and regardless of how much wargear you subsequently purchase for the game, the profile itself remains static.

So purchasing wargear doesn't add to the wargear list?

So... it doesn't do anything? Do you have any basis for your assumption?

Neorealist wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:I never said not to, but "specifically stating" something doesn't mean it is the default, it simply means that something specifically states it has the melee weapon type and is on the model.

I say again though (since you didn't address it), if a model [at any point of the game] has a melee weapon equipped how could it qualify for a rule that requires a model to not have a melee weapon equipped?

I thought i had addressed it, but i'll happily recap: I'm saying that there is only one place where a model can be 'specifically stated' to have something definitively. I believe this location to be the characteristics profile of the unit. I'll say it again: if you are not looking at the models profile to determine what it has, where 'are' you getting that information from? Please quote any and all locations where that information could be found apart from the profile of the unit.

I do not believe you are required to verify throughout the game wether or not the model still qualifies for the 'default CCW' rule. One reason for this is because the model is armed with a melee type weapon as a part of the rule, which would invalidate itself the next time you checked to see if it was following that very same rule. The other reason is that i contend you need to look at the models' characteristics profile to determine if it has a weapon and regardless of how much wargear you subsequently purchase for the game, the profile itself remains static.

So purchasing wargear does not alter your characteristics.

I think TW Lords, MoN marines, Slaanesh Marines, MotW GH, et al will ALL disagree with you.

You look at the models characteristics; if it has a pistol it has got a CCW. If it doesnt have a pistol it does not have a specific CCW, so it is treated as having one. Stop ignoring the pistol option and pretending you can only look at the basic wargear of a mdel.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So purchasing wargear does not alter your characteristics.

I think TW Lords, MoN marines, Slaanesh Marines, MotW GH, et al will ALL disagree with you.

You look at the models characteristics; if it has a pistol it has got a CCW. If it doesnt have a pistol it does not have a specific CCW, so it is treated as having one. Stop ignoring the pistol option and pretending you can only look at the basic wargear of a mdel.

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'.

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

But it must for models equipped with that wargear.
Unless you're asserting that models equipped with Mark of Slannesh (iirc it gives +1 initiative) do not get that bonus on a Sweeping Advance.

In which case, you need some form of rules backup. So far you haven't had any.

Does a model with a pistol have a CCW or not? Clearly RAW the answer is yes.

A good indication of whether your case has any merit or not is how specific and narrow your focus has to be in order for your argument to work. If the other side is incredibly broad and general and works, and you have to pick out an imagined level of detail unsupported as even existing in the rules to make your argument work, then the odds that you are correct are worse than the odds that you are a Nigerian prince who has millions in the bank that he would like to share with us.

rigeld2 wrote:But it must for models equipped with that wargear.
Unless you're asserting that models equipped with Mark of Slannesh (iirc it gives +1 initiative) do not get that bonus on a Sweeping Advance.

In which case, you need some form of rules backup. So far you haven't had any.

If you can explain to me what a mark of slaanesh (or sweeping advances for that matter) has to do with wether or not a model has a close combat weapon or not, i'll address your comments. Also reading is fundamental Rigeld2: If you choose not to view any of my previous posts on this topic and then make baseless assertations about my lack of rules backup based solely on that precieved lack of infomation, i can't really help you.

Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:But it must for models equipped with that wargear.
Unless you're asserting that models equipped with Mark of Slannesh (iirc it gives +1 initiative) do not get that bonus on a Sweeping Advance.

In which case, you need some form of rules backup. So far you haven't had any.

If you can explain to me what a mark of slaanesh (or sweeping advances for that matter) has to do with wether or not a model has a close combat weapon or not, i'll address your comments. Also reading is fundamental Rigeld2: If you choose not to view any of my previous posts on this topic and then make baseless assertations about my lack of rules backup based solely on that precieved lack of infomation, i can't really help you.

You asserted that purchasing wargear doesn't change the profile.
Mark of Slannesh adds one initiative to the models in the unit that purchased it (again, iirc). This changes the profile.
Sweeping Advance uses your unmodified initiative in the rolloff.
By your assertion, models with a MoS do not use that extra initiative in the rolloff.

Different argument - I'm a Space Marine Captain. I purchase, as wargear, a bike. Do people roll to wound me based on toughness 4 or 5?
You're asserting that purchasing wargear doesn't change the profile of the unit, so you would say Toughness 4. That's not what actually happens though.

Please, defend your assertion with respect to those two examples.

My "baseless assertion" is that you have no rules backup for saying that purchasing wargear does not alter your profile. That's the only assertion of yours I've ever discussed in this thread. I clicked "Filter Thread" for your username (http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/449778.page?userfilterid=58920) and in http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/449778.page#4505587 that post, your point number 2 is "The characteristics profile of the unit does not change if you've purchased wargear for a model or not. (indeed, how can it given it's a static description of the models wargear and abilities?)". I replied, and only quoted that line, asking for rules backup. You chose not to reply to that post. When you again asserted "The other reason is that i contend you need to look at the models' characteristics profile to determine if it has a weapon and regardless of how much wargear you subsequently purchase for the game, the profile itself remains static." (http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/449778.page#4506024) I quoted just that line and asked for a basis for that assumption. You again chose not to respond. I haven't found anything that backs up the assertion I've quoted you saying twice now - just you saying it. At least, not in this thread.

Perhaps I should insult you by saying "reading is fundamental" as well?