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.

Akaiyou, since you are adamant that it is not an unusual power weapon, would you please respond to my previous post.

DeathReaper wrote:

Akaiyou wrote:Yes i'm arguing that it's not a close combat rule...it is decided in the shooting phase. That makes it not a close combat rule.

Wether I shoot the burna or not in the shooting phase is the determining factor to wether i have a power weapon or not. We all agree there right?

So how is that a 'close combat rule' ? It's not affecting close combat at all

Actually it is affecting CC, Because if you fire the flamer, it is a regular CCW.

If you do not then it is a power weapon.

So it has different 'close combat rules' depending on weather you fire the flamer or not.

That is why it is a close combat rule.

This.
A Burna has two cc profiles, one if it was fired, one if it was not. That is a special rule in close combat. No other weapon can be used in this fashion: as a flamer/normal ccw/pw. That makes it unique.
Now, Akaiyou, explain to the concensus how this doesn't fit the Unusual Power Weapon rule.

If you shoot the flamer it is not a regular CCW.

It just isn't a power weapon if you shoot it. The rule says nothing about it being a normal CCW it's just a gun that you smack people with the same way a model with a missile launcher would fight in combat either smacking people with the launcher or punching them in the face who knows.

You either have a power weapon or you have nothing. And this is all determiend in the shooting phase...let me repeat that...this is all determined in the SHOOTING PHASE.

So how are we getting a close combat rule in the shooting phase?? I've never seen that happen before and it makes no sense.

So Sometimes it is a Power Weapon, and Sometimes it is not a Power Weapon, and you are claiming that is not a Unique close combat rule?

Interesting.

Also incorrect.

So fair enough you guys can do as you please and claim that ANY special rule on a weapon makes it a 'close combat' rule even when it is not even a close combat rule by virtue that it doesn't happen during close combat....

Be my guest but I'm personally not going along with this until FAQ clarification or INAT FAQ clarification. Because I simply cannot agree that it is an unusual power weapon by definition of what it says in the rulebook being so clear on the matter.

Let me know when we end up with another unusual power weapon of any sort that confers other special rules that have nothing to do with actual close combat and I may be inclined to agree with you. But as of now...if the determining factor occurs during shooting phase, and the weapon itself has no close combat rule after it starts counting as a power weapon. Then I can't see it as being UPW

Could be anything else except that. And with that i'm done, you can go back to debating wether or not missile launchers have flakk...which by your logic they clearly all do since it's the profile is there even though the wording is quite clear stating who it applies to (some) but let's just ignore it as well.

Happy wargaming.

Akaiyou wrote:

Be my guest but I'm personally not going along with this until FAQ clarification or INAT FAQ clarification. Because I simply cannot agree that it is an unusual power weapon by definition of what it says in the rulebook being so clear on the matter.

Even if you convinced an opponent you were right via your temper tantrum... How are you justifying a Burnalance/burnaaxe/burnamaul? It isn't any of those things. And if you model burna axes, you are modeling for advantage.

So no matter what you do, you are being dishonest. No one on any of the multiple threads you have started even remotely agree with you. Your attempt to turn burnas into lances to have STR5 AP3 on the charge is shameless. Even the ork people on the ork message board who play orks disagreed with you and they would benefit most.

So what would you classify them as? Swords? Axes? Mauls? Lances?

There is no real category to put them in, and they gel perfectly with the Unusual category (Which is the same as a Power Sword anyway).

One could make the argument that with the new overwatch rules, being that it takes place in the assault phase, the is a weapon that can overwatch and a power weapon since it wasn't used in the shooting phase. It is now a power weapon with more than 1 special rule and thus AP3. Though honestly I find that argument a bit weak.

Or if you use it during the shooting phase, then assault it is a close combat weapon, the next turn it becomes a power weapon. That sounds like a close combat special rule and makes the weapon AP3.

Edit: One or more special rule.

Celticwelsh wrote:One could make the argument that with the new overwatch rules, being that it takes place in the assault phase, the is a weapon that can overwatch and a power weapon since it wasn't used in the shooting phase. It is now a power weapon with more than 1 special rule and thus AP3. Though honestly I find that argument a bit weak.

Agree... but right now, the burna rule specifies shooting phase... which means we have no idea what to do with overwatch. (well we do know what to do with overwatch, but of course RAW always needs FAQing)

Akaiyou wrote:So fair enough you guys can do as you please and claim that ANY special rule on a weapon makes it a 'close combat' rule even when it is not even a close combat rule by virtue that it doesn't happen during close combat....

Be my guest but I'm personally not going along with this until FAQ clarification or INAT FAQ clarification. Because I simply cannot agree that it is an unusual power weapon by definition of what it says in the rulebook being so clear on the matter.

Let me know when we end up with another unusual power weapon of any sort that confers other special rules that have nothing to do with actual close combat and I may be inclined to agree with you. But as of now...if the determining factor occurs during shooting phase, and the weapon itself has no close combat rule after it starts counting as a power weapon. Then I can't see it as being UPW

Could be anything else except that. And with that i'm done, you can go back to debating wether or not missile launchers have flakk...which by your logic they clearly all do since it's the profile is there even though the wording is quite clear stating who it applies to (some) but let's just ignore it as well.

Happy wargaming.

So, you are saying that since the use as a flamer, which negates the use as a power weapon, has no bearing on any ensuing close combat means the burna does not qualify a any kind of special close combat weapon?
Or are you simply belaboring the point so you can gain the advantage of telling your opponant that your burnas are power lances?

@ Akaiyou: And I noticed you still have not addressed my initial post.

Id let you use it as a power axe/sword/staff whatever... BUT!!! you must model the flames themselves into an axe/sword/staff shape.. that would be awsome sauce enough for me to be cool with it.

Thank

He stated in the OP that he wants to use them as Power Lances. Of course that would give him a distinct disadvantage in subsequent rounds of combat....
Guess he didn't think things through.

Akaiyou wrote:If you shoot the flamer it is not a regular CCW.

It just isn't a power weapon if you shoot it. The rule says nothing about it being a normal CCW it's just a gun that you smack people with the same way a model with a missile launcher would fight in combat either smacking people with the launcher or punching them in the face who knows.

You either have a power weapon or you have nothing. And this is all determiend in the shooting phase...let me repeat that...this is all determined in the SHOOTING PHASE.

So how are we getting a close combat rule in the shooting phase?? I've never seen that happen before and it makes no sense.

So if you shoot it and don't go into CC nothing happens but if you shoot it then go into CC something happens it would seem to me that this effects CC not shooting

I'm amazed, it seems 100% that the burna can be a lance, how does it have special rules? How is it being special (a flamer and a power weapon) mean it has rules in cc?

I really don't understand this argument, there is no points cost someone is cheating by switching something from sword to lance to maul to axe.

Lets look at clear unusual power weapons:

Grey Knight Halberds.

Those have cc rules. The cc profile is changed!

The burna:

Sure, it might not always be a power weapon, but that isn't changing how the power weapon side works- it doesnt change itself in combat, it doesn't give you any bonuses beyond being a "power weapon."

I'd say a FAQ would be a great boon to this argument, but I'm tremendously astonished at how vehemently some of you attack the OP's ideas...

He's really not trying to cheat points, he's following RAW, this is one of the better 6th ed arguments, I just don't see where the harm is here.

As far as modelling, it's pretty clear they could be jabbed like a spear, swung like a maul, chopped like an axe, or slashed like a sword. Maybe that's pushing it, but I've got to fall back on the core point:

No harm done. RAW followed. Check, Check, boom!

Viti wrote:As far as modelling, it's pretty clear they could be jabbed like a spear, swung like a maul, chopped like an axe, or slashed like a sword. Maybe that's pushing it, but I've got to fall back on the core point:

As far as the model and fluff goes its nothing like a spear/mace/sword/axe.
It's used like a cutting torch. Not swung, chopped or stabbed.
If you ran up and stabbed someone with it like a spear, the result would be a broken nozzle on your burna, an extinguished flame and an angry (and very much alive) opponent.
If you follow the rules for a standard power weapon and 'look to the model' it fits none of the power weapon types listed.
If you look to the rules of the burna you have a close combat weapon that sometimes functions as a power weapon, and sometimes as a template weapon. It's about as an unusual power weapon as you can get.

grendel083 wrote: As far as the model and fluff goes its nothing like a spear/mace/sword/axe.
It's used like a cutting torch. Not swung, chopped or stabbed.

You're one sad excuse for a greenskin if you think that way...

grendel083 wrote: If you ran up and stabbed someone with it like a spear, the result would be a broken nozzle on your burna, an extinguished flame and an angry (and very much alive) opponent.

So how do burna gits use it as a powerweapon? I mean, this is 40k, and these are orks, how exactly are these orks using these weapons? And if your orks use it one way, who is to say mine dont use it another? It's literally ridiculous that you're not submitting to ork ridiculousness!

grendel083 wrote:If you follow the rules for a standard power weapon and 'look to the model' it fits none of the power weapon types listed.

Fire can take any shape you want... this harkens back to your other point... if orks aren't stabbing... how are they using these burnas as weapons? This is now a legitimate concern of mine, how do you view it? I always imagined magical flame spears shooting out that function like light sabers. Thus the whole (now somewhat different, albeit): "Ignore armor!" thing.

And to continue in this vein: powerklaws look nothing like powerfists, and yet they're exactly the same. Get over it! Power mauls and Thunder hammers seem pretty similiar, yet they're completely different. I repeat a thousand times, would an FAQ help this? Yes. But till then just make sure you tell your buddy how your burnas like to wave the shishkabobs around. I submit yet again the "do no harm" clause. Is it really so awful to let orks "get away" with this? I mean, as I said earlier, an FAQ would do wonders, but till one is out... the RAW let you sub the burnas in as whatever you want. They have NO. SPECIAL. RULES. Are they unique? Yes. Are they orky? Yes. Do they conform with the imperium and the (comparatively) sane technologies of the rest of the races fluff? Nope.

But do they have rules that CHANGE how the POWER WEAPON functions*? No.

grendel083 wrote: If you look to the rules of the burna you have a close combat weapon that sometimes functions as a power weapon, and sometimes as a template weapon. It's about as an unusual power weapon as you can get.

*Ohh, that's right, you saw that astrix, and you're all like: Oh no he din'! Dat git gonna get krumped!

I happen to have my ancient and battered old(... ish, ish) codex with me right here, and I quoteth:

"... [fluff] A burna may be used in the shooting phase with the profile below, or as a power weapon in an assault, but not both in the same turn. [profile below]..."

It ... [drumroll!] IS NOT A CLOSE COMBAT WEAPON (without being a power weapon). EVARRRR!!! <///3. It does not magically switch from something you can use in melee to something you can use in melee as a power weapon, it switches from NOTHING in the assault phase, to SOMETHING, that is described, explicitly, as a POWER WEAPON!

Please, illuminate how this is a power weapon with special rules. Does it, while it doesn't exist in close combat, still exist? Because as far as the rules are concerned it doesn't even exist. It's a magically appearing and disappearing power weapon, but it is not special. Does it, perhaps, have some rules that give it bonuses against AV? Like and older codex? Nope. In fact, it is nothing but a power weapon, with no rules.

Is this situation unique? yes, I think. I only own two codexes, three if you count my full ham history, and in all those only the burna has a power weapon ability like this. But it doesn't have any special rules (see my GK example) in close combat as a power weapon. Done, Solved!

Now, for your edification, I present some paint-fu:



I hope this image helps convey my enjoyment of this thread, and underlines the fact that in the end, this whole argument feels fairly scholastic and pointless. Power weapons are (basically) balanced, take whatever ones you want and just chillax. I do go back and repeat that the OP was getting ganged up on by a bunch of no-fun frankies, and that I'm totally in on my white squiggoth with my white mega armor on, defending all of orkdom from civilization and soap.>

Viti wrote:

grendel083 wrote: As far as the model and fluff goes its nothing like a spear/mace/sword/axe.
It's used like a cutting torch. Not swung, chopped or stabbed.

You're one sad excuse for a greenskin if you think that way...

Excuse me?

grendel083 wrote: If you ran up and stabbed someone with it like a spear, the result would be a broken nozzle on your burna, an extinguished flame and an angry (and very much alive) opponent.

So how do burna gits use it as a powerweapon? I mean, this is 40k, and these are orks, how exactly are these orks using these weapons? And if your orks use it one way, who is to say mine dont use it another? It's literally ridiculous that you're not submitting to ork ridiculousness!

It's described as a cutting flame, mainly used for dicing up scrap. Closest example would be an oversized oxy acetylene torch. You don't think using modified tools as battlefield weapons is Orky?

Fire can take any shape you want...

Fire disagrees.

this harkens back to your other point... if orks aren't stabbing... how are they using these burnas as weapons? This is now a legitimate concern of mine, how do you view it? I always imagined magical flame spears shooting out that function like light sabers. Thus the whole (now somewhat different, albeit): "Ignore armor!" thing.

How are they being used? I'm sure ive already mentioned cutting flame and oxy acetylene torchs. Why does it have to be an instant slash through metal?
if you want to think of it as a lightsaber then feel free. I sure you've seen in the films how a slow cutting approach is needed to cut through a bulkhead? Momentum in this case would work against its cutting ability, so a rapid stab (spear) or quick chop (axe) would have LESS effect on heavy armour. Still sound like an axe? Not at all.

And to continue in this vein: powerklaws look nothing like powerfists, and yet they're exactly the same. Get over it!

Power klaws have their own stats, just happens to be the same as a power fist. How is this relevant?

the RAW let you sub the burnas in as whatever you want. They have NO. SPECIAL. RULES. Are they unique? Yes. Are they orky? Yes. Do they conform with the imperium and the (comparatively) sane technologies of the rest of the races fluff? Nope.

Raw defiantly does NOT let you sub them however you want. Re-read page 61.
irrelevant anyway, going by the power weapon rule is it a power weapon with no further rules? No, it does have further rules. So it can't be a sword/axe/maul/lance.

But do they have rules that CHANGE how the POWER WEAPON functions*? No.

You need to look at the wargear as a whole. No just part of it. The power weapon and the burna are not separate pieces of wargear. And why does it need to change the function of the power weapon, where are you inventing this rule from? The burna (as a whole, not just the power weapon rule) has extra rules.

*Ohh, that's right, you saw that astrix, and you're all like: Oh no he din'! Dat git gonna get krumped!

What?

I happen to have my ancient and battered old(... ish, ish) codex with me right here, and I quoteth:

"... [fluff] A burna may be used in the shooting phase with the profile below, or as a power weapon in an assault, but not both in the same turn. [profile below]..."

Right, so it's a piece of wargear with rules in addition to the power weapon. So according to page61 it can not be a sword/axe/mace/lance.

Please, illuminate how this is a power weapon with special rules.

Is a burna always a power weapon?

At this point I'm finding your constant sarcasm too insulting to bother addressing much more. All of your points have already been brought up elsewhere in this thread.

Although the point in your image of "if you wave the flame it looks like an axe blade" is amusing. If you wave a sock you'd have the same effect. Not exactly a convincing WYSIWYG argument is it?

I am an Ork player but even I can see this weapon DOES have it's own unique close combat rules..

Grendel is correct...

"But not both in the same turn."

Was this used in the shooting phase as a template weapon?

Yes, so it cannot be used this turn.
This is a unique rule, so AP3

A picture speaks a thousand words.

OP got burned on this one.

Viti wrote:

grendel083 wrote: As far as the model and fluff goes its nothing like a spear/mace/sword/axe.
It's used like a cutting torch. Not swung, chopped or stabbed.

You're one sad excuse for a greenskin if you think that way...

grendel083 wrote: If you ran up and stabbed someone with it like a spear, the result would be a broken nozzle on your burna, an extinguished flame and an angry (and very much alive) opponent.

So how do burna gits use it as a powerweapon? I mean, this is 40k, and these are orks, how exactly are these orks using these weapons? And if your orks use it one way, who is to say mine dont use it another? It's literally ridiculous that you're not submitting to ork ridiculousness!

grendel083 wrote:If you follow the rules for a standard power weapon and 'look to the model' it fits none of the power weapon types listed.

Fire can take any shape you want... this harkens back to your other point... if orks aren't stabbing... how are they using these burnas as weapons? This is now a legitimate concern of mine, how do you view it? I always imagined magical flame spears shooting out that function like light sabers. Thus the whole (now somewhat different, albeit): "Ignore armor!" thing.

And to continue in this vein: powerklaws look nothing like powerfists, and yet they're exactly the same. Get over it! Power mauls and Thunder hammers seem pretty similiar, yet they're completely different. I repeat a thousand times, would an FAQ help this? Yes. But till then just make sure you tell your buddy how your burnas like to wave the shishkabobs around. I submit yet again the "do no harm" clause. Is it really so awful to let orks "get away" with this? I mean, as I said earlier, an FAQ would do wonders, but till one is out... the RAW let you sub the burnas in as whatever you want. They have NO. SPECIAL. RULES. Are they unique? Yes. Are they orky? Yes. Do they conform with the imperium and the (comparatively) sane technologies of the rest of the races fluff? Nope.

But do they have rules that CHANGE how the POWER WEAPON functions*? No.

grendel083 wrote: If you look to the rules of the burna you have a close combat weapon that sometimes functions as a power weapon, and sometimes as a template weapon. It's about as an unusual power weapon as you can get.

*Ohh, that's right, you saw that astrix, and you're all like: Oh no he din'! Dat git gonna get krumped!

I happen to have my ancient and battered old(... ish, ish) codex with me right here, and I quoteth:

"... [fluff] A burna may be used in the shooting phase with the profile below, or as a power weapon in an assault, but not both in the same turn. [profile below]..."

It ... [drumroll!] IS NOT A CLOSE COMBAT WEAPON (without being a power weapon). EVARRRR!!! <///3. It does not magically switch from something you can use in melee to something you can use in melee as a power weapon, it switches from NOTHING in the assault phase, to SOMETHING, that is described, explicitly, as a POWER WEAPON!

Please, illuminate how this is a power weapon with special rules. Does it, while it doesn't exist in close combat, still exist? Because as far as the rules are concerned it doesn't even exist. It's a magically appearing and disappearing power weapon, but it is not special. Does it, perhaps, have some rules that give it bonuses against AV? Like and older codex? Nope. In fact, it is nothing but a power weapon, with no rules.

Is this situation unique? yes, I think. I only own two codexes, three if you count my full ham history, and in all those only the burna has a power weapon ability like this. But it doesn't have any special rules (see my GK example) in close combat as a power weapon. Done, Solved!

Now, for your edification, I present some paint-fu:



I hope this image helps convey my enjoyment of this thread, and underlines the fact that in the end, this whole argument feels fairly scholastic and pointless. Power weapons are (basically) balanced, take whatever ones you want and just chillax. I do go back and repeat that the OP was getting ganged up on by a bunch of no-fun frankies, and that I'm totally in on my white squiggoth with my white mega armor on, defending all of orkdom from civilization and soap.>

All your sarcasm can be broken with a simple question,

Are normal power weapons reliant on whether or not you have fired in the shooting phase?

No.

Unusual.

If you can't laugh at yourself... what do you have? I'm not being sarcastic to rile your jimmies, just suprised you're all so worked up over this, when if you're wrong (which you are!) the only difference is... well... nothing. Because the burna has no special rules, so it operates EXACTLY like a sword. Which kinda rounds back on my argument... Heh... Empirical much?

Anyways, back to arguing your lack of imagination and understanding of 40k fluffery: this is 40k, a power axe shouldn't be able to get a bonus to AV pen according to your rules, because it's just a hacking attack, and has no slow and special considerations to the strike. But it does, becuase 40k is baws. And orks are baws to the teef.


And for that last little rofl comment:

"Are normal power weapons reliant on whether or not you have fired in the shooting phase?

No.

Unusual."

I agree. To a point. Except for the fact that they are not... wait for it... UNUSUAL POWER WEAPONS. They're just regular unsual, strange, but not UNUSUAL POWER WEAPONS! They don't have any rules in close combat, do you see what I'm saying? They ARE SWORDS for all intents and purposes, according to you guys. And yet you act like they have some special rules along with that. That's the point of UNUSUAL POWER WEAPONS, that they don't... well... behave 100% like normal power weapons. Lol.

Let me underline something for you:

Is a model with two thunderclaws, a pistol, and a power weapon, treated as having an unusual power weapon? Because according to you guys, yes, not being able to use that power weapon (because his hands are full) means it must have special rules, because sometimes it can't be used.


The rulebook is clear on special rules, unique rules, and rules in close combat...

You guys really need to understand that. You're confusing the fact that a burna has unique rules in the game, to having unique rules in close combat.


Anyways, my argument has been said better, with wonderful quotations, albeit in terms for a different cause, so props to bloggers:

(source: http://gonewild40k.blogspot.com/2012/07/6th-edition-power-weapon-designation.html)

On page 32, Special Rules are defined as (but not limited to), "uncommon rules to govern uncommon circumstances." and, "Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule." Page 39, 'Master Crafted' is listed as a special rule. The word 'uncommon' is synonymous to the word 'unusual'.

In the following paragraph, the first sentence reads, 'Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule,' further defining special rules for the sake of the game.

On the same page in section 'What Special Rules Do I Have?' the first sentence, fourth paragraph reads as follows, 'Most of the more commonly used special rules in Warhammer 40k are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list. Many troops have their own unique abilities which are laid out in their codex.' This sentence correlates the word 'unique' to special rules, and special rules described in a codex.

... [talks about his blood angels case specifically] ...

Where does that leave these unusual weapon(s)?

Page 61, Section 'Unusual Power Weapons', paragraph four, "Many Models have unusual power weapons that have one or more unique rules. If a power weapon has its own unique close combat rules, treat it as an AP 3 Melee weapon with the additional rules and characteristics presented in its entry." (emphasis mine)

Note the text above quoted directly from the 6th Edition book does not refer to 'unique special rules' (a term used in this blog post as the primary assertion why power weapons are designated by a model) nor is the term even used.

Acting as a power weapon in close combat is a rule for the weapon that is used in close combat.

The Burna is the weapon.

The Burna has a special rule for close combat.

The Burna has unique rules for close combat.

The Burna is an unusual power weapon.

Going back to the OP.....

Akaiyou wrote:Given the way the Burna is built I am inclined to call it a Lance type power weapon. Though I can potentially see it being swung around like an axe or sword as well (kind of like a light saber made from an extended beam of hot fire) but it mostly screams lance to me if we assume that it has a pointy fire thing at the tip and it's used to pierce rather than to slash which makes a lot of sense to me.

This would indicate that a unit of Burna Boyz initiating an assault have S5 AP3 weapons on the charge. What do the rest of you think? And again let's stick to the RAW definition enough with the assumptions and misinterpretations, address the rule as written.

Akaiyou wants to play a Burna as a Power Lance to gain the advantage of S5 AP3 on a charge.... Of course, AFTER the first round those stats drop to "User/AP4". An "unusual power weapon" gets "User/AP3" for the duration of the combat, Plus Burna Boys get Furious Charge already giving them +1Str. The difference is that the next round of close combat is AP4 (Lance) or AP3 (UPW).

Viti wrote:Is a model with two thunderclaws, a pistol, and a power weapon, treated as having an unusual power weapon? Because according to you guys, yes, not being able to use that power weapon (because his hands are full) means it must have special rules, because sometimes it can't be used.

If all of those weapons were combined into a single weapon, then yes.
You're still treating the burna as separate weapons. It isn't.

Viti wrote:Anyways, back to arguing your lack of imagination and understanding of 40k fluffery.

Your constant use of sarcasm and insults will not convince anyone. Try and stick to rules if you can.

Akaiyou wrote:It's not an unusual power weapon because the weapon is an actual flamer with a special rule to make it a power weapon.

You've said it yourself. It has a special rule that makes it a power weapon. That it has a special rule for its use in close combat (whatever that rule is) means that it's an unusual power weapon.

Because otherwise, the burna would be used exactly the same as a lasgun or bolter, or any other shooting-weapon-turned-cudgel. It's not an Ap- weapon by means of a special rule that changes how it works in close combat.

... which makes it an unusual power weapon.

To everyone arguing that a burna is not a unique power weapon:

If I run stock GW Burna Boyz, and don't shoot, what kind of power weapon are they physically modeled with?

If you're not going to take time to read the proof, the cited full passages from the rulebook, qualifying what is, and what is not an unusual power weapon, please stop sharing your opinions.

Seriously, you want me to drop the sarcasm and be all srs bsns with you chaps online I will, but if that's the case it's about time you learned some reading comprehension, because you are LACKING.

"If all of those weapons were combined into a single weapon, then yes.
You're still treating the burna as separate weapons. It isn't."

It is, actually, a separate weapon, rules wise. I even quoted the codex verbatim:

"A burna may be used in the shooting phase with the profile below, or as a power weapon in an assault, but not both in the same turn."

Rules wise, the weapon will never exist as a power weapon and as a template (shooting) weapon at the same time. Know what this rule sounds like? THE RULES FOR COMBI WEAPONS. Are those the same weapon? or two separate weapons? The combi gun itself holds two seperate weapons, you choose to use one or the other. It doesn't mean the combi weapon's bolter aspect shares ANYTHING with the melta aspect.

Seriously, you people are dense as concrete. Read the Blood Angel's blogger's link before you continue this asinine argument.

"If I run stock GW Burna Boyz, and don't shoot, what kind of power weapon are they physically modeled with?"

Lances, probably. If we're being 100% correct, which is foolish to do with orks. Pretty clearly long pointy thingies with fire blades on the end though, would be lances.

So please, if any of you really want to continue this argument: Don't go off memory, don't just build off other stooge arguments, please read the text, read my argument, address the foundation of my argument: the quotations of the rulebook I've provided. If you can't attack those, then you're arguing trivia on a trivial argument, and you should be known as a troll.

Next time you post I'm ignoring you unless you bring to the table either a) an attitude that isn't "STOP BEIN' SARCASTIC AND LIGHTHEARTED ABOUT SRS RULES" or b) QUOTE SOME RULEBOOK.

So far you've all failed to offer anything except opinion and vague personal references to interpretations. And yes, that is a challenge. Bring me some real proof you even read the rulebook before coming here.

Thx.


* If you think I'm being sarcastic about being angry, you're reading too deep into all this, seeing as I'm still doing the same thing I've been doing this whole time: Mocking. Sarcasm is one of the best tools, but the fact still rests: you anti-fun people haven't attacked the two most solid parts of my argument, 1) no harm/S(model) ap3 would be the same as a power sword, since there are no extra rules, and 2) my interpretations of the codex and rulebook.







Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ailaros wrote:

Akaiyou wrote:It's not an unusual power weapon because the weapon is an actual flamer with a special rule to make it a power weapon.

You've said it yourself. It has a special rule that makes it a power weapon. That it has a special rule for its use in close combat (whatever that rule is) means that it's an unusual power weapon.

Because otherwise, the burna would be used exactly the same as a lasgun or bolter, or any other shooting-weapon-turned-cudgel. It's not an Ap- weapon by means of a special rule that changes how it works in close combat.

... which makes it an unusual power weapon.

Reading this made me flip, just a little. I literally covered exactly this in the post before this. And not to mention some basic comprehension would have solved this: For a discussion on what a burna is, rules wise, refer to my combi-weapon argument. For a reference to the more poignant of your two arguments: the details about what a special rule is, and what special close combat rules are, please refer to the blood angel's argument, and my presentation of it.

Like everyone else you've found an unusual piece of war gear, and assume that becuase the words are similar between lay and actual terminology, the weapon is an unusual power weapon. It isn't. It is an unusual piece of war gear, but it is very much a normal power weapon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

grendel083 wrote:Try and stick to rules if you can.

All my srs comments bummed me out, but when I read this I cackled. Have you ever seen bob's burgers? When the youngest of his kid's with the bunny hat get's really mad and huffs and... goes "oh, as IF!" I wish I had a clip of it, I swear it's my exact reaction to this.

I'm the one that's giving you the rulebook's wording, and providing my argument on it. You don't even reference anything when you argue, you just throw things at me, and try to make this discussion violent, and the worst part is it almost worked. I'm sorry I lost it a bit. It devalued the forum, and my argument.

But please, realize how funny it is to read you saying that, when you're the one who provides no concrete basis to his argument, and wont even address my points, looking to the rules as a basis for who is right.

I'd venture a guess you've avoided doing just that becuase it's clear even to you that the rules provide a clear conclusion that can't be jimmied much. That and the fact you seem more caught up in how I'm responding, rather than the content of my responses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kiredor wrote:Acting as a power weapon in close combat is a rule for the weapon that is used in close combat.

The Burna is the weapon.

The Burna has a special rule for close combat.

The Burna has unique rules for close combat.

The Burna is an unusual power weapon.

Read my post right above you please. It concisely AND accurately (most importantly) adresses how the rulebook views "unique rules in close combat" and "unique rules" There is, actually, a significant and clear difference in the two.


Now, you'd have some grounds to make your argument still, if it wasn't for the burna transcript form the codex I so kindly provided. For the third time:

"A burna may be used in the shooting phase with the profile below, or as a power weapon in an assault, but not both in the same turn."

Is this a rule IN CLOSE COMBAT? No. It does not magically become a power weapon only in close combat, in fact, the moment it changes, is in the shooting phase. Until then the burna is a power weapon. It's exactly like a combi weapon, albeit one that reloads. You fire the melta, you can't melta again. The difference in this case, is if you fire the template, you don't get to use the "template" in combat as a power weapon.

This argument is UNCONDITIONALLY separate from the "what kind of power weapon would it be modeled as if it is actually a normal power weapon."

That argument is something not based in rules, as a requirement of the weapon. This is becuase the rules are somewhat vague, but it's meant to be that way. There are plenty of power weapons out there that are somewhat unclear as to what they actually might be. That doesn't mean my warscythes on my lychguard are any different from my warscythes on my lords. Even though they look worlds different.


My last edit, or at least, my last addition, as I haven't changed anything yet:
I haven't changed my rather odious first section because it's honest and from the heart. I due, as I've already mentioned, feel badly for it though, and I'd like to clearly apologize. I'm not retracting my argument, or changing it. I would, though, request that you take a moment to consider that perhaps drawing a picture and discussing something in a lighthearted manner is indicative not as sarcastic and abrasive, but as playful and willing to discuss. It is my own failing I let you get to me, but this is my polite request that if you can't accept someone trying to have a little fun that you get lost. No need to bring me down with you, you can leave this forum any time and be content in your own beliefs, this place is for us to communicate and enjoy ourselves. I overstepped myself on this, and my apology is all I have left to say on the matter.

You are amusing Vit in that all you incoherent babbling you can only convince yourself with your "proof". What is more amusing is that the OP has posted this same topic on another board's rules discussion practically word for word and was shut down there as well. Glad you can take on the role of knight in shining armor for burnas.

You dismissed it without answering,

Are normal power weapons reliant upon actions that you take in the shooting phase?

You keep trying to quote the RAW of there not being an unusual/unique rule FOR CLOSE COMBAT, yet when the very properties of what weapon is used in CLOSE COMBAT is dictated upon an action or lack thereof in the shooting phase, that is an unusual/unique rule in CLOSE COMBAT.

As far as your demeanor, it is weaksauce. Better sarcasm has been here before as have better trolling. In all honesty you are like Stelek; so confident and pompous in your false assumptions and opinions that when people disagree with you, it isn't your faulty logic or RAI, just their inferior intellect. It didn't work for him and it sure as hell wont work with you.

Houserule it all you want, but it will be just that, a houserule.

It's hard to read through this and take it seriously. Im sorry my "asinine" and "stooge" opinion doesn't agree with yours, but I'll try and address your points.

Viti wrote:it's about time you learned some reading comprehension, because you are LACKING.

Reading skills...Check.
For such a small rule there isn't much point repeating page numbers and text, P61 power weapons and the Burna rule.

It is, actually, a separate weapon, rules wise. I even quoted the codex verbatim:

In terms of use, yes treat them as seperate as only one weapon will be used at a time. But that does not mean all rules are completely seperate, it is a burna not a power weapon and template weapon. As such you have to look at the whole picture, not just "the power weapon part has no special rules"

Using your combi weapon example:
If a special ability could destroy the weapon a model is carrying, would the model with a combi-gun loose it's bolter, the one-shot weapon or both?
Both, as it's a single piece of wargear. It's treated as two seperate guns in every way rules wise, but is still one weapon.

It doesn't mean the combi weapon's bolter aspect shares ANYTHING with the melta aspect.

Well now we see it does. Two guns, one piece of wargear.

Seriously, you people are dense as concrete.

By that I assume you mean our arguments are solid.

Read the Blood Angel's blogger's link before you continue this asinine argument.

I read it. The blogger was right with some points, wrong with others. It's nice to see that when he was wrong he acepted his mistake, made changes and moved on. Something to learn? Anyway on with my "asinine" argument.

Lances, probably. If we're being 100% correct, which is foolish to do with orks. Pretty clearly long pointy thingies with fire blades on the end though, would be lances.

I can see where you're coming from with this, if that's how you see it that's fine.
I work in Art dept. in film crews, I've used alot of cutting torches and the ocasional flame thrower. The fluff describes it as a cutting torch, and the model looks like an over-sized oxy acetylene torch. Following this logic it wouldn't be used to stab or spear, but a slow slash. I see the burna-boys treating a Space Marine as a can to be opened (and the helmet looted). If that isn't Orky, what is?

seeing as I'm still doing the same thing I've been doing this whole time: Mocking. Sarcasm is one of the best tools

I've always heard sarcasm described as the "lowest form of wit". Still each to their own.

For a reference to the more poignant of your two arguments: the details about what a special rule is, and what special close combat rules are

Special close combat rules, I take it that would be a special rule for use in close combat. Such as a weapon that can be used in close combat as a power weapon or shot like a flamer.
The main point missing is that we're not looking for the power weapon to have special close combat rules but for the burna. The burna is the weapon being used, and as such that is what must have special rules. And it certainly does.

Have you ever seen bob's burgers? When the youngest of his kid's with the bunny hat get's really mad and huffs and... goes "oh, as IF!" I wish I had a clip of it, I swear it's my exact reaction to this.

No idea what you're talking about.

I'm the one that's giving you the rulebook's wording, and providing my argument on it. You don't even reference anything when you argue, you just throw things at me, and try to make this discussion violent, and the worst part is it almost worked. I'm sorry I lost it a bit. It devalued the forum, and my argument.

Apology acepted! I havn't made many references, true. That's because there are only 2. The burna rules, and the power weapon rules on P61. I wont quote verbatim as it goes against forum rules, and is it really needed? We all know where the 2 rules are found. But just to be clear: sarcasm is insulting, as are many of your other comments. Just because someone doesn't agree with you, it's no excuse to throw abuse at them. Everone has a right to their opinions.

Is this a rule IN CLOSE COMBAT? No. It does not magically become a power weapon only in close combat, in fact, the moment it changes, is in the shooting phase. Until then the burna is a power weapon. It's exactly like a combi weapon, albeit one that reloads. You fire the melta, you can't melta again. The difference in this case, is if you fire the template, you don't get to use the "template" in combat as a power weapon.

It does indeed magically become a power weapon in close combat. As you quoted yourself "or as a power weapon in an assault". So in close combat it's special rule lets it be used as a power weapon. It's a close combat special rule.

Is this a rule IN CLOSE COMBAT?

Yes.

this is my polite request that if you can't accept someone trying to have a little fun that you get lost.

A little fun is great and to be encouraged. Insulting people for not agreeing with you is not.
As requested I've addressed your points (with more than opinion). If you still don't agree I hope we can continue the debate in a friendly manner (without the sarcasm please).