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.

40k-noob wrote:This is a direct quote:

FAQ's wrote:
Note that this is an older Codex, written for a previous edition of the rules. You will therefor need to consult the Reference section of the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook for an up to date list of Unit Types and Vehicle Hull Points. You'll also find that some of the weapons in this Codex are written out longhand, rather than using the weapon profile format in the Warhmmer 40,000 rulebook. Don't worry - these are functionally identical, unless otherwise noted in this document.

The FAQ tells you to look to the Ref. Section for Unit Types and Hull Points, not weapons. It just says that the codex has the weapon rules written out as opposed to using the profile setup in the BRB.

Not sure where people are saying the FAQ tell you to refer to the BRB for weapons. Perhaps there is another document that I am missing. If so I would like to see it.

The part where it tells you that they are functionally identical to those in the BRB.

IT tells you some weapons are are written out long hand (the Lightning Claws in DA are), instead of having the profile format provided in the BRB, then goes on to tell you that these weapons are functionally identical. Meaning that the function identically...hence Lightning claws found in the DA book = those in the BRB, so they are AP3 and Shred.

Otherwise tell me how a Powerfist or power weapon works in the Dark Angels Codex.

40k-noob wrote:This is a direct quote:

FAQ's wrote:
Note that this is an older Codex, written for a previous edition of the rules. You will therefor need to consult the Reference section of the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook for an up to date list of Unit Types and Vehicle Hull Points. You'll also find that some of the weapons in this Codex are written out longhand, rather than using the weapon profile format in the Warhmmer 40,000 rulebook. Don't worry - these are functionally identical, unless otherwise noted in this document.

The FAQ tells you to look to the Ref. Section for Unit Types and Hull Points, not weapons. It just says that the codex has the weapon rules written out as opposed to using the profile setup in the BRB.

Not sure where people are saying the FAQ tell you to refer to the BRB for weapons. Perhaps there is another document that I am missing. If so I would like to see it.

"You'll also find that some of the weapons in this Codex are written out longhand, rather than using the weapon profile format in the Warhmmer 40,000 rulebook. Don't worry - these are functionally identical, unless otherwise noted in this document."

"this document" being the FAQ. So, unless otherwise noted in the FAQ, the weapon profile uses the same rules as the BRB for that weapon type. The fact that they didn't mention the lightning claws in the FAQ only supports the argument that they are basic lightning claws from the BRB, and thus follow those rules.

40k-noob wrote:This is a direct quote:

FAQ's wrote:Note that this is an older Codex, written for a previous edition of the rules. You will therefor need to consult the Reference section of the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook for an up to date list of Unit Types and Vehicle Hull Points. You'll also find that some of the weapons in this Codex are written out longhand, rather than using the weapon profile format in the Warhmmer 40,000 rulebook. Don't worry - these are functionally identical, unless otherwise noted in this document.

The FAQ tells you to look to the Ref. Section for Unit Types and Hull Points, not weapons. It just says that the codex has the weapon rules written out as opposed to using the profile setup in the BRB.

Not sure where people are saying the FAQ tell you to refer to the BRB for weapons. Perhaps there is another document that I am missing. If so I would like to see it.

It says it by saying " these are functionally identical, unless otherwise noted in this document"

So if you have a Lightning Claw, you use the rules for Lightning Claw in the 6th ed. 40k Rule book, unless unless otherwise noted in (The FAQ).

LC's are not unless otherwise noted in the FAQ, so you follow the functionally identical rules in the th ed. 40k Rule book.

Sorry you guys point out the same statement but the fact is that statement does NOT mean that the BRB is the rule to use.

"functionally identical" does not equal "use the BRB over Codex."

40k-noob wrote:Sorry you guys point out the same statement but the fact is that statement does NOT mean that the BRB is the rule to use.

"functionally identical" does not equal "use the BRB over Codex."

no but it does mean they function exactly the same way as the LC in the BRB.

And that is the only way to interpret it other wise you need to use every rule from every book combined for LC which makes no sense.

The statement means all weapons with the same name are functionally identical to those in the BRB.

IF not you still have not answer my question what does a DA power fist do?

40k-noob wrote:Sorry you guys point out the same statement but the fact is that statement does NOT mean that the BRB is the rule to use.

"functionally identical" does not equal "use the BRB over Codex."

This, I guess.

The very next sentence does.

(Rewritten for emphasis)
...some of (the weapons in this Codex) are written out longhand rather than using the weapon profile format in the 40k BRB. Don't worry these (the weapons in this Codex) are functionally identical, unless noted otherwise in this FAQ.

This overwrites any rule in the codex for any weapon that is both in the codex and BRB. Now if you have something unique in the Codex, its rule would still apply. In this case the LC are used with the rules in the BRB, AP3.

40k-noob wrote:Sorry you guys point out the same statement but the fact is that statement does NOT mean that the BRB is the rule to use.

"functionally identical" does not equal "use the BRB over Codex."

Yes, but you're leaving out the more important part of the sentence which is "unless otherwise noted in this document."

"this document" being the FAQ. So, unless the FAQ notes the DA lightning claws as being functionally different than the BRB (it doesn't) then the lightning claws are the same as listed in the BRB, regardless of longhand entry in the codex. This is written in plain english.

If nothing had changed regarding the lightning claws from 5th to 6th, I'd say that the DA players might have a leg to stand on.

Unfortunately, the very nature of the lightning claw DID change. Every weapon was given an AP value. If I recall correctly, any weapon that's AP2 goes at I1 (power fist and thunder hammer come to mind).

I simply wouldn't play with anyone who claimed otherwise.

And yet, it only states that you apply this rule for "Some" of the weapons.

Ignoring armor doesn't require an AP, there are many things in the new edition that simply ignore armor, while having no ap.

juraigamer wrote:And yet, it only states that you apply this rule for "Some" of the weapons.

That is correct, because some of the weapons in the Codex wont be in the BRB (unique to the Codex) and some of the weapons will.

Pretty funny to see people screaming for people to use the rules in the BRB for lightning claws instead of the DA rules yet insist on not using the BRB profile for missile launchers as it is written.

kcwm wrote:If nothing had changed regarding the lightning claws from 5th to 6th, I'd say that the DA players might have a leg to stand on.

Unfortunately, the very nature of the lightning claw DID change. Every weapon was given an AP value. If I recall correctly, any weapon that's AP2 goes at I1 (power fist and thunder hammer come to mind).

I simply wouldn't play with anyone who claimed otherwise.

I wish to change your statement to SOME DA Players.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:Pretty funny to see people screaming for people to use the rules in the BRB for lightning claws instead of the DA rules yet insist on not using the BRB profile for missile launchers as it is written.

They are using the Missile launchers as written. Missile launchers do not have Flakk Missiles as default equipment but some have the option to upgrade to Flakk missiles.

This means the Flakk missiles need to be either purchased or swapped out, and as of right now we do not know what the cost is, or what you exchange for them.

40k-noob wrote:Sorry you guys point out the same statement but the fact is that statement does NOT mean that the BRB is the rule to use.

"functionally identical" does not equal "use the BRB over Codex."

By this logic there are no rules for the Space Marines use of Lightning Claws, Power Fists, or Thunder Hammers. C:SM tells us to refer to the Assault Phase section of the Rulebook for the rules. Since they were not FAQ'd, and there is no Assault Rules section of the Rulebook there is no actual rules so I don't get any rules. By the strict RAW as you are arguing I don't get those special weapons because I can't just look to the name of the weapon and refer to the Rulebook I have to follow the rule in the Codex over the obvious.

Seems pretty obvious its BRB rules for the claws now, thats why they put em in the BRB. I don't know if you think that for some reason DA claws are just made better than all other lightning claws in the imperium or what, but this seems a bit of a WAAC argument which is sad. Your dex was written for a previous edition of the rules, you're talking as though they were written for 6th. If this was a brand new codex and thats what it said with a slightly altered equipment name then fine, but it isn't so it's not.

I have to say anyone arguing in this way in an actual game would probably be horrible to play, and would probably suck all the fun out of the game just so that they could win. I very much doubt I'd ever play anyone who argued this.

All combat weps got a revamp for 6th, in the 6th BRB. You are no exception.

Captain Antivas wrote:

40k-noob wrote:Sorry you guys point out the same statement but the fact is that statement does NOT mean that the BRB is the rule to use.

"functionally identical" does not equal "use the BRB over Codex."

By this logic there are no rules for the Space Marines use of Lightning Claws, Power Fists, or Thunder Hammers. C:SM tells us to refer to the Assault Phase section of the Rulebook for the rules. Since they were not FAQ'd, and there is no Assault Rules section of the Rulebook there is no actual rules so I don't get any rules. By the strict RAW as you are arguing I don't get those special weapons because I can't just look to the name of the weapon and refer to the Rulebook I have to follow the rule in the Codex over the obvious.

I have made no claim that the Codex >BRB.

What I am saying is that the Codex=BRB and BRB=Codex, that is what "functionally identical" means.
The "written out longhand" rule for LC is supposed function in the same way as the LC profile in the BRB and vice versa.
So DA LC are AP3, Str: User AND ignore armor.

Is it even important, assuming you use a pair, you get 2 attacks that bypass anything but a AS of 2. Reroll to wound should you fail. Seem pretty handy to me.

40k-noob wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:

40k-noob wrote:Sorry you guys point out the same statement but the fact is that statement does NOT mean that the BRB is the rule to use.

"functionally identical" does not equal "use the BRB over Codex."

By this logic there are no rules for the Space Marines use of Lightning Claws, Power Fists, or Thunder Hammers. C:SM tells us to refer to the Assault Phase section of the Rulebook for the rules. Since they were not FAQ'd, and there is no Assault Rules section of the Rulebook there is no actual rules so I don't get any rules. By the strict RAW as you are arguing I don't get those special weapons because I can't just look to the name of the weapon and refer to the Rulebook I have to follow the rule in the Codex over the obvious.

I have made no claim that the Codex >BRB.

What I am saying is that the Codex=BRB and BRB=Codex, that is what "functionally identical" means.
The "written out longhand" rule for LC is supposed function in the same way as the LC profile in the BRB and vice versa.
So DA LC are AP3, Str: User AND ignore armor.

The two cannot be functionally identical and be different. As soon as you add "ignore armor" it is no longer functionally identical to the 6th edition rulebook. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. Either we follow what the codex says to the letter and DA/CSM LC ignore armor (making them functionally ap2) and C:SM doesn't get any LC/PF/TH; or the DA/CSM are treated the exact same as the BRB and C:SM gets the same.

40k-noob wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:

40k-noob wrote:Sorry you guys point out the same statement but the fact is that statement does NOT mean that the BRB is the rule to use.

"functionally identical" does not equal "use the BRB over Codex."

By this logic there are no rules for the Space Marines use of Lightning Claws, Power Fists, or Thunder Hammers. C:SM tells us to refer to the Assault Phase section of the Rulebook for the rules. Since they were not FAQ'd, and there is no Assault Rules section of the Rulebook there is no actual rules so I don't get any rules. By the strict RAW as you are arguing I don't get those special weapons because I can't just look to the name of the weapon and refer to the Rulebook I have to follow the rule in the Codex over the obvious.

I have made no claim that the Codex >BRB.

What I am saying is that the Codex=BRB and BRB=Codex, that is what "functionally identical" means.
The "written out longhand" rule for LC is supposed function in the same way as the LC profile in the BRB and vice versa.
So DA LC are AP3, Str: User AND ignore armor.

Except that does not work because unless you argue that because of the DA codex all lightning claws (not just DA) ignore armor, then they cannot all be functionally equivalent. AP3 and Ignore armor are not functionally equivalent. Functionally equivalent means that they do the same thing, and the only way for that to work is to say all LCs work the same way, otherwise they are not functionally equivalent.

I agree that that "ignores armor" and "AP3" are not "functionally identical" but I didnt write the FAQ, GW did.

"Don't worry - these are functionally identical, unless otherwise noted in this document."

That statement says that BRB=Codex and Codex=BRB, not Codex>BRB or BRB>Codex. The only way I see that working is to combine the two BRB+Codex or Codex+BRB.

I guess it could be argued that DA LC's "ignore armor(of save value 3 or higher)" but that could be a stretch.

Breng77 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:

40k-noob wrote:Sorry you guys point out the same statement but the fact is that statement does NOT mean that the BRB is the rule to use.

"functionally identical" does not equal "use the BRB over Codex."

By this logic there are no rules for the Space Marines use of Lightning Claws, Power Fists, or Thunder Hammers. C:SM tells us to refer to the Assault Phase section of the Rulebook for the rules. Since they were not FAQ'd, and there is no Assault Rules section of the Rulebook there is no actual rules so I don't get any rules. By the strict RAW as you are arguing I don't get those special weapons because I can't just look to the name of the weapon and refer to the Rulebook I have to follow the rule in the Codex over the obvious.

I have made no claim that the Codex >BRB.

What I am saying is that the Codex=BRB and BRB=Codex, that is what "functionally identical" means.
The "written out longhand" rule for LC is supposed function in the same way as the LC profile in the BRB and vice versa.
So DA LC are AP3, Str: User AND ignore armor.

Except that does not work because unless you argue that because of the DA codex all lightning claws (not just DA) ignore armor, then they cannot all be functionally equivalent. AP3 and Ignore armor are not functionally equivalent. Functionally equivalent means that they do the same thing, and the only way for that to work is to say all LCs work the same way, otherwise they are not functionally equivalent.

Breng77, The basis of your perspective is that you want LCs to still be able to wound Termies with only their Invul save to rely on. You are essentually arguing that 4th Ed rules trump 6th Ed rules.
And if you go back to the OP his opponant was playing BT which only has 2 Models with a 2+ save (EC and Helbrecht) who also have a 4++... Was it really that important for the OP to force the 4++ with a DW army?
The only other reason for the OP to mention the "Ignores Armor" is that he was trying to kill TANKS with the LCs, which is not even close to RAW.

No, you have gotten that wrong there noob.
Are you saying that USRs state that codex=BRB.

To referece a section from the brb in a codex or faq does not equate the two.

40k-noob wrote:I agree that that "ignores armor" and "AP3" are not "functionally identical" but I didnt write the FAQ, GW did.

"Don't worry - these are functionally identical, unless otherwise noted in this document."

That statement says that BRB=Codex and Codex=BRB, not Codex>BRB or BRB>Codex. The only way I see that working is to combine the two BRB+Codex or Codex+BRB.

I guess it could be argued that DA LC's "ignore armor(of save value 3 or higher)" but that could be a stretch.

BRB=codex cannot be the same as BRB+codex. This is a huge logical fallacy. A+B is never the same as A=B.

ummm...you do know that I am arguing for AP3 for all LCs not ignores armor, as far as I recall the OP was also fighting a BT army with a bunch of termies(at least 5 with 2 cyclones) in it and forcing them to take a 5++ is a pretty big deal.....I I see nothing in the OP about killing tanks at all.

40k-noob wrote:I agree that that "ignores armor" and "AP3" are not "functionally identical" but I didnt write the FAQ, GW did.

"Don't worry - these are functionally identical, unless otherwise noted in this document."

That statement says that BRB=Codex and Codex=BRB, not Codex>BRB or BRB>Codex. The only way I see that working is to combine the two BRB+Codex or Codex+BRB.

I guess it could be argued that DA LC's "ignore armor(of save value 3 or higher)" but that could be a stretch.

SO you would then argue that all LC ignore armor then not just DA? Otherwise All LC are not functionally identical. The BRB does not absorb the rules provided in each codex. Functionally identical means works Identically, it does not infer combining the rules.You need to refer to the whole statement about the out of date codices to see that it is obvious what they intend you to do, anything else is using slightly poor wording to try to be WAAC. Essentially you cannot have your cake and eat it too, it is either refer to BRB, or Codex trumps, and then Lighting Claws are the only functional Close combat weapon Dark Angels have.

liturgies of blood wrote:No, you have gotten that wrong there noob.
Are you saying that USRs state that codex=BRB.

To referece a section from the brb in a codex or faq does not equate the two.

No, what I am saying is that with respect to weapons, the FAQ says that the "written out longhand" description for DA LC's AND LC profile in the BRB are supposed to "function identically."

If the DA LC says that it ignores armor and BRB is missing that, then the two must be combined in order to "function identically" and I say must be combined because it does not say to take the BRB over the codex nor does it say take the Codex over the BRB, it just says "these are functionally identical."

Well, this would work two ways would it not?

The DA codex says Lightning Claws ignore armor. So, if you were playing another marine chapter, your rule would also apply to them? Would it not?

I really think this is a case of "Look, I found a loophole, Ha ha." Great. You found a glitch in the game. Now, can we get back to other arguments about the importance of clarifying rules for our little toy army men?

Breng77 wrote:ummm...you do know that I am arguing for AP3 for all LCs not ignores armor, as far as I recall the OP was also fighting a BT army with a bunch of termies(at least 5 with 2 cyclones) in it and forcing them to take a 5++ is a pretty big deal.....I I see nothing in the OP about killing tanks at all.

40k-noob wrote:I agree that that "ignores armor" and "AP3" are not "functionally identical" but I didnt write the FAQ, GW did.

"Don't worry - these are functionally identical, unless otherwise noted in this document."

That statement says that BRB=Codex and Codex=BRB, not Codex>BRB or BRB>Codex. The only way I see that working is to combine the two BRB+Codex or Codex+BRB.

I guess it could be argued that DA LC's "ignore armor(of save value 3 or higher)" but that could be a stretch.

SO you would then argue that all LC ignore armor then not just DA? Otherwise All LC are not functionally identical. The BRB does not absorb the rules provided in each codex. Functionally identical means works Identically, it does not infer combining the rules.You need to refer to the whole statement about the out of date codices to see that it is obvious what they intend you to do, anything else is using slightly poor wording to try to be WAAC. Essentially you cannot have your cake and eat it too, it is either refer to BRB, or Codex trumps, and then Lighting Claws are the only functional Close combat weapon Dark Angels have.

No I am not arguing that the DA LC's changes LC for all. Just for DA and any other codex that has a unique LC(or any other weapon) description.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Green is Best! wrote:Well, this would work two ways would it not?

The DA codex says Lightning Claws ignore armor. So, if you were playing another marine chapter, your rule would also apply to them? Would it not?

I really think this is a case of "Look, I found a loophole, Ha ha." Great. You found a glitch in the game. Now, can we get back to other arguments about the importance of clarifying rules for our little toy army men?

I play Necron and Ultramarines, so no, it would not apply to me. My Codex says to refer to the BRB. If I play DA's I would be at a disadvantage but the rules are the rules.

Your codex says to refer to a part of the BRB that no longer exists....so in that case your LC are functionally identical to not exsisting at all. My final word on this is we all know what the RAI here is, and to play it another way is silly, unless your opponent agrees, otherwise I would walk away. Expect every tourney to rule against your interpretation, at which point what is the point.

Captain Antivas wrote:A+B is never the same as A=B.

Unless A=0 and B=0. In which case A+B=A=B