CC Attacks for IG infantry platoon?

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.

**fixxxer76**

In the 5th ed Codex it says an infantry squad guardsman member gets 1 attack and are modeled with a 2 handed lasgun. However, under wargear it has "Close-Combat weapon" does this mean that in close combat they would get 2 attacks when not assaulting, or would it still be 1?

**Lucid**

1 attack. you'd need 2 single handed weapons to have 2 CC attacks. Seeing as how you can't wield a lasgun 1 handed . . .

**wizard12**

I wonder why they bothered giving guardsmen that CC weapon.

**daedalus**

wizard12 wrote:I wonder why they bothered giving guardsmen that CC weapon.

I think the reason they did it was so that they could have a uniform "wargear" across all regular guardsmen, so that way when you swap out for laspistols in your PCS or CCS, you already have the CCS mentioned.

**Gwar!**

fixxxer76 wrote:In the 5th ed Codex it says an infantry squad guardsman member gets 1 attack and are modeled with a 2 handed lasgun. However, under wargear it has "Close-Combat weapon" does this mean that in close combat they would get 2 attacks when not assaulting, or would it still be 1?

The Lasgun is not a CCW, so you don't have 2 CCW, so you don't have a bonus attack. It really is that simple.

As for WHY they have a CCW, it's so wargear is uniform and to stop the question about "Do models with No CCW fight in Assault?", which seems to have just been replaced with the OP's Question. Good ol' GW. One step Forward, 4 steps back.

**MekanobSamael**

Gwar! wrote:As for WHY they have a CCW, it's so wargear is uniform and to stop the question about "Do models with No CCW fight in Assault?", which seems to have just been replaced with the OP's Question. Good ol' GW. One step Forward, 4 steps back.

I think they also did it that way so that it's simpler when you say, for example, lasgun (sergeant has a laspistol instead) rather than (sergeant has a laspistol and ccw instead). Ditto for ccs melee vets etc.

**MechaEmperor7000**

current ruling seems to be that any model without some sort of CC weapon (which includes Normal CC weapons and Special CC weapons) cannot attack in Close Combat. This also caused them to retroactively coin "claws" to be a single CC weapon. Apparently fisticuffs is not allowed in the grimdark future.

**Gwar!**

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:current ruling seems to be that any model without some sort of CC weapon (which includes Normal CC weapons and Special CC weapons) cannot attack in Close Combat. This also caused them to retroactively coin "claws" to be a single CC weapon. Apparently fisticuffs is not allowed in the grimdark future.

That is not true at all. Models without CCW attack just fine in CC. However, for some reason, people think otherwise.

**MechaEmperor7000**

there is no rule explicitly stating it, but it seems to be the general attitude GW has towards the rules and models. Almost all models now having a CC weapon as standard, even when it's kinda obvious they dont need it at all (kinda like a Daemon Prince with a CC weapon, kinda redundant as it does nothing more than give a reason as to why the model has a sword. Same goes for actually detailing what "claws and teeth" are in the Nid codex).

**Gwar!**

I agree with you there, but the fact is many models do not have CCWs (yet), so to say no CCW = No attacks is misleading.

C'Tan are a great example of a no CCW unit.

**MechaEmperor7000**

I'm aware of all that, and they'll probably all be updated with CCWs when the time comes. Just making a clarification as to why the Guardsmen come with a seemingly redundant piece of wargear.

**SaintHazard**

Lootaz.
Deffkoptaz (with no Buzzsaw).
Servitors.
About 70% of the Chaos Daemons codex.
Chaos Spawn.
Thousand Sons.
Crisis Suits.
Fire Warriors.
Gun Drones.
Vespid Stingwings.
Stealthsuits.
Necron Warriors.
Eldar Guardians.
Dire Avengers.
Guardian Jetbikes.

These are just a few of the literally dozens of models throughout just about every codex that aren't armed with a single CC weapon.

I hope you're not going to try to tell me none of them can fight in close combat.

**MechaEmperor7000**

Indeed none of those have CCWs, however most of the ones you listed (assuming Chaos Daemons count as a single example there) are mainly for ranged combat (I would even say the same for Dire Avengers. Spawns on the other had do have a special rule detailing how they fight in CC, so they should be discounted entirely as their lack of a CCW is explained). The 5th Edition Codexes, however, all provide a basic CCW to all of the troops, even detailing how Claws and Teeth are CCWs (this is in the Space Wolves Codex as well as the Tyranid Codex). It's likely due to mass lawyer-ruling that forced them to make such a change, even though it's blindly obvious that any warrior could fight fisticuff in a pinch.

**nosferatu1001**

Chaos Daemons is a 5th ed codex.

**MechaEmperor7000**

Check the dates. Chaos Daemons was released in 2007 whereas 5th edition came out in 2008.

**SaintHazard**

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:Check the dates. Chaos Daemons was released in 2007 whereas 5th edition came out in 2008.

Your point?

Chaos Daemons is a 5th edition codex. If it was 4th edition, how does it have rules like Eternal Warrior, which didn't exist in 4th?

You do know it takes years to write the rules for a new edition, and GW might, just might, release a 5th edition codex with 5th edition rules before 5th edition, right? They've done it plenty of times.

**MechaEmperor7000**

It takes years to write rules indeed, hence why it's constantly changing. Only when 5th edition finally came out did the standard get set for the new wave of codexes. While Chaos Daemons, Chaos Space Marines, and Orks all had the trappings of 5th edition books, they were still distinct from the "true" 5th edition books, which had units that were not modelled, had unit combinations that changed entire unit's force organisation chart positions (this was shown in Dark Angels purely to allow Deathwing and Ravenwing to be a viable choice. Same can be argued for Orks, but theirs were more tactical-based and it was closer to the release of 5th ed, so it might have been a test run for the experimental rules), and had standardized Close Combat Weapons for all. For it to be a coincidence that all true 5th ed codexes to have standardized close combat weapons seems a bit farfetched to me.

**SaintHazard**

I wonder, do Warriors and the like in the new DE book have CCWs? Previously they had nothing but a Splinter Rifle, did they change this?

**MechaEmperor7000**

I have yet to see the book. If they dont have CCWs of any kind I will eat my words.

**SaintHazard**

Also, if you want an example of a fifth-edition unit that has a WS stat but no CCW, see Sentinels, which are Walkers. For an infantry example, see Ogryn. There are also a number of Space Marine examples of units that CAN be armed with no CCW, such as Captains, who can swap out both their chainsword and bolt pistol for ranged weapons.

So there are still 5th-edition examples of units without CCWs. They're rare, I grant you, but not nonexistent.

**MechaEmperor7000**

well I'll be damned, the Ripper gun isnt named a Close Combat weapon. I thought it was one XD

However the Sentinel Example is iffy in my mind, since it wouldnt be appropriate to give it a Dreadnought Close Combat weapon, but no other vehicle has a simple CCW. Captains on the other hand do come with CCWs and the only possible way for him to loose both is if he purposely takes those weapons for no other reason than to loose his CCWs (which would be a pretty stupid move).

**SaintHazard**

But the point is, it can be done.

And in the case of Ogryn, it's already done.

Anyway, I could sit here and trawl through fifth-edition codices looking for units without CCWs all day, but I have better things to do. Bottom line, you're correct in that they're apparently attempting to standardize the codices, and that could well be why Guardsmen have CCWs for no apparent reason, but incorrect in that there are in fact a number of ways to field units with no CCWs in fifth, which doesn't make that reason a guaranteed one.