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.

Unit of two Deffkoptas. One has a Bigbomm, apart from that they're identically equipped. After the Bigbomm is used, are the two models still 'different' for the purposes of wound allocation?

I wouldn't think so. Once the bigbomm is gone, there is nothing setting them apart, so no reason to count them differently.

Hmm... what if they'd had a wound allocated each prior to dropping the bomb? Would the wounds 'pool' amongst the identically armed models?

Actually, I think they would be different for shenanigans. If an Ammo Runt or Kombi-weapon is enough for a Nob, then a Bigbomm should be enough for a Kopta.

Anvildude wrote:Actually, I think they would be different for shenanigans. If an Ammo Runt or Kombi-weapon is enough for a Nob, then a Bigbomm should be enough for a Kopta.

I would count ammo runts and kombi weapons exactly the same way... once they're expended, they no longer count.

insaniak wrote:

Anvildude wrote:Actually, I think they would be different for shenanigans. If an Ammo Runt or Kombi-weapon is enough for a Nob, then a Bigbomm should be enough for a Kopta.

I would count ammo runts and kombi weapons exactly the same way... once they're expended, they no longer count.

I would not count combi weapons the same way.

A model with a combi melta, once he fires the mela part its still a combi melta, but the melta part has no ammo.

And a kombi skorcha or kombi-rokkit is different from either a twin-linked Shoota, or a Slugga. It's basically the only plain shoota on a Nob.

DeathReaper wrote:A model with a combi melta, once he fires the mela part its still a combi melta, but the melta part has no ammo.

Which makes it functionally a bolter.

Likewise, a kombi-skorcha, once it has been fired, is just a shoota.

Still counting it as a combi-weapon at that point, to me, smacks of the same sort of shenanigans as counting a used HK missile for a weapon destroyed result on a vehicle.

On a similar note, what about vehicles in squadrons that have lost any weapons (due to Weapon Destroyed results) that would have marked them as different? Or, on the other hand, vehicle squadrons that would have normally been identical models, but one of them loses a weapon?

I'd say for the sake of clarity, the models in question are still treated as separate model groups for wound/damage allocation.

Cheexsta - youre told you can always allocate on vehicle squadrons, even if they are identical

insaniak wrote:
Still counting it as a combi-weapon at that point, to me, smacks of the same sort of shenanigans as counting a used HK missile for a weapon destroyed result on a vehicle.

Well the HK issue was taken care of in the main rulebook FAQ:

Q: If a vehicle has a weapon with a limited amount of
shots, and it has none left, for example a hunter-killer
missile that has already been fired, does it count as a
weapon that can be destroyed by a Damaged - Weapon
Destroyed roll on the Vehicle Damage table? (p61)
A: No. Once a weapon cannot possibly fire again
during the battle it is effectively destroyed as far as
Damaged - Weapon Destroyed results on the Vehicle
Damage table are concerned.

But note that the FAQ says the weapon is destroyed as far at the 'Damaged - Weapon Destroyed' results are concerned.

As far as a combi weapon, these are not listed anywhere as a weapon 'type', but they are listed in the wargear section of the appropriate codex.

All it says is that the weapon has been converted to house another weapon with a limited charge, typically it can only be fired once per battle.
Nothing in the codex says they revert to a certain weapon 'type' once the secondary combi-weapon has been fired.
Just because you fired the flamer part of a combi-flamer doesn't mean the flamer weapon falls off or disappears, it is just out of ammo.
The model, however, is still equipped with a piece of wargear, the combi-flamer, that is different from wargear other models in the unit may be equipped with, making it unique for wound allocation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And to the OP, the Bigbomm is listed as wargear on the Deffkoptas page of the Ork codex. It is not a vehicle upgrade because Deffkoptas are not vehicles.

The rule says that "Once per game, a Deffkopta with a Bigbomm may make a special attack."

Doesn't say that the bigbomm is gone once used, it deosn't even say it's a weapon. The rule just says once per game the kopta can make a special attack with it.

Nothing says that once the special attack is made that the Bigbomm is gone and the deffkopta reverts to normal. Maybe it seems like it should, but the rules don't say so.

Well put, time wizard.

Aside: like the Rommel quote re FTA!

lindsay40k wrote:Well put, time wizard.

Aside: like the Rommel quote re FTA!

Thanks!
Off Topic-Rommel wrote the book on battle tactics, even if he never wrote the book "The Tank in Combat" that George C. Scott as "Patton" alledgedly read before the battle of El Gattar in the film.
He did write a book on infantry tactics from his WWI experiences and "The Rommel Papers" are an interesting read of his experiences in the Battle for France in 1940 and beyond.

I would've like it the rule was as simple as "anything which makes the model different (other than damage taken) makes it a separate group for allocating wounds", and while playing like this won't disrupt anything, it seems thats not the way it goes. So my comment I was going to make about "you all have to think about what if the player was part of a series of games where who survives the battle matters, in that case 1 use items and sergeants identical to the squad would be different."

Again, by coincidence I ran into an answer to how some things work, and this also applies to the hated topic of models in the unit that are identical except for their name. The profiles section says the profile is a model's characteristic numbers, and makes no mention of name being part of the profile. The allocation section says "same profile, rules, and wargear" makes them identical for wound allocation groups. So SM sergeants armed the same as the veteran squad would not be different, as much as I don't like it.

So what the rule basically seems to exist for is so the opponent has a chance to hurt things that aren't normal, identical things with different names only get removed if the owning player chooses to. Wounds combining if the models become normal is a good question, but I don't think there is a situation where it comes up (outside of special games), they wouldn't anyways.

As for 1 use wargear and whatnot, I'd be with wizard with "just because they are spent doesn't mean they are gone".

Hm... so the rules thing I mentioned in wound allocation said "special rules", I take it to mean the special rules under a unit's description. So an identical model suddenly being the only squad member to gain a certain psychic power's benefit wouldn't make him different right?

time wizard wrote:Well the HK issue was taken care of in the main rulebook FAQ:

Yes, I know. Which is exactly why I would follow the same logic through for other single-use items. Once they're used, they no longer count as anything.

insaniak wrote:

time wizard wrote:Well the HK issue was taken care of in the main rulebook FAQ:

Yes, I know. Which is exactly why I would follow the same logic through for other single-use items. Once they're used, they no longer count as anything.

But the FAQ just said that the HK once fired does not count as a weapon for subsequent 'weapon - destroyed' results.

If I have a model equipped with a combi weapon listed in my roster, I don't (for example) erase or cross out the 'combi-flamer' wargear entry on the roster and replace it with 'bolter' once the flamer has been fired.

It is still a combi-flamer or combi-weapon, it is still a different piece of wargear and the particular model is still equipped with it.

time wizard wrote:But the FAQ just said that the HK once fired does not count as a weapon for subsequent 'weapon - destroyed' results.

Which means that it is effectively no longer there. It's no longer considered for the purposes of rules that affect the vehicle's weapons.

Yes, I realise that there is no rule that specifically says 'one-shot weapons are considered gone once they have been used'... What I'm looking at is the fact that the wound allocation rules are designed to differentiate between models that are functionally different. Within that system, while on paper they are different, a space marine with a bolter and a space marine with a used combi-flamer are functionally identical.

So while, yes, you can make a RAW case for them still being arguably being different for wound allocation, I see no real reason to play it that way, and I don't think it's representative of how the wound allocation rules are supposed to work.

YMMV, obviously.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Cheexsta - youre told you can always allocate on vehicle squadrons, even if they are identical

Ah, right you are. Carry on.

So... maybe something just flew by me, but doesn't being able to allocate on any vehicle in a unit make the HK conversation pointless?

I swear I explained how the rules worked, despite probably no one expecting or liking how they are. I'm just too lazy to ... oh hell i'll scroll down... yes, i explained how allocation rules only count characteristic numbers, model special rules, and equipment. Does that leave anything still unexplained?

erikwfg wrote:So... maybe something just flew by me, but doesn't being able to allocate on any vehicle in a unit make the HK conversation pointless?

The HK discussion was nothing to do with wound allocation. It was pointing out that so far as GW are concerned, used single-use items are effectively counted as gone... which does matter for things like combi-weapons and ammo runts.

I swear I explained how the rules worked, despite probably no one expecting or liking how they are. I'm just too lazy to ... oh hell i'll scroll down... yes, i explained how allocation rules only count characteristic numbers, model special rules, and equipment. Does that leave anything still unexplained?

We had a rather long debate on this not so long ago. Your assumption that the name isn't part of the profile is a matter of some debate.

insaniak wrote:We had a rather long debate on this not so long ago. Your assumption that the name isn't part of the profile is a matter of some debate.

Even with it making no mention and specifically referring to only the numbers being a characteristic? Welcome to the internet then, I guess.

erikwfg wrote:Even with it making no mention and specifically referring to only the numbers being a characteristic? Welcome to the internet then, I guess.

It's nothing to do with the name being a characteristic. The contention is that the name is the part of the profile that tells you who the profile applies to. If you don't count it as part of the profile, all you have is a string of numbers and no reference as to what they are for.

Being identical in gaming terms is specified as relating to profile of characteristics, and a model's name is not defined as being amongst characteristics.

To go back onto my OP, I think we can consider this 'do RAW mean depleting all the uses of a limited use weapon/wargear make the model identical in gaming terms to an otherwise identical model that does not carry that weapon/wargear' issue as an unsettled matter that needs FAQ'ing?

lindsay40k wrote:Being identical in gaming terms is specified as relating to profile of characteristics, and a model's name is not defined as being amongst characteristics.

That's the opposing argument, yes. As we proved last time around, people are a little divided as to which they go with.

To go back onto my OP, I think we can consider this 'do RAW mean depleting all the uses of a limited use weapon/wargear make the model identical in gaming terms to an otherwise identical model that does not carry that weapon/wargear' issue as an unsettled matter that needs FAQ'ing?

It certainly wouldn't hurt for them to FAQ it.

And you could look at the HK example as it being a weapon that, once used, basically destroys itself- which it is.

I too remember the endless putting forward of the same arguments with different words. You know a thread is going to go nowhere when we start making real world analogies to things like recipes supported by dictionary definitions.

If I remember correctly, essentially it depends on how you read page 6 when it says "..each model has a profile made up of nine numbers.." You can read this as meaning only the characteristics are part of the profile. Or you can read this and point out it does not say the profile is made up of only nine numbers. Because everywhere else the name is given on the same line and in the same format as the nine numbers.

Without something in the BRB stating this, I would have to say since they you spent the points on this item it would stay with you the whole game. You would always be different from other models. It does not come down to common sense, because if you had M-16 with a grenade Launcher and you only had one grenade. The weapon looks completely different then just the M-16.

Even if the special ammunition is spent, both nobz are still wielding different weapons, just like a heavy flamer with psyflame ammunition is not the same as an Incinerator, even though their statlines are identical.

I definently fall into the camp where he still has the kombi-skorcha even though it was already fired. As was earlier said he is just out of ammo for that gun, and doesn't rip off the skorcha part once its fired...so it is still a kombi skorcha. The whole HK thing I think was them trying to set a precedent for GWs ruling, however I would argue that vehicles and infantry have very different rules when it comes to wounding/damage. The HK is litterally gone it flew off into the wild blue yonder (as mine typically do), however the bigbomm never says that it is gone it is just a special attack that can be made once per game.

A bolter without ammo is still a bolter. A kombi melta without melta is still a combi melta.