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.

Since in the new rules everyone has a CCW will that mean that now space marines have 2 CCW weapons (pistol as well) or does the pistol class as their CCW.

No.

There have been multiple discussions on this and this will likely spur another debate.

Simple answer is no.

Long answer is any model that does not have a melee classified weapon *at all* will "be treated as" having one. They do NOT "get" a weapon, they are *treated as* having one for the purposes of assault so that everyone can fight. This no different than in 5th edition but they spelled out for people. Now, some people (not you, mind you) are trying to stretch the rule.

They are counted as having a CC weapon because if nothing else comes to hand the butt of a gun will do the job. You only have two ccws if you have two proper ccws in your wargear. You can't shoot with a bolt pistol and smack someone with the but of your bolt gun.

LOL I am still not 100% sure about the +1 attacks thing.
Pg 24 says you get +1 attack for having two single handed weapons.
Page 51. says if a model has two or Melee weapons he gains +1 attacks in close combat (see page 24)

One rule seems to simple (pg 24) and leads to Tac marines gaining +1 A since they have Bolt Pistol and Boltgun (both single handed weapons)
The other (pg 51) just says if you have two or more Melee weapons you get +1 A and refers you to page 24 but doesn't change the pg 24 rule in anyway.

I dunno... I have yet to be convinced what exactly the rule should be.

40k-noob wrote:LOL I am still not 100% sure about the +1 attacks thing.
Pg 24 says you get +1 attack for having two single handed weapons.
Page 51. says if a model has two or Melee weapons he gains +1 attacks in close combat (see page 24)

One rule seems to simple (pg 24) and leads to Tac marines gaining +1 A since they have Bolt Pistol and Boltgun (both single handed weapons)
The other (pg 51) just says if you have two or more Melee weapons you get +1 A and refers you to page 24 but doesn't change the pg 24 rule in anyway.

I dunno... I have yet to be convinced what exactly the rule should be.

You need to watch the header of the section you're in though, since I believe both those sections are the "assault" sections of the rule book, they would only apply to assault. So, where in your codex does it say a boltgun is a 1 handed melee weapon?

Boltgun is not a Melee weapon. Also, where does it state that a Boltgun is one-handed? In all of the old codeices (at least Black Templar) they are two-handed weapons.

I agree I think a boltgun would be lease melee and more solid.

Happyjew wrote:Boltgun is not a Melee weapon. Also, where does it state that a Boltgun is one-handed? In all of the old codeices (at least Black Templar) they are two-handed weapons.

I didn't say a botlgun was a Melee weapon, I said it was single-handed.

The BRB specificly identifies Two-Handed weapons with the "Two-Handed" special rule thus by default all other weapons are "single-handed."

PG 24 doesnt say anything about the single handed weapons requiring them to be Melee type.

So every single gun is a one-handed weapon, as they do not have the two-handed special rule?

look if people are going to argue this, honestly, look at the damn boltgun. does it look one handed to you? really?

Happyjew wrote:So every single gun is a one-handed weapon, as they do not have the two-handed special rule?

By default yes. By introducing the "Two Handed" rule and applying to certain weapons you essentially define all others as single handed.

Again, you have to pay attention to the section of the rulebook you're in. You can't apply assault rules to just everything. Yes, it says "two single handed weapons" but it is in the "The Assault Phase" of the rule book so it's pretty simple to discern they are talking "only" about two single handed melee weapons. Sure, they could have easily added that one word but you (the player base) should apply some common sense to the situation as well. Simple fact, if it's not classified as a melee weapon it doesn't count for any bonuses (or negatives) during the assault phase.

40k-noob wrote:

Happyjew wrote:So every single gun is a one-handed weapon, as they do not have the two-handed special rule?

By default yes. By introducing the "Two Handed" rule and applying to certain weapons you essentially define all others as single handed.

That's not true in a permissive rules set. You're making an assumption (albeit a logical one) with no basis in the rules.
There's an example that shows Space Marines don't get an extra attack right there on page 24.
There's no rule saying that all weapons are one handed.
There's a rule saying some weapons are two handed.

40k-noob wrote:

Happyjew wrote:So every single gun is a one-handed weapon, as they do not have the two-handed special rule?

By default yes. By introducing the "Two Handed" rule and applying to certain weapons you essentially define all others as single handed.

Please show me a ranged weapon with no melee profile that has the two handed rule...

doc1234 wrote:look if people are going to argue this, honestly, look at the damn boltgun. does it look one handed to you? really?

LOL looks can be deceiving. Just because it has grip under the barrel doesnt meant it cant be used one handed. But if you want proof.
Check out the top left guy. GW made a model firing a single handed boltgun.

I'm just trying to understand your position here. Please forgive me.

A Space Marine Bolter is a one-handed weapon as it does not have the two-handed special rule. OK I'll bite.
Black Templar Bolters are listed under the Two-handed Weapons section of their Armoury. It also does not have the Two-handed special rule.
Is the Black Templar Bolter one-handed or two-handed, and if two-handed, why is it, and not any other SM variant?

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

Happyjew wrote:So every single gun is a one-handed weapon, as they do not have the two-handed special rule?

By default yes. By introducing the "Two Handed" rule and applying to certain weapons you essentially define all others as single handed.

That's not true in a permissive rules set. You're making an assumption (albeit a logical one) with no basis in the rules.
There's an example that shows Space Marines don't get an extra attack right there on page 24.
There's no rule saying that all weapons are one handed.
There's a rule saying some weapons are two handed.

I did say that the rule on pg24 seemed to simple.

Where is it defined in the BRB that the rule within are a permissive rule set? I have not been able to find that yet. If that is true then it would changes many things from my perspective.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Happyjew wrote:I'm just trying to understand your position here. Please forgive me.

A Space Marine Bolter is a one-handed weapon as it does not have the two-handed special rule. OK I'll bite.
Black Templar Bolters are listed under the Two-handed Weapons section of their Armoury. It also does not have the Two-handed special rule.
Is the Black Templar Bolter one-handed or two-handed, and if two-handed, why is it, and not any other SM variant?

Unfortunately for BT they would have to go by their codex as it supercedes the BRB where there is a conflict.

Grimnarsmate wrote:Since in the new rules everyone has a CCW will that mean that now space marines have 2 CCW weapons (pistol as well) or does the pistol class as their CCW.

Look at the first example on page 24 of the rulebook.

Marines only get 1 attack or 2 while charging.

While the weapon rules are written as an imprecise mess, this example makes it pretty clear that only melee/pistol weapons can generate the +1 Attack bonus for having two close combat weapons. Although the rules don't make it as clear as they should this is the case, if it weren't then the example on page 24 would be completely wrong.

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

Happyjew wrote:So every single gun is a one-handed weapon, as they do not have the two-handed special rule?

By default yes. By introducing the "Two Handed" rule and applying to certain weapons you essentially define all others as single handed.

That's not true in a permissive rules set. You're making an assumption (albeit a logical one) with no basis in the rules.
There's an example that shows Space Marines don't get an extra attack right there on page 24.
There's no rule saying that all weapons are one handed.
There's a rule saying some weapons are two handed.

I did say that the rule on pg24 seemed to simple.

Where is it defined in the BRB that the rule within are a permissive rule set? I have not been able to find that yet. If that is true then it would changes many things from my perspective.

It's not that the book says it, it's how the rules are written. Everything is permission based and everything is permissive in the rules. Imagine if the rules stated everything you couldn't do as opposed to everything you can, it would be a much bigger book. So, we run on the baseline of "these models can do nothing" and then apply the rules as we go.

Kevin949 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

Happyjew wrote:So every single gun is a one-handed weapon, as they do not have the two-handed special rule?

By default yes. By introducing the "Two Handed" rule and applying to certain weapons you essentially define all others as single handed.

Please show me a ranged weapon with no melee profile that has the two handed rule...

not relevant to the discussion at hand

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

Happyjew wrote:So every single gun is a one-handed weapon, as they do not have the two-handed special rule?

By default yes. By introducing the "Two Handed" rule and applying to certain weapons you essentially define all others as single handed.

That's not true in a permissive rules set. You're making an assumption (albeit a logical one) with no basis in the rules.
There's an example that shows Space Marines don't get an extra attack right there on page 24.
There's no rule saying that all weapons are one handed.
There's a rule saying some weapons are two handed.

I did say that the rule on pg24 seemed to simple.

Where is it defined in the BRB that the rule within are a permissive rule set? I have not been able to find that yet. If that is true then it would changes many things from my perspective.

I'll respond by quoting my response in another thread of yours.

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:Where does it say that in the BRB? The "permissive" part.

It doesn't but it's literally the only sane interpretation.
Permissive means that you're only allowed to do what the rules say, and no more.
If we go with "Restrictive" then you can do anything aside from what the rules say you can't.

Do the rules say you can't win just by declaring "I win."?
Do the rules say you can't win by hitting your opponent with a hammer?
Do the rules say you can't win by trying to observe the state of a cat in a box with poison gas?

We have to use the rules as a permissive set or it's insane.

40k-noob wrote:
Where is it defined in the BRB that the rule within are a permissive rule set? I have not been able to find that yet. If that is true then it would changes many things from my perspective.

That's a basic premise of all game rules everywhere in all cases. Its the only way rules can actually function. It is literally impossible for a set of rules to list every possible thing you CANNOT do. For example, nowhere in the rules does it say that if I stand on the table and scream 'I WIN' at the top of my lungs that I immediately win the game. So since it doesn't say that I can't do that, I can and therefore win the game. Do you see how ludicrous that is?

Rules work like this:

They give you a set of things you have permission to do, and you are only allowed to do those things in the game. Then on top of those permissions they sprinkle in restrictions, further limiting what you're able to do within those initial permissions.

So the rules say you can move your models 6", so you can (a permission). Then in some cases they may say you aren't allowed to move, like when you've gone to ground, and this is a restriction layered on top of the basic permission.

Make sense?

Come on folks. It's ccw weapons that count. A pistol is a sub class of a ccw, as are melee weapons. A tac marine has 1 and therefore gets 1 attack, does not get free ccw, and that's it.
...the more you know.

[/silliness]

Yakface wrote:While the weapon rules are written as an imprecise mess, this example makes it pretty clear that only melee/pistol weapons can generate the +1 Attack bonus for having two close combat weapons. Although the rules don't make it as clear as they should this is the case, if it weren't then the example on page 24 would be completely wrong.

Actually if you were to look around page 51 where it gives the weapon profiles it states something like shooting weapons can only make shooting attacks.

Kevin949 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

Happyjew wrote:So every single gun is a one-handed weapon, as they do not have the two-handed special rule?

By default yes. By introducing the "Two Handed" rule and applying to certain weapons you essentially define all others as single handed.

That's not true in a permissive rules set. You're making an assumption (albeit a logical one) with no basis in the rules.
There's an example that shows Space Marines don't get an extra attack right there on page 24.
There's no rule saying that all weapons are one handed.
There's a rule saying some weapons are two handed.

I did say that the rule on pg24 seemed to simple.

Where is it defined in the BRB that the rule within are a permissive rule set? I have not been able to find that yet. If that is true then it would changes many things from my perspective.

It's not that the book says it, it's how the rules are written. Everything is permission based and everything is permissive in the rules. Imagine if the rules stated everything you couldn't do as opposed to everything you can, it would be a much bigger book. So, we run on the baseline of "these models can do nothing" and then apply the rules as we go.

Fair enough, I can agree to that.

So lets go back to pg 24. The rule says> +1 Two Weapons: Engaged models with two single-handed weapons get +1 attack.

Now the BRB specifically defines two handed weapons but not single-handed weapons, if as you say the rule set is permissive and specifically states what you CAN do then there is no such thing as a single handed weapon in the game correct?

Here it is from page 50 under Type. "A shooting weapon always has one of the following types: Assault, heavy, ordnance, pistol, rapid fire or salvo. blah blah A Shooting weapon can only be used to make Shooting attacks."

page 51, a pistol is a CCW


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Again, IF a model does not have a CCW, it gets a melee weapon. If it does, then it doesn't get the free weapon.

Tac marines have a CCW (pistol), therefore do not get free melee weapon.

Its all in the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I do remain hopeful that tac marines gain a ccw in the next codex though

40k-noob wrote:

doc1234 wrote:look if people are going to argue this, honestly, look at the damn boltgun. does it look one handed to you? really?

LOL looks can be deceiving. Just because it has grip under the barrel doesnt meant it cant be used one handed. But if you want proof.
Check out the top left guy. GW made a model firing a single handed boltgun.

and how effective is firing a rifle one handed again? by this logic could argue that that models a WYSIWYG version of a snapshot.

40k-noob wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

Happyjew wrote:So every single gun is a one-handed weapon, as they do not have the two-handed special rule?

By default yes. By introducing the "Two Handed" rule and applying to certain weapons you essentially define all others as single handed.

Please show me a ranged weapon with no melee profile that has the two handed rule...

not relevant to the discussion at hand

But, you're making it relevant by addressing the two handed rule. I was trying to show that the two handed rule only applies to melee weapons and has no bearing on ranged weapons which is why you can't classify ranged weapons as one or two handed when applying them to close combat. Unless they have a close combat profile as well.

Ghaz wrote:Here it is from page 50 under Type. "A shooting weapon always has one of the following types: Assault, heavy, ordnance, pistol, rapid fire or salvo. blah blah A Shooting weapon can only be used to make Shooting attacks."

Ah, thank god. I missed that.


So to be clear, the rules say that if a weapon is ONLY ranged, then it can only be used to make shooting attacks (pg 50 under 'type'), and then on pg 51 it leaves a proviso for some weapons that can be used both in combat and as a ranged weapon.

Since a bolter is listed as a ranged weapon only, that means it cannot be used in close combat and therefore cannot be used to grant an additional +1A bonus in combat.