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.

Bat Manuel wrote:That's why I said this

Bat Manuel wrote:
I'd say only one person believes that a warscythe=a gauss blaster and nothing anyone ever says will change that...no matter how logical.
and it also says that arguing with you would be pointless

Yeah I got that
I'd guess they'd also like to bring some super secret Necron nanobots into the fight as well.


That light that comes out of the back of it is the nanobots (at less then 10% of full power, that thing is way overpowered >_> ). They're designed to destroy any weapon, including armour.

There is no rule, as far as I am aware, that the effects of CCW are limited to assault. Plenty of weapons modify S, which is commonly used (at least according to the BRB) for strength tests. Plenty of weapons confer special shooting attacks. As far as I know, it's considered RaW that these weapons have some in-game effect, even outside of the shooting phase.

The only issue I can see from a RaW standpoint is whether or not the "warscythe with a built-in gauss blaster" is 1 weapon or 2. If it is 1 weapon, then ranged attacks from it are indeed from a warscythe, and thus no save may be made.

I believe the phrase "built-in" makes it clear that it is 1 weapon, as what you are shooting and resisting is a function of the warscythe granted by the built-in components. What I would love to see is a RaW discussion as to whether or not the shooting attack comes from the warscythe. I believe I've seen no such discussion
(except for the odd "I can't see how it would be" without any discussion of rules or reasons)

Interesting, what I'd really like to see though would be a test game with Pariahs being ran in this fashion.

ajfirecracker, here is why I think you are incorrect in this position:

Pariahs are described as having a Warscythe with a built-in Gauss Blaster. "Built-in" does not mean "same", as you seem to be arguing. What this "built-in" means is that the Pariahs have a Warscythe (with all the armor-countering goodness attributed to it), and on this Warscythe (or in it, which ever) there is also a Gauss Blaster.

To go for analogy (which you seem to hate, for some reason), see Gwar's first post in this thread (the Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon with Built-In Heavy Flamer).

The fact of the matter is that, no matter how much of a fuss you make about this, the Gauss Blaster is a seperate weapon from the Warscythe. Trying to attribute the rules of one weapon (the Warscythe) to another (the Gauss Blaster) is being highly unreasonable. You have failed to prove your argument that "built-in" means "the same", instead relying on phrases like "I believe", which does not fly here in YMDC.

The purpose of this thread also seems rather inflammatory and, well, like you're trolling here. I'm going to leave the thread open for now, but please be polite, reasonable, and check out the Tenets of You Make Da Call.

Thank you.

I disagree with your assertion that the rules have not been discussed.

I pointed out that the warscythe has no ranged weapon profile, therefore, even if it says it has a "built in gauss blaster" you can't shoot with a warscythe.

You have to shoot with a Gauss Blaster.

Since the only other use of the words "built in" refer to DCCW, it is clear that the gauss blaster is in fact a separate weapon, and you have to shoot the gauss blaster at the enemy, not the warscythe. You don't shoot your DCCW at the enemy, regardless of whether it transfers its properties to the incorporated ranged weapon or not. You shoot the heavy flamer or storm bolter.

How would this affect Ole Mr Calgars PF's? They have Integrated Storm bolters (and yes they do list unique stats for them they are still storm bolters) Does that mean that they are not infact S4 AP2 But S8 Ignores armor saves? no of course not. Just like the war scythe the integrated weapon has its own stat line. Frankly this is getting rediculous, your repeating the same inane point over and over.

Thank you for the reply, Iorek.

I've been using the term "I believe" as a substitute for "I believe the rules say that". Please pardon this shorthand, I'll stop using it.

I believe the rules say that DCCW apply the relevant bonuses in the assault phase (double S), while the warscythe has no such restriction. (The power weapon ability of DCCW is naturally applied in the assault phase only, as per the BRB)

While I do agree that "built-in" is not synonymous with "same", I do not agree that the rules denote the warscythe and gauss blaster as separate items. My point is that if the rules are such that a warscythe with a built-in gauss blaster can shoot (there are not actually any rules for this particular weapon), then it must remain a warscythe. If this is so, then it must gain the bonuses given to warscythes via p. 14 of the necron codex.

I would like an explanation as to how the decision has been reached as to why the gauss blaster and warscythe are separate weapons when one is "built in"to the other. This is a rules question, which I do believe is the purpose of YMDC. Moreover, failing that, I believe the rules are such that it must be considered 1 item. There are numerous posts in the 'storm bolter are ccw' thread which claim vehemently this very point.

As a result, I am very confused as to how a line of weaponry in a codex can be interpreted (seemingly unanimously) as referring to 1 item, and a different line of weaponry in the same codex can be interpreted (seemingly unanimously) as referring to 2 items, where neither of them is an exact match for some well-described set of equipment, but both are seemingly "fluff" descriptions of weaponry.

Edit: all that is necessary to deny saves is that the save somehow be "against" the warscythe. It does not need to modify the gauss blaster profile in any way to do this. My claim is not that any profile is transferred, rather that saves taken against the gauss blaster should also be considered saves taken against the warscythe, as the gauss blaster is built into the warscythe.

ajfirecracker wrote:Thank you for the reply, Iorek.

I've been using the term "I believe" as a substitute for "I believe the rules say that". Please pardon this shorthand, I'll stop using it.

I believe the rules say that DCCW apply the relevant bonuses in the assault phase (double S), while the warscythe has no such restriction. (The power weapon ability of DCCW is naturally applied in the assault phase only, as per the BRB)

While I do agree that "built-in" is not synonymous with "same", I do not agree that the rules denote the warscythe and gauss blaster as separate items. My point is that if the rules are such that a warscythe with a built-in gauss blaster can shoot (there are not actually any rules for this particular weapon), then it must remain a warscythe. If this is so, then it must gain the bonuses given to warscythes via p. 14 of the necron codex.

I would like an explanation as to how the decision has been reached as to why the gauss blaster and warscythe are separate weapons when one is "built in"to the other. This is a rules question, which I do believe is the purpose of YMDC. Moreover, failing that, I believe the rules are such that it must be considered 1 item. There are numerous posts in the 'storm bolter are ccw' thread which claim vehemently this very point.

As a result, I am very confused as to how a line of weaponry in a codex can be interpreted (seemingly unanimously) as referring to 1 item, and a different line of weaponry in the same codex can be interpreted (seemingly unanimously) as referring to 2 items, where neither of them is an exact match for some well-described set of equipment, but both are seemingly "fluff" descriptions of weaponry.

Because the ignores armour part is reffering to the material the blade is made out of. Think of it like a bayonet like it has been previously mentioned.

willydstyle wrote:I disagree with your assertion that the rules have not been discussed.

I pointed out that the warscythe has no ranged weapon profile, therefore, even if it says it has a "built in gauss blaster" you can't shoot with a warscythe.

You have to shoot with a Gauss Blaster.

Since the only other use of the words "built in" refer to DCCW, it is clear that the gauss blaster is in fact a separate weapon, and you have to shoot the gauss blaster at the enemy, not the warscythe. You don't shoot your DCCW at the enemy, regardless of whether it transfers its properties to the incorporated ranged weapon or not. You shoot the heavy flamer or storm bolter.

I agree with willydstyle. Many posters have posted relevant rules, and the OP only wants to continue arguing. This thread should be closed. A warscythe ignores armor saves (in CC because it's a close combat weapon), and in the shooting phase, you fire the warscythe's "built-in" gauss blaster, which has it's own profile that is used to determine damage and saves.

Only the warscythe, (by it's own entry) ignores saves. A gauss blaster, by it's profile only ignores saves if it's AP equals or beats the targets armor save. You are not firing a warscythe at an enemy, you are firing the built in gauss blaster. A warscythe does not have a "range", only the gauss blaster does.

not_u, the material the blade is made out of is an item of fluff, which has no bearing on the rules of the game.

I understand that the developers probably intended the warscythe to only grant the ability to ignore saves in close combat, but my enquiry is to the structure and meaning of the written rules, not the unknowable intent of the game's developers.

Whitedragon, not a single poster has posted any rules concerning a weapon called "warscythe with built-in gauss blaster", because, strictly speaking, no such rules exist. What posters have posted is their interpretation of the words "with built-in" which (their interpretation) is not generally considered a portion of the rules. I do not believe that the rules support any particular reading of the wargear item (indeed, I cannot seem to find any BRB entry for built-in weapons, under walkers or elsewhere). Furthermore, it is the case that there is no rule specifying whether or not saves made "against" the gauss blaster are also considered to be "against" the warscythe.

Edit: @not_u, if fluff has some bearing on the rules of the game, then all sorts of mayhem breaks loose. I could take any special character, for example, and insist that because there is fluff for them being alive but none for their death, they are invulnerable. Certain character also specify the manner of their doom (like Kaptin Badrukk), so a strict fluff game would only allow them to come to harm if via that manner (in Badrukk's case, Gets Hot!)

It does when it's rules have been written to reflect it's properties, like how the gaus weapons like.

@BlackEagle: powerfists specify that they "double the user's strength"

If the storm bolters are said to be using the PF they are integrated into, then they would get their strength doubled.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@all: The AP of the gauss blaster is irrelevant as to whether or not the warscythe rules come into effect. AP only specifies which saves may not be taken, it does not guarantee that other saves may be taken. Consider a heavy flamer, which (like the gauss blaster) denies a particular group of armor saves. However, the heavy flamer also denies cover. An incinerator takes the process a step further. As a result, any 40k player should be familiar with the idea that having penetrated armor does not guarantee any other save.

ajfirecracker wrote:@BlackEagle: powerfists specify that they "double the user's strength"

If the storm bolters are said to be using the PF they are integrated into, then they would get their strength doubled.

Where does it say the Gauss Blaster uses the Warscythe?

The uses clause is a particular trait of the powerfist doubling strength. (p. 42)

The corollary requirement for warscythes is whether or not saves are taken "against" the warscythe (p. 14, C:Necrons). I believe that if they are 1 weapon, then a save against either is a save against both. If they are 2 weapons, then it's clear that the warscythe confers no shooting benefit.

Edit: It's unclear as to whether or not the warscythe needs to be the weapon used to gain an extra D6 against vehicles. Given an especially broad interpretation of "when attacking vehicles", the presence of a single warscythe on the table grants everyone 2D6 rather than D6. Given a more reasonable interpretation along the lines of "when [warscythes are] attacking vehicles", then it becomes clear that the only bonuses that may be gained are for assaulting or shooting (subject to the 1 weapon requirement for warscythes supercharging gauss blasters).

It seems that a rules clarification is need from GW as to the number of different weapons carried by a Pariah, but I'd love to hear any RaW arguments as to why they get or do not get the bonus. I feel that this must exclude "they're just 2 weapons" or "built-in things are a separate weapon just because". Why must they be 2 weapons? I do apologize if I've overlooked some rule to that effect.

It's called "It has 2 Weapons". Seriously, what part of the rules state you may use a Close Combat Weapon outside of close combat? Page reference and quote please.

The fluff only counts if there are rules based on it, just like the material used for the blades of the Warscythe.

It's been said many many times. The rules are permissive. I could, say, light your stuff on fire. But, the rules don't let me therefore it's against the rules, you see.

Regardless of that I suggest you re-read page 14 of the Necron codex, the part about the warscythe.
"Warcythes are made from the same living metal as the hulls of Necron ships and the C'Tan necrodermis (see page 27). The have phase blades that slip effortlessly through the most powerful armour. A well-directed Warscythe can cut the barrel from a Leman Russ or carve a hole in the side of a bunker. There are no saving throws of any sort (including invulnerable saves) allowed againts Warscythes, and when attacking vehicles 2D6 + Strength is rolled for armour penetration."


Imortals also have Gauss Blasters, the warscythes are exactly the same, they are just a Gauss Blaster with a blade attached to the side of it. Now think of it this way, if it works like that Calgar would be shooting 24" S8 AP2 Assault 2 attacks. Now think of it, if Calgar can do that, why aren't people using him?

I'm aware of the warscythe rules (in fact, I've quoted that passage repeatedly).

Permissive rulesets are such that you may not do things if there is doubt as to whether or not they are allowed by the rules. In this case, the rules both say that you "can test" to save against wounds, and that "there are no saves allowed against Warscythes". If you wish to play with a permissive ruleset in mind, then the default here is to deny any save, because it is a game action, while we are not sure if it is permitted.

As to marneus calgar: if the storm bolters are described as using the PF, they may double their strength (as per the powerfist rules, which can be found on p.42 of the rulebook). Otherwise they may not, which is perhaps why people correctly play him with non-doubled shooting attacks.

Please answer my question:
Where does it say you may use a Close Combat Weapon outside of the assault phase.

Whilst I disagree with 'ajfirecracker' his argument is very easy to prove.

He merely needs to identify the section of the 5e rulebook which defines 'built-in' weapons. That will explain everything.

Well let's go back to Gwars! Dreadnought example, does my stormbolter now shoot strength 8 attacks that ignore armour saves. How about my Heavy Flamer, does that shoot strength 10 template now that ignores armour saves because that would really be awesome in addition to how it already ignores cover saves. Even better when you realise that I can now charge the remaining enemy and hit them with 3 S10 attacks that ignore armour saves as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ajfirecracker wrote:As to marneus calgar: if the storm bolters are described as using the PF, they may double their strength (as per the powerfist rules, which can be found on p.42 of the rulebook). Otherwise they may not, which is perhaps why people correctly play him with non-doubled shooting attacks.

Continue this line of thought, but apply to Necrons. They say they're integrated, kind of like the warscythes Intergrated and Built-in having very similar meanings.

ajfirecracker wrote:I do not agree that the rules denote the warscythe and gauss blaster as separate items.

Oh? Try reading page 14 of the necron 'dex. There's an entry for the gauss blaster under "ranged weapons" and a separate entry for "warscythe" under close combat weapons. Separate entries = separate items. Note the distinct lack of an entry for "warscythe with built-in gauss blaster". The lack of an entry doesn't mean you get to combine the properties of the two separate entries however you see fit to create an uberweapon in hopes that your pariahs will somehow be able to earn back their points (which is why the analogies to dreadnought CCWs were on-point). It means the pariah has a warscythe and a gauss blaster. Since this simple concept seems to have eluded you for three pages, you shoot with the gauss blaster (ranged weapon) and melee with the warscythe (close combat weapon).

If you argue strict, context-ignoring RAW (which is a fallacy in itself), along the lines of Gwar's argument as to why daemonhunters can't take leman russes (which you cited earlier), your pariahs are unarmed because there is no entry for "warscythe with built-in gauss blaster". According to that argument which you've espoused, if there's no entry for it, there's no such thing.

But let's get back to the rules.

In the shooting phase, you can only fire ranged weapons. Ranged weapons have ranged weapon profiles. Ranged weapons have a range. "all weapons have a maximum effective range, which is the furthest distance they can shoot." BGB p.17. Note the many references on page 17, 19, and 20 to various elements of the ranged weapon profile. A ranged weapon profile is a prerequisite to shooting. A warscythe does not have a ranged weapon profile nor a maximum range, so it cannot be fired in the shooting phase. Neither does a "warscythe with built-in gauss blaster" which has no wargear entry at all. The only thing the Pariah can fire is the gauss blaster, which does have a ranged weapon profile including a maximum range.

If you want to know whether the "warscythe with built-in gauss blaster" ignores armor, ask yourself: How do ranged weapons ignore armor? The rules tell us how: "The AP rating indicates the armour save the weapon can ignore." BGB p.20 A warscythe has no AP rating, so it cannot ignore armor in the shooting phase. The gauss blaster does have an AP rating, however. So, in the shooting phase, because you're shooting the gauss blaster, the gauss blaster's AP rating is used.

Simply put, the rules don't allow you to shoot a warscythe in the shooting phase. A model cannot make a ranged attack with a warscythe. Pariahs may fire the only ranged weapon they have, which is the gauss blaster. Accordingly, their shots use the gauss blaster profile and not the warscythe profile.

You can disagree until you're blue in the face, but the rules aren't behind you on this one. As a longtime necron player, I'd love to see the much-maligned pariahs made competitive, but this fallacy-filled uberweapon pipedream of yours just isn't going to cut it. (get it? cut? scythe? ha! see what I did there?)

-GK

That's a brilliant point, Gwar, building on permissive rulesets to argue that I may not use a CCW outside of the assault phase.

The simple answers are A) I'm not using a warscythe as described in the necron armory, I'm using a "warscythe with built-in gauss blaster", otherwise I would be completely unable to shoot (following from the reasoning that I may not use my CCW outside of the assault phase)
B) Secondly, the wargear effects of various CCW are constantly applied. If denying saves "against" the warscythe is a constant effect, (as my point C suggests), then any time a wound is conferred that could be saved "against" the warscythe, the effect applies without me "using" the weapon. As I've pointed out with the PF argument, I do not need to "use" a warscythe in order to gain its effects, I need merely to make my opponent take a test "against" the warscythe
C) Death or Glory

The real kicker is: no language even close to "use" is mentioned anywhere in the BRB concerning CCW or the assault phase. It's just not how CCW work. The exception is multiple special CCW, wherein you must specify which effect to use for that turn. (A turn consisting of three phases, only one of which is assault, as you well know.)

You're not making a save against a warscythe, you're making a save against a "built-in gauss blaster."

ajfirecracker wrote:That's a brilliant point, Gwar, building on permissive rulesets to argue that I may not use a CCW outside of the assault phase.

The simple answers are A) I'm not using a warscythe as described in the necron armory, I'm using a "warscythe with built-in gauss blaster", otherwise I would be completely unable to shoot (following from the reasoning that I may not use my CCW outside of the assault phase)

I'm affraid your Necrons have no weapons, as previously pointed out (if you want to be extremely strict with RAW to the point that it bends the rules). There is no "warscythe with built-in gauss blaster" entry. Did you mean "Warscythe" and "Gauss Blaster" because we all know about those two, they're usually attached to each other to make transportation into battle a bit easier.

It's simple its two weapons .... Hell i'm shocked this has got to page 3 ... but while we're having a laugh ....

The Maugeta R:36" S:6 AP:5 Assault 4, Pinning, Rending with a built in Executioner

Executioner is a Two handed Power weapon that adds +2 S.

So by the above logic that make the maugeta R:36" S:8 AP:5 Assault 4, Pinning, Rending

Now you got it

I need merely to make my opponent take a test "against" the warscythe

Which can't be done in the shooting phase because you cannot fire a warscythe.

Note I'm not arguing you can't use a CCW outside of the assault phase, I'm arguing you cannot fire a CCW in the shooting phase. There's a significant difference there. Death or glory (which doesn't occur in the shooting phase) is irrelevant.

-GK

ajfirecracker wrote:Gwar, I ask that you carefully read the rules on this point, particularly before making any analogies.

That really made me laugh.
For at least three reasons.

I really think most of this has been covered so I have little enough to add but my thought that two weapons that are stuck together still use their own rules (only) when used, and no rule allows for overlap, in fact as in every other case - they would need explicite allowance to do so.

GK: Barring psychic powers, you know neither my intent nor that of GW. Please drop all claims to either. (In particular, my intent)

I agree that under strict RaW pariahs get a pointy foozle no one's ever heard of called "warscythe with built-in gauss blaster".
However, the Pariah entry makes it clear that what are normally separate items have been joined together into 1 item ("built-in"). There is no reason to believe that they should be counted as separate weapons, aside from the fact that that is how they have been played in the past.

While AP is the normal method by which shooting attacks ignore Armor, there is no reason that a special rule cannot affect this.

It's not unusual for wargear to influence shooting in some way. I contend that a warscythe with a gauss blaster built into it simply gains a shooting attack with the profile of the gauss blaster. Such an attack would still be saved "against" the combined device, thus triggering the warscythe rules.
A model whose warscythe has a ranged weapon built into it may certainly make a shooting attack.

Furthermore, I contend that even if they are separate weapons, a save against either is a save against both, because one is "built in" to the other.

My argument is simple: is a Warscythe with a built-in gauss blaster a warscythe? If yes, then saving against one is the same as saving against the other, despite the possibility that they are not 1 weapon in every respect.

What rule, on what page, am I misunderstanding that everyone else seems to grasp so perfectly? How is it crystal clear to everyone else that saving against the "gauss blaster" which is "built in" to a warscythe is in no way saving against the warscythe?

kirsanth wrote:

ajfirecracker wrote:Gwar, I ask that you carefully read the rules on this point, particularly before making any analogies.

That really made me laugh.
For at least three reasons.

I really think most of this has been covered so I have little enough to add but my thought that two weapons that are stuck together still use their own rules (only) when used, and no rule allows for overlap, in fact as in every other case - they would need explicite allowance to do so.

How did I miss that, I'm siging it now
Unless Gwar wants to.