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.

I apologise but it seems you still aren't reading and responding what i've actually typed (as opposed to what you 'think' i've typed) in my posts for this topic. As such, i'm not going to be responding further to your posts. It's nothing personal, but i do not want to get dragged into an off-topic side debate about wargear not related to the 'Default Close Combat weapon' rule on this thread.

Neorealist wrote:I apologise but it seems you still aren't reading and responding what i've actually typed (as opposed to what you 'think' i've typed) in my posts for this topic. As such, i'm not going to be responding further to your posts. It's nothing personal, but i do not want to get dragged into an off-topic side debate about wargear not related to the 'Default Close Combat weapon' rule on this thread.

I've quoted your assertion twice and asked for a basis for that assertion. You've failed to respond either time. The third time you responded by telling me to read the thread.

Ignore my examples. Provide a link to this thread where I can find your basis. Failing that (which you will - you haven't ever said why that assertion is valid) provide some kind of basis for that assertion.

You've made the statement. Please defend it.

Hopefully this works: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/449778.page#4505587
Here is a good example of my premise and the rule i'm basing it on.

You'll note that when i say 'characteristics profile' i'm referring to the printed block of text listed in a codex for a given model. (which i'd clarified in a subsequent post when someone else raised the same point as you have vis-a-vis the effects optional wargear can have on a models' profile).

All that post does is restate your argument - including the point that I'm asking for a rules basis.

Your point 2 in that post. How. Did. You. Come. To. That. Conclusion?

I understand what you're referring to. I question why you're asserting that it's immutable.

Because unless you decide to redact or write on top of a portion of the relevent rules-text for a model, what is written in your codex is not going to change?

Neorealist wrote:Because unless you decide to redact or write on top of a portion of the relevent rules-text for a model, what is written in your codex is not going to change?

So purchasing wargear doesn't add to the wargear list for a unit?

It doesn't change what is printed (or specifically stated) in the wargear section of the characteristics profile for a given model, no.

Neorealist wrote:It doesn't change what is printed (or specifically stated) in the wargear section of the characteristics profile for a given model, no.

So?

Nothing about this "no specified melee weapon" rule says to ONLY look at the basic profile. In fact, when starting a game your point of reference is your ARMY SHEET, the book is only used for cross-referencing and rules at that point.

This "no specified melee weapon" rule is written for units like Necron warriors that list they only have a gauss flayer (and have no options to purchase anything else), as this rule was made so that units without a melee weapon in their profile or the ability to purchase one can still fight in close combat. But since the very first part of the rule states that a model must have no melee weapon to be treated as having one, you're breaking that rule (or nullifying it) the second you purchase a Melee weapon or CCW equivalent.

Neorealist wrote:It doesn't change what is printed (or specifically stated) in the wargear section of the characteristics profile for a given model, no.

So where is the basis for your assertion that what is printed is the only thing you can reference?

Because I'll use that assertion during the game as well. Oh, you paid for a res orb? Sorry, not in the wargear section of your codex.

Thread necro. The original post was to do with wound allocation tricks

Testify wrote:Thread necro. The original post was to do with wound allocation tricks

Original post was asking if pistols give wraiths an extra attack in CC. I thought it appropriate enough to use that as a starting point.

Kevin949 wrote:Nothing about this "no specified melee weapon" rule says to ONLY look at the basic profile. In fact, when starting a game your point of reference is your ARMY SHEET, the book is only used for cross-referencing and rules at that point.

rigeld2 wrote:So where is the basis for your assertion that what is printed is the only thing you can reference? Because I'll use that assertion during the game as well. Oh, you paid for a res orb? Sorry, not in the wargear section of your codex.

That is what i was asking other people; to provide a valid location where that information can be looked up 'besides' the characteristics profile. Sadly though your ARMY SHEET is not such a location, as you are not required to write down the non-optional wargear your units may have there and therefore you cannot use such to definitively indicate wether or not a given model has a CCW.

Nightbringer's Chosen wrote:

Testify wrote:Thread necro. The original post was to do with wound allocation tricks

Original post was asking if pistols give wraiths an extra attack in CC. I thought it appropriate enough to use that as a starting point.

Actually if you look at the date, this question was posted during 5th edition as well anyway, so the much simpler answer during that time was "no". It's still no, but apparently not as simple.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Neorealist wrote:
That is what i was asking other people; to provide a valid location where that information can be looked up 'besides' the characteristics profile. Sadly though your ARMY SHEET is not such a location, as you are not required to write down the non-optional wargear your units may have there and therefore you cannot use such to definitively indicate wether or not a given model has a CCW or not.

Wait, are you saying that the piece of paper (or papers) used to write your army list on is not a viable location to determine if your unit/model purchased (or started with) a melee weapon (because purchased items do modify the starting gear of a model/unit)?

And you may not be required to write it down but it makes things much simpler for your opponent when they ask to see your sheet. I mean, if I look at your sheet and I don't see that power weapon listed that your big bad super-dude started with, I assume he doesn't have one and you will come across as a player with bad form that is attempting to pull a fast one (friendly games are a different story, but with randoms at a store or wherever and in tournaments, this just won't fly).

Anyway, you're making this out to be like the model/units stats are immovable rocks, but they are more like flowing water. You have the source it all starts at and the end where everything it has gathered comes into play. Be the water, not the rock.

Neorealist wrote:That is what i was asking other people; to provide a valid location where that information can be looked up 'besides' the characteristics profile. Sadly though your ARMY SHEET is not such a location, as you are not required to write down the non-optional wargear your units may have there and therefore you cannot use such to definitively indicate wether or not a given model has a CCW.

You must combine the optional purchased wargear with the listing of wargear in the codex. Doing anything else gets you an incomplete picture. Incomplete pictures cause statements like "You don't have a Res Orb." "You gain a free attack for your Schrodinger's Close Combat Weapon."

Not officially no. A tournament army list is perfectly legal if it only includes the optional purchased wargear for your army and not the stuff they all have to come with.

I agree it's probably better to list all the wargear rather than just some of it, but the rules do not currently 'force' that degree of clarity and therefore it's not a definitively reliable location to determine wether or not a unit has a CCW.

Neorealist wrote:Not officially no. A tournament army list is perfectly legal if it only includes the optional purchased wargear for your army and not the stuff they all have to come with.

I agree it's probably better to list all the wargear rather than just some of it, but the rules do not currently 'force' that degree of clarity and therefore it's not a definitively reliable location to determine wether or not a unit has a CCW.

No, listing it isn't required.

But when considering a unit, you must combine the two. Doing anything else gives an incomplete picture.

The no specified rule is not an assault rule. It doesn't "activate" during assault. It's about the model.

Does the Wraith entry specifically have a CCW listed? No. He now has a basic CCW. All other things are upgrades on that basic model. And upgrades never substitute anything unless it is mentioned specifically in the upgrade description. So in the end you can have in a unit a vanilla wraith with 1 ccw and an upgraded wraith with 2 ccw.

copper.talos wrote:The no specified rule is only is not an assault rule. It doesn't "activate" during assault. It's about the model.

Does the Wraith entry specifically have a CCW listed? No. He now has a basic CCW. All other things are upgrades on that basic model. And upgrades never substitute anything unless it is mentioned specifically in the upgrade description. So in the end you can have in a unit a vanilla wraith with 1 ccw and an upgraded wraith with 2 ccw.

You've broken the rule on page 51 then. Here, let me quote it for you:

No Specified Melee Weapon
If a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type, it is treated as being armed with asingle close combat weapon.

If you have a pistol, you are specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type.

Neorealist wrote:Not officially no. A tournament army list is perfectly legal if it only includes the optional purchased wargear for your army and not the stuff they all have to come with.

I agree it's probably better to list all the wargear rather than just some of it, but the rules do not currently 'force' that degree of clarity and therefore it's not a definitively reliable location to determine wether or not a unit has a CCW.

So you are still claiming that having "Pistol" on your upgrades has not altered your basic profile?

Odd. You also belive that a Nurgle Marine is Toughness 4, not Toughness 5. BEcause that isnt printed on the Chaos Marine statline.

The comparison is apt.

Copper - that assertion has no basis in rules. Back it up witrh a page or retract, please

copper.talos wrote:The no specified rule is only is not an assault rule. It doesn't "activate" during assault. It's about the model.

Does the Wraith entry specifically have a CCW listed? No. He now has a basic CCW. All other things are upgrades on that basic model. And upgrades never substitute anything unless it is mentioned specifically in the upgrade description. So in the end you can have in a unit a vanilla wraith with 1 ccw and an upgraded wraith with 2 ccw.

Again, the rule never says anything about the basic model having weapons listed in his entry. All that is additional specificity that has been inserted via argument.

This is not something crazy and new in 6th edition. This is the same exact concept that existed in the 5th edition rulebook and simply shows that a model which has no close combat weapons counts as fighting in combat with a single close combat weapon. This is not some crazy easter egg designed to allow models that don't come base with a close combat weapon an additional attack just for including a single CC weapon option.

A model that has a melee type weapon is 'specifically stated as having a weapon with the melee type'. There is no expository about when or how the model can get the weapon, only that if the model has a weapon, then it has a weapon. Every argument that has been put forth so far does not have any logical basis to stand upon because there is nothing in the rule which indicates that it only applies to a model's base unit entry, etc. The rule as written applies to the model for the entirety of the game and does not care if the model started with no CC weapons and purchased one via wargear options or whether the model started with a CC base and then somehow lost it due to a special rule.

If the model doesn't have a melee weapon then it counts as having one. If it does have a melee weapon then it ignores that rule.

I remember very well that when the necron codex arrived we were all wondering why does the fabricator claw mention that is a CCW since back in 5th it didn't change anything. We all thought that this was a hint for a change in 6th. And here it is, the no specified weapon rule. It equips all basic models with a CCW so the claw gives the spyder the +1A. You can't have a model with 1 CCW, upgrade it with another CCW, and still claim it has 1 CCW...

copper.talos wrote:I remember very well that when the necron codex arrived we were all wondering why does the fabricator claw mention that is a CCW since back in 5th it didn't change anything. We all thought that this was a hint for a change in 6th. And here it is, the no specified weapon rule. It equips all basic models with a CCW so the claw gives the spyder the +1A. You can't have a model with 1 CCW, upgrade it with another CCW, and still claim it has 1 CCW...

Look at the Wargear section. Does it have a Melee weapon? Okay, then pretend it does. Oh wait - you equipped it with one? Then it just has the one.

If you're trying to have 2 CCWs you're breaking the rule I quoted.

Can you think of any other reason why the fabricator claw is specifically mentioned to be a CCW? I think not...

copper.talos wrote:Can you think of any other reason why the fabricator claw is specifically mentioned to be a CCW? I think not...

Because they felt like it?
Why are you trying to assign a reason to it?

Because if a codex says you can upgrade your model, it means you upgrade as it's entry say. And the claw is a CCW UPgrade.

copper.talos wrote:Because if a codex says you can upgrade your model, it means you upgrade as it's entry say. And the claw is a CCW UPgrade.

Right.

You're trying to say that every bit of an upgrade must be an actual upgrade.
That cannot be true.
Crushing Claws force your initiative to always be 1 - that's a downgrade.

Well yes, it is specifically mentioned that it does so. Some upgrades can substitute existing wargear. Such changes are desdcibed in the wording. But the f.claw mentions no such thing. It just a CCW upgrade with extra abilities. So you upgrade your model with an additional CCW and now has access to those extra abilities.

copper.talos wrote:Can you think of any other reason why the fabricator claw is specifically mentioned to be a CCW? I think not...

I'm going to be quite honest, just let this thread die. You've got 2-3 people who wont allow themselves to be moved by any argument, which is fine, but it's getting us nowhere.

It seems very strait forward to me, reading the full rules for equipping units with a melee weapon, that this rule is specific and and direct.

As has been stated: if the rule is a loop and you're always checking to see what is equipped, then the rule folds in on itself and the unit both has and doesn't have a CCW, at the same time. I shouldn't have to point out the logical disconnect that this interpretation leads you to.

If the rule is a single run: the question becomes "when do we apply this rule." And this is the loophole people are abusing in this thread to claim that wraiths are given no ccw.


Here comes the argument that I hope clears this up for anyone legitimately concerned with a solid interpretation from a lay-player.


If you begin considering that single run rules can be applied at the player's discretion you run into real issues with existing rules: When do I apply the wargear options I buy for my unit? If we begin drawing indistinct lines where wargear is given and isn't we bring ourselves into a game where the rules completely fall apart. My ork boyz can start the game unarmed, and then switch wargear from shootas to sluggas and choppas at my discretion, since we have established that wargear is now applied at the player's discretion.

We could of course, all agree privately that there are certain steps to how we apply wargear, and this is what I belive already exists indirectly: The race-codex has a little snippet on the back cover: "Requires the main rulebook to play."

This is rather clear: the order in which you read these books and apply the results is in order of: "rulebook, codex." Weapons are meaningless, items are meaningless, unless you know what they do via the main rulebook.

Now, the main rulebook isn't concerned with what is in the private codex, proof of this is the rule that allows a race-codex to take precedence over the main rulebook, it's implied implicitly that the main rulebook is read first.

So, we apply the main rulebook's ruling, using it's single run statement to analyze the wraith's actual wargear; not its options, because the wargear options are the province of the codex, not the rulebook

After reading the the main rulebook, we have established that necron are given a ccw. Now we move on to reading the necron codex in full, which allows us to select a list, and then customize our list with wargear options. When you add in the custom wargear, you don't re-reference the ccw rule, if you did, then adding whip coils would mean you re-check the wraith's wargear, and in doing so the wraith would lose his ccw, and he'd start the game without one.

If you want to specify that the "re-check" for a unit having a ccw for the rule in question happens only if the wargear item being customized is a close combat weapon, you're applying your own arbitration to the game; there is no section, anywhere, no rule, anywhere, that indicates of even indirectly implicates it.

It is clear: if you want to remove a wraith's ccw when he selects an item of optional wargear, you're left in a situation in which no wraith can ever have a ccw (provided by the rulebook). That, is most certainly not the intent, and in a situation in which a rule can either, a) be applied as per its intent, or b) be applied (and offer giant logical gaps and problems) against its intent, and the book does not specify, it is my complete belief that we should accept the intent, and the logical application of this rule. Not the opposite, in both ways.

Thanks for reading.

Viti wrote:It is clear: if you want to remove a wraith's ccw when he selects an item of optional wargear, you're left in a situation in which no wraith can ever have a ccw.

...
That's not the case.
If you pick a piece of optional wargear that happens to have the Melee type he loses the "free" CCW.
Whip Coils are not a piece of optional wargear that has the Melee type, so a Wraith wouldn't lose the free CCW.
Particle Casters are a Pistol - and Pistols have the Melee type.

rigeld2 wrote:

Viti wrote:It is clear: if you want to remove a wraith's ccw when he selects an item of optional wargear, you're left in a situation in which no wraith can ever have a ccw.

...
That's not the case.
If you pick a piece of optional wargear that happens to have the Melee type he loses the "free" CCW.
Whip Coils are not a piece of optional wargear that has the Melee type, so a Wraith wouldn't lose the free CCW.
Particle Casters are a Pistol - and Pistols have the Melee type.

You didn't understand anything I've said, which is fine. Re-read it if you're curious.

My argument specifically covers what you just said: I'm not so much concerned with if you're right or wrong, but how you could post immediately after me and not realize I already offered the logical breakdown of the assumptions present in your applications of the rule.

Hint: Look at "loop" and "single run" interpretations. Then go down to near the end of my explanation and read about why a single run interpretations of your ruling means a wraith can never have a ccw provided by the book (to summarize, a single run rule can only ever be applied ONCE or it's purpose is countered by itself, and thus any "if, then" that has an 'if' statement that can be changed by the 'then' can only ever be single run because otherwise it has no purpose).



Please understand I don't care how you want to play with your friends, I'm simply taking issue with the fact you seem to have not taken the time to read through my response, and then you respond to me and not only repeat yourself (you've been saying the same thing for the last 5-6 posts) but also repeat yourself when a response to your understanding of the rules is covered succinctly in my post.