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.

Viti wrote:If you're not going to take time to read the proof, the cited full passages from the rulebook, qualifying what is, and what is not an unusual power weapon, please stop sharing your opinions.

Seriously, you want me to drop the sarcasm and be all srs bsns with you chaps online I will, but if that's the case it's about time you learned some reading comprehension, because you are LACKING..

Pitiful. Frankly, in this case majority rules. Do I get to fortune my archon? No, because it's fairly clear it's only for Eldar. Does it specify 'craftworld eldar'? No. But I consider myself a talented player (as far as that goes, I'm good at rolling dice and pushing elves), and have no need to abuse the rules. Because fairness and fun are the driving factor to my gaming. I have no ineptitudes that I must fill by winning at a game. I would think myself a sad person if I tried to abuse unclear rules (opposing the majority opinion on the matter).

Perhaps you need to re-evaluate your priorites in life. This miniscule rule on a silly little game (that we LOVE and play a LOT) is not something that should drive you insult others on a forum for disagreeing.

But, alas, here's my opinion:

RAW: The weapon is a burna. the burna has special rules. The burna's special rules may have an effect in CC, depending on the previous phase. There is no power weapon here. There is a burna that may be used as a power weapon. In combat, this makes it a power weapon (sometimes, it's unique like that) with special rules.

Fluff: The weapon spits a flame that is not a concentrated release of energy on a single focal point. That's why it uses a template. Anything that would act as a lance would need to be fired as a single point of energy weapon (kinda like lance weapons do in the shooting phase, only the same). So, by fluff, lance is out.
I'm not sure how you could justify an axe (any more than a IG could call his lasgun an axe), but we'll look at that if you choose that route.
Frankly, it seems a bit unusual. Luckily we have a place for that.

RAI: Well two looks into this-
1.- When the orks rules were made it was meant to provide no str bonus and melt armor. Unusual fits that bill better than lance or axe. But, obviously this has changed now.
2.- When that 6th edition BRB was made they made a special section for power weapon that they considered to be 'unusual'. This fits this description.

But, if one's opinion would be that easily swayed, it wouldn't be an opinion worth having. You let your heart decide what you do at your table. Since it's obviously very important to you, and an important aspect of your life, I would probably allow it. If it sent you home with a smile, I may even let you win. But, if you act like you do on the internet, I doubt we would every get to the point of playing a game together.

Viti... Your opinion does not invalidate my point that the idea of the Burna being a "lance" weapon is in fact inferior to it being an Unusual power weapon.

Oh lord you people are a piece of work...let me clarify a few things for you.

1. Posting the same thread in multiple forums is not a call for attention. It is raising an issue/question and wanting to get input from multiple sources not just one potentially biased source.

I could've simply posted this at "The-Waagh" which is a forum comprised of only Ork players yet I went out of my way to inquire the opinions of 'other' players in the community because it is VALUABLE.

Yet so many of you act like morons and belittle this as something evil/bad. Apparently when you have a question on something you ask just 1 person and go with whatever they say...goodbye Critical Thinking who needs ya!

2. Another very idiotic thing that has been brought up over and over is this apparent theory that i'm trying to 'cheat' or abuse the rules by using the Burna as a lance.

This is where I have to agree fullheartedly with Viti's assessment that some of you have a complete utter lack of reading comprehension.

My post was extremely clear...I mean i really went out of my way to state that I am unsure about how the weapon classifies because I myself cannot categorize it.

All I know for sure is that it does NOT fit into the 'unusual weapon' category based on the fact that it does not have a special close combat rule on the power weapon itself. Which is the same thing Viti has also stated but apparently nobody else seems to agree with...

But that aside, my theory that it would most likely be a Lance is just a theory/opinion based on the basic concept that it's a friggin blow man sized torch that would be protruding a pointy flame at the tip. It is COMMON SENSE being used here to formulate the opinion nothing else, and even then I once again state that i am not 100% sure on it.

With that said...these same people argue the following 2 points

A) It cannot be a lance/spear because the nozzle would break on impact.

B) Being a lance/spear would make it significantly worst in CC, the OP must've not thought about this when coming up with his 'cheat' scheme.

To which I respon...again using common sense and everything I previously stated that apparently people could not understand from simple reading...

A) Fine and using the weapon as a 'sword' type unusual power weapon would suddenly make the nozzle unbreakable? Does it require less force to strike holding the burnas a sword than it would as a lance? The argument is ridiculous...obviously the weapon is strong enough to be used effectively in close combat. Regardless of how the Burna Boy chooses to 'attack' with it, the nozzle will always be in the same position and making contact with the enemy unless he flips it around and holds the weapon by the nozzle itself and uses the Burna to 'club' people...but then the power weapon aspect would make no sense.

This is common sense. This is logic. This is your argument being invalidated. The nozzle is clearly strong enough to be used effectively in close combat in the SCIENCE FICTION UNIVERSE OF 40K. Apparently Orks can built sturdy crap...who would've thought.

B) Again what part of opinion/theory escapes you? If you claim that the weapon is inferior by being a lance...this is your best example of showing how I am attempting to cheat the system? "Oh he wants to make the weapon worst! He's clearly trying to cheat!" that is your logic?

Irregardless of wether the weapon is made better or worst I am simply stating my common sense opinion that "Hey the closest thing I can think of for this odd weapon is for it to be used as a spear given how it's held and how I imagine someone fighting with it would have to attack with it"

I could care less if the weapon gave a -3 Strength if it were a lance. The thread is meant to get your opinions on the matter and have a healthy discussion, instead you come about as a lynch mob, without caring to bring facts into your arguments, and making erroneous assumptions about everything I post that you clearly didn't bother reading.

3. I truly do believe this is a legitimate question regarding the burna and more so because of the precedent it sets if we allow any weapon with a special rule to count as an unusual weapon instead of sticking to the RAW that states only 'close combat special rules' apply.

So many and i do mean SOOOOO many people here keep posting 'is it a power weapon? does it have a special rule? UNUSUAL POWER WEAPON! case closed'

This is wrong. Not all special rules are close combat special rules, yet close combat special rules are special rules by nature. Notice there is a distinction...

Same distinction can be made in our every day lives.

All toothpastes are toothpastes, but NOT all toothpastes have "WHITENING".

So if your Dentist prescribes TOOTHPASTE WITH WHITENING to get your teeth up to standard, just going and buying any ol toothpaste wont do you any good.

Will you sue your dentist for your laziness in not reading the label before you grabbed a random toothpaste? "Oh he said toothpaste will make my teeth shiny as pearls"

This is the argument me and Viti are making regarding the UPW rule. It specifies a specific type of special rule....but people are just choosing to ignore what's right there infront of their face for some reason.

Any how can a mod please lock this thread already? It's not getting anyone anywhere I had already submitted this question to the INAT FAQ as I will abide by whatever is ruled on it.

And again you 'witch hunters' out there before you go out of your way to judge someone raising a question, perhaps you could take a moment to leave the hate at the door. And don't assume that anyone asking a question is just trying to 'cheat', it is through asking questions and discussing them with people that reach understanding. Not by blindly replying and taking stuff out of context or mocking irrelevant things (ie: OMG THE OP POSTED THIS IN OTHER FORUMS AND GOT THRASHED! IM SO AWESOME)...Unnecessary.

And yes I was annoyed/pissed at this whole thing enough that I had decided to drop it and believe it should be dropped for the sake of our collective sanity.

Boyo this one got ugly...

"If a power weapon has its own unique close combat rules, treat it as an AP3 Melee weapon with the additional rules and characteristics presented in its entry."

"A burna may be used in the Shooting phase with the profile below, or as a power weapon in an assault, but not both in the same turn."

This is a really tough one, but ultimately I'd have to stand by the Unusual Power Weapon crowd. The Burna itself does have a unique close combat rule. If it was fired in the Shooting phase, it implicitly counts as a Close Combat Weapon. If it didn't shoot, it is a Power Weapon.

A Power Weapon that is sometimes not a Power Weapon seems to meet the criteria of an Unusual Power Weapon to me.

A Burna isn't a power weapon. It may be used as a power weapon in assault. Since it isn't a power weapon it cannot be a type of power weapon (sword, axe, etc.), so when it used as a power weapon it must be unusual.

Way too much common sense in this thread! Quick mods, kill it!!

It is a sequence of events thing. When the shooting phase starts, what is the burna? It is a template weapon, not one that must be used, but a template weapon none the less. When the assault phase begins, what is it? Still a template weapon. No close combat has occurred yet so the weapon remains in its previous state. Now, a charge occurs. When the combat begins, it becomes one of two things. The first is a template weapon that was fired in the previous phase and is still a template weapon or a power weapon that was not shot in the previous phase.

It is not a power weapon until the assault begins. On top of that, what happens when you shoot it, charge and the assault lasts more than one turn? On the first turn it is not a power weapon, since it was shot. But on the second turn, which it was not shot due to being in CC, it magically gains the profile of a power weapon. Bang, close combat rule right there.

Now is this going to be argued as it is only an UPW in an assault that it shot first in?

And, as far as the insults go, come on guys this isn't 4chan, you're better than that.

Why does it have to be so complicated?

Discuss it before game and if you cant agree on what profile it should take then roll on it.

There that should solve any issues.

40k-noob wrote:Why does it have to be so complicated?

Discuss it before game and if you cant agree on what profile it should take then roll on it.

There that should solve any issues.

This is great and true. Lets say I take an Ork contingent along with my Guardmen; In that contingent I have a Warboss and a Unit of Nobz then a Unit of Burnas in the nobz trukk(embarking first turn, of course). For my Guardsmen I have several Power Blobs; With variant sub-types of power weapon on each Sgt(30-man Blobs with all 4 subtypes due to Commissars with Power swords). I tell my Opponent that my POwer weapons are all exactly WYSIWYG. My Opponent says; "Well what do you consider the Burnas then". I say "Good game" and Walk away.

because if only being a power weapon in close combats that did not follow a shooting phase wherein the burna was fired is not a "unique Close combat rule", then frankly I am with Professor Farnsworth on this one:

"It is a sequence of events thing. When the shooting phase starts, what is the burna? It is a template weapon, not one that must be used, but a template weapon none the less."

It's also a power weapon at the start. It only stops being one when you use the template. It's 100% like a combi weapon.

And Kel, you're a terrible poster. I feel like every post I see you talk about how "you'd just walk away." If you've got nothing helpful, gtfo.


"A Burna isn't a power weapon. It may be used as a power weapon in assault. Since it isn't a power weapon it cannot be a type of power weapon (sword, axe, etc.), so when it used as a power weapon it must be unusual."

Ok, see, this is what people say in this thread. BUT IT HAS NO FOUNDATION IN THE RULEBOOK. You are seeing the IMPLICATION of this rule. IT DOES NOT ACCTUALLY EXIST.


"This is a really tough one, but ultimately I'd have to stand by the Unusual Power Weapon crowd. The Burna itself does have a unique close combat rule. If it was fired in the Shooting phase, it implicitly counts as a Close Combat Weapon. If it didn't shoot, it is a Power Weapon."

So many, SO MANY, people make this mistake:

THE BURNA IS NEVER, EVER EVER EVER, A CLOSE COMBAT WEAPON.

It is either a) a template+power weapon piece of wargear. OR b) JUST A TEMPLATE WEAPON.


And feth you guys, seriously. Screw the mods. I apologized to you donkey-caves, and you go on being complete fething neckbeards to me. I'm done coming to this forum.

I'm sure we'll all miss Viti and his insightful commentary.

Not.

Well that's too bad.... I wanted to ask him just WHAT "power weapon" best fits a Burna... since it "Can be used as any Power weapon".

I do see the point.. kind of. But the Burna is officially listed as a "Flamer" weapon that can be "Used as" a power weapon. Since no other "Flamer" type weapon has this ability, then that makes it "Unique"... This dual use rule applies to no other weapon.
True, the use is determined in the shooting phase, but that decision is made by the Player and not the weapon itself. The Player determines if he will shoot or use the power weapon option.. but that does not make it any kind of "Combi-weapon" as there is no such rule.
There are NO rules covering a weapon that is both ranged and a power weapon/CCW.
The 6th ed book even has a list of "Combi-Weapons on pg 56. the first line of the "Combi-weapons" entry states they "are boltguns that have been modified...."
Burna is not a "boltgun". and it is not modified to house a second weapon.

It is simply a "Flamer" weapon with a special and unique rule for use in close combat.

the Burna is officially listed as a "Flamer" weapon that can be "Used as" a power weapon.

Coredump would like a word with you sir. He denies this comment entirely.

Akaiyou wrote:

the Burna is officially listed as a "Flamer" weapon that can be "Used as" a power weapon.

Coredump would like a word with you sir. He denies this comment entirely.

send him over.... though I doubt he could browbeat me any better than you.
The above comment is based on the rules.

The BRB has already given an example of how to work this out.

A Pistol is a Ranged weapon that can be used as a CCW and uses a basic profile for a CCW. on pg 51

Absent any definitive information (i.e. Rule or FAQ) logic would dictate that you follow a similar profile for a burna with the addition of AP 3 since that is the base AP for a Power Weapon.

that is the only reasonable assumption that can be made regarding a flamer that can be "used as a power weapon"

helgrenze wrote:

Akaiyou wrote:

the Burna is officially listed as a "Flamer" weapon that can be "Used as" a power weapon.

Coredump would like a word with you sir. He denies this comment entirely.

send him over.... though I doubt he could browbeat me any better than you.
The above comment is based on the rules.

If you say so sir. But apparently your argument holds no grounds.

40k-noob wrote:The BRB has already given an example of how to work this out.

A Pistol is a Ranged weapon that can be used as a CCW and uses a basic profile for a CCW. on pg 51

Absent any definitive information (i.e. Rule or FAQ) logic would dictate that you follow a similar profile for a burna with the addition of AP 3 since that is the base AP for a Power Weapon.

that is the only reasonable assumption that can be made regarding a flamer that can be "used as a power weapon"

Again, not a CCW weapon. Ever.

Akaiyou wrote:

40k-noob wrote:The BRB has already given an example of how to work this out.

A Pistol is a Ranged weapon that can be used as a CCW and uses a basic profile for a CCW. on pg 51

Absent any definitive information (i.e. Rule or FAQ) logic would dictate that you follow a similar profile for a burna with the addition of AP 3 since that is the base AP for a Power Weapon.

that is the only reasonable assumption that can be made regarding a flamer that can be "used as a power weapon"

Again, not a CCW weapon. Ever.

Where did I say it was a CCW?

Viti wrote:"It is a sequence of events thing. When the shooting phase starts, what is the burna? It is a template weapon, not one that must be used, but a template weapon none the less."

It's also a power weapon at the start. It only stops being one when you use the template. It's 100% like a combi weapon.

And Kel, you're a terrible poster. I feel like every post I see you talk about how "you'd just walk away." If you've got nothing helpful, gtfo.


"A Burna isn't a power weapon. It may be used as a power weapon in assault. Since it isn't a power weapon it cannot be a type of power weapon (sword, axe, etc.), so when it used as a power weapon it must be unusual."

Ok, see, this is what people say in this thread. BUT IT HAS NO FOUNDATION IN THE RULEBOOK. You are seeing the IMPLICATION of this rule. IT DOES NOT ACCTUALLY EXIST.


"This is a really tough one, but ultimately I'd have to stand by the Unusual Power Weapon crowd. The Burna itself does have a unique close combat rule. If it was fired in the Shooting phase, it implicitly counts as a Close Combat Weapon. If it didn't shoot, it is a Power Weapon."

So many, SO MANY, people make this mistake:

THE BURNA IS NEVER, EVER EVER EVER, A CLOSE COMBAT WEAPON.

It is either a) a template+power weapon piece of wargear. OR b) JUST A TEMPLATE WEAPON.


And feth you guys, seriously. Screw the mods. I apologized to you donkey-caves, and you go on being complete fething neckbeards to me. I'm done coming to this forum.

Hahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

YMDC RAW discussion at its best!!

Akaiyou wrote:

helgrenze wrote:

Akaiyou wrote:

the Burna is officially listed as a "Flamer" weapon that can be "Used as" a power weapon.

Coredump would like a word with you sir. He denies this comment entirely.

send him over.... though I doubt he could browbeat me any better than you.
The above comment is based on the rules.

If you say so sir. But apparently your argument holds no grounds.

Hmmm... Explain, please. As the rules for both a flamer weapon and a burna are easy enough to look up. Even within this thread.

40k-noob wrote:

Akaiyou wrote:

40k-noob wrote:The BRB has already given an example of how to work this out.

A Pistol is a Ranged weapon that can be used as a CCW and uses a basic profile for a CCW. on pg 51

Absent any definitive information (i.e. Rule or FAQ) logic would dictate that you follow a similar profile for a burna with the addition of AP 3 since that is the base AP for a Power Weapon.

that is the only reasonable assumption that can be made regarding a flamer that can be "used as a power weapon"

Again, not a CCW weapon. Ever.

Where did I say it was a CCW?

When you claim the rulebook gave an example of how the burna works and you specify the pistol being able to be used as a CCW. You are thus refering the the burna would be treated the same. Or am I interpreting that wrongly?

helgrenze wrote:

Akaiyou wrote:

helgrenze wrote:

Akaiyou wrote:

the Burna is officially listed as a "Flamer" weapon that can be "Used as" a power weapon.

Coredump would like a word with you sir. He denies this comment entirely.

send him over.... though I doubt he could browbeat me any better than you.
The above comment is based on the rules.

If you say so sir. But apparently your argument holds no grounds.

Hmmm... Explain, please. As the rules for both a flamer weapon and a burna are easy enough to look up. Even within this thread.

How would I know, I made the same argument that you made. That is is a Flamer as it shows up in the 6th ed Rulebook under the flamer category. Thus it's a flamer that can be used as a power weapon since it is 'officially listed as a flamer'

But Coredump completely dismissed my claim. Thus I am dismissing yours on the same basis.

In other words, I agree with you and I don't understand how he can dismiss the fact that it's officially listed as a flamer on page 56.

Oh... so you agree that the Burna is a flamer weapon with a unique rule that applies to it when in close combat (sometimes) and thus is an UPW and gets the stats of Str=user/ AP3.

"Burnas are ideal for slicing up scrap metal and enemy warriors alike. A burna may be used in the shooting phase with the profile below, or as a power weapon in an assault, but not both in the same turn." Pg 45 Codex: Orks

That rule is a unique close combat rule. No other piece of wargear in the game has this rule, so it is unique. It effects close combat, so it is a close combat rule. The burna can be used as a power weapon if condition 'x' is met, so it is a unique close combat rule about power weapons, meaning it is an AP 3, S-user, PW.

If you really, really need to have the rule activate during the CC phase for it to count, simply test to see if it can be a power weapon at the beginning of combat. Use the following script:

"My/my opponents shooting is done. We are about to start krumping. Did I use the burna as a template weapon this turn?"

Your condition of it needing to be activated in CC is now fulfilled. Enjoy your AP 3 burna.

-cgmckenzie

helgrenze wrote:

Akaiyou wrote:

the Burna is officially listed as a "Flamer" weapon that can be "Used as" a power weapon.

Coredump would like a word with you sir. He denies this comment entirely.

send him over.... though I doubt he could browbeat me any better than you.
The above comment is based on the rules.

First, I don't think I would "brow-beat" you at all.
Second, I don't think I have ever made a post as universally condescending and confrontational as Akaiyou has done several times in this thread alone. Even if I wanted to 'brow beat' someone, I would never try and compete with him on that.

Third, it may come as a shock to you, but Akaiyou is not the most reliable source of information as to what someone elses stance is. (Shocking, I know... to think he would misrepresent someone to further his own ends...)


What I objected to, was Akaiyou's assertion that the Burna was "first and foremost" a flamer. (I even quoted it when I explained this to him, on at least 2 or 3 occasions.)

The rules for the Burna are short and pretty clear. It is a weapon that "may be used" as a Flamer ("with the profile below") or "may be used" as a power weapon.

Similarly, a Missile Launcher is not a "Frag missile launcher" that can be used as a Krak missile launcher. (nor vice versa), it is a single weapon, that may be used two different ways. Nor is it "first and foremost" one or the other.


The Burna rules say it may be used two different ways, neither method is given precedence nor priority. So I can agree that it is a flamer weapon, as much as it is a power weapon. Or I can agree it can be "used as" a flamer weapon as it can be "used as" a power weapon. But the rules give it two, equal, options.

Only slightly off topic, still relevant to Unusual Power Weapons - Relic Blades modeled as Axes, are they +3s and I1, or always +2S AP3?

Until such time as the true FAQ is updated, they will continue to be Unusual Power Weapons that always hits at S6.

The hitting at S6 is a special rule, so you cannot look to the model to decide what type it is.

Akaiyou wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

Akaiyou wrote:

40k-noob wrote:The BRB has already given an example of how to work this out.

A Pistol is a Ranged weapon that can be used as a CCW and uses a basic profile for a CCW. on pg 51

Absent any definitive information (i.e. Rule or FAQ) logic would dictate that you follow a similar profile for a burna with the addition of AP 3 since that is the base AP for a Power Weapon.

that is the only reasonable assumption that can be made regarding a flamer that can be "used as a power weapon"

Again, not a CCW weapon. Ever.

Where did I say it was a CCW?

When you claim the rulebook gave an example of how the burna works and you specify the pistol being able to be used as a CCW. You are thus refering the the burna would be treated the same. Or am I interpreting that wrongly?

I made no such claim about the burna. My point was that the BRB gives an example of how to WORK THIS OUT since the Pistol is a ranged weapon that can also be used as a CCW.

A burna is a ranged weapon that can be used as a power weapon.

Are you saying that a power weapon is not a CCW? If so then what is point of all this if you cant use it in close combat?

So let's say a burna is fired in the shooting phase, and charges in the subsequent assault phase. We can all agree it counts as nothing, correct? It is not a power weapon, not a close combat weapon, it has no rules or special rules. The turn goes by without a victor and we enter the second assault phase. The flamer was not shot in the shooting phase this time. Now, because of this it counts as a power weapon. It is a close combat weapon with a special rule. Is there not a special rule in there somewhere that affects the close combat ability of this power weapon?

No, the special rule about whether or not it is a PW is still in effect, it just means that it is not a PW this round. The rule doesn't go anywhere, it just doesn't really do too much of anything.

-cgmckenzie