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.

n0t_u wrote:
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.

Transportation issues you've come up with are fluff. Second-hand fluff at that.
And I agree that a strict RaW results in the combined weapon having no effect whatsoever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tri wrote: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

Unfortunately, it adds 2 to his strength, not to any wound rolls he makes (which would be the corollary for extra strength, I believe)
This means that it does not affect shooting attacks.

Combined weapons function as either weapon as per the rules. Not both at the same time.

There are rules for using various weapons a model carries - those rules do not care that they are stuck together. The fact that they are stuck together is basically fluff.

shrug

His point is that the Warscythe states that saves cannot be taken against it . . . It does not state only in cc, such as power weapons, so all of you bringing up st 8 powerfist bolters completely ignored the point, which is solely about the wording of the warscythe. So far I think Killkrazy stated the only real answer, that you need a definition of built-in. The Maugetar's power weapon is clearly defined as cc only, and its strength modifier would only come into play if its weapon somehow ran off the bearer's strength.

I understand his point.

The problem with that point is that the stuck on gauss weapon is not a warscythe.

No matter what it is attached to, it has its own rules.

kirsanth has it correct, just like everyone who has been saying the same thing for the last couple of pages.

Any other things you figured out that no one else has yet?

That would be like arguing that a dakkafex gets to use its MC bonus to when SHOOTING a vehicle.

From page 2:

willydstyle wrote:The words "built in" have no in-game rules definition other than that which pertains to DCCWs and losing the "built-in" weapon on a "weapon destroyed" result.

Because of this, I don't see how the words "built in" confers the warscythe's abilities onto the gauss blaster.

What you're trying to say is that the model is shooting with a "warscythe" with special ranged properties.

What I'm saying is that the model is shooting with a gauss blaster that is connected to a warscythe by meaningless fluffy words.

Kilkrazy wrote: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.

Irdiumstern wrote:His point is that the Warscythe states that saves cannot be taken against it . . . It does not state only in cc, such as power weapons, so all of you bringing up st 8 powerfist bolters completely ignored the point, which is solely about the wording of the warscythe. So far I think Killkrazy stated the only real answer, that you need a definition of built-in. The Maugetar's power weapon is clearly defined as cc only, and its strength modifier would only come into play if its weapon somehow ran off the bearer's strength.

What you mean is that Killkrazy and Willydstyle have stated the only real answer However, I would disagree that it is the only real answer, but just another piece of evidence to refute the "warscythe with built-in gauss blaster means you shoot a warscythe with gauss blaster rules" idea.

There's no denying that this topic actually ended probably 8-10 posts in.

Even ended by LunaHound shooting it down. How often do you see that happening?

Actually, not_u, to shoot a rules question down, you'd have to cite rules, which LunaHound has not done.

Because there is no "built-in" section, as willydstyle has pointed out, there is no correct way to play this (aside, perhaps, from giving the Pariah pointy floozles with no in-game effect).

The idea that a lack of rules as a green light to dismiss wargear listings as fluff is at best a RaI argument. Which weapons listings are we free to dismiss as fluff, which are really rules, and who decides which?

The obvious solution, should we wish to play the game, is to attempt to determine based on plain english (which the rules are written in, generally) what the rules mean. While a dictionary solution is disastrous and ignorant of context in general, it may be appropriate where there is a lack of rules (in this case, as to what items a model has). I have therefore argued based on a (presumably shared) understanding of "built-in" that Pariahs are equipped with a single weapon that follows both gauss blaster and warscythe rules, with some interesting (and as you've noticed, potentially overpowered) results.

Personally, I'd play this RaI that they're two weapons and built-in is meaningless.

So to all of you who made any arguments not based on fluff or comparisons to PF/DCCW, congrats, you won an argument on the internet.

To those of you who solely made arguments based on fluff or comparison: shame on you! You didn't actually contribute anything to the rules discussion! Try harder next time.

Is that not what you have been doing?

Or am I missing something?

When firing a Gauss Blaster (or whatever), why use the Warscythe rules?

n0t_u wrote:There's no denying that this topic actually ended probably 8-10 posts in.

Even ended by LunaHound shooting it down. How often do you see that happening?

Actually i answer YMDC pretty well sometimes , but people just miss it all the time :<
( i think they just skip my post hehe ^^)

It wasn't using fluff to argue, there are rules based around that material just look at the C'Tan.



Anyway, everyone line up for your cookies. Even you OP.

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

Request denied. Your intent is evidenced in the same way as GWs: by the words you write. You continue to ignore cogent, rules-based arguments and continually re-state and re-word your same basic premise again and again with no applicable rules to support it aside from your own personal (and apparently unique) interpretation of the words 'built-in'. That is evidence of an agenda.

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.

Again I refer you to Codex: Necrons p. 14. They should be counted as separate weapons because they are separate weapons, owing to the fact that they have separate weapons entries. One is a ranged weapon profile and one is a close combat weapon. If they are not counted as separate weapons, they cease to exist (by your previously espoused interpretation of context-ignoring RAW), because there is no entry for "warscythe with built-in gauss blaster". They can only exist and can only function as separate weapons.

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

I agree, though that special rule would have to be part of the ranged weapon's special rules, not the special rules described in the entry for a separate close combat weapon also carried by the model.

A model whose warscythe has a ranged weapon built into it may certainly make a shooting attack

I agree, that model may make a shooting attack using the profile of the weapon that is built into it. However, the model is attacking with the built-in weapon, not the warscythe, as a warscythe is a close combat weapon and close combat weapons cannot be fired in the shooting phase due to their lack of a ranged weapon profile.

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

This line of reasoning is backed up by what rule(s), exactly? Note:
1. 40k's permissive ruleset
2. the fact that nowhere in the shooting section does it reference taking into account separate close combat weapons the model may be carrying (built-in or not), and
3. the fact that it is generally accecpted that a Tac Squad Sergeant with a bolt pistol and a powerfist (separate weapons) doesn't ignore all armor saves when firing his bolt pistol.

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.

The answer to your question "is a Warscythe with a built-in gauss blaster a warscythe" is:
1. yes when used to make a close combat attack (because the warscythe is a close combat weapon per Codex:Necrons p. 14)
2. no when used to make a ranged weapon attack in the shooting phase (because you're firing the gauss blaster, not the warscythe. The warscythe cannot be used to make a shooting attack in the shooting phase as it has no ranged profile. See BGB p.17-20)

The answer to your question does not support your argument.

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?

Seems to me that's the separate entries for 'warscythe' and 'gauss blaster' on Codex:Necrons p.14



-GK

He gave up in his last post.

Is there a way to check if OP is someone 's alt account?
im sort of curious :'o

He gave up in his last post.

Rats.

I was still typing mine while he was busy giving up.

Slow typist ftl.

-GK

No, this is not an alt account. The egg that is on my face shall presumably stay there (although I do give pretty solid rules interpretations for every army but my own, and even Necrons I get right for friendly play).

Giantkiller, while those were very concise and logical rebuttals to the tenets upon which he based his argument... he made a post which was essentially a gentlemanly "bow out" from the debate, which should be respected.

In fact, I think that's one of the things that is wrong with YMDC: people try to say "I give up!" while saving face... and they continue to get a literary beat-down.

Also, thanks for the cookies. You are a gracious bunch.

GiantKiller wrote:

He gave up in his last post.

Rats.

I was still typing mine while he was busy giving up.

Slow typist ftl.

-GK

Sorry for criticizing you for simply posting late.

@ajfirecracker

I take it when an eldar player shoots his laser lances, they ignore armor saves as well?

Not cool.

imweasel, per the eldar codex, they count as s6 power weapons, a description which does nothing when shooting.

They are however AP:4, which does allow you to ignore some saves. (They're S6 when shooting, so there's not really anything to argue on that point)

Edit: @not_u I did just say I could give rules answers. Let's assume it's a genuine question.

I also don't see where the executioner entry states it only adds +2s to only the "user's" str.

It simply states it adds +2str.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ajfirecracker wrote:imweasel, per the eldar codex, they count as s6 power weapons, a description which does nothing when shooting.

They are however AP:4, which does allow you to ignore some saves. (They're S6 when shooting, so there's not really anything to argue on that point)

The entry for the laser lance specifically states that they are power weapons. It follows that you may use them as a ranged weapon. It's not even 'built-in' or 'integrated'. It's saying you can use your laser lance as a ranged weapon.

Seems to me that (based on the precedence you are setting for warscythes) that they would also ignore armor saves when being used as a range weapon.

imweasel, you seem to be correct on the executioner. It doesn't specify what it adds 2S to. As a result, a model equipped with an executioner could be said to have stronger ranged weapon shots. However, the assumption when modifying a characteristic is usually that it modified the profile.

RaW, nothing gets the extra strength because you don't know what to add it to. In friendly games, I'd throw it/have my opponent throw it on the profile.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As to warscythes vs. laser lances, the warscythe specified that no save may be taken, while laser lances specify that they may be used as power weapons. Power weapons only work in assault as per the BRB, while "no save may be taken" works all the time.

His gwarness has spoken.
(yes you can sig that)

also i believe that somewhere in the main rulebook it says that unless it explicitly says you can do something you can't.

furthermore i'm assuming the wording is a by-product of 3rd ed. and no longer applies in 5th(though I could be wrong).

Plus the staff of light is a power weapon that can be used in the shooting yet does not ignore armor saves in the shooting phase. Now its going to take some serious lawyer gymnastics to tell us that we should treat the warscythe+gauss blaster combo any differently.

EDIT: got ninja'd for slow typing and getting out the codex.

ajfirecracker wrote:Actually, not_u, to shoot a rules question down, you'd have to cite rules, which LunaHound has not done.

Because there is no "built-in" section, as willydstyle has pointed out, there is no correct way to play this (aside, perhaps, from giving the Pariah pointy floozles with no in-game effect).

...
...

.

A rules question only needs 'shooting down' if it is a valid question in the first place.

There is no reason to suppose that the special effect of a CCW can be superimposed on the distance effect of a ranged weapon, just because they are 'built-in'. The game makes no provision for such an effect.

There is an obvious correct way to play the situation; it works in H2H as a CCW (Warscythe) and in Shooting as a ranged weapon (Blaster.) These terms and weapons are fully explained in the codex and/or core rules.

Mod: I am now closing this topic as it has more than run its course.

Of course, I have already conceded the point. I have officially stopped claiming that warscythes ignore saves outside of melee attacks. (@imweasel)

Well done.

That is the proper and gracious to accept a rules argument.

Well done.

That is the proper and gracious way to accept a rules argument.