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:

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.

You edited after/while I posted. Not a big deal, but you did add content and changed some of your wording. No insult intended - just simply how I read your post.

Viti wrote: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.

False. Perhaps you should reference the actual rule?

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.

Even if the model is treated as having a single close combat weapon it's still not specifically stating it has one.
There's no logical disconnect. You just pretend you have one. Therefore your entire loop assumption is wrong.

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.

And that's why this is false.

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.

It is clear - if you want to twist the words to be illogical, they are.
The actual words in the rule however aren't. You can re-examine the Wraith all you want and you'll never see a CCW specifically stated under the Wraith. Unless you purchase a Pistol.

You have to pretend you have one... that makes no sense at all.

Dozer Blades wrote:You have to pretend you have one... that makes no sense at all.

It's what the rule says. You treat the model as if it does, but it actually doesn't because nothing is specifically stating that it does.

Dozer Blades wrote:You have to pretend you have one... that makes no sense at all.

No different than pretending to be in difficult terrain when hit with a tremorstave, or if SnP...

It sounds like people are assuming you just do a blanket once-over of your army with this rule and then move on and never reference it again, which is where the "when do you apply it" argument comes from. The problem is, there is no time-to-apply, it is a rule that is always in effect and a rule that can be broken at any point by giving a model/unit a melee/CCW weapon. The whole wraith losing their CCW thing is just...well, it makes no sense. Sorry Viti, but it appears to me what you're saying is that *any* wargear replaces the "no specified melee weapon" weapon, which isn't right. You can put whatever gear you want on whatever unit/model, so if you had three wraiths and one had a particle caster and the other had the exile beam and the third has whip coils, they all still have one CCW.

Kevin949 wrote:Sorry Viti, but it appears to me what you're saying is that *any* wargear replaces the "no specified melee weapon" weapon, which isn't right

No, he's saying that if you give them the free weapon, then upgrade them, when you look at them again they have the free weapon and therefore they lose it (because you have to not have a CCW to have the free weapon).

Which is wrong, because that's not what the rule actually says.

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

Actually I'm in a unique position to answer that question.

You may or may not remember, but I was able to give out solid information about the Necron codex before its release (if not, you can search the news and rumors forum to verify).

I may have had access to an earlier version of the codex and I can confirm that it appears as though Spyders at one time came standard with something called a Dissector Claw, and they started with two of these. You could swap one or both out for Fabricrator Claws, and both of these were close combat weapons.

So it seems at one point Spyders had the option to take an additional CC weapon, but it got cut out at some point during development.


And again guys, this is NOT some new fangled rule designed to allow certain models to get the +1A bonus when only taking a single CC weapon. This is the same rule we've had for YEARS which is just there to cover when a model actually has no weapons at all. As soon as your model has any kind of melee weapon, then you ignore that rule and start following the rules for the weapon the model has.

Transdimensional Beamers are not pistols so Wraiths dont get +1A for CCW.

MadCowCrazy wrote:Transdimensional Beamers are not pistols so Wraiths dont get +1A for CCW.

You should look at Particle Casters, which is what was being talked about in this thread.

They don't get an extra attack though.

@yakface Yes but why did they leave out the dissector claws (I love the name by the way, I wish they kept them) and leave the f.claw as a CCW. If they changed one part shouldn't they change the others too?

So what we are dealing here is
A. an accidental referance that the f.claw is a CCW with no benefit whatsoever
B a deliberate CCW upgrade to interact with the no specified weapon rule.

I go with B.

B then the nsccw rule says you DO have a ccw , so you no longer are treated as having one due to this rule

Stop Easter egging

copper.talos wrote:@yakface Yes but why did they leave out the dissector claws (I love the name by the way, I wish they kept them) and leave the f.claw as a CCW. If they changed one part shouldn't they change the others too?

So what we are dealing here is
A. an accidental referance that the f.claw is a CCW with no benefit whatsoever
B a deliberate CCW upgrade to interact with the no specified weapon rule.

I go with B.

But the game is literally littered with units and models that have a single close combat weapon for absolutely no in-game purpose. Its just what GW does.

But the rule for fighting without any base weapon is again a long-standing thing. This isn't a new thing designed to give some models with a single weapon the +1A bonus for having two weapons. It is just their explanation of how models that don't have ANY CC WEAPON at all fight in combat.

Every Tryanid unit ever has a single CCW in their wargear.

And copper, you're Easter egging. I've shown how the actual rules work and you're trying to stretch a meaning into a benefit when the rules aren't even close to supporting it.

yakface wrote:
But the game is literally littered with units and models that have a single close combat weapon for absolutely no in-game purpose. Its just what GW does.

In 6th is pretty clear that 1 CCW is the minimum for every model in the game. So the game is not littered with units and models that have a single close combat weapon for absolutely no in-game purpose. They just meet the minimum set in 6th.

yakface wrote: But the rule for fighting without any base weapon is again a long-standing thing. This isn't a new thing designed to give some models with a single weapon the +1A bonus for having two weapons. It is just their explanation of how models that don't have ANY CC WEAPON at all fight in combat.

That was 5th, We must unlearn what we have learned. In 6th the game changed decisively on this. Now all models have a base weapon. There is no argument against that. The only argument is if an upgrade CCW to a model make it lose that base weapon. I agree that the wording could have been a lot clearer on this issue. But as it is now my point of view is that an upgrade is in addition of the base model. If the base model has a CCW then it gets another one. Otherwise you have a base model with 1 CCW, upgrade it with 1 CCW and end up with an upgraded model with 1 CCW! And the fact that the f.claw is a CCW doesn't make sense with this line of thinking. I know that you believe that the f.claw being a CCW is a mistake. But I can only take at face value what the codex says. So until they faq it otherwise, the +1A because of the no specified rule is the only way the f.claw is classified as a CCW and makes sense.

Anyway this is my last post on the subject.. I understand many will still argue against this, but rarely do I see in YMDC making a consensus even in the simplest of rules. Between my post and vitti's, I think there is everything that can be said in favour of the +1A and that the best thing you can do here.

You have no permission to retain the "No specified CCW" because, as soon as you BUY a CCW, you DO have a specified weapon

That is clear unambiguous Rules as Written

Agreed. I don't even know how this is a discussion. Schrodingers ccw dosent exist. You either have one, or if you dont, you have one. A pistol bought is a ccw in a profile. This means you no longer fulfill the requirement of not having a ccw to get a free one.

Its like the made up rule that you can only look at the printed, codex statline to determine a models stats.


If you have no CCW whatsoever, you get one. IF you have a CCW, you dont get another one.

Thats it. Nothing more complicated is required. No made up rules stating you can only look at the codex profile and no further. Thats it.

I thought Pan Fo were allowed to have Schrodinger's CCW? Have they been reviled yet?

copper.talos wrote:If the base model has a CCW then it gets another one.

Correct.
Show me the CCW on the Wraith's base model. I'll wait.
That or you just refuse to admit you're wrong - there's no "interpretation" going on here. I've shown in the black and white text of the rules how it works.
You're off in copper.talos land pretending that you get a free +1 Attack with absolutely no rules support just because you want to.

It's not agreeing to disagree (I'd be fine if it was), it's you insisting you're right in the face of evidence.

And it seems like everyone arguing this is a crons player, and acting like we are being unfair to the space undead when in reality, I myself am a necron player. I've been playing them since destroyers were just dudes on floating chairs and Immortals looked like they were carrying around giant syringes. Its not that we want to take away perks to corns models, it is only that we see what the rules tell us.

I thought that upgrades that replaced existing weapons clearly said that in the codex. Saying something like "Up to 2 models in the unit may replace their power fists with lightning claws for 20 pts each", or something similar.

Adding a Particle Caster to the Wraith model does not say it replaces an existing weapon, and look at the model. The Particle Caster does not take the place of an existing claw/tenderil or whatever you want to call it's appendage, it attaches to the chest of the model. I don't have the new Spyder model, so I can't tell if the fabricator claw array is an additional arm or replaces an existing arm.

Based on the model itself, I think the Particle Caster would add +1A, but not sure about the Spyder. Does anyone have the Spyder model and can tell us?

Tye_Informer wrote:I thought that upgrades that replaced existing weapons clearly said that in the codex. Saying something like "Up to 2 models in the unit may replace their power fists with lightning claws for 20 pts each", or something similar.

Adding a Particle Caster to the Wraith model does not say it replaces an existing weapon, and look at the model. The Particle Caster does not take the place of an existing claw/tenderil or whatever you want to call it's appendage, it attaches to the chest of the model. I don't have the new Spyder model, so I can't tell if the fabricator claw array is an additional arm or replaces an existing arm.

Based on the model itself, I think the Particle Caster would add +1A, but not sure about the Spyder. Does anyone have the Spyder model and can tell us?

Upgrades that replace do state so.
The Particle Caster doesn't replace anything. Ever. I've never said that it does.
You should probably read the thread and reply citing actual rules.

Tye_Informer wrote:I thought that upgrades that replaced existing weapons clearly said that in the codex. Saying something like "Up to 2 models in the unit may replace their power fists with lightning claws for 20 pts each", or something similar.

Adding a Particle Caster to the Wraith model does not say it replaces an existing weapon, and look at the model. The Particle Caster does not take the place of an existing claw/tenderil or whatever you want to call it's appendage, it attaches to the chest of the model. I don't have the new Spyder model, so I can't tell if the fabricator claw array is an additional arm or replaces an existing arm.

Based on the model itself, I think the Particle Caster would add +1A, but not sure about the Spyder. Does anyone have the Spyder model and can tell us?

The Wraith never has a CCW, it is just treated as having one if it doesnt have a CCW to start

If you give it a CCW, can you state that it doesnt have one? If you can do so then it gains +1 attack.

Tye_Informer wrote:I thought that upgrades that replaced existing weapons clearly said that in the codex. Saying something like "Up to 2 models in the unit may replace their power fists with lightning claws for 20 pts each", or something similar.

Adding a Particle Caster to the Wraith model does not say it replaces an existing weapon, and look at the model. The Particle Caster does not take the place of an existing claw/tenderil or whatever you want to call it's appendage, it attaches to the chest of the model. I don't have the new Spyder model, so I can't tell if the fabricator claw array is an additional arm or replaces an existing arm.

Based on the model itself, I think the Particle Caster would add +1A, but not sure about the Spyder. Does anyone have the Spyder model and can tell us?

To answer your spyder question, the fabricator claw does not replace anything on the spyder. However, that (and the wraith's pistol) does not have ANY bearing on the rule in question at all.

It does not matter at all if the actual Bit replaces something physically on the model, it only matters what the rules tell us. And the rules tell us that if you don't have a specified melee weapon, you're TREATED as having one (everyone keeps saying "you have one" but the model does not, it is treated as having one), and if you DO have a specified melee weapon (Particle Caster, Fab Claws) then you ignore the rule as you ACTUALLY have a melee weapon and are also treated as having a melee weapon due to HAVING a melee weapon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:And it seems like everyone arguing this is a crons player, and acting like we are being unfair to the space undead when in reality, I myself am a necron player. I've been playing them since destroyers were just dudes on floating chairs and Immortals looked like they were carrying around giant syringes. Its not that we want to take away perks to corns models, it is only that we see what the rules tell us.

Hey, to be fair I'm a cron player (not as long as you, however) and I'm not arguing it. LoL Honestly I think the necron entry is just the easiest to reference (and the newest?). That and the army was the topic of this thread (which again, this thread was started before 6th ed so it should really be closed I think and a new one started).

I'd like to chime in again:

Has anyone found a valid location where a given model can be 'specifically stated' to already have a CCW (or not) other than the written block of text for that unit in its' respective codex?

If not, Why would adding any optional wargear to the unit change what the words on the page 'specifically state'?

If anyone has i'd be delighted to read about it; since thus far in this thread I've been unable to find any listed location that is definitive enough to be used as part of the 'Default CCW' rule.



Also, has anyone resolved the following eternal loop if you have to check more than once to see if you are following the 'Default CCW' rule? After all it doesn't include any rules-text explicitly precluding itself in application.
1) Check if the model has (and/or counts as having) a CCW.
2) If it doesn't, it now 'counts as' having a CCW via this rule. If it does, it does not (or no longer) 'counts as' having a CCW via this rule.
3) Repeat Step 1 as often as necessary until you agree to only apply the 'Default CCW' rule once at a specific point in your game.

I side with the no +1A. As much as I would love my wraiths getting the additional attack, it just won't work. Here is a similar situation that would apply that makes me think this.

A Necron Overlord has no CCW base, just a SoL, which is a shooting weapon. Due to the NCCW rule, the Overlord has a CCW when fighting in CC. If you replace the SoL with a Voidblade, he now has a Voidblade. Just a Voidblade. Not a Voidblade and a CCW gaining him +1A. It just doesn't work that way.

I see it as a rule that is always in effect. The model enters combat. if he specifically has a CCW, he uses it. If he doesn't, he uses the butt of his gun or whatever he is carrying as an improvised CCW.

Neorealist - yes, its called the characteristics plus any wargear you purchase

You then check once.

Really not tricky.

Your position still claims that MoN Marines are T4, not T5, and when you roll for sweeping advance with a Slaanesh icon marine you only look at I4.

An absurd result like that should give you a clue that your argument is absurd

nosferatu1001 wrote:Neorealist - yes, its called the characteristics plus any wargear you purchase

You then check once.

Really not tricky.

Your position still claims that MoN Marines are T4, not T5, and when you roll for sweeping advance with a Slaanesh icon marine you only look at I4.

An absurd result like that should give you a clue that your argument is absurd

I apologise if i've been unclear, but i am not attributing any such thing. The wargear you mentioned should function fine and i have not (nor have any reason to) insist that my contention effects that in any way.

The 'plus any wargear you purchase' is not a specific location where you can find relevent rules-text though, for what it's worth. I'd also appreciate if you would not refer to my arguments as 'absurd' going forward, that is pointlessly offensive and inflammatory.

Neorealist wrote:I apologise if i've been unclear, but i am not attributing any such thing. The wargear you mentioned should function fine and i have not (nor have any reason to) insist that my contention effects that in any way.

You've asserted that the only true way to know what a model is equipped with is to look at the profile - unaltered by optional purchases. Correct?

If that's the case, any wargear that is supposed to alter the profile would fail to function.
I purchase a Mark of Nurgle. It raises the Toughness on my profile by 1.
My unit is shot. I check my profile to see what is needed to wound my unit. I see they have a Toughness of 4.
Since I cannot look at optional purchases but only my base profile, the Mark of Nurgle did nothing.

You're also still ignoring the fact that once they have a Particle Caster they are specifically stated as having a CCW.
Without one they are still not specifically stated as having a CCW, simply treated as if they do.

Its a case of what came first, the chicken or the egg.

Technically you can't get to point B without starting at point A.

Point A. The model has a close combat weapon. (All models do now).

Point B. You buy the model a pistol, an extra piece of wargear.

This isn't the same thing as space marines, who come with a pistol to start, therefore would not qualify for the "free" close combat weapon. You are buying an extra piece of wargear in addition to the close combat weapon they start with.

Maybe it wasn't intended to work that way in their codex, but RAW that is how it works in 6th edition.

Kevlar wrote:Its a case of what came first, the chicken or the egg.

Technically you can't get to point B without starting at point A.

Point A. The model has a close combat weapon. (All models do now).

Point B. You buy the model a pistol, an extra piece of wargear.

This isn't the same thing as space marines, who come with a pistol to start, therefore would not qualify for the "free" close combat weapon. You are buying an extra piece of wargear in addition to the close combat weapon they start with.

Maybe it wasn't intended to work that way in their codex, but RAW that is how it works in 6th edition.

False.

Point A. The model is treated as having a CCW - it does not actually have one.
Point B. You buy the model a pistol. It is now specifically stated to have a CCW and therefore you do not treat it as having the CCW from point A.

RAW that's how it works in 6th edition.