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.

Ansel Darach wrote:
I guess the question now is, do you consider something that "Counts As" something else to Specifically be the thing it's counting as?

Yes, of course you do. Because they count as the same thing... so they are treated exactly the same within the rules.

If you don't treat them the same, you're not counting them to be the same thing.

majortwitch wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

majortwitch wrote:
Bolt pistols and boltguns have no special rule of two handed, so therefore both are able to used in a single hand.

You're making an illogical leap here that having a special rule detailing which weapons are two-handed somehow makes single-handed the default.

If I like cookies that have chocolate cream centres, or that have vanilla cream centres, and only one specific cookie in the supermarket has chocolate cream centres, that doesn't mean that every other cookie has vanilla cream. Some might not have cream at all.

Not sure how you find that to be illogical. Two-handed weapons are two-handed weapons, yes? Weapons without the two-handed special rule are not two-handed. So what does that leave pistols, boltguns, and lascannons as? Single-handed, three-handed the rules are simply unclear about the handiness of most weapons. But it would be the most logical to assume that they are in fact single-handed. Does three-handed make sense for boltgun, it cannot be two-handed as two-handed are clearly defined.

You are attempting to introduce reasoning based on outside factors into a separate self-contained system. The fact that in real life the use of most weapons requires a number of hands has no bearing on a permissive rule set that does not permit 'real life' to be a factor.

DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

pyre wrote:
you can't make the assumption that if it's not two handed, it HAS to be one-handed.

To be fair the rules make that assumption.

Citation required.

Page 24:

"Engaged models with two single-handed weapons (often a Melee weapon and/or pistol in each hand) get + 1 Attack."

Either everything is a single-handed weapon unless it has the Two-Handed rule and the rules work just fine,

Or nothing is a single-handed weapon as there is no defining rule that states that weapons are single-handed and you can never claim the +1 for attacking with two single-handed weapons...

Since #2 leads to a useless rule and #1 does not, I would lean towards the interpretation that does not make the rule useless.

Since #1 is never stated that leaves only #2 as an option.

While you are misreading the rule perhaps you should also point out that it states that each hand can hold a pistol and a melee weapon. That of course also does not mean anything as no number of hands is ever required for any rule... not even to wield a Two Handed weapon... By the Two Handed rule one handed models or even zero handed models are not denied their use.

Ansel Darach wrote:
I guess the question now is, do you consider something that "Counts As" something else to Specifically be the thing it's counting as?

Quite simple.

If you are not treating it as a CCW then you are not 'counting it as' a CCW which you are clearly told to do.

If you are treating it as a CCW then you also must admit the model has a CCW.

That is why treated as = is


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS:

It might have been more productive to argue that krack grenades are a melee weapon even if you do not or cannot always use them.

The reason you cannot give a pistol the melee type in the current rules is that it would make a plasma pistol an amazingly good melee weapon.
Instead they have the pistol type and an explaination of what that means in cc. What is a ccw in the brb? It's very clearly defined. So in cc the pistol counts as a specific melee weapon with defined stats which include the melee rule. That is more than enough to debunk any ideas of pistols not counting and then counting.

Ansel Darach wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

Ansel Darach wrote:
Also can you point out where a Pistol is stated to specifically have the melee type?

It's in the rule for the Weapon Type: Pistol.

Ok.

No where does it state a pistol to be "specifically of the melee type" in that entry.

Pistol weapons are listed as "pistol", which is not "melee".

However it does say in that entry that a pistol "counts as a close combat weapon in the Assault Phase".

I guess the question now is, do you consider something that "Counts As" something else to Specifically be the thing it's counting as?

I say no, counting as something does not make it specifically the thing it's counting as.

Also, saying yes counting as something does make it specifically the thing it's counting as is another correct interpretation.

This would be a good question for the FAQ, as the wording of 'counts as" is ambiguous and in my opinion should never be used in a ruleset.

Welcome to GamesWorkshop. But yes, thus the page 52 reference to the pg 51 CC profile overrides the no specified Melee weapon because the it assault triggers the the pistol rule tell you to use the Close Combat weapon profile.