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.

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

It's not just my reading - it's literally what the rule says.
And yes, the CC profile is integral to the shooting profile.

For the sake of brevity the game rules constantly refer to rules that are printed in full elsewhere. It is utterly absurd to make distinction based on where the rule is physically printed. So whenever you see a key word 'pistol' in the weapon's rules, it is equivalent of it saying 'this weapon can be used in CC with the following profile: R:- S:User AP:- Melee'.

It's not utterly absurd when the actual rules says that.
You're creating something that doesn't exist - a link between the Pistol rule and pistols having a separate profile printed in the book.

Out of curiosity, do you think that there actually is a weapon in the game to which the rule on p.51 applies to?

Missile Launchers (SM and Eldar)
Aux. Grenade Launcer
Blastmasters
Doomsday Cannon
Heat Ray
Mawcannon
Prism Cannon
Thunderfire Cannon
Whirlwind Launcher

I used the brb weapon lists for this because it was trivial to prove.

rigeld2 wrote:

It's not utterly absurd when the actual rules says that.

Referring to a profile must be seen as same as listing the profile. Referring to a rule is listing that rule, that's how referring works.

You're creating something that doesn't exist - a link between the Pistol rule and pistols having a separate profile printed in the book.

Of course there's a link! They have two profiles, one for shooting and one for CC!

*snip weapon list*

I meant ones with one profile for melee and one for shooting.

How about St. Celestine's Ardent Blade? Arjack Rockfist's Foehammer? Howling Banshee Exarch's Triskele or Jain Zar's Silent Death? Singing Spear? Laser Lance or Star Lance? Wailing Doom?

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

It's not utterly absurd when the actual rules says that.

Referring to a profile must be seen as same as listing the profile. Referring to a rule is listing that rule, that's how referring works.

The Pistol rule does more than just list the profile. Perhaps you should read it?

You're creating something that doesn't exist - a link between the Pistol rule and pistols having a separate profile printed in the book.

Of course there's a link! They have two profiles, one for shooting and one for CC!

No, they don't. The rule on page 51 explicitly says that the ranged profile is ignored.

Pistols as Close Combat Weapons
A pistol can be used as a close combat weapon. If this is done, use the profile given above - the Strength, AP and special rules of the pistol's Shooting profile are ignored (see page 52).

This further demonstrates that they are not two profiles listed together because to use one you must ignore the other.

I meant ones with one profile for melee and one for shooting.

Oh, you meant something that page 51 doesn't refer to?

How about St. Celestine's Ardent Blade? Arjack Rockfist's Foehammer? Howling Banshee Exarch's Triskele or Jain Zar's Silent Death? Singing Spear? Laser Lance or Star Lance? Wailing Doom?

Don't own any of those codexes so I can't comment. Not that they're relevant in any way as I've proven your statement incorrect. Page 51 refers to the weapons I mentioned. You're assuming it also refers to other things with no basis in actual rules.

You are not making any sense. Of course you ignore shooting profile for close combat! This doesn't mean the weapon doesn't have two profiles!

Oh, you meant something that page 51 doesn't refer to?

Um, yes it does...

"Some weapons can be used in different ways, representing different power settings or types of ammo. Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon's profile for each, and you can choose which to use each turn."

 Crimson wrote:
You are not making any sense. Of course you ignore shooting profile for close combat! This doesn't mean the weapon doesn't have two profiles!

If you're treating the weapon as having two profiles, are you ignoring one of the profiles?

Oh, you meant something that page 51 doesn't refer to?

Um, yes it does...

Really? Can you quote the part where it mentions something about a hybrid weapon or a ranged/melee combo?
Because I don't see it there. You've asserted that's what the rule talks about - prove it.
edit: I quoted too fast apparently.
And that's not "rules". That actually means very little. The rules part is the next sentence.

rigeld2 wrote:

And that's not "rules". That actually means very little. The rules part is the next sentence.

Oh, so we can now just declare random sentences in the middle of a rules text in rules section of the book to not be rules! Neat; I'm sure this will immensely enhance the quality of the rules debates here!

 DeathReaper wrote:
That is just the allowance for a pistol to be used as a CCW since ranged weapons can not be used as CCW's without a specific rule allowing it.

Actually, this is an incorrect statement. Any weapon a model possesses, including their fists, is used in close combat. However, Close Combat Weapons include additional rules, such as extra attacks from using more than one CCW and any special rules associated with using a specific CCW. In case of Pistols, they are ranged weapons with special rules allowing them to be used as a CCW while in close combat, which allows for an extra attack per duel wielding if the model also has another CCW.

A Marine can always use his Boltgun to butt stroke an opponent; however, his Bolt Pistol and Chainsword will net him more attacks.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
That is just the allowance for a pistol to be used as a CCW since ranged weapons can not be used as CCW's without a specific rule allowing it.

Actually, this is an incorrect statement. Any weapon a model possesses, including their fists, is used in close combat. However, Close Combat Weapons include additional rules, such as extra attacks from using more than one CCW and any special rules associated with using a specific CCW. In case of Pistols, they are ranged weapons with special rules allowing them to be used as a CCW while in close combat, which allows for an extra attack per duel wielding if the model also has another CCW.

A Marine can always use his Boltgun to butt stroke an opponent; however, his Bolt Pistol and Chainsword will net him more attacks.

SJ

Your statement is incorrect.

"If the weapon's range contains a '-', it is (unless otherwise stated) a Melee weapon. if it contains a number, or Template' it is a shooting weapon." (50)

And the rule that clinches it: "A shooting weapon can only be used to make Shooting attacks." (50)

There is no allowance for a shooting weapon to be used in CC.

A marine can not use his Boltgun in CC to " butt stroke an opponent" why a marine would want to stroke an opponents butt in close combat is beyond me though.

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

And that's not "rules". That actually means very little. The rules part is the next sentence.

Oh, so we can now just declare random sentences in the middle of a rules text in rules section of the book to not be rules! Neat; I'm sure this will immensely enhance the quality of the rules debates here!

What does that sentence tell you? Taken alone - apply no other sentences.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

And that's not "rules". That actually means very little. The rules part is the next sentence.

Oh, so we can now just declare random sentences in the middle of a rules text in rules section of the book to not be rules! Neat; I'm sure this will immensely enhance the quality of the rules debates here!

What does that sentence tell you? Taken alone - apply no other sentences.

What does that sentence tell you in the context it is in?

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

And that's not "rules". That actually means very little. The rules part is the next sentence.

Oh, so we can now just declare random sentences in the middle of a rules text in rules section of the book to not be rules! Neat; I'm sure this will immensely enhance the quality of the rules debates here!

What does that sentence tell you? Taken alone - apply no other sentences.

What does that sentence tell you in the context it is in?

That its meaningless by itself because the next sentence defines what it means.
I've proven (as in, you haven't been able to argue using rules) that the rule does not apply to pistols. You're trying to say "Well, what they meant was... but it takes so much more ink!"
a) Irrelevant argument - it doesn't matter what they meant, it matters what they wrote.
b) That's your assumption, and said assumption is not supported by actual rules.

You then asked if there were any weapons currently in the game that met the rule - I provided some that you handwaved away.

Would you care to offer rules support for your assertion? I've ignored no rules in constructing my argument, you've made things up out of whole cloth.

Your only argument is that referring to a rule does not count as listing the rule; thus you've constructed artificial differentiation that has never existed in the rules. If fact, if it would, the entire game would break.

 Crimson wrote:
Your only argument is that referring to a rule does not count as listing the rule; thus you've constructed artificial differentiation that has never existed in the rules. If fact, if it would, the entire game would break.

No, that's not my only argument - you've incorrectly summarized everything to make yourself look right (not surprising).
I'm not going to bother correcting you (because you'll ignore it) but I would suggest actually reading the rules and providing something to base your assertion on.

(For discussing how this rule affects certain other weapons I made another thread to keep thing clear.)

As for pistols:

1) Being a pistol gives the weapon an another set of stats to be used in close combat.
2) When weapon has various ways it can be used, you must choose one way to use it, and you're stuck with that for the whole turn.
-> You must choose one of these ways to use a pistol and cannot use it both ways in the same turn.

This is all supported by the rules.

 Crimson wrote:
(For discussing how this rule affects certain other weapons I made another thread to keep thing clear.)

As for pistols:

1) Being a pistol gives the weapon an another set of stats to be used in close combat.
2) When weapon has various ways it can be used, you must choose one way to use it, and you're stuck with that for the whole turn.
-> You must choose one of these ways to use a pistol and cannot use it both ways in the same turn.

This is all supported by the rules.

Very well. Lets lay out a scenario;

I have a model armed with a pistol (and no other weapons). He shoots in his shooting phase, then assaults. What is he conducting combat with? "No specified close combat weapon" or "pistol"? Either way, it is the same statline. Although, Pistol states "can be used as", not "must be". So I have my model attack with no specified close combat weapon. All good?

I have a model armed with a pistol and a ccw. He shoots then assaults. He is using the ccw in the combat. But, as a pistol is also a melee weapon he possesses 2 ccw's and gets +1 attack (you don't have to be using the 2nd ccw to get the attack, merely possess it). Correct?

If so, the point is moot. The pistol itself is not being "used" in combat in either of those scenarios.

Or is there something incorrect in this reading of the rules? (I admit I may be wrong. This is merely how it appears to play out to me using the rules provided).

 Crimson wrote:
(For discussing how this rule affects certain other weapons I made another thread to keep thing clear.)

As for pistols:

1) Being a pistol gives the weapon an another set of stats to be used in close combat.
2) When weapon has various ways it can be used, you must choose one way to use it, and you're stuck with that for the whole turn.
-> You must choose one of these ways to use a pistol and cannot use it both ways in the same turn.

This is all supported by the rules.

Your #1 statement is incomplete and is clouding your understanding of the rules. You've refused to accept correction when I've provided it - but it should be sufficient to say I've proven that statement incorrect and therefore anything following it cannot be a correct assumption.

Please discuss using complete, actual rules.

Rorschach9 wrote:

Very well. Lets lay out a scenario;

I have a model armed with a pistol (and no other weapons). He shoots in his shooting phase, then assaults. What is he conducting combat with? "No specified close combat weapon" or "pistol"? Either way, it is the same statline. Although, Pistol states "can be used as", not "must be". So I have my model attack with no specified close combat weapon. All good?

I have a model armed with a pistol and a ccw. He shoots then assaults. He is using the ccw in the combat. But, as a pistol is also a melee weapon he possesses 2 ccw's and gets +1 attack (you don't have to be using the 2nd ccw to get the attack, merely possess it). Correct?

If so, the point is moot. The pistol itself is not being "used" in combat in either of those scenarios.

Or is there something incorrect in this reading of the rules? (I admit I may be wrong. This is merely how it appears to play out to me using the rules provided).

No, that seems perfectly reasonable to me. Well put, thank you!

Which means the rule in itself is not stupid or game breaking, which makes me to think it actually should apply to those other weapons I listed in that other thread...

 Crimson wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:

Very well. Lets lay out a scenario;

I have a model armed with a pistol (and no other weapons). He shoots in his shooting phase, then assaults. What is he conducting combat with? "No specified close combat weapon" or "pistol"? Either way, it is the same statline. Although, Pistol states "can be used as", not "must be". So I have my model attack with no specified close combat weapon. All good?

I have a model armed with a pistol and a ccw. He shoots then assaults. He is using the ccw in the combat. But, as a pistol is also a melee weapon he possesses 2 ccw's and gets +1 attack (you don't have to be using the 2nd ccw to get the attack, merely possess it). Correct?

If so, the point is moot. The pistol itself is not being "used" in combat in either of those scenarios.

Or is there something incorrect in this reading of the rules? (I admit I may be wrong. This is merely how it appears to play out to me using the rules provided).

No, that seems perfectly reasonable to me. Well put, thank you!

Which means the rule in itself is not stupid or game breaking, which makes me to think it actually should apply to those other weapons I listed in that other thread...

Except that those other weapons (unless otherwise stated, I don't have those codex's) are not pistols so Pistol cannot apply to them. The bonus of Pistol is the +1 attack for possessing 2 ccw's. If those other weapons are ccw's as well as ranged I would hazard a guess they may allow you to benefit from the 2 ccw bonus (if you've actually got another ccw to utilize in combat), but not if they are the only ccw you have of course.

Rorschach9 wrote:

Except that those other weapons (unless otherwise stated, I don't have those codex's) are not pistols so Pistol cannot apply to them. The bonus of Pistol is the +1 attack for possessing 2 ccw's. If those other weapons are ccw's as well as ranged I would hazard a guess they may allow you to benefit from the 2 ccw bonus (if you've actually got another ccw to utilize in combat), but not if they are the only ccw you have of course.

Yes, and that's why this rule might not cause problems for actual pistols, it will case problems for weapons such as Singing Spear and Wailing doom, who have separate stats for shooting and CC. But this thread is for that discussion.