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.

 Shadelkan wrote:
So, let's assume you're right Nilok... Now what? They can't attack in CC?

RAW, there is no answer, the rules simply break down. The rules are written expecting every model to have some sort of Melee or CCW it can use. Without one, there are no rules to cover what happens.
RAI, it's a coin flip IMO. Yes, the rule is there, however, no one I have ever seen has ever played it this way in a FLGS or a GW shop/bunker (did it also exist in 6e?) and I don't know if GW even knows it exists from all their copy/pasting.

I would honestly say you need to discuss this with your group since this affects more than just Necrons.

What we really need is the BRB to have an errata so this is clear. Either they can get a CCW if you fired the ranged/melee weapon that turn, or the rule is only per phase.

 grendel083 wrote:
It's not that they no longer have a rod, it's that for that turn the Rod does not have a melee profile.

You choose a profile. That is the weapons profile for the turn. That profile does not list melee. If you wish to use the other profile, in order to deny a rule, you're going to have to find a rule allowing 2 profiles in a turn.

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.

Just because you can't use it doesn't mean it isn't there. The profile never changed, you simply can't select the Melee profile.

the sentence you quoted is clearly intended to point you at the fact that you can choose between different ammunitions and weapon types, because this was the main intention of this paragraph.

Sorry, I think this is wishfull thinking by some who think the unit is too strong now, there is now way this is RAI imho.

stormcraft wrote:
the sentence you quoted is clearly intended to point you at the fact that you can choose between different ammunitions and weapon types, because this was the main intention of this paragraph.

Sorry, I think this is wishfull thinking by some who think the unit is too strong now, there is now way this is RAI imho.

I want to think that may be closest to the truth, but it's written in such a way that is covers more than that. The problem is it says turn instead of phase which is where the problem arises.

 Nilok wrote:
Just because you can't use it doesn't mean it isn't there. The profile never changed, you simply can't select the Melee profile.

But you are using it, to deny another rule.
You're using a profile that wasn't selected that turn.

 Nilok wrote:
Simply because they can't use their Melee weapon, doesn't mean they don't have it. As long as they have a weapon with the Melee type in their wargear, they have a melee weapon.

So what you are saying: I cannot use the melee profile when it benefits me, but I have to use it when it restricts me?
That is quite.. wrong.
You either use it or you don't.

In order for your statement to be correct, you need to prove that they no longer have a Rod of Covenant, thus they no longer are specifically stated as having a Melee weapon and have a CCW.

I don't need to proof they no longer have a Rod of Covenant.
We have to proof that they have a Rod of Covenant that is not using its Melee profile, which people did several times.

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.

The bolded part gives us permission to choose from a list of different profiles on each turn of the game. I am not seeing how people are getting "once per turn" from this.

Example: I choose the shooting profile in the shooting phase of turn 3. Did I choose a profile durring a game turn? Yes. Good to go. Next I choose to use the CC profile in the assault phase of turn 3. Did I choose a profile during a game turn? Yes. Good to go.

I don't understand why people seem to think choosing both is not an option either. It doesnt say "choose which one to use", or "choose only one to use."

If my sister were giving me some of her old N64 games and asked me, "Which of these would you like?" picking more than one is certainly an option.

 extremefreak17 wrote:

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.

The bolded part gives us permission to choose between different profiles on each turn of the game. I am not seeing how people are getting "once per turn" from this.

Example: I choose the shooting profile in the shooting phase of turn 3. Did I choose a profile durring a game turn? Yes. Good to go. Next I choose to use the CC profile in the assault phase of turn 3. Did I choose a profile during a game turn? Yes. Good to go.

I don't understand why people seem to think choosing both is not an option. It doesnt say "choose which one to use", or "choose only one to use."

If my sister were giving me some of her old N64 games and asked me, "Which of these would you like?" picking more than one is certainly an option.

In this case you're choosing BOTH profiles each turn, which is not what the rule says.

You're trying to use both in a turn, and different one each phase. Both not allowed by the rule you highlighted.

When can you choose which to use?

You can choose which to use each turn.

Kangodo wrote:

 Nilok wrote:
Simply because they can't use their Melee weapon, doesn't mean they don't have it. As long as they have a weapon with the Melee type in their wargear, they have a melee weapon.

So what you are saying: I cannot use the melee profile when it benefits me, but I have to use it when it restricts me?
That is quite.. wrong.
You either use it or you don't.

In order for your statement to be correct, you need to prove that they no longer have a Rod of Covenant, thus they no longer are specifically stated as having a Melee weapon and have a CCW.

I don't need to proof they no longer have a Rod of Covenant.
We have to proof that they have a Rod of Covenant that is not using its Melee profile, which people did several times.

I think we need to look at the rule that grants CCW again.

If a model is not specifically stated as have a weapon with the Melee type, it is treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon.

The rule that grants models a CCW required that the model to not have a weapon with a Melee type. There is no timing, it simply cannot have it. If it said 'If a model is not using a weapon with a melee type', you would then be correct and what it should say if the other rule isn't changed.

It does not care you did or did not select the melee profile of the weapon, the model has a weapon with a Melee type and is not eligible for a CCW.

 grendel083 wrote:

 extremefreak17 wrote:

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.

The bolded part gives us permission to choose between different profiles on each turn of the game. I am not seeing how people are getting "once per turn" from this.

Example: I choose the shooting profile in the shooting phase of turn 3. Did I choose a profile durring a game turn? Yes. Good to go. Next I choose to use the CC profile in the assault phase of turn 3. Did I choose a profile during a game turn? Yes. Good to go.

I don't understand why people seem to think choosing both is not an option. It doesnt say "choose which one to use", or "choose only one to use."

If my sister were giving me some of her old N64 games and asked me, "Which of these would you like?" picking more than one is certainly an option.

In this case you're choosing BOTH profiles each turn, which is not what the rule says.

You're trying to use both in a turn, and different one each phase. Both not allowed by the rule you highlighted.

The rule says nothing of phases. It says choose which to use each turn. I am choosing to use both on turn 3.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:
When can you choose which to use?

You can choose which to use each turn.

And each turn, I am choosing to use both. "Which" does not have to be singular, and is not idicated as such here.

Except it doesn't say that you get to choose both. It says you get to choose which profile you use and your not choosing which, you've trying to use both.

 extremefreak17 wrote:
The rule says nothing of phases. It says choose which to use each turn. I am choosing to use both on turn 3.

I know it says nothing about phases. Which is why you're breaking the rule chosing a different profile each phase. The rule doesn't allow that. Each turn it says.

And each turn, I am choosing to use both. "Which" does not have to be singular, and is not idicated as such here.

It's clear you don't like the rule, but I'm afraid it is a rule. And not a new one.

It doesn't say choose both, now does it? Where is permission granted to select both, and choose between phases? Nowhere.

 Ghaz wrote:
Except it doesn't say that you get to choose both. It says you get to choose which profile you use and your not choosing which, you've trying to use both.

The problem here is that you can not prove the author meant to write "which [profile]" vs. "which [profiles]" (singular vs plural) In this case, it can mean either, and because it doesn't specify, it is left open for iterpretation. I think the logical choice is to go with the plural reading because it doesn't break the game, and 99% of the population plays it that way.

 Shadelkan wrote:
So, let's assume you're right Nilok... Now what? They can't attack in CC?

RaW, the system breaks. You hit what programmers would cause a hard stop. The process hits a wall and the game hangs indefinitely. I can't think of another instance where a model has NO usable melee weapons. We'll have to fall back on HYWPI.

I would allow both profiles in one turn as I think it's the most reasonable thing to do. I'm basing this on the fact that Ork Burnas have an explicit wording limiting them to one or the other per turn. This implies that GW is under the impression that both profiles would normally be allowed.

And again, you're not even choosing. Your just using all of the profiles.

 Ghaz wrote:
And again, you're not even choosing. Your just using all of the profiles.

Indeed.
"Doesn't say I can't" is what the argument is boiling down to.

 extremefreak17 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Except it doesn't say that you get to choose both. It says you get to choose which profile you use and your not choosing which, you've trying to use both.

The problem here is that you can not prove the author meant to write "which [profile]" vs. "which [profiles]" (singular vs plural) In this case, it can mean either, and because it doesn't specify, it is left open for iterpretation. I think the logical choice is to go with the plural reading because it doesn't break the game, and 99% of the population plays it that way.

This is fine. Just mark it as HYWPI so as not to confuse the issue for people who care about the actual RaW.

 Ghaz wrote:
And again, you're not even choosing. Your just using all of the profiles.

Wrong. I am making a choice. My options here are, 0, 1 or 2 profiles. I am choosing 2.

 extremefreak17 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
And again, you're not even choosing. Your just using all of the profiles.

Wrong. I am making a choice. My options here are, 0, 1 or 2 profiles. I am choosing 2.

So a house rule, to completely ingore this rule. That's fine, as long as your opponent agrees.

"I don't like it, i'll ignore it and choose all of them, in different phases.

 Kriswall wrote:

 extremefreak17 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Except it doesn't say that you get to choose both. It says you get to choose which profile you use and your not choosing which, you've trying to use both.

The problem here is that you can not prove the author meant to write "which [profile]" vs. "which [profiles]" (singular vs plural) In this case, it can mean either, and because it doesn't specify, it is left open for iterpretation. I think the logical choice is to go with the plural reading because it doesn't break the game, and 99% of the population plays it that way.

This is fine. Just mark it as HYWPI so as not to confuse the issue for people who care about the actual RaW.

Let me break it down for you.

Here is the actual RAW

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.

This can be read two ways

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 [profile] to use each turn.

or

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 [profiles] to use each turn.

Because the author failed to classify "which" as singular or plural, we have no way of knowing what he/she meant. Due to this, the RaW is unclear. For me, this makes the plural option a no-brainer as it does not break the game, and most people already play that way.

Is that less confusing?

Except as soon as you choose both the Rod has the Melee type and cannot be used in shooting and is a shooting weapon which means it cannot be used in anything other than to make shooting attacks. There is no rule that allows you to ignore part of the weapon's profile. Since you are choosing to use both you have the limitations of both for the turn.

If you are choosing shooting profile in that phase, then stating you are using the other in the second phase are you using the shooting profile for the turn? The short answer is no which mean you have broken the rule for multiple profiles.

 grendel083 wrote:

 extremefreak17 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
And again, you're not even choosing. Your just using all of the profiles.

Wrong. I am making a choice. My options here are, 0, 1 or 2 profiles. I am choosing 2.

So a house rule, to completely ingore this rule. That's fine, as long as your opponent agrees.

"I don't like it, i'll ignore it and choose all of them, in different phases.

Please use relevant rules qoutes to show me that "which" must be a singular choice. You have failed to do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gravmyr wrote:
Except as soon as you choose both the Rod has the Melee type and cannot be used in shooting and is a shooting weapon which means it cannot be used in anything other than to make shooting attacks. There is no rule that allows you to ignore part of the weapon's profile. Since you are choosing to use both you have the limitations of both for the turn.

If you are choosing shooting profile in that phase, then stating you are using the other in the second phase are you using the shooting profile for the turn? The short answer is no which mean you have broken the rule for multiple profiles.

You are simply choosing to use both in the same game turn, not the same phase.

See above. What rule are you using that allows you to ignore part of an active profile?

 extremefreak17 wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 extremefreak17 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
And again, you're not even choosing. Your just using all of the profiles.

Wrong. I am making a choice. My options here are, 0, 1 or 2 profiles. I am choosing 2.

So a house rule, to completely ingore this rule. That's fine, as long as your opponent agrees.

"I don't like it, i'll ignore it and choose all of them, in different phases.

Please use relevant rules qoutes to show me that "which" must be a singular choice. You have failed to do so.

Which - "used refering to something previously mentioned when introducing a clause giving further information."

Was "both" or "all" an option previously mentioned when told to choose between profiles?

You're trying to completely ignore this rule. Without it, all profiles would simply be available. Not liking a rule is no reason to ignore it.

 grendel083 wrote:

 extremefreak17 wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 extremefreak17 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
And again, you're not even choosing. Your just using all of the profiles.

Wrong. I am making a choice. My options here are, 0, 1 or 2 profiles. I am choosing 2.

So a house rule, to completely ingore this rule. That's fine, as long as your opponent agrees.

"I don't like it, i'll ignore it and choose all of them, in different phases.

Please use relevant rules qoutes to show me that "which" must be a singular choice. You have failed to do so.

Which - "used refering to something previously mentioned when introducing a clause giving further information."

Was "both" or "all" an option previously mentioned when told to choose between profiles?

You're trying to completely ignore this rule. Without it, all profiles would simply be available. Not liking a rule is no reason to ignore it.

I am not ignoring anything. Why do you keep going on this rant about "not liking rules?" I never said I did not like it.

I am not literally choosing the word "both." I am choosing the shooting profile and the CC profile, which are both "options previously mentioned." As above, the author did not specify plural, or singular, and you have not shown any other rules that indicate it is singular.

An Example:
I have a square, a circle, and a triangle. I then ask you to choose which shape you would like to use. You can only pick one here, because "shape" is singluar. If I were to say. "choose which shapes you would like to use," you could pick any combination of the three as "shapes" is plural.

In our rule, the phrase, "choose which," is not followed by either "profile" or "profiles." This means we don't knoiw if we are supposed to choose only one, or any combination of profiles to use each turn. I am asking you to show me something that indicates we can choose only one.

You are ignoring it. You're trying to completely circumvent the rule by choosing multiple profiles.

You can try and word it differently, but "both" is exactly what you're choosing.

"Both", "all", "multiple" - call it what you like, these aren't options given by the rule.

Use different words if you like, but "doesn't say I can't choose both" is what you're doing to completely get around this rule.

Except as soon as you choose both the Rod has the Melee type and cannot be used in shooting and is a shooting weapon which means it cannot be used in anything other than to make shooting attacks. There is no rule that allows you to ignore part of the weapon's profile. Since you are choosing to use both you have the limitations of both for the turn.

Gravmyr wrote:
Except as soon as you choose both the Rod has the Melee type and cannot be used in shooting and is a shooting weapon which means it cannot be used in anything other than to make shooting attacks. There is no rule that allows you to ignore part of the weapon's profile. Since you are choosing to use both you have the limitations of both for the turn.

This is the rule you're refering to?

melee type wrote:Weapons with the Melee type can only be used in close combat

You're quite right, by choosing "both" or "multiple" profiles (without permission I'll note) the melee type stops the weapon being used at range.

The last line under type pg 40 is what causes the other part. "A shooting weapon can only be used to make shooting attacks."

 grendel083 wrote:
You are ignoring it. You're trying to completely circumvent the rule by choosing multiple profiles.

You can try and word it differently, but "both" is exactly what you're choosing.

"Both", "all", "multiple" - call it what you like, these aren't options given by the rule.

Use different words if you like, but "doesn't say I can't choose both" is what you're doing to completely get around this rule.

Again, rules quote, or anything that even suggests that I cant choose both. I have already proven that it can easily be plural, and you have yet to adress this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
Except as soon as you choose both the Rod has the Melee type and cannot be used in shooting and is a shooting weapon which means it cannot be used in anything other than to make shooting attacks. There is no rule that allows you to ignore part of the weapon's profile. Since you are choosing to use both you have the limitations of both for the turn.

This is the rule you're refering to?

melee type wrote:Weapons with the Melee type can only be used in close combat

You're quite right, by choosing "both" or "multiple" profiles (without permission I'll note) the melee type stops the weapon being used at range.

This is also wrong.

The rule tells us to choose which will be used each the turn. It does not specify what part of the turn, or durring which phase they will be used. Again, rules quotes people. Even if you