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.
2015/02/08 16:59:45
Subject: Rod of Covenant: Close Combat and Shooting.
By choosing to use both you are using both for the turn. That is the rule. If you want to say otherwise please post a rule other than the one above that allows you to pick which to use during a phase.
ADD causes my posts to ramble from time to time. Please bear with me.
Gravmyr wrote: By choosing to use both you are using both for the turn. That is the rule. If you want to say otherwise please post a rule other than the one above that allows you to pick which to use during a phase.
We are given permission to use both in the same turn. Nothing in that rule requires us to use both durring thew same phase.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/08 17:06:05
4000 points: Craftworld Mymeara
2015/02/08 17:09:58
Subject: Rod of Covenant: Close Combat and Shooting.
Not what I asked but thanks for playing. How are you determining what the profile tells you?
Automatically Appended Next Post: What it breaks down to is what rule are you using that allows you to ignore one profile and just use the other then switch between phases?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/08 17:19:19
ADD causes my posts to ramble from time to time. Please bear with me.
Gravmyr wrote: Not what I asked but thanks for playing. How are you determining what the profile tells you?
Automatically Appended Next Post: What it breaks down to is what rule are you using that allows you to ignore one profile and just use the other then switch between phases?
Ahh. I see your point now.
To me allowing us to choose both is, in itself, permission to use option A in the shooting phase, and option B in the assualt phase. Though, this is a pretty large stretch and does not really hold up from an abosolute RaW point of view, as the rule in question is not that specific. It just seems to me that it would be obvious to the reader that each profile would be used in its respective phase.
So from a RaW standpoint it would seem that the rule is broken either way. The singular reading breaks down when the unit enters combat with no CC weapon after shooting, and the plural reading breaks down when you refer to the weapon profile.
Dont have the books on me ATM, but i am going to look further into this when I get home to see if I can find any similar weapons profile interactions anywhere else.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/02/08 17:52:32
4000 points: Craftworld Mymeara
2015/02/08 17:52:43
Subject: Rod of Covenant: Close Combat and Shooting.
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.
This goes back to my point, Burnas specifically state that they can't use them in CC if they fired them. I'm sure even GW had a reason to put that in the codex. Also, some weapons have multiple profiles, like different types of ammo, which is mentioned in the same paragraph. You can't fire using both shooting profiles, obviously, which is what I believe this rule is trying to say. Just like if you have a melee weapon with 2 profiles, you choose which one to use while striking with it that turn. Otherwise, it makes a handful of units in the game not even worth taking, so I really doubt this was GWs intent, just poor choice of how to word it in the BRB.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/08 18:02:14
40k:
8th Edtion: 9405 pts - Varantekh Dynasty
2015/02/08 18:05:43
Subject: Rod of Covenant: Close Combat and Shooting.
As was mentioned, GW put that in the codex because at the time it wasn't I the main rules and they didn't remove the redundant wording when they updated the codex.
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
2015/02/08 18:07:14
Subject: Rod of Covenant: Close Combat and Shooting.
Ghaz wrote: As was mentioned, GW put that in the codex because at the time it wasn't I the main rules and they didn't remove the redundant wording when they updated the codex.
And how do you know that for sure? Why is that specifically wrong and the BRB is right, when either, or even both, could be wrong?
40k:
8th Edtion: 9405 pts - Varantekh Dynasty
2015/02/08 18:08:17
Subject: Rod of Covenant: Close Combat and Shooting.
If you are looking at the profile for anything then you are using that profile. Once you choose to use the shooting profile that is the one you use. It doesn't state that you only use it for using the weapon.
ADD causes my posts to ramble from time to time. Please bear with me.
Gravmyr wrote: If you are looking at the profile for anything then you are using that profile. Once you choose to use the shooting profile that is the one you use. It doesn't state that you only use it for using the weapon.
Again
If a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type, it is treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon.
This rule does not care what you choose, or what you are using. It only cares what is actually listed on the unit data sheet. Choosing the ranged profile for the rod, does not mean that the melee profile disapears, it just means that it can not be used that turn. In short, come the assault phase, the model still has a weapon with a melee profile, but is disallowed from using it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/02/08 18:22:29
4000 points: Craftworld Mymeara
2015/02/08 18:23:19
Subject: Rod of Covenant: Close Combat and Shooting.
Gravmyr wrote: Then you are using the other profile to make a rule decision are you not? Why would you do that?
Im not using the melee profile to make a decision. Using the melee profile would be striking blows in combat.
I'm using a rule from the BRB. As I keep saying, this rule does not care what profile you are using. It only cares about what equipment you have listed in the unit entry.
4000 points: Craftworld Mymeara
2015/02/08 19:13:46
Subject: Rod of Covenant: Close Combat and Shooting.
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?
Actually, the which is referring back to "seperate line" earlier in the sentence. So, it should be read as you can choose which (seperate line) to use each turn.
Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com
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?
Actually, the which is referring back to "seperate line" earlier in the sentence. So, it should be read as you can choose which (seperate line) to use each turn.
Thats what I meant by "profile." Same logic apllies though.
4000 points: Craftworld Mymeara
2015/02/08 20:10:11
Subject: Rod of Covenant: Close Combat and Shooting.
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?
Actually, the which is referring back to "seperate line" earlier in the sentence. So, it should be read as you can choose which (seperate line) to use each turn.
Thats what I meant by "profile." Same logic apllies though.
But you want it to be read as a plural. Which seperate line and which profiles are two entirely different things. The second changes the meaning dramatically. I'm ok with you saying which profile (singular), but you can't just make it plural because you think that's what they probably meant to write.
And the authors did specify it as singular by tying the which back to seperate line. Which has to be singular or the sentence doesn't make sense.
Having said that, this is yet another example of how sloppy these rules are. I can't imagine GW expected their rules to limit the Rod of Covenant this way.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/08 20:11:32
Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com
Having said that, this is yet another example of how sloppy these rules are. I can't imagine GW expected their rules to limit the Rod of Covenant this way.
Finally someone who gets it, praise The Silent King! (I know it doesn't work like that, but shush.)
40k:
8th Edtion: 9405 pts - Varantekh Dynasty
2015/02/08 20:46:22
Subject: Rod of Covenant: Close Combat and Shooting.
Having said that, this is yet another example of how sloppy these rules are. I can't imagine GW expected their rules to limit the Rod of Covenant this way.
Finally someone who gets it, praise The Silent King! (I know it doesn't work like that, but shush.)
"
It seems like most people think there are two sides to these debates... Side 1 says "yes" and side 2 says "no". Side 3 says "yes, but should probably be no. G dubs screwed up again". I tend to be on side 3 in most of these arguments.
Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com
Having said that, this is yet another example of how sloppy these rules are. I can't imagine GW expected their rules to limit the Rod of Covenant this way.
Finally someone who gets it, praise The Silent King! (I know it doesn't work like that, but shush.)
"
It seems like most people think there are two sides to these debates... Side 1 says "yes" and side 2 says "no". Side 3 says "yes, but should probably be no. G dubs screwed up again". I tend to be on side 3 in most of these arguments.
Yeah, personally, until someone can come up with a good reason why Burna Boys have that ruling other than "GW copy pasted the codex", I'm going to be using them as I always have. But I agree, the rule is poorly written.
40k:
8th Edtion: 9405 pts - Varantekh Dynasty
2015/02/08 22:04:08
Subject: Re:Rod of Covenant: Close Combat and Shooting.
As a matter of interest, I put together a list of units and weapons that would be affected by this rule.
Spoiler:
Adeptus Sororitas
St Celestine's Ardent Blade
Chaos Space Marines
Abaddon's Talon of Horus
Huron Blackheart's The Tyrant's Claw
Eldar
Avatar's Wailing Doom
Jain Zar's Silent Death
Maugan Ra's Maugetar
Triskele
Chainsabres (fluff text indicates these are supposed to be used in shooting then melee)
Laser Lance
Scorpion's Claw
Singing Spear
Star Lance
Iyanden
Celestial Lance
Spear of Teuthlas
Necrons
Rod of the Covenant
Space Marines
Marneus Calgar's Gauntlets of Utramar
Farsight Enclaves
Fusion Blade
Grey Knights
Dreadnought Power Fists with built in Storm Bolter
Orks
Burna (specifically mentions may only use one profile)
Space Wolves
Bjorn the Fel Handed's Trueclaw
Dreadnought Power Fists with built in Storm Bolter
Dreadnought Wolf Claw with built in Storm Bolter
Murderfang's Murderclaws
Arjac Rockfist's Foehammer
Blood Angels
Librarian Dreadnought Power Fists with built in Storm Bolter
Dreadnought Power Fists with built in Storm Bolter
Dreadnought Power Fists with built in Heavy Flamer
Death Company Dreadnought Power Fists with built in Storm Bolter
Death Company Dreadnought Power Fists with built in Meltagun
Death Company Dreadnought Power Fists with built in Heavy Flamer
Death Company Dreadnought Blood Claws with built in Storm Bolter
Death Company Dreadnought Blood Claws with built in Meltagun
Death Company Dreadnought Blood Claws with built in Heavy Flamer
Furioso Dreadnought Power Fists with built in Storm Bolter
Furioso Dreadnought Power Fists with built in Meltagun
Furioso Dreadnought Power Fists with built in Heavy Flamer
Furioso Dreadnought Blood Claws with built in Storm Bolter
Furioso Dreadnought Blood Claws with built in Meltagun
Furioso Dreadnought Blood Claws with built in Heavy Flamer
2015/02/08 22:23:56
Subject: Re:Rod of Covenant: Close Combat and Shooting.
Torquar, regarding the BA Dreadnoughts. They would not be affected by this rule as the built-in weapon is a different weapon then the CCW. So it is not one weapon with two profiles, it is two weapons each with one profile.
Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia
2015/02/08 23:03:02
Subject: Rod of Covenant: Close Combat and Shooting.
No one answered my question. Where does it state that a model needs a melee weapon to attack in Close Combat, anway. There's no rules breakdown here. The "every model has a CCW if unarmed" is superflous
2015/02/08 23:08:58
Subject: Re:Rod of Covenant: Close Combat and Shooting.
Fair enough regarding the Dreadnoughts, though it does strain credibility a bit that a powerfist with built in storm bolter is so different to a chainsword with built in shuriken pistol (chainsabres).
2015/02/08 23:10:22
Subject: Rod of Covenant: Close Combat and Shooting.
Crevab wrote: No one answered my question. Where does it state that a model needs a melee weapon to attack in Close Combat, anway. There's no rules breakdown here. The "every model has a CCW if unarmed" is superflous
It's not that the rules state you need a melee weapon, however, you cannot roll to wound as you have no strength characteristic to roll to wound with, and (assuming you decide to use the model's Strength), there is no AP value to determine whether or not the enemy gets a save.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Torquar wrote: Fair enough regarding the Dreadnoughts, though it does strain credibility a bit that a powerfist with built in storm bolter is so different to a chainsword with built in shuriken pistol (chainsabres).
One is rules, the other is fluff.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/08 23:10:46
Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia
2015/02/08 23:17:17
Subject: Rod of Covenant: Close Combat and Shooting.
Kriswall wrote: Having said that, this is yet another example of how sloppy these rules are. I can't imagine GW expected their rules to limit the Rod of Covenant this way.
I don't know about that, the rod seems to fit perfectly with what the rule describes - a weapon that can be used for shooting and combat.
Ork Burnas and Eldar-shining-spear-lance-thingies have been effected by this for some time.
I can't think of any reason why the Rod wouldn't or shouldn't follow this rule.
2015/02/08 23:36:47
Subject: Rod of Covenant: Close Combat and Shooting.
Happyjew wrote: , however, you cannot roll to wound as you have no strength characteristic to roll to wound with, and (assuming you decide to use the model's Strength), there is no AP value to determine whether or not the enemy gets a save.
.
4000 points: Craftworld Mymeara 
Let me break it down for you.
