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.

Yeah it's pretty obvious that such a interpretation is clutching at straws in the extreme, any tournament that wanted to make this an actual rule is not one any reasonable person would ever want to be a part of. Such a rule is a blatant and obvious attempt by petty people to try and subtly or not so subtly as it were nerf a codex people think is over powered.

lollie123 wrote:
any tournament that wanted to make this an actual rule is not one any reasonable person would ever want to be a part of.

You mean enforce something that is already an actual rule.......... in the current rulebook.

personally i wouldn't care, but if someone actually was to point this out in a tournament, it shouldn't even be an argument. the rule is clear. many TO's will read the rule, take it at face value, and shouldn't be criticised for doing so

Time to chime in.

This gets goofy when you get into assault after firing(or fire overwatch) with some of these units. With the raw, they have no weapons to make cc attacks.

RAW works like this: praetorians choose to use the shooting profile this turn, and then are later locked in combat. Next their initiative step comes up. They have no weapons with which they can attack.

Many would claim that they get to use a ccw profile, this is untrue. They have no ccw, and the rule that would give them a ccw does not apply because they do have a melee-type weapon(they just cannot use that profile).

If that's true that couldn't possibly be rules as intended. I don't think anyone would expect that to be a reasonable interpretation.

It is rules as intended and has been since at least 5th and has affected the orks since their 4th edition codex which was the first weapon, tmk, that was affected by it. This is not something that just sprung up it's been there. Stop framing it as something coming out of left field just to target our Crons.

That may be, but I think it seriously needs to be addressed, these represent significant nerfs.

What is there to address? You got the RAW ruling and don't like it.

House rule it however you want to keep you happy, but apply that house rule to similar weapons, or else that's just favouritism.

It's not a nerf, it's literally how the weapons were designed to work.

Gravmere: when the burnas came out with this rule we didn't have the weapons profiles for melee.

Now you can either shoot with burnas(the unit) or assault with them, never both(which is fine, and the weapon still has this specific rule)

Frozo: I am not arguing that this is not RAW, I am explaining how the RAW in this case simply fails to function.

Someone earlier mentioned the weapons as having a switch(fluff-justification). I see it more as the shooting expending thier charge(burnas do have to switch between flamethrowing and oxy-acetylene torch, and singing spears are literally thrown).

Which changes what about how they functioned? They functioned exactly in line with this rule before they made it a BRB rule instead of part of the weapon's rules as it was one of the only if not only weapon that worked as both ranged and melee.

Gravmyr wrote:
Which changes what about how they functioned? They functioned exactly in line with this rule before they made it a BRB rule instead of part of the weapon's rules as it was one of the only if not only weapon that worked as both ranged and melee.

All of the current ranged/melee dual profile weapons are old, only burnas ever had the restriction prior to 7th(possibly 6th); so yes the function has changed.

Also prior to 6th(at least) models in cc could simply make basic attacks (just ws, i, and str required), so burnas(the unit) could shoot and charge; again function has changed.

I'm not sure how you seem to think how the burna has changed. In 4th it was a flamer that could be a power weapon. In 7th it is a flamer that has a separate cc profile. You still have to choose which one to use for the turn. You can still charge and make normal cc attacks with your fists just as you could then. What makes you think you cannot make normal cc attacks in 7th? They are virtually identical weapons now except they have the whole profile spelled out for you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As an aside what other weapons are/were there that have/had dual profiles?

Gravmyr, I think you misunderstand what KK is saying.

There have been multiple weapons that could be used in both melee and at range. In 5th (I think), GW specifically said that Burnas could be used for one or the other in a given turn. However, also in 5th, if you did not have a melee weapon you attacked at Init, with the model's strength and no AP.
In 7th edition, GW has ruled that all dual function weapons could only use one mode per turn (which is a change for everything except Burnas). They also ruled that if you have no melee weapon, you are treated as having one.

So what happens is Burna Boyz use their Burnas to shoot. They then charge. They have a melee weapon, so they don't qualify for the "free ccw", however they cannot use their melee weapon so we are left with a break.

To answer your question, off the top of my head:
Laser Lance (Eldar)
Star Lance (Eldar)
Scorpion Claw (Eldar)
Singing Spear (Eldar)
Chainsabres* (Eldar)
Triskele (Eldar)
Silent Death* (Eldar)
Spear of Twilight (Eldar)
The Maugetar* (Eldar)
The Ardent Blade? (Sisters of Battle - St. Celestines Sword)
The Gauntlets of Ultramar (Space Marines)

Weapons marked with * have changed over the last few editions, for example in 4th and 5th, Chainsabres could not shoot (maybe it was discussed but never clarified by GW), however in 6th and 7th they have dual profiles.

There are a lot of sour grapes in this thread. It says one profile per turn, not phase. So that means your stuck with str base and ap -

I have had to deal with this on my burnas forever. I hardly think this cripples the necrons dex.

What is the exact wording of the dual profile rule? If you are using the shooting profile for the turn then are you using the CC profile? If yes then you are breaking a rule. There is no break.

 Orock wrote:
There are a lot of sour grapes in this thread. It says one profile per turn, not phase. So that means your stuck with str base and ap -

I have had to deal with this on my burnas forever. I hardly think this cripples the necrons dex.

Where do you get Str: User, AP-?

You cannot use the rules for "free ccw" because the model in question has a melee weapon and does not qualify.

 jokerkd wrote:

lollie123 wrote:
any tournament that wanted to make this an actual rule is not one any reasonable person would ever want to be a part of.

You mean enforce something that is already an actual rule.......... in the current rulebook.

personally i wouldn't care, but if someone actually was to point this out in a tournament, it shouldn't even be an argument. the rule is clear. many TO's will read the rule, take it at face value, and shouldn't be criticised for doing so

Except there's nothing to enforce.

 FL5 wrote:
BRB Page 41, under "Weapons", second paragraph: "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."

It says you can choose which to use each turn. There's nothing stating you can only choose one to use each turn. The Ork codex makes explicit mention that you can only choose one or another, and here, this apparent snippet from the BRB, states that you can choose which to use each turn. Simply meaning that you don't have to use both profiles.

Did you look at the cc profile to determine that? Then you broke the Dual profile rule which states I choose which to use for the turn.

I hate to do it but I am envoking the tenants of YMDC now .

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
It says you can choose which to use each turn. There's nothing stating you can only choose one to use each turn. The Ork codex makes explicit mention that you can only choose one or another, and here, this apparent snippet from the BRB, states that you can choose which to use each turn. Simply meaning that you don't have to use both profiles.

This is the third forum I've seen this argument used to prove that rods can be used at AP2 in both phases. I'm curious to know then, why I can't use all the shooting attacks on dual profiled weapons based on this application? If it's as simple as 'I don't have to use both profiles', then that implies I can use all of them? I can't speak for any of the Eldar weapons, I don't play them, have their codex, or know their rules.

I do play Necrons. Heat Rays and Doomsday Cannons have dual profiles so do I get to use both because the rule on pg. 41 doesn't limit the quantity of choices? There is nothing in either of these weapons descriptions that restricts me to one mode of fire. Sure the 'Divert Power' rule prevents me from using the larger shot if I move, but that is only applicable to that weapon. (Just keeping in line with any references to Burnas)

I'm still building my Rod Praetorians and there is no doubt in my mind that they if they shoot, they lose the AP2 in Melee, that same turn. That's the rule now. It's not the first rule that's changed that I've gotten wrong. I only found out 3 mos. ago that infiltration isn't optional, but still see Batreps where they put infiltrating units down during deployment.

I have no issues with house rules either, but I want to be clear. Using both profiles in the same turn is the house rule, and not the other way around until it gets FAQd.

I think rather than making it a rule in the BRB that leaves you saying, "huh? that sucks," they should just add a clause in each codex like the orks always had, "if you shoot with this profile you cannot use this other profile in the same turn." As is, if you read the codex profile by itself, you think, "sweet, I can shoot a str 5 ap 2 shot then assault with 3 attacks at str 5 ap 2, this unit is really strong." Then some one says guess again, look at this general rule on page 41 of the BRB and it's just disheartening. "So I have this weapon thats really strong, and it's the shooting phase, and I'm in range, but if I shoot I wont get the great profile in combat, and I do get more swings then shots, but I could also fail this charge, sooo...." It's just a frustrating design.

Let me try to clear a few things up.

1. Burnas have had the dual function and caveat against using both since at least 3rd.

2. Singing spears, laser lances, the exach's lance, and rods of the covenent have had dual function since 3rd(or 5th for the rod when it was created), and I am sure there are others I don't remember at the moment. All of these were able to shoot and be used in assault until at least 6th(again, cannot remember if the rule discussed was in 6th, it certainly wasn't argued about here)

3. Prior to melee wespon types and profiles your models could simply make their attacks at base str with no special rules(there was no ap involved in any way). This is where the burnas(unit) function has changed, they can now shoot or fight, never both(not ever, they have no melee type weapons that they can use).

4. I am not trying to say rods should be ap 2, I am saying all the rules as written simply do not function: cc attacks must now be made with a weapon, and you only get a base ccw if you have no weapon with the melee type. Praetorians(et al) who shoot have a weapon with the melee type, but cannot use it, therefore cannot fight in assault.

What you're saying is per the current rules a model with a melee weapon that is rendered unusable in melee because it was used in the shooting phase is not allowed to use his "fists," and thus cannot fight at all in assault. If this is true I can't imagine that is design as intended.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
cc attacks must now be made with a weapon.

Where is this stated? Several different people have mentioned it, but I have no idea where this 'rule' came from. The entire assault section instructs us to use the models stat line for everything, and the only place that weapons are mentioned is in the section about wounding. Even then, it doesn't require their use.

I'm genuinely not trying troll here, I honestly don't know when or how not having a CCW meant you didn't get to attack when one hasn't been required in the first place. It's difficult to debate when I can't find the source to justify the interpretation. The only response I've ever gotten is 'Well if you aren't attacking with a CCW, then what are you attacking with?'. This is a perfectly good response provided it has something to back it up, and I need help finding that.

On that note, the rule from previous editions where players were not forced to use their CCW rules if they didn't want to is also missing. I don't know when it disappeared, but it was used. A common example was power fist Termintors in cover being assaulted by Genestealers would often give up the power fist rules, to strike before Genstealers got to rend them off the table.

Only reason I mention it is that both using a models stat line in CC, or still using the CCW they have but without the bonuses would be both a Logical and Common Sense approach before declaring that a model needs a valid CCW to be able to attack. Irrespective of the outcome on this mechanic, none of it grants permission for a dual profile weapon to use both/all profiles in the same turn.

EDIT: I think this is one I'd like to see poll'd. Since it only has 2-3 answers. Maybe the OP could add it?

You'll find the rule in the weapons section between shooting and assault phase sections. I have ebook so cant give you a page number

Page 41 of the BRB under "No specified Melee Weapon," "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 would suggest that no matter what they can always make basic attacks with there "fists" if you will. Which still sucks lol, STR 5 AP 2 in both phases or bust!

peteralmo wrote:Page 41 of the BRB under "No specified Melee Weapon," "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 would suggest that no matter what they can always make basic attacks with there "fists" if you will. Which still sucks lol, STR 5 AP 2 in both phases or bust!

Happyjew wrote:

 Orock wrote:
There are a lot of sour grapes in this thread. It says one profile per turn, not phase. So that means your stuck with str base and ap -

I have had to deal with this on my burnas forever. I hardly think this cripples the necrons dex.

Where do you get Str: User, AP-?

You cannot use the rules for "free ccw" because the model in question has a melee weapon and does not qualify.

Ok I see, so you're saying they have a melee weapon, hence they don't get the count as having one CCW clause, and per a different rule there not allowed to use the melee weapon they have already chosen to shoot with, so if you take both rules as written if they shoot they can do nothing in the assault phase, I wonder if there even allowed to make a charge even if they have 0 attacks. This is interesting, and I'm willing to bet if we had a few GW rules lawyers in a room they wouldn't be saying, "yeah that's what we intended." They would need to just FAQ each individual weapon, since I don't believe they ever FAQ the BRB?

 jokerkd wrote:
You'll find the rule in the weapons section between shooting and assault phase sections.

Thank you for attempting a response, I went back an re-read the section, and the hang up seems to be on that 'Free CCW' line, but still failed to address how a model doesn't get to swing.

If you compare both the shooting and assault phases, in regards to how weapons work, there is a key difference. The shooting phase has a 'Select Weapon' step. Assaults have permissions to use them but no requirement to. It goes straight to 'Each engaged model makes a number of attacks (A) as indicated on its characteristics profile...' Having a CCW is not a requirement for this to happen.

Wounding tells us that most cases the models Strength will be used regardless of which weapon is used. If you're going to assume that models with no melee weapon, or with a melee weapon you can't use, doesn't get to attack, then by that same method you have to suggest that this line also covers which weapons are used or not used. (Defaulting to the models strength, should a CCW not be used)

Sticking to what is printed, and making no assumptions, we have several possible outcomes that we have when dealing specifically with the Melee profile, that aren't covered by the rules. Really just covering all the interpretations, not picking sides.

1) After using the shooting profile with the Rod, the Melee profile ceases to exist. Not covered by any rule, but the free CCW rule kicks in since they don't have one during their assault phase, so they get to use that because they temporarily don't have one.

2) The Weapon has a Shooting Profile in the Shooting phase, and a Melee profile in the Melee phase, and while this contradicts what pg 41 grants us permission to do, the rule ceases to function in its intent, so we choose to ignore it.. While two players can agree to this, which is allowed, if one player disagrees, he can still choose to dice off, or not run the unit.

3) The Weapons Melee profile can be used always since using the shooting doesn't remove it or prevent its use.. Pg 41 somehow suggests we don't get to use the AP2, but can still use it as a melee weapon? So the default application could be to treat it as a basic CCW?

4) After using the shooting profile, we are unable to use the Melee profile, but it IS still there. This is an equally valid interpretation as #1 since we don't have instructions one way or the other. As it's still there, this denies the benefit of the Free CCW because the model has a melee weapon that it can't use.

-----> So the issue with #4 is how do we deal with models not using CCWs. <-----
There is no rule saying they don't get to attack, with the presence of a CCW not being required. We also don't know how to implement attacking w/o a CCW since the Free CCW rule is supposed to cover those situations.

This is where I am at with this whole thing. I don't understand how we are supposed to treat 'Not able to attack' as the default result IF we choose to play by the rule on pg 41, when situation 1 and even 3, make more sense than saying 2 is the ONLY solution, because 4 somehow says we can't attack if we're not using a CCW, without any rule to support it.

My point here isn't to convince anyone yet, but to find all the solutions then see which one best allows us to play with the rule.

I think most people are making good points, but I have seen nothing to sway me from believing GW needs to provide further clarification to either the rule on page 41, or each individual weapon. For example, I just finished watching Reece's batrep with Pablo over on frontline gaming, ultramarines vs necrons with Reece using necrons running rods of covenant. Multiple times he shot with them and then went on to assault with them in the same turn using the str 5 ap 2 profile. Now I don't know for sure, he may be completely ignorant of this controversy, but I doubt it; Often I see Reece weighing in on all manner of rules jockeying. Does this mean the argument is settled? Of course not. But I find it compelling that he played them that way.