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.

Gravmyr wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

The Shooting Sequence is very specific on that. We are to treat each option as a different weapon name for the purposes of selecting a weapon to shoot. So Frag Missiles and Krak Missiles cannot fired from the same unit at the same time, one will have to wait until after the resolution of the other. And in the case of the Rod of the Covenant, the Melee portion of the profile is considered a completely different weapon when you go to shoot.

Melee weapons technically have no specific ruling like this, unless you are willing to share the same concept from the Shooting Sequence that each sub-profile is a different weapon name for these purposes. But there is no specific tie in.

It is very specific to only modes of fire and ammo. Since a profile for Melee is neither it does not apply. Therefor you have to look at the entire profile in these cases which makes them unusable or use the reading that has been put forth.

It references the same things in that paragraph on page 41, though. Do not dismiss it out of hand out of peak.

Not to mention, that same paragraph on page 41 does allow me to choose which to use. It does not provide a limit to the number of phases that the choice makes, either. In other words, if I choose to use both sub-profiles of a hybrid weapon, I can choose to use the shooting version when shooting and the melee version when in close combat.

Not that many will really care about this concept. They are too busy trying to use it as means to not allow the weapon to actually do its job.

You are still stating that for the turn doesn't mean for the turn. Once you have made the decision it is made, just like moving models. Once you have moved them in the movement phase without a specific rule allowing you to move them again there is no permission to change that position. Secondly this game is not built on this is similar so that rule should apply to this. You need a rule to tell you exactly what you can do with it to do it. You are not given permission to change your mind on which to use for the turn. You are not given permission to apply a rule about modes of fire and ammo types to other profile options. Without a rule telling you that you can do something you can't, plain and simple. You need to provide an actual rule that states you can pick the profile to use for each phase and then not for the other phases. Without that it's not allowed. This is a basic premise of dakkadakka and all permissive rule sets.

Gravmyr wrote:
You are still stating that for the turn doesn't mean for the turn.

To be accurate, I am stating that "for each turn" doesn't mean "for all phases of the turn", or rather, that if one chooses to use both sub-profiles of a hybrid weapon in a turn, it doesn't mean you have to use both at every point a weapon is called for.

The reason for this is two-fold:
1) It doesn't state "for the turn".
2) It doesn't actually state that this happens.

So my question to you is, why do you continue to push a misquote?

Gravmyr wrote:
Once you have made the decision it is made, just like moving models. Once you have moved them in the movement phase without a specific rule allowing you to move them again there is no permission to change that position.

Funny, Running, Turbo-Boost, Flat Out, Thrust, and Charging seem to provide those permissions for moving. But that's diverging.

And who is to say that decision to use both profiles is not made when you decide to shoot? At the ranges these weapons operate at, one knows a Charge is likely at some point, and most definitely exists in Overwatch. Where does it say I only get to choose once in the turn? Where does it say that this choice is final? Heck, where does it state WHEN this choice is made?

Gravmyr wrote:
Secondly this game is not built on this is similar so that rule should apply to this. You need a rule to tell you exactly what you can do with it to do it. You are not given permission to change your mind on which to use for the turn. You are not given permission to apply a rule about modes of fire and ammo types to other profile options. Without a rule telling you that you can do something you can't, plain and simple. You need to provide an actual rule that states you can pick the profile to use for each phase and then not for the other phases. Without that it's not allowed. This is a basic premise of dakkadakka and all permissive rule sets.

Well, here's the point. I have those permissions, but only if you look at that paragraph on page 41 as a permission, not a restriction, and actually look at the connections in the rules. But it doesn't help to point them out if you continue to ignore the connections, and add other connections that have never been stated by me or the rulebook.

I can use the rule about modes of fire and ammo types for other profile options, because that the sentence that we have been so adamantly investigating (or at least some have been investigating, others have been tabloiding) is in a paragraph that specifically starts with modes of fire and ammo types.

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 is the connection between the Shooting Sequence and choosing sub-profiles that you missed.

Now, the fun part here is, that line in page 41, also gives me permission to not use the shooting sub-profile when it is time for the model to engage in the Fight sub-phase, just as much as it allows me to not use the melee sub-profile in the Shooting Sequence.

Otherwise, when I choose to use a weapon, I would have to use every version of the weapon. Remember, the Number of Shots rule states right before this paragraph, "if a model does fire, it must do so at full effect".

Considering that this paragraph about choosing sub-profiles is actually in Number of Shots, and takes place right after that phrase (ignoring the example), it starts putting a little more context in to this statement than just using it as a denial of every sub-profile but one of a weapon.

Charistoph wrote:
To be accurate, I am stating that "for each turn" doesn't mean "for all phases of the turn", or rather, that if one chooses to use both sub-profiles of a hybrid weapon in a turn, it doesn't mean you have to use both at every point a weapon is called for.

The reason for this is two-fold:
1) It doesn't state "for the turn".
2) It doesn't actually state that this happens.

So my question to you is, why do you continue to push a misquote?

It's only a misquote as you put it if you are defining a turn as something other than what the game defines it as. Per pg 17 each player turn is divided into Movement, Psychic, Shooting and Assault phases. To define turn as anything else is to break that rule.

Charistoph wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
Once you have made the decision it is made, just like moving models. Once you have moved them in the movement phase without a specific rule allowing you to move them again there is no permission to change that position.

Funny, Running, Turbo-Boost, Flat Out, Thrust, and Charging seem to provide those permissions for moving. But that's diverging.

Which as I stated are all specific rules allowing you to move them again. See what I mean about specific allowances?

Charistoph wrote:
And who is to say that decision to use both profiles is not made when you decide to shoot? At the ranges these weapons operate at, one knows a Charge is likely at some point, and most definitely exists in Overwatch. Where does it say I only get to choose once in the turn? Where does it say that this choice is final? Heck, where does it state WHEN this choice is made?

It really doesn't matter when you make said decision, as the rule states it's for each turn. Without a different definition then the one above it's for all the portions of it unless it states otherwise. Does the rule give you a limit other than each turn? You can decide to change which profile you are using but it still doesn't change the fact that you made the choice to use it for the turn, it's basically an on/off switch. Once it's on it's on for that turn. You choose to use the shooting profile great, it's on for that turn. When you decide to change it to use the melee you are still using the shooting profile as it's still being used for the turn and nothing in the rule changes that. You are still using the shooting profile and now you are also using the CC profile. We know what happens then, we look at the profile and both types limit the weapon to unusability.

Charistoph wrote:

Well, here's the point. I have those permissions, but only if you look at that paragraph on page 41 as a permission, not a restriction, and actually look at the connections in the rules. But it doesn't help to point them out if you continue to ignore the connections, and add other connections that have never been stated by me or the rulebook.

40k is a permissive ruleset, there is no such thing as a connection in the rules. There are rules and there are implications. Implications are not rules nor can they or should they be used to justify your position.

Charistoph wrote:
I can use the rule about modes of fire and ammo types for other profile options, because that the sentence that we have been so adamantly investigating (or at least some have been investigating, others have been tabloiding) is in a paragraph that specifically starts with modes of fire and ammo types.

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 is the connection between the Shooting Sequence and choosing sub-profiles that you missed.

Again at best this is an implication. You need a rule that actively states you can do so not one that says you can do so under certain circumstances and has similarities to others.

Charistoph wrote:
Now, the fun part here is, that line in page 41, also gives me permission to not use the shooting sub-profile when it is time for the model to engage in the Fight sub-phase, just as much as it allows me to not use the melee sub-profile in the Shooting Sequence.

Please quote that exact statement. Not under those circumstances I can do x so because these attributes are listed the same way I can do x affecting these other attributes even though I am not meeting the requirements of being a mode of fire or ammo. If you can do that rather than relying on "connections", read implication, then you may have a leg to stand on.

Charistoph wrote:
Otherwise, when I choose to use a weapon, I would have to use every version of the weapon. Remember, the Number of Shots rule states right before this paragraph, "if a model does fire, it must do so at full effect".

That is exactly right without a rule telling you otherwise you use the entire profile. Since there is a rule about modes and ammo in the shooting section we don't have to worry about it for those types of weapons. The onus falls to you to provide a rule that allows you to do the same for weapons with dual type profiles. The only one I am aware of is the ability to choose which profile to use for the turn.

Charistoph wrote:
Considering that this paragraph about choosing sub-profiles is actually in Number of Shots, and takes place right after that phrase (ignoring the example), it starts putting a little more context in to this statement than just using it as a denial of every sub-profile but one of a weapon.

It is also entirely under the type section. This still does not actually change the wording on in the shooting section nor of the profile section. Again you are trying to use implication instead of rules.

Where this is the case, there will be separate will be a separate line in the weapon's profile for each, and you can choose which to use each turn.

Nothing in this section states you ignore any part of the profile without permission. To be RAW you need that to actually be spelled out. For it to be a phase it would literally have to say a phase. It tells you how log your choice is for, the turn. To be anything else, again, you need to provide a book definition of turn to be other than what I posted above.

Can you define a turn as something other than The 4 phases it is comprised of?
Can you provide a rule that changes how long your choice lasts for?

I'm not seeing any rules as written argument for them being able to use both profiles in a turn...

Can't really argue RAI since none of us work in the design studio in Nottingham. I'd like to think that they write a codex with the rules in mind. Or at least have proof readers that know the rules and would fix anything.

Hiwpi is that if they fire the weapon and then assault, as per p41 they wouldn't be able to use the melee weapon profile. However, I would be fine with them making the attacks in the assault phase at s:user ap:-.

If you want to argue of how that doesn't make any logical sense, nothing in 40k does. Maybe the weapon has to recharge or cycle. Maybe it was just the designers way of making you choose between the stronger but more limited rod and the weaker but more flexible pistol and sword.

 Crazyterran wrote:
I'm not seeing any rules as written argument for them being able to use both profiles in a turn...

My question is where is the RAW argument that actually denies it without resorting to implication or assumption?

I'm not going to bother answering Gravmyr anymore. He is under some crazy assumptions about my position that have only been written by him.

I agree choosing which [profile] to use each turn is exclusive of using both.

If we look at other uses of the phrase...

Missile Launchers;

Each time a missile launcher fires, the
controlling player must choose which type of missile is being used.

How many missiles can be used out of the X many you have?


Allocating wounds;

The Space Marine
player can choose which weapon to shoot first.

Again you can have many weapons but you choose which.


Warlord trait:

To determine which trait your Warlord has, you need to choose which Warlord Traits
table to roll on.

There are 3 in the BRB. You can choose which. How many can you choose to roll on?


When you have many, and are told you can choose which to use/fire/roll... it is always choose one, 'choose which' can never actually be more than one without further wording (for example 'choose which three...'). The phrasing goes on to say what it is chosen for, IE. Shoot first, being used, roll on, for the turn. This is common use of the phrase. In fact, it is a completely obsolete wording in the BRB if it does not do so.


Just going to pop up and say this has been brought up a good few times before whatever this Necron thing is, I just think people didn't really care so much about the profiles of pistols for it to go beyond one page.

Gravmyr wrote:
Fling sorry for the mispeak earlier. I really should only post after my coffee. We know a pistol only has a single profile during all but the Assault phase. During the Assault phase it it can be used as a CC weapon. If it is used as a CC weapon you are told to use the provided profile. At this point in order for the pistol to be able to be used at all you need to be able to ignore the other profile entirely. If you can't you end up with a dual shooting weapon / CC weapon. As we know if that is the case it cannot be used at all. The only way it works is if we take the statement "use the profile given above" to mean for all rules. The same goes for the rule about choosing a profile for each turn. Do you know of a rule that allows you to look at only part of a profile other than this reading?

No I don't know of another example but this is clear. If you take the read that choose a profile for a turn forces 1 profile for the turn then firing your pistol prevents you from gaining an attack from it in the following fight phase. So if you want to break the Rod and Singing Soear and Scorpion Claw etc, remember you break pistols at tge same time. That is what I'm saying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crazyterran wrote:
I'm not seeing any rules as written argument for them being able to use both profiles in a turn...

Can't really argue RAI since none of us work in the design studio in Nottingham. I'd like to think that they write a codex with the rules in mind. Or at least have proof readers that know the rules and would fix anything.

It doesn't require us to work at the design studio to work out RaI all it requires is an ability to understand English at a level beyond the purely literal. Like when some one asks "can you tell me the time?" We know they are not enquiring about our ability to read a watch...

If you think they have proof readers then there is no helping you.

Hiwpi is that if they fire the weapon and then assault, as per p41 they wouldn't be able to use the melee weapon profile. However, I would be fine with them making the attacks in the assault phase at s:user ap:-.

How are they making attacks at S:user Ap:- where are you getting that profile? Also I assume you will take the same tac with a Pistol (so someone firing their pistol can not gain +1 attack from it in the ensuing phase) and also a Singing Spear, Scorpionclaw etc?

If you want to argue of how that doesn't make any logical sense, nothing in 40k does. Maybe the weapon has to recharge or cycle. Maybe it was just the designers way of making you choose between the stronger but more limited rod and the weaker but more flexible pistol and sword.

It is not about sense it is about understanding how the rules are written. Then understanding the full implications of you choosing a particular interpretation.

So just jumping in here and I took a look at all the posts and the rules. The wording for dual profiles says you can choose which to use each turn. Doesn't say you can only pick one. Just choose to use both. Things like special issue ammo for sternguard with multiple shooting profiles, well you can only make the one shooting attack anyway so you can pick to use all but you'll only get the benefit of one type. Don't know if this helps at all it's just some people are going on about hiwpi and raw, this is a bit of both I guess.

Fling again please read the the pistol rules. It is only a CC weapon in the assault phase per the rules. It only uses the CC profile when used as a CC weapon. If you read how I put it forth as being told to use the profile then you cannot look at the other other profile. Pistol are actually worded entirely different from other dual profile weapons in that you choose how to use them which then changes their profile. The Rods and anything else that is dual profile, that does not have a special rule such as impact or being a pistol, you would choose the profile then be able to use it as appropriate.

Gravmyr wrote:
Fling again please read the the pistol rules. It is only a CC weapon in the assault phase per the rules. It only uses the CC profile when used as a CC weapon. If you read how I put it forth as being told to use the profile then you cannot look at the other other profile. Pistol are actually worded entirely different from other dual profile weapons in that you choose how to use them which then changes their profile. The Rods and anything else that is dual profile, that does not have a special rule such as impact or being a pistol, you would choose the profile then be able to use it as appropriate.

That means it gains its second sub-profile in the Assault Phase. That doesn't change the fact that it is there.

Of course, the sentence in the Pistol Type says, "A Pistol also counts as a close combat weapon in the Assault phase."

Technically speaking, this means either it has a dual profile or you cannot use it in Overwatch.

 Nem wrote:
If we look at other uses of the phrase...

Missile Launchers;

Each time a missile launcher fires, the controlling player must choose which type of missile is being used.

How many missiles can be used out of the X many you have?

Within the limitations of the system. Most units can only fire one weapon a Phase. Where this gets interesting is for Vehicles. Still, that phrase does not actually specify that only one may be fired any more than page 41.

Maybe Dreadnoughts with Missile Launchers can become a little more viable, then? Of course, Land Speeders become REALLY deadly, too.

 Nem wrote:
Allocating wounds;

The Space Marine
player can choose which weapon to shoot first.

Again you can have many weapons but you choose which.

Using an example is poor proof, especially when the Shooting Sequence states, "First, select a weapon that one or more models in your unit are equipped with. The selected weapon cannot be one that the unit has shot with during this phase" at the very beginning of selecting a weapon. Yeah, that's right, "a weapon" as in singular.

 Nem wrote:
Warlord trait:

To determine which trait your Warlord has, you need to choose which Warlord Traits
table to roll on.

There are 3 in the BRB. You can choose which. How many can you choose to roll on?

Actually 4 tables in the BRB now. But the word "table" is singular in this case. "Choose which to use" does not have any conjugated noun from which to make the same stipulation

 Nem wrote:
When you have many, and are told you can choose which to use/fire/roll... it is always choose one, 'choose which' can never actually be more than one without further wording (for example 'choose which three...'). The phrasing goes on to say what it is chosen for, IE. Shoot first, being used, roll on, for the turn. This is common use of the phrase. In fact, it is a completely obsolete wording in the BRB if it does not do so.

Right, a point I have actually made. The restrictions regarding weapon use are actually in regards to the specific actions or Types, not in the definition of the multi-lined profiles.

I stand corrected, which actually makes them a Hybrid. During normal shooting they only have a shooting profile there is no choice and no selection based on being a dual profile weapon. During assault though you would have to choose between getting an overwatch shot(s) off or getting the extra attack. I believe that this falls in line with the Ork weapons and Rods as a one or the other choice at that point.

This makes a difference from other Dual Profile weapons, as by choosing the shooting profile in the Shooting phase, you are making a statement that you are using said profile for a turn. Trying to change this at a later date, by choosing to use the melee profile for a turn, does not negate that you are still using the shooting profile. There is nothing in the melee section about choosing which profile to use,under type we have the one you have already used, which means you are now wielding a melee/shooting weapon which eliminates it's ability to do either.

Gravmyr wrote:
I stand corrected, which actually makes them a Hybrid. During normal shooting they only have a shooting profile there is no choice and no selection based on being a dual profile weapon. During assault though you would have to choose between getting an overwatch shot(s) off or getting the extra attack. I believe that this falls in line with the Ork weapons and Rods as a one or the other choice at that point.

Not entirely true with Pistols. Provided they have another weapon, they can still get the extra attack from the pistol. The weapon just has to exist. If the model has a Chainsword and Power Fist, and choses the Chainsword, the +1 Attack still comes in, as the Chainsword doesn't care if the Fist is Specialist, usable, or not, just that it is there.

But in cases like Tactical Marines who have no other Melee Weapon but the Pistol, it puts it in a whole new light.

Gravmyr wrote:
This makes a difference from other Dual Profile weapons, as by choosing the shooting profile in the Shooting phase, you are making a statement that you are using said profile for a turn. Trying to change this at a later date, by choosing to use the melee profile for a turn, does not negate that you are still using the shooting profile. There is nothing in the melee section about choosing which profile to use,under type we have the one you have already used, which means you are now wielding a melee/shooting weapon which eliminates it's ability to do either.

Again, misquoting and using it to misdirect yourself. But then, from this perspective, you cannot use hybrid weapons in melee anyway, since you cannot choose to separate the Melee sub-profile from the Shooting sub-profile.

Charistoph wrote:

Not entirely true with Pistols. Provided they have another weapon, they can still get the extra attack from the pistol. The weapon just has to exist. If the model has a Chainsword and Power Fist, and choses the Chainsword, the +1 Attack still comes in, as the Chainsword doesn't care if the Fist is Specialist, usable, or not, just that it is there.

But in cases like Tactical Marines who have no other Melee Weapon but the Pistol, it puts it in a whole new light.

Hardly a new light again as I stated it brings it in line with how the Orks have always worked.

Gravmyr wrote:

Again, misquoting and using it to misdirect yourself. But then, from this perspective, you cannot use hybrid weapons in melee anyway, since you cannot choose to separate the Melee sub-profile from the Shooting sub-profile.

What exactly was quoted there? There needs to be a quote for there to be a misquote. Again read everything I say in the thread not just a single post. You need to actually read what I stated about the type being read for the terms of use. If you continue to state that it is incorrect please post an actual quote and back it up and spell out your reasoning as it took you a large number of pages on Necrotyr to make your statements clear. If you would take the time to do so instead of I use this rule cause... then we might be able to get somewhere. You said there is a misquote where and how? We can't actually debate this without you know an exchange of information instead of opinion.

Gravmyr wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

Not entirely true with Pistols. Provided they have another weapon, they can still get the extra attack from the pistol. The weapon just has to exist. If the model has a Chainsword and Power Fist, and choses the Chainsword, the +1 Attack still comes in, as the Chainsword doesn't care if the Fist is Specialist, usable, or not, just that it is there.

But in cases like Tactical Marines who have no other Melee Weapon but the Pistol, it puts it in a whole new light.

Hardly a new light again as I stated it brings it in line with how the Orks have always worked.

Except for Orks, that is only one weapon that restricts the hybrid weapon, and it is explicit to do so. Rods and pistols do not actually have the stipulation that the Ork Burnas do. The rules for one weapon of one codex do not affect the rules of a weapon in another codex (except for WS special rules, of course). Only the rulebook rules can be used across all codices equally. And there is another weapon in the rulebook which does explicitly state to not use both sub-profiles in the same Phase, the Combi-Weapon:
"A model armed with a combi-weapon can choose to fire either the main boltgun, or the secondary weapon. You cannot fire both in the same turn. Each combi-weapon has only one secondary weapon. The main and secondary weapons of a combi-weapon fire at the same time as all other similarly named weapons in that unit. For example, the ‘boltgun’ part of a combi-weapon fires at the same time as all other boltguns in the unit."

And that version was out before the current Burna (even though the current Burna was just carrying on the tradition of the previous version).

Gravmyr wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:

Again, misquoting and using it to misdirect yourself. But then, from this perspective, you cannot use hybrid weapons in melee anyway, since you cannot choose to separate the Melee sub-profile from the Shooting sub-profile.

What exactly was quoted there? There needs to be a quote for there to be a misquote. Again read everything I say in the thread not just a single post. You need to actually read what I stated about the type being read for the terms of use. If you continue to state that it is incorrect please post an actual quote and back it up and spell out your reasoning as it took you a large number of pages on Necrotyr to make your statements clear. If you would take the time to do so instead of I use this rule cause... then we might be able to get somewhere. You said there is a misquote where and how? We can't actually debate this without you know an exchange of information instead of opinion.

When you said, "you are making a statement that you are using said profile for a turn."

The phrase "for the turn" or "for a turn" carries the connotation that it continues through every part of the turn, or in other words, it is a shortened form of "for the duration of the turn" or "for the duration of a turn". "For each turn" is not quite as locked in in concept.

If I tell someone to do a task "for the hour", they are to do it for the entire hour till the turn of the clock. If I tell someone to do a task "for an hour", they are to perform the task for 60 minutes. But if I tell them, do a task "for each hour", they just need to do it within that hour and between every turn of the clock, but other tasks may be performed. So, too, the choice "for each turn" does not necessarily mean that all aspects of that choice are in play at every juncture, especially when other rules provide sufficient limits on the situation, like being unable to shoot with a Melee type, and only using a melee type in combat.

Gravmyr wrote:
Fling again please read the the pistol rules. It is only a CC weapon in the assault phase per the rules. It only uses the CC profile when used as a CC weapon. If you read how I put it forth as being told to use the profile then you cannot look at the other other profile. Pistol are actually worded entirely different from other dual profile weapons in that you choose how to use them which then changes their profile. The Rods and anything else that is dual profile, that does not have a special rule such as impact or being a pistol, you would choose the profile then be able to use it as appropriate.

It has 2 profiles as soon as it becomes a CCW read the pistol rules it spells out that it retains the pistol profile (as you must ignore certain parts of that profile when attacking in CC). So the ruling must be the same for both.

Everyone should just agree this with the opponent how you're gonna play this before insults are thrown in this shouting match.

If you look at combi weapons you will see that they are in fact two weapons in one slot. They do not fall under the purview of the Dual Profile weapons section.

That is not a quote that is my interpretation of the rule evidenced by the fact that it is not listed in quotation marks.

Other rules of the book which apply to all situations where it is applicable do not have anything mentioned about time. Why would you do so here if not to tie the use of the profile to the weapon for the turn? It's really where you and I differ. Is there a reasonable explanation as to why this rule has a timing aspect where the rest of them do not? Without that ignoring the inclusion makes as little sense to me as possible and why I cannot read the rule as having no timing component.

I have not seen a single user arguing "no cc attacks" address the fact that melee weapons cannot be used in the shooting phase

That alone suggests it is a flawed argument

 jokerkd wrote:
I have not seen a single user arguing "no cc attacks" address the fact that melee weapons cannot be used in the shooting phase

That alone suggests it is a flawed argument

Sorry what is your point here?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
I have not seen a single user arguing "no cc attacks" address the fact that melee weapons cannot be used in the shooting phase

That alone suggests it is a flawed argument

Sorry what is your point here?

My point, again, is that if you can't ignore the "melee" type when choosing the ranged profile, then you cannot ignore the rule that states you can only use weapons with the melee type in close combat. Meaning that you cannot use it in the shooting phase at all. Ever.

Choosing one profile or the other each turn (raw) does not break the game. It doesn't even make the weapon pointless.
Not ignoring the other profile completely for that turn (raw still counts as HAVING both) does break the game and makes the weapon pointless.

Raw is broken. You have to rule on it to play. The "each turn" doesn't need fixing, the always has the melee type is the only thing that does.

 jokerkd wrote:
My point, again, is that if you can't ignore the "melee" type when choosing the ranged profile, then you cannot ignore the rule that states you can only use weapons with the melee type in close combat. Meaning that you cannot use it in the shooting phase at all. Ever.

Actually, you can ignore a sub-profile of a weapon during the Shooting Sequence. It's in the third paragraph, right after it tells you to select a weapon that has not fired. It identifies that weapons with more than one mode (which a melee mode would qualify as), treats it as a different named weapon. Then add the restriction of only being able to shoot one weapon a Phase under normal circumstances from More Than One Weapon, and it becomes clear, that for most models, they would only be able to engage in using one mode when making a shot.

Where it gets a little weird is with Vehicles, Monstrous Creatures, and Tau Battlesuits who CAN fire more than one weapon in some Phases.

But the fun part is that even if one chooses to use both sub-profiles during a turn, there's nothing that states that you have to use both during the same Phase, or even the same section of the Phase (see Overwatch and Fighting for a time where this may happen).

 jokerkd wrote:
Choosing one profile or the other each turn (raw) does not break the game.

The game? No.

 jokerkd wrote:
It doesn't even make the weapon pointless.

I disagree on this point. If we were talking about the Rod of the Covenant having Range 72" and being Heavy 1 (as an example), than you would be correct.

But how many of these hybrid weapons qualify as that? Not even including Pistols in the list, the longest range I have seen is 18", with the average at 12" (Rods used to be 6"!). That's a Move and a maximum Charge. If you consider the fact that models need to be closer than that to actually be Wounded when shot at with these Weapons, it actually means they are meant to be used at a point where a Charge will be in play, either this turn or the next.

Then add to that fact that they are also Assault, which means that a Charge would be desirable after firing the weapon, and it starts coming clear that Shooting with and then Attacking with the weapon in the same turn is a point of it.

However, that is theorycrafting on the intention of the developers, no matter which side of the preference of this debate you are on.

 jokerkd wrote:
Not ignoring the other profile completely for that turn (raw still counts as HAVING both) does break the game and makes the weapon pointless.

Raw is broken. You have to rule on it to play. The "each turn" doesn't need fixing, the always has the melee type is the only thing that does.

Not true. It only breaks the system if you have the obscure belief that if one can access to both modes than one MUST use both every single time it is used. Where does it say that specifically?

------

On a more obscure point, regarding developer intentions, to provide food for thought. The developers were probably not thinking anything about how this would work in 7th Edition when they wrote it. Why? Because it was actually written for 6th Edition where things operated a little more differently, especially in the Shooting Phase. In fact, the whole Number of Shots section is completely the same (including examples), except for the last paragraph addressing random number of shots was reduced to the first sentence, and they dropped the sentences for rolling once for random number of shots for the entire unit.

Welcome to the Copy and Paste Edition where the only things different were the parts they intended to change the mechanic for, and everything related to it can go hang itself.

The shooting phase rule you're referring to states that different profiles that can be fired are treated as separate weapons.
It does not, for obvious reasons, mention melee profiles or any reason to be believe they could be included.

I totally agree that the profiles should be used completely separately. But the rules simply do not specifically say that

 jokerkd wrote:
The shooting phase rule you're referring to states that different profiles that can be fired are treated as separate weapons.
It does not, for obvious reasons, mention melee profiles or any reason to be believe they could be included.

It does when it states "different modes". I would definitely call a Melee sub-profile a different mode to a 12" sub-profile, wouldn't you?

But it is separated out in the Shooting Sequence. However, the definition of "one weapon" for melee isn't defined as such, which is part of the problem.

The only reason that the Melee mode would be a problem in shooting is if you believed that choosing to use it in the Assault Phase (or Fight Sub-Phase) means you have to try and shoot with it, even if you were going to shoot with the other sub-profile. Nothing actually states that, though, even though some are making that assumption.

Charistoph wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
The shooting phase rule you're referring to states that different profiles that can be fired are treated as separate weapons.
It does not, for obvious reasons, mention melee profiles or any reason to be believe they could be included.

It does when it states "different modes". I would definitely call a Melee sub-profile a different mode to a 12" sub-profile, wouldn't you?

But it is separated out in the Shooting Sequence. However, the definition of "one weapon" for melee isn't defined as such, which is part of the problem.

"If a weapon can FIRE in more than one mode, or can fire more than one type of ammo,"

it does not say what you're implying

The only reason that the Melee mode would be a problem in shooting is if you believed that choosing to use it in the Assault Phase (or Fight Sub-Phase) means you have to try and shoot with it, even if you were going to shoot with the other sub-profile. Nothing actually states that, though, even though some are making that assumption.

You have either created a straw man, or do not understand the opposing argument.

those of us that disagree with you, as i'm sure you are aware, do not read anywhere that you can choose more than one profile in a turn.
the fact that you can choose a line in the profile does not (RAW) mean that the other lines stop existing. (though HIWPI, it has to). this means that, although it isn't using the melee line, it still HAS the melee line, therefore still HAS the melee type, therefore cannot be used outside of close combat.

hence why i argue that RAW is broken, and need to be addressed

This does not mean that how often you can choose a line from a weapons profile needs addressing.

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.

"which" quite clearly (although apparently not) refers to the "line" mentioned in the same sentence

 jokerkd wrote:

The only reason that the Melee mode would be a problem in shooting is if you believed that choosing to use it in the Assault Phase (or Fight Sub-Phase) means you have to try and shoot with it, even if you were going to shoot with the other sub-profile. Nothing actually states that, though, even though some are making that assumption.

You have either created a straw man, or do not understand the opposing argument.

Not really, since this is the reason given why being able to choose multiple modes in a turn won't work. Hard for me set it up as a strawman when other people are using it as their lawyer.

 jokerkd wrote:
those of us that disagree with you, as i'm sure you are aware, do not read anywhere that you can choose more than one profile in a turn.

And you also do not read where it says you cannot choose more than one mode in a turn, since it is not there. Some choose to interpret it in this manner because of how people have been trained to understand a phrase while a little kid. A training I've been partially disabused of in critical thinking courses older than this game.

 jokerkd wrote:
the fact that you can choose a line in the profile does not (RAW) mean that the other lines stop existing. (though HIWPI, it has to). this means that, although it isn't using the melee line, it still HAS the melee line, therefore still HAS the melee type, therefore cannot be used outside of close combat.

Conversely, the same could be said in the other direction, unless you choose to accept that line in the Shooting Sequence to include Melee modes as well. In other words, you can't use the weapon in Melee because it has a Shooting Mode, and you cannot Shoot while in Engaged or in to close combat.

 jokerkd wrote:
hence why i argue that RAW is broken, and need to be addressed

There is no argument from me on that score.

Look, a lot of this is based on interpretation of the language, and it is clear that GW has no good game engineers when they design their games. Such as not tracing the interactions their rules will come across. This is one point where Privateer Press excels at, no matter how you actually feel about WarmaHordes' mechanics and concepts. GW writes like they were talking to their friends over a beer, and leave stuff out that they had talked over and resolved by their own side-discussions, but not actually written in the rules.

 jokerkd wrote:
This does not mean that how often you can choose a line from a weapons profile needs addressing.

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.

"which" quite clearly (although apparently not) refers to the "line" mentioned in the same sentence

Except for the fact that one "line" is not the subject of the sentence, just a reference of representation, it is that group of lines referenced by the two sentences before.

Let's put the paragraph in to one sentence for perspective, shall we? It seems that some people forget that this paragraph addresses weapons like Missile Launchers as much as it does Hybrid weapons, and start the quote off on the second sentence (I've been guilty of this, too).

Where some weapons can be used in different ways, representing different power settings, ammo, or being able to be used in combat as well as shooting, there will be a separate line in the weapon's profile for each, and you can choose which to use each turn.

There is still no defined number in the important part of this statement which provides an exclusive limit, either to the number of modes chosen, nor, if multiple are chosen, that they would apply to every use of the weapon.

Took a while, but vindicated!


http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2016/08/breaking-new-40k-necron-faq.html

With that dynamic necronization I think we can wrap up this thread!

Thread is being locked due to thread necromancy.