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.

Breton,
The quoted Rule states that Bombs can only be used to make Shooting Attacks... if you make an attack with a Bomb, and it is not a Shooting attack, have you obeyed this Rule?

We understand your concern about Pistols, but pointing to one weapon type that might not fit the 'must be a shooting attack' requirement does not grant us permission to ignore the rest of the weapon types on that list. We could go into a whole discussion about how 'count as' Rules work, and start some arguments as there are different lines of thought on the matter, but it is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. We have a Rule that simply states that Bombs can only be used to make shooting attacks, so the only way around that would be for a more advanced Rule to inform us that we have permission to use a Bomb as a non-shooting attack. Given that the 'special attack' alluded to in the description of Bombs is not defined, either as a Shooting Attack or something other then a Shooting Attack, nothing changes the requirement for it to be a shooting attack to legally use this weapon-type.

Also, as I believe formatting does count even if Game Workshop is bad at it, do you not find it interesting that the definition of Bombs is found between Salvo Weapons and Primary Weapons?
While the Close Combat Weapon explained section is isolated, having three rules separating it and the rest of the Weapon Profiles... almost as if they where grouping them together for some reason....

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breton wrote:
Then someone misquoted it? The quote said all shootings attacks have a type-

Type
A shooting weapon always has one of the following types: Assault, Bomb, Heavy, Ordnance, Pistol, Primary Weapon, Rapid Fire or Salvo. These rules (found below) measure a weapon’s portability and affect the way they can be fired, depending on whether or not the model carrying them moved that turn. A shooting weapon can only be used to make shooting attacks.

Nowhere does the rule state only shooting attacks have these types. In fact I see one of them right now that makes attacks in close combat i.e. melee.

You actually make an extra attack for having the pistol. You don't attack with it or if you had a power sword you'd have to make an ap - attack for the pistol. It just grants you an extra attack via magic
People on your side are trying very hard to stretch the rules on a technicality. It's pretty clear what is meant. There is evidence for bombs being shooting attacks, none for them not. So the simplest answer is most likely correct. Not to mention it's relatively clear.

You can only vector strike if you jink because it doesn't roll to hit at all or use a template.

jakejackjake wrote:
You actually make an extra attack for having the pistol. You don't attack with it or if you had a power sword you'd have to make an ap - attack for the pistol. It just grants you an extra attack via magic.

Umm.... No....

Pistols count as Close Combat Weapons in the Assault Phase. You can choose to use them instead of another weapon you are carrying. For example, if you have a Sergeant with a Pistol and Power Fist, you can choose to use the Pistol instead of the Power Fist, just in case you are willing to forgo the Str and AP to strike at Initiative. Interestingly enough, you would also get the +1 Attack for having 2 Melee Weapons.

Also, for some models, it is the only Melee weapon they have access to (Tactical Marines, for example).

Power Fists have the Specialist Weapon Special Rule.

Actually there is a quote from the BRB about them NOT being a shooting weapon.
Got the Italian version, so can't quote word by word, but it should be:
"Unless specified all weapons with a range of "-" are meele weapon. All weapons where the range is a number, template or hellstorm template are shooting weapons"

Bombs have "-" as range, which seems to imply that they are not shooting weapons.

Spoletta wrote:
Actually there is a quote from the BRB about them NOT being a shooting weapon.
Got the Italian version, so can't quote word by word, but it should be:
"Unless specified all weapons with a range of "-" are meele weapon. All weapons where the range is a number, template or hellstorm template are shooting weapons"

Bombs have "-" as range, which seems to imply that they are not shooting weapons.

" unless otherwise stated "

"A shooting weapon always has one of the following types: Assault, Bomb, Heavy, Ordnance, Pistol, Primary Weapon, Rapid Fire or Salvo. These rules (found below) measure a weapon’s portability and affect the way they can be fired, depending on whether or not the model carrying them moved that turn. A shooting weapon can only be used to make shooting attacks."

 jokerkd wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Actually there is a quote from the BRB about them NOT being a shooting weapon.
Got the Italian version, so can't quote word by word, but it should be:
"Unless specified all weapons with a range of "-" are meele weapon. All weapons where the range is a number, template or hellstorm template are shooting weapons"

Bombs have "-" as range, which seems to imply that they are not shooting weapons.

" unless otherwise stated "

"A shooting weapon always has one of the following types: Assault, Bomb, Heavy, Ordnance, Pistol, Primary Weapon, Rapid Fire or Salvo. These rules (found below) measure a weapon’s portability and affect the way they can be fired, depending on whether or not the model carrying them moved that turn. A shooting weapon can only be used to make shooting attacks."

Yeah and that's the part that makes it all quite confusing.

So all considered we are told that:

Bombs are not shooting weapons (range "-" and never referred as shooting weapons), but shooting weapons can be bombs!

I think that someone divided by zero.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
By the way, this is how ETC ruled it:

When using a Bomb of any kind, treat the bomb/bombing run as having been fired with the barrage rules

for purposes of LOS, cover and vehicle armor facings, unless a specific Bomb's rule state otherwise.

Bombs/Bombing Runs cannot be executed when a Flyer has jinked. A bomb/bombing run isn't a shooting

attack and as such can be fired at a unit under the effects of Invisibility without the need for snapshotting.

Spoletta wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Actually there is a quote from the BRB about them NOT being a shooting weapon.
Got the Italian version, so can't quote word by word, but it should be:
"Unless specified all weapons with a range of "-" are meele weapon. All weapons where the range is a number, template or hellstorm template are shooting weapons"

Bombs have "-" as range, which seems to imply that they are not shooting weapons.

" unless otherwise stated "

"A shooting weapon always has one of the following types: Assault, Bomb, Heavy, Ordnance, Pistol, Primary Weapon, Rapid Fire or Salvo. These rules (found below) measure a weapon’s portability and affect the way they can be fired, depending on whether or not the model carrying them moved that turn. A shooting weapon can only be used to make shooting attacks."

Yeah and that's the part that makes it all quite confusing.

So all considered we are told that:

Bombs are not shooting weapons (range "-" and never referred as shooting weapons), but shooting weapons can be bombs!

I think that someone divided by zero.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
By the way, this is how ETC ruled it:

When using a Bomb of any kind, treat the bomb/bombing run as having been fired with the barrage rules

for purposes of LOS, cover and vehicle armor facings, unless a specific Bomb's rule state otherwise.

Bombs/Bombing Runs cannot be executed when a Flyer has jinked. A bomb/bombing run isn't a shooting

attack and as such can be fired at a unit under the effects of Invisibility without the need for snapshotting.

So, that's how the ETC sees it. As a TO, they can make up rules that do not exist.

But that's not how it's written. You are ignoring the "unless specified" part. The Bomb rules are specified as a Shooting Weapon which only makes Shooting Attacks. It's not a "divide by 0" situation, it's that you're forgetting a step before you divide that would change that 0.

 jokerkd wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Actually there is a quote from the BRB about them NOT being a shooting weapon.
Got the Italian version, so can't quote word by word, but it should be:
"Unless specified all weapons with a range of "-" are meele weapon. All weapons where the range is a number, template or hellstorm template are shooting weapons"

Bombs have "-" as range, which seems to imply that they are not shooting weapons.

" unless otherwise stated "

"A shooting weapon always has one of the following types: Assault, Bomb, Heavy, Ordnance, Pistol, Primary Weapon, Rapid Fire or Salvo. These rules (found below) measure a weapon’s portability and affect the way they can be fired, depending on whether or not the model carrying them moved that turn. A shooting weapon can only be used to make shooting attacks."

But it does NOT the following types are always shooting weapons. All utensils have one or more of the spoon, fork, or knife types, does not make a tuning fork a utensil. All forks are utensils makes a tuning fork a utensil.

jakejackjake wrote:

People on your side are trying very hard to stretch the rules on a technicality.

Thank you for matching your lackluster personal attack with an epic failure at trying to explain how pistols work in close combat. But congratulations on your two for one special, following up your "you people" with an argument by dismissal regarding the people who HAVE posted rules quotations questioning if bombing run/bombs are always a shooting attack/weapon.

Additionally thank you SO much for this attempt:

jakejackjake wrote:


You can only vector strike if you jink because it doesn't roll to hit at all or use a template.

That is aboslutely NOT why you can vector strike if you jink (I don't have the rules for vector strike so I'm not weighing in on if you may or may not). The rules for Jink say you must snap shot. The rules for snap shot says you may NOT fire snap shots with weapons that don't use BS or use a template, or blast, etc. Ergo your assertion that you don't roll to hit at all (i.e. don't use BS) is actually one of the OBSTACLES to Vector Striking while jinking. For all these rules being so clear cut in your mind, you sure are getting a LOT of them wrong.

Where we currently are:

"Unless specified all weapons with a range of "-" are meele weapon.

" unless otherwise stated "

"A shooting weapon always has one of the following types: Assault, Bomb, Heavy, Ordnance, Pistol, Primary Weapon, Rapid Fire or Salvo. These rules (found below) measure a weapon’s portability and affect the way they can be fired, depending on whether or not the model carrying them moved that turn. A shooting weapon can only be used to make shooting attacks."

The quoted rules say a weapon with a range of "-" is a melee weapon unless otherwise specified. The second quotation does not actually/quite specify that everything with the bomb(or other in the list) rule is a shooting weapon.

Breton wrote:
Where we currently are:

"Unless specified all weapons with a range of "-" are meele weapon.

" unless otherwise stated "

"A shooting weapon always has one of the following types: Assault, Bomb, Heavy, Ordnance, Pistol, Primary Weapon, Rapid Fire or Salvo. These rules (found below) measure a weapon’s portability and affect the way they can be fired, depending on whether or not the model carrying them moved that turn. A shooting weapon can only be used to make shooting attacks."

The quoted rules say a weapon with a range of "-" is a melee weapon unless otherwise specified. The second quotation does not actually/quite specify that everything with the bomb(or other in the list) rule is a shooting weapon.

Right, so if one can prove that it otherwise states that it is not a shooting weapon in a particular instance, Bombs are by default a Shooting Weapon, which means that they generate Shooting Attacks.

Since it mentions this after the Range notation, it can be safely noted as an "unless specified" situation, since it does, indeed, specify.

Charistoph wrote:

Right, so if one can prove that it otherwise states that it is not a shooting weapon in a particular instance,

Can you please rephrase this? I'm getting a little lost in the if not otherwise- my brain is a bit fried from working too many days

Bombs are by default a Shooting Weapon, which means that they generate Shooting Attacks.

Where does anything say bombs are a default anything weapon? They are by default neither melee nor shooting.

Since it mentions this after the Range notation, it can be safely noted as an "unless specified" situation, since it does, indeed, specify.

Where? Where does it state bombs with range - are shooting? All bombs are shooting weapons? Bombing run is a shooting attack?

The quoted rule about all shooting weapons having one or more of those types does NOT say everything with those types is a shooting attack.

Are you really stating that the following Rule is not 'specific' enough to call the bomb a shooting weapon, even with a range of -?
"A shooting weapon always has one of the following types: Assault, Bomb, Heavy, Ordnance, Pistol, Primary Weapon, Rapid Fire or Salvo.

It is easy for us to state that the list is non-inclusive, very few things in reality are all inclusive, but we are talking about a Rule based system here. Within such systems you must include every exception to a rule within the Rulebook, or else the 'possible exception' is not legally supported because the Rules state otherwise. This is a problem when it comes to Game Workshop's writing, as they have literally put 'and so on' within a list before and that is just insane, but the fundamental concept still stands. Unless the Rulebook tells you that a Bomb attack is a non-shooting attack, then the Rule stating it is a shooting weapon and must be used to make a shooting attack is still in play.

Can you legally obey this Rule without making a shooting attack of some kind?

I'm saying that quote STILL doesn't say what you claim it does.

It says shooting weapons have 1+ of X.

It doesn't say ONLY shooting weapons have X,
it doesn't say if it has X it's a shooting weapon.

I'm saying the rules does NOT say that both rules are even in conflict. At no point does the quoted rule say that a melee weapon cannot have X, so the rule doesn't say otherwise.

Why does it have to state only within the Rule for that to matter?

This is a serious question as I think your mistaken on the fundamental concept of how a Rule system works. If a Rule states X, then it will always be X unless another Rule more specific to the situations states otherwise. It doesn't matter if the Rule allows 'wriggle room' for X to sometimes be Y... we still require a Rule telling us that they are Y in order to treat them as anything but X! Warhammer 40K is filled with examples of Rules telling us to resolve X as if it was Y, using terms such as 'count as' or 'treat as' to highlight when this is occurring, so it isn't some how uniquely void of this concept. If you disagree with the concept of a permission based system, requiring a written Rule to give us permission to legally proceed in any situation, please explain for us how the Rules actually work.

In this situation there is a Rule telling us that shooting weapons will have the Bomb type in their profiles, going on to state they can only make shooting attacks....
Do you have a Rule that states Bombs can also be found as non-shooting weapons and how to determine which is which?
Do you have a Rule specifically stating that Bombs can be used to make non-shooting attacks, as that would also side-step the restriction?

Breton wrote:
It doesn't say ONLY shooting weapons have X,
it doesn't say if it has X it's a shooting weapon.

Where does it say that non-shooting weapons can have X?
Where does it say that if it has X that its not a shooting weapon?

Your position is based on a variant of the "... it doesn't say I can't, so I can..." argument.

Why does it have to state only within the Rule for that to matter?

Because the other rule says so?

One rule says weapons with range "-" are melee unless otherwise stated- Ergo another rule must ACTUALLY conflict and override the first one to state otherwise.

The two rules CAN coexist in harmony without one over-writing the other. Bombs CAN be a melee weapon with a range of "-" and the Bomb and Blast characteristics and not violate your second rule so it doesn't state otherwise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

Breton wrote:
It doesn't say ONLY shooting weapons have X,
it doesn't say if it has X it's a shooting weapon.

Where does it say that non-shooting weapons can have X?
Where does it say that if it has X that its not a shooting weapon?

Your position is based on a variant of the "... it doesn't say I can't, so I can..." argument.

No, my position is a variant of Rule 1 says Y unless X, and Rule 2 doesn't actually contradict Y, let alone with X.

Weapons with Range - are melee unless otherwise stated. That is unambiguous, yes?

Rule 2 does not say everything with bomb is a shooting attack/weapon so logically it is not otherwise stating.

Breton wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

Right, so if one can prove that it otherwise states that it is not a shooting weapon in a particular instance,

Can you please rephrase this? I'm getting a little lost in the if not otherwise- my brain is a bit fried from working too many days

Okay, we have two rules. One states that unless specified, weapons with a certain range are melee weapons. Then we see that Weapons with a certain type are noted as Shooting Weapons which can only make Shooting Attacks. The inclusion of the Bomb type as a Shooting Weapon is what qualifies as "unless specified". We do not have any other rules telling us that the Bomb type is NOT a Shooting Weapon.

Breton wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
Bombs are by default a Shooting Weapon, which means that they generate Shooting Attacks.

Where does anything say bombs are a default anything weapon? They are by default neither melee nor shooting.

You just quoted the rule that states that they are by default, a Shooting Weapon. Or in other words, Shooting Weapons have many types, one of which is Bomb. So, unless the weapon tells us otherwise, it IS a Shooting Weapon.

Breton wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

Since it mentions this after the Range notation, it can be safely noted as an "unless specified" situation, since it does, indeed, specify.

Where? Where does it state bombs with range - are shooting? All bombs are shooting weapons? Bombing run is a shooting attack?

The quoted rule about all shooting weapons having one or more of those types does NOT say everything with those types is a shooting attack.

But by so qualifying them as Shooting Weapons as the default, we would need notification when they are NOT Shooting Weapons. So, since the Bomb rules and Bombing Run do not tell us they are not Shooting Weapons, it devolves to a case by case basis as to when a Bomb is not a Shooting Weapon.

I don't want to put words in your mouth so tell me if this is correct:
Your argument is that the explanation of Weapon Types is not enough to be considered 'otherwise stated' to over-turn the Rule explaining how Range works?

I could do some mean Rule Laywering to prevent the illegal outcome that will cause, as Weapons with the Melee Type can only ever be used during a specific sub-phase of Assault, but that is beside the point. I am fixated on this concept that a Rule detailing how to determine if something is a 'shooting weapon,' with the restriction that shooting weapons can only make shooting attacks, clearly applies to the Bomb in question... but the restriction that comes with it can be safely ignored. Being fixated on the word only to create the conflict, how does that restriction work into your interpenetration of bombs as duel Shooting and Melee weapons?

If it is both a Shooting and Melee weapon, it would still be bound by a restriction telling us it can only make shooting attacks!

Then we see that Weapons with a certain type are noted as Shooting Weapons which can only make Shooting Attacks

Incorrect. We see shooting weapons have one or more of those types. It does not say if it has these types it is a shooting weapon. The rule being quoted about types is only half of what is needed for otherwise stated.

You just quoted the rule that states that they are by default, a Shooting Weapon.

No, because that's not what it says. It says to be a shooting weapon it has those types,it does NOT say everything that has those types is a shooting weapon. The types rule doesn't have anything about "unless otherwise stated", because it doesn't say those types are shooting weapons, it ONLY says shooting weapons have 1+ of those types.

If the best you can do is conclude that Bomb's are both Melee Weapons (without the Melee Type) and Shooting Weapons because the two Rules are not in conflict... that still does not allow us to ignore the Restriction that anything deemed a Shooting Weapons can only make Shooting Attacks!

JinxDragon wrote:
I don't want to put words in your mouth so tell me if this is correct:
Your argument is that the explanation of Weapon Types is not enough to be considered 'otherwise stated' to over-turn the Rule explaining how Range works?

I could do some mean Rule Laywering to prevent the illegal outcome that will cause, as Weapons with the Melee Type can only ever be used during a specific sub-phase of Assault, but that is beside the point. I am fixated on this concept that a Rule detailing how to determine if something is a 'shooting weapon,' with the restriction that shooting weapons can only make shooting attacks, clearly applies to the Bomb in question... but the restriction that comes with it can be safely ignored. Being fixated on the word only to create the conflict, how does that restriction work into your interpenetration of bombs as duel Shooting and Melee weapons?

If it is both a Shooting and Melee weapon, it would still be bound by a restriction telling us it can only make shooting attacks!

My argument is that yes one rule says X, and the other does not quite say Y.

That is the part I can not grasp:
How can a Rule, designed to explain what the different Weapon Types are, not apply to something that meets the definitions within?!

To put the question forth in another format:
If this Rule does not define what is a Shooting Weapon, what Rule supplies that definition?

Breton wrote:

Then we see that Weapons with a certain type are noted as Shooting Weapons which can only make Shooting Attacks

Incorrect. We see shooting weapons have one or more of those types. It does not say if it has these types it is a shooting weapon. The rule being quoted about types is only half of what is needed for otherwise stated.

You just quoted the rule that states that they are by default, a Shooting Weapon.

No, because that's not what it says. It says to be a shooting weapon it has those types,it does NOT say everything that has those types is a shooting weapon. The types rule doesn't have anything about "unless otherwise stated", because it doesn't say those types are shooting weapons, it ONLY says shooting weapons have 1+ of those types.

And your statements have completely ignored my overall point.

We have rules detailing Bombs as Shooting Weapons by including them in their type list, where does it state that they are anything else?

Because it's only half of a definition.

Again if a rule says utenils are all either forks, spoons, or knives, that doesn't make a tuning fork a utensil, because it doesn't make all forks untensils, however it a rule says all forks are utensils, you can now eat your supper at the piano because your tuning fork is a utensil.

The people who say a bomb is a shooting weapon because it has blast and bomb and shooting weapons can have blast and bomb are making a logical shortcut.

They could just as easily make a Conscript Guardsman with a (melee) suicide vest (Large Blast). That doesn't break their rules for weapon types, though it would be admittedly hard to use wihtout special rule'ing the blast part.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

And your statements have completely ignored my overall point.

We have rules detailing Bombs as Shooting Weapons by including them in their type list, where does it state that they are anything else?

Other than continuing to repeat the same assumption bombs are shooting because shooting CAN be a bomb/blast, what was your point?

Because my point is CAN is not MUST. So far the only rule quoted for a must is -melee for range "-" unless- . After that you've got can/might.

Breton,
Your strawman is incorrect:
If a Rule defines 'forks' as utensils, then for all Rule related purposes anything meeting that definition is a utensil unless a more specific Rule states otherwise. That is how Rules work, they have the power to redefine things to better fit the game, and we are forced to obey those new definitions if we want to play said game. This is quite a simple concept: we simply lack permission to apply our own personal definitions to each object, and must abide by the definitions put forth in the Rulebook. So please stop trying to use your own definitions to over-turn a written Rule that does attempt to define what 'Bomb' means when we see it on a Weapon Profile.

However;
Seeing we can not convince you by quoting the one Rule in the book that defines Weapon Types, let me attack the problem from another angle. Assuming that the Weapon Type is meaningless for determining if something is or is not a shooting attack, we would need to look at another location within the Book and/or Codex's to find out this information. There is an Appendix that details Ranged Weapons, but it does not state that Ranged Weapons are Shooting Weapons and informs us the list within is only a sample of the most common weapons to be found. For the sake of this argument we will accept that Ranged Weapons are Shooting Weapons, and that Codex's will contain more items to be added to the 'Ranged Weapon' list if they are specific shooting weapons for that faction.

With that in mind:
Where do we find the Pulse Bomb in the Tau Codex?
Where do we find the Bigbomm in the Ork Codex?
Burner Bombs are found under Flamer Weapons in the Ork codex, which are a subset of what section of the Codex?
Note: There is also a weapon within this section that can be used in either Melee or Shooting attacks, how does it define this fact?
Where are Status Bombs found in the old Dark Angels Codex?

If we conclude that the Weapon Type: Bomb does not automatically make it a Ranged/Shooting weapon, we still have every profile containing the Weapon Type of 'Bomb' listed as a Ranged Weapon.
Therefore, the restriction preventing Ranged/Shooting Weapons from being used in anything other then a Shooting Attack still applies to all situations we will encounter in game.

Breton wrote:
Because it's only half of a definition.

Again if a rule says utenils are all either forks, spoons, or knives, that doesn't make a tuning fork a utensil, because it doesn't make all forks untensils, however it a rule says all forks are utensils, you can now eat your supper at the piano because your tuning fork is a utensil.

A poor example since we already have a definition of a tuning fork that it is NOT a utensil.

Breton wrote:
The people who say a bomb is a shooting weapon because it has blast and bomb and shooting weapons can have blast and bomb are making a logical shortcut.

They could just as easily make a Conscript Guardsman with a (melee) suicide vest (Large Blast). That doesn't break their rules for weapon types, though it would be admittedly hard to use without special rule'ing the blast part.

I don't see many people doing that except for an "after the fact" kind of thing.

We have a definition that a Bomb Type is a Shooting Weapon type. Do you have another definition listed in the Bomb section to tell it is otherwise?

Breton wrote:

And your statements have completely ignored my overall point.

We have rules detailing Bombs as Shooting Weapons by including them in their type list, where does it state that they are anything else?

Other than continuing to repeat the same assumption bombs are shooting because shooting CAN be a bomb/blast, what was your point?

Because my point is CAN is not MUST. So far the only rule quoted for a must is -melee for range "-" unless- . After that you've got can/might.

And again you ignore it. We have what it CAN be, do we have anything to say it is NOT or anything BUT?

Even that rule for Range is not truly a "must", since it allows for other options when specified. What could one of those other options be? Why, a Shooting Weapon that requires a model to have a movement path over the target in order to hit them. Hmm, that sounds just like a Bomb!

So, we have one definition that puts Bomb in the Shooting Weapons pile, but that is really it. Since that is all we have to go by, I will use that one.

JinxDragon wrote:
Breton,
Your strawman is incorrect:
If a Rule defines 'forks' as utensils, then for all Rule related purposes anything meeting that definition is a utensil unless a more specific Rule states otherwise. That is how Rules work, they have the power to re-define things to better fit the game being played if the general definition does not apply. We simply lack permission to apply our own personal definitions to each object, and must abide by the definitions put forth in the Rulebook. This is not a difficult concept, so please stop trying to use your own definitions to over-turn a written Rule.

You appear to be misusing the "straw man" concept. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman I did not alter or provide your argument for you, certainly not with the utensil analogy.

However;
Seeing we can not convince you by quoting the one Rule in the book that defines Weapon Types, let me attack the problem from another angle. Assuming that the Weapon Type is meaningless for determining if something is or is not a shooting attack, we would need to look at another location within the Book and/or Codex's to find out this information. There is an Appendix that details Ranged Weapons, but it does not state that Ranged Weapons are Shooting Weapons and informs us the list within is only a sample of the most common weapons to be found. For the sake of this argument we will accept that Ranged Weapons are Shooting Weapons, and that Codex's will contain more items to be added to the 'Ranged Weapon' list if they are specific shooting weapons for that faction.

With that in mind:
Where do we find the Pulse Bomb in the Tau Codex?
Where do we find the Bigbomm in the Ork Codex?
Burner Bombs are found under Flamer Weapons in the Ork codex, which are a subset of what section of the Codex?
Note: There is also a weapon within this section that can be used in either Melee or Shooting attacks, how does it define this fact?
Where are Status Bombs found in the old Dark Angels Codex?

And NOW you're getting somewhere. Assuming your questions were rhetorical, you have established those listed bombs are ranged weapons via something that actually DOES establish it.

If we conclude that the Weapon Type: Bomb does not automatically make it a Ranged/Shooting weapon, we still have every profile containing the Weapon Type of 'Bomb' listed as a Ranged Weapon.
Therefore, the restriction preventing Ranged/Shooting Weapons from being used in anything other then a Shooting Attack still applies....

Barring another rule, sure.

Sorry I misused the word so let me use the right one:

Your anecdotal argument is incorrect:
If a Rule defines 'forks' as utensils, then for all Rule related purposes anything meeting that definition is a utensil unless a more specific Rule states otherwise. That is how Rules work, they have the power to redefine things to better fit the game, and we are forced to obey those new definitions if we want to play said game. This is quite a simple concept: we lack permission to apply our own personal definitions to each object, and must abide by the definitions put forth in the Rulebook. So please stop trying to use your own definitions to over-turn a written Rule that does attempt to define what 'Bomb' means when we see it on a Weapon Profile.

Charistoph wrote:

Breton wrote:
Because it's only half of a definition.

Again if a rule says utenils are all either forks, spoons, or knives, that doesn't make a tuning fork a utensil, because it doesn't make all forks untensils, however it a rule says all forks are utensils, you can now eat your supper at the piano because your tuning fork is a utensil.

A poor example since we already have a definition of a tuning fork that it is NOT a utensil.

that was kind of the point- as an example that different things can share a set of characteristics.

Breton wrote:
The people who say a bomb is a shooting weapon because it has blast and bomb and shooting weapons can have blast and bomb are making a logical shortcut.

They could just as easily make a Conscript Guardsman with a (melee) suicide vest (Large Blast). That doesn't break their rules for weapon types, though it would be admittedly hard to use without special rule'ing the blast part.

I don't see many people doing that except for an "after the fact" kind of thing.

We have a definition that a Bomb Type is a Shooting Weapon type. Do you have another definition listed in the Bomb section to tell it is otherwise?

No, you don't. You have a definition that says a bomb type CAN, MAY, MIGHT be a shooting weapon. Yet again, the logic in the sentence you're hanging your hat on only goes ONE direction, not both. If it's a shooting weapon, it will have 1+ of those characteristics. The logic does NOT turn around and say if it has one of those characteristics it's a shooting weapon.

Breton wrote:

And your statements have completely ignored my overall point.

We have rules detailing Bombs as Shooting Weapons by including them in their type list, where does it state that they are anything else?

Other than continuing to repeat the same assumption bombs are shooting because shooting CAN be a bomb/blast, what was your point?

Because my point is CAN is not MUST. So far the only rule quoted for a must is -melee for range "-" unless- . After that you've got can/might.

And again you ignore it. We have what it CAN be, do we have anything to say it is NOT or anything BUT?

Even that rule for Range is not truly a "must", since it allows for other options when specified. What could one of those other options be? Why, a Shooting Weapon that requires a model to have a movement path over the target in order to hit them. Hmm, that sounds just like a Bomb!

So, we have one definition that puts Bomb in the Shooting Weapons pile, but that is really it. Since that is all we have to go by, I will use that one.

Oh, you're right. The fifth time you try and use the same definition to prove something it doesn't prove is definitely the charm.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
Sorry I misused the word so let me use the right one:

Your anecdotal argument is incorrect:
If a Rule defines 'forks' as utensils, then for all Rule related purposes anything meeting that definition is a utensil unless a more specific Rule states otherwise. That is how Rules work, they have the power to redefine things to better fit the game, and we are forced to obey those new definitions if we want to play said game. This is quite a simple concept: we lack permission to apply our own personal definitions to each object, and must abide by the definitions put forth in the Rulebook. So please stop trying to use your own definitions to over-turn a written Rule that does attempt to define what 'Bomb' means when we see it on a Weapon Profile.

And that would certainly be the second half of my analogy- the half I was pointing out the Shooting weapons definition didn't have. The first half- the half mimicking the types definition- said utensils being either forks, spoons, knives, or combination.

I'm not going to bother continuing.
If you really believe the Rule titled Type, that exists to explain what the Type section of the Weapon Profile represents, does not apply to weapon profile's containing the type: Bomb... all because an single non-Rule related anecdotal argument... then nothing we post here will ever convince you that you are incorrect.