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.

It doesn't matter if the Apothecary with a special weapon is 'good' or 'bad'. Their answer is for how they intended it to be played. Trying to compare it to the drop pod question is like comparing apples to oranges.

Here is ultimately the issue with the drop pod. On no other model are doors used to claim objectives, gain distance or even block movement or line of sight.

However the drop pod is 90% doors. The simple response from GW is the doors on drop pods are decorations not part of the model.

gungo wrote:
Here is ultimately the issue with the drop pod. On no other model are doors used to claim objectives, gain distance or even block movement or line of sight.

This is incorrect. On 100% of models with doors are doors used to claim objectives, gain distance, and even block movement or line of sight.

Where in the rulebook are you finding the rule that says "doors don't count as part of the model they are on". Because that doesn't exist.

You thought you understood something, but didn't. Now it's being pointed out that you didn't understand it, and you don't like that you misunderstood something. It's clear now, just accept it. Gaining knowledge is always positive.

 Ghaz wrote:
It doesn't matter if the Apothecary with a special weapon is 'good' or 'bad'. Their answer is for how they intended it to be played. Trying to compare it to the drop pod question is like comparing apples to oranges.

And what I'm saying is that it is a bad answer.

How is it a different question? It's both inconsistent rulings based on a lack of in game knowledge and how the models operate. Seems like apples to apples to me

The quick and dirty way to fix the drop pods would be, once the drop pods come down the doors/ramps are considered like aerials and banners and not counted, all measurement is from the hull of the drop pod. As for the blocking of true LOS, this is another problem with true LOS in a abstract game. The drop pod should be able to be shot through ( as if the doors are all open no matter how it is modeled) with the usual +4 or +5 cover save as per the normal rules for shooting through cover, models etc.

I have constructed my drop pods with the doors closed. Am I now boned? Do I have to rip apart my models and construct them with the doors open? I'm lazy and I don't want to have to construct/paint the interiors of my drop pods. Am I now 'That fething guy' who models for advantage?

This was not a well thought out rule and as I said before shows a lack of in game knowledge from the company that makes the models/rules. Do I have to now 'Forge the Narrative"(aka make up the fething rules because GW is to lazy/incompetent to actually you know makes rules for their games) on my drop pods with my gaming friends?

 DarknessEternal wrote:

gungo wrote:
Here is ultimately the issue with the drop pod. On no other model are doors used to claim objectives, gain distance or even block movement or line of sight.

This is incorrect. On 100% of models with doors are doors used to claim objectives, gain distance, and even block movement or line of sight.

Where in the rulebook are you finding the rule that says "doors don't count as part of the model they are on". Because that doesn't exist.

You thought you understood something, but didn't. Now it's being pointed out that you didn't understand it, and you don't like that you misunderstood something. It's clear now, just accept it. Gaining knowledge is always positive.

Decorations and modeling a model for advantage don't count as part of the model. Boarding planks don't add to an Ork trukk profile, doors on buildings count as access points and don't block movement, you can't cut out a single door on any model In the game swing it open and be like oh look my stompas ass flaps now reach out 6inches and can claim that objective in my deployment zone just because you modeled it that way.
Maybe you need to reread those sections as well.

 FabricatorGeneralMike wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
It doesn't matter if the Apothecary with a special weapon is 'good' or 'bad'. Their answer is for how they intended it to be played. Trying to compare it to the drop pod question is like comparing apples to oranges.

And what I'm saying is that it is a bad answer.

How is it a different question? It's both inconsistent rulings based on a lack of in game knowledge and how the models operate. Seems like apples to apples to me

The quick and dirty way to fix the drop pods would be, once the drop pods come down the doors/ramps are considered like aerials and banners and not counted, all measurement is from the hull of the drop pod. As for the blocking of true LOS, this is another problem with true LOS in a abstract game. The drop pod should be able to be shot through ( as if the doors are all open no matter how it is modeled) with the usual +4 or +5 cover save as per the normal rules for shooting through cover, models etc.

I have constructed my drop pods with the doors closed. Am I now boned? Do I have to rip apart my models and construct them with the doors open? I'm lazy and I don't want to have to construct/paint the interiors of my drop pods. Am I now 'That fething guy' who models for advantage?

This was not a well thought out rule and as I said before shows a lack of in game knowledge from the company that makes the models/rules. Do I have to now 'Forge the Narrative"(aka make up the fething rules because GW is to lazy/incompetent to actually you know makes rules for their games) on my drop pods with my gaming friends?

Not allowing an Apothecary to carry a special weapon is not a 'bad' answer and does not in any way demonstrate a lack of game knowledge. Its a simple 'yes/no' question with a clear answer.

The drop pod question is a bit more complex and goes beyond a 'yes/no' answer. Unlike the Apothecary question, the answer is not so clear and doesn't seem to satisfy anyone.

So again, when you're trying to compare the Apothecary answer to the drop pod answer you're trying to compare apples to oranges.

gungo wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

gungo wrote:
Here is ultimately the issue with the drop pod. On no other model are doors used to claim objectives, gain distance or even block movement or line of sight.

This is incorrect. On 100% of models with doors are doors used to claim objectives, gain distance, and even block movement or line of sight.

Where in the rulebook are you finding the rule that says "doors don't count as part of the model they are on". Because that doesn't exist.

You thought you understood something, but didn't. Now it's being pointed out that you didn't understand it, and you don't like that you misunderstood something. It's clear now, just accept it. Gaining knowledge is always positive.

Decorations and modeling a model for advantage don't count as part of the model. Boarding planks don't add to an Ork trukk profile, doors on buildings count as access points and don't block movement, you can't cut out a single door on any model In the game swing it open and be like oh look my stompas ass flaps now reach out 6inches and can claim that objective in my deployment zone just because you modeled it that way.
Maybe you need to reread those sections as well.

Still learning the rules, so I could be wrong. Please correct me if I am, but doesn't something about being open top you measure for the vehicle instead of the doors when it's a closed top?

gungo wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

gungo wrote:
Here is ultimately the issue with the drop pod. On no other model are doors used to claim objectives, gain distance or even block movement or line of sight.

This is incorrect. On 100% of models with doors are doors used to claim objectives, gain distance, and even block movement or line of sight.

Where in the rulebook are you finding the rule that says "doors don't count as part of the model they are on". Because that doesn't exist.

You thought you understood something, but didn't. Now it's being pointed out that you didn't understand it, and you don't like that you misunderstood something. It's clear now, just accept it. Gaining knowledge is always positive.

Decorations and modeling a model for advantage don't count as part of the model. Boarding planks don't add to an Ork trukk profile, doors on buildings count as access points and don't block movement, you can't cut out a single door on any model In the game swing it open and be like oh look my stompas ass flaps now reach out 6inches and can claim that objective in my deployment zone just because you modeled it that way.
Maybe you need to reread those sections as well.

Nice false equivalence, now try naming a door on any other transport that is ignored. Not only that but you are assuming a door can't be a door as well as a major part of the hull which is daft.

 Red Corsair wrote:

gungo wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

gungo wrote:
Here is ultimately the issue with the drop pod. On no other model are doors used to claim objectives, gain distance or even block movement or line of sight.

This is incorrect. On 100% of models with doors are doors used to claim objectives, gain distance, and even block movement or line of sight.

Where in the rulebook are you finding the rule that says "doors don't count as part of the model they are on". Because that doesn't exist.

You thought you understood something, but didn't. Now it's being pointed out that you didn't understand it, and you don't like that you misunderstood something. It's clear now, just accept it. Gaining knowledge is always positive.

Decorations and modeling a model for advantage don't count as part of the model. Boarding planks don't add to an Ork trukk profile, doors on buildings count as access points and don't block movement, you can't cut out a single door on any model In the game swing it open and be like oh look my stompas ass flaps now reach out 6inches and can claim that objective in my deployment zone just because you modeled it that way.
Maybe you need to reread those sections as well.

Nice false equivalence, now try naming a door on any other transport that is ignored. Not only that but you are assuming a door can't be a door as well as a major part of the hull which is daft.

Land Raider front ramp probably. Quite a few other vehicles are mechanically designed to allow the doors to open and close- rhinos, falcons, devilfish all come to mind.

 Red Corsair wrote:

gungo wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

gungo wrote:
Here is ultimately the issue with the drop pod. On no other model are doors used to claim objectives, gain distance or even block movement or line of sight.

This is incorrect. On 100% of models with doors are doors used to claim objectives, gain distance, and even block movement or line of sight.

Where in the rulebook are you finding the rule that says "doors don't count as part of the model they are on". Because that doesn't exist.

You thought you understood something, but didn't. Now it's being pointed out that you didn't understand it, and you don't like that you misunderstood something. It's clear now, just accept it. Gaining knowledge is always positive.

Decorations and modeling a model for advantage don't count as part of the model. Boarding planks don't add to an Ork trukk profile, doors on buildings count as access points and don't block movement, you can't cut out a single door on any model In the game swing it open and be like oh look my stompas ass flaps now reach out 6inches and can claim that objective in my deployment zone just because you modeled it that way.
Maybe you need to reread those sections as well.

Nice false equivalence, now try naming a door on any other transport that is ignored. Not only that but you are assuming a door can't be a door as well as a major part of the hull which is daft.

Are you serious There are over a dozen models in games that have openable doors and hatches that have never been used to extend a models reach. My chimeras are all modeled with pinned back hatches that I open up when I deploy my troops because it looks cool, one of them has the old forgeworld chimera insert, and they are painted inside as well.
You ignore the doors just like everyone has been playing the drop pod doors the last two editons.

Except the FAQ very specifically tells us to not ignore the doors...

 insaniak wrote:
Except the FAQ very specifically tells us to not ignore the doors...

this is a choice we have to make. This is just another ruling from GW which doesn't understand how the vast majority of peoples play with translucent drop pod doors. Your group and your tournaments can chose to accept this or not, and both are fine ways to play with dolls.

Do wait until the FAQ is final, of course. You have lots of time to decide.

nekooni wrote:

 Talys wrote:

It's actually a good question, and a good answer, IMO, because prior to the FAQ, it would be reasonable to argue -- "why would a model get the plasma grenade bonus for charging through difficult terrain if the grenade is on their belt and they're holding a pistol in one hand and knife in the other?" The answer now, is, "because it's a game and the game rules say so and the FAQ says that the rules work the way they're written, whether it passes the common sense reality test or not."

Put knife away/down, throw grenade with free hand then grab the knife again. How exactly do you think actual soldiers use grenades in combat? It's not like you're able to properly use something like a G36 one-handed - your rifle becomes "inoperable" while throwing a grenade.

In the scenario that you describe (put knife away, throw grenade, grab knife), I would totally agree with you. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about charging forward with a pistol and knife, never throwing a grenade, yet getting the benefits of the grenade, just because it's hanging on your belt.

Game mechanics-wise, it actually makes more sense, because every model in the squad must pay for a grenade, while only one model can actually throw a grenade each turn (which doesn't make real-life sense, anyways). So, like, the points for the grenades on the 9 models that can't throw them have some game mechanic benefit, yay. But I'm just saying... it makes as little sense to say that a model that doesn't use a grenade can get its benefits as it does that a model with a grenade can't throw it, just because his buddy threw a grenade of some type

I would much rather it be the other way around: grenades don't confer their benefits (like Assault) unless the model is using them, and any model that has the grenade can use it. But I get it. Then grenades are too good. And it's a game, where combat is an abstraction, and all that.

lol, RL combat and 40k rules bear...no. not even a passing familiarity with each other. leave that argument at home: that way lies tears and madness.

 Talys wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Talys wrote:

It's actually a good question, and a good answer, IMO, because prior to the FAQ, it would be reasonable to argue -- "why would a model get the plasma grenade bonus for charging through difficult terrain if the grenade is on their belt and they're holding a pistol in one hand and knife in the other?" The answer now, is, "because it's a game and the game rules say so and the FAQ says that the rules work the way they're written, whether it passes the common sense reality test or not."

Put knife away/down, throw grenade with free hand then grab the knife again. How exactly do you think actual soldiers use grenades in combat? It's not like you're able to properly use something like a G36 one-handed - your rifle becomes "inoperable" while throwing a grenade.

In the scenario that you describe (put knife away, throw grenade, grab knife), I would totally agree with you. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about charging forward with a pistol and knife, never throwing a grenade, yet getting the benefits of the grenade, just because it's hanging on your belt.

Game mechanics-wise, it actually makes more sense, because every model in the squad must pay for a grenade, while only one model can actually throw a grenade each turn (which doesn't make real-life sense, anyways). So, like, the points for the grenades on the 9 models that can't throw them have some game mechanic benefit, yay. But I'm just saying... it makes as little sense to say that a model that doesn't use a grenade can get its benefits as it does that a model with a grenade can't throw it, just because his buddy threw a grenade of some type

I would much rather it be the other way around: grenades don't confer their benefits (like Assault) unless the model is using them, and any model that has the grenade can use it. But I get it. Then grenades are too good. And it's a game, where combat is an abstraction, and all that.

Or you could abstract it as "throwing the grenade" as one model taking the time to line up the toss while the others cover him, while in an assault all the models quickly toss grenades for suppression value, so get the bonus.

@gigasnail - I agree

@MajorWesJanson - The rules just say that the model needs a grenade equipped (not used, not used by a squadmate, etc) to get the benefits of the grenade, though. I'll just leave it as a game mechanic abstraction that "works" for point vs effectiveness vs balance.

Keep in mind that like I said, I totally don't have a problem with a rule. Originally, I was just pointing out that the FAQ clarifies that you DO get the Assault benefit of a Plasma grenade (for example) even if you're clearly using something else at the time. You just need to have paid the points for it, and the passive benefits are yours.

 Talys wrote:
I'm talking about charging forward with a pistol and knife, never throwing a grenade, yet getting the benefits of the grenade, just because it's hanging on your belt..

Except that's not what's happening. The Initiative benefit when charging is representing the model throwing a grenade as he charges. That grenade attack is simply abstracted as a bonus for his first round of combat, rather than as a direct attack.

Insaniak is right. This is to prevent confusion between "throwing" grenades as a shooting attack and "throwing" grenades to gain an Initiative bonus when charging. "To throw" applies to both, so for the abstraction of the game we separate this into "models equipped with" and use "throw" to refer to "make a shooting attack".

If we visualise the sequence of events in our "forged narrative", then yes, one or more of the models throws a grenade, flushing the enemy out from their cover so as to remove their close combat advantage. Defensive grenades are used in the opposite way, thrown by the defender to disorient or disrupt their attackers, but once again this isn't a shooting attack as defined by the rules.

The game mechanics of grenades and how they relate to charges and terrain don't result in any model movement or blast templates being placed. It's just how the game works. In the narrative, however, grenades are absolutely being thrown regardless. Such abstractions are useful, as is the abstraction that saves us the mind-numbing hassle of tracking each and every model's equipment. Imagine if you had to have actual numbers for how much ammunition and how many grenades a model has!

Therefore "throw" in game terms is restricted to "make a shooting attack". Models can benefit from the stated grenade rules all they want, but they can only ever make one shooting attack per unit with them in a turn.

@Insaniak, @Frozen Ocean - I am talking about this:

Q: Do weapon special rules that say ‘a model equipped with this weapon’ or ‘this weapon’s bearer’ take effect even when not used as the attacking weapon?
A: Yes.

BRB p. 180
Plasma Grenades - Models equipped with plasma grenades don't suffer the penalty to their Initiative for charging enemies through difficult terrain but fight at their normal Initiative step in the ensuing combat

So, an Autarch with Plasma grenades, Haywire Grenades, a shuriken pistol, and a power sword charges through difficult terrain and enters cc with his power sword and shuriken pistol (or, say, Azurmen by himself with his relic sword). He gets the bonus that the plasma grenades convey, even though he's charging with two other weapons.

Heck, he gets the plasma grenade bonus when he's using the haywire grenades. The FAQ says that it doesn't matter what he is using: as long as he has a plasma grenade in his wargear, he always receives the passive assault bonus conveyed by the plasma grenades, because the bonus listed on Plasma Grenades reads, "Models equipped with ..." rather than when the item is used, or when the item causes damage, or some other similar text.

This was NOT how our group played it; with grenades specifically, we played it such that the Autarch only received the grenade's Assault bonus only if the Autarch was using the grenade (which is pretty rare). But we will change as a result of the FAQ.

Am I missing something, guys?

You were playing it wrong in the first instance.

That the FAQ has brought your group around to the correct procedure is a happy coincidence, but the question, I'd imagine, was probably more geared to items of wargear such as the Blade Of Blood from Codex: Chaos Daemons which confers Rampage on the bearer, and even at my club's level provoked discussion on whether one needed to be using it to attack in order to receive the effect, or merely be carrying it.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
Insaniak is right. This is to prevent confusion between "throwing" grenades as an attack and "throwing" grenades to gain an Initiative bonus when charging. "To throw" applies to both, so for the abstraction of the game we separate this into "models equipped with" and use "throw" to refer to "make an attack".

If we visualise the sequence of events in our "forged narrative", then yes, one or more of the models throws a grenade, flushing the enemy out from their cover so as to remove their close combat advantage. Defensive grenades are used in the opposite way, thrown by the defender to disorient or disrupt their attackers, but once again this isn't an attack as defined by the rules.

The game mechanics of grenades and how they relate to charges and terrain don't result in any model movement or blast templates being placed. It's just how the game works. In the narrative, however, grenades are absolutely being thrown regardless. Such abstractions are useful, as is the abstraction that saves us the mind-numbing hassle of tracking each and every model's equipment. Imagine if you had to have actual numbers for how much ammunition and how many grenades a model has!

Therefore "throw" in game terms is restricted to "make an attack". Models can benefit from the stated grenade rules all they want, but they can only ever make one attack per unit with them in a turn.

The general rulebook FAQ clarified that only one grenade could be used in the melee phase as well, so i fixed that for you.

Talys, you correctly understand, yes.

gungo wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

gungo wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

gungo wrote:
Here is ultimately the issue with the drop pod. On no other model are doors used to claim objectives, gain distance or even block movement or line of sight.

This is incorrect. On 100% of models with doors are doors used to claim objectives, gain distance, and even block movement or line of sight.

Where in the rulebook are you finding the rule that says "doors don't count as part of the model they are on". Because that doesn't exist.

You thought you understood something, but didn't. Now it's being pointed out that you didn't understand it, and you don't like that you misunderstood something. It's clear now, just accept it. Gaining knowledge is always positive.

Decorations and modeling a model for advantage don't count as part of the model. Boarding planks don't add to an Ork trukk profile, doors on buildings count as access points and don't block movement, you can't cut out a single door on any model In the game swing it open and be like oh look my stompas ass flaps now reach out 6inches and can claim that objective in my deployment zone just because you modeled it that way.
Maybe you need to reread those sections as well.

Nice false equivalence, now try naming a door on any other transport that is ignored. Not only that but you are assuming a door can't be a door as well as a major part of the hull which is daft.

Are you serious There are over a dozen models in games that have openable doors and hatches that have never been used to extend a models reach. My chimeras are all modeled with pinned back hatches that I open up when I deploy my troops because it looks cool, one of them has the old forgeworld chimera insert, and they are painted inside as well.
You ignore the doors just like everyone has been playing the drop pod doors the last two editons.

Right, so you have made it past step 1 without resorting to false scenarios now step two is where you show me in the rules, regardless of this FAQ, where it tells us we are allowed to ignore those doors? My guess is you have been making assumptions rather then following an actual rule.

We have always made assumptions while playing, and much more influencing than the hatches issue.

So according to the rules of LOS if your model can trace a real line of sight to the arms, legs, torso or head of an infantry model then you can see it. This means that spore mines are invisible since they have nothing of that. Obviously no one plays like that, and makes the assumption that the core and tentacles of the spore mines also count for LOS, but RAW you would never be able to see a spore mine.

5 pages of complaints about drop pod doors. lets change the subject.

SUPERFRIENDS IS DEAD!

 Orock wrote:
5 pages of complaints about drop pod doors. lets change the subject.

SUPERFRIENDS IS DEAD!

Is it really?
Ravenwing and thunderwolves are still best buddies.
They just kicked white scars out of the cool kids club house.

However librarius conclave was taken to the back of the barn "old yeller" style.

 Talys wrote:
@Insaniak, @Frozen Ocean - I am talking about this:

Q: Do weapon special rules that say ‘a model equipped with this weapon’ or ‘this weapon’s bearer’ take effect even when not used as the attacking weapon?
A: Yes.

BRB p. 180
Plasma Grenades - Models equipped with plasma grenades don't suffer the penalty to their Initiative for charging enemies through difficult terrain but fight at their normal Initiative step in the ensuing combat

So, an Autarch with Plasma grenades, Haywire Grenades, a shuriken pistol, and a power sword charges through difficult terrain and enters cc with his power sword and shuriken pistol (or, say, Azurmen by himself with his relic sword). He gets the bonus that the plasma grenades convey, even though he's charging with two other weapons.

Heck, he gets the plasma grenade bonus when he's using the haywire grenades. The FAQ says that it doesn't matter what he is using: as long as he has a plasma grenade in his wargear, he always receives the passive assault bonus conveyed by the plasma grenades, because the bonus listed on Plasma Grenades reads, "Models equipped with ..." rather than when the item is used, or when the item causes damage, or some other similar text.

This was NOT how our group played it; with grenades specifically, we played it such that the Autarch only received the grenade's Assault bonus only if the Autarch was using the grenade (which is pretty rare). But we will change as a result of the FAQ.

Am I missing something, guys?

Sorry, I thought your issue was that thematically it didn't make sense (I was explaining the rules behind your statement "getting the benefits of the grenade, just because it's hanging on your belt"), but no, it was just that you were playing it wrong the whole time. Nothing has changed. The rule was likely to clear up the debate over certain items such as the Dreadknight's sword (which was always completely clear, but people argued against it anyway).

Neronoxx, melee didn't come into it because the rulebook describes (from a pure fluff standpoint, of course) grenades being "clamped in place" in melee rather than thrown. Also your edited version of my last sentence is incorrect; a unit can make two attacks with grenades in a turn; one thrown (a shooting attack in the Shooting phase) and one in melee.

I consider myself your super average player and I dont see the 'sky is falling' with the drop pod ruling just now you measure to the doors and doors left closed block line of site. I dont see it affecting garage style gameplay too much.

The sky isn't falling... It's just a bad ruling, as the pod with the doors included has such a massive footprint. This makes it much harder to deep strike then on tables with dense terrain (which should be all of them), and means that if and when you do manage to find room to deploy them they have a massive impact on the table through blocking off potential movement routes.


The drop pod is basically one of the all time best examples of a model designed to look cool with no though put into the impact the model would actually have on the game.

@Frozen Ocean, Azreal13 - Yeah, I (our group) has been playing it wrong the whole time, though only specifically with grenades - not with other equipment that might confer bonuses. I don't think it'll make much of a difference either way in our games, tbh.

When I first posted about it a couple pages back, I was just mentioning that it wasn't a bad question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
The sky isn't falling... It's just a bad ruling, as the pod with the doors included has such a massive footprint. This makes it much harder to deep strike then on tables with dense terrain (which should be all of them), and means that if and when you do manage to find room to deploy them they have a massive impact on the table through blocking off potential movement routes.

But you could just play with the doors closed, right? Or swing open the doors that you elect to swing open. Then it would be no bigger a footprint than before, and the 100% cover ruling can be pretty beneficial.

In a way, if you build your pods with doors that can be articulated, it makes it a very flexibile unit to abuse. People already block off titans with drop pods, but this makes it even easier. Who needs superfriends when you can take the Flesh Tearers formation to get 6 drop pods -- with nothing in most of them -- just to fill the board up with LoS blocking and movement impeding crap so that you can safely maneuver and close in. That's only 210 points + troop + hq -- and you can plaster the board with 6 ginormous pieces of junk that's hard to delete. Add another 90 pts for DWL's, and they can even kill some stuff -- or at least make it so that they can't be ignored.

Yes, you will soon have no friends...

 Frozen Ocean wrote:

Neronoxx, melee didn't come into it because the rulebook describes (from a pure fluff standpoint, of course) grenades being "clamped in place" in melee rather than thrown. Also your edited version of my last sentence is incorrect; a unit can make two attacks with grenades in a turn; one thrown (a shooting attack in the Shooting phase) and one in melee.

It may be incorrect, but only because you said it XD.
And technically a unit could make three in a turn if given an out-of-phase shooting attack with interceptor or the like on the enemy turn (1 for shooting, 1 for overwatch and 1 in melee.