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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:


Givne you are ignoring the requirement to swap a weapon, you may as well ignore the points cost as well.

Illogical. The list includes points cost. NB: the logical impasse is two contradictory instructions, one to use a list, the other an instruction on the same page that tells you you may not use the list.

The decision to ignore the fact the Nob can, even obeying the instruction, access a Power Klaw via the Tankhammer, also appears illogical.

That is not an accurate statement of the position, however

You are told you may access the list, and take items from it. It does nto give you blanket permission to take any item from that list, regardless of other restrictions. Such as points

If you have already spent 1500 points of your 1500 points limit, may you still take items from the list? According to you, yes.

You may assault when you disembark from an Assault vehicle. Does that mean I can do so having turned up from reserves? According to your concept, general permission can override very specific requirements that state otherwise...

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:


Givne you are ignoring the requirement to swap a weapon, you may as well ignore the points cost as well.

Illogical. The list includes points cost. NB: the logical impasse is two contradictory instructions, one to use a list, the other an instruction on the same page that tells you you may not use the list.

The decision to ignore the fact the Nob can, even obeying the instruction, access a Power Klaw via the Tankhammer, also appears illogical.

nosferatu1001 wrote:That is not an accurate statement of the position, however

You are told you may access the list, and take items from it. It does nto give you blanket permission to take any item from that list, regardless of other restrictions. Such as points

If you have already spent 1500 points of your 1500 points limit, may you still take items from the list? According to you, yes.

You may assault when you disembark from an Assault vehicle. Does that mean I can do so having turned up from reserves? According to your concept, general permission can override very specific requirements that state otherwise...

I enjoy how civilized this entire debate has been, the above exemplifies that well.


reading this thread, I suppose I'd never even considered this question: I'd assumed that upgrading a Burna boy/tankbusta/ etc to a Nob didn't change the unit type of that particular model, and didn't "swap" out a tankbusta for a nob - but rather that one of the tankbustas was bigger and louder than the rest and was the boss of that mob - but still a tankbusta. Hence, I assumed I could never take other upgrades like PKs, etc.

I have checked my ork codex (I play tau and witch hunters but I own most codices) and I have not changed my opinion.

I can however definitely see the issue here and it isn't as clear as what nos is saying it is.

I can definitely see why there's confusion. However, upon looking at the codex it appears this might be a bad copy paste job.

Every instance I see of "One model may be upgraded to a Boss Nob" is immediately followed by "The Boss Nob may take items from the Melee Weapons list."

It seems they just pasted this for each unit with the option for a boss nob and didn't think about the fact that the tankbusta boss nob wouldn't have a melee weapon to swap.

I myself will not get into the debate over buying the tankhammer then upgrading. I have never really seen much in any debate to make me agree with either side.

 Rismonite wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

That has the weapon descriptions yes, but that is not the melee weapons list.

It says Melee Weapons and is a list just like on the page before the warboss says Melee Weapons and is a list.

But it is not THE Melee Weapons list.

the Melee Weapons list. is located under the Orks Wargear list heading.

Nothing about the descriptions says it is the Melee Weapons list.

Gubbinz and gunz says:
"This section of Codex: Orks lists all the weapons and equipment used by the Orks"

it is a weapon list, but it is not the Melee Weapons list as that is in the Orks Wargear list heading.

Ok so under Weapons in the brb:

No Specified Melee Weapon
If a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type, it is treated as being armed
with a single close combat weapon.

And also says:
......................................Range S AP Type
Close combat weapon - User - Melee

So if the tankbusta nob has this, he can legitimately replace that with the klaw (because he does, in fact, have a 'melee' weapon)

 chaosmarauder wrote:
Ok so under Weapons in the brb:

No Specified Melee Weapon
If a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type, it is treated as being armed
with a single close combat weapon.

And also says:
......................................Range S AP Type
Close combat weapon - User - Melee

So if the tankbusta nob has this, he can legitimately replace that with the klaw (because he does, in fact, have a 'melee' weapon)

But you can not trade that because they are only treated as having a weapon, there is still nothing to trade.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 chaosmarauder wrote:
Ok so under Weapons in the brb:

No Specified Melee Weapon
If a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type, it is treated as being armed
with a single close combat weapon.

And also says:
......................................Range S AP Type
Close combat weapon - User - Melee

So if the tankbusta nob has this, he can legitimately replace that with the klaw (because he does, in fact, have a 'melee' weapon)

But you can not trade that because they are only treated as having a weapon, there is still nothing to trade.

Hmm, I just read every defintion of treat/treating/treated that I can find and I believe that by treating the nob as having it actually gives it to him. And if he has it he can trade it/replace it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Because of this rule - there is actually no point in them listing a 'close combat weapon' in his profile that he could have traded - by leaving him with no melee weapon entry it defaults to him having this anyway.

When is he 'treated' as having a close combat weapon? If its not during list building, then you don't have a close combat weapon to trade.

Yep. Depends on the definition for "treated," unfortunately. Some rules say "treated for all rules purposes", but this one doesn't, so we don't know when he is "treated."

 Ghaz wrote:
When is he 'treated' as having a close combat weapon? If its not during list building, then you don't have a close combat weapon to trade.

Its just under the Weapons section in the brb:

Weapons

Close Combat Weapons

No Specified Melee Weapon

If a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type, it is treated as being armed
with a single close combat weapon.

So I would say this is in effect at all times, even list building.

Because of this, they would have no need to put 'close combat weapon' in his wargear.

 chaosmarauder wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 chaosmarauder wrote:
Ok so under Weapons in the brb:

No Specified Melee Weapon
If a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type, it is treated as being armed
with a single close combat weapon.

And also says:
......................................Range S AP Type
Close combat weapon - User - Melee

So if the tankbusta nob has this, he can legitimately replace that with the klaw (because he does, in fact, have a 'melee' weapon)

But you can not trade that because they are only treated as having a weapon, there is still nothing to trade.

Hmm, I just read every defintion of treat/treating/treated that I can find and I believe that by treating the nob as having it actually gives it to him. And if he has it he can trade it/replace it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Because of this rule - there is actually no point in them listing a 'close combat weapon' in his profile that he could have traded - by leaving him with no melee weapon entry it defaults to him having this anyway.

and endless CCW's so you can trade out?

No. Treated as just means he still has a weapon to attack with. It does not mean he can trade out a non-existent weapon.

 chaosmarauder wrote:
Because of this, they would have no need to put 'close combat weapon' in his wargear.

Then why are so many models listed as having a close combat weapon? And why not just say all models have a close combat weapon instead of being 'treated' as having one?

 Ghaz wrote:

 chaosmarauder wrote:
Because of this, they would have no need to put 'close combat weapon' in his wargear.

Then why are so many models listed as having a close combat weapon? And why not just say all models have a close combat weapon instead of being 'treated' as having one?

I think a lot of those models also have pistols, so you'd get +1 attack for both. And if it had a pistol or any other weapon then it wouldn't automatically get a 'close combat weapon'

I think the 'no specified melee weapon rule' means there is no model in the game that has no melee weapon in its wargear. So the tankbuster nob can replace that with a klaw.

I know we aren't supposed to bring dictionary definitions into things but as an English major I can confirm that "treated as having" never means "has"If they meant that he was to have a ccw then why wouldn't they simplify it down to

"If a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type, it is armed with a single close combat weapon."

Much easier eh? But if it says

"If a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type, it is treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon. "

then he doesn't actually have a weapon.

Treated as being armed does not equal being armed.

Zarroc1733 wrote:
I know we aren't supposed to bring dictionary definitions into things but as an English major I can confirm that "treated as having" never means "has"If they meant that he was to have a ccw then why wouldn't they simplify it down to

"If a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type, it is armed with a single close combat weapon."

Much easier eh? But if it says

"If a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type, it is treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon. "

then he doesn't actually have a weapon.

Treated as being armed does not equal being armed.

Ok but now you're getting into some philosophical discussion.

Does he actually have a weapon or doesn't he?

He ACTUALLY has a close combat weapon.

According to the BRB he has some kind of combat knife, mace, axe or other imrpovised or primitive weapon:

BRB:

CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS
Many weapons (combat knives, maces, axes and other improvised or primitive weapons) don’t confer any
Strength bonuses, AP values or special rules. These weapons are simply referred to as ‘close combat
weapon’ in the model’s wargear and have the following profile:

In this case, treated means he has one and not that he doesn't have one.

 chaosmarauder wrote:

Zarroc1733 wrote:
I know we aren't supposed to bring dictionary definitions into things but as an English major I can confirm that "treated as having" never means "has"If they meant that he was to have a ccw then why wouldn't they simplify it down to

"If a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type, it is armed with a single close combat weapon."

Much easier eh? But if it says

"If a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type, it is treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon. "

then he doesn't actually have a weapon.

Treated as being armed does not equal being armed.

Ok but now you're getting into some philosophical discussion.

Does he actually have a weapon or doesn't he?

He ACTUALLY has a close combat weapon.

According to the BRB he has some kind of combat knife, mace, axe or other imrpovised or primitive weapon:

BRB:

CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS
Many weapons (combat knives, maces, axes and other improvised or primitive weapons) don’t confer any
Strength bonuses, AP values or special rules. These weapons are simply referred to as ‘close combat
weapon’ in the model’s wargear and have the following profile

In this case, treated means he has one and not that he doesn't have one.

No the brb does not say he actually has one, only that he is treated as having one. When those weapons you referenced appear they actually appear in a model's wargear. I highlighted the part the proves that in red. No where in any book does it actually say he has a CCW just that he can attack as if he did.

 chaosmarauder wrote:


Ok but now you're getting into some philosophical discussion.

Does he actually have a weapon or doesn't he?

He ACTUALLY has a close combat weapon.

No he does not ACTUALLY have a close combat weapon, he is treated as if he had one though.

 chaosmarauder wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 chaosmarauder wrote:
Because of this, they would have no need to put 'close combat weapon' in his wargear.

Then why are so many models listed as having a close combat weapon? And why not just say all models have a close combat weapon instead of being 'treated' as having one?

I think a lot of those models also have pistols, so you'd get +1 attack for both. And if it had a pistol or any other weapon then it wouldn't automatically get a 'close combat weapon'

I think the 'no specified melee weapon rule' means there is no model in the game that has no melee weapon in its wargear. So the tankbuster nob can replace that with a klaw.

So then why does the Ork Deffkopta have a Choppa listed in his wargear if he doesn't have a Pistol? Why are Dark Eldar Mandrakes listed as having a close combat weapon when they don't have Pistols? Need I go on?

 Ghaz wrote:

 chaosmarauder wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 chaosmarauder wrote:
Because of this, they would have no need to put 'close combat weapon' in his wargear.

Then why are so many models listed as having a close combat weapon? And why not just say all models have a close combat weapon instead of being 'treated' as having one?

I think a lot of those models also have pistols, so you'd get +1 attack for both. And if it had a pistol or any other weapon then it wouldn't automatically get a 'close combat weapon'

I think the 'no specified melee weapon rule' means there is no model in the game that has no melee weapon in its wargear. So the tankbuster nob can replace that with a klaw.

So then why does the Ork Deffkopta have a Choppa listed in his wargear if he doesn't have a Pistol? Why are Dark Eldar Mandrakes listed as having a close combat weapon when they don't have Pistols? Need I go on?

Are you suggesting they purposefully left a close combat weapon out of the tankbusta nob profile on purpose just so he wouldn't have a weapon to trade in?

Also, treated as having a close combat weapon could also apply to the wargear swap in addition to when he makes a close combat attack (it has to work for both or neither)

For example:

Can your model make a close combat attack?
-He doesn't have a close combat weapon
Thats ok, hes treated as having 1, so go ahead!

Can your model replace his close combat weapon for a klaw?
-He doesn't have a close combat weapon
Thats ok, hes treated as having 1, so go ahead!

You can't say its ok for one situation and not the other.

 chaosmarauder wrote:
Hmm, I just read every defintion of treat/treating/treated that I can find and I believe that by treating the nob as having it actually gives it to him. And if he has it he can trade it/replace it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Because of this rule - there is actually no point in them listing a 'close combat weapon' in his profile that he could have traded - by leaving him with no melee weapon entry it defaults to him having this anyway.

And yet, many units still do, even though that rule has been around a long time.

Part of the reason is, and I asked this earlier, WHEN are you treated as having a Close Combat Weapon?

A Tactical Marine isn't treated as having one when list building, even though every weapon he carries that can be classed as one (Krak Grenades and Bolt Pistol) in very specific scenarios. Pistol Carriers aren't considered to have the "no-CCW" CCW in the Assault Phase.

So, does he lose a piece of Wargear that he "has" when another fills its spot? Or is this "treated as having a Close Combat Weapon" only apply when the model is called upon to use a Close Combat Weapon, i.e. the Fight Sub-Phase?

If the latter, then you have nothing to replace with when building your Army List.

 chaosmarauder wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 chaosmarauder wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 chaosmarauder wrote:
Because of this, they would have no need to put 'close combat weapon' in his wargear.

Then why are so many models listed as having a close combat weapon? And why not just say all models have a close combat weapon instead of being 'treated' as having one?

I think a lot of those models also have pistols, so you'd get +1 attack for both. And if it had a pistol or any other weapon then it wouldn't automatically get a 'close combat weapon'

I think the 'no specified melee weapon rule' means there is no model in the game that has no melee weapon in its wargear. So the tankbuster nob can replace that with a klaw.

So then why does the Ork Deffkopta have a Choppa listed in his wargear if he doesn't have a Pistol? Why are Dark Eldar Mandrakes listed as having a close combat weapon when they don't have Pistols? Need I go on?

Are you suggesting they purposefully left a close combat weapon out of the tankbusta nob profile on purpose just so he wouldn't have a weapon to trade in?

Also, treated as having a close combat weapon could also apply to the wargear swap in addition to when he makes a close combat attack (it has to work for both or neither)

For example:

Can your model make a close combat attack?
-He doesn't have a close combat weapon
Thats ok, hes treated as having 1, so go ahead!

Can your model replace his close combat weapon for a klaw?
-He doesn't have a close combat weapon
Thats ok, hes treated as having 1, so go ahead!

You can't say its ok for one situation and not the other.

How does that work as at all? I can be treated as if I had a million dollars but would GW give me free sisters? To exchange something you have to have that something.

 chaosmarauder wrote:
Are you suggesting they purposefully left a close combat weapon out of the tankbusta nob profile on purpose just so he wouldn't have a weapon to trade in?

Yes. So answer my question as to why the models I've listed specifically have close combat weapons in their profile when they have absolutely no option to add another weapon to provide an additional attack in close combat. Your position would make that superfluous and GW would not do so due to the 'No Specified Melee Weapon' rule.

 Ghaz wrote:

 chaosmarauder wrote:
Are you suggesting they purposefully left a close combat weapon out of the tankbusta nob profile on purpose just so he wouldn't have a weapon to trade in?

Yes. So answer my question as to why the models I've listed specifically have close combat weapons in their profile when they have absolutely no option to add another weapon to provide an additional attack in close combat. Your position would make that superfluous and GW would not do so due to the 'No Specified Melee Weapon' rule.

I believe that those entries are superfluous, as you say, because of the 'No Specified Melee Weapon' rule.

It is not the first time that GW has made rules like that, there are several examples.

Painboys with cybork bodies.

Black legion formation giving fearless to units with chaos lords in them that aren't allowed to leave the unit.

But back to the original point - if you are treated as having something then you are allowed to use it how you want - whether it is to attack something in close combat or trade it for a klaw during list building.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

 chaosmarauder wrote:
Hmm, I just read every defintion of treat/treating/treated that I can find and I believe that by treating the nob as having it actually gives it to him. And if he has it he can trade it/replace it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Because of this rule - there is actually no point in them listing a 'close combat weapon' in his profile that he could have traded - by leaving him with no melee weapon entry it defaults to him having this anyway.

And yet, many units still do, even though that rule has been around a long time.

Part of the reason is, and I asked this earlier, WHEN are you treated as having a Close Combat Weapon?

A Tactical Marine isn't treated as having one when list building, even though every weapon he carries that can be classed as one (Krak Grenades and Bolt Pistol) in very specific scenarios. Pistol Carriers aren't considered to have the "no-CCW" CCW in the Assault Phase.

So, does he lose a piece of Wargear that he "has" when another fills its spot? Or is this "treated as having a Close Combat Weapon" only apply when the model is called upon to use a Close Combat Weapon, i.e. the Fight Sub-Phase?

If the latter, then you have nothing to replace with when building your Army List.

If a model is treated as having a close combat weapon then it is allowed to attack with it in close combat, or replace it with a klaw during list building. If he couldn't do either then it is not being treated as though it had one. The rule does not specify a particular duration or phase that the 'No Specified Melee Weapon' rule is in effect.

So you want to believe those entries are superfluous and not the Tankbusta Nob's option to take items from the Melee Weapon list when you don't have a weapon to exchange?

 Ghaz wrote:
So you want to believe those entries are superfluous and not the Tankbusta Nob's option to take items from the Melee Weapon list when you don't have a weapon to exchange?

They are superfluous - by definition if they did not have the entry they would get a CC weapon anyway due to 'No Specified Melee Weapon'.

Answer me this - 'No Specified Melee Weapon' treats the model as having a CC weapon. If you do not allow it to replace it with a klaw during list buliding - are you treating it as though it had a CC weapon?

 chaosmarauder wrote:
If a model is treated as having a close combat weapon then it is allowed to attack with it in close combat, or replace it with a klaw during list building. If he couldn't do either then it is not being treated as though it had one. The rule does not specify a particular duration or phase that the 'No Specified Melee Weapon' rule is in effect.

So it is your opinion that a model can have a piece of Wargear that disappears when it is normally used.

Got it.

 chaosmarauder wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
So you want to believe those entries are superfluous and not the Tankbusta Nob's option to take items from the Melee Weapon list when you don't have a weapon to exchange?

They are superfluous - by definition if they did not have the entry they would get a CC weapon anyway due to 'No Specified Melee Weapon'.

Answer me this - 'No Specified Melee Weapon' treats the model as having a CC weapon. If you do not allow it to replace it with a klaw during list buliding - are you treating it as though it had a CC weapon?

Yes, because you've yet to prove that you treat them as having a close combat weapon during listbuilding. You're giving every model with a Pistol and no listed close combat weapon a free bonus attack in close combat since a Pistol only counts as a a close combat weapon "... in the Assault phase..." according to the rules.

So tell me, why isn't the Tankbusta Nob's option to take items from the Melee Weapon list superfluous? Why do you insist it has to do something when you have no Melee weapon to trade when he's not listed as having a close combat weapon in his Wargear?

 Ghaz wrote:

 chaosmarauder wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
So you want to believe those entries are superfluous and not the Tankbusta Nob's option to take items from the Melee Weapon list when you don't have a weapon to exchange?

They are superfluous - by definition if they did not have the entry they would get a CC weapon anyway due to 'No Specified Melee Weapon'.

Answer me this - 'No Specified Melee Weapon' treats the model as having a CC weapon. If you do not allow it to replace it with a klaw during list buliding - are you treating it as though it had a CC weapon?

Yes, because you've yet to prove that you treat them as having a close combat weapon during listbuilding. You're giving every model with a Pistol and no listed close combat weapon a free bonus attack in close combat since a Pistol only counts as a a close combat weapon "... in the Assault phase..." according to the rules.

So tell me, why isn't the Tankbusta Nob's option to take items from the Melee Weapon list superfluous? Why do you insist it has to do something when you have no Melee weapon to trade when he's not listed as having a close combat weapon in his Wargear?

Because the 'No Specified Melee Weapon' rule is not under any particular phase in the rulebook it is applied at all times. It is under the 'Weapons' section - they could have easily put it in the Assault section but they did not. And therefor the model is treated as having a CC weapon at all times.

The moment you go to reference a weapon under the Nob for any reason, the CC weapon will appear there due to this rule. Otherwise it is not being treated as having one.

So then please answer Charistoph's question. Does this 'No Specified Melee Weapon' disappear in the Assault phase when you have a Pistol? If not why doesn't it apply then?