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.

 Ghaz wrote:
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?

Hmm lets take a look back at the rule:

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 funny enough, the following is directly under the above in the BRB

Pistols as Close Combat Weapons
A pistol can be used as a close combat weapon. If this is done, use the profile given above – the Strength,
AP and special rules of the pistol’s shooting profile are ignored.

The profile points to the same CC weapon as the one referenced in 'No Special Melee Weapon' on the same page of the BRB. So it looks like no, you would not get an additional CC weapon if you had a pistol since the pistol actually counts as a melee weapon all the time. It has 2 profiles.

From 'Pistol Weapons' (pg. 44, main rulebook - emphasis added):

A Pistol also counts as a close combat weapon in the Assault phase (pg 41 and 44).

So no, they're not always considered close combat weapons. So again, does the 'No Specified Melee Weapon' suddenly disappear in the Assault phase?

 Ghaz wrote:
From 'Pistol Weapons' (pg. 44, main rulebook - emphasis added):

A Pistol also counts as a close combat weapon in the Assault phase (pg 41 and 44).

So no, they're not always considered close combat weapons. So again, does the 'No Specified Melee Weapon' suddenly disappear in the Assault phase?

Hmm, reading both the 'Pistols as Close Combat Weapons' and the 'Pistol Weapons' i'm not sure - one specifies the assault phase, the other doesn't. So does a pistol count as a melee weapon all the time? Not sure might need an FAQ.

Who would this actually effect? Can't think top of my head what models have a pistol weapon and no other stated melee weapon. Cause it is not clear if they would get one or not from the 'No Specified Melee Weapon' rule.

Interesting.

Not sure why anyone cares.

We're arguing about the esoteric subtleties emitted by a group of people with the literary skills of raving drunks.

What these rules actually meant is hardly knowable, and contradictory rules have no force other than what you and your opponent hash out at the table.

 JimOnMars wrote:
Not sure why anyone cares.

We're arguing about the esoteric subtleties emitted by a group of people with the literary skills of raving drunks.

What these rules actually meant is hardly knowable, and contradictory rules have no force other than what you and your opponent hash out at the table.

lol thats what the YMDC forum is for! hashing out these small subtle details in the rules

Heh, this thread.

We can't use take as steal

But we can use treats as "only in the assault phase and definitely not while list building ork tankbustas"

And yet, while the intent is clear, and the RAW people are proposed a legitimate 'as written' interpretation there will be some who will interpret a word differently deliberately to kick a weak army in nads.

Ok so if "treated as having" = "has" then:
Nob does not have a melee weapon.
Therefore, the nob is treated as having a melee weapon.
Therefore, the Nob no longer qualifies for the "no melee weapon" and does not get to be treated as having a melee weapon.
Therefore, he does not have a melee weapon
Therefore, the nob is treated as having a melee weapon.
Therefore, the Nob no longer qualifies for the "no melee weapon" and does not get to be treated as having a melee weapon.
Therefore, he does not have a melee weapon
Therefore, the nob is treated as having a melee weapon.
Therefore, the Nob no longer qualifies for the "no melee weapon" and does not get to be treated as having a melee weapon.
Therefore, he does not have a melee weapon
continue ad infinitum.

Being treated as having something does not equate him having something. I'm waiting for you to prove that to me.

In an exchange you can be treated as having something but unless you really have it you cannot exchange. It's like me telling a store clerk I have money, then just trying to take a jug of milk without paying.

I'm all for orks getting a big buff, but RAW he cannot trade his CCW because he doesn't actually have one. If he had a CCW in his wargear he could trade it. But he doesn't.


I pointed this out before

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

This rule here states that if a model has this weapon it appears in it's wargear. The nob doesn't have a ccw just treated as if he did. If you can show me in any way that, treated as having = has, then I'll agree and I'll do so happily.

Its simple:
You can exchange for a klaw even though a CC weapon isnt in his wargear because a rule in the BRB treats him as having one.

Done - plain english.

Except if they have one during list building, they dont have one any longer

You are stating you can generate infinite ccw as needed. That is an obvious easter egg youre trying to find.

 chaosmarauder wrote:
Its simple:
You can exchange for a klaw even though a CC weapon isnt in his wargear because a rule in the BRB treats him as having one.

Done - plain english.

No actually plain English (again I'm an English major) does not mean he has one, it means he is treated as having one. Using plain English actually shows that the terminology used dictates he doesn't have one.

Being treated as anything is not the same as being that thing. It's like the milk jug example, I can be treated as having the money but is the store keeper gonna let me take it because I'm treated as having the money?

No, just like the rules don't let you take a weapon just because you're treated as having a CCW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I will add if I was playing the orks I'd let the nob take the klaw. But RAW I see no way other than the tankhammer if that does indeed work, (I'm not convinced either way)

Once the Melee Weapon list dealer decides to actually treat the Nob as if he has a CCW per the unspecified melee weapon blurb. He gives the Nob a Powerklaw (for 25 points, since I can't just take it).

Once the Nob has a Powerklaw, he now has a Close Combat weapon with the melee weapon type and no longer qualifies for the Unspecified melee weapon blurb. This is not some trolltastic backdoor easter egg method of acquiring infinite close combat weapons here.

Zarroc1733 wrote:

I will add if I was playing the orks I'd let the nob take the klaw. But RAW I see no way other than the tankhammer if that does indeed work, (I'm not convinced either way)

What is this statement seriously?

I can be treated as having the money but is the store keeper gonna let me take it because I'm treated as having the money?

Yes, actually, yes because you are treated as having the money, you get milk.

`So instead of this being an error, the error is on every other model with a CCW?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
`So instead of this being an error, the error is on every other model with a CCW?

'this'

elaborate please

 Rismonite wrote:
Once the Melee Weapon list dealer decides to actually treat the Nob as if he has a CCW per the unspecified melee weapon blurb. He gives the Nob a Powerklaw (for 25 points, since I can't just take it).

Once the Nob has a Powerklaw, he now has a Close Combat weapon with the melee weapon type and no longer qualifies for the Unspecified melee weapon blurb. This is not some trolltastic backdoor easter egg method of acquiring infinite close combat weapons here.

And if he could trade said close combat weapon for a ranged weapon? Infinite close combat weapons.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Rismonite wrote:
Once the Melee Weapon list dealer decides to actually treat the Nob as if he has a CCW per the unspecified melee weapon blurb. He gives the Nob a Powerklaw (for 25 points, since I can't just take it).

Once the Nob has a Powerklaw, he now has a Close Combat weapon with the melee weapon type and no longer qualifies for the Unspecified melee weapon blurb. This is not some trolltastic backdoor easter egg method of acquiring infinite close combat weapons here.

And if he could trade said close combat weapon for a ranged weapon? Infinite close combat weapons.

Heh, he can only still fire one though. But Orkz can't make that trade.

Quick! Someone go find some obscure entry with the Easter Egg gooo!

EDIT, Immediately coming to mind are vangaurd vets.

Ok here is a story illustrating the point:

All the Nobs in the Waaagh line up at the grot weapon booth to trade in their close combat weapon for a Klaw. Everything is going fine until one Nob, the tankbusta Nob, gets to the head of the line and doesn't have a CC weapon to trade.

The grot says, no you don't get one.

The Warboss looks over at the line and shouts at the grot to treat the tankbusta like he has a CC weapon.

The grot still refuses to give him a klaw, claiming the Nob doesn't have one to trade.

The Warboss eats the grot and hands the tankbusta nob a klaw.

The tankbusta nob happily joins in the Waaagh with his new shiny klaw.

"This" - giving the tankbuster nob access to a list without the requisite close combat weapon

It is definitely an easter egg hunt, to use the fact they dont have a melee weapon to give them a melee weapon to then swap for something that requires a melee weapon. And the melee weapons list ABSOLUTELY requires a melee weapon.

 Rismonite wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Rismonite wrote:
Once the Melee Weapon list dealer decides to actually treat the Nob as if he has a CCW per the unspecified melee weapon blurb. He gives the Nob a Powerklaw (for 25 points, since I can't just take it).

Once the Nob has a Powerklaw, he now has a Close Combat weapon with the melee weapon type and no longer qualifies for the Unspecified melee weapon blurb. This is not some trolltastic backdoor easter egg method of acquiring infinite close combat weapons here.

And if he could trade said close combat weapon for a ranged weapon? Infinite close combat weapons.

Heh, he can only still fire one though. But Orkz can't make that trade.

Quick! Someone go find some obscure entry with the Easter Egg gooo!

EDIT, Immediately coming to mind are vangaurd vets.

Model can trade infinite close combat weapons for ranged weapons. Model now has a ranged weapon for any situation (hordes, tankbusting, anti-air, long range, etc). It doesn't matter if its not an option for Orks, its a side effect of giving the model an infinite supply of close combat weapons.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"This" - giving the tankbuster nob access to a list without the requisite close combat weapon

I mean I don't see how your statement makes all unit entries with model's they remembered to give a CCW somehow erroneous. It is likely they goofed and don't intend for us to use the 'unspecified melee weapon' blurb to treat ourselves to a tankbusta Powerklaw. It is just what an ork has gotta do to build his Tankbusta nob inefficiently (with powerklaw). It could also very well be they wanted us to buy a 15 Point Tankhammer then a powerklaw, since the tankbusta unit has tankhunter's it might be have been a way to add a silent tax to balance out a powerklaw getting tankhunter's. Considering the latest FAQ is implying we were only ever meant to use one grenade in assault, it's possible we were meant to turn our melee only tankbusta bomb in for a powerklaw. All of which can be argued in circles.

One this is for sure, if they make grenades one per assault phase only, Orkz that still bother to run Tankbustas are going to want to run a Nob with Klaw and two Tank Hammer Boyz to make the unit still somewhat usable. That need will likely stay like that until an ork FAQ/errata (hopefully) adds a Choppa to Tankbusta's Wargear(which is the likely mistake if there even is one imo).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Rismonite wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Rismonite wrote:
Once the Melee Weapon list dealer decides to actually treat the Nob as if he has a CCW per the unspecified melee weapon blurb. He gives the Nob a Powerklaw (for 25 points, since I can't just take it).

Once the Nob has a Powerklaw, he now has a Close Combat weapon with the melee weapon type and no longer qualifies for the Unspecified melee weapon blurb. This is not some trolltastic backdoor easter egg method of acquiring infinite close combat weapons here.

And if he could trade said close combat weapon for a ranged weapon? Infinite close combat weapons.

Heh, he can only still fire one though. But Orkz can't make that trade.

Quick! Someone go find some obscure entry with the Easter Egg gooo!

EDIT, Immediately coming to mind are vangaurd vets.

Model can trade infinite close combat weapons for ranged weapons. Model now has a ranged weapon for any situation (hordes, tankbusting, anti-air, long range, etc). It doesn't matter if its not an option for Orks, its a side effect of giving the model an infinite supply of close combat weapons.

I like it.

Let the world burn I say.

"Which model did you say has 85 points of ranged weapons?"

So you really think GW intended for models to potentially carry a bucketload of ranged weapons or you can't support your argument in light of the absurd result that can occur?

 Ghaz wrote:

 Rismonite wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Rismonite wrote:
Once the Melee Weapon list dealer decides to actually treat the Nob as if he has a CCW per the unspecified melee weapon blurb. He gives the Nob a Powerklaw (for 25 points, since I can't just take it).

Once the Nob has a Powerklaw, he now has a Close Combat weapon with the melee weapon type and no longer qualifies for the Unspecified melee weapon blurb. This is not some trolltastic backdoor easter egg method of acquiring infinite close combat weapons here.

And if he could trade said close combat weapon for a ranged weapon? Infinite close combat weapons.

Heh, he can only still fire one though. But Orkz can't make that trade.

Quick! Someone go find some obscure entry with the Easter Egg gooo!

EDIT, Immediately coming to mind are vangaurd vets.

Model can trade infinite close combat weapons for ranged weapons. Model now has a ranged weapon for any situation (hordes, tankbusting, anti-air, long range, etc). It doesn't matter if its not an option for Orks, its a side effect of giving the model an infinite supply of close combat weapons.

I, for one, welcome my new Ultra-Command Squad. Guess I'll use Techmarines with a Servo Harnish for the model, one Weapon on each arm.
4 Guys with a Boltgun, Flamer, a Meltagun and a Grav-Gun plus a Power Axe and an Apothecary - and while we're at it, I'll give him the same loadout as well. Put it all in the new IH thingy, slap a Librarian on for the +1 FnP and there you go. 3+FnP Command Squad, and the Libby should be able to give them a 3++ or something like that on top of it. Or just buy a bunch of Stormshields for them.

lol looking at the last couple pages of posts this thread has seriously gone down the rabbit hole

You start with the tank busta entry saying that he is allowed to take a melee weapon - it should end there.

The argument that the list sends him back with nothing because he needs to replace a CC weapon is where the back and forth deeper into the rabbit hole starts.

lol to the point where we are at - 'Well he can't have a klaw because otherwise all other characters get infinite ranged weapons!'

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_hole

At the end of the day, no matter who is right, I just hope the ork faq gives them something. I love the orks and wish they were better.

Do people generally agree the Nob can access a Power Klaw by first purchasing a Tankhammer?

 chaosmarauder wrote:
lol looking at the last couple pages of posts this thread has seriously gone down the rabbit hole

You start with the tank busta entry saying that he is allowed to take a melee weapon - it should end there.

The argument that the list sends him back with nothing because he needs to replace a CC weapon is where the back and forth deeper into the rabbit hole starts.

lol to the point where we are at - 'Well he can't have a klaw because otherwise all other characters get infinite ranged weapons!'

Every army list has to tell you you can go take item ps from a list

It's the exact same flawed, rehashed argument as claiming the one relic limit doesn't apply when told you can take "items" from said list

1) one rule tells you you can access the list
2) the other tells you HOW you take items from the list

That's where this argument ends. With rules, not Easter egg hunting gak.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
Do people generally agree the Nob can access a Power Klaw by first purchasing a Tankhammer?

It is theoretically doable however some people will argue that only tankbusters can take the hammer, and the nob is not a tankbuster. That said, if you follow the upgrades as presented, then it is doable since the option to take a hammer comes before the option to upgrade to a nob (unlike a SM Command Squad where the Apothecary/Champion upgrades are before th special weapon options).

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Every army list has to tell you you can go take item ps from a list

It's the exact same flawed, rehashed argument as claiming the one relic limit doesn't apply when told you can take "items" from said list

1) one rule tells you you can access the list
2) the other tells you HOW you take items from the list

That's where this argument ends. With rules, not Easter egg hunting gak.

1) Its not nice to insult people who read the rules and apply the rules - 'Ester egg hunting gak' I guess actually just means finding a rule which doesn't fit with your belief

2) There is a rule in the BRB which treats the nob as having a close combat weapon if he doesn't have one - so guess what - he can trade it if he wants to

He can be a bit crabby but he did insult the argument, not you personally.

And we have debated "treated as" so simply saying "guess what, I'm right" does take us round in circles somewhat.