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.

 chaosmarauder wrote:
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

No he can not trade because he does not actually have the weapon.

Lets say there is a convention and the only people allowed to enter are people with hats.

Bob has a hat.

Jack does not have a hat, but he is treated a having a hat.

Lenny does not have a hat.


Bob gets in.

Jack gets in even though he does not actually have a hat because he is treated as if he had a hat.

Lenny does not get in.


In the convention there is a booth. this booth will give you a hundred crayons if you give them your hat.

Bob walks up to the booth and trades his hat for a hundred crayons.

Jack walks up to the booth but does not get a hundred crayons because he does not have a hat, even though he is treated as if he had a hat.

I personally tend to agree with you but...

Jack is not selling his hat. He needs a hat in order to buy the crayons. He has the money for the crayons, goes up to the till and say, here's your cash, and you are obliged to treat me as if I had a hat. He gets his crayons.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
I personally tend to agree with you but...

Jack is not selling his hat. He needs a hat in order to buy the crayons. He has the money for the crayons, goes up to the till and say, here's your cash, and you are obliged to treat me as if I had a hat. He gets his crayons.

That's not at all accurate.



He is treated as if he had a hat(Melee Weapon).

He needs to have a hat to get in, he is treated as if he had one so he gets in. But when it comes time to trade his hat for Crayons (A Power Klaw) he can not do that because he does not actually have a hat to trade.

@Deathreaper

If he is treated as having one, he has one.

Somewhere out there is a Nob walking around with a list of wargear. He goes to attack something - he uses the CC weapon the BRB gave him.

Its something he has on him, its not there sometimes and others not. That is not logical.

The BRB does not say he is treated as having one during the assault phase, or define any other restrictions. This means he is treated as having one even during list building. It is there and it does not vanish at different times.

The BRB is basically saying, treat him like a warrior, make sure he has a weapon and gives him the CC weapon. It even provides a profile and says it is a knife, axe or something else. Its a physical item he is actually carrying.

 chaosmarauder wrote:
If he is treated as having one, he has one.

That is only an assumption that he has one to trade. This is never really supported in how the rest of the game considers "treats as". "Treats as" is only considered active when it is needed to be used, not necessarily at all times.

It didn't work for Space Marine Bikers and was FAQ'd before Orks, I am surprised they missed it here.

 chaosmarauder wrote:
@Deathreaper

If he is treated as having one, he has one.

Incorrect. He is only treated as having one. He does not actually have one but they pretend he does.

And you think thats more realistic than him being given a weapon that he actually carries around?

I dont think the answer is that he has a weapon that phases in and out.

 chaosmarauder wrote:
And you think thats more realistic than him being given a weapon that he actually carries around?

I dont think the answer is that he has a weapon that phases in and out.

What would make sense in the real world does not matter.

Real World Common Sense/Real World Logic/How it works in the real world has no bearing on the 40k Ruleset.

Remember: The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now. (and maybe not even on a planet with the same physical makeup as our earth, and probably different physics as well).


That being said I think what is more realistic is the Nob Head butting things instead of using a knife or sword. But fluff has no bearing on the actual rules.

 chaosmarauder wrote:
And you think thats more realistic than him being given a weapon that he actually carries around?

I dont think the answer is that he has a weapon that phases in and out.

I imagine the "counts as having a ccw" as "he hurts the enemy with his natural weapons" - fists, feet, teeth and so on. And you can't swap your fists for a power weapon per the rules.

Is that equivalent to a chainsword? no - but a combat knife is just as "not equal" to a chainsword as an Orks teeth. And the rules never cared for realism, nor is realism a valid argument in a rules discussion at all.

nekooni wrote:

 chaosmarauder wrote:
And you think thats more realistic than him being given a weapon that he actually carries around?

I dont think the answer is that he has a weapon that phases in and out.

I imagine the "counts as having a ccw" as "he hurts the enemy with his natural weapons" - fists, feet, teeth and so on. And you can't swap your fists for a power weapon per the rules.

Is that equivalent to a chainsword? no - but a combat knife is just as "not equal" to a chainsword as an Orks teeth. And the rules never cared for realism, nor is realism a valid argument in a rules discussion at all.

This exactly.

He is treated as having one, but he doesn't have it. If I offer to trade someone one of my models (melee weapon) and some money (points) for a model (melee weapon) and everyone treats me as I have that model, when it comes time to trade, I say "sorry I don't actually have the model, I'm just treated as having it" do you think they'll give me the model for just the cash?

I doubt it, they'd probably be mad. You cannot exchange something you do not have. So if you can prove that "treated as having" = "has" I'm good. But even the BRB says that when a model actually has a CCW it appears in their wargear. The no melee weapon blurb in the BRB just allows them to have the ability to fight in assaults.

Post withdrawn

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - ALPHARIUS]

nekooni wrote:

 chaosmarauder wrote:
And you think thats more realistic than him being given a weapon that he actually carries around?

I dont think the answer is that he has a weapon that phases in and out.

I imagine the "counts as having a ccw" as "he hurts the enemy with his natural weapons" - fists, feet, teeth and so on. And you can't swap your fists for a power weapon per the rules.

Is that equivalent to a chainsword? no - but a combat knife is just as "not equal" to a chainsword as an Orks teeth. And the rules never cared for realism, nor is realism a valid argument in a rules discussion at all.

Hence my point regarding a piece of Wargear that disappears when you actually would need it.