[zackdanials]

As the title says, does everyone get a close combat weapon? This came up in a recent game:

One player claimed each of his tactical marines had two attacks because they come with a bolt pistol and on page 40 of the BRB (weapons section) it states 'if a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with melee type, it is treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon'. So unspecified close combat weapon+bolt pistol = 2 attacks?
Seems simple.

However the other player argued that the pistol IS the close combat weapon, so each marine only gets one attack.
Fair enough.

However the first player responded that since the bolt pistol is not specifically listed as a melee weapon but as a pistol the wording in the rule book stands, so each marine does get two attacks.

And so on and so forth. Eventually they simply rolled on it and the game carried on. However i was wondering if anyone knew the correct answer?

 

[Vaz]

A bolt pistol is a close combat weapon though, IIRC.

 

[zackdanials]

I think it was an argument about wording, as the BRB specifically mentions the words melee which is not on a pistols profile, except in CC where it's a users strength melee weapon. Hence the confusion.

Also if you examine units equipment the argument for two attacks holds up fluff wise, for example it gives marines two CC attacks but a guardsman is not listed as having a pistol in their codex so he simply gets the 'unspecified single close combat weapon', leaving him with one attack.

 

[neferhet]

really? really? do i really need to answer this??
1) first thing first: logic. what would ccw+pistol or double ccw rules do then? a single weapon is just...a single weapon.
2)pistols can be used in melee " a pistol counts as a melee weapon in the assault phase", so there you go, you got a melee weapon
3) is he 12 yo or something?
4) even if pistols were not considered melee weapons the rule says that "if the model is not armed with a melle weapon, consider it equipped with a SINGLE melee weapon", so tell the guy to...well go play wave serpent spam, if he really wants to win with jimmyks...

sorry for the snappy answer but man, do i hate this kind of stuff

 

[zackdanials]

1) good point, running around with two pistols and a CCW isn't gonna get him any further now is it?

2) this was mentioned, argued over and mentioned again

3) he's 22 going on 60 (he's proud of his hanging baskets. At 22 years old. Go figure)

4) speaking of jimmyks, I admit I was sorta hoping he was right since it would beef up my tactical squads too, though it would annoy me immensely if they had the same amount of attacks as assault marines...

Don't worry about the snap man, they sorted it out amicably enough during the game. And he didn't sulk for too long when he lost the roll off...

 

[Mossy Toes]

He lost the roll off? CLEARLY HIS POSITION WAS FLAWED FROM THE START THE DICE GODS DO NOT FAVOR HIM. So it is resolved once and forever...

He's a sneaky little chump trying to rules-lawyer for advantage, going against the spirit of the game using a weak, marginally acceptable argument. Basic CSM start with the same thing, a bolter & bolt pistol, and may swap their bolter for a CCW. that's a pretty firm structural argument against his case right there: "I'm going to give up my bolter for the CCW I already had!" What? No!

Besides, look at pg 41: right after the "no specified melee weapon" wording he quoted is the "pistols as close combat weapons" text saying pistols may be used as CCWs using the profile of a Melee weapon above (and ignoring the pistol's usual stats). So if you don't use the pistol as a melee weapon, you get a free melee weapon... But the instant you start using the pistol as a(n identical) melee weapon, they have a melee weapon so no longer have no weapon of a Melee type--ergo no free single ccw.

 

[Creon]

If Pistols and the MRB CCW was a legal interpretation, why would there be an option for CSM to buy a CCW for two points when they already have Bolter and Pistol? A pistol is counted as a CCW.

 

[Vaz]

To those people using logic to determine the answer, Games Workshop Rules writers and common sense aren't on speaking terms.

Case in point - Games Workshop create a new army (Chaos Legions), which allows units from Warriors of Chaos, Beastsmen, and Daemons of Chaos.

Warriors and Beastmen have access to Magic Items - but these Magic Items are limited to armies from the Warriors of Chaos armies, or Beastmen armies respectively.

Common sense sorts this RAW (rules as written, as opposed to RAI - Rules as Interpreted, or RACSD - rules as common sense dictates) right out, but that doesn't prevent the RAW being fucked up.

In the event of RAW; "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."

If you want to be incredibly obtuse, you can still legally claim that because it states "can be used", rather than must be used", or "is". It also states "if this is done", suggesting it is still a choice.

However, you're then led to dividing by zero, effectively. If you're not equipped with a close combat weapon (choosing not to use the pistol), then you are treated as being equipped with a single close combat weapon. The problem then comes that if you try to claim the extra attack from having a pistol used as a CCW, you'd actually have a melee -type weapon, and discount yourself from the attack.

 

[Squire]

Presumably the reason they have their pistol sidearms is so they can fire their pistols instead of bolters if they want to charge that turn

I'd set that guy's hanging baskets on fire or urinate on them. I can't stand that approach to the game

 

[zackdanials]

To be honest, it's not the worst trick I've ever seen someone try to pull. It's people who fudge their move distance that get me riled up. I don't think the guy was trying to pull a d**k move though. I think that was his genuine interpretation of the rules but it had never even crossed my mind they worked that way so I thought I'd double check, thanks for the replies