Unusual Power Weapons Discussion

[Akaiyou]

Let's get this cleared up once and for all.

RAW -
If a power weapon has its own unique close combat rules, treat it as an AP 3 Melee weapon with the additional rules and characteristics presented in its entry.

Let's not distort the actual definition. Accept it for what it is.

When reading unusual power weapons it is clearly defined to ONLY apply to weapons that have special rules for close combat if it does NOT have any special rules affecting close combat then it does NOT count as 'unusual' and follows the standard rules for power/force weapons. There are many examples of weapons that have extra benefits in close combat that follow this rule.

So this brings me to my next subject.

The Ork Burna is a FLAMER first and foremost with a special rule allowing it to be used as a power weapon. There is no special rules for close combat, there are no additional rules to the power weapon or characteristics as such it is a normal power weapon by RAW.

The debate would reside in 'what type of power weapon does it count as' being that it IS a flamer is what makes it unusual but this again has no bearing on the "Unusual Power Weapons" rule because it clearly states it only affects those with special rules for close combat.

So again what does the Burna count as?

Do we all agree that the RAW definition of unusual power weapons ONLY affects weapons with special close combat rules and not just any weapon that has a special rule as it seems a lot of people seem to be interpreting it.

Given the way the Burna is built I am inclined to call it a Lance type power weapon. Though I can potentially see it being swung around like an axe or sword as well (kind of like a light saber made from an extended beam of hot fire) but it mostly screams lance to me if we assume that it has a pointy fire thing at the tip and it's used to pierce rather than to slash which makes a lot of sense to me.

This would indicate that a unit of Burna Boyz initiating an assault have S5 AP3 weapons on the charge. What do the rest of you think? And again let's stick to the RAW definition enough with the assumptions and misinterpretations, address the rule as written.

[antennafarm]

if it doesn't say 'lance,' and doesn't look in any way like a lance, then it's not a lance.

you would use whatever close combat profile is provided, and if one isn't (don't have my ork codex handy, and am not familiar enough with it), you'd just plain use the Sx,AP3, where x=strength of the model.

[Akaiyou]

if it doesn't say 'lance,' and doesn't look in any way like a lance, then it's not a lance.

you would use whatever close combat profile is provided, and if one isn't (don't have my ork codex handy, and am not familiar enough with it), you'd just plain use the Sx,AP3, where x=strength of the model.

This is not true for several reasons.

"Burnas are ideal for slicing up scrap metal and enemy warriors alike"

What is a burna? It's a friggin giant blow torch. Google the word BLOW TORCH and look at images of what it actually is...I assure you that it can be used as a weapon. I've used blow torches before and they are dangerous and CAN slice/cut right through you like a hot knife through butter.

The FLUFF behind them as well clearly states what it does it slices through metal/enemies. Just like a blow torch would...hell i've even seen blow torches used as a weapon in movies, so a giant blow torch could EASILY be used as a spear to pierce right through enemies or an axe to cleave enemies. It just seems too big/ackward to use as a sword given how blow torches work and the actual model being very long and requiring two hands to wield.

Just because the 'fire' spitting out of it is not physically modeled on the gun it doesnt mean that it's not there.

The RAI/Fluff supports me
The RAW is in 100% support of me in regards to the unusual weapons rule not applying.

And to further support my claim there IS another weapon that is 'similar' not exactly the same but definetly similar in practice, the Eldar Laser Lance. It can be shot and it can be used to pierce through enemies. A burna would be such a type of weapon so there is precedent

The 'Types of Power Weapons' has examples listed, doesn't mean they are the only ones. And a giant blow torch could easily fit into what a lance would be. If you do not believe so go to a shop buy a blow torch and set it to max output then poke something with it and let me know what happens.

Anyone that has actually used a blow torch before knows that they are dangerous and can be easily be used as weapons or cause severe damage to anyone that doesn't handle them carefully. If it can be used to cut through metal it will also CUT through you.

[DarkLink]

The idea that 'blowtorch is obviously the same thing as a spear, or maybe an ax, or something, so obviously the rules indicate that I get X stats' seems like a pretty shaky argument, especially since it's not actually modeled as a sword or an ax or a lance or a maul, no matter how you look at it.

[sangrail777]

The way I've been using my burna boyz since 6th came out is as a power sword. I have no rles to back up the reason why. It just made the most sense to me due to the fact that currently there is no refrence to say it should be classed as anything else. and as far as imagery goes it makes enough since. So to avoid any confusion I just treat it as Sx, AP3.
Works well enough.

[Houghten]

if it doesn't say 'lance,' and doesn't look in any way like a lance, then it's not a lance.

Ah, but it does look like a lance. It's long with a tiny tip's worth of actual harm-causing bit.

---

However, it also looks Unwieldy as all get-out.

[Quaade]

This is not true for several reasons.

The FLUFF behind them as well clearly states what it does it slices through metal/enemies. Just like a blow torch would...hell i've even seen blow torches used as a weapon in movies, so a giant blow torch could EASILY be used as a spear to pierce right through enemies or an axe to cleave enemies. It just seems too big/ackward to use as a sword given how blow torches work and the actual model being very long and requiring two hands to wield.


A spear works because you can put force via momemtum behind it, you cannot put force via momentum behind a flame in order to get it to cut faster/deeper so neither fluff, real life or RAI can in any way justify burnas as having power lances.

[Lucian Kain]

A Burner is a Flamer that can be used as a Power Weapon in close combat.
-------------------------^--------------------Special Rule--------------------------^
then also-

A Burner is a Power Weapon that can be used as a flamer in the shooting phase.
--------------------------------- ^--------------------Special Rule--------------------------^

To me it dosn't matter which way you read the equation the answer is the same.

Strength(x) Ap3 Close combat weapon,the argument is a bit average.

The hottest "flame" known to man is the flame from an Oxy-Accetelene plant at 3600 degrees Celcius,I've used them for 10 years and if you were to stab that at some one it would instantly burn you for sure but you would also block the injectors and put out the flame straight away.I've been burnt with one befor you don't even feel it,but you smell it though lol.

[Bean]

I agree with Lucian on this one.

Also, a blowtorch is nothing at all like a spear. I could maybe--maybe--see an argument for axe, but, frankly, the rules seem pretty clear on this one.

[Akaiyou]

Ah, but it does look like a lance. It's long with a tiny tip's worth of actual harm-causing bit.

---

However, it also looks Unwieldy as all get-out.

What he said ^

How could you not put momentum or force behind a burna?? It's not made from plastic it wont snap in two if you stab the flame bit at someone. Just like a spear ....and look at the way the models hold the weapon, it makes perfect sense that they would hold it in both hands and either stab or try to chop at someone considering it's length makes sense for it to be unwieldy' and have pretty good reach....like a spear or axe.

Just saying it does make sense.

What comes first is important.

Why?

The 6th ed rulebook is redefining all weapons in the game and classifying everything, we all agree on this right?
Burna is classified as a flamer in the rulebook. Thus, Burna is a flamer with a special rule that allows it to be used as a normal power weapon (since it has no further rules to it), with the exception being that you cannot use it as both in the same turn.

This does NOT make it a UPW it doesn't fit the definition. Reading it the other way around...

A power weapon with a special rule that allows you to use it as a flamer...but oh wait...then it's NOT a power weapon in the first place if u chose to use ti as a flamer.

You run into a chicken and the egg argument there, it cannot be a power weapon to start with if it is shot as a flamer. So it's literally NOT a power weapon until you decide what you want to do in the shooting phase. In which case...

A close combat weapon with a special rule that allows you to use it as a power weapon if not used as a flamer. Would be a proper way of putting it...but this also misses the mark for the same reason as the first argument.

The deciding factor of wether or not it is a unusual power weapon is the close combat rule. But you are trying to tell me that this close combat rule actually works in the shooting phase. If shooting is what decides it then how is it a close combat rule?? I've never seen a close combat rule that activates in the shooting phase before.

Honestly i'm not even concerned about the Burnas, i'm just using it as an example to dispute this claim that a weapon with ANY special rule counts as UNUSUAL. Because that rule to me looks very clear that it only applies if there's a close combat rule applying if there isn't then it does not apply period.

[Tynskel]

it is pretty clear. If the weapon has any 'Special Rules', it is just 'Str as User, AP3'.

Otherwise, you are going to rile everyone up again, and have the Axe Mortalis arguments again.

[SacredChao]

I think the confusion might be coming from a bit of syntax. A burna is NOT a power weapon that can be used as a shooting attack. It is a shooting weapon that has a special rule (for close combat) that allows it to be used as a power weapon. Since it now has a "Close Combat Rule" and does not specify on the model, it is an unusual power weapon.

Of course, if we were going fluff wise and Ork tech works based on them believing it works, it could be whatever that Ork thought it was.

[RGilbert26]

As been said before the answer is quite simple, it's a unsual power weapon and so you use the owner's strength and it's AP3. Why people make these things more complicated and over read things is beyond me, much like the whole Flakk missile thing.

[Akaiyou]

The weapon is always a flamer 100% of the time because shooting comes first. You can choose wether or not to shoot your flamer this is the determining factor in wether you have a power weapon or not.

So if a special rule is determined during the SHOOTING PHASE...how does that make it a CLOSE COMBAT rule?

The reason why i'm arguing this is because of the horrible precedent it sets if we start calling EVERY weapon with a special rule an UPW regardless of wether the special rule is an actual close combat rule. Here's an example:

Let's say someone in a future codex has a special power axe. With a special rule that allows them to get the MOVE THROUGH COVER USR. This would not suddenly create a UPW, the rule doesn't come into play during the combat, it comes in to play during movement thus he would have a normal power axe in combat.

It's the same deal with the Burna we can all agree that it's definetly not a standard weapon. But it's rule itself is not a close combat rule. And that's my point the RAW for UPW is very clear cut in how to apply it.

I've never seen a close combat rule that gets activated in the shooting phase EVER in this game. Maybe I just don't own enough armies/models but i've definetly never seen it before and it makes no sense.

EDIT : Good point was brought up regarding the burna during assault phase overwatch. It would not be able to Overwatch, thus not a flamer 100% of the time I stand corrected on that.

[DarkLink]

Seriously, your argument makes no sense whatsoever. You're not backing up anything that you're claiming with actual rules, just vague statements about how blowtorches are lances and how for some reason having a special rule doesn't mean it has a special rule even when it does. Why does it even matter what percentage of the time a burna is a flamer? How does that even make any sense?


State your argument clearly, without any vague opinions or unsubstantiated claims or hypothetical situations that don't actually exist in the game, using rules from the rulebooks only.

[Akaiyou]

RUNNING is something that occurs in the shooting phase. It disallows assaults but it still occurs in the shooting phase you don't run in the assault phase thus the RUN special rule for all intents and purposes is a shooting phase rule with an adverse effect on the assault phase.

Same way the Burna works, it is not a power weapon until you choose not to fire it in the shooting phase. Works identically to RUN. If you fire it you end up with just the burna as a normal weapon (not a CCW) works just like a model with a missile launcher, you use your base stats to attack in the assault phase.

Just because an earlier rule has an effect in a latter phase doesn't mean that the rule applies for that phase.

RUN (shooting phase) Benefit of Not Running (able to assault) Benefit of Running(Extra movement but no assault)
Burna. Benefit of Not using Flamer (counts as a power weapon from the start of the assault phase) Benefit of Using Flamer (You can shoot things)

Same thing, both things are determined in the shooting phase. Run would not count as a close combat rule, it has it's own benefit in the shooting phase same thing with the burna.

But either way i'm done debating this I will wait for the FAQ or INAT FAQ.
Just remember you guys are accepting that ANY special rule on a weapon makes it a UPW even if its not a close combat rule.

The power weapon feature of the burna doesn't just happen during close combat. At the very start of the assault phase it is either a power weapon or not depending on what you chose to do in the shooting phase. Your weapon doesn't magically turn into a power weapon when you initiate an assault, the effect takes place before combat thus it is not a close combat special rule.

That's my final word take it with a grain of salt.

[Bean]

Can someone quote the entirety of the rule for Burnas, verbatim? That might help clear some stuff up.


Just remember you guys are accepting that ANY special rule on a weapon makes it a UPW even if its not a close combat rule.

That is what the BRB says: it doesn't specify "close combat rule"--it just says, and I quote:

"If a model's wargear says it has a power weapon which has no further special rules, look at the model to tell which type of power weapon it has..."

The BRB does not distinguish between "close combat rules" and other rules. Just special rules and the absence of special rules. Now, depending on the wording of the Burna rule, I might be convinced that the Burna can be a power weapon without any special rules, but it doesn't really matter what type of special rules they are.

[DarkLink]

Yeah, I don't know what all this stuff about 'close combat phase rules' and 'shooting phase rules' and imaginary stuff like that is all about.

A Burna is a weapon. That has special rules. Simple.

That entire comparison to the Run phase is completely pointless and meaningless as well, and has nothing to do with anything.


A burna may be used in the shooting phase with the profile below, or as a power weapon in an assault, but not both in the same turn.

So it's neither a power weapon that has an attached flamer, nor a flamer that has an attached power weapon.

[Melon-neko]

Can someone quote the entirety of the rule for Burnas, verbatim? That might help clear some stuff up.



That is what the BRB says: it doesn't specify "close combat rule"--it just says, and I quote:

"If a model's wargear says it has a power weapon which has no further special rules, look at the model to tell which type of power weapon it has..."

The BRB does not distinguish between "close combat rules" and other rules. Just special rules and the absence of special rules. Now, depending on the wording of the Burna rule, I might be convinced that the Burna can be a power weapon without any special rules, but it doesn't really matter what type of special rules they are.

What he is focusing on is:
Unusual power weapons (pg 61)
Many models have unusual power weapons that have one or more unique rules. If a power weapon has its own unique close combat rules, treat it as an AP3 melee weapon with the additional rules and characteristics presented in the entry

Bolded for emphasis. So his claim is that, since a Burna has special rules outside of the close combat phase (Ie, being a flamer) and no actual special rules inside of the close combat phase other than being a power weapon, it does not count as an unusual weapon.

I disagree with the idea, in that I think the second sentence is a continuation of the first, not a clarification of the first, but I understand the point he is trying to argue.

[DarkLink]

Akaiyou could have saved himself a lot of time by just saying that. That argument actually kind of makes sense.

The problem with treating it as a lance or ax or whatever is that there is an official model for the burna. You can't model a burna as you please to gain a special advantage. You can't model it as a lance or an ax or whatever, and it isn't currently an ax or lance or whatever, so you can't claim the bonuses for being modeled as a lance or ax or whatever.

Below I've attached a picture of a burna, and a picture of a lance. These are not the same things. So while you could conceivably argue it is a generic power weapon as per Melon-neko's point, you still run into the fact that it is not modeled as a lance, and therefore you don't get to claim the benefits of a lance.

[Sinistermind]

sorry if this was mentioned in the thread so far but, ive been wondering about the unusual power weapons, if say your talking about an older codex(eldar) and say for instance eldrads staff just says ignores armour saves, and doesnt mention power weapon at all, and is not in the FAQ then for all intents does ignore all armour and is NOT ap3 correct???

[SacredChao]

sorry if this was mentioned in the thread so far but, ive been wondering about the unusual power weapons, if say your talking about an older codex(eldar) and say for instance eldrads staff just says ignores armour saves, and doesnt mention power weapon at all, and is not in the FAQ then for all intents does ignore all armour and is NOT ap3 correct???

That is correct, If it says ignore armor saves and was not FAQ'd to change it, armor saves cannot be taken.

Back to Burna's: The rules on "Power Weapon" and Unusual Power Weapon are very vague. But from what I can gather from the BRB and the FAQ's (Specifically where they specify different equipment AP's and errata Power Axes and stuff to just Power Weapon, i think in Space Marine FAQ), The rule goes like this:

1. If the model may take a generic "Power Weapon" you may model it however you wish for what you want.
2. If it is an Special Character, you must remain with what the model has per GW.
3. If the Power Weapon is not called a "Power Weapon" in Wargear, it is an Unusual Power Weapon.

All these apply to force weapons as an extension. Since "Burna" is not "Power Weapon", it is Unusual and thus S:X,AP3.

[Akaiyou]

Akaiyou could have saved himself a lot of time by just saying that. That argument actually kind of makes sense.

The problem with treating it as a lance or ax or whatever is that there is an official model for the burna. You can't model a burna as you please to gain a special advantage. You can't model it as a lance or an ax or whatever, and it isn't currently an ax or lance or whatever, so you can't claim the bonuses for being modeled as a lance or ax or whatever.

Below I've attached a picture of a burna, and a picture of a lance. These are not the same things. So while you could conceivably argue it is a generic power weapon as per Melon-neko's point, you still run into the fact that it is not modeled as a lance, and therefore you don't get to claim the benefits of a lance.

Are you serious dude? Go back to the first page and see how I quoted the entry in the very first sentence!!!...it is YOU guys that kept referencing something else other than what I consistently quoted and focused on. I even agreed that I can't categorize the weapon myself...I kept stating over and over however that it does not fit into the unusual weapon category based on the close combat special rule requirement not being met.

the lance thing is a theory better explained by my post from dakka below.

Repost from Dakka. It applies here aswell
Oh lord you people are a piece of work...let me clarify a few things for you.

1. Posting the same thread in multiple forums is not a call for attention. It is raising an issue/question and wanting to get input from multiple sources not just one potentially biased source.

I could've simply posted this at "The-Waagh" which is a forum comprised of only Ork players yet I went out of my way to inquire the opinions of 'other' players in the community because it is VALUABLE.

Yet so many of you act like morons and belittle this as something evil/bad. Apparently when you have a question on something you ask just 1 person and go with whatever they say...goodbye Critical Thinking who needs ya!

2. Another very idiotic thing that has been brought up over and over is this apparent theory that i'm trying to 'cheat' or abuse the rules by using the Burna as a lance.

This is where I have to agree fullheartedly with Viti's assessment that some of you have a complete utter lack of reading comprehension.

My post was extremely clear...I mean i really went out of my way to state that I am unsure about how the weapon classifies because I myself cannot categorize it.

All I know for sure is that it does NOT fit into the 'unusual weapon' category based on the fact that it does not have a special close combat rule on the power weapon itself. Which is the same thing Viti has also stated but apparently nobody else seems to agree with...

But that aside, my theory that it would most likely be a Lance is just a theory/opinion based on the basic concept that it's a friggin blow man sized torch that would be protruding a pointy flame at the tip. It is COMMON SENSE being used here to formulate the opinion nothing else, and even then I once again state that i am not 100% sure on it.

With that said...these same people argue the following 2 points

A) It cannot be a lance/spear because the nozzle would break on impact.

B) Being a lance/spear would make it significantly worst in CC, the OP must've not thought about this when coming up with his 'cheat' scheme.

To which I respon...again using common sense and everything I previously stated that apparently people could not understand from simple reading...

A) Fine and using the weapon as a 'sword' type unusual power weapon would suddenly make the nozzle unbreakable? Does it require less force to strike holding the burnas a sword than it would as a lance? The argument is ridiculous...obviously the weapon is strong enough to be used effectively in close combat. Regardless of how the Burna Boy chooses to 'attack' with it, the nozzle will always be in the same position and making contact with the enemy unless he flips it around and holds the weapon by the nozzle itself and uses the Burna to 'club' people...but then the power weapon aspect would make no sense.

This is common sense. This is logic. This is your argument being invalidated. The nozzle is clearly strong enough to be used effectively in close combat in the SCIENCE FICTION UNIVERSE OF 40K. Apparently Orks can built sturdy crap...who would've thought.

B) Again what part of opinion/theory escapes you? If you claim that the weapon is inferior by being a lance...this is your best example of showing how I am attempting to cheat the system? "Oh he wants to make the weapon worst! He's clearly trying to cheat!" that is your logic?

Irregardless of wether the weapon is made better or worst I am simply stating my common sense opinion that "Hey the closest thing I can think of for this odd weapon is for it to be used as a spear given how it's held and how I imagine someone fighting with it would have to attack with it"

I could care less if the weapon gave a -3 Strength if it were a lance. The thread is meant to get your opinions on the matter and have a healthy discussion, instead you come about as a lynch mob, without caring to bring facts into your arguments, and making erroneous assumptions about everything I post that you clearly didn't bother reading.

3. I truly do believe this is a legitimate question regarding the burna and more so because of the precedent it sets if we allow any weapon with a special rule to count as an unusual weapon instead of sticking to the RAW that states only 'close combat special rules' apply.

So many and i do mean SOOOOO many people here keep posting 'is it a power weapon? does it have a special rule? UNUSUAL POWER WEAPON! case closed'

This is wrong. Not all special rules are close combat special rules, yet close combat special rules are special rules by nature. Notice there is a distinction...

Same distinction can be made in our every day lives.

All toothpastes are toothpastes, but NOT all toothpastes have "WHITENING".

So if your Dentist prescribes TOOTHPASTE WITH WHITENING to get your teeth up to standard, just going and buying any ol toothpaste wont do you any good.

Will you sue your dentist for your laziness in not reading the label before you grabbed a random toothpaste? "Oh he said toothpaste will make my teeth shiny as pearls"

This is the argument me and Viti are making regarding the UPW rule. It specifies a specific type of special rule....but people are just choosing to ignore what's right there infront of their face for some reason.

Any how can a mod please lock this thread already? It's not getting anyone anywhere I had already submitted this question to the INAT FAQ as I will abide by whatever is ruled on it.

And again you 'witch hunters' out there before you go out of your way to judge someone raising a question, perhaps you could take a moment to leave the hate at the door. And don't assume that anyone asking a question is just trying to 'cheat', it is through asking questions and discussing them with people that reach understanding. Not by blindly replying and taking stuff out of context or mocking irrelevant things (ie: OMG THE OP POSTED THIS IN OTHER FORUMS AND GOT THRASHED! IM SO AWESOME)...Unnecessary.

And yes I was annoyed/pissed at this whole thing enough that I had decided to drop it and believe it should be dropped for the sake of our collective sanity.

[Jwolf]

Simply put since Burnas are not Power Weapons, they cannot be model to be specific types (axes, swords, etc.). So when we get to the point of treating them as Power Weapons, they are unusual.

[Tynskel]

wait, what?
Jwolf, I thought you only speaketh if I have spoketh.

well, uh, uh...

No, Burnas are not 'axes, lances, swords, or pickles'.
Burnas have special rules.

Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.

[DarkLink]

Are you serious dude? Go back to the first page and see how I quoted the entry in the very first sentence!!!

/shrug/ It got lost somewhere in your tangle of irrelevant tangents. Brevity is the soul of wit. Make your point, and stick to it, so that the point doesn't get lost in the shuffle.

[Tynskel]

/shrug/ It got lost somewhere in your tangle of irrelevant tangents. Brevity is the soul of wit. Make your point, and stick to it, so that the point doesn't get lost in the shuffle.

Why do you think I repeat myself so much! :)

[Akaiyou]

-facepalm-

[DarkLink]

No, literally, I missed that part while I was trying to figure out what you were even trying to argue by going on about how Run isn't a close combat rule and how blowtorches are basically lances except totally not even remotely similar but yet they kinda are.

I'm not insulting you. I'm saying that you have presented your argument in such an unclear, convoluted manner that I literally don't know what exactly your augment is, other than something about blowtorches and lances.

Melon-neko, on the other hand, presented your entire argument in a few clear and concise sentences. No unrelated tangents about toothpaste, no openly aggressive accusations of witch hunts, just a rules quote and a simple explaination.




And, by the way, posting things like this:


Oh lord you people are a piece of work...let me clarify a few things for you.

... Posting the same thread in multiple forums is not a call for attention... (yeah, it kinda is)

...Yet so many of you act like morons and belittle this as something evil/bad...

..Another very idiotic thing that has been brought up ...


...will not win you any points with the people you're insulting. Not only is it hypocritical, nor conductive to a friendly, reasoned discussion, but it shuts people down. People who would otherwise be perfectly friendly become hostile. It doesn't matter who started it. It costs you nothing to be the bigger man. So, seriously, chill out. What people say on the internet is not that big of a deal.

It's easy to sound aggressive and angry on the internet. Nothing that I've posted is intended to insult you. In general, nothing that I post is intended to be insulting*, even when I'm making fun of someone for not reading the rules or for misusing you're/your or whatever. Tone just doesn't carry well over the internet. I just think your argument was poorly presented.



*There are a few cases where I've used genuine fighting words, but those were situations wherein certain individuals professed certain views that no decent human being should hold. Luckily these are few and far between, and easily solved with the Ignore List feature.