Murderus sieze on a dakkaflyrant?

[niiai]

The worst part of the dakkaflyrant is that he was very bad in melee.

How about giving murderus size to his default melee weapon?

[hivefleetkerrigan]

That feels like a waste. Is that even allowed? I'm not sure if murderous size needs to go on a non default weapon.

[yoritomo]

I don’t see why it wouldn’t be allowed. I’d have to look into it further to be sure, but I’m pretty sure it works.

To me the real question is why? Do you not have anything better to do with your AP bonus? If I’m giving up my warlord trait or command points for an AP bonus then I want to get as much out of it as I can. That’s why I want wings and two sets of scything talons on him, every little bit helps.

[No One]

I don't think so:

Before the battle, select one melee weapon that this
model is equipped with.

But if we look at the BRB for default cc weapon:

If a model is not equipped
with any melee weapons, or if it cannot make an attack with any of the
melee weapons it is equipped with, then that model makes its attacks using
a close combat weapon, which has the following profile:

It makes no mention of being equipped with it. It's just a 'you can make attacks with this profile'. And it's also a check-based thing i.e. you check when you make your attacks whether you have any cc weapons (flyrant does), and whether you can make all your attacks with it (dakkaflyrant can't).

[dranzyl]

Dont overthink it. If you want, take murderous size for the dakkaflyrants close combat weapon.
The rule isnt that a model hasnt a basic ccw (every one does and can make attacks with it), its that one isnt written in the datasheet because its a waste of ink/ paper/ space/ time.

[No One]

dranzyl said:

The rule isnt that a model hasnt a basic ccw (every one does and can make attacks with it), its that one isnt written in the datasheet because its a waste of ink/ paper/ space/ time.

No, that's not the rule. The rule is you can make an attack with a S:User AP:0 D:1 weapon if you cannot make that attack with a different weapon. You're not equipped with it (so you aren't considered equipped with multiple melee weapons like you were with some units in 8th, though I don't think there's any still around, can't upgrade it with pre-game etc), and you can't use it if you have another valid weapon (i.e. you can't use it to try and not kill stuff).

[tomcaet]

That's a very useful note, in 8th it was different. At first it was similar, didn't say that CCW was equipped and said to use it only when no melee weapon was equipped, but missed weapons that can't be used (like a Tyrant's tail). Then it was "fixed" in an errata until the end of 8th that everybody is equipped with a CCW, which had some consequences that were never accounted for, I think.
In 9th it's not equipped again, but got another exception, this time covering the tail. Murderous Size definitely says it works on an equipped melee weapon.

[dranzyl]

I was kind of a rushed when replying (original message was deleted). What i meant was thats what the rules was meant to be (past editions specificaly noted that, or perhaps it was just warhammer fantasy).

There is a point that rules lawyering turns silly. By raw you are correct. But by raw you are ok with a model using a weapon it doesnt have. That logic would lead to being ok with every gaunt firing macro cannon shots (titan weapons). I dont think theres a rule that says you cant fire a weapon you dont have.

Not trying to be rude, knowledge of specific rules and wording is important but wanting clear and specific rules doesnt mean we have to treat them as some kind of perfect gospel (its a work in progress after all).

[beetlejuice]

Feb 18, 2021 18:47:06 GMT dranzyl said:

I was kind of a rushed when replying (original message was deleted). What i meant was thats what the rules was meant to be (past editions specificaly noted that, or perhaps it was just warhammer fantasy).

There is a point that rules lawyering turns silly. By raw you are correct. But by raw you are ok with a model using a weapon it doesnt have. That logic would lead to being ok with every gaunt firing macro cannon shots (titan weapons). I dont think theres a rule that says you cant fire a weapon you dont have.

Not trying to be rude, knowledge of specific rules and wording is important but wanting clear and specific rules doesnt mean we have to treat them as some kind of perfect gospel (its a work in progress after all).

Hate to be that guy but there is a rule exactly like that.

” When you select a unit to shoot with, you select targets and resolve attacks with any or all ranged weapons that models in that unit are equipped with (each ranged weapon can only be shot once per phase). The ranged weapons that models in a unit are equipped with are detailed on its datasheet.”

Macro cannons are not on gaunts’ datasheet and unlike the case for close combat weapons there is no other rule stipulating an exception that let’s them shoot.

The rules are not perfect, but we should follow the rules that do exist and RAW trumps RAI, otherwise just do whatever you want but it’s not the official game and you can not expect a ruling in your favour by a TO. As proven time and again, real world logic of battles etc does not apply to how the game functions. With GW rules being as poorly written as they are, sometimes we have to make do, but this is not one of those cases because of the explanation in NoOne’s post.

[dranzyl]

Hehe i was kind of expecting that response

To be pedantic, nowhere in the rule you mentioned says you cant do that (the whole macro cannon silliness), attacking with a weapon you dont have though sets a precedent (the whole you can make an attack with basic ccw but you dont have any). The whole permissive vs non-permisive ruleset argument.

To be clear i generaly agree with your take on raw vs rai. But raw beats rai only as an imperfect solution to arguments, if the designer tells you what he intended then the reverse applies and raw is meaningless.
Exactly because a ruleset isnt perfect (it cant be) we cant just follow rai religiously.
Sure if you are going to a tournament ask your T.O. first for his ruling (another case of RAI beating RAW, its his interpretation that matters).

I think that mess of a wording started because people wanted to use base ccw to not kill their opponents and avoid getting shot. This clearly doesnt apply here.

[kazetanade]

niiai just don't do it, its not worth it anyway.