PDA

View Full Version : Multiple Close Combat Weapons (This is a difficult one IMO)



oni
08-23-2009, 12:42 PM
Here's one that has me beside myself as to what exactly is the right answer...

It boils down to... If a unit has multiple CCW's (say a 3+ combination of special and/or normal) can they choose which one(s) to use and still get the +1 attack if applicable and/or choose which ones to use and strike at their normal initiative?

For example:
Marnius Calgar is equiped with the Gauntlets of Ultrmar which is a 'pair' of power fists, but he also has a powersword.

If Calgar were to choose to use the powersword only he would then strike at I5, but at his normal strength and wouldn't get the +1 attack because he's not utilizing two close combat weapons. However, if when in close combat Calgar chooses to use the Gauntlets (two powerfists) does he get +1 attack despite still being equipped with powersword? Using RAI, I think he gets the +1 attack, but it's hard to say. Page42 of the rulebook doesn't explicitly state under Two Different Special Weapons if it's the ones chosen to be used in combat or if it's a blanket statement referring to all equipped wargear. RAW would dictate otherwise.

I'm lead to believe that it is not a blanket statement and here's why...

IG's Commissar Yarrick is equipped with: Storm bolter, Powerfist, Close-combat weapon and Bolt pistol. Why bother equipping him with the Close-combat weapon if not to use it with the Bolt pistol to strike at his normal I3 with a +1 attack? If giving him this additional wargear were only intended to give him the ability to strike at his normall I3 then one could simply use the Bolt pistol.

What's the general BoLS Lounge consensus on this?

Culven
08-23-2009, 01:11 PM
I am of the opinion that the player may choose which weapons the model is going to use. Once this is decided, then the "Special Close Combat Weapon" rules are applied to determine the bonuses associated with using that combination of weapons.

Aldramelech
08-23-2009, 01:49 PM
Agreed, Models with options are more flexible, allowing you to choose the right weapon for the job.

Nabterayl
08-23-2009, 03:36 PM
I am also of the opinion that Culven's got the right of it. The paragraph under FIGHTING WITH TWO SINGLE-HANDED WEAPONS implies to me that you choose first, then see which of the four combinations applies. A Chaos space marine, for instance, is equipped with three weapons - two one-handed weapons and a two-handed weapon - and the introductory paragraph strongly implies that the CSM is allowed to choose to use his two one-handed weapons instead of his two-handed weapon. That being the case, it's not much of a stretch for me to imagination choosing among three one-handed weapons.

If I had to get rules-lawyery about it, I'd point out that that whole section applies only to models equipped with two single-handed weapons, whereas the models you give as an example are equipped with three single-handed weapons. That makes the options either a) none of the rules apply, or b) you pick which two weapons we're talking about and go from there, with no textual guidance as to which is correct. A) is de facto defaulting to one of the four rules, but still doesn't tell you which you should go with; b) provides a consistent basis for decision, which makes it the more attractive option to me from a lawyerly standpoint.

Jwolf
08-25-2009, 09:58 AM
I am of the opinion that the player may choose which weapons the model is going to use. Once this is decided, then the "Special Close Combat Weapon" rules are applied to determine the bonuses associated with using that combination of weapons.

I am also of this opinion, and further of the opinion that the FIGHTING with two single-handed weapons issue is a red herring. Note that the rule is not the POSSESSING two single-handed weapons rules. I think it is fair for the designers to assume that we can count the hands available to most weapon-using models and come up with the correct number.

Of course, I've also heard the failure of an airplane's wing argued as caused by impact from insects, so I know some people will argue anything.

oni
08-25-2009, 10:26 AM
I am also of this opinion, and further of the opinion that the FIGHTING with two single-handed weapons issue is a red herring. Note that the rule is not the POSSESSING two single-handed weapons rules. I think it is fair for the designers to assume that we can count the hands available to most weapon-using models and come up with the correct number.

Of course, I've also heard the failure of an airplane's wing argued as caused by impact from insects, so I know some people will argue anything.

Very well put. This is exactly the composition / context I was looking for to solidify my argument. Thank you.

Rangerrob
08-25-2009, 11:59 AM
I like to call this the Eldrad rule. Cause it seems like he is the one it was designed for.

Usually the PF takes models out of the two special weapons group, because of the PF rule where you don;t get the second attack unless it is another PF.

So it seems like there are only a handful of minis that have 2 special weapons one of which is not a PF.

So ask yourself...Who was this rule written for? meaning...what models does it actually effect?

Eldrad, poorly built Inquisitors?, Calgar (I'm to the point of rolling a d6 whenever his name comes up just to move the game along the 3 special weapons hurts my head.)

Yarrick only has 1 special weapon, the PF, the others are regular weapons, and the rule is if you have a special weapon you have to use it.

Say I'm building an Inquistor and the model has two hand weapons, so I buy him a Power sword and a Force weapon. I'm now subject to the 2 special weapons rule. Now If I buy him a bolt pistol for 1 point I'm no longer effected by it? Come on...

The rule was put in there to nerf characters that are trying to do too much...let the rule do it's work.

Nabterayl
08-25-2009, 12:30 PM
You can't build an inquisitor that way. Two weapons at most in both the WH and DH codices. In fact, I'm not sure I can think of a character you can build that way. If the only ones that can be built that way have been built by GW, I don't think your line of reasoning carries a lot of weight.

Rangerrob
08-25-2009, 12:45 PM
You can't build an inquisitor that way. Two weapons at most in both the WH and DH codices. In fact, I'm not sure I can think of a character you can build that way. If the only ones that can be built that way have been built by GW, I don't think your line of reasoning carries a lot of weight.

Even better...your making my point. My bad, I was reaching for an example. The point is...

Who does this rule effect? Is there a model in the game with ONLY two special CCW neither of which are a PF?

Nabterayl
08-25-2009, 12:57 PM
People who want to have a power fist and a power sword, and have the power fist confer +1A to the power sword, as otherwise only the opposite would be prohibited. Or, more weirdly, people who want to have something like a rune weapon and a frost axe.


Usually the PF takes models out of the two special weapons group, because of the PF rule where you don;t get the second attack unless it is another PF.
The trouble with this is that I don't see textual support for it. A power fist is a special weapon; it doesn't get its own category under FIGHTING WITH TWO SINGLE-HANDED WEAPONS. Yarrick is equipped with three one-handed weapons - a normal CCW, a bolt pistol, and a power fist. Nothing says that he should be counted as only having two because you can't get a second attack with a power fist and a pistol. The bolt pistol serves no purpose unless unless he can choose which of the three he is fighting with. Given that the Imperial Guard codex was written after 5th edition was published, why would they have done that if choosing wasn't the correct way to go?

Rangerrob
08-25-2009, 02:05 PM
The bolt pistol serves no purpose unless unless he can choose which of the three he is fighting with. Given that the Imperial Guard codex was written after 5th edition was published, why would they have done that if choosing wasn't the correct way to go?

Just guessing...cause both minis have a pistol on his hip?

I don't have my rulebook in front of me. I'll have to check, but I think it says something to the effect of a PF only grants an additional attack when paired with another PF. For the record I would have reached for a d6 before this point if we were at the table.

What I've been trying to say is that is rule gets far too much press for a rule that effects maybe 5 models in the game.

And I've heard a pretty good argument why it shouldn't apply to everyone of them. leading me back to the question I've posted three times in a row.

Who does this rule apply to? :D

Nabterayl
08-25-2009, 02:25 PM
Anybody with a special weapon whose second weapon is a power fist or lightning claw, or who have two non-redundant non-powerfist special weapons, such as a poisoned weapon and a power sword. That potentially applies to all daemonhunter HQs, daemonhunter inquisitors, Calgar when fighting with power sword, all Space Wolves with armory access, big meks in mega-armour with burnas, Black Templar with armory access, and Huron Blackheart, by my count.

None of these situations are very likely to come up; I agree with you that it isn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things. But choosing which two you're fighting with still has to be the way to go.

Soundgear
08-25-2009, 02:41 PM
Actually, I am pretty sure that power fists (as well as lightning claws), DO get a special section. It is under the description of the assault weapons, where it explicitly states that PFs and LCs only grant a two weapon bonus when matched in a pair. Meaning a pair of PFs or a pair of LCs (no LC/PF combo). It is at the bottom of each paragraph for each weapon, just like the no armor save rule on power weapons.

Nabterayl
08-25-2009, 02:47 PM
Yes, but the question is, can a power fist serve as the secondary weapon and still confer an additional attack? For instance, can a model with a power sword and a power fist choose to attack with his power sword, and get +1A from the power fist? Without Two different special weapons the answer could be yes; with it, the answer is definitively no.

oni
08-25-2009, 02:59 PM
... a PF only grants an additional attack when paired with another PF.

This is correct.



Who does this rule apply to?

All models who are equipped with 3+ single handed close combat weapons, at least one of which is special.

oni
08-25-2009, 03:20 PM
Yes, but the question is, can a power fist serve as the secondary weapon and still confer an additional attack? For instance, can a model with a power sword and a power fist choose to attack with his power sword, and get +1A from the power fist? Without Two different special weapons the answer could be yes; with it, the answer is definitively no.

No, this isn't the question at all. That's more along the lines of "Can I turn my powerfist off?" and the answer to that is, no.

The question is whether or not a model that is equipped with a variety of 'special' single handed close combat weapons as well as one or more normal close combat weapons, loose their bonus attack just because they're equipped with that second or third special weapon. Does the mere possession of that third special weapon make the unit fall under Two Different Special Weapons rule?

For example: Calgar has two power fists, this grants a bonus attack under normal circumstances, however, he is also equipped with a power sword. When in close combat he needs to choose which he is going to use. He chooses to use the two powerfists... does the fact that he still has that powersword (despite not being the weapon used) make him loose the bonus attack due to the Two Different Special Weapons rule?

Nabterayl
08-25-2009, 03:27 PM
That is a much better way of phrasing it, Oni. My answer is still no, for the reasons stated earlier.

Jwolf
08-25-2009, 03:28 PM
I disagree, Oni. The Powerfist can only gain an extra attack if paired with another Powerfist, but the Power Sword does not have that restriction. So attacking with the Power Sword, +1 attack would be gained from the Powerfist.

Nabterayl
08-25-2009, 03:33 PM
I disagree, Oni. The Powerfist can only gain an extra attack if paired with another Powerfist, but the Power Sword does not have that restriction. So attacking with the Power Sword, +1 attack would be gained from the Powerfist.

Can you clarify that? The way I think the rules should be interpreted, Calgar would be attacking with a power sword (special weapon) and a power fist (special weapon), using the power sword as the weapon that he is "using" for purposes Two different special weapons, and thus would not gain an extra attack. Are you saying that he would, because he has two power fists (per Two of the same special weapon), notwithstanding the fact that he is attacking with the sword?

Jwolf
08-25-2009, 03:51 PM
To gain an extra attack when using a special weapon, you have to use that special weapon, if the one you are using is on the list. Power Sword is not on the list, so it doesn't care what other close combat weapon you have, Powerfists included.

Nabterayl
08-25-2009, 03:57 PM
Sorry, still not sure that makes sense to me. Let me try to unpack what I think you're saying so you can correct me if needed.

So, as an example, a non-charging Calgar could deliver five Strength 4 attacks at Initiative 5 with no armor saves allowed, and the rule you're cueing off of is on page 42, and you read it something like this:

Two of the same special weapon[/b]
These models gain one additional attack.

Check, he has two power fists, which are the same special weapon, and therefore he gets one additional attack.
All of their attacks, including the bonus attack, use the special weapon's bonuses and penalties.

It doesn't say which special weapon's bonuses and penalties, leaving the player open to choose, so Calgar's player could choose the power sword.

Did I mess anything up there in your reading?

Mike Dunford
08-25-2009, 04:01 PM
I disagree, Oni. The Powerfist can only gain an extra attack if paired with another Powerfist, but the Power Sword does not have that restriction. So attacking with the Power Sword, +1 attack would be gained from the Powerfist.

No. See page 42 of the rulebook, last paragraph, section labeled "two different special weapons". The wording is (almost surprisingly) very, very clear. The model MUST choose which weapon to use every turn, but NEVER gets the bonus attack. According to the text of the rule, this is the penalty for wielding too many complex weapons.

In the case of Calgar, the matched pair of gauntlets still gives him a benefit - but in shooting, not in combat. They've got the built-in AP 2 Assault 2 special bolter.

Culven
08-25-2009, 04:11 PM
I'm still confused as to what some posters are trying to say.

Calgar has three combat weapons (Power Sword and two Power Fists), correct?
If using the two Power Fists, he gains the +1 Attack, correct?
If using the Power Sword with a Power Fist as a secondary weapon, he gains no bonus due to the "Multiple Special Weapons" rule, correct?

Mike Dunford
08-25-2009, 04:30 PM
Calgar has three combat weapons (Power Sword and two Power Fists), correct?
Yes.

If using the two Power Fists, he gains the +1 Attack, correct?
No. I think.

If using the Power Sword with a Power Fist as a secondary weapon, he gains no bonus due to the "Multiple Special Weapons" rule, correct?
Yes.

But at least now I can see the source of the confusion. (And I'm forced to withdraw my previous statement regarding the clarity of the rule.) Here's the relevant quote (p.42):
"When it is their turn to attack, these models must choose which weapon to use that turn, but they never get the bonus attack for using two weapons (such is the penalty for wielding too many complex weapons!)"

The answer to the question seems to depend on two things: whether the "penalty for wielding" too many weapons applies when a weapon is an available choice, but has not been picked for use that turn; and how many special weapons Calgar actually has.

I'd argue that the penalty applies regardless of whether the model is using the weapon or not - the power sword was an available choice to make, so I'd say that the multiple weapons rule applies.

I'd also argue that Calgar doesn't have three special weapons - he has two. The gauntlets are listed as a single weapon - a matched pair with a very good weapon built in. They're not listed as "two power fists". Viewed that way, Calgar doesn't get to choose if he is going to use two power fists or the power sword, he chooses between the gauntlets and the sword. That would, to me, seem to imply that the multiple special weapons rule applies here, too.

Nabterayl
08-25-2009, 04:36 PM
Mike Dunford has identified the essential question, yes. To demonstrate the confusion, I would say, in the case of Calgar:


Calgar has three combat weapons (Power Sword and two Power Fists), correct?
Correct.

If using the two Power Fists, he gains the +1 Attack, correct?
Correct.

If using the Power Sword with a Power Fist as a secondary weapon, he gains no bonus due to the "Multiple Special Weapons" rule, correct?
Correct.

I would say that Calgar does have two power fists; "a pair" is good enough for me.

But note that even if one agrees that Calgar has two power fists, one could disagree with my answers. You could say:


If using the two Power Fists, he gains the +1 Attack, correct?
No, because he also has a power sword, and models with two different special weapons "never get the bonus attack for using two weapons."

The question, essentially, is this: if you have more than two weapons, do you get to pick which two you're going to use and then apply the rules under FIGHTING WITH TWO SINGLE-HANDED WEAPONS?

oni
08-25-2009, 04:38 PM
I disagree, Oni. The Powerfist can only gain an extra attack if paired with another Powerfist, but the Power Sword does not have that restriction. So attacking with the Power Sword, +1 attack would be gained from the Powerfist.

What? :confused:


I told you guys this was a tough one. I'm normally spot on with rules and while I have my own opinion as to which of these is right, I clearly see the opposing arguments (all of them) as valid. At this point I think I may have to defer to "The Most Important Rule" because there's no clear answer. :(

Nabterayl
08-25-2009, 04:40 PM
What? :confused:


I understand the whole powerfist paired with another powerfist rule. I'm saying that Calgar does in fact get the +1 attack for using the gauntlets because they're a pair of powerfists and the powersword has no bearing on the situation as far as the Two Different Special Weapons rule because it wasn't the weapon chosen to be used that round of combat. If he were to use the powersword then he loses the bonus attack, but would strike at I5 because he wouldn't have a second single handed CCW to pair it with.

I am saying the same thing. Just that in order to reach that conclusion, you need the rule under Two different special weapons. If you don't have that rule, then it isn't clear that powerfists can't provide a bonus attack to a power sword, even though it is clear that a power sword can't provide a bonus attack to a powerfist.

Obviously we do have that rule, so I agree with all of your conclusions. Didn't mean for that point to turn into a big deal.

Culven
08-25-2009, 04:43 PM
I think I see where your interpretation comes from. As I understand it, it relies upon:

I'd also argue that Calgar doesn't have three special weapons - he has two. The gauntlets are listed as a single weapon - a matched pair with a very good weapon built in. They're not listed as "two power fists".
Interpreting the Gauntlets of Ultramar as a single weapon would mean that he only has two weapons, and your arguement would stand.

However, I disagree with your interpretation. The Gauntlet of Ultramar rules state that they are a matched pair of power fists. For your interpretation to be valid, I think you would need to prove that "a pair of power fists" doesn't mean "two power fists", which is my interpretation. So, I believe that he does indeed have three weapons, and may choose which to use, either the two Power Fists, or the Power Sword. Once the weapons used are identified, then any bonuses/penalties are determined based upon what he is using.

Reading over the Special Weapon rules, it seems that the writers didn't clearly differentiate between whether it matters if the model is using/wielding the weapons, or if it is simply equipped with them. My interpretation is that the weapon(s) used are all that matters. This reminds me of the old "a model equipped with a Rapid Fire weapon may not assault the turn that it shoots" rule from fourth that kept a model with a Bolt Pistol and Bolter from assaulting after firing the Bolt Pistol simply be cause the rule referred to the model having a Rapid Fire weapon and having shot that turn.

Mike Dunford
08-25-2009, 06:15 PM
I For your interpretation to be valid, I think you would need to prove that "a pair of power fists" doesn't mean "two power fists", which is my interpretation. So, I believe that he does indeed have three weapons, and may choose which to use, either the two Power Fists, or the Power Sword. Once the weapons used are identified, then any bonuses/penalties are determined based upon what he is using.

I do see your argument, but I think if the intent was for him to have three special weapons, the wargear entry would have much more clearly reflected that. As it stands, the powerfists are listed as a single item of wargear - the Gauntlets of Whazzit - which I'd still say means a single weapon consisting of two fists with big guns.


Reading over the Special Weapon rules, it seems that the writers didn't clearly differentiate between whether it matters if the model is using/wielding the weapons, or if it is simply equipped with them. My interpretation is that the weapon(s) used are all that matters. This reminds me of the old "a model equipped with a Rapid Fire weapon may not assault the turn that it shoots" rule from fourth that kept a model with a Bolt Pistol and Bolter from assaulting after firing the Bolt Pistol simply be cause the rule referred to the model having a Rapid Fire weapon and having shot that turn.

I don't think they differentiated as clearly as they could have, but I think they did differentiate:
"Some models are equipped with two single-handed weapons they can use in combat, with the rules given below for the different possible combinations." (1st sentence under "Fighting with two single-handed weapons" entry.)