Bp, CC, PF... what hits?

[battle captain corpus]

Hmm, your argument relies on RAW/RAR too much for me. I've always taken it as 2 weapons in total, and I've never seen/played anyone who thought otherwise. Can't really imagine the Sergeant slicing an opponent up with his chainsword, then as the next one charges up, asking him to hold on a moment while he fires up the power fist as being more suitable! As an indication of things in the future, in the Dark Angels Codex it's upgrades rather than purchasing extra weapons.

 

I'll agree that at the moment strictly speaking I can't forbid you from taking 3 weapons, but it just doesn't feel right to me, and I reckon once the new Codex comes out, you'll have to choose 2 out of 3.

 

in that case having the two weapons makes no sense (assuming he can not switch quickly, which he could from BP to CCW (drop the gun grab the sword). BUt think of like a person with a heavy weapon, they still keep their CCW/BP (scout) and drop the HB when they are charged

 

that said, I agree that come sept. i will no longer be able to do this... darn

Its 2 weapons. Thats it. If you purchase further wepaons they become your weapons of choice. In your logic you would have Terminator Sgts walking around with pistols and chainswords.....ummmmmm......NO!

You cannot have a CCW, a power weapon and a pistol unless its stated in the profile the entry can have this. Wargear is like an upgrade, thus he bins the option that no longer applies. Plus, what use would it be anyway? You cannot get any extra attacks for having theoretically 3 wepaons, if anything it would be a penalty.

It is very clear in the Codecies on this and the rules, I cannot see why people cant get their head around it. You cannot have a walking armoury, choosing this and that and what to use.

You buy the wepaon, and you use it as it states, not trying to get around any penalties just because "it doesnt say so!" in the BBB. <shakes head>

[Agrab]

Hmm, your argument relies on RAW/RAR too much for me. I've always taken it as 2 weapons in total, and I've never seen/played anyone who thought otherwise. Can't really imagine the Sergeant slicing an opponent up with his chainsword, then as the next one charges up, asking him to hold on a moment while he fires up the power fist as being more suitable! As an indication of things in the future, in the Dark Angels Codex it's upgrades rather than purchasing extra weapons.

 

I'll agree that at the moment strictly speaking I can't forbid you from taking 3 weapons, but it just doesn't feel right to me, and I reckon once the new Codex comes out, you'll have to choose 2 out of 3.

 

in that case having the two weapons makes no sense (assuming he can not switch quickly, which he could from BP to CCW (drop the gun grab the sword). BUt think of like a person with a heavy weapon, they still keep their CCW/BP (scout) and drop the HB when they are charged

 

that said, I agree that come sept. i will no longer be able to do this... darn

Its 2 weapons. Thats it. If you purchase further wepaons they become your weapons of choice. In your logic you would have Terminator Sgts walking around with pistols and chainswords.....ummmmmm......NO!

You cannot have a CCW, a power weapon and a pistol unless its stated in the profile the entry can have this. Wargear is like an upgrade, thus he bins the option that no longer applies. Plus, what use would it be anyway? You cannot get any extra attacks for having theoretically 3 wepaons, if anything it would be a penalty.

It is very clear in the Codecies on this and the rules, I cannot see why people cant get their head around it. You cannot have a walking armoury, choosing this and that and what to use.

You buy the wepaon, and you use it as it states, not trying to get around any penalties just because "it doesnt say so!" in the BBB. <shakes head>

 

the term ADD comes to mind, and it is used quite often in the SM codex which implies, nay, means, that you keep the original, even if it is TWO

[battle captain corpus]

Hmm, your argument relies on RAW/RAR too much for me. I've always taken it as 2 weapons in total, and I've never seen/played anyone who thought otherwise. Can't really imagine the Sergeant slicing an opponent up with his chainsword, then as the next one charges up, asking him to hold on a moment while he fires up the power fist as being more suitable! As an indication of things in the future, in the Dark Angels Codex it's upgrades rather than purchasing extra weapons.

 

I'll agree that at the moment strictly speaking I can't forbid you from taking 3 weapons, but it just doesn't feel right to me, and I reckon once the new Codex comes out, you'll have to choose 2 out of 3.

 

in that case having the two weapons makes no sense (assuming he can not switch quickly, which he could from BP to CCW (drop the gun grab the sword). BUt think of like a person with a heavy weapon, they still keep their CCW/BP (scout) and drop the HB when they are charged

 

that said, I agree that come sept. i will no longer be able to do this... darn

Its 2 weapons. Thats it. If you purchase further wepaons they become your weapons of choice. In your logic you would have Terminator Sgts walking around with pistols and chainswords.....ummmmmm......NO!

You cannot have a CCW, a power weapon and a pistol unless its stated in the profile the entry can have this. Wargear is like an upgrade, thus he bins the option that no longer applies. Plus, what use would it be anyway? You cannot get any extra attacks for having theoretically 3 wepaons, if anything it would be a penalty.

It is very clear in the Codecies on this and the rules, I cannot see why people cant get their head around it. You cannot have a walking armoury, choosing this and that and what to use.

You buy the wepaon, and you use it as it states, not trying to get around any penalties just because "it doesnt say so!" in the BBB. <shakes head>

 

the term ADD comes to mind, and it is used quite often in the SM codex which implies, nay, means, that you keep the original, even if it is TWO

You cannot have two of the same weapon unless it clearly states this, ie Calgar and 2 fists. And it does crop up yes, but please for the love of god why dont people just think and apply the rules instead of "warping" and bending them to make it better. Sorry, but its simple really. Please quote where it says "add" in the Codex purtaining to wargear and weapons use, it will make interesting reading.

 

Billy has a pistol and a chainsword.

Billy buys TDA honours and decides to buy a shiny powerfist.

Billy thus gets "X" amount of attacks with his power fist, not the inferior chainsword.

Billy does not get to choose what he attacks with, because he knows the powerfist is his best wepaon, and because the rules state he CANNOT. He has access to 2 one handed weapons or a two handed and one handed weapon.

Billy realises this and wields ONE powerfist and EITHER a chainsword or pistol. NOT BOTH. As they are all one handed wepaons he can only have 2 of them, not all 3.

[Agrab]

Hmm, your argument relies on RAW/RAR too much for me. I've always taken it as 2 weapons in total, and I've never seen/played anyone who thought otherwise. Can't really imagine the Sergeant slicing an opponent up with his chainsword, then as the next one charges up, asking him to hold on a moment while he fires up the power fist as being more suitable! As an indication of things in the future, in the Dark Angels Codex it's upgrades rather than purchasing extra weapons.

 

I'll agree that at the moment strictly speaking I can't forbid you from taking 3 weapons, but it just doesn't feel right to me, and I reckon once the new Codex comes out, you'll have to choose 2 out of 3.

 

in that case having the two weapons makes no sense (assuming he can not switch quickly, which he could from BP to CCW (drop the gun grab the sword). BUt think of like a person with a heavy weapon, they still keep their CCW/BP (scout) and drop the HB when they are charged

 

that said, I agree that come sept. i will no longer be able to do this... darn

Its 2 weapons. Thats it. If you purchase further wepaons they become your weapons of choice. In your logic you would have Terminator Sgts walking around with pistols and chainswords.....ummmmmm......NO!

You cannot have a CCW, a power weapon and a pistol unless its stated in the profile the entry can have this. Wargear is like an upgrade, thus he bins the option that no longer applies. Plus, what use would it be anyway? You cannot get any extra attacks for having theoretically 3 wepaons, if anything it would be a penalty.

It is very clear in the Codecies on this and the rules, I cannot see why people cant get their head around it. You cannot have a walking armoury, choosing this and that and what to use.

You buy the wepaon, and you use it as it states, not trying to get around any penalties just because "it doesnt say so!" in the BBB. <shakes head>

 

the term ADD comes to mind, and it is used quite often in the SM codex which implies, nay, means, that you keep the original, even if it is TWO

You cannot have two of the same weapon unless it clearly states this, ie Calgar and 2 fists. And it does crop up yes, but please for the love of god why dont people just think and apply the rules instead of "warping" and bending them to make it better. Sorry, but its simple really. Please quote where it says "add" in the Codex purtaining to wargear and weapons use, it will make interesting reading.

 

Billy has a pistol and a chainsword.

Billy buys TDA honours and decides to buy a shiny powerfist.

Billy thus gets "X" amount of attacks with his power fist, not the inferior chainsword.

Billy does not get to choose what he attacks with, because he knows the powerfist is his best wepaon, and because the rules state he CANNOT. He has access to 2 one handed weapons or a two handed and one handed weapon.

Billy realises this and wields ONE powerfist and EITHER a chainsword or pistol. NOT BOTH. As they are all one handed wepaons he can only have 2 of them, not all 3.

 

we have established this, based on the current rules (under 4th it was different)

however, we can have more than two items of wargear, just not more than two in use at any one time

[nighthawks]

there are numerous examples about of a model, typically an HQ or other more specialized character carying a single 2-handed and 2 single handed weapons, or a CCW,special, and pistol, etc...

 

the big change is that, in 5th edition, if you have a special CCW, you use it. period. you may get A+1 attacks for having a CCW (special or otherwise) and a pistol, even if you also have a 2-handed weapon (bolter), such as a chaos marine.

 

if, however, the model has number of different special CCWs, the number of attacks is A, not A+1, and the attacks are all made with one weapon (players choice). you may change weapons between turns, but not during a single player turn. (can't have 1/2 of your attacks with a PF and the other 1/2 with the PW).

 

as for all of this add/replace nonsense: calm down, the current C:SM is horribly vague on some of this stuff (does the taactical marine keep his bolter, etc...), and the armoury rules ONLY specify what may be chosen, so a lot of "illegal" combos are available by RAW. we all know this is changing, there are a lot of examples to show us how it will be written, but we don't yet know the exact combos that will be allowed. the new 'dex will be out as early as 9/20/08. just use common sense and patience 'til then.

[Mordekiem]

Here is a good example.

A chappy starts with a crozius and can get 2 more weapons. He chooses a thunderhammer and a bolt pistol. He carries two at any given time and the third one goes into a holster, slung across his back, whatever.

 

Now you have to use a special weapon, but what if you have two? Pg 42 says you choose.

 

Pg 42 also discusses fighting with two single handed weapons. If you only have two weapons then you choose the option that applies to you.

 

Now what about if you have 3 (or more) weapons? to me pg 42 implies that you have a choice of which you want to use since you can only use two. So if the chaplain above choose to use the crozius and the pistol he falls under the third option.

 

Some say that the 4th option should apply. However, we are talking about fighting with two weapons, not simply possessing two weapons.

 

Unfortunately the rules do not directly address what to do if you have 3+ weapons. But it implies to me that you can choose your weapons. The intent of the rules also seems to be that a model will use the most effective means of attack. If this means using the crozius and pistol then that is what they will use.

[nighthawks]

sure.

 

but the model uses the chosen weapon's attacks (crozius or TH in your example) without the +1A bonus (too many specials, and one is a TH, thoguh that doesn't matter given the first point) and at that weapon's init (1 for the TH).

[Mordekiem]

The section on Pg 42 is entitled "fighting with two single handed weapons". Not carrying. This implies to me that if you had 3 weapons and chose two to fight with the third weapon would not have any effect. I don't think just possessing a second special weapon makes you lose an attack and it does not seem to me to be the intention, either.

 

I think this is the most logical and clear way to read pg 42. It also makes sense in that the rulebook seems to want all models to fight to maximum effect so why would the chaplain handicap himself if he has an alternative?

[nighthawks]

well, the model with 2 special CCWs falls clearly under P.42, "Two different special weapons" and doesn't get +1 A as "...they never get the bonus attack for using two weapons (such is the penalty for wielding too many complex weapons!)."

 

you can argue that one of the special weapons is sheathed, and only a special and regular CCW are being used. ok: Despite my belief the above still applies as it deals with exactly the situation we have here "2 different special weapons" and makes no allotment for the possibility of 3, nor is there a statement about choosing which 2/3 weapons you will choose for the model to use, the second special weapon in your example is a TH, and "only a second PF, TH, or LClaw can confer a bonus attack to a model equipped with one of these weapons. (P42, "a normal and a special weapon," last sentence.) so you still don't get the extra attack.

 

sorry.

 

If instead you chose a LClaw/PF for the 2nd special then the results are the same, If the 2nd special were a 2-handed (though there are, currently, no 2-handed special CCW in C:SM...) then it's exchangeable just as a bolter would be on a C:CSM, so you could have that +1 A. Had the second special been a PW, then you effectively have 2 of the same special and are also go for +1 A (crozius=PW).

[Mordekiem]

well, the model with 2 special CCWs falls clearly under P.42, "Two different special weapons" and doesn't get +1 A as "...they never get the bonus attack for using two weapons (such is the penalty for wielding too many complex weapons!)."

Last I checked you can only wield 2 one handed weapons. So one weapon has to be unwielded if you have 3. Why not one of the special weapons? Why do you have to wield 2 special weapons?

 

There is a big difference between a model with (or carrying) 2 special weapons and wielding 2 special weapons.

 

The magic of the holster let's the chappy get a bonus attack if he uses his Crozius. :D

[Praeger]

Last I checked you can only wield 2 one handed weapons. So one weapon has to be unwielded if you have 3. Why not one of the special weapons? Why do you have to wield 2 special weapons?

 

There is a big difference between a model with (or carrying) 2 special weapons and wielding 2 special weapons.

 

The magic of the holster let's the chappy get a bonus attack if he uses his Crozius.

 

Problem with this is that as far as I can see there is NO rule that mentiones "wielding" weapons - only what the model is equiped with.

 

In Inquisitor, and a lower extent Necromunda you can say you have a weapon holstered etc - but in 40K that option does not exist.

 

Remeber - keep fluff and real life out of it - for all we know the Chappie is using some wierd Techno arm to carry the other weapon :D

 

But no mater what - the rules dont state its what the model is "wielding" but what it is "equiped" with - big important difrence

[nighthawks]

mord - reread my post.

 

praeger - the rules regard models equipped with two CCWs, then specifies different combos. In those descriptions, the player is instructed to "choose" which weapon to use, but that is obviously for attacking purposes, as there's no mention of the possibility of 3 1-handed weapons. It's kind of in limbo. I guess we can expect situations such as the above to vanish on or about sept. 20, so that's good.

[Praeger]

Sorry Nighthawk - should have pointed out that I still meant you could only use the rules from the weapon you choose to atack with - but you are still considered to be armed with 3 difrent weapons - cant pick and choose which ones will be "wielded" as they are all equiped.

[Mordekiem]

Here is what I read that convinced me. It is from a discussion of the Eversor assasin which would be in the same boat as the chappy I described earlier. I did not write this myself but it makes alot of sense to me and is how I read the section as well:

 

QUOTE

FIGHTING WITH TWO SINGLE-HANDED WEAPONS

Some models are equipped with two single-handed weapons they can use in close combat, with the rules given below for the different possible combinations...

 

 

The sentence that follows the title is the introductory sentence to this section. It says two things. 1) It alerts the reader to the fact that some models are equipped in such a way as they can fight with a single-handed weapon in each hand; and 2) It tells the reader that rules for the different possible combinations of fighting with two single-handed weapons are listed below.

 

This sentence does not imply that merely carrying/possessing different types of single-handed weapons produces a benefit or inccurs a penalty in close combat. That interpretation reads into this sentence something that is simply not there. Instead, when one reads the title of the section and then reads the introductory sentence (and everything that follows), it is clear that what the author is talking about is what occurs when a model is actually "FIGHTING" with a specific type of single-handed weapon in each hand.

 

 

 

QUOTE

Two different special weapons

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).

 

 

Again, since the title of this section is "FIGHTING WITH TWO SINGLE-HANDED WEAPONS" it is obvious that the rules in this sub-section apply to models which are actually fighting with a different special weapon in each hand. This sub-section does not directly say or imply that a model in 'possession of' two different special single-handed weapons must use the special weapons in close combat in exclusion to all others. It only describes what happens when a model actually fights with a special single-handed weapon in each hand.

 

 

The problem with this section is it uses the words 'equipped' and 'wielding' as synonyms when the two words don't mean the exact same thing. I suspect that the reason for this is because most models in 40K may not have more than two single-handed weapons. So for these models, what they are 'equipped' with IS exactly what they will 'wield' in close combat. Despite the sloppy word choice, it seems clear that what the author is talking about are the rules for the different combinations of single-handed weapons actually being wielded in close combat -hence the title. And without a sentence that specifically says that merely possessing certain types of single-handed weapons rewards a benefit or incurs a penalty, I don't see how once can argue otherwise.

 

I've been trying to paraphrase this but have failed so I just quoted the original.

 

<edit to include the entire post. I only included part of it before -Mord>

[JamesI]

This reminds me of the issue where in 4th edition RAW a model with a rapid fire weapon could not shoot and charge, even if he was shooting an assault weapon or a pistol (chaos marines with bolter and bolt pistol for example).

 

If a model has a bolt pistol, power weapon and a power fist (a BA chaplain can do that), they should get to pick between bolt pistol+ power weapon or just use power fist.

 

Going entirely by RAW, the pistol seems irrelevant and this falls under the 2 special CCW rule.

[nighthawks]

seems to be. I think they are trying to discourage the hero-hammer type play, and with the renewed emphasis on troops, it makes sense.

[InquisitorPhred]

seems to be. I think they are trying to discourage the hero-hammer type play, and with the renewed emphasis on troops, it makes sense.

 

As an off topic aside, I think it has more to do with Alessio's mission to eliminate 'unrealistic tactical abstractions' from assault. e.g., removing 'tactical casualty removal' and requiring ICs to pile in first. You can see how it looks more like tactical beardiness than battlefield simulation to have your Banshees decide they don't feel like using their power swords this round because they want to stay engaged with these cuddly marines longer...

 

On topic, I agree with Mord and whoever he quoted. You can 'wield' any valid combination of two one handed weapons you happen to possess. (With the restriction that if you have special attacks you have to use one of them, which is what I think this whole big thread was originally about!)

[nighthawks]

seems to be. I think they are trying to discourage the hero-hammer type play, and with the renewed emphasis on troops, it makes sense.

 

As an off topic aside, I think it has more to do with Alessio's mission to eliminate 'unrealistic tactical abstractions' from assault. e.g., removing 'tactical casualty removal' and requiring ICs to pile in first. You can see how it looks more like tactical beardiness than battlefield simulation to have your Banshees decide they don't feel like using their power swords this round because they want to stay engaged with these cuddly marines longer...

Call it what you will, we're on the same page. and while that justifies the new rules in general and the new mandate on using special attacks when available, specifically, I don't think it answers the 2+ single handed CCWs question...

On topic, I agree with Mord and whoever he quoted. You can 'wield' any valid combination of two one handed weapons you happen to possess. (With the restriction that if you have special attacks you have to use one of them, which is what I think this whole big thread was originally about!)

As read with a Logic Filter on, so do I. As read with a RAW filter on, it gets muddy.

 

We all agree that the use of a sepcial attack in CC is mandatory if it is available.

The rules regarding combinations of 2 weapons are clear.

The questions regarding a 3rd weapon, be it single handed, two-handed, special, or just a CCW boil down to equip vs. wield vs. use.

 

Workingn backwards:

To Use is obvious.

equiped is also obvious, meaning to be provided something usually for a specific purpose - and intentional or not, Alessio used it when refering to PF/LC/TH and the restriction from +1A for moddels "equipped" with them.

Wield has a variety of definitions, including "to handle with skill and ease" and "To Excercise". yes, the second of these definitions is, effectively, "To use" and DEFINATELY supports the "whatever 2 weapons you choose to hold, the rest do not effect the equation" argument. the first, however, does not demand active use, it is a reference to the individual's capabilities/skills. A model equipped with a crozius (chaplain) would be one who wields the weapon, which does not demand use of the item, supoorting the "2+ weapons have the same rules as 2 weapons" crowd.

 

personally, I think that the "2+ use same rules as any 2" reading is the one Alessio meant. I could be wrong. However, I PREFER and logiclaly SUPPORT the reading that the 2 weapons you choose to hold in the combat should effect the rules (with exceptions where very specific special rules may come into play, such as LC/PFs as they are awkward and likely not easily swapped for other kit, or some character with a stated mandate or preference for using a specific weapon, despite the load out, should that exist). this logic is based on "reality" and not "game world" and as we all know, game rules do not have to obey the real world, but it sure helps us to understand them more intuitively.

[maniclurker]

additional weapons

If i already have a BP/CCw i do not lose them when i upgrade

 

Um, the bolter or bp/ccw is a selection, regardless of whether or not it comes as standard. Last time I checked, bolt pistols and ccws are a weapon selection in the armory. Also, I don't have the codex with me, but I pretty sure that it states that you REPLACE your bolter or whatever with the heavy weapon, as far as the "scout-with-a-heavy bolter-and-bp/ccw-at-the-same-time" issue. Also, even though army builder isn't the most perfect of programs, they have it listed the same way... 2 weapons only for C:SM. And the data files on that program are generally made by a collaberation of experienced and knowledgeable players. I have only come across a very few people who think like you on this issue, and they are all on the interwebs... I have met none who have made this argument in real-life. Also, I'd bet dollars to donuts that you'd be laughed out of an official GW tourney with this kind of logic.

 

The fact of the matter remains this, you are one of a very few that believe that you can somehow 'magically' get extra weapons.

[Praeger]

Um, the bolter or bp/ccw is a selection, regardless of whether or not it comes as standard. Last time I checked, bolt pistols and ccws are a weapon selection in the armory.

 

Yes, but armoury does NOT replace pre-existing equipment.

 

A chaplin keeps his normal equipment. A sergeant upgraded keeps his bolter or pistol/CCW.

 

Also, I don't have the codex with me, but I pretty sure that it states that you REPLACE your bolter or whatever with the heavy weapon, as far as the "scout-with-a-heavy bolter-and-bp/ccw-at-the-same-time" issue.

 

I recomend you re-read the codex. Simply put - your wrong. it never says replace when it comes to Heavy weapons etc in normal marine squads.

 

Also, even though army builder isn't the most perfect of programs, they have it listed the same way... 2 weapons only for C:SM. And the data files on that program are generally made by a collaberation of experienced and knowledgeable players.

 

Yes, and it also gets updated with changes on issues like this in almost every update. It is a program made by GAMERS not GW designers and as such is the gamers interpriation of the rules.

 

I have met none who have made this argument in real-life. Also, I'd bet dollars to donuts that you'd be laughed out of an official GW tourney with this kind of logic.

 

What country are you from? Just curious as over here in Australia this has come up numerous times in tournaments and as it IS what the rules say it is what is played.

 

The fact of the matter remains this, you are one of a very few that believe that you can somehow 'magically' get extra weapons.

 

Maybe in your area he is one of the few, but elsewhere the people play by exactly what the ruels state. It is not magic. It is the rules.