Callidus, it's weapons, and Complex Units

[Gentlemanloser]

If a Rhino in the Space Marine codex has a Pintle Mounted Storm Bolter, you can assume it is the same for the Daemonhunter.

 

No you can't.

 

That's why DH Assault Cannons are Heavy 3 and not Rending 4.

 

You can house rule it all you want, because it makes sense to you.

 

Just like if they tell you in a FAQ that the Neural Shredder is a one handed weapon, the only reason this would matter is if it was necessary information for Close Combat. A certain degree of logic and intelligence can plainly show that the rules point to it being a one handed weapon for the purposes of resolving close combat attacks.

 

Personally, I agree. That the intention was to allow the NS to be used as a CCW. It's what I argue for.

 

But GW messed up. Calling the NS one handed doesn't let it be use din Close combat. They should have just added "This can bes use din Close Combat" to the FAQ.

 

But RAW is RAW. And when asking a RAW question, you can't give a house rule or RAI interpretation as the given answer.

 

RAI, sure, persoanlly, I'd never disallow a Callidus to get the extra attack.

 

RAW, def. It's just not allowed by RAW.

[Toogeloo]

So would you say that the Callidus can use "A Word in Your Ear..." on inifltrators? RAW says that moving a unit 6" must end in the Normal Deployment zone. Doesn't that seem a little vague to you?

 

 

I understand what you are getting at. If a rule doesn't explicitly say it, it must not be true. But since you agree that the Neural Shredder's FAQ was intended to allow a +1 attack bonus, I do not understand why you want to argue through a load of posts when you agree the entire time that it will end up being used the way it should be. I don't think you are going to convince anyone that just because a rule wasn't fully clarified that it shouldn't exist the way it was intended.

[Gentlemanloser]

So would you say that the Callidus can use "A Word in Your Ear..." on inifltrators? RAW says that moving a unit 6" must end in the Normal Deployment zone. Doesn't that seem a little vague to you?

 

I have this very problem facing Eldar Pathfinders. Not only that, but ater I AWIYE move them, they socut move back, making it pointless.

 

My take on this (and this is just another thing that requires clarification...) is that for infiltrators, their 'normal' Deployments zone is anywhere 12"/18" away from your opponent (depending on LoS).

 

Otherwise you just can't use AWIYE on Infiltrators, unless it moves them back into the deployment zone for the misson. :/

 

I understand what you are getting at. If a rule doesn't explicitly say it, it must not be true. But since you agree that the Neural Shredder's FAQ was intended to allow a +1 attack bonus, I do not understand why you want to argue through a load of posts when you agree the entire time that it will end up being used the way it should be. I don't think you are going to convince anyone that just because a rule wasn't fully clarified that it shouldn't exist the way it was intended.

 

I agree that that's the way I'd play it. But it's not the way my group plays it, nor the way it currently works by RAW (Unless I've misread the CC section, too gidy with actually wining with my GK for once. And the sentence about being useable in CC doesn't actually exist. :/ But I'll check that on Wednesday. Hopefully.)

 

And asking a RAW question, we should provide the RAW answer. Sure, we can all suggest house rules, and how we would do it. But I wouldn't claim that the FAQ now gives the Callidus an extra CC attack, because it doesn't.

 

But I'm more than happy to totaly admit I'm utterly wrong. My whole stance on this matter revolves aorund the CCW section stating it must be a wepaon useable in CC. -_-

 

don't think you are going to convince anyone that just because a rule wasn't fully clarified that it shouldn't exist the way it was intended.

 

I don't think it's intended for Deathwatch to be able to Deepstrike Razorbacks. And I never would. But they can. :o

[Toogeloo]

Oh, and another thing...

If a Rhino in the Space Marine codex has a Pintle Mounted Storm Bolter, you can assume it is the same for the Daemonhunter.

 

No you can't.

 

That's why DH Assault Cannons are Heavy 3 and not Rending 4.

 

You can house rule it all you want, because it makes sense to you.

 

So where does the Daemonhunter army keep their Stormbolter? It doesn't say Hull Mounted, Pintle Mounted, Sponson Mounted, Rearview Mirror mounted, Turret Mounted, or Tread Mounted... is it kept in the vehicle?

[Gentlemanloser]

Who knows. -_-

 

Something for a proper FAQ to address.

[Charred Heretic]

That's why DH Assault Cannons are Heavy 3 and not Rending 4.

 

There are new weapons tables published in the 5th Ed Book.

So check there before you adopt awkward, absurd adaptations like this.

[Gentlemanloser]

??

 

Far as I'm aware, the stats given in the back of the BRB for the armies of the imperium still give us Heavy 3 A Cannons.

 

Plus the BRB guides everyone back to using thier Codex over the BRB.

 

Oh and Akward and Absurd seems to be backed by GW, if they are taking the stupid stance of not FAQing the new SM wargear to the Older chapters, like Phil Kelly has mentioned.

[number6]

That's why DH Assault Cannons are Heavy 3 and not Rending 4.

 

There are new weapons tables published in the 5th Ed Book.

So check there before you adopt awkward, absurd adaptations like this.

Heh. And as it turns out, those weapons tables show that Assault Cannons for the Daemonhunters are Heavy 3 only. <_<

 

I agree that that's the way I'd play it. But it's not the way my group plays it, nor the way it currently works by RAW (Unless I've misread the CC section, too gidy with actually wining with my GK for once. And the sentence about being useable in CC doesn't actually exist.

 

Your gaming group is missing the forest for the trees. The main rules specifically state that it is flatly impossible for the rules for a game this big and complex to absolutely spell out every conceivable game-time situation. The rules state that the players must interpret the game rules in these situations.

 

That's RAW. Which is to say that the RAW doctrine, as practiced by your group (and that we often see argued in web forums), is not being properly interpreted. Playing the game RAW does not mean that only explictly spelled-out situations are legal, and by extension, everything not explicitly spelled out is illegal. In fact, it means exactly the opposite!

 

Logically, rationally, we are all on the same page regarding the FAQ update for the Callidus's Neural Shredder. There is no point to clarifying the handedness of the weapon if there is absolutely no game effect whatsoever. If it doesn't matter how many hands the weapon requires -- 1 or 2? -- with respect to whether the model benefits from an additional close combat attack, WHY FAQ IT IN THE FIRST PLACE? It should therefore be patently obvious that the only reason to clarify that handedness of the shredder is exactly because it has a bearing on how that model fights in close combat.

 

GW FAQs are inadequate as they are. Every clarification in them is therefore important. It's ludicrous to throw one such clarification out -- a new one to the 5th edition versions of these FAQs, no less! -- just because it isn't "explicit enough" to satisfy a few cheater-minded rules lawyers. Such people should be tasked with following the RAW doctrine properly, and using a bit of reasoning to figure things out ... and play the game fairly.

[Gentlemanloser]

Nah Number6, we house rule all the time. Do it in every system/game we play in.

 

But house rules are house rules. And interpretations start to get, muddied.

 

Like who get's to move first? AWIYE or Scouts? (Bad example maybe! :P But can't think of a better one atm! Well 4th Ed True Grit and Grey Knights springs to mind...) And when you come back to balance issues, especially with people outside your own gaming group, we have to start with RAW. As it's the only common ground we've got.

 

Sure, we all might agree that the NS should give an extra CC attack, and we all might even house rule with each other to do so. But the Rules in the FAQ don't allow it. It's just shoddy writing on GW part, and this (handidness of weapons when there's no longer amouries, or weapons aren't included in armouries) is just one of the things GW needs to clarify.

 

Are Assault Cannons Assault 3 in the BRB? My bad for calling them Heavy 3. ;) But they def aren't Rending 4. :(

 

And I think that's another stupid stance GW are taking if they don't FAQ the older codexes to have th enewer Wargear. But if they don't I'm sure poeple will house rule over the Devs intentions there anyway.

 

That's the things with house rules. You can't be sure you're doing what the Devs intended with them. Doesn't make them bad, or that house rules shouldn't be used. But they shouldn't be claimed as RAI either. ;)

 

As for why FAQ the one handed, who knows. It could be an outright mistake, it could be some legacy harking back to the DH/WH having an armoury that lists one handed and two handed wepaons. More than likely though, it was to give the Cally an extra CC attack. ;)

[number6]

Are Assault Cannons Assault 3 in the BRB? My bad for calling them Heavy 3. ;)

Ack! No, they're Heavy 3. Fixed my typo. Thanks!

That's the things with house rules. You can't be sure you're doing what the Devs intended with them. Doesn't make them bad, or that house rules shouldn't be used. But they shouldn't be claimed as RAI either. :P

 

As for why FAQ the one handed, who knows. It could be an outright mistake, it could be some legacy harking back to the DH/WH having an armoury that lists one handed and two handed wepaons. More than likely though, it was to give the Cally an extra CC attack. ;)

But giving the Callidus the benefit of an additional hand weapon -- and therefore an additional close combat attack -- isn't a house rule.

 

Firstly, the main rules aren't exhaustive. They do explicitly mention pistols as an example of a single-handed weapon, among others, that provide the bonus attack in close combat. But nowhere does it state that only those weapons mentioned there and none others grant the benefit. Nor does it imply any such thing. They're just examples. I would even go so far as to state that the reason pistols get mentioned explicitly is because it may not be obvious to gamers that carrying a pistol should allow the owning model to make an additional close combat attack.

 

Secondly, I repeat that the only purpose behind a FAQ is clarify issues. You cannot simply dismiss GW's FAQ regarding the neural shredder as wasted space because it doesn't explicitly state that the Callidus gets an additional close combat attack. Given the rules of the game, stating that the weapon is single-handed is enough to draw the obvious conclusion, given the general rules of the game, that the model gets the benefit. Now the Callidus clearly satisfies the condition of holding two single-handed melee weapons; ergo: +1 attack in close combat. There is no purpose whatsoever to clarifying the handedness of any weapon if it has not bearing on the game. We must assume the clarification serves a purpose. FAQs don't waste space with fluff; it's all about the rules. If you believe so strongly in RAW, what gives you the right to just throw away that rule?

 

As you say, you can house rule anything you want. But if you throw out the neural shredder rule in the FAQ, you're house ruling that, not playing by RAW.

[Heru]

You know it's really annoying when someone throws around their opinion stating it's fact and RAW and all sorts of other annoying twattle when they can't even be bothered to back it up properly with exact quotes and page numbers.

 

I'm in the unfortunate position of not owning the 5th Ed rulebook. But looked at it yesterday while playing. I can't give a word for word posting, but the only reaosn I'm coming back to this is because that section stuck in my mind. It specifies you need two signle handed weapons usable in close combat. Not just to single handed weapons.

:sigh: And your trying to argue RAW and your viewpoint based upon one look at the rulebook, rather than having it open in front of you as you type (like me)?

 

 

Heru, maybe you could be so kind as to post the entire section of that rule. It's possible I've got a diferent printing to you.

 

Page 37 of the 5th Edition Rulebook:

Each engaged model strikes with the number of Attacks (A) on it's characteristics profile, plus the following bonus attacks:

 

* +1 Assault Bonus: Engaged models who assaulted this turn get +1 attack.

 

* +1 Two Weapons: Engaged models with two single-handed weapons (typically a close combat weapon and/or pistol in each hand) get an +1 attack. Models with more that two weapons gain no additional benefit - you only get one extra attack, even if you have more than two weapons.

 

* Other bonuses: Models may have other special rules and wargear that confer extra attacks.

 

Note that bonus attacks are an exception to the rules for characteristics' maximum modifiers and may bring a model's total attacks above 10!

No-where does it say there that the single handed weapons need to be Clost Combat Weapons. Just as long as they are Single Handed Weapons. Which is why the clarification on the Neural Shredder being a single-handed weapon is important.

[Eddie Orlock]

Now the Callidus clearly satisfies the condition of holding two single-handed ... weapons; ergo: +1 attack in close combat. There is no purpose whatsoever to clarifying the handedness of any weapon if it has not bearing on the game. We must assume the clarification serves a purpose.

I'll go ahead and contest that we must assume that any clarification serves a purpose. Further, that that purpose, if we accept that it must have served one, was anything other than to answer some persistant fans 'non-sensicle inquiry'. From what I recall, the inquiries that may have lead to that questions inclusion were somewhat oblique and didn't mention that it was to induce an extra attack. The author who pulled the FAQ together may have not thought about the implications of it when he compiled the revised FAQ, I'd go so far as to suggest that he probably didn't.

 

Further, I'd contest that the 'neuraliser' is a 'melee' weapon. If the extra attack condition is based on having 'two one-handed weapons' 'melee'ness is moot, but if the condition is 'two one-handed melee weapons' it may make all the difference. They may have expected the passages on weapon handedness to imply melee weapons only as defined by where it is located in the rulebook.

 

If I was going to adopt a RAI stance, I'd look to second ed for my precident. Back then, weapon handedness was spelled out based on weapon type, close combat and pistols were one handed, unless declared otherwise, other man-portable weaponry took two hands. As I remember it, the Neural Shreadder wargear card indicated that its type was special, therefor it should take two hands and isn't a pistol. The FAQ these days says it takes one hand, but it didn't make it a pistol, thus it shouldn't be used.

 

This all said, I played a game with my Cally this weekend and took the extra swing as I and my opponent reached the conclusion for that game that two one handed weapons gave an extra attack.

 

Speaking of handedness, do they ever define the handedness of Tau battle suit weapons? Is a Burst Cannon one or two handed, and should their suits claim an extra swing?

[Gentlemanloser]

:sigh: And your trying to argue RAW and your viewpoint based upon one look at the rulebook, rather than having it open in front of you as you type (like me)?

 

Maybe I should just hold of ever posting until I have a copy of a book I don't own in front of me?

 

Thanks for that Heru, wasn't the section I was thinking of. But I am sure I read it. I suppose this will now have to wait until Wednesday, where I hope I'll be able toget another look at the book, and copy out the section I had in mind when it set this discussion off for me again.

 

I don't suppose you see anything in that page that looks like "two single handed weapons, that are useable in close combat" at all?

 

As you say, you can house rule anything you want. But if you throw out the neural shredder rule in the FAQ, you're house ruling that, not playing by RAW.

 

Now that's the mistake Number6. :D I'm not throwing out anything. I'm playing every game with the NS as the FAQs says and a one handed wepaon. It just doesn't change anything. ;)

 

But Eddie summed things up brililantly, more eloquently than I could. And it really all boils down to;

 

If the extra attack condition is based on having 'two one-handed weapons' 'melee'ness is moot, but if the condition is 'two one-handed melee weapons' it may make all the difference.

 

Which I'm gonna have to wait to present any backing on.

[Mar Bloodaxe]

Doesn't the rule book (page 42) state that a model will not gain extra attacks for having two different special weapons? The neural shredder and the C'Tan phase sword are both "special" are they not? Just throwing that out there.

[Toogeloo]

No, that rule is in regards to special close combat weapons with properties used in Assault. For example, having a Chaplain with a Power Fist and a Crozius (but for the sake of argument, no ranged weapon). The Chaplain would only get 3 attacks because he cannot get a bonus attack having 2 different special close combat weapons.

 

The Neural Shredder has no close combat properties and for all intents and purposes is considered a "normal" weapon.

[Gentlemanloser]

I wasn't going mad. :)

 

Got my hands on a copy of the Black Reach mini rules at work, so sorry if Page Numbers difer to the BRB.

 

Page 42, Close Combat Weapons.

 

Fighting With Two Single Handed Weapons

Some models are equipped with two single handed weapons they can use in close combat

 

Single handed, and can use in close combat.

 

The NS only satisfies one of these. It's single handed, but it's not a Pistol, nor is it noted as a close combat weapon under it's description. So they can't use it in close combat.

 

Just being a single handed weapon isn't enough.

 

As for the default handidness of normal close combat weapons;

 

Normal Close Combat Weapons

Weapons like chainswords, rifle butts, combat blades, bayonets, etc <snip> remember that, in close ocmbat, pistols count asnormal close combat weapons

 

From the Fighting with two single handed weapon section again;

 

if a model is using a two handed close combat weapon (such as a rifle's butt

 

Here's an example of one of the generic 'Normal' close combat wepaons also being listed late ron in the section as a two handed close combat wepaon. :P Not really wanting to go anywhere with this part, but just an example of how this whole section needs to be clarified. ;)

 

 

The *only* way for the NS to give an extra attack (if we assume the C'Tan Blade is one handed) is if it's usable as a Close Combat Weapon. Every other Ranged Weapon that can be used in CC is noted as being able to be so. Pistols, Ranged weapons useable in CC due to the BRB Pistol Catergory (and the note in the CCW section itself). Brazier, Ranged weapon useable in CC due to it's armoury entry. Seraphim Twin Hand Flamers, useable in CC due to thier Entry in the unit list, etc.

 

Unless we rule that *every* weapon, Ranged or otherwise, is also a 'Normal' Close Combat Weapon.

 

In which case See Eddies question about Tau Suits, and Assault Cannons, etc, are all now 'Normal' Close Combat Weapons themselves.

[number6]

Tau battlesuits have no bearing on this discussion whatsoever. That's a red herring.

 

The Neural shredder counts for the extra attack because it falls under the "etc." part of the rule you quoted. As I noted earlier, the basic rules are not exhaustive. They are merely exemplary. Why point out the handedness of the NS as a weapon if it has absolutely no bearing on the game? Until you can answer this question satisfactorily, you are failing to follow RAW and the RAW doctrine of reasonable rules interpretation in edge cases. This is mandated right in the core rules!

[GTang]

Is there any other explictly one-handed gun that isn't a pistol?

[Eddie Orlock]

Now the Callidus clearly satisfies the condition of holding two single-handed ... weapons; ergo: +1 attack in close combat. There is no purpose whatsoever to clarifying the handedness of any weapon if it has not bearing on the game. We must assume the clarification serves a purpose.

I'll go ahead and contest that we must assume that any clarification serves a purpose. Further, that that purpose, if we accept that it must have served one, was anything other than to answer some persistant fans 'non-sensicle inquiry'. From what I recall, the inquiries that may have lead to that questions inclusion were somewhat oblique and didn't mention that it was to induce an extra attack. The author who pulled the FAQ together may have not thought about the implications of it when he compiled the revised FAQ, I'd go so far as to suggest that he probably didn't.

...Why point out the handedness of the NS as a weapon if it has absolutely no bearing on the game?...

See above, I'd chalk it up to inattentive designers and vestigal rules. It's akin to Deamon Hunter referances to 'Deamonic Gifts' and Sororita protection against 'Minor Psychic Powers'. I'm sure there are other similar cases.

Tau battlesuits have no bearing on this discussion whatsoever. That's a red herring.

No, I think they, and similar examples, have a huge bearing. The interpretation of the default status of weapons as either one or two handed could have far reaching impacts game system wide. Rules interpretations do not exist in a vacume.

[SpideyScott]

Could it be said only weapons which are either single handed or two handed can be used in combat? If a weapon that doesnt specifically state if its single handed or two handed then it cant be used in combat and the model would use the number of attacks on it profile, for assaulting etc. Seems to be the best way to deal with it for DH anyway sincei havent read every codex i dont know how that will affect other races. That would also explain why the NS was faq as being one handed.

 

Also where in the 5th ed rules does it state a pistol is a one handed CCW? It only says it can be used as a CCW unless as all ready mention we assume all CCW and Speical CCW are one handed unless specified otherwise. If we treat all normal and Speical CCW as one handed then this would include the phase sword.

[Toogeloo]

Could it be said only weapons which are either single handed or two handed can be used in combat? If a weapon that doesnt specifically state if its single handed or two handed then it cant be used in combat and the model would use the number of attacks on it profile, for assaulting etc. Seems to be the best way to deal with it for DH anyway sincei havent read every codex i dont know how that will affect other races. That would also explain why the NS was faq as being one handed.

But then the Callidus doesn't get to use his Phase Sword and he just carries it around for show. As many have stated before, all CC weapons are assumed to be one handed unless stated otherwise.

[SpideyScott]

i know many have stated that i did as well in my above post. If we treat all normal and Speical CCW as one handed then this would include the phase sword.

 

If we said all CC weapons are assumed to be one handed unless stated otherwise then things like tau battlesuits would count as having 2 single CCW. In the new SM dex i dont think it says a bolter, flamer, melta gun etc is 2 handed either. So by that logic they would be counted as one handed as well.

 

I think it makes more sense to say all weapons are two handed unless stated otherwise.

[Gentlemanloser]

See above, I'd chalk it up to inattentive designers and vestigal rules. It's akin to Deamon Hunter referances to 'Deamonic Gifts' and Sororita protection against 'Minor Psychic Powers'. I'm sure there are other similar cases.

 

Exactly. I'd attribute it to a foul up between versions. The DH Codex uses an Armoury, which lists Weapon Handidness. This is out of faovur among the current new Codexes, and all notion (as Spidey Scott mentions above) of handidness has gone out of the window.

 

The Neural shredder counts for the extra attack because it falls under the "etc." part of the rule you quoted.

 

Number6, if that's the case, then Assault Cannons also fall under the 'etc', and if all weapons aer single handed by default, there's no rule that calls an Assault Cannon a two handed weapon.

 

So you would support an Assault Canon giving an extra Attack to a Terminator using a Power Wepaon in CC right? Otherwise, why not?

 

I still think there is a distinction made between wepaons that can be used in Close Combat, and those that can't. The NS falls into the catergory that can't.

 

If it can, then all Weapons can.

 

I think it makes more sense to say all weapons are two handed unless stated otherwise.

 

Agreed.

 

Edit: Agian, I'll ask a coule of questions.

 

If all wepaons can be used in Close Combat (under the'etc' part of the Normal Close Combat Wepaons descriptions), why doe we have;

 

they can use in close combat

 

That's a redundant rule, as everythign can be use din Close Combat.

 

Why does the Pistol clatergory of Weapon even exist, and they not all changed to Assault 1, if the fact Pistols, and Pistols *only* can be used in close combat, isn't relevant?

 

What's the point of those two rule? They must mean something?

[SpideyScott]

they can use in close combat

 

GM i dont know what part you are refering too here

 

Perhaps the pistol is mention simply as an example to show that all in CC range weapons dont have AP and number of attacks in there profile isnt used. Or it could be that in the rule book the only ranged weapon that can be used one handed in CC is the pistol and they wanted to explain how it works.

 

On reflection i stated above that all ranged weapons should be considered two handed unless otherwise stated. Perhaps if a range weapon isnt stated as being either one or two handed then it cant be used in cc?

Only ranged weapons stated as either 1 handed, 2 handed or with a special rule can be used in CC? Since the handiness of weapons only affects the 2 one handed weapon bonus.

 

Also we could consider all normal and special close combat weapons (including the phase sword) as being one handed unless stated otherwise.

 

With this in mind the phase sword as a special close combat weapon would be 1 handed and the NS is stated as being one handed and therefore can be used in CC then the Callidus would get her bonus for 2 single handed weapons.

 

I think this wouldnt change how other armies work but im not sure on that.

[Toogeloo]

Seeing as this debate can go on for an infinite amount of posts, I will just say this:

 

The Most Important Rule found on page 2 of the Rulebook covers disputes similar to what has been argued about for the last 3 pages. Whether or not any agreement is ever come upon in absence of a FAQ to clarify on any portion, whether it be the handedness of a weapon or whether it is usable in close combat, it should just be agreed upon by both players either by agreement to a house rule or by just letting the dice to the talking (ie. 1-3 the Neural Shredder give +1 attack and 4-6 it does not).

 

The most important rule simply states that the rules are not that important and nit picking or bending should not be necessary. An Assault Cannon can be Assault 8 Rending with the Gets Hot! rule if both players agree to it. So when in doubt, talk it out with the people you play with and come to a compromise or consensus about how each dispute should be ruled.

 

 

I believe that since it is labled, "The Most Important Rule!" it superrcedes all other rules in the rulebook.