Callidus, it's weapons, and Complex Units

[Gentlemanloser]

The start of the section on page 42 I quoted above.

 

It's not enough to be single handed, it must be a single handed weapon usable in Close Combat.

 

That by itself implies there is at least one single handed weapon you can't use in CC (which atm, I can only think of the NS. There might be others, in other codexes. :/), otherwise it's a redundant stipulation.

 

As for Pistols, the Pistol rule *could* imply that Pistols are the only single handed Ranged weapons (unless noted otherwise), and therefore the only Ranged Weapons that can be used in CC, if we also assume that any one handed wepaon can be used as a CC weapon, which isn't stated anywhere. (And really while the weapon rules are not exhaustive, they do currently describe all weapons that can be used in Shooting combatm and in Melee Combat...)

 

And it's an elegant solution. But GW needs to clarify this section more.

 

There's too much open to outdated rules and assumptions otherwise.

 

From a design standpoint, I have no problems with the Cally getting an extra attack from the C'Tan Blade and the NS. I just want the rules to clarify and reflect this, as currently they don't.

 

Unless all Ranged Weapons can be used in Close Combt by default, which I feel is kind of silly. :)

 

We could consider all normal CC weapons and Special CC weapons one handed by default (And a Rifle Butt is no longer a 'normal' CC weapon...), but then we're back to the 'etc' in the normal CC weapon section which if it includes the NS, also includes Assault Cannons and every other Weapon. As an Assault Cannon would clarify as a Normal CC Weapon under the 'etc' and it's not listed as being two handed anywhere...

 

The easiest solution currently would be to FAQ the NS into a Pistol, which is Assault 1 now anyway. This would end this debate (but leave the problem hanging over the system as a whole).

 

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

 

That's just a cop out for Rule discussions. And of most use when the system actually doesn't work for something. Like the order of AWIYE versus Scout Moves.

 

Let's not debate the rules of the game any more, becuase we can just dice off...

[Toogeloo]

Well, you also have to take into consideration the definition of the sentences you keep quoting (since you want to argue it). These are how I interpret the rules.

 

"Weapons like chainswords, rifle butts, combat blades, bayonets, etc., do not confer any particular bonus to the model using them. Remember that, in close combat, pistols count as normal close combat weapons and so the Strength and AP of the pistol are ignored."

To me this sentence says that there is a large variety of weapons available in close combat. Rifle Butts make me think any gun with a butt, and obviously means that pistols aren't the only guns with close combat ability. The term "etc." then leads me to believe that the list can go on for as many weapons as you can think of. The Pistol, I believe, is referenced as an example to state that you cannot use a gun's profile for strength and AP.

 

 

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

The structure of this sentence simply implies to me that a model with two single handed weapons can use them in close combat.

 

 

 

We can keep this debate up forever, but regardless, RAW and RAI aside, if there is ever a debate on any rules, they should be house ruled, compromised, or any other agreeable solution. Hence the reason "The Most Important Rule" prefaces the entire rules book.

[Gentlemanloser]

To me this sentence says that there is a large variety of weapons available in close combat. Rifle Butts make me think any gun with a butt, and obviously means that pistols aren't the only guns with close combat ability. The term "etc." then leads me to believe that the list can go on for as many weapons as you can think of. The Pistol, I believe, is referenced as an example to state that you cannot use a gun's profile for strength and AP.

 

Fine.

 

Then you support an Assault Cannon giving an extra attack (for a Terminator with a edit - Power Weapon - and an Assault Cannon, for example), don't you?

[number6]

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.

How can this be a foul up when the NS FAQ clarification is brand new to the 5e DH FAQ?

 

And for the record, I agree that handedness has "gone out the window". But if we accept that, then we must carry this assumption to its logical conclusion. Unless explicitly noted, we should assume that a weapon does not allow models so equipped to benefit from an additional attack in close combat. I believe we are all agreed here. (Which is why Tau battlesuits don't enter into this discussion. They are part of the default status.)

 

But the logical corrollary to this must be that every weapon that is specifically noted to be usable in a single hand must allow a model to benefit from an additional close combat attack. (Provided the model also has an additional single-handed CCW and isn't subject to any of the explicit exceptions noted in the main rules, of course.)

 

Logically, you cannot accept the first half of the proposition but selectively ignore the second half.

[Toogeloo]

Then you support an Assault Cannon giving an extra attack (for a Terminator with a edit - Power Weapon - and an Assault Cannon, for example), don't you?

While it is agreeable that a Terminator is holding the Assault Cannon in one arm, I also have to consider that a 2 handed weapon held by one hand is still a 2 handed weapon. I'm not saying that the Assault Cannon is a 2 handed weapon. I have no proof one way or another since I don't own ever codex nor do I recall it specifically stating anywhere. However, if you look at what the weapon is modeled on (vehicles and termie generally), and then you ask yourself "Can a Guardsman carry it one handed into combat?" you adopt a stance on it's handiness. It can simply be backed up to say that the same thing that disallows sweeping advances is the thing that makes a terminator turn a 2 handed weapon into a one handed weapon.

 

If a player really wanted to be a stickler about whether or not his termies with assault cannons got 1 more attack, I would probably just concede it to him in order for the game to be more fun instead of a headache. Chances are, the bonus one way or another would not be a game breaker, and if it was, I didn't do a very good job as a general.

[Gentlemanloser]

How can this be a foul up when the NS FAQ clarification is brand new to the 5e DH FAQ?

 

Easily. A confusion over a third edition codex FAQed for 5th edition rules. I'm sure we'd all agree GQ isn't infailible. :P

 

 

But the logical corrollary to this must be that every weapon that is specifically noted to be usable in a single hand must allow a model to benefit from an additional close combat attack.

 

This is the only part we disagree on. ;)

 

Logically 'single handed' does not equal 'usable in close combat'.

 

Otherwise, Pistols would just be descripbed as single handed weapons, and there woulld be no logical reasion for the "usable in close combat" stipulation on page 42.

 

The only logical corrollary given by a wepaon noted to be single handed, is it's a signle handed wepaon, as this doesn't apply to anything else, unless said wepaon is also a close combat weapon.

 

Logically, you cannot accept the first half of the proposition but selectively ignore the second half.

 

I don't. ;) Logically, the second half doesn't follow on fromt he first. ;)

[- 7eAL -]

Logically 'single handed' does not equal 'usable in close combat'.

 

Otherwise, Pistols would just be descripbed as single handed weapons, and there woulld be no logical reasion for the "usable in close combat" stipulation on page 42.

 

The only logical corrollary given by a wepaon noted to be single handed, is it's a signle handed wepaon, as this doesn't apply to anything else, unless said wepaon is also a close combat weapon.

Logically, neither term "single handed" nor "two handed" can determine whether an object is "usable in close combat". Necron Wraiths have no functioning hands but use both weapon appendages and their tail as weapons in close combat. Life Drain is a Culexus assassin ability that requires no hands and is usable in close combat. Daemons may not necessarily have hands or even appendages, but use something in close combat. Certain Titans have a Stomp ability that requires only a working leg, and is usable in close combat. Tyranid Carnifexi may use their tails in close combat, and generally lack hands at the ends of their fighting appendages. Therefore, hands have no part in determining whether an object can be used in close combat: at most, hands or appendages can be used to determine how many objects can be used simultaneously in close combat.

 

Therefore, the correct logical corollary given by a weapon noted to be single handed is that another single handed weapon can be used simultaneously, if a unit has two hands. For the sake of argument, this can be extended: a third single handed weapon can be used simultaneously if a unit has three hands, a fourth weapon for four hands and so on. Because of the potential number of weapons that a large creature with many arms can hold, the rules place a cap upon the potential benefit of multiple appendages: generally, a unit can only fire one weapon per turn and may only gain +1 attack in close combat regardless of the number of arms.

 

The accompanying logical corollary given by a weapon noted to be two handed is that no other weapons can be used simultaneously, unless the unit has at least three hands. For the sake of argument, this can be contracted: a two handed weapon cannot be used by a unit that has only a single hand; and also extended: two two handed weapons can be used if the unit has at least four hands, three for six hands, and so on. So rarely does a unit have three or more hands that the rules prevent two handed weapons from ever being used simultaneously with other weapons, and any cases that can use three or more hands are given special exceptions.

 

Continuing on.

 

Logically, any object can be used as a weapon, regardless of size, shape, mass, material or form. This is instantly considered a weapon because it is a tool used by the unit to inflict harm upon other units. Whether is it typically considered a close combat weapon is irrelevant: even from a legal standing, any object held in the fist with a protruding blunt or sharp end on either side or between the fingers can considered a close combat weapon in the correct context, be it a long gun, pistol, polearm, knife, club, brick, teacup (Riddick), desk lamp (anything), folding lawn chair (WWE) or destroyer-sized ship (End of Evangelion). The only limiting factors are whether the being in question has the physical capacity to wield it: a Titan cannot very well use a lawn chair as a club because it is too small, just as a Grot cannot use a ship as a projectile because it is too big, and just as a Wraith cannot use anything at all because it cannot grasp objects using its weapon arms. Therefore, it follows that all objects should be considered close combat weapons so long as they can be carried by the unit, in addition to any other properties they may have, including being two handed.

 

The corollary to this second conclusion is that any object can be considered a generic close combat weapon, until it is given special properties that make it function differently than other close combat weapon-objects. Therefore, all objects can be conceptualized from a close combat weapon as a base: a generic close combat weapon is single handed and has no special properties and functions only in close combat, where all other weapons including firearms, are improvements upon the generic close combat weapon to add properties of shooting, ignoring saves, granting stat bonuses, etc. and being used in a two handed manner.

 

 

This means of course, that a Space Marine can use his bolter in close combat:

In conclusion with the first logical conclusion and its corollaries, this means that the Space Marine using a two handed weapon such as a bolter in close combat cannot gain any additional attacks from it. From the viewpoint of the corollary of the second logical conclusion, this in fact means that the bolter that the Space Marine is using is considered a two handed close combat weapon that shoots S4 AP5 Rapid Fire 24" during the shooting phase.

 

This also does not prevent a Space Marine from using a bolt pistol in close combat:

In the viewpoint of the corollary of the second logical conclusion, the bolt pistol that the Space Marine uses is considered a one handed close combat weapon that shoots S4 AP5 Assault 1 12" during the shooting phase. If the Space Marine is additionally armed with a generic one handed close combat weapon-object such as a brick, teacup, or desk lamp (as lawn chairs may or may not be considered two-handed), then he is considered to have two close combat weapon-objects and therefore gains +1 attack.

 

Based on this logic, what conclusion is reached for a Callidus assassin wielding one single handed close combat weapon-object that fires a template of Ld8 in the shooting phase, and one single handed close combat weapon-object that ignores armour and invulnerable saves and it wholly ineffective against Necron C'tan?

[Gentlemanloser]

Show me where the C'Tan Blade is single handed, and the Bolt Gun 2 (Using the new SM codex, which doesn't have an armoury). :D

 

But if what you post holds, then a Termintor using a Power Weapon and an Assault Cannon get's an extra attack.

 

I still stand that there is an inherant difference between shooting weapons (which follow the shooting rules) and Close Combat weapons (that follow the close combat rules), and the two do not cross over, unless expressly noted.

 

Edit: I've a hunch that the bestbacking for my stance above might come from Psychic Powers, and the distinction about which follow the shooting rules. But I'll have to wait until I can get much hands on the BRB or mini book before posting more on that.

[Toogeloo]

(Head explodes after reading last post)

 

I think I am getting too far out of my depth on this argument now, but I think we all know where this will end up anyways.

[Eddie Orlock]

For the sake of brevity and the conservation of scroll wheels, I've truncated large portions of the quotes below while endevouring to leave in what I've editorially considered 'key clauses'

Logically, neither term "single handed" nor "two handed" can determine whether an object is "usable in close combat". ...

By this postulate, we establish that any clarification as to how many hands it takes to wield is meaninless to whether a weapon is meaningful in close combat. No argument, but if we adopt it, I find this a very important change when compared to previous editions. I might suggest that inattentive designers forgot that they repealed referances in previous editions that insisted that models with 'non-dedicated melee weapons' required a hand to hold them. It's a new way of thinking that requires a divoirce from old assumptions.

Therefore, the correct logical corollary given by a weapon noted to be single handed is that another single handed weapon can be used simultaneously, if a unit has two hands. ...

Where is the number of 'hands' stat listed? Is this something to be entirely infered based on 'standard' models. What if someone modeled a platoon of amputee guardsmen, would they be penalised, or should all such analysis be based on some 'normal' configuration. What about units without published models, how many hands does Vulkan Hestan have, maybe he's lost a hand that he refuses to have replaced as an act of penance. Likely not, but until he has a published figure we can't be certain.

Continuing on.

 

Logically, any object can be used as a weapon, regardless of size, shape, mass, material or form. ... Therefore, it follows that all objects should be considered close combat weapons so long as they can be carried by the unit, in addition to any other properties they may have, including being two handed.

Define 'object'. I think that if we adopt this we start to generate a dangerous blend of 'real world interpretation' and 'game mechanical interpretation'. I might go so far as to say my tactical marines gauntlet is an 'object', or my guardsmans belt buckel. Perhaps some generic wargear, maybey my sisters superior should be boping heretics across the head with their books of St. Lucious. With our new rules no longer stating that two handed weapons need a hand to hold them in combat, perhaps I should start buying my Seraphim superiors Storm Bolters for a few extra rounds on the way in. Two hand weapons bonus attacks will abound.

The corollary to this second conclusion is that any object can be considered a generic close combat weapon, ... where all other weapons including firearms, are improvements upon the generic close combat weapon to add properties of shooting, ignoring saves, granting stat bonuses, etc. and being used in a two handed manner.

Perhaps I've missed something, but isn't this corollery functionally identical to the original postulate? Maybe slightly narrowed with the additional term 'weapon'?

This means of course, that a Space Marine can use his bolter in close combat: ... this in fact means that the bolter that the Space Marine is using is considered a two handed close combat weapon that shoots S4 AP5 Rapid Fire 24" during the shooting phase.

Interesting interpretation and fallout of our new era as mentioned above. In second that bolter would have needed a combat attachment or suffered penalties, in third this would have been prohibited, it's generally nor meaningful, but worth noting for case building like this

This also does not prevent a Space Marine from using a bolt pistol in close combat: ... If the Space Marine is additionally armed with a generic one handed close combat weapon-object such as a brick, teacup, or desk lamp (as lawn chairs may or may not be considered two-handed), then he is considered to have two close combat weapon-objects and therefore gains +1 attack.

Another object. An object like his gauntlet, as I mention above. With the dangerous postualtes above about anything being a weapon, I'd go so far as to say his pair of gauntles are two weapons and thus worth a bonus even in the absence of the bolt pistol. In fact, with that rediculous extention, most side arms are nearly meaningless when it comes to close combat

Based on this logic, what conclusion is reached for a Callidus assassin wielding one single handed close combat weapon-object that fires a template of Ld8 in the shooting phase, and one single handed close combat weapon-object that ignores armour and invulnerable saves and it wholly ineffective against Necron C'tan?

... And the battle suit with several simultainiously wielded suit systems get an extra swing, as does the traitor terminator with a reaper and a power mace. How about the Carnifex with two two handed bio-cannons, it's weilding them both, so, an extra attack their for each symbiotic-weapon. My storm Guardians and their two weapons are obselete, my eldar guardian defenders may as well adopt the pugelist stance and use their gauntlets for two attacks each. My guard Conscripts just became twice as fierce, helmet by the chinstrap in one hand, combat knife in the other.

 

It's my opinion that 'anything is a weapon' is an untenable position with wide spread, unintended, rippling changes through the game system.

[number6]

It's my opinion that 'anything is a weapon' is an untenable position with wide spread, unintended, rippling changes through the game system.

Having read 7eAL's post, I'm surprised this would be required for clarification, but...

 

This being a game, "anything" must be the specified equipment. Sure, Space Marines have armoured gauntlets, and in "real life", would make perfectly suitable single-handed weapons. But, for purposes of playing Warhammer 40,000, the only equipment a Space Marine is carrying that counts as a weapon are his bolter and bolt pistol. So these are the only items up for consideration with respect to the rules in question.

 

So, the Callidus is armed with a Neural Shredder and a C'Tan Phase Sword. Even Gentlemanloser relented enough to admit that, if the Sword was considered a single-handed weapon, perhaps the model could indeed benefit from an additional close-combat attack. I would say it is "reasonable" to assume, as nearly everybody here and everywhere does, that the Sword is a single-handed weapon. True, there is no explicit listing of this weapon having that quality. I would therefore argue that this is, in fact, the only crack available to people wishing to deny the Callidus her extra close-combat attack.

 

But I would also say that anybody doing that is not playing within either the spirit of the rules or the RAW directive which requires gamers to make reasonable interpretations. And at the very least, agree with their opponents in a friendly manner and continue with the game.

 

If, as my opponent, you wanted to argue with me indefinitely about whether my assassin, who is clearly holding a reasonably-sized, apparently single-handed sword in one hand (compare to other models in the game range) and a weapon that is definitivelyy listed as requiring but one hand, should have only 3 close combat attacks and not 4 ... I would say you are being most unsportsmanlike and are being neither accommodating to the spirit of the game, its rules, nor to common sense or reason.

[Gentlemanloser]

I don't think this thread has anything to do with an actual game, nor how we'd play versus any opponent. :ph34r:

 

C'Tan Blade aside (that's a given, we'd all let it be 1 handed, but by RAW there's no backing for this... Damn GW and thier Codexes that streach over three different main rule editions!), the main thrust is about the NS and;

 

It's my opinion that 'anything is a weapon' is an untenable position with wide spread, unintended, rippling changes through the game system.

 

This being a game, "anything" must be the specified equipment. Sure, Space Marines have armoured gauntlets, and in "real life", would make perfectly suitable single-handed weapons. But, for purposes of playing Warhammer 40,000, the only equipment a Space Marine is carrying that counts as a weapon are his bolter and bolt pistol. So these are the only items up for consideration with respect to the rules in question.

 

Totally agree here. ;)

 

I'm 100% certain the 'etc' listed under the normal CCW section is there to encompase (as you said above, the rules here aren't explicit) any type of in game item, listed as a CCW (see Chaos Marine entries. New SM either have Combat Blades or Chains Swords, and no other 'normal' CCW), and not there to encompass everything in the world, or more improtantly, not there to encompass every in game item...

 

I'm also almost certain there is an in game distinction between weapons useable in CC and those useable in shooting. And not all shooting wepaons are usable in cc and vice versa. Like throwing your combat blade at an enemy, for example.

 

But backing for this stance will have to wait. ;)

 

Even Gentlemanloser relented enough to admit that, if the Sword was considered a single-handed weapon, perhaps the model could indeed benefit from an additional close-combat attack.

 

Bah! Never relented! It was never the focus of this discussion. ;)

[Eddie Orlock]

It's my opinion that 'anything is a weapon' is an untenable position with wide spread, unintended, rippling changes through the game system.

Having read 7eAL's post, I'm surprised this would be required for clarification, but...

 

This being a game, "anything" must be the specified equipment. Sure, Space Marines have armoured gauntlets, and in "real life", would make perfectly suitable single-handed weapons. But, for purposes of playing Warhammer 40,000, the only equipment a Space Marine is carrying that counts as a weapon are his bolter and bolt pistol. So these are the only items up for consideration with respect to the rules in question.

 

... I would say you are being most unsportsmanlike and are being neither accommodating to the spirit of the game, its rules, nor to common sense or reason.

Last things first, I'd like to clarify my position before I get further tarred with slander of the ilk of 'unsportsmanship'. On a previous page I describe a recent game of mine played under the four attack interpretation as the consensus of myself and my then opponent, nor would I deny this version to any reasonable opponent. I believe in fair in reasonable interpretations of the forty-first millenium.

 

Personally, I would very much like this interpretation to be true, but as we have discussed it, I fear it may come up with other players whom haven't been privy to our discussions. In those cases, I would like to be for armed for what ever arguments they may raise. Thus, under the mantel of 'Advocatus Diabolus', to use the proper 'Pseudo-Latin', I raise them as best as I imagine them. By pre-emptively exploring the cornercases of the system, one can be better prepared to stop game experience destroying disagreements before they even happen.

 

Back to the case in hand, I'd raise the idea of the gauntlets as they exist both in the background and on the models and that the figures are the source of many interpretations like how many hands a unit has to weild its close combat weapons. It cold be argued as how much do we let the figures determine the system. Fifth, with it's true LOS is a move toward their increasing importance in these matters. If I wanted to stick to mentioned equipment only, I might have suggested they start bashing with a Krak Grenade as a rock in one hand, and a Frag in the other, neatly satisfying the 'Mentioned Gear Only' stipulation, while still being fundementally the same argument.

 

You do however, answer my rhetoric about defining 'object', even if you frame it as something that should have been intuatively obvious. It adds and expounds constraints upon the original definition repeatedly used by 7eal of 'any' and 'all'.

... Continuing on.

 

Logically, any object can be used as a weapon, regardless of size, shape, mass, material or form. ... The only limiting factors are whether the being in question has the physical capacity to wield it: ... Therefore, it follows that all objects should be considered close combat weapons so long as they can be carried by the unit, ... The corollary to this second conclusion is that any object can be considered a generic close combat weapon, ... all objects can be conceptualized from a close combat weapon as a base: ...

I've bolded the source of my interpretations and the foolish fallout there of. Further, and I may be alone in this idea, but I don't feel that any rules interpretation exists in a vacume. We can not discuss the fighting style of the Calidus without at least a nod to how our perception of the rules interactions has an impact on the rest of the system. Tau suits taking extra swings isn't so far removed from this discussion as some would seem to place it, on their models, a hard point fairly obviously takes one hand or less and their systems are 'named equipment'. To say 'yes' to one and 'no' to the other requires some meaningful distinction to be drawn other than 'they're beyond the scope of our discussion'. 7eal even goes so far as to imply that the size of the user effect whether a weapon is one or two handed.

[number6]

Last things first, I'd like to clarify my position before I get further tarred with slander of the ilk of 'unsportsmanship'. On a previous page I describe a recent game of mine played under the four attack interpretation as the consensus of myself and my then opponent, nor would I deny this version to any reasonable opponent. I believe in fair in reasonable interpretations of the forty-first millenium.

I think I owe you -- and others -- an apology. I don't mean to tar you with that label. We are just having a discussion on a web forum. And I do see the merit to this continuing discussion. (Else I would've wielded by mod powers some time ago and shut this sucker down! I've been tempted.... :lol:) But I also want to be entirely forthright with my opinions. I'm pretty sure I would consider an opponent who really insisted that the Callidus cannot benefit from an additional close combat attack, in light of the current DH FAQ, would be unsportsmanlike and disobeying the RAW doctrine. (Previous to the current FAQ, I played it both ways, simply deferring to my opponent. But given the current FAQ, I feel much more strongly about it.)

 

That's how I see it. And I sincerely apologize if you felt I was putting you into that category. I firmly recognize why discussions like these are important ... and the reality that they do occur despite what I believe to be perfectly clear and fair interpretations. I've been participating in the hope that my take on these rules would prove relatively decisive in case the encounters you fear actually come to pass. (I would damn GW here, but that's not productive, is it? ;))

Tau suits taking extra swings isn't so far removed from this discussion as some would seem to place it, on their models, a hard point fairly obviously takes one hand or less and their systems are 'named equipment'.

I tried to address this concern earlier when I mentioned that the safest "default" assumption is that weapons are assumed to be "two-handed" unless (reasonably) clearly marked otherwise. I wouldn't say that Tau battlesuit weaponry could clearly be noted to be counted as one-handed. Not in terms of rules, game fluff, nor the physical representations of them on the models. This differs from the Callidus we're talking about precisely because both of the weapons in question are either explicitly noted to be single-handed or are (reasonably) clearly marked to be so.

[Eddie Orlock]

I think I owe you -- and others -- an apology.

 

...

 

when I mentioned that the safest "default" assumption is that weapons are assumed to be "two-handed" unless (reasonably) clearly marked otherwise.

Would that I'd been clearer about my motives earlier, but, in the spirit of better understanding, all is forgiven.

 

I'd speculate that had they been published under 2nd edition, the Tau suit weapons would likely have been listed as 'Heavy' and 'Move or Fire'* and that that edition had rules text and precident indicating that those weapons would be two handed and unuseable in close combat, I'd be inclined to agree with that assesment, and the further corollery that similar cases would be, well, similar. This judgement is a result of over a decade of GeeDub hobby experience, and not the view I might expect of my opponent last week who'd been playing less than a month. Knowing how things 'should be' sometimes feels like arcane and obscure knowledge you can't learn in a book, and can be a source of friction in the hobby between those so initiated and those not. Other than looking at the figures, would someone who picked up black reach yesterday emperically know that a bolter takes two hands? Yeah, it'd be a obvious assumption just looking at the marine plastics in the set, but I don't recall reading it when I reviewed the new rules. Maybe I just missed something.

 

I'd also say that if someone was to bring it up in a non-calidus context to rationalise extra attacks it would speak to both how well the understand the intrecacies of the 40k rules set and how much of a munchkin they were depending on how they framed the issue. Knowing the controversy exists and why implies strong rules awareness, trying to misuse it is just bad attitude.

 

*Naturally the Tau suit would also have a special rule letting it ignore the fireing restrictions. Maybe it's the rose coloured lenses on reflecting on my youth, but sometimes I feel that 2nd ed was more consistantly put together.

[Gentlemanloser]

Other than looking at the figures, would someone who picked up black reach yesterday emperically know that a bolter takes two hands? Yeah, it'd be a obvious assumption just looking at the marine plastics in the set, but I don't recall reading it when I reviewed the new rules. Maybe I just missed something.

 

And in the same vein that a storm bolter isn't 1 handed? I can't ever recall seeing a 2 handed Storm Bolter model. They're all either wrist mounts (and how many hands is that? j/k!!), or held in one hand by Captains/Terminators.

 

:)

[Toogeloo]

Apparently you haven't seen the Sisters of Battle Storm Bolter wielders. :)

[ripath]

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.

 

I would just like to add my lowly opinion since I don't use this assassin instead I opt for the Eversore who gets up to 10 attacks on the charge. Anyway assassins can't have their equipment changed at all so either the FAQ one handed weapon bit is meant for extra attacks or a waste of space because how many hands it takes to operate is only used for assault rules and what weapons a model can carry. and seeing as it has no validity what so ever for carrying equipment, that leaves assault. unless of course your Callidus needs that extra hand to shoot up with polymorphine. fraking addicts!

[Gentlemanloser]

Apparently you haven't seen the Sisters of Battle Storm Bolter wielders.

 

:thanks:

 

Lol! ;) Them and the Guard, S3 normal humans! ;) The astartes are genetically modified super humans (with S4!) and all hold the Storm Bolter in one hand! B)

 

(Storm Bolter handidness included tounge in cheek, a bit more levity in the thread! ;) )

[- 7eAL -]

I feel so proud. It's like stirring a cesspool with a stick to see what kind of sh- floats up the to top. (I'm just laughing as I read every post after my own. I love this place.)

 

Okay, first: models are not necessarily a good measure of one or two handed weapons. After all, an Inquisitor's WYSIWYG only states that objects must be modeled with himself or with members of his retinue. Because of the removal of Armoury systems in the game, as well as the lack of clear one or two handed weapon distinction on most weapon descriptions, there are two methods of determining the number of hands or appendages a weapon requires.

First method: Weapon options replace standard weapons in new codexi. The number of hands required for the weapon option is equal to the total number of hands whose weapons are replaced. A plasma gun replacing a two handed bolter is therefore a two handed weapon. A Relic blade replacing a two handed bolter, or a single handed bolt pistol and single handed close combat weapon, is therefore a two handed weapon. The two hand flamers replacing two single handed bolt pistols are therefore two single handed weapons.

 

This does not give us the hand requirement of most standard weapons, however! Therefore, we require the second method.

 

Second method: There are generic forms for standard firearms and for standard close combat weapons - but the two forms require a different number of hands. These generic forms do in fact carry over, at least in part, from the Armoury system: observe carefully the Armoury in any previous codex and note what types of weapons are single handed, and what types of weapons are two handed. All if not most of the single handed weapons are objects only usable in close combat with the exception of firearms that are specifically noted to be single handed; pistols. In the other section, all if not most of the two handed weapons are firearms with the exception of close combat weapons specifically noted to be two handed, such as Eviscerators.

 

Therefore we put forth these assumptions:

The generic firearm requires two hands unless it is otherwise noted to be single handed, like a pistol, Neural Shredder, etc. or otherwise hand-less, like servoarm plasma cutters, Cyclone missile launchers, etc. This supports the common rule that allows most infantry units to fire only one firearm at a time.

The generic close combat weapon requires one hand unless it is otherwise noted to be two handed, like Honour Blades, Relic blades, Singing Spears, etc. or otherwise has rules which allow it to function hand-less, like servoarm powerfists, Mandiblasters or digital weapons. This supports the common rule that allows close combat weapons to be used simultaneously in close combat unless otherwise specificed as two handed.

Therefore, all Tau Battlesuit weapons are automatically considered two handed regardless of modeling, because their rules do not state them to be one handed. In the same vein, all Terminator firearms are similarly two handed unless otherwise noted in their rules. Terminators do not presently have single handed firearm options, though all their close combat weapon options are single handed. And perhaps most importantly, this means that prior to the FAQ release, the Neural Shredder would have been considered a two handed weapon and would not grand additional attacks for two single handed weapons.

 

Logically, any object can be used as a weapon, regardless of size, shape, mass, material or form. ... Therefore, it follows that all objects should be considered close combat weapons so long as they can be carried by the unit, in addition to any other properties they may have, including being two handed.

Define 'object'. I think that if we adopt this we start to generate a dangerous blend of 'real world interpretation' and 'game mechanical interpretation'. I might go so far as to say my tactical marines gauntlet is an 'object', or my guardsmans belt buckel. Perhaps some generic wargear, maybey my sisters superior should be boping heretics across the head with their books of St. Lucious. With our new rules no longer stating that two handed weapons need a hand to hold them in combat, perhaps I should start buying my Seraphim superiors Storm Bolters for a few extra rounds on the way in. Two hand weapons bonus attacks will abound.

[snark]If you wish to consider generic wargear to be a weapon, you are welcome to do so for +1 point to upgrade its impact durability and field lifespan to the level of a generic close combat weapon.[/snark]

 

Dangerous real world interpretations are not a major concern: the majority of our posters so far agree that only mentioned armoury items and wargear objects can be considered for the purposes of our argument, as anyone can pick up sticks and stones or skulls and bones to juggle with.

 

Ignoring their opinions for the sake of argument itself, the legal ruling mentioned previously can be similarly applied to the game: no legal system suggests or considers the body to be a weapon because it is not a wholly external object held in an appendage that provides certain advantage to causing harm, unless it is someone else's body, held in a closed fist with sharp or blunt ends protruding from either end or from between the fingers. Therefore, items worn on or around the body are not considered to be weapons, whether they are gloves or gauntlets, beach sandals or boots, hats or helmets, and a Space Marine's heavily armoured fist is therefore not a weapon either in game or by law despite the advantage it provides because it is considered his hand and is neither external to the Space Marine nor held in his hand.

 

It is by the same measure that most creatures and animals with sharp teeth and many claws are not automatically considered to have two or more single handed weapons: it is always specifically noted when they are considered to have two or more single handed weapons, because under this assumption they have no weapons. They do not hold or carry any weapons, so even though they may attack with any number of appendages, they are not considered to gain additional attacks unless otherwise noted. Similarly, humanoid creatures with fists and feet as appendages are not automatically considered to have two or more single handed weapons when fighting with bare hands, because they are holding no weapons. Therefore, points are paid for humanoid creatures to purchase single handed weapons for close combat in order to gain additional attacks - only under the specially noted condition of Hammerhand is a creature considered to have two single handed weapons where there are none.

[Gentlemanloser]

First method: Weapon options replace standard weapons in new codexi. The number of hands required for the weapon option is equal to the total number of hands whose weapons are replaced. A plasma gun replacing a two handed bolter is therefore a two handed weapon. A Relic blade replacing a two handed bolter, or a single handed bolt pistol and single handed close combat weapon, is therefore a two handed weapon. The two hand flamers replacing two single handed bolt pistols are therefore two single handed weapons.

 

This does not give us the hand requirement of most standard weapons, however! Therefore, we require the second method.

 

What about wepaons taken in addition to, and not replacing an existing weapon? Like an Honour Guard Auxilary Grenade Launcher?

 

Second method: There are generic forms for standard firearms and for standard close combat weapons - but the two forms require a different number of hands. These generic forms do in fact carry over, at least in part, from the Armoury system: observe carefully the Armoury in any previous codex and note what types of weapons are single handed, and what types of weapons are two handed. All if not most of the single handed weapons are objects only usable in close combat with the exception of firearms that are specifically noted to be single handed; pistols. In the other section, all if not most of the two handed weapons are firearms with the exception of close combat weapons specifically noted to be two handed, such as Eviscerators.

 

Assault Cannons and Sniper Rifles have never (to my knoweldge) been included in any armoury (and I'm sure other weapons exist as well).

 

Therefore we put forth these assumptions:

The generic firearm requires two hands unless it is otherwise noted to be single handed, like a pistol, Neural Shredder, etc. or otherwise hand-less, like servoarm plasma cutters, Cyclone missile launchers, etc. This supports the common rule that allows most infantry units to fire only one firearm at a time.

 

But a Handless Cyclone can be fired in addition. So handless weapons are extra? Can a cyclone then be used as a Close Combat Weapon? If not, why? Palsma Cutters have been FAQed yes/no to be usable in Close Combat in different FAQs for different Codexes more times than I can remember.

 

The generic close combat weapon requires one hand unless it is otherwise noted to be two handed, like Honour Blades, Relic blades, Singing Spears, etc. or otherwise has rules which allow it to function hand-less, like servoarm powerfists, Mandiblasters or digital weapons. This supports the common rule that allows close combat weapons to be used simultaneously in close combat unless otherwise specificed as two handed.

 

All good, but this still has no support for a single handed Ranged Weapon to be usable in Close Combat, if it's not a Pistol.

 

Edit:

 

Let's go back to wepaons themselves. Is there a differentiation between Shooting and Close combat Wepaons in 40K? I'd say a definite yes to Shooting Weapons.

 

To be a shooting weapon, you need a shooting weapon template (Not Template! :P), and those without (that aren't explicitly stated as being shooting weapons) can't be used to attack in the shooting phase.

 

But can any weapon be a Close Combat Weapon?

 

And this is where I feel the arguement hinges. And the handidness issue is just muddying the waters.

 

If the answer is Yes, then we get into issues like Tau Suits and Cylones and Sniper Rifles, etc.

 

If the answer is No, then we need to define what makes a weapon 'useable in close combat'.

 

Is it number of hands? I'd say no, as you can have a one handed or two handed close combat wepaon. So just calling a weapon one or two handed isn't enough to qualify it as a Close combat weapon.

 

So how are close combat weapons defined?

[- 7eAL -]

First method: Weapon options replace standard weapons in new codexi. The number of hands required for the weapon option is equal to the total number of hands whose weapons are replaced. A plasma gun replacing a two handed bolter is therefore a two handed weapon. A Relic blade replacing a two handed bolter, or a single handed bolt pistol and single handed close combat weapon, is therefore a two handed weapon. The two hand flamers replacing two single handed bolt pistols are therefore two single handed weapons.

This does not give us the hand requirement of most standard weapons, however! Therefore, we require the second method.

What about wepaons taken in addition to, and not replacing an existing weapon? Like an Honour Guard Auxilary Grenade Launcher?

Use the second method, and apply the generic form for a firearm: a firearm is two handed unless otherwise noted. In the case of the Auxilary Grenade Launcher, it is a hands free weapon because it can be fired in addition to everything else.

 

Second method: There are generic forms for standard firearms and for standard close combat weapons - but the two forms require a different number of hands. These generic forms do in fact carry over, at least in part, from the Armoury system: observe carefully the Armoury in any previous codex and note what types of weapons are single handed, and what types of weapons are two handed. All if not most of the single handed weapons are objects only usable in close combat with the exception of firearms that are specifically noted to be single handed; pistols. In the other section, all if not most of the two handed weapons are firearms with the exception of close combat weapons specifically noted to be two handed, such as Eviscerators.

Assault Cannons and Sniper Rifles have never (to my knoweldge) been included in any armoury (and I'm sure other weapons exist as well).

Use the first method, and apply the replacement system: an assault cannon replaces a storm bolter, which is two handed; a sniper rifle replaces a bolter, lasgun or shuriken catapult, all of which are two handed.

 

Therefore we put forth these assumptions:

The generic firearm requires two hands unless it is otherwise noted to be single handed, like a pistol, Neural Shredder, etc. or otherwise hand-less, like servoarm plasma cutters, Cyclone missile launchers, etc. This supports the common rule that allows most infantry units to fire only one firearm at a time.

But a Handless Cyclone can be fired in addition. So handless weapons are extra? Can a cyclone then be used as a Close Combat Weapon? If not, why? Palsma Cutters have been FAQed yes/no to be usable in Close Combat in different FAQs for different Codexes more times than I can remember.

Hands free weapons are extra, and they are always noted as being hands free. Since they are not held in a closed fist with blunt or sharp ends protru-etc., they do not count against the number of weapons that can be carried by a unit's number of appendages, and also cannot be used in close combat as close combat weapon-objects and cannot be fired as firearms in the shooting phase unless otherwise noted. Since they are specially noted to be hands free, they always have special rules to denote what they can do, though they do nothing else beyond that point. If it is a hands free close combat weapon then it grants a special attack in close combat, and if it is a hands free firearm then it grants a shooting attack in the shooting phase, but otherwise they do nothing else - the same applies to most wargear, in that it only performs its special function in accordance with the special rules it is given and does nothing else.

 

The generic close combat weapon requires one hand unless it is otherwise noted to be two handed, like Honour Blades, Relic blades, Singing Spears, etc. or otherwise has rules which allow it to function hand-less, like servoarm powerfists, Mandiblasters or digital weapons. This supports the common rule that allows close combat weapons to be used simultaneously in close combat unless otherwise specificed as two handed.

All good, but this still has no support for a single handed Ranged Weapon to be usable in Close Combat, if it's not a Pistol.

You are too exclusive to the term "pistol". The logic you apply seems similar to the confusion of part-whole order between pistols and single handed weapons. Your definition is counter intuitive in that the requirement "single handed" has less importance than the requirement "pistol". Rather, it should be the reverse: "pistol" should have less importance than the requirement "single handed" because all pistols are single handed, but not all single handed weapons are pistols.

 

Additionally, the profile "Pistol" is now outdated, because it is now an abbreviation or placeholder for the longer profile "Assault 1, single handed". The term "Pistol" itself no longer holds any particular individual meaning beyong that placeholder status. At current, the Neural Shredder has an identical profile; "Assault 1, single handed" - for all intents and purposes, it now has the sme profile as a "Pistol" but for the word itself. Also, consider the significance of this: how many weapons have the word "pistol" in their name, but do not have the profile "Pistol", and how many weapons have the profile "Pistol" but do not have the word in their name?

 

But can any weapon be a Close Combat Weapon?

And this is where I feel the arguement hinges. And the handidness issue is just muddying the waters.

If the answer is Yes, then we get into issues like Tau Suits and Cylones and Sniper Rifles, etc.

If the answer is No, then we need to define what makes a weapon 'useable in close combat'.

Is it number of hands? I'd say no, as you can have a one handed or two handed close combat wepaon. So just calling a weapon one or two handed isn't enough to qualify it as a Close combat weapon.

So how are close combat weapons defined?

The answer is yes, any weapon can be a close combat weapon, but it is not the number of hands that defines a close combat weapon - the number of hands only defines the number of weapons that can be used. And therein lies our primary interest: the number of weapons that can be used. Arguing about what constitutes a close combat weapon is immediately unnecessary once we accept that a Space Marine or Guardsman can use his firearm as a club or bayonet in close combat, because then the Callidus assassin can use her Neural Shredder in close combat also. Once we accept that the assassin can use her Neural Shredder in close combat, then it becomes a question of whether she can use it simultaneously with her C'tan phase sword, which according the FAQ she can. Thereafter, other weapons that have not been specifically and clearly defined then become unclear, but using the logical postulates given above and the rules given by the game, a logical and common-sensical conclusion can be reached.

 

(As far as I remember, "common sensical" is not a word, but it is now "late" for me and I must rest.)

[Gentlemanloser]

Use the first method, and apply the replacement system: an assault cannon replaces a storm bolter, which is two handed; a sniper rifle replaces a bolter, lasgun or shuriken catapult, all of which are two handed.

 

Circular logic. You first method doesn't hold, which is why you go to the second. but the second (in these cases) refer you back to the first...

 

they do not count against the number of weapons that can be carried by a unit's number of appendages

 

This falls down when some units have a 2 handed wepaon and two signle handed wepaons. Like Bolter, BP and CCW...

 

Since they are specially noted to be hands free, they always have special rules to denote what they can do, though they do nothing else beyond that point. If it is a hands free close combat weapon then it grants a special attack in close combat, and if it is a hands free firearm then it grants a shooting attack in the shooting phase, but otherwise they do nothing else - the same applies to most wargear, in that it only performs its special function in accordance with the special rules it is given and does nothing else.

 

Now this is the point!

 

Handidness aside, how do you tell if it's a Firearm or Close Combat weapon?

 

Additionally, the profile "Pistol" is now outdated, because it is now an abbreviation or placeholder for the longer profile "Assault 1, single handed".

 

Pure assumption and opinion there. :D

[Gentlemanloser]

Edit doesn't seem to work for me atm, so having to add this as a seperate post. :(

 

If you're using the first method, what happens when you replace a Boltgun with a Power Sword? Does the Power sword now become two handed?

 

The first method doesn't work, so you can't reference the second back to it.

 

Since they are not held in a closed fist with blunt or sharp ends protru-etc., they do not count against the number of weapons that can be carried by a unit's number of appendages

 

Wrist mounted Storm Bolters?

[- 7eAL -]

Use the first method, and apply the replacement system: an assault cannon replaces a storm bolter, which is two handed; a sniper rifle replaces a bolter, lasgun or shuriken catapult, all of which are two handed.

Circular logic. You first method doesn't hold, which is why you go to the second. but the second (in these cases) refer you back to the first...

I answered you incorrectly by telling you to look at the first method when instead you had tried to counter the wrong point of the second by relating to the Armoury. The second method is to use the generic form, which is that firearms are two handed unless otherwise noted. The generic form is not a matter of whether items appear in the Armoury, but rather a forward postulate derived from the precedent set by the Armoury. Like so: in the Armoury, all firearms are two handed unless specifically noted, so therefore for all firearms not included in the Armoury, they will also be two handed unless specifically noted.

 

they do not count against the number of weapons that can be carried by a unit's number of appendages

This falls down when some units have a 2 handed wepaon and two signle handed wepaons. Like Bolter, BP and CCW...

This would also fall down when a Terminator appears, since storm bolters are two handed and powerfists are one handed. The number of weapons that can be carried refers to the number used simultaneously.

 

Since they are specially noted to be hands free, they always have special rules to denote what they can do, though they do nothing else beyond that point. If it is a hands free close combat weapon then it grants a special attack in close combat, and if it is a hands free firearm then it grants a shooting attack in the shooting phase, but otherwise they do nothing else - the same applies to most wargear, in that it only performs its special function in accordance with the special rules it is given and does nothing else.

Now this is the point!

 

Handidness aside, how do you tell if it's a Firearm or Close Combat weapon?

All firearms are also close combat weapons. Not all close combat weapons are also firearms. This has been the mainstay of the argument for the last three posts.

 

Additionally, the profile "Pistol" is now outdated, because it is now an abbreviation or placeholder for the longer profile "Assault 1, single handed".

Pure assumption and opinion there. :(

Sure. From page 29 of the 5th Edition Rulebook:

Pistol weapons are light enough to be carried and fired one-handed...

All pistols are effectively Assault 1 weapons with a range of 12" (unless otherwise specified).

 

If you're using the first method, what happens when you replace a Boltgun with a Power Sword? Does the Power sword now become two handed?

 

The first method doesn't work, so you can't reference the second back to it.

[snark]If someone were snide enough to include such an option, then the answer would be "Yes it becomes two handed".[/snark]

There is a reason why all replacements options so far have exchanged weapons which require an identical number of hands. In the case of a power weapon, the precedent applied by the second method already exists that a power weapon is a single handed weapon. In all cases, the second method holds a higher order because it applies a rule where there is none clearly given, and the first method is dependent on it because it always requires the rule of the weapon being replaced - the rule for the weapon being replaced will often come from rule of the second method.

 

Since they are not held in a closed fist with blunt or sharp ends protru-etc., they do not count against the number of weapons that can be carried by a unit's number of appendages

Wrist mounted Storm Bolters?

models are not necessarily a good measure of one or two handed weapons. After all, an Inquisitor's WYSIWYG only states that objects must be modeled with himself or with members of his retinue.

Also, see page 8 of the Daemonhunters codex for the True Grit special rule.

 

Way to try to take advantage of a tired man. At this point I rather doubt this gentlemanliness.