In Practice...

[Prodigy]

In the space marine codex, under assault marine sergeants; the way it mantions pairs of lightning claws, is as purchasable in a pair to replace the bolt pistol AND/or the chainsword. Does that mean one could buy two pairs of lightning claws? Maybe represented by converting them onto the sergeant's elbows? Would that count? Would the sergeant get 2 additional CC attacks for 4 total? (5 with chapter banner/pedro kantor) There doesn't seem to be a steadfast rule in the codex limiting the number of weapons per model anymore, thought admittedly I may have missed it, should it exist.

[Captain Malachi]

I believe you can do it, however, as you can only gain the +1 attack bonus for 2 CC weapons once, it's pure, unadulterated points wasting. Hope that helps :P

[popper]

no, no, and no.

 

you cant get more than two lightning claws. the last option lists "pair of lightning claws" for 30 points to sasve you points, not to let you buy 2x a pair of lightning claws.

[cathar the great]

I don't think that's anything more but a printing mistake in the codex

[Imperialis_Dominatus]

Even if you could, it'd be wasted points. You wouldn't get any extra attacks or anything...

[Orkdung]

Claws on elbows? :P

 

I think someone needs to go talk to the Black Dragons. :P

 

It cant be done.

 

And anyhow, you'd then have 4 1-handed weapons.

[Carolus]

EDIT: yeah, you can only buy one pair.

-Carolus

[Lord Hereticus]

Generally, if you have to ask "If I twist and interpret this line in a certain way, can I then do this? " then it's a fair bet you can't, and should get dreadsocked just for trying.

[nighthawks]

by rights you may upgrade to 2 pairs of LCs. there is zero benefit after the first pair. might as well keep your shooting weapon.

[Prodigy]

well its 30 points to get a single attack. while losing all ranged capabilities, I don't see it as thaaat bad.

It wouldnt be good, itd just be hilarious. unlike if you exchanged the pistol for the pair of lightning claws and the chainsword for a power fist.

[Kurasuke]

well its 30 points to get a single attack. while losing all ranged capabilities, I don't see it as thaaat bad.

It wouldnt be good, itd just be hilarious. unlike if you exchanged the pistol for the pair of lightning claws and the chainsword for a power fist.

I don't think you would get an additional attack. The rules say that you get an attack for a second close combat weapon, not each additional close combat weapon.

[HiveFleetEzekial]

You wouldn't get any extra attacks or anything...

there is zero benefit after the first pair.

as you can only gain the +1 attack bonus for 2 CC weapons once...

 

 

Just a point of interest...

 

Is there anything in any of the rules that specifically says they gain no further attacks? They are all the same special weapon afterall...

Tyranids can get a +1A more than once, if they take two sets of talons. The only note their codex makes on it is that talons are the only way for them to get any +A's. So multiple +A's can certainly stack (atleast for 'nids.. unless there's no general rule on it).

 

 

Yay (sm)codex typos!

[Reglor]

You wouldn't get any extra attacks or anything...

there is zero benefit after the first pair.

as you can only gain the +1 attack bonus for 2 CC weapons once...

 

 

Just a point of interest...

 

Is there anything in any of the rules that specifically says they gain no further attacks? They are all the same special weapon afterall...

Tyranids can get a +1A more than once, if they take two sets of talons. The only note their codex makes on it is that talons are the only way for them to get any +A's. So multiple +A's can certainly stack (atleast for 'nids.. unless there's no general rule on it).

 

 

Yay (sm)codex typos!

 

BRB pg 37 second bullet point under number of attacks "... you only get one extra attack, even if you have more than two weapons"

[Mal]

From what I understand you can now buy multipul of the same weapon for your SM leaders... HOWEVER, you never gain more than +1 attack, and if you have 3 or more specail weapons IIRC you don't even get the +1A as a penalty for having too many specalist weapons.

 

So, I believe you may be able to buy 2 sets of claws, but you'd be shooting yoruself in the foot since you can only use one pair, but the second pair prevents you from gaining the +1A, so you pay 30 points to loose an attack.

[HiveFleetEzekial]

BRB pg 37 second bullet point under number of attacks "... you only get one extra attack, even if you have more than two weapons"

 

 

How interesting...

 

 

Ok, reread the 'nid 'dex, and it *does* go on to say more... that only +2A may be gained from talons. So, yeah.. only one +1A for everyone else. heh

[maniclurker]

This is an example of how to read generously. Really, that whole "pair of lightning claws" shouldn't even be in there, because you can already accomplish said effect by buying two individual claws.

 

Also, if you want to exploit it to it's fullest, then you'd do something like taking a plasma pistol and a pair of lightning claws. Or, you could just keep your pistol and get a pair of lightning claws.

 

Reallly, though, it's just dumb.

[kittenofdeath]

This is an example of how to read generously. Really, that whole "pair of lightning claws" shouldn't even be in there, because you can already accomplish said effect by buying two individual claws.

 

Also, if you want to exploit it to it's fullest, then you'd do something like taking a plasma pistol and a pair of lightning claws. Or, you could just keep your pistol and get a pair of lightning claws.

 

Reallly, though, it's just dumb.

 

isnt there a price cut for the second? because if it is then your only paying for the extra attack that way, you not paying for everything else a lightning claw gives you

[maniclurker]

No, there is no price cut. This is not 4th ed dex. It's simply an oversight on GW's part.

 

It's also something that some people will try to abuse, even though it is rather obvious that GW meant for the player to replace both weapons with a pair of lightning claws if they take that option.

 

Further reading into the dex will yield whether or not it makes any comment about weapon limits somewhere, or something like that. Hover it does say PAIR, as in 2. And it does give the option to replace BOTH weapons. PAIR = BOTH in my book.

[nighthawks]

No, there is no price cut. This is not 4th ed dex. It's simply an oversight on GW's part.

 

It's also something that some people will try to abuse, even though it is rather obvious that GW meant for the player to replace both weapons with a pair of lightning claws if they take that option.

 

Further reading into the dex will yield whether or not it makes any comment about weapon limits somewhere, or something like that. Hover it does say PAIR, as in 2. And it does give the option to replace BOTH weapons. PAIR = BOTH in my book.

the rules allow for a pair that replaces both weapons (each for one claw) OR a pair AND another weapon. I doubt heavily that it is an oversight. there's no room for abuse because 2 pair of LCs accomplishes exactly nothing that is not already had by one pair.

[Cale]

Nighthawks seems to be on top of this one:

 

You can swap a weapon for a pair of lightning claws. You can swap the other weapon for something else (or another pair of lightning claws, but that would be stupid since it wouldn't do you any good).

[angronn]

No, there is no price cut. This is not 4th ed dex. It's simply an oversight on GW's part.

 

It's also something that some people will try to abuse, even though it is rather obvious that GW meant for the player to replace both weapons with a pair of lightning claws if they take that option.

 

Further reading into the dex will yield whether or not it makes any comment about weapon limits somewhere, or something like that. Hover it does say PAIR, as in 2. And it does give the option to replace BOTH weapons. PAIR = BOTH in my book.

 

It might have been an oversight (I seem to remember it's not written that way in all the possible entries) but it is no way unfair - Dark Angels characters can take a pair of lightning claws and a ranged weapon as well. GW's only stipulation is that they be WYSIWYG (so gauntlet-mounted plasma pistol, or something). I feel that the new C:SM can be a little restrictive in this fashion in some entries, only allowing two weapons.

[maniclurker]

nighthawks: I wasn't suggesting that someone takes 2 pairs of lightning claws. Perhaps you could read my posts before responding to them. I was suggesting that someone could take a pair of lightning claws and a plasma pistol. Seeing as how this is probably an oversight on GW's part, it most definitely would be abuse.

 

Cale: You are just repeating what nighthawks said... no cookies for you. :)

 

angronn: Arguing that something in some other codex can do something is not really a valid argument. DA drop pods can shoot the turn they land, ours cannot. Also, I didn't even necessarily say it's unfair. If you pay the points for it, then you paid the points for it. I'm saying that it's abuse. Why would they allow a lowly sergeant to take a plasma pistol and a pair of lightning claws, when a CHAPTER MASTER cannot? It's not logical. Pair (2) = Both (2)... that's logical.

 

Also, a DA character can take a pair of lightning claws, a plasma pistol, AND a storm bolter. You left that part out.

 

Like I said this is most likely an oversight, or them not clearly defining that a pair of something replaces both weapons. The assault serg is the only entry that has it this way... from memory.

[Mordekiem]

Yes you could take two pairs of claws.

 

No you would not get any additional attacks. (so it'd be a waste of points)

 

You'd be better off replacing the chainsword with a pair of claws and then you still have a pistol to shoot with.

[angronn]

angronn: Arguing that something in some other codex can do something is not really a valid argument. DA drop pods can shoot the turn they land, ours cannot. Also, I didn't even necessarily say it's unfair. If you pay the points for it, then you paid the points for it. I'm saying that it's abuse. Why would they allow a lowly sergeant to take a plasma pistol and a pair of lightning claws, when a CHAPTER MASTER cannot? It's not logical. Pair (2) = Both (2)... that's logical.

 

Also, a DA character can take a pair of lightning claws, a plasma pistol, AND a storm bolter. You left that part out.

 

Like I said this is most likely an oversight, or them not clearly defining that a pair of something replaces both weapons. The assault serg is the only entry that has it this way... from memory.

 

There are plenty of dud/oversight style rules in GW. Why stop with SM sergeant lightning claws + pistols? Why not twin-lashes? Why not fire both stormbolter and plasma cannon on Sammael? In terms of creating army lists, I'm all in favour of RAW-ness where possible.

 

As such, given that it's not unfair (unbalancing), I don't see how it would really count as abuse. No, GW probably didn't mean it, but unless you apply the tricky RAI logic to everything, I think this minor example should escape the abuse terminology.

[maniclurker]

*sighs*

 

The twin lash argument again, huh? Well, let's see here... GW gave no limit on lashes, nor did they set a precedence that would make one expect that they meant to. Argement, no more...

 

Sammael is the only marine on his bike, that's why you can't fire both. It's been the same way for marine bikes that are armed with a meltagun (or whatever) and the TL bolters for a while. That's called a precedence, as well. The 2 weapons are there to give you an option. There ARE inherent risks in firing a plasma cannon, especially if you are 2" away from the squad you are shooting it at. Argument, no more...

 

Every other entry in the SM dex (from memory, I lost mine and can't check) lacks the 'pair of lightning claws' option, and instead has the option to upgrade 1 claw per weapon. That sets a precedence. Suddenly, stupid entry in assault squad gives you the ability to replace one weapon with 2 claws... :cuss?!?! You can actually RAW it either way, and RAI it one way. I choose to RAW it the way it makes sense. However, sense everyone else seems to like to ignore the 'replace both' option, and the word 'pair', then there's not much to be done. It's obvious beyond obvious that it shouldn't be that way, so taking advantage of it is abuse.... regardless of legality.

 

Who cares if it's unbalancing.... actually. Hold up. Ima go grab my rulebook. I just thought of something that may make this whole argument pointless...