Striking Scorpion Exarch

[Legatus]

Except that again there is nothing that says the bonus for having the weapon are not counted.

If there is a rule that states that special weapons are used or not used and you interprete that as that they can still be allways in effect then please try to convince your opponents that they are.

 

To repeat: The page introduces special weapons by stating that they grant bonuses to the model using them. Then follows a list of special close combat weapons, some of which may be described as granting "the wielder" or "the model" a bonus, instead of pointing out that it is upon "using" them. The list then closes by a note that only one of these weapons can be used in a trun of combat, not multiples.

 

The rule that everyone keeps quoting is simply to do with bonus attacks, thats what the rule does actually say in black and white.

The rule actually says that the model must chose which special weapon to use. See for yourself.

 

Can you see the difrence that such a small difrence in wording can make and why it is important to have the exact wording known?

I can see that there is an overall mechanic how special close combat weapons are used in the game, and that the different special close combat weapons then are not described as being used like that for every single one of them.

[angronn]

A Tyranid creature can use all of its close combat biomorphs in an assault and is not limited to using one at a time like most models

 

from p.31 Codex: Tyranids. Note that the rule is not referring to attack bonuses (as Scything Talons are the only way for Tyranids to gain extra attacks) but to special rules granted by the biomorphs. To me, this demonstrates that the standard rules should not be read in the way you are suggesting, Praeger.

[DevianID]

My issue is this: Marneus Calgar has a power weapon and the paired power fists. Thus, he has two special close combat weapons... so if he chooses to use the paired powerfists, he will not gain the bonus attack for having 2 power fists because he also has a cumbersome powersword--even though he did not choose to use the powersword.

 

Similarly, if a model has pistol, a power weapon, and a relic blade... he still is equiped with 2 different special close combat weapons... thus the option to get a bonus attack with pistol + power weapon is disallowed.

 

I guess the rules dont cover models that have more than 2 weapons very well.

[Legatus]

Since the rules specifically adress models being armed with two close combat weapons, you could say they don't cover models that have more than 2 weapons at all. I propose that a model with more than two close combat weapons picks any combination of 2 of thoe weapons it wants to use that turn in combat, and the rules that would apply to a combination of those two weapons are used.

[Praeger]

Legatus,

 

I see what you are trying to say - but dont think you are getting what I am saying.

 

The rule that everyone keeps quoting is simply to do with bonus attacks, thats what the rule does actually say in black and white.

The rule actually says that the model must chose which special weapon to use. See for yourself.

 

Two things:

 

1 - that rule actually does only deal with extra atack bonus's. It does not say "you will not gain any bonus's at all' just no attack bonus's.

 

2 - Yes it says which weapon to USE.

 

But thats the point.

 

You dont have to USE the chainsword to get its bonus.

 

The power fist reads "...doubles the USERS strength....attacks WITH a power fist....are I1..."

 

The power weapon reads "...models wounded in combat by a model ARMED WITH a power weapon..."

 

See the key difrence? power fist must be used for its speacial rules to take effect. Power weapon is ANY ATTACKS made by the model.

 

Most of the speacial weapons rules actually grant the bonus to the models atacks - in actual fact its only the power fist and friends that must be USED to have their effects played.

 

This is the key to this whole problem, the difrence between "grants the model" and "when used by the model".

 

A model ARMED with compared to a model USING a weapon.

 

Its the small difrence in wording here that makes a huge difrence in how the rule is played.

 

A Tyranid creature can use all of its close combat biomorphs in an assault and is not limited to using one at a time like most models

 

from p.31 Codex: Tyranids. Note that the rule is not referring to attack bonuses (as Scything Talons are the only way for Tyranids to gain extra attacks) but to special rules granted by the biomorphs. To me, this demonstrates that the standard rules should not be read in the way you are suggesting, Praeger.

 

Not sure what this is about as I dont play Nids and have no idea of their rules - think your quoting someone else here :)

 

Since the rules specifically adress models being armed with two close combat weapons, you could say they don't cover models that have more than 2 weapons at all. I propose that a model with more than two close combat weapons picks any combination of 2 of thoe weapons it wants to use that turn in combat, and the rules that would apply to a combination of those two weapons are used.

 

Agreed - I think they should really have said "armed with 2 or more" rather then just saying "armed with 2" but guess this wasnt really thought about at all.

[eyescrossed]

I'm confused...

[Brother Corvus]

So basically, a model given a power sword will always ignore armour saves, but the power fist x2 bonus can only be

granted when the model is using said fist in combat, not if he is using an alternate weapon. :)

[Legatus]

2 - Yes it says which weapon to USE.

 

But thats the point.

 

You dont have to USE the chainsword to get its bonus.

The page has a list of 8 common special close combat weapons. The list is introduced by a text saying that they grant bonuses to the model using them, and the page is closed by a note that a model with two such weapons has to decide which to use each turn. So it is understadable that GW abstained from adding "if the weapon is used" to all of the listed weapons.

 

Perhaps the power weapon and lightning claw rules are unfortunately phrased, but then you could see it so that as far as the rules are concerned, a model that has sheated it's power sword or stowed it in it's back pack (i.e. not using it currently) is not considered to be "armed" with that particular weapon.

[angronn]

A Tyranid creature can use all of its close combat biomorphs in an assault and is not limited to using one at a time like most models

 

from p.31 Codex: Tyranids. Note that the rule is not referring to attack bonuses (as Scything Talons are the only way for Tyranids to gain extra attacks) but to special rules granted by the biomorphs. To me, this demonstrates that the standard rules should not be read in the way you are suggesting, Praeger.

 

Not sure what this is about as I dont play Nids and have no idea of their rules - think your quoting someone else here :)

 

Nope, I'm using this special rule which refers to the normal, unmodified way of operation from the BRB. The normal operation of special weapons, as demonstrated by said Tyranid rule, is that special rules from close combat weapons cannot be used together generally. So no Lightning Claw Power Fists and the like.

[DevianID]

Isnt the tyranid rule from 4th edition, thus not applicable to a 5th edition BRB question?

 

Also, the main rules fail to describe what happens when models are equipped with more than 2 weapons...

 

Thus, I think a faq should be issued detailing once and for all the difference between 'using' and 'armed with' and 'equipped'

[Praeger]

So basically, a model given a power sword will always ignore armour saves, but the power fist x2 bonus can only be

granted when the model is using said fist in combat, not if he is using an alternate weapon.

 

This is it exactly.

 

Say your armed with a power weapon and pistol - in combat ALL of your attacks are power weapon attacks, you don't need to declare "im using my power weapon" since the weapon itself grants the owning player this bonus on ALL of its attacks.

 

This is pretty straight forward there and I think everyone agrees with that.

 

But say you are armed with a power weapon, and a blade of almighty power which grants I10 on the charge.

 

Well now all your attacks are counted as power weapon attacks, on the charge you strike at I1 HOWEVER since you are using 2 different special weapons you do NOT get the +1 attack bonus as the rules for 2 special close combat weapons state this bonus is lost - they never get the bonus ATTACKS just as the rule states.

 

Now if he was armed wit ha power fist then he would have to choose which to attack with as the power fists rules state "when USED" not armed with. Again he does not get the extra attacks just as the 2 special close combat rule states.

 

Again, I realise its a bit confusing but it is all down to the weapons rules - does it need to be USED for it to work, or just be armed with?

[Legatus]

If a rule says that a model is not allowed to "use" it's power weapon during a turn for whatever reason, would you say that model would still ignore armour saves thanks to that power weapon?

[Praeger]

Since no such rule exists that really dosnt matter.

 

I know what you are trying to get at, that it makes no "sense" that a weapon not "used' would still have an effect.

 

But 40K does not always make sense. Think of it like this, I hold in my right hand a holy bolter. This bolter grants me the powers of gods and even just glancing at its holy shine is enough for enemies to back away with fear. Now in my left hand I hold a sword.

 

Now, think about this outside the framework of the rules for a second, if im in close combat which weapon would I be grasping and fighting with? But does that mean that the enemies will no longer be afraid of my holiness?

 

Im USING the sword but the EFFECT of the bolter is still in play as it dosnt need to be used to cause fear.

 

If any rule was ever created as you sugest, it would raise alot of problems as although it couldn't be used the effect would still be in play - the only difrence would be the possible loss of an attack. If however it said "no power weapon attacks can be made" then you would loose all these attacks.

[angronn]

Isnt the tyranid rule from 4th edition, thus not applicable to a 5th edition BRB question?

 

It's true that Tyranids are from 4th, but I guess that only demonstrates that 4th ed special weapon rules are completely clear-cut about using one and only one special weapon at a time (it even gives an example of choosing between a power fist and power weapon). For me, the "using" vs "equipped" argument seems to be trying to find easter eggs in the rules given some creative reading. I think such a distinction would be set out clearly, rather than implied, given it flies in the face of previous precedent.

[Legatus]

Since no such rule exists that really dosnt matter.

There is such a rule, and I have pointed it out several times in this thread.

 

Im USING the sword but the EFFECT of the bolter is still in play as it dosnt need to be used to cause fear.

If there was a rule giving a Marine player the choice to have his Captain "use" his Iron Halo or a different item during a turn (because his energy supply annot maintain both at the same time or whatever), then even though the Iron Halo rules do not say that it has to be "used" in order to grant the 4+ save, you would still know that the 4+ save would not apply if the Captain (or rather the Player) decided to use the other item instead.

 

The rules for the power weapon say that it grants bonuses to the wearer, not the user. But the introduction for special close combat weapons establish that they grant bonuses to the model using them, and the rules for having two of such special close combat weapons then say that only one of the weapons can be used each combat phase.

[angronn]

Sorry for the double post and wall o'text, but I want to separate this in-depth study from previous replies.

 

Note the language of the Close Combat Weapons section, p.42. The rules talk about models "using", "armed with", "wielding" and "equipped with". Below is a list of in which section each word appears (some sections have two uses):

 

"Using/User"

Normal Close Combat Weapons rules

 

Lightning Claws

Power Fists

Thunder Hammers

Fighting with Two Single-Handed Weapons preamble

Fighting with Two Single-Handed Weapons - Two Different Special Weapons

"Armed with"

Power Weapons

Rending Weapons

Witchblades

"Wielding/Wielder"

Special Close Combat Weapons preamble

Lightning Claws

Force Weapons (taken from p.50)

Poisoned Weapons

Fighting with Two Single-Handed Weapons - Two Different Special Weapons

"Equipped with"

Fighting with Two Single-Handed Weapons preamble

Fighting with Two Single-Handed Weapons - a Normal and a Special Weapon

 

Unfortunately, these terms are used interchangeably and without any detectable consistency throughout the section (which we would expect if the designers were not intending us to distinguish between armed with and wielding, or using and wielding.

 

Note, for example, that the Special Close Combat Weapon preamble encapsulates all the special weapon descriptions – thus, using encapsulates further uses of armed with, wielding and using.

 

How about Lightning Claws, “commonly used as matched pairs” and allowing “the wielder to re-roll any failed roll to wound”?

 

Equipped with and wielding are used to indicate a model holding certain weapons which they must then use (see “Fighting with Two Single-Handed Weapons preamble” and “Fighting with Two Single-Handed Weapons – Two Different Special Weapons”). But how can wielding be distinguished then from using if a previous entry (Lightning Claws) has used them interchangeably?

 

For me, the amount of sentence analysis and word-lawyering you have to do to try and make the distinction between armed with and using is over-complicating the issue.

 

 

It is unfortunate that GW chose to specify under “Two of the Same Special Weapon” and “A Normal and a Special Weapon” that the attacks had the bonuses and penalties, but failed to indicate one way or another what happens to those bonuses and penalties under the “Two Different Special Weapons” section (as they did in 4^th ed).

 

I have to admit, looking at Abaddon (who uses two weapons to full effect) and also at the restricted choices for wargear in the newer codices (which rule out some potential broken applications of the distinction between armed with/using), I was tempted towards that interpretation, but the word usage on p.42 is just too indistinct and woolly for me to believe that is what was meant. They would have to be much tighter with their language and definitions for that to be the easiest reading.

 

Incidentally, even under that reading, Biting Blade would not be cumulative with a Power Fist (Scorpion’s Claw) because you have to use a Power Fist and you can’t use a single-handed weapon and use a double-handed weapon (Biting Blade) together. So on either reading, it’s a no-go.

[Legatus]

Incidentally, even under that reading, Biting Blade would not be cumulative with a Power Fist (Scorpion’s Claw) because you have to use a Power Fist and you can’t use a single-handed weapon and use a double-handed weapon (Biting Blade) together. So on either reading, it’s a no-go.

I believe the original question was about a regular Striking Scorpion Chainsword, which is a single handed close combat weapon that adds +1 to Strength.

[angronn]

Incidentally, even under that reading, Biting Blade would not be cumulative with a Power Fist (Scorpion’s Claw) because you have to use a Power Fist and you can’t use a single-handed weapon and use a double-handed weapon (Biting Blade) together. So on either reading, it’s a no-go.

I believe the original question was about a regular Striking Scorpion Chainsword, which is a single handed close combat weapon that adds +1 to Strength.

 

Good point. Yes, that would work. If the rules were specific enough, anyway.