Question regarding DH stormshield

[Dilgar]

Further, I doubt anyone will attempt to argue that the strength increasing force weapon of the Grand Master is not 'Special', so, this must fall into that final category describing the penalties for wielding two different 'Special' weapons.

 

...technically you are right, it is not a special weapon as the rulebook goes, it is a (force) weapon with it´s one rules.

If u think that the force weapons of the DH slay outright, then u are not acknowledging the weapon as a force weapon (as written in the BRB). So if u do think that the storm shield is a special weapon, then why isn´t the the exact same interpretation implemented on force weapon used by the DH, thus making it "instant death", not "slain outright"?

 

It is hard for me to see that the shield is a special weapon, they are clearly stated in the BRB which weapons are special weapons.

[Eddie Orlock]

It is hard for me to see that the shield is a special weapon, they are clearly stated in the BRB which weapons are special weapons.

My copy of the rule book has the following as the last sentence under 'Special Close Combat Weapons'

... The most widely used are listed below:

This unambiguously indicates that the listed weapons are not an exhaustive catalogue, only a sample of the myriad of arms available. Unless you intend to argue that anything not listed is 'Normal', the only other category? No, they're far more comprehensive about what is 'Normal' than what is 'Special' and this is the desirable state for the smooth development of the system as a whole.

 

Deamon Hunter Force Weapons 'Slay Outright' as this is what is mentioned in the codex. Storm Shields do not grant extra attacks to heterogeneous weapon pairs as their description does not grant an exemption from that clause of the rule book. ... And them granting extra attacks is laudably incongruent with the equipments historical depictions from a game rule perspective.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Darius correctly perceived my strawman, but the implication is the same idea, 'cease being foolish, stormshields never have, and never will, grant extra attacks'.

 

Except in this case, it's the other way around. Storm shields are single-handed weapons, and based on current rules that means they can combined with another single-handed weapon for +1A.

There is always the final sub heading on page 42, the one about two special close combat weapons. The description near the top of the page indicates that such an implement is only 'Normal' if it doesn't provide any particular bonus to the model using it. Even if we accept that it is a 'One Handed Weapon' The Deamon Hunter Storm Shield clearly provides a bonus conditional 4+ invulnerable save in close combat, thus, it is not 'Normal' and by extension, must be 'Special'. Further, I doubt anyone will attempt to argue that the strength increasing force weapon of the Grand Master is not 'Special', so, this must fall into that final category describing the penalties for wielding two different 'Special' weapons.

 

Interesting...I hadn't read that little provision at the beginning. I'd have to say you're right then, the storm shield is a 'special' single-handed weapon, due to the 4+ invul bonus. How annoying...

 

Ah well, I'm still going to be taking it, it's a 1/3rd of the price of an 'Icon'. 5 attacks on the charge is still plenty for a GM, he only needs to get one unsaved wound on target to fry the enemy character/MC.

[Dilgar]

But whyyy ;)

 

Guess it is a "special single handed weapon".

[Inquisitor =D=]

;) Well that's one heck of an argument over it. <_<

 

When I have my rulebook I'll have to look into it for sure. But things as they are I'm still gonna use the +1 attack. I figure that if I can use a shield in combat to bash my opponent at the next renaissance event, why can't my elite GKs?

 

And before ya ask, yes, I fight in unscripted medieval style combat on a regular basis with the intent to knock the other people out.

 

=]D[=

[Adir]

There is always the final sub heading on page 42, the one about two special close combat weapons. The description near the top of the page indicates that such an implement is only 'Normal' if it doesn't provide any particular bonus to the model using it. Even if we accept that it is a 'One Handed Weapon' The Deamon Hunter Storm Shield clearly provides a bonus conditional 4+ invulnerable save in close combat, thus, it is not 'Normal' and by extension, must be 'Special'. Further, I doubt anyone will attempt to argue that the strength increasing force weapon of the Grand Master is not 'Special', so, this must fall into that final category describing the penalties for wielding two different 'Special' weapons.

 

Pistols evade this restriction by special caviet in the definition of 'Normal' to include them.

The special weapons sections specifically notes that these are weapons that enhance the wielders combat skills. The storm shield in no way enhances the models combat skills (i.e. better WS, higher strength, etc.). Moreover, the section on models armed with two special weapons dictates that the player identify which special weapon is being used in combat. By your logic, a model armed with a storm shield and an NSFW can choose either to get the 4++ inv save or use the NSFW's bonuses, but not both.

 

Clearly, this is neither the RAW or RAI intent of shields. Try telling a space marine player that their new assault terminators can use either their thunder hammer OR storm shield in close combat but not both. Obviously, this is not the case, so why should such a restriction be placed on grey knight terminators?

 

Either storm shields are treated as a special weapon, in which case the wearer must attack solely with it to gain the benefits or it is either a ) single handed per C: DH thus granting the +1A or b ) explicitly denies the +1A per C: SM.

[DevianID]

Try telling a space marine player that their new assault terminators can use either their thunder hammer OR storm shield in close combat but not both. Obviously, this is not the case

 

Avoid mentioning the space marine storm shields, as while you have an excellent point, mentioning the codex marine stormshields can make a distraction since they work so fundamentally differently.

 

More correctly, I would say 'Try telling the Grey Knight termie with thunderhammer storm shield that he can use either the thunderhammer or the storm shield, not both--obviously this is not the case.'

 

So, most seem to agree that the storm shield DOES count as a one handed weapon in some sense. Now the question is, does the storm shield count as a special weapon or not?

 

If it is a special weapon, then a GKT with the THSS option can either use the TH or the storm shield, never both.

 

If it is not a special one handed weapon, then you can use both the TH and the SS, and also a GKT with a nemesis force weapon and SS would count as being armed with 1 special and one normal close combat weapon, gaining all bonuses therein implied.

 

My prefrence is for the latter--but then again, I may just want that +1 two-weapon attack back now that the power weapon no longer can grant the bonus attack.

[Eddie Orlock]

The special weapons sections specifically notes that these are weapons that enhance the wielders combat skills. The storm shield in no way enhances the models combat skills (i.e. better WS, higher strength, etc.). Moreover, the section on models armed with two special weapons dictates that the player identify which special weapon is being used in combat. By your logic, a model armed with a storm shield and an NSFW can choose either to get the 4++ inv save or use the NSFW's bonuses, but not both.

If you check the language of the first sentence defining 'Special Close Combat Weapons' you'll find the word 'Include'. You will not find the words 'Limited too', 'Only', or anything synonymous with the previous two. The only requirement to place a weapon into the 'Special' category is simply that it doesn't fit into the strictly limited 'Normal' category. You only get issues with having to choose between the save and the nemisis bonuses if you accept the tortured interpretations that the storm shield is a 'weapon' and not just a piece of wargear that fills a hand.

Clearly, this is neither the RAW or RAI intent of shields. Try telling a space marine player that their new assault terminators can use either their thunder hammer OR storm shield in close combat but not both. Obviously, this is not the case, so why should such a restriction be placed on grey knight terminators?

Oh, Goody. I was hoping someone would bring up RAI. Do you want me to dig out the second edition wargear card, or see if I can find a reference in my Rogue Trader material? As I mentioned on the previous page, no storm shield has never, ever, provided an extra attack. Ever. Previous iterations go so far as to mention this explicitly. The design intent has historically been, and was when this codex was published, a way of gaining extra protection at the expense of a combat attack. There is no problem with using both provided you don't call the shield a weapon and try to cheat your way into extra swings. The Marine 'dex correctly, and clearly, identifies it as a piece of wargear. Restrictions only arise as unintended consequences when it is misidentified as a 'Weapon'.

 

But hey, if someone wants to house rule that storm shields grant extra attacks on top of improving survivability, lemme know and I'll be there with my assault terminators and vanguard vets.

Try telling a space marine player that their new assault terminators can use either their thunder hammer OR storm shield in close combat but not both. Obviously, this is not the case

Avoid mentioning the space marine storm shields, as while you have an excellent point, mentioning the codex marine stormshields can make a distraction since they work so fundamentally differently.

Good call, sir. They are worded much more clearly. At best they're a model for interpretation, and another support to my stance, they have explicite text prohibiting their users from gaining the two weapons extra attack.

More correctly, I would say 'Try telling the Grey Knight termie with thunderhammer storm shield that he can use either the thunderhammer or the storm shield, not both--obviously this is not the case.'

Oh, but it most certainly is the case, provided you're embracing the interpretation that it's a weapon. If you reject that folly, the either, or, restriction falls away.

So, most seem to agree that the storm shield DOES count as a one handed weapon in some sense. Now the question is, does the storm shield count as a special weapon or not?

Unless you adopt the historical stance that the shield is not a weapon in the first place, as was intended when the book was written. In which case you're free to parry deamon tendrils and swing away with your hammer to the tune of your base attack allowance and any applicable charing bonuses.

 

I realize that I have a naturally repulsive stance about this on this particular corner of the forum, what, with it costing people attacks, but it's no stranger than drop pods not firing on the turn they arrive, 'cause the count as moving too fast. I wish it wasn't so, but it is.

 

You know, with some of this when is a 'weapon not a 'Weapon' stuff, I'm slightly surprised I haven't seen some Sisters players jumping in here about wielding Presaediums with Evicerators. I guess people only argue for tortured interpretations when they'll provide a points efficient boost.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

I actually agree with you Eddie, but you might wanna tone it down a little. It's just a game, no one takes this to heart. I hope... ;) The other side of this argument does have a point; lack of clarity in both the codex and BRB means you can interpret the storm shield as being a normal single-handed weapon. Might not be right (as I suspect and you've pointed out), but the possibility is there.

 

I guess people only argue for tortured interpretations when they'll provide a points efficient boost.

 

Have you seen what the 'Icon of the Just' costs? And our stupid 'no chainsword or pocketknife for Termies' armoury restriction? Canonesses can turn on a 2+ invul against anything (shooting or combat) at will. Most close-combat characters come with 4+ invul by default (and are still pretty cheap). So yes, wishful thinking is brought about by inane wargear rules. :P

 

I think probably the best position to take is that it's up to the individual, because GW doesn't care, and this is a pretty obscure argument to anyone who doesn't use GK Grandmasters. +1A is pretty meh in the grand scheme of things, and it does mean you can't take a psycannon (which is 3x the cost but some people do that). In future, I might just use the Stern model (Inq Rex is cool, but I'd rather have my kidney for this year) and use the saved points for 'Bionics', mainly for lulz (yeah, your Bloodthirster just ate him. Surprise, I rolled a 6, he was just pretending to be dead!).

[revnow]

Was wondering when this discussion would evolve into the special weapon issue.

 

Here's why it isn't.

 

- Adir makes the initial argument but doesn't take it far enough. If a player were to choose to use the storm shield to attack in the combat phase (as would be allowed under the rules for using 2 special weapons), the attacks would have no modifiers outside of the Grand Master's statline. They would behave and be resolved identical to a model wielding a "normal close combat weapon" (like a chainsword).

 

- The question is therefore whether the modification of the GM's invulnerable save to a +4 in close combat makes it a special weapon. The problem is that in order for it to be treated as a "special close combat weapon" the user would be forced to choose whether or not to use the save, because they are required to choose which weapon they are using. The wording of the storm shield's rules provides no basis for this, instead permanently modifying the invulnerable save to a +4 in close combat.

 

- Additionally, the rules state, "counts as a single handed weapon. . ." (I understand that I'm leaving out the explanatory RAI clause at the end, but that debate has been had already). The clause lists no modifiers for the weapon, only that it "counts as" a single handed weapon. It is not a special weapon nor is it even a normal weapon, it simply "counts as" a single handed weapon.

 

I realize that this entire debate is a tortured interpretation of the rules, but it is no more for one side than the other. The clause is vague because it was written for a rulebook 2 editions out of date, and now has potential new meaning in the hazy world of a 3rd Edition Codex's place in 5th Edition. If the issue becomes serious enough to warrant this level of discussion in an actual game I revert to the old adage. Try to work it out, roll on it, get a TO's ruling or whatever is neccessary to get the game going. The issue isn't worth stalling a game over.

[Dilgar]

...my...my eyes...is this real...can´t be...the arguments FOR that it gives +1A is again compelling, and I must say I agree with that said.

 

I might just give my GKT storm shields after this, thought they still are bad but who cares :)

 

Good call about the "choosing which" to use argument, hadn´t thought about it, and it seems clear as day, again

:D

 

...until Eddie comes and destroyes it again ;)

[Eddie Orlock]

I actually agree with you Eddie, but you might wanna tone it down a little. It's just a game, no one takes this to heart. I hope... ;)

I'll direct you to my sig quote. :D With almost nothing riding on the outcome for me as a Recreational Radical Witchhunter/would be Deathwatch player, I'm prepared to squander dozens of hours hashing out the finer points and practising 'rules lawyering'. Really this belongs in 'Official Rules', but that's a place that I try to avoid, they tend to get so incredible pedantic down there.

Was wondering when this discussion would evolve into the special weapon issue.

 

Here's why it isn't.

 

- Adir makes the initial argument but doesn't take it far enough. If a player were to choose to use the storm shield to attack in the combat phase (as would be allowed under the rules for using 2 special weapons), the attacks would have no modifiers outside of the Grand Master's statline. They would behave and be resolved identical to a model wielding a "normal close combat weapon" (like a chainsword).

 

- The question is therefore whether the modification of the GM's invulnerable save to a +4 in close combat makes it a special weapon. The problem is that in order for it to be treated as a "special close combat weapon" the user would be forced to choose whether or not to use the save, because they are required to choose which weapon they are using. The wording of the storm shield's rules provides no basis for this, instead permanently modifying the invulnerable save to a +4 in close combat.

Despite the fact that I refuse to close the door on it not being a 'Weapon' at all in the game sense, only one for list selection, the following will be on the pretext that it is.

 

The point that it doesn't alter the models statline is suspect. Under the current iteration of the rules, 'Sv' is the last entry on a figures statline. Thus, any alteration to this is an alteration to the stats of the figure. Just as +2 strength is. I'll submit that wielding the storm shield is not functionally identical to wielding a chainsword, as chainswords, and other 'Normal' weapons do not potentially provide an enhancement to the last stat.

 

As to whether there is a choice to invoke the shield, its description is full of conditional language and 'mays', there is no requirement that its save be employed against any incoming attacks. Further, it only conditionally modifies the save to 4+ against one opponent. A decidedly non-permanent enhancement.

 

Further, the 'Single Handedness' of a weapon is only at best tangentially related to whether it is 'special' or not. The description of 'Normal Weapons' includes examples of both two handed 'Normal Weapons' (eg. rifle butts) and one handed 'Normal weapons' (our beloved Chainswords). 'Normalness' is decided entirely on whether a weapon has rules that could affect the out come of the combat, and by improving the last value in the statline, which DH stormshields most certainly do.

 

Mind you, the above is predicated on calling it a 'weapon' outside of list construction as implied by note four in the first place.

[Dilgar]

It is a definitive 'Maybe' then ;)

 

It seems that it is a matter of which "rule" u choose to give more weight. Surprises me not (u know why).

 

Yup, if nothing else then this discussion IMHO doesn´t close either view, thus giving both interpretatios "right". I´m as happy as a DH can be in 5ed atm

[revnow]

I think that's probably where this is going to end up, Greyville USA.

 

For arguments sake.

 

@Eddie

- The reason I mentioned single handedness is because I thought I recalled a clause in the 5th Edition rules that states that weapons requiring "two hands" could not be equipped with other weapons to gain an additional attack. Ie Bolters and rifle butt-stocks. I didn't mean to imply that it affected the "special characteristic" of the weapon. You're absolutely right, it doesn't, I was attempting to cover my bases.

 

- I realize the for you the discussion fundamentally starts (and ends) at whether a SS is even a weapon as per subpoint 4 under the wargear section. It's the right place to start and a legitimate consideration, but one in which I think the both of us are diametrically opposed, so moving on.

 

- I'll need to check the appropriate wordings, but if "may" is appropriately placed within the clauses under consideration in the wargear section I would concede the point that there could be precedence to support choosing whether to activate the save, which would admittedly add another dimension to this discussion.

 

- The permanence of the save argument is conditional to the above potential placement of the word "may". My point was that while it's not a permanent modification like the SM Shield, the player cannot choose whether or not to activate it, meaning that the modification the weapon provides does not make it a special weapon, because you are forced to choose whether or not to use the special weapon.

 

- The point about the chainsword is still relevant because the resolution of wounds against enemy models is no different if a player were to choose to use a GM's SS than a chainsword or other "normal close combat weapon". The NFW is the only weapon of the two that modifies the ways wounds are caused, therefore it must be used as opposed to the Storm Shield, because the SS acts like a normal CCW in combat, the save modification aside.

 

- I still maintain that one of the strongest points against it being a special weapon is subpoint 4 and the wording "counts as a single handed weapon". While I understand this loops back to whether it is even a weapon; if we accept the premise that it is a weapon on face, that clause instructs that it simply counts as a single-handed weapon, providing absolutely no modifiers that would allow it to be considered a special weapon.

 

@Dilgar: The GM and BC are the only models in Codex: DH that could potentially benefit from dual wielding a Storm Shield. GKTs cannot take them along with NFWs, only THammers, which explicitly do not gain an extra attackas per the BRB.

[Eddie Orlock]

I think that's probably where this is going to end up, Greyville USA.

 

For arguments sake.

 

@Eddie

...

- The permanence of the save argument is conditional to the above potential placement of the word "may". My point was that while it's not a permanent modification like the SM Shield, the player cannot choose whether or not to activate it, meaning that the modification the weapon provides does not make it a special weapon, because you are forced to choose whether or not to use the special weapon.

 

- The point about the chainsword is still relevant because the resolution of wounds against enemy models is no different if a player were to choose to use a GM's SS than a chainsword or other "normal close combat weapon". The NFW is the only weapon of the two that modifies the ways wounds are caused, therefore it must be used as opposed to the Storm Shield, because the SS acts like a normal CCW in combat, the save modification aside.

 

- I still maintain that one of the strongest points against it being a special weapon is subpoint 4 and the wording "counts as a single handed weapon". While I understand this loops back to whether it is even a weapon; if we accept the premise that it is a weapon on face, that clause instructs that it simply counts as a single-handed weapon, providing absolutely no modifiers that would allow it to be considered a special weapon.

I would submit that under the 'it's a Weapon' interpretation, a character so armed would be free to elect to bash away with his shield and blithely ignore his halberd. It would be one of those few sidesteps around fifths mandate that you're no longer allowed to pull your punches to prolong assaults. Further, as a 'Special' weapon, if it is not the active one, its rules, stats, and modifiers are totally ignored. Including any enhancements to defences.

 

In effect, the 'Weapon' interpretation would prohibit the any Stormshield toting Grey Knight from using it alongside another weapon. Such models would be compelled to choose whether they're 'hammering' or 'blocking'.

 

With respect to the 'Chainsword thing', the shield would have a potential impact on the whole outcome via its ability to improve defences. Exempting one change from disqualification as 'Special' is myopic. Akin to saying: 'Except for the bit about negating armour saves, my powersword is identical to a chainsword and is therefore not 'Special'.'

 

Handedness is completely immaterial to this discussion. If stating something was 'One Handed' was enough to exempt it from 'Specialness' the entire first block of the armoury would be so exempted, everything from Anointed Weapons to Thunder Hammers inclusive.

 

While the troublesome note four provides no instruction that it's 'Special', it also provides no instruction that it's 'Normal'.

 

In Soviet Canuckistan, Grey Paint is Verbotten! ^_^

[Gentlemanloser]

Just to add;

 

Under the current iteration of the rules, 'Sv' is the last entry on a figures statline. Thus, any alteration to this is an alteration to the stats of the figure.

 

Unless this changed form 4th to 5th (and i've never checked), the Sv entry in a minis statline is for Armour Saves *only*.

 

An item of wargear supplying an Invulnerable save doesn't alter the statline at all. :devil:

[Eddie Orlock]

Unless this changed form 4th to 5th (and i've never checked), the Sv entry in a minis statline is for Armour Saves *only*.

I refute this by suggesting that it represents a models 'Best' save, as arcanely determined by the codices author. See Codex Deamonhunters PG's 24, 25, and 26, specifically the entries for 'Daemonhosts', 'Death-Cult Assassins', and ' Officio Assassinorum Operatives'. All of these entries have saves listed in their blocks, and all have notes indicating that these saves are invulnerable, not 'armour saves'. They're part of the figures statistical description, even if they've been omitted for (in)convenience.

 

Further, I've seen entries in other material listing multiple values, immediately at hand I have 4th ed codex:Chaos that lists the Bloodthirster as having a 'Sv' values of 3+/4+