Jarl Kjaran Coldheart Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 hey all, i'm reading the rule book, and stumbled upon something that seems straight forward but just doesnt "feel" right. the "specialist weapon" rule (page 42) says that "a model fighting with this weapon does not recieve +1 attack for fighting with two weapons unless both weapons have the Specialist Weapon rule". now does this mean i can have a model weild a lightning claw+power fist and get the +1 attack bonus? both have the specialist weapon rule, and i cant find anything that says otherwise. WLK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 That is indeed correct. A power fist and a lightning claw will grant +1 attack for 2 close combat weapons as they are both specialist weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunslinger87 Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 Correct, but most likely not as intended when written. I expect this will be FAQ'd, but may be wrong. Not that the rules always make sense (Relic Blade and Storm Shield) but in this case I think they did mean 'another weapon of the same type' with the special weapon rule. Reason why I think it makes no sense besides just not being continuous with the past: If you have 2 Power fists: 50 points generally - +1 Attack at I1 Sx2 2 LC : 30 points generally +1 Attack at I with rerolls If you have PF + LC +1 attack at I1, Sx2 OR +1 attack at I with rerolls - 40 points Absolutely illogical. You get the same and more for 10 points less than with two power fists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Mage Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 That happens all the time in GW codices though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thade Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 So obviously an oversight that I strongly recommend not taking advantage of it: it will put you in a bad light. <3 RAI is good for us. Safe to assume that like-weapons are required for +1A when the Specialist mod is involved. Talk it out locally, of course...prior to building new models. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 What the...? Where do all these RAI arguments keep coming from in the +OR+? Forget last edition. This was not an oversight and house rules have no bearing when the actual rule is discussed. To get the +1, all you need is to have two weapons that have the Specialist Weapon special rule. Since they both have it, there is no problem and you're good to go. New rules are new rules and old rules mean nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarl Kjaran Coldheart Posted July 8, 2012 Author Share Posted July 8, 2012 thanks guys. i am workin out the best way to equip my wolf lord now that his frost axe got nerfed (in my opinion, the +2 strength isnt worth losing his valuble I5). with the ap3 of the lightning claws, i wanted to give my lord a fighthing chance against terminators and others with 2+ armor, yet not sacrifice his I5. a lightning claw/power fist combo seemed lcool, and then i stumbled across the rules late last night. i may just do this. WLK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesI Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 What the...? Where do all these RAI arguments keep coming from in the +OR+? Forget last edition. This was not an oversight and house rules have no bearing when the actual rule is discussed. To get the +1, all you need is to have two weapons that have the Specialist Weapon special rule. Since they both have it, there is no problem and you're good to go. New rules are new rules and old rules mean nothing. Well, honestly, we don't know if its an oversight. But we know what the rules say. If it is an oversight, GW will fix it. Until then (if they do, it might be intentional) enjoy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morticon Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 What the...? Where do all these RAI arguments keep coming from in the +OR+? Forget last edition. This was not an oversight and house rules have no bearing when the actual rule is discussed. To get the +1, all you need is to have two weapons that have the Specialist Weapon special rule. Since they both have it, there is no problem and you're good to go. New rules are new rules and old rules mean nothing. Would like to "rah-rah" this in a big way. This is the OR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pingo Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 I don't know: RAW is absolutely what the OR forum is about but I hardly think it's fair to call out someone who is simply making the point that although this is absolutely watertight RAW, it might have been an oversight as it seems to them to be strange/very different/unusual/unfulffy/whatever. The poster wasn't making an argument, just a pointing out a potential caveat or venturing an interesting side issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morticon Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 I thought it was more in reference to the comment about other people viewing you in a bad light rather than anything directed at the OP. Could be mistaken though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pingo Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 I thought it was more in reference to the comment about other people viewing you in a bad light rather than anything directed at the OP. Could be mistaken though! Maybe it was. Not sure now! In any case: no one should be seen in a bad light for following clear RAW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunslinger87 Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 I thought it was more in reference to the comment about other people viewing you in a bad light rather than anything directed at the OP. Could be mistaken though! Maybe it was. Not sure now! In any case: no one should be seen in a bad light for following clear RAW. But that really wasn't the point here. In case it really was an oversight and the 'of the same type' is later added in an FAQ, it could really matter. But in a way completely different from what you guys were suggesting. let me elaborate. The rulebook has been out a week. Specialist weapons add +1. So a PF, LC combo is amazingly good. But something is fishy. Do I really want to convert/create new models right now with a PF+LC combo? Not really. What if the FAQ comes out next month and I have just spent a month converting, painting, playtesting something that is no longer relevant. I was just pitching in that you might not want to make lasting decisions when it might still change. By all means field them, everybody will agree that the rules are written as such. But after the whole history of paired LC, PF etc. and the points imbalance and honestly, no logic in the change, I think it is fair to be cautious. Nobody ever said anything about it being cheesy or whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pingo Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 I thought it was more in reference to the comment about other people viewing you in a bad light rather than anything directed at the OP. Could be mistaken though! Maybe it was. Not sure now! In any case: no one should be seen in a bad light for following clear RAW. But that really wasn't the point here. In case it really was an oversight and the 'of the same type' is later added in an FAQ, it could really matter. But in a way completely different from what you guys were suggesting. let me elaborate. The rulebook has been out a week. Specialist weapons add +1. So a PF, LC combo is amazingly good. But something is fishy. Do I really want to convert/create new models right now with a PF+LC combo? Not really. What if the FAQ comes out next month and I have just spent a month converting, painting, playtesting something that is no longer relevant. I was just pitching in that you might not want to make lasting decisions when it might still change. By all means field them, everybody will agree that the rules are written as such. But after the whole history of paired LC, PF etc. and the points imbalance and honestly, no logic in the change, I think it is fair to be cautious. Nobody ever said anything about it being cheesy or whatever. Yes, sorry, I totally agree with you. I was just saying, currently this is RAW so no-one should be criticised for using a PF+LC or whatever. Not that anyone was criticising anyway: it was just an slightly off-topic comment and I await a sound smiting for my transgression :D So: RAW, specialist weapons work differently to 5th Ed. as stated above. Caveat: this might be an error so holding the glue until an FAQ might be wise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunslinger87 Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 I thought it was more in reference to the comment about other people viewing you in a bad light rather than anything directed at the OP. Could be mistaken though! Maybe it was. Not sure now! In any case: no one should be seen in a bad light for following clear RAW. But that really wasn't the point here. In case it really was an oversight and the 'of the same type' is later added in an FAQ, it could really matter. But in a way completely different from what you guys were suggesting. let me elaborate. The rulebook has been out a week. Specialist weapons add +1. So a PF, LC combo is amazingly good. But something is fishy. Do I really want to convert/create new models right now with a PF+LC combo? Not really. What if the FAQ comes out next month and I have just spent a month converting, painting, playtesting something that is no longer relevant. I was just pitching in that you might not want to make lasting decisions when it might still change. By all means field them, everybody will agree that the rules are written as such. But after the whole history of paired LC, PF etc. and the points imbalance and honestly, no logic in the change, I think it is fair to be cautious. Nobody ever said anything about it being cheesy or whatever. Yes, sorry, I totally agree with you. I was just saying, currently this is RAW so no-one should be criticised for using a PF+LC or whatever. Not that anyone was criticising anyway: it was just an slightly off-topic comment and I await a sound smiting for my transgression :cuss So: RAW, specialist weapons work differently to 5th Ed. as stated above. Caveat: this might be an error so holding the glue until an FAQ might be wise. Sometimes people surprise me with their open mind and kindness... I've been active online for far too long :-D Edit: Thank you. You got exactly what I meant... I appreciate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morticon Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 :cuss thats the B&C for ya ^_^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.