Melee Challenge beast

[march10k]

Ah, crud...here we go again.

 

Without getting into whether or not you can have two thunderhammers in C: DA, the specialist weapon rule in no way says that you can have two of them.  It means that you don't get +1A for pairing a specialist weapon with, for example a pistol.  If you have base 2 attacks and a pistol, then adding a power sword gives you 3A.  Adding a power fist leaves you at 2A.  Or, taking the example of a chaplain.  If he pairs a power sword with his crozius arcanum, he gets +1A.  If he pairs a powerfist with his crozius arcanum, he does not get +1A. 

 

Are you suggesting that the text of the "specialist weapon" rule says "anyone running around with a specialist weapon may take a second one?" 

[Raztalin]

I may have missed the point here, but the way it reads to me is that if you want to spend 60 pts on 2 TH's then you can, and as they are both specialist weapons you do get the bonus attacks...otherwise if you only have 1 specialist weapon then you never get the extra attack ...similarly if you pair a TH with a LC (I believe this has the Specialist weapon rule too) then you get the bonus attacks but need to select which weapon you are attacking with.

 

Like I said I may have missed the contentious point here and just reiterating what you guys already know, in which case...sorry!!!

[Phoebus]

March10k, here is the text of the rule in question:

 

"The mightiest weapons only reach their full potential when wielded in pairs, as they require an entirely different battle stance from that of more common place weapons - such inconvenience is inevitably repaid with greater destructive potential.

 

A model fighting with this weapon does not receive +1 Attack for fighting with two weapons unless both weapons have the Specialist Weapon rule."

 

(Emphasis above is mine)

 

Your argument holds ground only if you completely ignore the first half of the text, and then only if you force yourself to assume that you can wield a Thunder Hammer and a Power Fist at the same time, but not two Thunder Hammers.

 

Going to our Codex, under the Armoury, it is plainly stated under Melee Weapons:

 

"A model may replace one weapon with one of the following:"

 

We know that the writers envisioned Specialist Weapons being used in pairs (but also in non-standard pairs). Thus, the Company Master can exchange each of his two starting weapons for a single weapon from the Melee Weapons list, without any other restriction.

 

I honestly don't see the room for debate/doubt. No offense!

[FerociousBeast]

Yes, you can take two thunder hammers. However, more interestingly, in 6E you can also gain +1A simply by taking another specialist weapon, it doesn't have to be the same type. So a TH and Lightning Claw, for example, would give +1A whichever weapon you chose to use in an assault phase.

 

The master above can't get +1A due to his storm shield.

[Phoebus]

Where the Monster Slayer of Caliban and the Mace of Redemption are concerned, the text under Chapter Relics is the same as under Melee Weapons. In my humble opinion, since the text of the Specialist Weapons rule shows that you CAN exchange two weapons for two Specialist Weapons, I think it stands to reason that you CAN exchange two weapons for two Relics - so long as they're not the same, since the rules make it clear that "only one of each Relic may be taken per army."

 

Now, is that the best usage of 75 points? And is it likely that the Chapter would see a single hero march off with TWO of its precious relics? That's up for debate. :)

[march10k]

Are you suggesting that the text of the "specialist weapon" rule says "anyone running around with a specialist weapon may take a second one?"

~facepalm~ I guess you are:

March10k, here is the text of the rule in question:

"The mightiest weapons only reach their full potential when wielded in pairs, as they require an entirely different battle stance from that of more common place weapons - such inconvenience is inevitably repaid with greater destructive potential.

A model fighting with this weapon does not receive +1 Attack for fighting with two weapons unless both weapons have the Specialist Weapon rule."

(Emphasis above is mine)

Your argument holds ground only if you completely ignore the first half of the text, and then only if you force yourself to assume that you can wield a Thunder Hammer and a Power Fist at the same time, but not two Thunder Hammers.

Oh, for the love of the Lion! First of all, the italicized text is fluff. It's not a rule. Secondly, the statement "lightning claws are better if you take two of them" does not in any way mean "you are allowed to take two of them." At best, it's a hint that at least one weapon with the "specialist weapon" rule is available in pairs somewhere in the 40k universe. Even then, it doesn't automatically mean that all of them are available in pairs to anyone and everyone. Since pairs of lightning claws are available on assault terminators, the reference to the existence of paired specialist weapons in the fluff text is fully satisfied. But who gives a damn? It's not a rule. If I say that HQ Characters are more likely to survive if you give them a storm shield, very few people are going to disagree with me. It's a basic truth. Does that then allow me to put one on my interrogator chaplain? If indeed DA are allowed to have dual specialist weapons (besides the termies with dual claws), it has nothing whatsoever to do with the text of the specialist weapon USR.

Since we're on the topic, do you really think a thunderhammer reaches its full potential when paired with another one? I tend to think they pair up nicely with a storm shield...

Some codexes apparently allow you to swop multiple weapons for thunderhammers, claws, fists, etc. Since GW failed to think things through and add "of the same type" to the specialist weapon rule, yes, pairing a claw with a fist gives you the best of both worlds...and AFIK, doesn't prevent you from also having a storm shield! That's one expensive character, though!

Phoebus,

You're about a week late to the debate over the meaning of the word "one," I won't get into the rules in C: DA with you.

/edit/ The text of the Haywire Grenade says

Haywire grenades release electromagnetic pulses that disable or destroy vehicles.

If "works best in pairs" is a rule that means that pairs are authorized, then the haywire grenade automatically achieves a minimum result of "immobilized." After all, it doesn't say they try to disable or destroy, it says they do disable or destroy. So if you hit the vehicle and fail to destroy it, then it's ruled immobilized, because that's the only other outcome mentioned in the "rule." Oh...wait...that's not a rule, that's fluff!

[Phoebus]

It's not a rule.

Consider the logical answer to the question I pose to you below, extracted from the Rule As Written:

"When does a model fighting with a weapon with the Specialist Weapon rule receive +1 Attack for fighting with two weapons?"

Your answer boils down to, "Only when they're fighting with a pair of weapons that were already assigned to the model in question." But that defeats the point of the Rule As Written. It requires for the intent behind the rule to be the exception to the rule.

If I say that HQ Characters are more likely to survive if you give them a storm shield, very few people are going to disagree with me. It's a basic truth. Does that then allow me to put one on my interrogator chaplain?

That's a red herring. You're conflating opinion with a rule whose text is repeated in the text box of every single weapon with the Specialist Weapon rule (I'm obviously working off of the digital version of the Codex).

As an aside, you're also misconstruing the example offered by the text in question. Meaning, the "fluff text" preceding the Specialist Weapon rule clearly refers to a weapon's potential as a weapon, whereas your example deals with the warrior's potential in regards to the sum of his equipment.

If "works best in pairs" is a rule that means that pairs are authorized, then the haywire grenade automatically achieves a minimum result of "immobilized."

You're conflating a statement referring to an optimal result with a statement referring to an intended effect, though. I mean, consider these two statements:

1. I can roller-skate much better with two roller-skates at the same time.

2. Roller-skates allow me to move on the street by rolling on wheels underneath my feet.

Do you see the difference?

Anyways, here's the part where I man up and concede half of this argument. Given the variance in the wording between Codex: Space Marines and Codex: Dark Angels, Rules As Written would indicate that, while a Codex Captain can trade both his initial weapons for a pair of Lightning Claws, a Company Master cannot:

"A model can replace his Bolt Pistol and/or Melee Weapon with one of the following."

"A model may replace one weapon with one of the following."

(emphasis mine)

The intent behind the Codex Captain is clear. The writers surely don't intend for the Captain to exchange both his Bolt Pistol and his Chainsword to get a Thunder Hammer - not when he could get one by sacrificing his Bolt Pistol or his Chainsword (meaning, one of the two). The intent behind the Company Master, though, is subject to interpretation at best, and the interpretation that would allow him to have a pair of Lightning Claws can't be reconciled by the difference in language between the two Codices.

I'm still not sure what purpose it would serve for a Company Master to not have access to a pair of Lightning Claws (much like I don't know what purpose it serves for only OUR Apothecary to give up his bolt pistol in order to have his Narthecium). And I do sympathize with those who would argue for a different intent than what the Rules As Written indicate, since in the previous edition a Company Master COULD have a pair of Lightning Claws (as shown in the last edition's FAQ).

Ultimately, though, touche, good sir... touche. Until (hopefully) the next FAQ, that is!

[[TA]Typher]

I can't believe this thread is still going.

[march10k]

 

It's not a rule.

 

Consider the logical answer to the question I pose to you below, extracted from the Rule As Written:

 

"When does a model fighting with a weapon with the Specialist Weapon rule receive +1 Attack for fighting with two weapons?"

 

Your answer boils down to, "Only when they're fighting with a pair of weapons that were already assigned to the model in question."  But that defeats the point of the Rule As Written.  It requires for the intent behind the rule to be the exception to the rule.

 

No, my answer does not mean that the fluff only ever refers to a model's starting equipment set.  There are codexes, such as C:UM, where a character with access to melee weapons from the armory can make two substitutions, ending up with two specialist weapons.  But the text of the specialist weapons rule in the BGB does not authorize a second specialist weapon, it is the and/or in C:UM that does so.  Anyway, the text you are using as the basis for your argument is fluff, so it's moot.  The only part of the specialist weapon USR entry that is actually a rule is the non-italicized text. 

 

 

 

If "works best in pairs" is a rule that means that pairs are authorized, then the haywire grenade automatically achieves a minimum result of "immobilized."

 

You're conflating a statement referring to an optimal result with a statement referring to an intended effect, though.  

 

It doesn't say anything about the intent of a haywire grenade, it only describes the outcome.  If that's a rule, and not fluff, then maybe the bit about specialist weapons being better in pairs is a rule, too...only, even then, it doesn't say you're allowed to have two of them, it only says that you're better off with two.  But, of course, the text you quoted as saying something that it doesn't even say in the first place is fluff, not a rule.

[Chaplain Lucifer]

Agree to disagree, move on and/or open a new thread in official rules section to quench all your thirst of rules debating. Here, no more.