Teetengee Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 The unlike line makes them exclusive, as it says this rule, unlike the one that applies to other models.... Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/300684-total-walker-attacks-specialist-non-specialist/page/5/#findComment-3922110 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinsanity Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 So, I looked trough the list of Advanced Rules and found two that refer to fighting : Special Weapon, and Two-handed, the second of which might be able to shed some light on this issue... Two-handed A model attacking with this weapon never receives +1 Attack for fighting with two Melee weapons As it turns out, this seems to imply that there is a distinct difference between the terms attacking and fighting; as we all know, one cannot attack with two weapons in a single turn, but one can apparently fight with two. Keep in mind that these are the only two special rules that interract with the multiple weapons rules (the only other exception not being a special rule, but rather a unit type). So, while not specifically laid out, it appears that a model with more than one weapon fighhting in CC should be considered to be fighting with both, even thoughh he attacks only with one or the other. As such, a model armed with PFist and Chainsword would not get an extra weapon when swinging the sword rather than the fist. Unfortunately, this doesn't provide any clear answer to the question at hand (does the defiler get an extra attack for the scourge?). While I do have an opinion regarding what the intent seems to have been (and it goes against the resolution I have voiced so far), as we all know diacussing intent is never welcomed... Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/300684-total-walker-attacks-specialist-non-specialist/page/5/#findComment-3922232 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teetengee Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 In that case, I would argue as above for the defiler case, but opposite for the furioso case, for the reasons I specified. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/300684-total-walker-attacks-specialist-non-specialist/page/5/#findComment-3922241 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinsanity Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 I'd definitely say the libby dread never gets an extra attack (which is, frankly, stupid, but for some reason GW decided to give him a pfist instead of a dccw... Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/300684-total-walker-attacks-specialist-non-specialist/page/5/#findComment-3922277 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quixus Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 I'd definitely say the libby dread never gets an extra attack (which is, frankly, stupid, but for some reason GW decided to give him a pfist instead of a dccw...DCCWs no longer exist except in the rulebook for backwards compatibility. All dreadnoughts in 6th and 7th Edition codices have power fists. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/300684-total-walker-attacks-specialist-non-specialist/page/5/#findComment-3922366 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristoff Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 I'd definitely say the libby dread never gets an extra attack (which is, frankly, stupid, but for some reason GW decided to give him a pfist instead of a dccw...DCCWs no longer exist except in the rulebook for backwards compatibility. All dreadnoughts in 6th and 7th Edition codices have power fists. All the more reason to use them anyway to avoid these situations. Unless the inclusion of the Specialist Weapon was specifically used to limit the bonuses provided by multiple Weapons. Though, really, that only affects the Defiler. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/300684-total-walker-attacks-specialist-non-specialist/page/5/#findComment-3922765 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.