imperial knights rule querry

[clanfield]

hi fellow adepts I need your help with this

 

the fist for the knight unwieldy right, however super heavy walkers follow all rules for walkers right

 

with the exceptions on the super heavy page (sorry rulebook is not to hand).

 

and walkers/monstrous creatures do not suffer from unwieldy (under walkers)

 

 

ergo the fist is not unwieldy ? my group are arguing this I /we have looked everywhere to see if we are right and this is were we are at con you guys offer some advice please

 

 

thank you

 

 

[Frater Cornelius]

The fist is not unwieldy. It is 'colossal', which means it always strikes at I1, regardless who wields it. It is a step above the regular unwieldy. Same goes for the D weapon the Bloodthirster can get. Edited July 11, 2015 by Immersturm

[clanfield]

ok thank you sorry was half asleep this morning

[Jolemai]

Happens to all of us, so don't apologise :)

 

It's easy to think that it's Unwieldy as it's a fist that strikes at INT 1, so you're probably not the only one who has thought it before :)

[jeffersonian000]

There is some argument that having the fist cause all of your attacks to strike at initiative 1, which means the Gallant always strikes at initiative 1. But no one plays it that way.

[Jolemai]

There really isn't.

[CommodusXIII]

How is that an issue? Don't you get to pick which weapon profile you're attacking with? So you can strike at unmodified initiative with the chainsword, but you don't get Hurl.

[clanfield]

I love the fist but that's then clinch for me chainswords here I come

[Lysere]

Weapons that aren't being used never get their special rules applied unless they specifically say otherwise.

[jeffersonian000]

The fist says all attack made by the model equipped with a fist attacks at Init 1. This is different wording that every other weapon in the game.

 

Colossal: A model fighting with this weapon Piles In and fights at Initiative step 1.

SJ

Edited July 11, 2015 by jeffersonian000

[Lysere]

"Fighting with this weapon" means the model is making use of said weapon in the fight sub phase. So no only the fist is affected by that rule.

[Frater Cornelius]

It is the same as me choosing between I5 Wolf Claw or I1 Power Fist with a Wolf Lord.

[jeffersonian000]

If you are getting an extra attack from the weapon, you are fighting with the weapon. GW could have advised us that when attacking with the Gauntlet, all attacks as well as pile in are at Initiative 1. However, they just stated "fighting with".

 

As I said, an argument can be made.

 

SJ

[Aspecti]

There is no argument whatsoever. Or are you also claiming that a character with a power fist and a lightning claw always strikes at I1 even when choosing to use the lightning claw?

[jeffersonian000]

Unwieldy

A model attacking with this weapon Piles In and fights at Initiative step 1, unless it is a Monstrous Creature or a Walker.

So, if a model attacks with an Unwieldy weapon, that model fights at I step 1. However, a model flighting with a Colossal weapon fights at I step 1. What's the difference between attacking with something and fighting with something? You might say there is no difference. Someone else might say there is. That's called an argument.

 

SJ

[Lysere]

The rule exists on the weapon. When choosing to make attacks and you have multiple melee weapons you must pick one. Only the rules for that weapon are applied. The bonus attack is provided by the melee rule. Gaining the bonus attack for two weapons does not mean you are using both weapons, you are using one, but having the second provides a bonus due to the melee rule itself. The act of having multiple weapons means nothing without that rule.

[CommodusXIII]

Similarly, the benefits of different weapons do not stack. If your character has a weapon with AP3 and another with Fleshbane, you can specify either benefit but not both - before rolling to hit, of course.

 

The bonus attack for two Melee weapons has nothing to do with the special rules of the weapons themselves. It's simply a bonus attack for having two. You don't have to use both weapons, just to be equipped with both.

Edited July 14, 2015 by CommodusXIII

[jeffersonian000]

Thanks to both of you restating rules that aren't in question. Those points are great, but are not what the argument is about. There is no contention on whether or not attacking with the Gauntlet is required. The issue I pointed out is that "fighting with" is not the same as "attacking with". Also, there are weapons in the game that grant abilities just from having the weapon equipped. My point is that simply having the Gauntlet equipped causes the model to gain the benefits and the penalties due to the "fighting with" language rather than if it said "attacking with".

 

Yes, I have already conceded that RAI most definitely implies that the penalties and benefits only occur when the Gauntlet is in use. Unfortunately, that is not how it is written. How it is written is vague, and can be legitimately interpreted to impose it's penalties even when not being used. This only effects the Gallant, and can be ignored due to it being an oddity, yet it is a valid read on the rules as written.

 

SJ

Edited July 15, 2015 by jeffersonian000