Chainsword extra attacks

[Angel_of_Blood]

Ok, so this is something that has come up in our hobby group at the moment.

 

Chainswords give an additional attack, using the statline of the chainsword. The question is, if you have multiple weapons, do you have to split and allocate one of your attacks to the chainsword in order to get the additional attack?

 

For example, a Khorne Bezerker has a chainsword and a chainaxe. He has 2 attacks base. Can he use both of these attacks with the superior chainaxe statline and then make a third attack with the chainsword for having one eqipped. OR. Does he have to split and get 1 attack with the chainaxe and use his second attack with the chainsword and thus gain an additional(and third) attack?

 

I though it was the latter option and was sure I had read it in one of the FAQ's, but I now can't see anything that says that. The closest I can find is::

 

"Q. If a model is equipped with two chainswords, do they get to

make 2 extra close combat attacks?

A. Yes (though both must be made with a chainsword)."

 

This presumably means both the additional attacks are using the chainsword statline. So doesn't help much.

 

Cheers for any comments, thoughts etc.

[Extropian]

He can make the 2 base with his axe, and the bonus one with the sword. Only the "extra" has to be made with the weapon that grants it.

[Ciler]

That has been hotly debated when the indexes came out. As far as I know, there hasn't been a clear ruling yet.

[Xenith]

When the model fights, it makes an extra attack with this weapon.

 

Not when it uses the weapon, but by virtue of being equipped with the weapon.

 

That's the rule as written anyway. Other weapons that have to be used to gain the bonus effect are explicit in their wording.

[Eddie Orlock]

That has been hotly debated when the indexes came out. As far as I know, there hasn't been a clear ruling yet.

Eh, what hot debate? I think we've been fairly consistent about this.

 

A model needs to 'Fight' while equipped with a chainsword, or similar, weapon. Simply 'attacking' with the weapon isn't enough.

 

Simple possession of such a weapon when you're fighting is enough, you don't need to dedicate base attacks to it.

[Ciler]

 

That has been hotly debated when the indexes came out. As far as I know, there hasn't been a clear ruling yet.

Eh, what hot debate? I think we've been fairly consistent about this.

 

A model needs to 'Fight' while equipped with a chainsword, or similar, weapon. Simply 'attacking' with the weapon isn't enough.

 

Simple possession of such a weapon when you're fighting is enough, you don't need to dedicate base attacks to it.

 

The world is a larger place than just the B&C ;)

 

For instance, my local GW shop in france plays it as you and  think it should be played (you only need to fight, not to specifically make an attack using the chainswsword to get the extra attack). Yet, the GW I visited in Ireland last month has players adamant that you should make an attack with the chainsword to unlock the bonus one.

 

I see your point, I agree with it, I'm just pointing that not everyone does and so the conciencous player should expect some people to disagree. And since there's been no definitive statement from the rule team...

[Eddie Orlock]

I've got a pretty good handle on just how impactful we are to the greater community.

 

However, the rules don't leave much room for redefinition based on negotiated consensus. Sometimes people just get it wrong and double-down on their interpretations. Ego is a funny thing when it comes to exploring the rules.

 

Regarding your looked for definitive statements, I'm sure if I dug deep enough in the archives around here I could dredge up a handful of case studies where initial common practice was, from the perspective of the rules design team, flat wrong. Since communication was poor, no clarification was issued as GW could not bring themselves to see it as ambiguous. Sometimes we at the B&C got it wrong. I think more often we were nearer the cutting edge if not a pioneer source in the community of the correct interpretation.

 

Can a million strong community of wargamers be wrong? In a word: Yes. By extension, the outcome of a rules debate cares precious little for poorly supported hearsay opinions.