I noticed that the wargear for a Big Mek is a shoota or slugga and a choppa...

You can replace the choppa with a Burna...

so can you have a shoota and a Burna, and use the shoota during the shooting phase and keep the Burna a PW during the Assault phase...also is a Burna a one handed or two handed weapon?

If the Burna is some how a one handed weapon, can you have an extra PW attack or does the Burna function like a PK and thus would require two to gain an extra attack...

QuietOrkmi wrote:I noticed that the wargear for a Big Mek is a shoota or slugga and a choppa...

Indeed.

You can replace the choppa with a Burna...

Correct

so can you have a shoota and a Burna, and use the shoota during the shooting phase and keep the Burna a PW during the Assault phase

Yes

...also is a Burna a one handed or two handed weapon?

No Longer relevent . 5th edition has no Such things as "One handed Weapons" or "Two handed Weapons" A burna is simply a Power Weapons (when used as such).

If the Burna is some how a one handed weapon, can you have an extra PW attack or does the Burna function like a PK and thus would require two to gain an extra attack...

A Burna is treated as a Power Weapon in assault (so long as you didn't fire it) and doesn't any clause restricting its bonus attack status, so yes, you would count as having a Power Weapon and Pistol, and therefore get the bonus attack. One note is that if you do fire the burna, it no longer counts as anything in assault (it doesn't count as a Normal CCW at any point) so if you fire the burna, you wont get a bonus attack that round because it wont be being used as a Power Weapon. Just something to keep in mind

As always, brought to you by your friendly neighbourhood GWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR!

Edit: Multiple Times because I cannot Spell for gak

Gwar! wrote:

...also is a Burna a one handed or two handed weapon?

No Longer relevent . 5th edition has no Such things as "One handed Weapons" or "Two handed Weapons" A burna is simply a Power Weapons (when used as such).

Incorrect.

BRB p.42 wrote:"If a model is using a two-handed close combat weapon (such as a rifle's butt or a two-handed battle axe), it may not use it together with another weapon.

This comes in to play with Big Choppas as well.

On the burnas though, it seems like it's a gray area, they're treated as power weapons which would imply that they're one handed weapons (especially as nothing specifically denotes that they are two-handed), but common sense and the way in which they are modeled would suggest that they are two handed weapons.

Of course, when has common sense entered into 40k?

So - I'm going to have to go with one-handed weapon, as a RAW interpretation anyways.

DebonaireToast wrote:... but common sense and the way in which they are modeled would suggest that they are two handed weapons.

One could say the same of storm bolters as well, since almost every model with one shows them being wielded with one hand yet they've always been two-handed weapons.

Simply put, the rules don't have a default for how many hands it takes to use a weapon and you can't depend on how it's modelled to make a determination either.

The comment about "2 handed Weapons" is because the only "2 handed weapons" are found in old Codex's, not the new ones.

Things like relic Blades are not "two handed" but state they cant get a bonus attack. Not the same thing.

And yeah, the Burna Says "is a power Weapon" which explicitly allows the extra attack as per the BRB

You can use Burna + slugga, but if you fire the burna, you won't get an extra attack from having 2 CCWs. Same goes for slugga + big choppa. I was told this by a GW employee.

Masaioh wrote: I was told this by a GW employee.

Sadly that means, well, nothing. I'm sure if you asked 5 GW Redshirts you'd get 7 different answers.

The rules are what we should follow, and that's what we have posted

Gwar! wrote:

Masaioh wrote: I was told this by a GW employee.

Sadly that means, well, nothing. I'm sure if you asked 5 GW Redshirts you'd get 7 different answers.

The rules are what we should follow, and that's what we have posted

It means that it would probably be allowed in a game. Are there RAW that contradict that statement? IIRC the codex says 'may replace choppa with big choppa'. Wouldn't that mean it's possible to have both a slugga and a big choppa?

Masaioh wrote:It means that it would probably be allowed in a game.

At that store maybe. Not necessarily anywhere else.

It doesn't work anywhere. On page 37 of the BRB it says under the heading Number of Attacks second bullet that, "models with two singlehanded weapons get an extra +1 attack." So models that say they are using a two handed like the Big Choppa can never gain an additional attack due to having an additional close combat weapon.

arinnoor wrote:It doesn't work anywhere. On page 37 of the BRB it says under Number of Attacks second bullet that, models with two singlehanded
weapons get an extra +1 attack.

What do you mean? The Burna counts as a Power Weapons, not a 2 Handed Power Weapon, so qualifies for an bonus attack when combined with a Pistol.

Yes but, the big choppa does not.

May statment was directed at this as to clarify.

Masaioh wrote:You can use Burna + slugga, but if you fire the burna, you won't get an extra attack from having 2 CCWs. Same goes for slugga + big choppa. I was told this by a GW employee.

arinnoor wrote:Yes but, the big choppa does not.

May statment was directed at this as to clarify.

Masaioh wrote:You can use Burna + slugga, but if you fire the burna, you won't get an extra attack from having 2 CCWs. Same goes for slugga + big choppa. I was told this by a GW employee.

Ah my Apologies. Yes, the Big Choppah doesn't allow a bonus attack because it is indeed a "2 Handed CCW".

This kind of outdated wording is pretty much the only reason why that line about 2 handed CCW is even in the BRB.

Ghaz wrote:One could say the same of storm bolters as well, since almost every model with one shows them being wielded with one hand yet they've always been two-handed weapons.

Simply put, the rules don't have a default for how many hands it takes to use a weapon and you can't depend on how it's modelled to make a determination either.

Storm bolters are a bit different actually since they are classified as "Assault" weapons, they would not be eligible for a bonus attack whether they were wielded with one, two, or four hands.

And I agree that the way weapons are modeled is not an adequate way to determine if they are one or two-handed....which is what I essentially said in the two lines of my post after the one you quoted.

The Big Choppa is a good example of this as up until the new Nob box Big Choppas really didn't look any different than regular choppas, even the picture of it in the wargear section of the ork dex looked like a one-handed weapon.

Gwar! wrote:The comment about "2 handed Weapons" is because the only "2 handed weapons" are found in old Codex's, not the new ones.

Things like relic Blades are not "two handed" but state they cant get a bonus attack. Not the same thing.

And yeah, the Burna Says "is a power Weapon" which explicitly allows the extra attack as per the BRB

Actually........

5th Edition SM Dex p. 99 wrote:
Relic blades are two-handed swords or axes sheathed in an armour-sundering power field.

Odd, that's a pretty new codex....the newest actually.

Masaioh wrote:You can use Burna + slugga, but if you fire the burna, you won't get an extra attack from having 2 CCWs. Same goes for slugga + big choppa. I was told this by a GW employee.

That makes perfect sense because by firing the burna you lose its status as a "power weapon" and it reverts back to being an "Assault" weapon which would not be eligible to give an extra attack to the wielder. If you fired the slugga however, as it is a pistol, you would be able to keep the bonus attack - and they would all be power weapon attacks.

5th Edition SM Dex p. 99 wrote:
Relic blades are two-handed swords or axes sheathed in an armour-sundering power field.

Yes you did notice the bit where that's the fluff of the weapon?

The actual RULES for relic blades are:
A relic blade counts as a power weapon whose hits are resolved at Strength 6. Due to its size and weight, a model wielding a relic blade cannot get an extra attack for an additional close combat weapon.

So, Odd, I dont see any reference to it being a Two Handed Close Combat weapons in the Rules? Do you?

Odd, that's a pretty new codex....the newest actually.

-Cough- Guard Codex is already completed and out to certain people, thereby making it the newest.

Storm bolters: you allways see them as 1 handed since its a termie / PAGK that is using them.
look at IG or sisters that use S.bolters


the big choppa speaks for its self.


burna is a grey area.
it doesent say weather its 1 or 2 handed, so it can go either way since it does not state anything.
allthough judging by its size i would say its 2 handed and does not confer an extra attack when used as a PW.
allthough there will be people who like to find loopholes, and with the way GW words everything its not hard.

JD21290 wrote:Storm bolters: you allways see them as 1 handed since its a termie / PAGK that is using them.
look at IG or sisters that use S.bolters


the big choppa speaks for its self.


burna is a grey area.
it doesent say weather its 1 or 2 handed, so it can go either way since it does not state anything.
allthough judging by its size i would say its 2 handed and does not confer an extra attack when used as a PW.
allthough there will be people who like to find loopholes, and with the way GW words everything its not hard.

There is no loophole to be found.

It says it is a Power Weapon. Not a two handed power Weapon. The default for Power Weapons is that they do give a bonus attack. Nice and simple

ok, how does a burna boy carry a burna?

this is just a slight sense thing here, rather than the lack of rules

JD21290 wrote:ok, how does a burna boy carry a burna?

this is just a slight sense thing here, rather than the lack of rules

The thing is, Logic doesn't ever apply to 40k, only what the rules say. The Burna may be carried 2 handed, but by the rules, a model with a Burna and Pistol counts as having a Power Weapon and a CCW, which confers the extra attack.

i know logic isnt allways 40K's strong point, but it does play a part in it.
burna's have a foregrip on them to allow an ork to support the weight of them.
the burna has a slightly adapted nozzle to allow it to function like this.
i dont see how an ork would need two hands to fire it, but only a single one to wield it in combat.

it "counts" as a PW, but in effect its still a burna.
counts as and what a weapon is are 2 very different things.

sorry about slow reply, had to shoot down to the shops and get some smokes.

Gwar! wrote:

5th Edition SM Dex p. 99 wrote:
Relic blades are two-handed swords or axes sheathed in an armour-sundering power field.

Yes you did notice the bit where that's the fluff of the weapon?

The actual RULES for relic blades are:
A relic blade counts as a power weapon whose hits are resolved at Strength 6. Due to its size and weight, a model wielding a relic blade cannot get an extra attack for an additional close combat weapon.

So, Odd, I dont see any reference to it being a Two Handed Close Combat weapons in the Rules? Do you?

I would say that it is pretty well understood to be the case as it is mentioned in the "fluff," as you so kindly pointed out, and the rules specifically:

Due to its size and weight, a model wielding a relic blade cannot get an extra attack for an additional close combat weapon.

is essentially a rephrasing of the rules for two-handed weapons, but as always your premise is ironclad.

The codex says they are two-handed weapons and they abide by a codex-specific version of the rules for two-handed weapons, but it does not say that they are two-handed weapons in the appropriate paragraph, so obviously they are really one-handed weapons. Those dirty tricksters at GW... I'm drafting a letter of complaint to Matthew Ward right at this moment. My marine captain may never recover from the psychological trauma.

Gwar! wrote:-Cough- Guard Codex is already completed and out to certain people, thereby making it the newest.

Ok. I'm going to concede that a lot of these arguments are just for the sake of argument. I enjoy debate just for the sake of debate, as long as its at least mostly good-natured and constructive, and it seems that many others on this forum do as well. But...really? Come on now...

I concede... I should have said: "Odd, that's a pretty new codex....the newest one that's actually been released and available for purchase by the unwashed masses and not just store owners and company insiders who get releases over a month early."

My fault...should have been more clear.

DebonaireToast wrote:Storm bolters are a bit different actually since they are classified as "Assault" weapons, they would not be eligible for a bonus attack whether they were wielded with one, two, or four hands.

From page 37 of the Warhammer 40,000 5th edition rulebook:

+1 Two Weapons: Engaged models with two singlehanded weapons (typically a close combat weapon and/or pistol in each hand) get an extra +1 attack.

I see nothing here that would disallow a single-handed Assault weapon from granting an extra attack. Sure, some of the later rules may cast some doubt on the subject, but they don't definitively answer the question. Plus in 4th edition any two single-handed weapons would have provided the extra attack.

Gwar! wrote:It says it is a Power Weapon. Not a two handed power Weapon. The default for Power Weapons is that they do give a bonus attack.

Please show us where in the Warhammer 40,000 5th edition rulebook where power weapons are stated to be single-handed weapons.

ghaz, you just fethed yourself over mate :(

"A close combat weapon and/ or a pistol"

a storm bolter is just a standard assault weapon.

Please read all of the quote before you reply:

typically a close combat weapon and/or pistol...

'Typically' does not mean 'exclusively'.

no, but that allows for weapons that include special rules that may give + 1 attack when combined with a pistol / CC weapon.


we could then start giving marines bolters in 1 hand and a chainsword in the other to simply get another attack if the rules start getting broken.

The rules already are 'broken'. It's just in past editions we knew these weapons were two-handed weapons because they were defined as such in the Armoury section of the codices. GW just made the assumption that was good enough and never defined what they were in the new codices.

i know, i hated losing the X handed from it.
made life simple, however, when a model couldnt carry anymore than 1 two handed weapon and 1 single, or 2 single, it was a bit annoying, im sure in 40k the holster is still around

+1 Two Weapons: Engaged models with two singlehanded weapons (typically a close combat weapon and/or pistol in each hand) get an extra +1 attack.

Ghaz wrote:I see nothing here that would disallow a single-handed Assault weapon from granting an extra attack. Sure, some of the later rules may cast some doubt on the subject, but they don't definitively answer the question. Plus in 4th edition any two single-handed weapons would have provided the extra attack.

I admit that I wasn't aware of that - I had always read that as two CCWs. That is some seriously shoddy/inconsistent writing on GWs part as, taken completely RAW anyways, it pretty much makes pistols pointless as :

BRB p.29 wrote:All pistols are effectively Assault 1 weapons with a range of 12" (unless differently specified in their profile.) In addition a pistol counts as a close combat weapon in the Assault phase

So...if one-handed assault weapons can count towards giving a model an extra attack in close combat, why have pistols as a weapon type at all?

Because as Ghaz mentioned, they don't tell us what weapons are one-handed! So my take on it anyways...Pistols are one-handed assault weapons...assault weapons are two-handed for purposes of determining bonus attacks. But that's just my stab at RAI.

EDIT: Fixed quote.

Because as Ghaz mentioned, they don't tell us what weapons are one-handed! So my take on it anyways...Pistols are one-handed assault weapons...assault weapons are two-handed for purposes of determining bonus attacks. But that's just my stab at RAI.

i agree 100% with this
seems they rather write up an elaborate story now describing how its too heavy so it does not add +1 attack.
why not just fething say its 2 handed!?

Ghaz wrote:

Gwar! wrote:It says it is a Power Weapon. Not a two handed power Weapon. The default for Power Weapons is that they do give a bonus attack.

Please show us where in the Warhammer 40,000 5th edition rulebook where power weapons are stated to be single-handed weapons.

I didnt realise I had to, considering that the codex doesnt say its 2 handed, so I assume we just use the regular rules for power weapons, which allow the bonus attack. Pardon me if playing by the rules offends you.

Most people play it that ranged weapons (except pistols) are two-handed while close combat weapons and pistols are single-handed unless noted otherwise. I have no problem with that as a house rule, I just wish the rulebook actually clarified it.

Also note that the 3rd edition rulebook did have that section worded differently. From page 63 of the Warhammer 40,000 3rd edition rulebook:

+1 Two Weapons: Models in base-to-base contact with a pistol/close combat weapon in each hand have an extra +1 Attack.

I have no idea why they decided to change the wording for fourth edition.

Gwar! wrote:I didnt realise I had to, considering that the codex doesnt say its 2 handed, so I assume we just use the regular rules for power weapons, which allow the bonus attack. Pardon me if playing by the rules offends you.

You're not 'playing by the rules' because you don't have a rule that says a weapon is single-handed if it's not listed as being two-handed.

Ghaz wrote:Most people play it that ranged weapons (except pistols) are two-handed while close combat weapons and pistols are single-handed unless noted otherwise. I have no problem with that as a house rule, I just wish the rulebook actually clarified it.

Also note that the 3rd edition rulebook did have that section worded differently. From page 63 of the Warhammer 40,000 3rd edition rulebook:

+1 Two Weapons: Models in base-to-base contact with a pistol/close combat weapon in each hand have an extra +1 Attack.

I have no idea why they decided to change the wording for fourth edition.

Gwar! wrote:I didnt realise I had to, considering that the codex doesnt say its 2 handed, so I assume we just use the regular rules for power weapons, which allow the bonus attack. Pardon me if playing by the rules offends you.

You're not 'playing by the rules' because you don't have a rule that says a weapon is single-handed if it's not listed as being two-handed.

The thing is, its not being listed as Two handed. That's all that matters. The rule book has 3 phrases of interest here. The one regarding 2 hand weapons that disallows any bonus attack if it is a 2 handed weapon, the rules for Power Weapons and the rules for using a Normal and Special Weapon (All Found on Page 42).

Is the Burna a Two handed CCW: No, as it is not specified in the codex (like for example the Big Choppa)
Is the Burna a Single Handed CCW: Again, its not specified.
Is the Burna a Power Weapons: Yes.
Does using a Power Weapon that is not "Two Handed" and doesn't have a special rule saying otherwise (Like a Relic Blade) with a Pistol allow a Bonus attack: Yes.

So, by the rules, unless it is Specifically mentioned to be two handed, its not, and eligible for bonus attacks for being paired with another weapon (subject to the restrictions regarding PowerFists, Lightning Claws etc as well as a weapons own special rules). Please next time don't accuse me of "not playing by the rules" without backing it up.

Is the Burna a Two handed CCW: No, as it is not specified in the codex (like for example the Big Choppa)
Is the Burna a Single Handed CCW: Again, its not specified.
Is the Burna a Power Weapons: Yes.
Does using a Power Weapon that is not "Two Handed" and doesn't have a special rule saying otherwise (Like a Relic Blade) with a Pistol allow a Bonus attack: Yes.

A weapon that is fired with 2 hands does not become a single handed weapon when you want it to.
take the standard kroot rifles for example.
2 handed weapon that allows the +1 extra attack due to blades fitted on the weapon.


do not start that "it can because it doesent say i cant" argument, as that works both ways and gets us nowhere.

Is the Burna a Power Weapons: Yes.

no.
the nozzle is the power weapon, the burna is a form of flamethrower.

JD21290 wrote:

Is the Burna a Two handed CCW: No, as it is not specified in the codex (like for example the Big Choppa)
Is the Burna a Single Handed CCW: Again, its not specified.
Is the Burna a Power Weapons: Yes.
Does using a Power Weapon that is not "Two Handed" and doesn't have a special rule saying otherwise (Like a Relic Blade) with a Pistol allow a Bonus attack: Yes.

A weapon that is fired with 2 hands does not become a single handed weapon when you want it to.
take the standard kroot rifles for example.
2 handed weapon that allows the +1 extra attack due to blades fitted on the weapon.


do not start that "it can because it doesent say i cant" argument, as that works both ways and gets us nowhere.

Is the Burna a Power Weapons: Yes.

no.
the nozzle is the power weapon, the burna is a form of flamethrower.

No, the "Nozzle" isn't anything. Please stop bringing fluff into a rules debate.

From a Rules standpoint, the Burna "Counts as a Power Weapon".

Nowhere does it say the Burna is a two handed weapon.

Having a Power Weapon that isn't two handed (since the codex never says it is, it isn't. Doesn't mean its one handed, but its not two handed. That's what matters) along with a pistol allows a bonus attack, as detailed in the rule regarding fighting with a Special Weapon and Normal Weapon on page 42.

ok, lets do it your way shall we, no fluff atall.

WYSIWYG, its a rule right? burna boyz hold the burnas with 2 hands.
if it was 1 handed they would also have a close combat weapon in thier rules rather than just the burna.

and now down to your style: nowhere does it say that burna's are 1 handed weapons.



allthough, all of this so far over a single extra attack from a big mek, seems kind of petty

JD21290 wrote:

Is the Burna a Power Weapons: Yes.

no.
the nozzle is the power weapon, the burna is a form of flamethrower.

Yes, and RAI wise you are probably correct, but the problem lies in the lack of elaboration in the Ork codex.

It just says "A burna may be used in the shooting phase with the profile below, or as a power weapon in an assault." And since there is no further explanation of what kind of power weapon it, is or any additional special rules like in the relic blade example, we must use the term generically. This brings us back to page 42: Special Close Combat Weapons which implies that they can be used with another CCW (or one-handed weapon as the case may be) for a bonus attack in close combat.

There is nothing in the codex that says a burna is a two-handed weapon, the only evidence to support such claims are the burna boy models,but as we've established a few times already: common sense rarely enters into these disputes.

Fluff-wise there is no such thing as consistency when it comes to Ork equipment, and their engineering skills (think it works and it will!) could be capable of manufacturing one-handed burnas.

EDIT: I has been ninja'd.

@ JD: Yes, WYSIWYG would be an issue for Burna boys, but they are also not armed with a slugga as well. The discussion was about Big Meks who can be armed with a burna and a slugga, which would have to be converted anyways and could be modeled as such.

JD21290 wrote:ok, lets do it your way shall we, no fluff atall.

WYSIWYG, its a rule right? burna boyz hold the burnas with 2 hands.
if it was 1 handed they would also have a close combat weapon in thier rules rather than just the burna.

and now down to your style: nowhere does it say that burna's are 1 handed weapons.

allthough, all of this so far over a single extra attack from a big mek, seems kind of petty

So what about the Mek with a Burna and Pistol? If I model him with the Burna In one hand, does that make it a one handed weapon?

And yes you are correct, nowhere does it say they are a one handed weapon. It says they are a Power Weapon. Read the rules for Power Weapons and close combat weapons in general please. Unless it is said to be two handed, it is not two handed. It doesn't matter that its not being stated as 1 handed, because its only being 2 handed that makes a difference.

So what about the Mek with a Burna and Pistol? If I model him with the Burna In one hand, does that make it a one handed weapon?

if i model my marines with a bolter in 1 hand, does this mean i can use a bolter and CC weapon for +1 attack?



no Gwar!, it works both ways.
if a weapon does not state how it functions (single or 2 handed) then you cannot just say it is, it also does not state it isnt, meaning GW need to FAQ this.
it is part of a weapon that allready has a primary function.


allthough, i wouldnt really care if someone took this against me, +1 attack from a mek is hardly effective, also, your giving up the option for a KFF or SAG to take it, so im more than happy for people to do this

JD21290 wrote:if a weapon does not state how it functions (single or 2 handed) then you cannot just say it is, it also does not state it isnt, meaning GW need to FAQ this.
it is part of a weapon that allready has a primary function.

Emperors bowels you arent listening.

I have not at any point said that the Burna is a One handed or Two handed weapon. It is a Power Weapon. Power Weapons that are not 2 Handed Allow the bonus attack. Read the rules on page 42.

What part of that do you not understand. It doesn't have to be 1 handed, its just has to not be 2 Handed.

Ghaz wrote:

+1 Two Weapons: Engaged models with two singlehanded weapons (typically a close combat weapon and/or pistol in each hand) get an extra +1 attack.

I see nothing here that would disallow a single-handed Assault weapon from granting an extra attack. Sure, some of the later rules may cast some doubt on the subject, but they don't definitively answer the question. Plus in 4th edition any two single-handed weapons would have provided the extra attack.

Everyone takes just that part whilst ignoring something else in the rules on the very same page:

"Some models are equipped with two single-handed weapons they can use in close combat, with the rules given below for the different possible combinations."

Emphasis mine. There are no rules allowing models to use Assault Weapons in Combat at all, only Pistols(with exceptions such as the Burna) have a relevant rule allowing them to be used in Combat. Just being 1-handed isn't enough, it has to be able to be used in close combat(with rules to back it up) as well.

This brings us back to page 42: Special Close Combat Weapons which implies that they can be used with another CCW (or one-handed weapon as the case may be) for a bonus attack in close combat

The rules you're referring to have nothing to do with how many hands it takes to use a weapon. By your logic, a power fist would be a two handed weapon if you tried to use it with anything other than another power fist. It's not, obviously. How many hands it takes to use a weapon is a completely separate set of rules.

Platuan4th wrote:
Everyone takes just that part whilst ignoring something else in the rules on the very same page:

"Some models are equipped with two single-handed weapons they can use in close combat, with the rules given below for the different possible combinations."

Emphasis mine. There are no rules allowing models to use Assault Weapons in Combat at all, only Pistols(with exceptions such as the Burna) have a relevant rule allowing them to be used in Combat. Just being 1-handed isn't enough, it has to be able to be used in close combat(with rules to back it up) as well.

I agree with you whole-heartedly - this is how it was intended and how it should be played.

However, later on that same page (p.42) under "two normal close combat weapons" refers the reader back to page 37, which is where the passage Ghaz quoted about two single-handed weapons is located. Which is why its simply a case of murky and inconsistent writing on behalf of GW imho.

Ghaz wrote:

This brings us back to page 42: Special Close Combat Weapons which implies that they can be used with another CCW (or one-handed weapon as the case may be) for a bonus attack in close combat

The rules you're referring to have nothing to do with how many hands it takes to use a weapon. By your logic, a power fist would be a two handed weapon if you tried to use it with anything other than another power fist. It's not, obviously. How many hands it takes to use a weapon is a completely separate set of rules.

...Eh?

I don't follow what you're trying to say.

The Power fist has a special exemption, on the same page:

BRB p. 42 -A Normal and a Special Weapon wrote:"Power fists, thunder hammers, and lightning claws are an exception to this. Only a second power fist, thunder hammer, or lightning claw can confer a bonus attack to a model equipped with one of these weapons"

By the way, since very few weapons are defined as either one or two handed, the default is...

Neither.

Simple. You're trying to use the rules that let you gain an extra attack with a power weapon as proof it's single handed. By that logic if you can't get a bonus attack it must be a two handed weapon. Your logic makes a powe fist a two handed weapon with anything other than another power fist. That's false. How many hands a weapon takes to use has no bearing on the rules you're trying to use to prove that a power weapon is a single handed weapon unless noted othewise.

Centurian is correct. There is no 'default'.

Ok. Only, I wasn't trying to prove that "if you can't get a bonus attack it must be two-handed."

I was trying to prove that a Big Mek armed with a burna (used as a power weapon) and a slugga would gain a bonus attack in close combat.

The two-handed business was addressing JD's argument that burnas were two-handed (and as such did not benefit from the rules under the heading "Fighting with two Single-handed Weapons" on p. 42)because the burna boy models wielded them with two hands.

Burnas, when used in close combat as power weapons fall under the "special close combat weapon" category. If a model were then armed with a burna and a pistol, it would fall under the "A Normal and a Special Weapon" rules on p. 42.

The power fist is an exemption to this rule - as I quoted earlier in the thread.

I agree that there is no "default" for one or two handed weapons.
Honestly, I think that we all agree - mostly anyways - but the main points have been muddled in secondary arguments.

Now to hop in the time machine for a second:

As to your earlier assertion about one-handed assault weapons potentially being able to grant bonus attacks when used in conjunction with a CCW - the rulebook is murky as we've established, but the quick reference sheet in the back of the book is very clear:

Under Weapon Type Summary: Pistol

"May fire once in the Shooting phase and then assault the same enemy unit in the Assault Phase.
Counts as an additional weapon in close combat"

Weapon Type Summary: Assault

"May fire in the Shooting phase and then assault the same enemy unit in the Assault phase."

And as I've been trying to point out it's not because of how many hands it takes to use a power weapon that allows it to gain an extra attack just like it's not how many hands it takes to use a power fist that prevents it from gaining an extra attack if not used with another power fist.

As for the Quick Reference Sheet it's just that. A reference. The actual rules will always trump the reference sheet and nothing exempts assault (or heavy) weapons from providing an extra +1 attack in close combat.

Ghaz wrote:And as I've been trying to point out it's not because of how many hands it takes to use a power weapon that allows it to gain an extra attack just like it's not how many hands it takes to use a power fist that prevents it from gaining an extra attack if not used with another power fist.

No, the number of hands needed to use a power weapon has nothing to do with allowing it to gain an extra attack - it is using it in conjunction with another close combat weapon.
The thing is: the rules for gaining that bonus attack by using the power weapon with another weapon fall under the rules for "Fighting with Two Single Handed Weapons."

And that section begins with (yet again):

BRB p. 42 wrote:Some models are equipped with two single-handed weapons they can use in close combat, with the rules given below for the different possible combinations. Of course, if a model is using a two-handed close combat weapon (such as a rifle's butt or a two-handed battle axe), it may not use it together with another weapon

As to the reference sheet: yes, it is just a reference sheet, but the fact that it is physically in the rulebook adds to its credibility somewhat in my opinion, but to each his own I suppose.

But at this point we're not contributing anything at all to the original topic of this thread.

We are just shouting the same arguments at one another which, given the way its been going so far, will not likely persuade the other party to change their view.
So, I've said my piece - I'm done unless you want to start a new YMDC thread on the topic of one-handed assault weapons granting bonus attacks when used with another one-handed weapon or one of the other issues which has come up in this discussion.

Soooo...

What? We all agree that Burna+Slugga confers a bonus attack?

hmm... so are we going to keep going back and fourth until a special guest shows up and converts everyone to that side... not trying to be a smart-aleck, just relatively new to the forums as I have been on for less than 1 year...

The reason I am asking is that I was thinking about making my HQ slot have a PW without spending enough points to buy a 10-15 Ork strong mob... and my recent games have shown me that a Warboss with a PK and a Nob with a PK in the same unit is pretty much overkill for the points that it is worth compared to what the mob can take on...

DebonaireToast wrote:No, the number of hands needed to use a power weapon has nothing to do with allowing it to gain an extra attack - it is using it in conjunction with another close combat weapon.

Yes, it does have everything to do with it because you only get the bonus attack for using two single-handed weapons. You can't use it in conjunction with another weapon if it's a two-handed weapon.

The thing is: the rules for gaining that bonus attack by using the power weapon with another weapon fall under the rules for "Fighting with Two Single Handed Weapons."

And that section never once mentions power weapons, does it? No. It never mentions power weapons. So once again, look at the rules for power weapons under the heading "Special Close Combat Weapons" and tell us where it says that they're all single-handed weapons unless noted otherwise.

Well...I said I was done...but- gahh..

Ghaz wrote:

DebonaireToast wrote:No, the number of hands needed to use a power weapon has nothing to do with allowing it to gain an extra attack - it is using it in conjunction with another close combat weapon.

Yes, it does have everything to do with it because you only get the bonus attack for using two single-handed weapons. You can't use it in conjunction with another weapon if it's a two-handed weapon.

...You realize that I said the exact same thing? Even quoted that rule? Nice selective quoting - again.

and how does that mesh with your earlier argument that:

Ghaz wrote:it's not because of how many hands it takes to use a power weapon that allows it to gain an extra attack

Ghaz wrote:

The thing is: the rules for gaining that bonus attack by using the power weapon with another weapon fall under the rules for "Fighting with Two Single Handed Weapons."

And that section never once mentions power weapons, does it? No. It never mentions power weapons. So once again, look at the rules for power weapons under the heading "Special Close Combat Weapons" and tell us where it says that they're all single-handed weapons unless noted otherwise.

Actually - it does mention a "normal weapon and a special weapon," and power weapons are listed under the header "Special Close Combat Weapons" on the same page.

A normal and a special weapon, p. 42 wrote:
These models gain one additional attack. All of their attacks, including the bonus attacks benefit from the special weapon's bonuses.

Ghaz wrote:Yes, it does have everything to do with it because you only get the bonus attack for using two single-handed weapons.

That's 4th edition thinking, Ghaz.

Page 37 says that you get +1 attack for using two single-handed weapons. Fair enough, although it's important to note that it doesn't say that you only ever get +1 for two single-handed weapons, and can't get it for any other reason.

Page 42, which outlines specifically how the different categories of weapons work actually says that you get +1 attack for having a Special CCW and a Normal CCW. It does not require them to be single-handed... it just requires them to not be two-handed.

So a model armed with a Burna (power weapon) and slugga (pistol) gains +1 attack.

He doesn't get +1 for having two single-handed weapons, since neither of his weapons are ever actually defined as such.
He gets +1 because he has a Special CCW and a Normal CCW, and neither are defined as two-handed.

DebonaireToast wrote:...You realize that I said the exact same thing? Even quoted that rule? Nice selective quoting - again.

No. You did not say the exact same thing unless you're in some alternate bizarro universe. Saying "... the number of hands needed to use a power weapon has nothing to do with allowing it to gain an extra attack ..." is not the same as "... Yes, it does have everything to do with it..." So once again, the number of hands needed to use a power weapon has EVERYTHING to do with allowing it to gain an extra attack. If it's not single-handed, it will not provide an extra attack.

DebonaireToast wrote:...Actually - it does mention a "normal weapon and a special weapon," and power weapons are listed under the header "Special Close Combat Weapons" on the same page.

And yet again, there are other 'special close combat weapons' than power weapons. It still does not mean that every special close combat weapon is single-handed. All that means is that if the model is using a single-handed normal weapon and a single-handed special weapon then those rules apply. They in no way, shape or form mean that all special weapons default to being single-handed.

insaniak wrote:Page 42, which outlines specifically how the different categories of weapons work actually says that you get +1 attack for having a Special CCW and a Normal CCW. It does not require them to be single-handed... it just requires them to not be two-handed.

Which requires an undefined third type of weapon. So where are these "not one or two handed" weapons mentioned in the rules? Also pay attention to the header that says "FIGHTING WITH TWO SINGLE-HANDED WEAPONS".

Ghaz wrote:

insaniak wrote:Page 42, which outlines specifically how the different categories of weapons work actually says that you get +1 attack for having a Special CCW and a Normal CCW. It does not require them to be single-handed... it just requires them to not be two-handed.

Which requires an undefined third type of weapon.

No it doesn't.

All the rules require is that the weapons not be two-handed.

It doesn't matter what type of weapon it is beyond that. If the model has a Special CCW and a normal CCW, they get +1 attack unless either of those weapons are two-handed.

So where are these "not one or two handed" weapons mentioned in the rules?

They're not. That's kind of the point.

Most weapons simply aren't defined any more. There's absolutely no way of knowing whether most specific weapons are one or two handed.

Fortunately, it doesn't matter. If the rules only specifically prohibit the +1 attack if the weapon is two handed, then you only don't get the bonus if the weapon is specifically listed as two-handed. If it's listed as something else, or not listed as requiring any specific number of hands, then the rules simply doesn't apply.

Also pay attention to the header that says "FIGHTING WITH TWO SINGLE-HANDED WEAPONS".

I did. Given that they don't actually define the majority of weapons in the game as single-handed weapons any more, the only logical conclusion is that the header is referring to 'single-handed' as being the 'default' mode of close combat weapon.

Otherwise, you don't actually get the bonus with anything if you're using a 5th ed Codex, as nothing is defined by the rules as specifically being single-handed.

Yes, it does require a third type of weapon. What support do you have that a weapon can be neither a one- or two-handed weapon? Why don't the rules ever mention that a weapon doesn't have to be either one- or two-handed? You're trying to cover GW's shoddy writing with rules that you can't prove exists.

Otherwise, you don't actually get the bonus with anything if you're using a 5th ed Codex, as nothing is defined by the rules as specifically being single-handed.

Your own position does the exact same thing. You wouldn't use the rules for fighting with two single-handed weapons if you're not fighting with two single-handed weapons. It doesn't say "FIGHTING WITH TWO NON TWO-HANDED WEAPONS" after all.

Ghaz wrote:What support do you have that a weapon can be neither a one- or two-handed weapon?

Other than the fact that the rules don't require it, you mean?

What support do you have that a weapon must be defined as a set number of hands?

Why don't the rules ever mention that a weapon doesn't have to be either one- or two-handed?

Why don't the rules ever mention that a weapon can be painted blue?

Because it doesn't matter. If you follow the rules as presented, the number of hands required to hold a close combat weapon only matters if the weapon is specifically defined as two-handed.

Your own position does the exact same thing. You wouldn't use the rules for fighting with two single-handed weapons if you're not fighting with two single-handed weapons.

My own position does nothing of the sort, because my own position puts an interpretation on the meaning of the section title that allows the rules to actually function.
Yours stops any model from any 5th edition codex from ever receiving the +1 bonus for two weapons.

One of these is useful. You can call that 'covering up' for GW if you like. I'll call it reading the rules in a way that allows the game to not fall into lunacy. Everybody wins.

All these posts and no one has made this connection:

P.37; Number of attacks; "+1 Two weapons: Engaged models with two single handed weapons (typically a close combat weapon and/or a pistol) get an extra +1 attack."

"Typically a close combat weapon and/or a pistol" must mean that close combat weapons and pistols are single-handed. Not normal close combat weapons, not special close combat weapons, just close combat weapons. So, by this reasoning, only weapons that specifically say that they disallow an additional attack or say they are two-handed don't give an additional attack.

Hey I would like to note there is no such thing as a single handed power weapon. Only two handed or just a power weapon. A burna is called a power weapon if you did not shoot, not a 2 handed PW and as so it falls under the rules of a Pw and a CCW.

Ian1138 wrote:"Typically a close combat weapon and/or a pistol" must mean that close combat weapons and pistols are single-handed.

Not quite.

It means that single-handed weapons are generally close combat weapons or pistols. That doesn't automatically work in reverse.

Apples are typically green or red. That doesn't mean that everything that is green or red is an apple. Nor does it mean that apples can only be green or red. Just that most apples are green or red.

Everyone must also remember that GW has often (and still does) rule in favor of modeling. An example would be vehicles, where if you show a weapon is mounted either on a hull or on a turret (when the vehicle entry does not state either way of course) then, how it is mounted is how it is played.

The same *can* be said of this. The model for the weapon is a two-handed model.

Most importantly though, since rules are absent on determining one way or the other (at least to a point where the majority of readers are happy with) then this *should* be something that is decided on a store by store or and opponent by opponent basis.

Ghaz wrote:And yet again, there are other 'special close combat weapons' than power weapons. It still does not mean that every special close combat weapon is single-handed. All that means is that if the model is using a single-handed normal weapon and a single-handed special weapon then those rules apply. They in no way, shape or form mean that all special weapons default to being single-handed.

Yes, there are other 'special close combat weapons,' many of which are detailed on that very same page. Some of them - such as the power fist - have special rules (as detailed on p. 42 beneath "a normal and a special weapon") that prevent them from gaining an extra attack unless paired with another weapon of the same type. Other special weapons, not detailed on p. 42 can be found in their respective codex wargear sections. For example - the relic blade has special rules preventing it from gaining a bonus attack from being used in close combat with another CCW. As Gwar! pointed out - there is nothing in the rules about the relic blade being a two-handed weapon, only in the fluff.

So, no - every single "special close combat weapon" is not single handed, but every single special close combat weapon has its own set of rules. Some of those rules bar particular weapons from being used with another CCW for a bonus attack (ie: relic blade). "Power weapons" have no such exception and therefore could be used with another weapon for a bonus attack in close combat.

@QuietOrkmi

It's an interesting idea, although I don't know that having an extra power weapon attack would be worth sacrificing a KFF or SAG - it is cheaper. Hell, throw an attack squig on him and you'll get 6 PW attacks on the charge out of a 70 pt HQ (before any other upgrades like armor/bosspole.) Not too shabby.

Big Mek, Big Power....I Love It!!!!!!

This "so many handed weapon" rule could pose some big problems. I mean Jamsessionein's converted ork warboss could probably hold 2 burnas in each hand and yet there is nothing to state this is illegal in the rulebook.

I was playing 40k last night / early this morning and went on an army builder... I found out that the army builder counts the Burna as an extra CC weapon because it gave the mek and extra attack in the profile...

QuietOrkmi wrote:I was playing 40k last night / early this morning and went on an army builder... I found out that the army builder counts the Burna as an extra CC weapon because it gave the mek and extra attack in the profile...

yes we know.

While it is right (this time) Army Builder should be the last recourse for any sort of rules question, after consorting a The Mad Oracle of The Mountain and then divining the correct answer from Sheep Intestines.

After all, the Rules Trump Army builder

DebonaireToast wrote:So, no - every single "special close combat weapon" is not single handed, but every single special close combat weapon has its own set of rules. Some of those rules bar particular weapons from being used with another CCW for a bonus attack (ie: relic blade). "Power weapons" have no such exception and therefore could be used with another weapon for a bonus attack in close combat.

And again, just because it could be used with another weapon in close combat is not saying it's a single-handed weapon. It must meet both of the following requirements:

A) It has no rules that prevent it from being used in conjunction with a normal weapon to gain an extra +1 Attack.

B) It must be a single handed weapon.

Just because it meets the first requirement doesn't mean it will automatically meet the second. Just because a power weapon can be used with a normal close combat weapon to provide an extra +1 Attack in close combat has no bearing on how many hands it takes to use.

Ghaz wrote:

DebonaireToast wrote:So, no - every single "special close combat weapon" is not single handed, but every single special close combat weapon has its own set of rules. Some of those rules bar particular weapons from being used with another CCW for a bonus attack (ie: relic blade). "Power weapons" have no such exception and therefore could be used with another weapon for a bonus attack in close combat.

And again, just because it could be used with another weapon in close combat is not saying it's a single-handed weapon. It must meet both of the following requirements:

A) It has no rules that prevent it from being used in conjunction with a normal weapon to gain an extra +1 Attack.

B) It must be a single handed weapon.

Just because it meets the first requirement doesn't mean it will automatically meet the second. Just because a power weapon can be used with a normal close combat weapon to provide an extra +1 Attack in close combat has no bearing on how many hands it takes to use.

No, it doesn't have to be a single handed weapon at all. Please show me where it says "it MUST be a single handed weapon". No, really. I'm not trying to be rude, but I do think you are a little stuck in 4th edition land.

All a weapon has to be is not a two handed weapon (as defined by the rulebook, and only used in older codexes). In this case, you have the Burna. It is not a Two Handed Close Combat Weapon, but is actually used as a power weapon, which is clearly described as giving an addition attack.

Tell us why you're using the rules for fighting with two single-handed weapons if you're not fighting with two single-handed weapons?

So yes, it must be two single-handed weapons as that would be the only time you'd use those rules.

By your logic Assault marines armed with chainswords and boltpistols would not gain a bonus attack. Their bolt pistol is defined as a one handed weapon in the "pistol" weapon description of the 40k rulebook,but there is nothing that I have seen in the current codex or rulebook that directly says that chainswords are single-handed weapons just "normal close combat weapons."

Same goes for orks armed with sluggas and choppas, and so on and so forth. In fact, that interpretation of the rules would effect just about every army,except, older codices such as Demon hunters/Witch Hunters/Dark Eldar.

Of course it would be nice for armies which generally fare poorly in assault, such as Imperial Guard and Tau....


EDITS: Arrrrrrghhhhh! Typos.

yes the title may be "Fighting with 2 Single handed weapons" but nowehere in the ACTUAL RULE does it say it has to be specified as Single Handed.

If we were to use your logic, Pistols would never give an aditional attack, as they do not count as Single Handed Close combat weapons:

Page 29 wrote:In addition a pistol counts as a close combat weapon in the Assault phase.

Page 37 wrote:+1 Two weapons: Engaged models With two single handed weapons (typically close combat weapon and pistol in each hand) get an extra +1 attack.

So there you go, Pistols are not Single handed, and therefore do not follow the rules for Fighting with, and I quote, "Two normal close combat weapons". While the Rules on page 37 Seem to suggest it is, the actuall rules for pistols (I assume they take preference) do not say they are, and therefore, they are not.

Notice the wording there, "typically a close combat weapon and/or pistol in each hand". it doesn't specify Single Handed Weapon there either.

In Short, if you are going to assert something has to be explicitly single handed to count for extra attacks, try to do it when the rules support it.

Actually Gwar!, you are correct. In my post I said that pistols were classified as single-handed weapons in the "Pistol weapons" rules on p. 29, but re-reading that it is evident that the passage:

BRB p.29 wrote:Pistol weapons are light enough to be carried and fired one-handed

is part of the fluff rather than a rule. My mistake.

So really - pistols (and most CCWs) are not classified as single-handed weapons.

EDIT: Doh!

Edited... Never mind, already caught it...

DebonaireToast wrote:Actually Gwar!, you are correct. In my post I said that pistols were classified as single-handed weapons in the "Pistol weapons" rules on p. 29, but re-reading that it is evident that the passage.

BRB p.29 wrote:Pistol weapons are light enough to be carried and fired one-handed

is part of the fluff rather than a rule. My mistake.

So really - neither pistols or most CCWs are classified as single-handed.

Yup, that's why I didn't reference it, because it is just fluff. Even if it were rules, it only says "fired one handed" and mentions nothing regarding its close combat ability.

Also, Yay! for typos, they spice up life and make people look silly.

insaniak wrote:Edited... Never mind, already caught it...

Awww I didn't see it! What was it! We wanna make fun of you! (please note I am not attempting to be hostile, or would you rather I place <sarcasm> tags around my posts?

Yay for typos indeed.

Doh!

Gwar! wrote:Awww I didn't see it! What was it! We wanna make fun of you! (please note I am not attempting to be hostile, or would you rather I place <sarcasm> tags around my posts?

It was just a response to DebonaireToast's post about Pistols being classed as single-handed. Was already redundant by the time I posted it, so I edited it out to avoid needless repitition.

insaniak wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Awww I didn't see it! What was it! We wanna make fun of you! (please note I am not attempting to be hostile, or would you rather I place <sarcasm> tags around my posts?

It was just a response to DebonaireToast's post about Pistols being classed as single-handed. Was already redundant by the time I posted it, so I edited it out to avoid needless repitition.

Ah, understandable. At least it wasn't anything stupid

This is all incredibly confusing, and I blame GW for it.

Gwar! wrote:At least it wasn't anything stupid

Had late nights the last two, and was still on my first cup of coffee for the morning, so it quite possibly was...

Grunt_For_Christ wrote:This is all incredibly confusing, and I blame GW for it.

Yup. And the reason for it is Greed. Plain and Simple. If they actually gave a toss about the players, they would have made the codex's living documents on-line a Long time ago, or at least re written the older ones without the fluff for on-line download as a stopgap. But hey, timing the codex release (each more broken than the last) with their ever increasingly overpriced models, makes moe money!

insaniak wrote:Had late nights the last two, and was still on my first cup of coffee for the morning, so it quite possibly was...

oh you! Silly Ozzies and their timezones!

You're absolutely right about the greed. GW hasn't been about gaming for years. I remember the day they went public and I knew it was over... The second you go public you become a whore to stakeholders who don't give a damn about anything except their short term profitability. You're absolutely right and I bet you and I could make the whole system work in no time!

DebonaireToast wrote:By your logic Assault marines armed with chainswords and boltpistols would not gain a bonus attack. Their bolt pistol is defined as a one handed weapon in the "pistol" weapon description of the 40k rulebook,but there is nothing that I have seen in the current codex or rulebook that directly says that chainswords are single-handed weapons just "normal close combat weapons."

Same goes for orks armed with sluggas and choppas, and so on and so forth. In fact, that interpretation of the rules would effect just about every army,except, older codices such as Demon hunters/Witch Hunters/Dark Eldar.

Of course it would be nice for armies which generally fare poorly in assault, such as Imperial Guard and Tau....

It's not my 'logic', it's what the rules say. Just because you don't like the result or it renders the rules unusable does not invalidate that is indeed what the rules say.

Gwar! wrote:yes the title may be "Fighting with 2 Single handed weapons" but nowehere in the ACTUAL RULE does it say it has to be specified as Single Handed.

Read as "... I have no logical answer to your position, so I'll just claim that it's not a rule." So once again, why are you using a section clearly listed for fighting with two single-handed weapons if your not fighting with two single-handed weapons? Your claims that it's not a rule is jusr a poor attempt to avoid the question.

Ghaz wrote:

DebonaireToast wrote:By your logic Assault marines armed with chainswords and boltpistols would not gain a bonus attack. Their bolt pistol is defined as a one handed weapon in the "pistol" weapon description of the 40k rulebook,but there is nothing that I have seen in the current codex or rulebook that directly says that chainswords are single-handed weapons just "normal close combat weapons."

Same goes for orks armed with sluggas and choppas, and so on and so forth. In fact, that interpretation of the rules would effect just about every army,except, older codices such as Demon hunters/Witch Hunters/Dark Eldar.

Of course it would be nice for armies which generally fare poorly in assault, such as Imperial Guard and Tau....

It's not my 'logic', it's what the rules say. Just because you don't like the result or it renders the rules unusable does not invalidate that is indeed what the rules say.

Gwar! wrote:yes the title may be "Fighting with 2 Single handed weapons" but nowehere in the ACTUAL RULE does it say it has to be specified as Single Handed.

Read as "... I have no logical answer to your position, so I'll just claim that it's not a rule." So once again, why are you using a section clearly listed for fighting with two single-handed weapons if your not fighting with two single-handed weapons? Your claims that it's not a rule is just a poor attempt to avoid the question.

So, why are you avoiding the fact that pistols are not defined as One handed CCW's, and by your logic shouldn't give the extra attack? Or do you conveniently ignore your own arguments when it suits you?

Seriously, all you have done is resort to attacks aginst me and others rather than reading the rules. Please stop.

Ghaz wrote: it's what the rules say. Just because you don't like the result or it renders the rules unusable does not invalidate that is indeed what the rules say.

That makes sense.

Except your argument seems to rest entirely upon the header to a set of rules, the opposing argument rests upon the rules themselves.

The real problem is way in which the rules were written: that is one thing I think that we can all agree on.

But I have a feeling that this thread is going to be needing some rusty spoons soon...

-- Do you believe a pistol and a Close Combat weapon combo gives an extra attack? Why?
-- Do you believe a choppa / slugga combo gives an extra attack? Why?

Does a flamer count as an extra CCW for a SM?
Is there anywhere in the rules that says a bolter is not an extra CCW?

My point is that the burna is a flamer weapon, which does not yield an extra CCW bonus, and so would not benefit one in return.

The fact it counts as a power weapon during a turn it does not shoot does not take away the fact it is still a flamer weapon called a burna.

Everything else is just semantics.

I don't think the burna gets the +1 for the pistol because the character is using the burna itself as the power weapon.

Gwar: I'd disagree only because you state the when the Burna is used in CC that it becomes a power weapon. It does not change its form, it still is a burna. When used, it Counts As a power weapon, it is not actually a power weapon. A burna, (or any gun as a matter of fact) is two handed. A boy is armed with a Big Shoota. Does he get the extra attack for a pistol? no, because he is wielding a Big shoota. Even if it's not a two handed weapon, you must combine a Close Combat Weapon with the Pistol for the bonus, whilst a burna is not a close combat weapon

Cryonicleech wrote:I don't think the burna gets the +1 for the pistol because the character is using the burna itself as the power weapon.

Gwar: I'd disagree only because you state the when the Burna is used in CC that it becomes a power weapon. It does not change its form, it still is a burna. When used, it Counts As a power weapon, it is not actually a power weapon. A burna, (or any gun as a matter of fact) is two handed. A boy is armed with a Big Shoota. Does he get the extra attack for a pistol? no, because he is wielding a Big shoota. Even if it's not a two handed weapon, you must combine a Close Combat Weapon with the Pistol for the bonus, whilst a burna is not a close combat weapon

Well the thing is, what you think and what the rules say are 2 totally different things. The Burna, when used as a Power Weapon, IS a Close Combat Weapon. If you claim that you cannot use the burna as a Close Combat Weapon, then you wouldn't be able to ignore armour saves, since a Power Weapon obviously must be a Close Combat weapon, otherwise it wouldn't be able to be used in the close combat phase.

A Boy doesn't get an extra attack with a big shoota because the big shoota doesn't have any special rules (like the burna) to say it is a close combat weapons (special or not) in the assault phase. The burna does, and that's why it does give the extra attack, when used as a Power Weapon in conjunction with another Close Combat Weapon as per the rules on Page 42.

Cryonicleech wrote:I don't think the burna gets the +1 for the pistol because the character is using the burna itself as the power weapon.

Gwar: I'd disagree only because you state the when the Burna is used in CC that it becomes a power weapon. It does not change its form, it still is a burna. When used, it Counts As a power weapon, it is not actually a power weapon. A burna, (or any gun as a matter of fact) is two handed. A boy is armed with a Big Shoota. Does he get the extra attack for a pistol? no, because he is wielding a Big shoota. Even if it's not a two handed weapon, you must combine a Close Combat Weapon with the Pistol for the bonus, whilst a burna is not a close combat weapon

Ah yes, delicious Flawed Arguments.

Why are you mentioning the Flamer? Does the Flamer have a special rule to say it counts as a Close Combat Weapon in the Assault Phase? No.
Does the Burna? Yes.

Secondly, why mention the Big Shoota? Does the Big Shoota have any rules saying it counts as a Close Combat Weapon in the assault phase? No
Does the Burna? Why, yes!

Also, you bring fluff into the argument (a big no-no ) by saying "It does not change its form, it still is a burna.". Well that is all fine and dandy, however we concern ourselves with rules here, and the rules say if you do not fire it, it counts as a Power Weapon in the Assault phase. Not a Two handed Power Weapon, not a Single Handed Power Weapon, but just a Power Weapon.

Now regarding you odd accusation that "counts as" means you can aplly as little of the rule as you want. The Burna "Counts as" a Power Weapon. If, by your logic, we also claim it "is not a close combat weapon" then, pray tell, how do we use it at all in the Assault Phase? I mean, I know its a power weapon, but if it isnt a Close Combat Weapon, we cant use its special ability in assault. This is utter nonsence, since the very fact it is a Power Weapon makes it a close combat weapon. If something "Counts as" something, you have to use all the rules regarding what it "counts as", not just some of them.

In this case, it counts as a Power Weapon, which, so long as it is not two handed, confers an extra attack when paired up with a second (non two handed) Close Combat Weapon.

So yes, you may disagree with me, but do you disagree with what the rules actually say?

Gwar, no one is saying a burna is not a CCW, we/they are saying it does not count as an extra CCW and so therefore would not benefit from an extra CCW.

For example, rifle butts (found on page 42 RB)*are* CCWs, and they are not listed anywhere in any codex. However, rifle butts are found on every rifle. So, a bolter, shoota,etc... are all CCWs, just 2-handed CCWs( also found on page 42 RB), and so do not benefit from extra CCWs. Just like how a flamer/bolter armed SM does not benefit from the pistol he carries around.

The fact the burna counts as a power weapon does not take away the fact it is *also* a burna, and therefor a two-handed weapon.

We all can read, and RAW can be read playing the semantics game too.

We get burna can = power weapon, which can = benefit from extra CCW.

But, the flaw in that RAW flow is that the burna is not a transformer, and does not change shape in CC. It is still a burna even in CC whether used as a power weapon or not.

Because going by that logic, you come to the conclusion that a burna must be an extra CCW because you can not have it cease benefiting from an extra CCW just because you shot the darn thing before charging.

Remember a CCW =/= an extra CCW. There *is* a distinction made found on page 42 first paragraph under the heading "FIGHTING WITH TWO SINGLE-HANDED WEAPONS".

EDITED for clarification

Cryonicleech wrote:I don't think the burna gets the +1 for the pistol because the character is using the burna itself as the power weapon.

Gwar: I'd disagree only because you state the when the Burna is used in CC that it becomes a power weapon. It does not change its form, it still is a burna. When used, it Counts As a power weapon, it is not actually a power weapon. A burna, (or any gun as a matter of fact) is two handed. A boy is armed with a Big Shoota. Does he get the extra attack for a pistol? no, because he is wielding a Big shoota. Even if it's not a two handed weapon, you must combine a Close Combat Weapon with the Pistol for the bonus, whilst a burna is not a close combat weapon

Hmm.. Well if you decide to bring FLUFF into this then it's gonna blow up in your face. Did you ever assume that if the burna is used in the shooting phase it unleashes a TEMPLATE produced attack? If so then when used as a power weapon why don't we used the template? Answer, the shooting attack is a large blast requiring both hands while the PW attack is a small but deadly attack that targets one model at a time (to the amount of attacks the model gets) and since it's smaller but more accurate and deadly, then why can't we assume* that it only requires one hand??

What would be harder? firing a lascannon or a laspistol but had the power to be a PW?

Did I mention that, I make the problematic Mig Mek in an army builder... It said that I did in fact get an extra attack as if I was wielding a slugga and choppa.... and a Mek does not have a choppa only a burna...

Also this makes sense rules wise as you can replace your slugga with a shoota, thus having a shoota to shoot and a burna to use in CC as a power weapon...

So there would be no reason to use a slugga on a big mek unless it gave you an extra attack...

padixon wrote:Gwar, no one is saying a burna is not a CCW

Cryonicleech wrote:a burna is not a close combat weapon

Damn Ozzies.

So... Um... What were we arguing about again?

Drunkspleen wrote:

padixon wrote:Gwar, no one is saying a burna is not a CCW

Cryonicleech wrote:a burna is not a close combat weapon

well, everyone except for him...

Can we lock this thread now? It's over I think.

Wait so do we have 1 agreed answer or 2 opinions left over... Well I'll leave on this note: Make sure your friend agrees before you play about the Big Mek rule we discussed here.

This thread was over as it neared the end of page 2.

People have stated their interpretations. Nobody seems to want to change their minds.

Well this was a... crazy thread... I think. Stupid holes in the rules XP

I don't really see the question, the rules say its a powerweapon therefore its a powerweapon with all the bonuses and penalites applied. Sure some of the models appear to have them held in one hand but I don't see that as any more relevent than other modelling conventions, terminators and stormbolters is a good example already mentioned.

Ghaz wrote:

+1 Two Weapons: Engaged models with two singlehanded weapons (typically a close combat weapon and/or pistol in each hand) get an extra +1 attack.

I see nothing here that would disallow a single-handed Assault weapon from granting an extra attack. Sure, some of the later rules may cast some doubt on the subject, but they don't definitively answer the question. Plus in 4th edition any two single-handed weapons would have provided the extra attack.

Except for the rather important bit of context that you're quote rules from the close combat weapons section.. and that at the start of the section on fighting with two weapons it even emphasises that "Some models are equipped with two singel handed weapons they can use in close combat" (my emphasis), and what suggests to you that assault weapons can use used in close combat? The only rules for ranged weapons being used in close combat that I can see are for pistols...

Of course feel free to attempt to claim that there are no single handed weapons ever, I'm sure that a lot of people will be convinced.

Hey Hym um... we already kind of went through ALL of that about 20 times already lol.

welcome to page four of our two page ordeal to get a mek, a power weapon, one more attack than usual... I think the general feeling is leaning to yes but check with your opponent, as this is not the biggest exploit in the codexes nor the nastiest but still a little muddy...

QuietOrkmi wrote:welcome to page four of our two page ordeal to get a mek, a power weapon, one more attack than usual... I think the general feeling is leaning to yes but check with your opponent, as this is not the biggest exploit in the codexes nor the nastiest but still a little muddy...

I would say the answer is yes and beat your opponent round the head for not playing by the rules if he refuses.

Shockingly, no-one even mentioned that it's theoretically possible to equip a Big Mek with a twin-linked Shoota, power Klaw AND Burna...but, doesn't grant plus one attack...so instead why not give him a second Power Klaw in place of the Burna?

As for the rules query, it was answered very early in the thread indeed, the answer was obvious.

EDIT: Also, the Eldar Codex clearly lists Power Weapons as being one-handed. Since there are no differences btwn SM, Eldar or any other Power Weapons, a Burna is clearly defined as one-handed.

Elessar wrote:Shockingly, no-one even mentioned that it's theoretically possible to equip a Big Mek with a twin-linked Shoota, power Klaw AND Burna...but, doesn't grant plus one attack...so instead why not give him a second Power Klaw in place of the Burna?

Perhaps because you cant? Bothb the Burna and the Power Klaw Replace the Choppa, so you can only take one of them. Same for the Second Power Klaw.

As for the rules query, it was answered very early in the thread indeed, the answer was obvious.

Yes but that doesn't stop some people from trying.

EDIT: Also, the Eldar Codex clearly lists Power Weapons as being one-handed. Since there are no differences btwn SM, Eldar or any other Power Weapons, a Burna is clearly defined as one-handed.

Edit: Irrelevant. Just because something has the same name doesn't make it the same by default. See Storm Shields for example. Each codex is self contained, and doesn't take anything from any other codex (With the exceptions of 3 old 3rd edition codex's)

Elessar wrote:Shockingly, no-one even mentioned that it's theoretically possible to equip a Big Mek with a twin-linked Shoota, power Klaw AND Burna...but, doesn't grant plus one attack...so instead why not give him a second Power Klaw in place of the Burna?

Wrong...it says that you can replace his choppa with one of these: Burna or PK. There is no way to get more than one of them, nor can you get both.

Also, a twin-linked shoota is not even an option for a Big Mek.... someone needs to re-read the Big Mek entry, methinks

Hahaha! I suckered you both in, as you are wrong. If you have an Ork Codex handy, please, check. Iy clearly lists as an option Burna or Power Klaw for CHOPPA. Not for choppa or slugga, yes. However, under the later options for replacing the slugga we see Mega-Armour. A quick check of the Mega-Armour description reveals that it "includes both a twin-linked shoota and a power klaw" (Ork Codex pg39) thus allowing either configuration I mentioned to be chosen.

Apologies if this seems rude, it seemed the most effective way to get this point across.

Touche
seems weird, but it is possible.


replace slugga with mega armour (which does indeed give you a klaw and a TL shoota)
then replace the choppa with a 2nd klaw

rules do not state at any point that taking mea armour makes you lose the choppa (which can be swapped afterwards for another klaw)

Exactly, lmao! Though it's an illogical choice, as a Warboss in Mega-Armour has better stats...but would make for an excellent Papa Smurf conversion

Yeah you can but there is really no point. Your Mek now has as many attacks as a boss, if you add a squig to the mek, but you don't have the weapon skill or toughness. To bad the Warboss exchanges slugga and choppa for his mega armour.

they thought it out in the warboss entry :(

"Replace slugga and choppa with mega armour +40 points"

:(

Yeah, it only works for Big Meks, but very few characters get the option of 2 Fists, it's nice to be able.

I know that Big meks, Chapter Masters, Space Marine Captains, and Space Marine Seargents can take two but, it's a lot of points and not really competitive. Still, some models like that look really cool and can be used interstingly. Like a boss using 2 power klaws to represent a per klaw and attack squig.

You said a Big Mek, not a Mega Armoured big mek.
That's cheating a bit don't you think?

Glad to see some people are still easily amused though.

On an unrelated note its surprising to see Army Builder not give the option for a 2PK MABM. <Sarcasm> I thought they were always right!</sarcasm>

GWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR! you are the best Metal Band from outer space.