Does equipping a DH character with a Storm Shield grant an extra attack?

THis has been a bone of contention in my little gaming group for a while; I'm of the opinion that it doesn't, largely because the Codex says it's not a weapon per se, but counts as a one-handed weapon because nothing else can be used by the hand holding the shield. That's good enough for me, the fact it only counts as a one-handed weapon for the purposes of taking up wargear slots, but some people simply read the part about it counting as a one-handed weapon and ignore the rest of the text. Apparently their thinking is that, unlike ALL other Storm Shields in the 40K universe, the Daemonhunters' one was intended to grant +1 Attack like a normal CCW and continues to do so because our Storm Shields weren't FAQed to provide a 3++ save, nd thus GW deliberately allowed the extra attack it has (apparently) always granted to stand because of the worse protection it offers.

The biggest problem is that, unlike all other SS' in the 40K universe, there is absolutely no RaW whatsoever you can quote to make these people give up their nonsense. Nowhere in the wargear description does it categorically state that the SS doesn't grant +1 Attack. There is, however, a piece of text that states it counts as a one-handed weapon, and the +1A proponents will then go to the rulebook and show you the bit in the CCW section where it talks about the bonuses conferred by one-handed weapons.

It's a sticky wicket to be sure, and I'd like some opinions on it from other folk

Well, it is a 1 handed weapon, but it does not say it is a 1 Handed CLOSE COMBAT weapon, nor does it say it is a Close Combat Weapon of any kind. As such, it cannot be used in Close Combat as a CCW. it may count as a 1 handed weapon, but that is all it counts as. It isn't a close combat weapon in any way, so it can no more be used to grant an extra attack than a Flamer or Plasma Gun.

InB4People Disagree even though I am right.

Gwar! wrote:Well, it is a 1 handed weapon, but it does not say it is a 1 Handed CLOSE COMBAT weapon, nor does it say it is a Close Combat Weapon of any kind. As such, it cannot be used in Close Combat as a CCW.

awww. No shield-checking in the grimdark future?

Deffgob wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Well, it is a 1 handed weapon, but it does not say it is a 1 Handed CLOSE COMBAT weapon, nor does it say it is a Close Combat Weapon of any kind. As such, it cannot be used in Close Combat as a CCW.

awww. No shield-checking in the grimdark future?

No Shield Bashing it seems

It's not like Thunder Hammer Termies need it anyway, yeh?

But yeah, I'm not 100% on this, but I think when the DHs codex was written, there were limits to what a model could carry, that's why it is specified as a 1H weapon, but it does not say that it is a CC weapon at all.

Deffgob wrote:But yeah, I'm not 100% on this, but I think when the DHs codex was written, there were limits to what a model could carry, that's why it is specified as a 1H weapon, but it does not say that it is a CC weapon at all.

Exactly. You couldn't get a bonus attack because you could not possibly have 3 Single handed weapons, or if you had a 2 Handed CCW, you wouldn't get the bonus attack anyway. That's why "new" storm shields have the "cannot get bonus attacks" provision, because now there are no limits to what a model can carry (Hell, an assault Squad Sergeant can have 4 Lightning Claws, how awesome is that! :3)

He wants 'em on 'is feet for extra killin.

I like to think that any seargent with 4 lighning claws is really a nob in disguise.

Gwar! wrote:Well, it is a 1 handed weapon, but it does not say it is a 1 Handed CLOSE COMBAT weapon, nor does it say it is a Close Combat Weapon of any kind. As such, it cannot be used in Close Combat as a CCW. it may count as a 1 handed weapon, but that is all it counts as. It isn't a close combat weapon in any way, so it can no more be used to grant an extra attack than a Flamer or Plasma Gun.

InB4People Disagree even though I am right.

First post and we're already up against the beloved nonsense spouted by +1A advocates: Page 37, main rulebook, 4th paragraph:

"+1 Two Handed Weapons: Engaged models with two single-handed weapons (typically a close combat weapon and/ or pistol in each hand) get an extra +1 attack. Models with more than 2 weapons etc etc..."

OK, so, the Storm Shield counts as a one-handed weapon. The argument goes that, because something that "counts as" something else must count as that something else for all purposes, it must therefore grant a +1 Attack bonus because of this paragraph.

The paragraph doesn't say that the model has to be armed with two close combat weapons to get the bonus attack, just that it has to be armed with two single-handed weapons. One handed and single handed are different ways of saying the same thing so you can't pull them up on the semantics, nor can you point to the bit in the brackets because, although it provides a list for reference, it doesn't say that the list is exhaustive or authorative.

Basically this is the most annoying part of the argument for me, because it seems that, going strictly by the rules as written and ignoring intent and precedent, the people who reckon it should grant +1 Attack are right. That might not seem like such a big deal, but when you consider that GK Terminators, Justicars and Heroes, all of whom can take a Storm Shield (either from the Armoury or as part of their gear options), are waving one-handed WS5 I4 S6 power weapons around (and, in one case, a WS5 I5 S6 force weapon whose special ability ignores Eternal Warrior) those extra attacks quickly add up to carnage; especially if they all have 4++ saves in CC too. It even makes Acolytes more potent, which is just silly.

What pisses me off most is that the intent (that the Storm Shield DOESN'T grant +1 Attack) is so clear, yet because of this little paragraph of the RaW you can't really do much but accept that the +1 Attack crowd are right. The SS should grant +1 Attack. It doesn't if you're playing against me, but it should.

Deffgob wrote:But yeah, I'm not 100% on this, but I think when the DHs codex was written, there were limits to what a model could carry, that's why it is specified as a 1H weapon, but it does not say that it is a CC weapon at all.

There still are; there's a paragraph at the top of the DH armoury page still lays all the old-school restrictions on DH characters and armoury-plundering. You're still limited to 100pts of wargear per model, GK Justicars can't take different weapons, plus you're only allowed 2 weapons total (one of which can be 2-handed). It's not much of a restriction, but it's there regardless.

On the upside the lack of updates and FAQs means DH Smoke Launchers are still old-school awesome, and the Force Weapons are too

DarkHound wrote:It's not like Thunder Hammer Termies need it anyway, yeh?

Yeah, no models need a 3++ save. Waste of points

Whoops, stupid me.

It says in the DH Codex that they count as one-handed weapons though. In one of the finer examples of GW's inability to write lucid and coherent rules it qualifies this by saying that the shields aren't weapons "per se", but nowhere does it specifically state that the Shields aren't weapons. In fact, reading the RaW, it pretty much says they ARE.

It's why I hate it so much; the only way to argue against it is to go to precedent (i.e every other Storm Shield in 40K) and intent, which is clear. Neither of these things change the RaW, by which your GKT's Storm Shields grant them an extra attack and a nice 4++ save in CC.

No Offence, but when you quote the Close Combat Rules, it applies only to Close Combat Weapons. Space Marines with 2 Combi Flamers don't get a bonus attack, even though they have two weapons, because they are not Close combat Weapons.

And before you say "But they must be single handed weapons", combi Flamers are never defined as any handed, and if you claim that the weapon has tp be explicitly stated as single handed, you also claim that pistols do not give a bonus attack either.

Gwar! wrote:No Offence, but when you quote the Close Combat Rules, it applies only to Close Combat Weapons.

It doesn't, though, that's the problem. Nowadays the only time weapons are defined as anything is when there's a specific need to do it (for example in the case of two-handed CCWS like the Relic Blade, which can be taken from the army list entry by models armed with a pistol, and therefore need to be defined as two-handed so's the penalties can be applied), and it's an artefact of the age and un-FAQed status of the DH Codex that it can take advantage of such piss-poor rules writing and checking.

And before you say "But they must be single handed weapons", combi Flamers are never defined as any handed,

And it's for exactly that reason that they don't grant +1 attack in CC. The problem with this analogy is that Storm Shields are, quite explicitly, stated to count as one-handed weapons by the DH Codex, the rules for bonus attacks don't specify that the bonuses are only applied to weapons specifically stated as "close combat weapons", and as such the SS must give +1 Attack according to RaW.

and if you claim that the weapon has tp be explicitly stated as single handed, you also claim that pistols do not give a bonus attack either.

The problem here is that it explicitly states that weapons with the "Pistol" type in their profile can be used as an extra CCW, so the number of hands used to hold the pistol is irrelevant; as long as it's profile says "Pistol", it can be used as an extra CCW.

There's also a section on pg.42 of the BRB where it talks about the different types of weapons there are. One argument I've seen against the +1 Attack is that, because the Storm Shield confers a 4++ save, it must therefore be counted as a Special Close Combat Weapon since Special CCWs are models which "enhance the wielder's combat skills", and a 4++ save enhances the wielder's combat skills. Nemesis Force Weapons are also Special CCWs, and because the model has two Special CCWs it must choose to use one or the other when making attacks and, as stated at the bottom of the page, doesn't gain any bonuses for having two Special CCWs. This is as close as I've come to having a RaW counter for the +1A bollocks, and even this doesn't stand up to scrutiny because the Storm Shield doesn't appear on the list of Special CCWs (although it's not stated to be exhaustive) and by this logic Pistols would also be Special CCWs, since they also have a ranged attack profile. There's a paragraph on Normal Close COmbat Weapons too, but once again pg.37 doesn't require a model to be armed with two one-handed close combat weapons, only two single-handed weapons.


It's bollocks, isn't it? You wouldn't believe how long I've been trying to find a way around this bs, but nothing stands up to scrutiny. >_<

Frank Fugger wrote:The problem here is that it explicitly states that weapons with the "Pistol" type in their profile can be used as an extra CCW, so the number of hands used to hold the pistol is irrelevant; as long as it's profile says "Pistol", it can be used as an extra CCW.

You can't have it both ways. It says it is a CCW, Storm Shield doesn't say it is a CCW. Therefore, the Pistol allows the attack, the Storm Shield Does not. If, like you say, weapons do not have to be defined as CCW to be used in CC, why can't two Combi Flamers be used in CCW?

Gwar! wrote:

Frank Fugger wrote:The problem here is that it explicitly states that weapons with the "Pistol" type in their profile can be used as an extra CCW, so the number of hands used to hold the pistol is irrelevant; as long as it's profile says "Pistol", it can be used as an extra CCW.

You can't have it both ways. It says it is a CCW, Storm Shield doesn't say it is a CCW. Therefore, the Pistol allows the attack, the Storm Shield Does not. If, like you say, weapons do not have to be defined as CCW to be used in CC, why can't two Combi Flamers be used in CCW?

because they're listed as being two handed? (also you could only take 1 as the daemon hunters codex doesn't let you take 2, 2handed weapons)

Tri wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Frank Fugger wrote:The problem here is that it explicitly states that weapons with the "Pistol" type in their profile can be used as an extra CCW, so the number of hands used to hold the pistol is irrelevant; as long as it's profile says "Pistol", it can be used as an extra CCW.

You can't have it both ways. It says it is a CCW, Storm Shield doesn't say it is a CCW. Therefore, the Pistol allows the attack, the Storm Shield Does not. If, like you say, weapons do not have to be defined as CCW to be used in CC, why can't two Combi Flamers be used in CCW?

because they're listed as being two handed? (also you could only take 1 as the daemon hunters codex doesn't let you take 2, 2handed weapons)

Sorry, I was talking about Space marine ones. They are not listed as any sort of handed. If, like Frank claims, it doesn't matter if it is listed as a ccw or not, why can't I use both in CC for an extra attack? Because they are not close combat weapons. The same way as a Storm Shield is not a Close Combat Weapon.

There really isn't an argument here, the BRB says that fighting with 2 ccw's grants an extra attack, not 2 weapons. If anyone tries to argue RAI against it, they'll lose that one, too. Since all other SS's do not grant an extra attack.

Deffgob wrote:There really isn't an argument here, the BRB says that fighting with 2 ccw's grants an extra attack, not 2 weapons. If anyone tries to argue RAI against it, they'll lose that one, too. Since all other SS's do not grant an extra attack.

Good Lord! RaW and RaI syncing up?

Well I never! [/Monocle]

Gwar! wrote:You can't have it both ways. It says it is a CCW, Storm Shield doesn't say it is a CCW. Therefore, the Pistol allows the attack, the Storm Shield Does not.

Yes you can. P.29, "Pistol":

"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."

As you said yourself, weapons aren't defined by how many hands it takes to use them anymore, and as such a Pistol doesn't need to be specified as a single-handed or one-handed weapon; having the word "Pistol" in it's Type column is enough to allow it to count as a close combat weapon. The rule regarding bonus attacks on p.37 makes reference to pistols being single-handed weapons, and as such it can be inferred that that's what they are, and thus they grant +1 attack.

With the Storm Shield, the argument holds that it grants +1 Attack because it counts as a single-handed weapon. It doesn't have to specify that it counts as single-handed CCW because the rule on bonus attacks doesn't make that distinction, and thus we're stuck trying to find other pieces of RaW to beat down the nonsense.

If, like you say, weapons do not have to be defined as CCW to be used in CC, why can't two Combi Flamers be used in CCW?

Because Combi-Flamers are not defined as single-handed weapons, nor does it say in their description that they can be used as close combat weapons in the Assault phase. Pistols can, because their rules say so, and apparently DH Codex- Storm Shields can because they count as one-handed weapons, and since a weapon doesn't specifically need to be a one-handed close combat weapon to grant +1 attack according to p.37 then +1 attack is what they grant.

Seriously, I've been having this discussion since I started playing again 6 months ago; there ain't an angle I haven't approached it from and there's not a stone I've left unturned, but at the end of the day everything comes back to that fething rule on page 37 and that shoddy little addendum in the DH armoury. As far as I can see there simply is no way around it; which, in a way, is cool, because it makes my GKTs extra-awesome.

No, if Combi Flamers cannot be used in CC as they are not defined as CC Weapons, neither can Storm Shields, as they too are not defined as Close Combat Weapons. They are just Wargear that counts as a weapon for the purposes of how much wargear a model can hold.

Being a one handed weapon does not mean they are automatically close combat weapons. You are taking rules in a vacuum and trying to make it work.

Frank Fugger wrote:
Seriously, I've been having this discussion since I started playing again 6 months ago; there ain't an angle I haven't approached it from and there's not a stone I've left unturned, but at the end of the day everything comes back to that fething rule on page 37 and that shoddy little addendum in the DH armoury. As far as I can see there simply is no way around it; which, in a way, is cool, because it makes my GKTs extra-awesome.

oh that all ... the answers easy ... grey knights can't use them because they're a Weapon and Grey knights can only use there stand weapons. Also they can only carry 2 weapons so couldn't take a third if they wanted

Grey Kights (i quote) in power armour can only choose items from the wargear list

oh that all ... the answers easy ... grey knights can't use them because they're a Weapon and Grey knights can only use there stand weapons. Also they can only carry 2 weapons so couldn't take a third if they wanted

Grey Kights (i quote) in power armour can only choose items from the wargear list

GKTs may have TH/SS though, plus Inquisitors and others may have SS as well. So much for your easy answer...

The BRB specifies only that you need to have two "one-handed" weapons to get the bonus, which a Storm Shield is defined as in the DH codex. End of Story.

Nurgleboy77 wrote:

oh that all ... the answers easy ... grey knights can't use them because they're a Weapon and Grey knights can only use there stand weapons. Also they can only carry 2 weapons so couldn't take a third if they wanted

Grey Kights (i quote) in power armour can only choose items from the wargear list

GKTs may have TH/SS though, plus Inquisitors and others may have SS as well. So much for your easy answer...

The BRB specifies only that you need to have two "one-handed" weapons to get the bonus, which a Storm Shield is defined as in the DH codex. End of Story.

If they have a thunder hammer and a storm shield they can't have an extra weapon (because they can only have 2 weapons )and can't have extra cc attack as only matched weapons work for Thunder hammers

Hey! That makes everything irrelevant, huzzah! Thunderhammers simply DON'T get the bonus from it, as it says in the BRB.

True, but they may have them. Otherwise there are still plenty of things in the codex that can have them where this issue would be pertinent.

Yes, they can have Storm Shields and Thunder Hammers. BRB says that Thunder Hammers never get the bonus unless you are dual wielding Thunder Hammers. You are not dual wielding Thunder Hammers, you get no bonus. The rulebook has spoken!

Nurgleboy77 wrote:True, but they may have them. Otherwise there are still plenty of things in the codex that can have them where this issue would be pertinent.

Other then the Inquisitors who?

Acolyte can only take 15pts of war gear you want to spend 10pts of that to get an extra attack from the las-pistol? Cool be my guest

Veteran Strom trooper has a hell gun (2 hand weapon) so couldn't get another CC attack

So out of the whole army 4 inquisitors and up to 12 Acolyte can abuse this glitch ... I don't see this as a problem

It isn't a Glitch! You don't get the bonus attack!!!!!

Gwar! wrote:It isn't a Glitch! You don't get the bonus attack!!!!!

Sorry gwar you do.

"Normal Close Combat Weapons
weapons like chainwords, rifle butts, combat blades,
bayonets, ect., do not confer any particular bonus to
the model using them (skipping bit on pistols)"

also
"4 although a storm shield is not a weapon as such, it counts as a single-handed weapon because nothing else can be used by the arm hold the shield."
so in its own rules it is clarified as being a CCW

Huh? How does "Normal Close Combat Weapons" have anything to do with it? It is not a Normal Close Combat Weapon at all. It is not a Close Combat Weapon PERIOD. It is no more a Close Combat Weapon than a Combi Flamer is. If you get a bonus attack for StormShield and Pistol, I get Bonus attacks for having 2 Combi Flamers on my Tactical Squad Sergeant.

Combi flamer can be used as a CCW trouble is its a 2 handed riffle butt (alla Normal CCW)

No, BRB simply says you don't. Thunder Hammers can't get the bonus if there isn't a Thunderhammer in his other hand. He can have a Thunder Hammer and a pistol and he wouldn't get the bonus.

Tri wrote:Combi flamer can be used as a CCW trouble is its a 2 handed riffle butt (alla Normal CCW)

It is never stated to be 2 handed. Read the Space marine codex. It is not two handed ANYWHERE. It also is not a CCW.

DarkHound wrote:No, BRB simply says you don't. Thunder Hammers can't get the bonus if there isn't a Thunderhammer in his other hand. He can have a Thunder Hammer and a pistol and he wouldn't get the bonus.

ehh what ? we've moved on from there this is about combining the Storm shield with another 1 handed CC (that can be combine to get an extra attack)) for the 3 people that can still take this combo (Inquisitors and acolyte)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

Tri wrote:Combi flamer can be used as a CCW trouble is its a 2 handed riffle butt (alla Normal CCW)

It is never stated to be 2 handed. Read the Space marine codex. It is not two handed ANYWHERE. It also is not a CCW.

yes you're right but you can only get a bonus attack if its listed as being 1 handed ("if a model is using 2, 1 handed close combat weapons")

so you need 2, 1 handed close combat weapons

Sorry. Anyway it isn't a close combat weapon. It is a one handed weapon, to help with old rules. It is not worded as a close combat WEAPON.

Yeah, combi flamer doesn't work Gwar. It never says its is one handed, so you can't get an extra attack for it. Sure it never says it is 2 handed either, but that doesn't matter. Apparently they exist in some sort of undefined limbo state.

Tri wrote:so you need 2, 1 handed close combat weapons

Yes, exactly. And a Storm Shield is not a Close Combat Weapon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Drudge Dreadnought wrote:Yeah, combi flamer doesn't work Gwar. It never says its is one handed, so you can't get an extra attack for it. Sure it never says it is 2 handed either, but that doesn't matter. Apparently they exist in some sort of undefined limbo state.

The thing is, a CCW does not have to say it is 1 handed, it just has to be a non two handed CCW. otherwise models with 2 Normal CCW or a CCW and Pistol would never get the bonus attack as neither are specifically designated as 1 handed CCW.

Rules for Normal Close combat weapons is some what open .... It reads that every thing can be used this way ... How else could they list riffle butts? if its not listed as being 1 hand you can't use it to gain an extra CC attack but other wise every thing counts. (hell they even list frags as being a CC weapon)

Tri wrote:Rules for Normal Close combat weapons is some what open .... It reads that every thing can be used this way ... How else could they list riffle butts? if its not listed as being 1 hand you can't use it to gain an extra CC attack but other wise every thing counts. (hell they even list frags as being a CC weapon)

Because Frags ARE a CCW. You use them against vehicles. They are CCW with no rules for use against infantry (bar the Cover benefits)

Gwar! wrote:The thing is, a CCW does not have to say it is 1 handed, it just has to be a non two handed CCW. otherwise models with 2 Normal CCW or a CCW and Pistol would never get the bonus attack as neither are specifically designated as 1 handed CCW.

errr your right technical you can't get an extra attack for a pistol in all the new codexs without an armoury ... chalk this up as another GW proofreading error

Tri wrote:

Gwar! wrote:The thing is, a CCW does not have to say it is 1 handed, it just has to be a non two handed CCW. otherwise models with 2 Normal CCW or a CCW and Pistol would never get the bonus attack as neither are specifically designated as 1 handed CCW.

errr your right technical you can't get an extra attack for a pistol in all the new codexs without an armoury ... chalk this up as another GW proofreading error

No, my point is you DO, because to get the bonus attack the weapons do NOT need to be explicitly 1 handed, they just have to not be 2 handed.

Unless of course you don't and GW are flaming idiots. #2 is more likely sadly :(

Gwar! wrote:

Tri wrote:

Gwar! wrote:The thing is, a CCW does not have to say it is 1 handed, it just has to be a non two handed CCW. otherwise models with 2 Normal CCW or a CCW and Pistol would never get the bonus attack as neither are specifically designated as 1 handed CCW.

errr your right technical you can't get an extra attack for a pistol in all the new codexs without an armoury ... chalk this up as another GW proofreading error

No, my point is you DO, because to get the bonus attack the weapons do NOT need to be explicitly 1 handed, they just have to not be 2 handed.

Unless of course you don't and GW are flaming idiots. #2 is more likely sadly :(

Gwar wheres your normal RAW or death ... If its not quoted as being 1 handed you can't use it to get an extra attack .... Admit it this is the one time your going to play RAI because RAW is so wrong its laugh able

Tri wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Tri wrote:

Gwar! wrote:The thing is, a CCW does not have to say it is 1 handed, it just has to be a non two handed CCW. otherwise models with 2 Normal CCW or a CCW and Pistol would never get the bonus attack as neither are specifically designated as 1 handed CCW.

errr your right technical you can't get an extra attack for a pistol in all the new codexs without an armoury ... chalk this up as another GW proofreading error

No, my point is you DO, because to get the bonus attack the weapons do NOT need to be explicitly 1 handed, they just have to not be 2 handed.

Unless of course you don't and GW are flaming idiots. #2 is more likely sadly :(

Gwar wheres your normal RAW or death ... If its not quoted as being 1 handed you can't use it to get an extra attack .... Admit it this is the one time your going to play RAI because RAW is so wrong its laugh able

The thing is, in this case the RaW is contradicting itself, so it's impossible to know how it is meant to be played, unless you look at phrases such as that on page 37 which says pistols do give a Bonus attack.

-Le Sigh-

Why can't GW hire me, I'd have errata written in 3 weeks.

You know, now that you bring that up, my buddy and I were planning to buy out GW and stick you, H.M.B.C. and Yakface in charge or something.

Lord no pick any one ... but the in fighting between them all, they'd never agree on any thing

Tri wrote:
Gwar wheres your normal RAW or death ... If its not quoted as being 1 handed you can't use it to get an extra attack .... Admit it this is the one time your going to play RAI because RAW is so wrong its laugh able

Do I really have to say this again? The BRB doesn't say a model with 2 one-handed weapons gets a second attack. That's the title of the section, but what the rule says is "A model with 2 normal ccw's gets a bonus attack." Please, please don't bring up the "if it doesn't say 1handed, it's 2handed" argument, it makes me lose hope...

Deffgob wrote:The BRB doesn't say a model with 2 one-handed weapons gets a second attack.

Actually, it does. Page 37, under 'Number of Attacks'

Deffgob wrote:

Tri wrote:
Gwar wheres your normal RAW or death ... If its not quoted as being 1 handed you can't use it to get an extra attack .... Admit it this is the one time your going to play RAI because RAW is so wrong its laugh able

Do I really have to say this again? The BRB doesn't say a model with 2 one-handed weapons gets a second attack. That's the title of the section, but what the rule says is "A model with 2 normal ccw's gets a bonus attack." Please, please don't bring up the "if it doesn't say 1handed, it's 2handed" argument, it makes me lose hope...

you've missed a bit. It actually reads "Some models are equiped with 2 single handed weapons they can use in cc, with the rules below for the different combinations."

And to add to insaniak's post, page 37 makes no reference to a specific type of weapon (close combat, ranged, etc.).

Tri wrote:you've missed a bit. It actually reads "Some models are equiped with 2 single handed weapons they can use in cc, with the rules below for the different combinations."

Of course, that argument boils down to where you put the emphasis... you could as easily say:
"Some models are equiped with 2 single handed weapons they can use in cc, with the rules below for the different combinations."

... which would mean that being single-handed isn't actually enough on its own... it also has to be a weapon that can be used in close combat.


Edit: spelling. Curse you, cold weather!

a riffle butt is listed as being use able in CC so a combat shield more the qualifies ...

you know what i give up it may be RAW but this is getting far too silly. GW can't right rules to save their lives ... its just like deployment if you don't throw in some rational though it just becomes madness.

One point in favor of DH Storm Shields counting as single-handed weapons for close combat is that they are not Wargear; Storm Shields are listed on the One-handed weapons list in the DH Armoury.

SJ

jeffersonian000 wrote:One point in favor of DH Storm Shields counting as single-handed weapons for close combat is that they are not Wargear; Storm Shields are listed on the One-handed weapons list in the DH Armoury.

SJ

Yes, one I explained right away. It is there because of the old wargear limits. It is a Single Handed weapon, but it is not a Single Handed Close Combat Weapon, so cannot be used in Close Combat as a Close Combat Weapon.

Gwar! wrote:It is a Single Handed weapon, but it is not a Single Handed Close Combat Weapon, so cannot be used in Close Combat as a Close Combat Weapon.

...but can be used in close combat as per the page 37 rule which only stipulates the weapon be single handed in order to grant a +1.

At best, it's a grey area. Personally, I'm leaning more towards single-handed weapons only granting an attack if they're specifically listed as counting as a close combat weapon or pistol, as that saves arguments over all sorts of other wargear that isn't clearly defined.

But that's just my personal opinion on the best way to play the game. There is an argument (courtesy of page 37) for all single-handed weapons granting the +1.

It is also an "argument" for Pistols not to grant a bonus attack.

Not one that's actually backed up by the rules, though.

Seriously, Gwar, let it go. Sometimes, the rules allow multiple interpretations, and this is one of them.

From page 29 of the Warhammer 40,000 5th edition rulebook:

PISTOL WEAPONS
Pistol weapons are light enough to be carried and fired one-handed...

Ghaz wrote:From page 29 of the Warhammer 40,000 5th edition rulebook:

PISTOL WEAPONS
Pistol weapons are light enough to be carried and fired one-handed...

Fired one handed, not used in CC one handed.

Also Fluff is not rules.

And Ghaz, you were the one who actually believes pistols do not give the bonus attack, not me, as proven in that burna thread way back when.

Still making up excuses I see. You have your answer that pistols are one-handed yet you refuse the answer because it doesn't fit your point of view. So tell us where do the rules differentiate between how many hands it takes to use a weapon in close combat versus shooting? You have the RAW that pistols are one-handed.

EDIT: The rest of the rules passage confirms you're wrong:

On the plus side, they are handy enough to allow a trooper to fight in close combat with a combination of a pistol and sword, axe or other close combat weapon.

Kind of hard to do if it was only a one-handed weapon when shooting.

Show me where it says I cannot use two Combi Flamers as CCW in Close Combat. If you can use Storm Shields (which are not CCW) then I can use two combi Flamers.

And with rules please, not fluff like you seem to keep posting.

So now your deciding that a rule that you don't like is fluff? Grow up and admit that you're wrong. I'm done wasting my time here. I'm sure that the others can clearly see that all your doing is wasting their time as well.

Ghaz wrote:So now your deciding that a rule that you don't like is fluff? Grow up and admit that you're wrong. I'm done wasting my time here. I'm sure that the others can clearly see that all your doing is wasting their time as well.

And once again, when things don't go your way, you declare you are wasting your time.

Gwar! wrote:Show me where it says I cannot use two Combi Flamers as CCW in Close Combat.

You know better than that, Gwar.

'Doesn't say I can't' does not a rule make.


You don't get an attack bonus from combi flamers because there are no rules that say you do.

You do get an attack bonus from a pistol because the rules for pistols on page 29 say that you do.
You do get an attack bonus from a storm shield because the rule on page 37 says that you do.

Combi Flamers are not classed as single handed weapons. Nor are they classed as pistols, nor as normal close combat weapons, nor as any other type of close combat weapon. Nor do they have any other rules that would allow them to grant an attack bonus.

Show us, Little Troll, where it says a combi-flamer is a one-handed weapon, therefore fulfilling the requirements for the +1 A.

Besides, SM Sgts easily get +1 A from their BP/CCW with no need for combi-flamer shenanigans.

Tri wrote:GW can't right rules to save their lives.

anyone else see the irony here?

hmm the storm shield says it's not a weapon...It just takes up one hand since nothing else can be used by that hand... doesn't it need to be a weapon to give the + 1 attack?

Page 37 BRB

"+1 for two WEAPONS: Engaged models with two single handed weapons....."

Page 16 DHC
"although a storm sheild is not a weapon as such... it counts as a single handed weapon because nothing else can be used by the army holding the sheild"

I am pretty sure if I am reading this right... it IS not a weapon and can't be used to gain the benefit.

frgsinwntr wrote:Page 16 DHC
"although a storm sheild is not a weapon as such... it counts as a single handed weapon

There's the problem there.

Even though it's not a weapon, it counts as one.

The reason for the rule (ie: everything after the word 'because') is irrelevant so far as RAW is concerned. The rules say that it counts as a weapon, and so it counts as a weapon.



The reason being listed immediately after the rule does give a strong case for RAI... but that's really down to individual players, and how they choose to rule it.

Given how often it's likely to actually come up, I wouldn't really stress over it, personally.

However it goes on to say that it counts as a single-handed weapon "... because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield..." It's not irrelevant. It tells us why it counts as a weapon. Not because it can be used in close combat, but because the hand holding it can't be used for anything else, ie another weapon. Why bother saying that it's not a weapon if it is one?

Ghaz wrote:However it goes on to say that it counts as a single-handed weapon "... because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield..." It's not irrelevant. It tells us why it counts as a weapon.

The point is that why it counts as a weapon has no bearing on the rules. The rule on page 37 does not say that you get +1 attack for two single-handed weapons... except for those that only count as single-handed weapons for this reason... It simply grants the bonus for the weapon.

The storm shield counts as a single handed weapon. It therefore counts as a single handed weapon.

Why bother saying that it's not a weapon if it is one?

Because it's not a weapon. It's a shield.

If they didn't say that it counts as a weapon, people would be saying it doesn't grant a +1 because it's not a weapon...



Again, I've already said I personally wouldn't go with the +1 from it... just presenting the argument for it for the sake of completeness. There's enough evidence either way for it to be a grey area, so arguing that either side is clearly correct would be a mistake.

insaniak wrote:The point is that why it counts as a weapon has no bearing on the rules. The rule on page 37 does not say that you get +1 attack for two single-handed weapons... except for those that only count as single-handed weapons for this reason... It simply grants the bonus for the weapon.

However the rules for the Storm Shield do. It's rules say it only counts as a weapon so you can't use it with two single-handed weapons. Where does it say that it counts as a weapon so it can be used to provide the additional +1 Attack in close combat?

insaniak wrote:The storm shield counts as a single handed weapon. It therefore counts as a single handed weapon.

Except it only counts as a weapon for the reasons listed. where does it say that it counts as a single-handed weapon for any other reason?

insaniak wrote:Because it's not a weapon. It's a shield.

If they didn't say that it counts as a weapon, people would be saying it doesn't grant a +1 because it's not a weapon...

Then they would have said that it IS a weapon, not that it just 'counts as' a weapon for the specific reasons listed.

Ghaz wrote:However the rules for the Storm Shield do. It's rules say it only counts as a weapon so you can't use it with two single-handed weapons.

Not quite. They say it counts as a weapon because you can't hold anything else in the same hand. They do not say that it is the only reason.

But again, nothing in that statement over-rides the rule that grants +1 attack for having two single handed weapons.

Where does it say that it counts as a weapon so it can be used to provide the additional +1 Attack in close combat?

It doesn't need to. It counts as a single handed weapon... so it counts as a single handed weapon. And single handed weapons grant +1 attack.

Then they would have said that it IS a weapon,

No, they wouldn't. or at least shouldn't... since it would have been incorrect.

Again, it's not a weapon. It's a shield. It just counts as a weapon.


It doesn't count as a weapon for a specific reason. It counts as a weapon because of a specific condition. That condition being that nothing can be held in the same hand.

The fact that nothing else can be held in the same hand in no way precludes you from using it to whack someone if another rule allows you to do so.


But this argument is in grave danger of getting silly, particularly since I don't personally think (as I'm pretty sure I mentioned already) that this is the best way to play it. So I'm not going to waste more time arguing over a point that doesn't really matter and isn't likely to arise on the table anytime soon anyway.

Can you even equip anyone but a crusader with a storm shield?
It clearly says in witch hunters that the Storm Shield counts as an additional weapon that grants an attack.

insaniak wrote:
But this argument is in grave danger of getting silly, particularly since I don't personally think (as I'm pretty sure I mentioned already) that this is the best way to play it. So I'm not going to waste more time arguing over a point that doesn't really matter and isn't likely to arise on the table anytime soon anyway.

Yep cause the grand total of people that can benefit in the DH code are 4 inquisitors and up to 12 Acolyte. The Acolytes has to spend 10pts to gain +1 attack (with their las Pistol) and the inquisitors can do better.

And you know what If people want to use this glitch to give them an extra attack be my guest ... since you're wasting your time and points.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Can you even equip anyone but a crusader with a storm shield?
It clearly says in witch hunters that the Storm Shield counts as an additional weapon that grants an attack.

? where does it say that witch hunters can have a storm shield? They get the much worse Praesidium Protectiva that give one +4 inv save per turn in assault(yes it does also count as a weapon but still) Other then the Adepta Sororitas Heroine no one can make use of the extra attack ether because they already have 2 weapons (so can't take it) or because they have a 2 handed weapon. So out of the whole WH codex 2 models can get an extra attack.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nurgleboy77 wrote:Show us, Little Troll, where it says a combi-flamer is a one-handed weapon, therefore fulfilling the requirements for the +1 A.

Besides, SM Sgts easily get +1 A from their BP/CCW with no need for combi-flamer shenanigans.

Tri wrote:GW can't right rules to save their lives.

anyone else see the irony here?

Unless a weapon is listed as being one handed strictly by the rules you can't use a pair for an extra attack ... you're shown that Pistols are more then likely 1handed care to try that with Combat blades? ... but down this path lies madness if only GW could have mention the number of hands need ... Personally I'm going to RAI and if it looks like its meant to be a 1 handed CC it an get used that way (unless rules specifically say other wise)

@Tri: Have you seen the crusader in the Witch Hunter retinue. It gets a storm sheild which provides a 4+ invo save and counts as an additional close combat weapon.

Actually it's a "Suppression Shield" and, much like the Prasidium Protectiva, although it reeeeally sounds like a Storm Shiled, the different name (and slightly different rules) makes it almost useless in a RAW argument.

oh, ok. Sorry. Bit muddled here. I don't know anything about Storm Shields at all then. I don't think they count as an additional close combat weapon though (unless it expressly says so.)

Gwar is wrong.

Frank Fugger is right.

I'm a bit late, though.

You are always late.

G

A combi-flamer does not grant an extra attack in CCW because it is a Rapid Fire type weapon.

It tells you specifically in the wargear listing for combi-weapons that they are bolters with an extra bit on them. You use the regular bolter rules in addition to relevant rules for the type of combi-weapon you have chosen to have added to your bolter.

Kaaihn wrote:A combi-flamer does not grant an extra attack in CCW because it is a Rapid Fire type weapon.

It tells you specifically in the wargear listing for combi-weapons that they are bolters with an extra bit on them. You use the regular bolter rules in addition to relevant rules for the type of combi-weapon you have chosen to have added to your bolter.

... Codex SM doesn't call bolter 2 hand weapons ether .... so i combine the bolter butt and a pistol +1 A? No this is the trouble with GW leaving out the number of hands needed. Hell even power weapons aren't listed as being 1 handed ...

The Weapon Type Summary chart tells you that Pistols count as an additional weapon in close combat. Rapid Fire, Assault, and Heavy weapons do not have this entry, and therefore do not count as an additional weapon in close combat.

You are going with the assumption that every ranged weapon counts as an additional weapon in close combat unless specified not to. I believe the reverse is true, that no ranged weapon counts as an additional weapon in close combat unless it specifically tells you it does. The Weapon Type Summary chart confirms that, in my opinion.

I'd just like to add that in all likelihood if you have a storm shield the other weapon is a Thunder Hammer. You can only get bonus attacks with TH's if both CCW weapons are thunder hammers. I realize other combinations are possible, just chiming in.

I didn't realize one COULD carry 2 combi-flamers.....
Holy burning awesome.

We're going round in circles here; trust me, there is no RaW answer to this. The only reason DH models with Storm Shields don't get a bonus attack is because the intent is for SSes not to grant a model an extra attack. According to everything in the RaW, a DH model with a Storm Shield gets a bonus attack. There simply is no written rule that denies it; believe me, I know, I've been thumbing through everything for months on end trying to find one. If it was there to be had, I'd have it.

It just ain't.

Gwar! wrote:No, if Combi Flamers cannot be used in CC as they are not defined as CC Weapons, neither can Storm Shields, as they too are not defined as Close Combat Weapons. They are just Wargear that counts as a weapon for the purposes of how much wargear a model can hold.

Being a one handed weapon does not mean they are automatically close combat weapons. You are taking rules in a vacuum and trying to make it work.

Once again, pg.37 doesn't say that a model has to be equipped with two one-handed CCWs to benefit from the bonus attack, just that it has to have two one-handed weapons. Since Nemesis Force Weapons are one-handed, swapping a BroCap or GM's Stormbolter for a Storm Shield gives him the requisite of two one-handed weapons, ergo he gets a bonus attack.

Tri wrote:oh that all ... the answers easy ... grey knights can't use them because they're a Weapon and Grey knights can only use there stand weapons. Also they can only carry 2 weapons so couldn't take a third if they wanted

Grey Kights (i quote) in power armour can only choose items from the wargear list

That's fine for Justicars; what about Brother-Captains and Grand Masters? Or Inquisitors/ Lords and Acolytes? Or Veterans in IST squads?

Tri wrote:Acolyte can only take 15pts of war gear you want to spend 10pts of that to get an extra attack from the las-pistol? Cool be my guest

No, you spend it to give your Acolyte a 4++ save in CC, which gives your Inquisitor/ Lord another wound with a 4++ save. There really is no better way to kit out an Acolyte other than with survival gear, because their profile is so appallingly bad that anything else is just a complete waste of points (WS3 S3 power weapon? No. BS3 ranged weapon? Pfft).

Veteran Strom trooper has a hell gun (2 hand weapon) so couldn't get another CC attack

He has armoury access and thus can be given anything. You can give him up to 100pts of wargear in fact, so a PW/ SS Vet ain't out of the question. Hell, you could give him a Thunder Hammer too if you wanted to. It'd be stupid, but not impossible.

Gwar! wrote:Huh? How does "Normal Close Combat Weapons" have anything to do with it? It is not a Normal Close Combat Weapon at all. It is not a Close Combat Weapon PERIOD. It is no more a Close Combat Weapon than a Combi Flamer is. If you get a bonus attack for StormShield and Pistol, I get Bonus attacks for having 2 Combi Flamers on my Tactical Squad Sergeant.

Except you don't, because whereas the Storm Shield is stated to count as a single-handed weapon, and the rule only requires a model to be armed with two single-handed weapons to gain a bonus attack in CC, I get +1A and your Combi-Flamer man, whose Combi-Weapons aren't stated to count as single-handed weapons, doesn't.

The difference is that the NFW/ SS bloke has RaW on his side, in that he can point to segments of text that support his bs, whilst you don't.

Tri wrote:Combi flamer can be used as a CCW trouble is its a 2 handed riffle butt (alla Normal CCW)

No, there's nothing anywhere that says a Combi-Weapon counts as a one-handed or two-handed weapon, and as someone else has already pointed out just because it doesn't say you can't, doesn't mean you can. 40K RaW is written inclusively, not exclusively, and as such the absence of forbiddance isn't necessary to prevent something being possible. If it was, why can't I reroll any failed D6 rolls I make? Doesn't specifically say you can't, to the best of my knowledge, so why can't I do it?

DarkHound wrote:No, BRB simply says you don't. Thunder Hammers can't get the bonus if there isn't a Thunderhammer in his other hand. He can have a Thunder Hammer and a pistol and he wouldn't get the bonus.

I hadn't thought of this; no more 4 attack TH/ SS GKTs!

Deffgob wrote:Do I really have to say this again? The BRB doesn't say a model with 2 one-handed weapons gets a second attack. That's the title of the section, but what the rule says is "A model with 2 normal ccw's gets a bonus attack." Please, please don't bring up the "if it doesn't say 1handed, it's 2handed" argument, it makes me lose hope...

That's not what the BRB says at all. Read it, page 37, 4th paragraph down (it's the 2nd bulleted paragraph). You'll see why people try to pull this gak; and why, unfortunately, they can get away with it too.

Let's face facts here; for any army whose close combat attacks ran along normal lines this wouldn't even be an issue. Given the fact that pretty much every DH model that can take advantage of this garbage is toting either a) a WS5 S6 power weapon that strikes in Initiative order, b) a fething WS5 S6 I5 Force Weapon that kills outright and thus ignores Eternal Warrior, or c) a WS5 S3 I5 Force Weapon that can be master-crafted and does the same, plus gains a nice 4++ save in CC, and you've got the makings of a gakky day for any ICs or MCs. Vehicles, even; nobody wants S6 attacks pounding the rear armour of their vehicles, and extra ones just make things worse. The problem is, what can you do about it without referring to precedent (nobody else gets +1A from a Storm Shield) or intent (because you're not fething MEANT to get +1A from a Storm Shield)?


PS: If you think that's is bad, check this gak out; Grey Knights LRs/ LRCs, in addition to having fething broken Smoke Launchers (downgrade all Penetrating hits to Glancing whilst active; Codex creep strikes again), can also use their PotMS to fire a single weapon when they activate them.

DH Codex smoke launcher description says: "The vehicle may not fire any other weapons in the same turn as it uses the smoke launchers..."

DH FAQ PotMS says: "The vehicle may always fire one more weapon than would normally be allowed..."

Fun army, eh?

Page 16 DHC
although a storm sheild is not a weapon as such... it counts as a single handed weapon because nothing else can be used by the army holding the sheild

Now if the rule just said this:

"although a storm sheild is not a weapon as such... it counts as a single handed weapon."

You have RAW for having a +1 attack in all your shield bashing glory. It tells you to treat the shield as a single handed weapon without ANY conditions regarding it's use.

However the rule specifically has a condition attached to the above statement of why you treat it as a single handed weapon:

"because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield."

It gives you the exact reason why you count it as a single handed weapon. Since the 40k rule set is permissive, you have to read the RAW and not then assume that you get the +1 attack just because it doesn't say you don't. You are specifically given the reason for treating it as a one handed weapon and that reason does not include getting +1 attack.

Sorry Frank Fugger but there's no option in the codex to remove wargear so once a model has some thing they're stuck with it and since there's a 2 weapon limit only the inquisitors and acolytes can take and make use of them

Brother Ramses wrote:

Page 16 DHC
although a storm sheild is not a weapon as such... it counts as a single handed weapon because nothing else can be used by the army holding the sheild

Now if the rule just said this:

"although a storm sheild is not a weapon as such... it counts as a single handed weapon."

You have RAW for having a +1 attack in all your shield bashing glory. It tells you to treat the shield as a single handed weapon without ANY conditions regarding it's use.

However the rule specifically has a condition attached to the above statement of why you treat it as a single handed weapon:

"because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield."

It gives you the exact reason why you count it as a single handed weapon. Since the 40k rule set is permissive, you have to read the RAW and not then assume that you get the +1 attack just because it doesn't say you don't. You are specifically given the reason for treating it as a one handed weapon and that reason does not include getting +1 attack.

This is the way I approached it at first, because the RaW for gaining +1A sort of relies on ignoring that last sentence. Thing is, it apparently says somewhere (no BRB on me, but it's been shown to me by a +1A-scamming arsewipe) that an item which "counts as" something will "count as" that something for all purposes. That's why all the Storm Shield-having Dexes that came out after the DH one are at pains to specify that a model with an SS can't ever gain the +1 attack bonus for being equipped with two one-handed weapons; in fact I believe the current C: SM goes a step further and actually removes the reference to SSes being one-handed weapons, and you've got to figure that this bs is the reason they did so.

It also leads us onto another, slightly less defensible, argument used by +1A scammers; the WH Codex came out at the same time and contains the Praesidium Protectiva, which is for all intents and purposes a Storm Shield for the Sisters. The wargear description specifically states that a model doesn't get the +1A bonus, and the scumbags will ask you why, if one 3rd Edition Codex contains this proviso, another one (which was created later) doesn't... unless the intent was for DH SSes to grant +1 Attack. There's no RaW to back this up, it's all RaI speculation, but it's a point.

Tri wrote:Sorry Frank Fugger but there's no option in the codex to remove wargear so once a model has some thing they're stuck with it and since there's a 2 weapon limit only the inquisitors and acolytes can take and make use of them

There doesn't need to be an option to remove wargear; new wargear is simply placed on top of the old. In the case of weapon swaps, this forces you to remove a weapon in order to replace it with another one (since a model can only have 2 weapons total). There are weapon options that Grey Knights in Termie Armour (so, Brother-Captains and Grandmasters basically) can choose, such as the Anointed Weapon and Daemonhammer; wouldn't it be a bit pointless to make this distinction if you weren't allowed to replace wargear on GK Heroes?

no rules for weapons swaps ... you are making up a rule to explain GW's poor rule writing.

This is the way I approached it at first, because the RaW for gaining +1A sort of relies on ignoring that last sentence. Thing is, it apparently says somewhere (no BRB on me, but it's been shown to me by a +1A-scamming arsewipe) that an item which "counts as" something will "count as" that something for all purposes. That's why all the Storm Shield-having Dexes that came out after the DH one are at pains to specify that a model with an SS can't ever gain the +1 attack bonus for being equipped with two one-handed weapons; in fact I believe the current C: SM goes a step further and actually removes the reference to SSes being one-handed weapons, and you've got to figure that this bs is the reason they did so.

Of course it would "count as" for all intents and purposes if there wasn't a conditional statement. However the specific inclusion of the conditional statement clarifies exactly why and how it "counts as" as single handed weapon. The specific exclusion of any of the other bonuses associated with having it "count as" a single handed weapon for all intents and purposes furthermore reinforces that it does not give a +1 attack and also lands along the prevalent trend with the 40k permissive ruleset.

It also leads us onto another, slightly less defensible, argument used by +1A scammers; the WH Codex came out at the same time and contains the Praesidium Protectiva, which is for all intents and purposes a Storm Shield for the Sisters. The wargear description specifically states that a model doesn't get the +1A bonus, and the scumbags will ask you why, if one 3rd Edition Codex contains this proviso, another one (which was created later) doesn't... unless the intent was for DH SSes to grant +1 Attack. There's no RaW to back this up, it's all RaI speculation, but it's a point.

You cannot use the "since it doesn't say I can't, so I can" argument within the 40k permissive ruleset. It is much easier not only explaining but playing to have a permissive ruleset that tells you the few things you are allowed rather then the vast, vast amount of things you are NOT allowed to do.

In addition, WH are not DH which are not Orks which are not SM which are not Daemons which are not Nids, etc, etc, etc. The lack of or addition of wording within one codex has zero bearing or foundation of argument of another codex.

Brother Ramses wrote:Of course it would "count as" for all intents and purposes if there wasn't a conditional statement. However the specific inclusion of the conditional statement clarifies exactly why and how it "counts as" as single handed weapon. The specific exclusion of any of the other bonuses associated with having it "count as" a single handed weapon for all intents and purposes furthermore reinforces that it does not give a +1 attack and also lands along the prevalent trend with the 40k permissive ruleset.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner

Brother Ramses wrote:Of course it would "count as" for all intents and purposes if there wasn't a conditional statement. However the specific inclusion of the conditional statement clarifies exactly why and how it "counts as" as single handed weapon.

No it doesn't.

The 'because' in that sentence means that what follows after is a reason, not a limitation. It defines why the weapon is single handed. It doesn't define the conditions under which it is so. It defines the condition that causes it to be so.

If it said that the shield counted as a single handed weapon for the purposes of determining how many weapons the model is carrying then you would have a limitation.

The rule as written has no such limitation. All it tells us is that the shield counts as x because of y.


Besides which, even if we assume that the reason listed applies a limitation, it's a limitation that is meaningless. Being able to carry something else in the same hand is not listed anywhere in the assault rules as affecting whether or not a model gets an extra attack for a weapon.

So the fact that the model can't carry anything else in the same hand as the storm shield has no effect whatsoever on whether or not it grants an extra attack. Models generally can't carry anything else in the same hand as a chainsword either... but they still get an extra attack from having it.

The only unit that this may effect in the game that is useful is the GK Grand Master. For only 10pts, he can carry a Storm Shield opposite his Nemesis Force Blade and deal 6 S6 attacks with a force weapon on a charge.

And that's really the only guy that gaining an extra attack from a shield is even remotely game unbalancing ... that is until you consider all of the other units out there that out perform the Grand Master in close combat for less than 155pts.

SJ

He doesn't cost 155pts. The GKGM is, in my opinion, a bloody bargain; sure he's a BS5 3-wound Librarian with no option to upgrade his psychic potency, but he has a base S6 Force Weapon that insta-jibs with no regard to Eternal Warrior.

Even if it doesn't (say, because a TO decides he prefers RaI to RaW), all that means is more incentive to give your GM Holocaust, which is frighteningly sweet and allows him to gribble the face off any hordes that he (and his retinue - retinue meaning he can't ever be targetted in CC, unlike 99% of the models who "outperform" him) can't put down with S6 power weapon ninja skills. His retinue can take Holocaust too, and both can use it in a given turn; effectively meaning that anything your NFWs didn't kill will have to face down two S5 pie-plates at I1, which you can place wherever you like as long as it's touching the GM. GKGM retinues are also one of the very few things that MEQ armies get which can hang with a Greater Daemon in CC, because of the gnarly wargear. WS5 I4 Bloodthirster is lol.

But yeah, anyway. He ain't mega-awesome, but he's really not a bad buy at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:Of course it would "count as" for all intents and purposes if there wasn't a conditional statement. However the specific inclusion of the conditional statement clarifies exactly why and how it "counts as" as single handed weapon.

No it doesn't.

The 'because' in that sentence means that what follows after is a reason, not a limitation. It defines why the weapon is single handed. It doesn't define the conditions under which it is so. It defines the condition that causes it to be so.

If it said that the shield counted as a single handed weapon for the purposes of determining how many weapons the model is carrying then you would have a limitation.

The rule as written has no such limitation. All it tells us is that the shield counts as x because of y.


Besides which, even if we assume that the reason listed applies a limitation, it's a limitation that is meaningless. Being able to carry something else in the same hand is not listed anywhere in the assault rules as affecting whether or not a model gets an extra attack for a weapon.

So the fact that the model can't carry anything else in the same hand as the storm shield has no effect whatsoever on whether or not it grants an extra attack. Models generally can't carry anything else in the same hand as a chainsword either... but they still get an extra attack from having it.

Or maybe not a winner... hehe Please stop giving scam-mongering scumbags more ammunition to claim their +1 Attack; it depresses me >_<

insaniak wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:Of course it would "count as" for all intents and purposes if there wasn't a conditional statement. However the specific inclusion of the conditional statement clarifies exactly why and how it "counts as" as single handed weapon.

No it doesn't.

The 'because' in that sentence means that what follows after is a reason, not a limitation. It defines why the weapon is single handed. It doesn't define the conditions under which it is so. It defines the condition that causes it to be so.

If it said that the shield counted as a single handed weapon for the purposes of determining how many weapons the model is carrying then you would have a limitation.

The rule as written has no such limitation. All it tells us is that the shield counts as x because of y.


Besides which, even if we assume that the reason listed applies a limitation, it's a limitation that is meaningless. Being able to carry something else in the same hand is not listed anywhere in the assault rules as affecting whether or not a model gets an extra attack for a weapon.

So the fact that the model can't carry anything else in the same hand as the storm shield has no effect whatsoever on whether or not it grants an extra attack. Models generally can't carry anything else in the same hand as a chainsword either... but they still get an extra attack from having it.

However it the rule tells you it isn't a weapon.

"although a storm shield is not a weapon as such...."

There is no question that it is or is not a weapon. The rule clearly states why it isn't a weapon and then later clarifies why and how it is to be counted as a single handed weapon. Individuals such as yourself then make the RAI assumption that it then confers an additional attack when the RAW does clearly not include it. Remember, permissive ruleset.

Unlike the storm shield, there is no question on whether a chainsword is a weapon or not. There is no qualifying or disqualifying condition in its description as a chainsword that limits or grants the +1 attack.

Brother Ramses wrote:Individuals such as yourself then make the RAI assumption that it then confers an additional attack when the RAW does clearly not include it.

'Individuals such as myself' make no such assumption. I've already pointed out several times that I don't think it's intended to have the extra attack.


As for the rest, again, unless you can find a rule that prohibits a weapon from granting the bonus attack if nothing else can be held in the same hand, the RAW does grant the bonus.

You should know better insaniak. The rules are permissive. You cannot argue "It doesn't say I CAN'T". The rules have to expressly tell you so.

Storm Shields grant a 3+Invo. That is it. Only pistols (or a double of whatever weapon they are carrying) grants you the additional attack for having a closecombat weapon. Storm Bolters do not do this, neither do flamers, only pistols.

You do not get the extra attack for having a storm shield.

Emperors Faithful wrote:You should know better insaniak. The rules are permissive. You cannot argue "It doesn't say I CAN'T". The rules have to expressly tell you so.

Storm Shields grant a 3+Invo. That is it. Only pistols (or a double of whatever weapon they are carrying) grants you the additional attack for having a closecombat weapon. Storm Bolters do not do this, neither do flamers, only pistols.

You do not get the extra attack for having a storm shield.

Try reading the right codex, THEN you can post.

...okay, so I made a mistake about witch hunters.
But don't storm shields give you a 3+ invo?
Where did I go wrong Gwar? WHEEERE!!!

Emperors Faithful wrote:...okay, so I made a mistake about witch hunters.
But don't storm shields give you a 3+ invo?
Where did I go wrong Gwar? WHEEERE!!!

DH Storm Shields give a 4+ Invulnerable save against one model in close combat only.

they are discussing storm shields from the DH codex, where are not the same as the space marine ones

Gwar beat me to it...

...oh, okay. Thanks for putting me back on track.

Anyway, does it SAY you get an additional attack?
If yes then you do.
If no (or it says nothing) you don't.

Rules are PERMISSIVE.

My gaming club plays it that Grey Knights get the extra attack.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:My gaming club plays it that Grey Knights get the extra attack.

And my Gaming Club worships the Flying Spaghetti Monster (May His Noodly Appendages keep us firmly down on the ground, RAmen) and engage in Holy War against the Forces of the Invisible Pink Unicorn who play Warhammer Fantasy across town.

In Short: No-one really cares what your club plays. RaW, it does not count as a Weapon, so does not give the bonus attack.

Actually it was a decision discussed in detail and then voted upon.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Actually it was a decision discussed in detail and then voted upon.

Again, no-one cares how your club plays it. If you have a point to make, then make it. "This is how I play it" is not an effective argument.

I am sure if you stopped by to play at the club we could sit down and discuss this with you. It's not really a big deal.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Anyway, does it SAY you get an additional attack?

Yes, it does.

The storm shield counts as a single handed weapon.
Having two single handed weapons grants you +1 attack (rulebook, page 37, as mentioned numerous times throughout the thread... )

insaniak wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Anyway, does it SAY you get an additional attack?

Yes, it does.

The storm shield counts as a single handed weapon.
Having two single handed weapons grants you +1 attack (rulebook, page 37, as mentioned numerous times throughout the thread... )

You are ignoring rules:

"a storm shield is not a weapon"

Yeah, that settles it. It counts as a Weapon for the Purposes of what the Model can Hold, no other Purpose.

Gwar! wrote:You are ignoring rules:

...says the guy quoting half of the sentence...

"a storm shield is not a weapon"

But counts as one.

Yeah, that settles it. It counts as a Weapon for the Purposes of what the Model can Hold, no other Purpose.

No, it counts as a weapon because of what the model can hold... not for the purposes of what the model can hold. That would require a completely differently worded sentence, without the 'because' in the middle of it.


Again, I agree that's what it's intended to say... but what it actually says is not the same. You're making a judgement based on what you think it should mean, instead of what's actually written on the page.

My club the majority of our members were in agreement with the interpretation presented by insaniak as it is the most true to RAW.

Please stop posting what your club thinks, because NO ONE CARES.

IMO My interpretation is the RaW. I suppose we can agree to disagree.

I can't agree with you.

I don't know how the rest of y'all feel but I would rather hear of a consensus brought about by common discussion of a group than half-quotes and "I'm right, so THERE!" type posts.

That's the definition of a "forum" everyone has a place to be heard.

My group has agreed that DHs specifically get +1 A with a Storm Shield as well. For the reasons Insaniak pointed out.

I don't know about the rest of you but my club plays how we see fit. It's not like GW is going to buy an airplane ticket for Gwar so he can fly across the Atlantic ocean, take a taxi to our home, kick down the door and shout at us that Jervis won't tolerate us not playing as Gwar sees fit.

By the RAW a storm shield is not a weapon:

"although a storm shield is not a weapon as such...."

By the RAW is counts as a single handed weapon:

"it counts as a single handed weapon.."

By the RAW why does it count as a single handed weapon:

"because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield."

Please show me where in the RAW that I have provided that it tells you to confer +1 attack for the storm shield as a single handed weapon.

The one and only reason why it tells you to count the storm shield as a single handed weapon is " because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield". Nothing more, nothing less. Just, "because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield".

I'm going to make sure that my mega armored Warboss is pinned to his bike really well.

Then he probably won't fall off a lot, and it's legal to use him.

:3

Brother Ramses wrote:Please show me where in the RAW that I have provided that it tells you to confer +1 attack for the storm shield as a single handed weapon.

Page 37. Still.

Single handed weapons grant +1 attack.

So something that counts as a single handed weapon also grants +1 attack.

The reason that the item counts as a single handed weapon is irrelevant, and has no effect on when that item counts as a single handed weapon. If I have a shirt that counts as a piece of daggy clothing because it has no sleeves, then it counts as a piece of daggy clothing all of the time. It's not just a piece of daggy clothing for the purposes of determining whether or not my clothing has sleeves. Nor does the fact that it is daggy have any effect on whether or not I'm wearing it.



What you're looking for is a restriction that over-rides the normal rules, not a reason for a given rule to exist.

And there is no such restriction in the rules.


It counts as a single handed weapon, because you can't hold anything else in the same hand.
Do the rules list any effect of not being able to hold anything else in the same hand as a given item?
No, they don't. Therefore the fact that nothing else can be held in the same hand is irrelevant. It's a piece of explanatory text with no bearing on the rules.

So far as the RAW is conicerned, it's a single handed weapon. And single handed weapons confer the attack bonus.

Pointing to what is in the BRB in regard to single handed weapons is a moot point. Codex overrules BRB and in this case, per RAW, a DH storm shield is labeled as:

A) not being a weapon
B) only counting as a single handed weapon because nothing else can be used on the arm with the shield.

The restrictions are right in the rule itself. You keep getting hung up on the "counts as" part without reading any other part of the rule which specifically tells you how to treat the DH shield in question.

Brother Ramses wrote:A) not being a weapon

...but counting as one.

B) only counting as a single handed weapon because nothing else can be used on the arm with the shield.

The word 'only' does not appear in the rule in question.

Not that it would matter if it did... because no matter how many times you insist otherwise, the reason for it counting as a single handed weapon has no bearing whatsoever on what a single handed weapon does.

If it's a single handed weapon because the model can't hold anything else in the same hand, then it's a single handed weapon.
If it's a single handed weapon because it replaces the model's hand, then it's a single handed weapon.
If it's a single handed weapon because it is painted blue, then it's a single handed weapon.
If it's a single handed weapon because some watery tart hands it to you from out of a lake, then it's a single handed weapon.

And single handed weapons grant the attack bonus.

The restrictions are right in the rule itself. You keep getting hung up on the "counts as" part without reading any other part of the rule which specifically tells you how to treat the DH shield in question.

I'm not getting 'hung up' on anything. I'm simply reading the part that explains why the weapon counts as a single handed weapon as being a reason for the weapon to count as a single handed weapon. As opposed to thinking that a reason for being somehow imposes a restriction on what a single handed weapon does.

I don't know why anyone even cares about this. Because of how the RAW for the Storm Shield is written in the Daemonhunter codex (that it only works against a single opponent in CC) it sucks so badly that anyone who wants to take it and get the +1 Attack bonus is fine by me.


And I agree with Insaniak, BTW.

If you have a law that says: "although a truck isn't technically a car as such, it counts as a car."

This means that any laws applying to cars also apply to trucks (because they count as being a car).

What else do we think "counts as" means except that item 'B' is treated, for all intents and purposes, as item 'A'.

Hang on, what DOES grant an additional attack?

I know pistols do, and duplicates of the same special weapon (aka, 2 power fists) but what else?
Just to recap.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Hang on, what DOES grant an additional attack?

I know pistols do, and duplicates of the same special weapon (aka, 2 power fists) but what else?
Just to recap.

Please don't divert this thread further off course.

Check out page 37 of the rulebook in the 'number of attacks' section and page 42 of the rulebook for your answer.

So really the question is whether or not the Storm Sheild ACTS as a close combat weapon (therby granting the close combat attack), or if it simply REPLACES a close combat weapon (in which case it does not confer a bonus attack).

I don't have the DeamonHunter codex so I can't say for sure. It's got to be one or the other though.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I'm going to make sure that my mega armored Warboss is pinned to his bike really well.

Then he probably won't fall off a lot, and it's legal to use him.

:3

Yes, this is most awesome and Cake!

Gwar! wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:I'm going to make sure that my mega armored Warboss is pinned to his bike really well.

Then he probably won't fall off a lot, and it's legal to use him.

:3

Yes, this is most awesome and Cake!

Also don't forget to model on extra people, so you can also fire all the weapons.

Tri wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:I'm going to make sure that my mega armored Warboss is pinned to his bike really well.

Then he probably won't fall off a lot, and it's legal to use him.

:3

Yes, this is most awesome and Cake!

Also don't forget to model on extra people, so you can also fire all the weapons.

Damn right! Gretchin count as people right??

Could we please keep this on topic and not digress with silly OT comments? They add nothing to the discussion.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Could we please keep this on topic and not digress with silly OT comments? They add nothing to the discussion.

Neither did your "ZOMG MY CLUB PLAYS LIKE THIS" posts, but that didn't stop you.

EVEN If you could get an extra attack with the stormshield

it falls under the category of a special weapon since it has rules other than "normal ccwpn"

as such per page42 you cannot get an additional attack with it if used with another special weapon.

so even if it were considered a close combat weapon, not count as for equipment allocation, but just flat out is, then you could -only- get an additional attack with it if you paired it with simply a normal close combat weapon, or a second storm shield since you must have two of the same special weapons, or special weapon+normal cc weapon, to get an addiotnal attack if one is a special weapon p42.

furthermore powerfists, thunderhammers, and lightning claws may only get an additional attack if paired with a copy of themselves - ie 2 powerfists, or 2 thunderhammers, or 2 lightning claws. p42.

cliff notes-
-if- storm shield is a weapon then:
only
storm shield+ normal close combat weapon
or
storm shield + storm shield

grants +1 attack.

Gwar my club's decision is directly related to this discussion. You may not like it but it's relevant. As I said we came to the same conclusions as insaniak.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Gwar my club's decision is directly related to this discussion. You may not like it but it's relevant. As I said we came to the same conclusions as insaniak.

No, it is not. If I were to say "My club lets all Storm Shields give a 2+ Invulnerable save and +6 Bonus attacks", would that be relevant?

That's obviously not what I said though.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:That's obviously not what I said though.

Why is your club more important than mine or anyone elses?

I never said it was but you have said it has no bearing here, while in fact it does.

He actually said it has as much bearing as anyone else's club.

Which is to say none outside of said club.

yakface wrote:I don't know why anyone even cares about this. Because of how the RAW for the Storm Shield is written in the Daemonhunter codex (that it only works against a single opponent in CC) it sucks so badly that anyone who wants to take it and get the +1 Attack bonus is fine by me.

They're not too bad actually; nowhere near as good as Smurf ones sure, but given that the worst your GKGM needs to hit anything in the game is a 4+, is able to wound pretty much everything thanks to his S6, and will insta-jib anything he wounds once by passing an Ld10 psychic test, an extra attack can be quite important. A 4++ save against a single opponent can also be important, because if he fails to hit, wound or poon a DP or something similar then having 4++ on 3 wounds might just allow him to survive for another attempt.

Tri wrote:

Gwar! wrote:It isn't a Glitch! You don't get the bonus attack!!!!!

Sorry gwar you do.

"Normal Close Combat Weapons
weapons like chainwords, rifle butts, combat blades,
bayonets, ect., do not confer any particular bonus to
the model using them (skipping bit on pistols)"

also
"4 although a storm shield is not a weapon as such, it counts as a single-handed weapon because nothing else can be used by the arm hold the shield."
so in its own rules it is clarified as being a CCW

Are you now saying that my assault marines don't get an extra attack for 2 ccw?

I am re-opening this thread. Please consider this a public warning to all posters, Rule #1 and #2 will be rigidly enforced on the remainder of this thread. Posts that are unnecessarily ascerbic, vitriolic, or just plain rude wil be treated as those violating Rule #1. Posts that intentionally go off topic will be considered violating Rule #2. If you are in doubt that the post you are about to make could potentially violate that, change it.

Argue the points gentlemen, not the personalities, and in a polite, debative manner, and not the arena of the common bar. Seriously, cut the crap or don't post. I promise I will be crankier than even my normal self.

I will occasionally revisit this thread. If others spot violations AFTER THIS POST, please report directly to me via PM and note my warning in the report.

Frazzled thank you for moderating this thread.

I fail to see how this is even needs a discussion.

If the storm shield is a weapon since it has rules beyond "normal close combat weapon"
it is a special weapon.

as such you would only get a bonus attack with a storm shield if you have:
storm shield+storm shield
or
storm shield +normal close combat weapon.

storm shield + anything else = no addtional attack as per p42.

since both of those are not only combinations people are not arguing about, nor combinations of weapons people would take there is really no reason to talk about this.

yakface wrote:
I don't know why anyone even cares about this. Because of how the RAW for the Storm Shield is written in the Daemonhunter codex (that it only works against a single opponent in CC) it sucks so badly that anyone who wants to take it and get the +1 Attack bonus is fine by me.


And I agree with Insaniak, BTW.

If you have a law that says: "although a truck isn't technically a car as such, it counts as a car."

This means that any laws applying to cars also apply to trucks (because they count as being a car).

What else do we think "counts as" means except that item 'B' is treated, for all intents and purposes, as item 'A'.

Had to drive to Yuma and back to Tucson today so a little loopy but here I go anyways. I am going to clean up your analogy Yak so it is actually relevant and comparative to the actual rule.

"although a bike is not a car as such... it counts as a mode of transportation because it can get a person from point A to point B."

The bike does not run on gas, is not as fast as the car, does not take up a parking space like a car, and does not have doors like a car. It counts as a mode of transportation because it can get a person from point A to point B and that is it. No extras for counting as a train, car, or plane (all modes of transportation), just that it is a mode of transportation that can get a person from point A to point B.

<deep breath>

Now I am going to delve into RAI for just a moment because +7hrs on the road gives plenty of time for thinking:

If the DH storm shield gives +1 attack then why the redundancy in the rule?

Page 16 DHC

"although a storm shield is not a weapon as such... it counts as a single handed weapon because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield"

If GW wanted you to have +1 attack all they would have had to print was,

"although a storm shield is not a weapon as such... it counts as a single handed weapon"

There would be absolutely no need to add,

"because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield"

If it counts as a single handed weapon and that is it without ANY restrictions or limitions, there would be no need to add the above line because we already know that single handed weapons take up the use of the arm holding it. Why the added redundancy of telling us that nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield if it already counts as a single handed weapon for all purposes including taking up the use of the arm?

There can be two reasons:

1. GW sucks at writing their rules. (I am guessing you will agree with this to support your +1 attack argument)
2. GW added the line specifically to tell you how it counts as a single handed weapon, in that you cannot use the arm holding the shield for anything else but holding the shield. None of the extras for counting as a single handed weapon, just that nothing else can be equipped on the arm holding the shield.

Brother Ramses wrote:"although a bike is not a car as such... it counts as a mode of transportation because it can get a person from point A to point B."

While your analogy is slightly different to the actual rule, it still does nothing for your point. If the bike counts as a mode of transport, then it counts as a mode of transport. Adding on the reason that it counts as a mode of transport doesn't effect when it counts. It just tells you why the decision was made to count it as a mode of transport.

It counts as a mode of transportation because it can get a person from point A to point B and that is it.

Sure. But, again, that doesn't affect when it counts as a mode of transportation. Just tells you why it was given that classification. It's always a mode of transport.


A reason for something to be classed as it is does not in itself impose limitations on that thing.

If an apple is classed as a granny smith because it is green, that doesn't mean that the apple is only a granny smith for the purposes of determining the colour of the apple. It's classed as a granny smith. The reason is just extraneous description.


But I suspect that this is just going to keep going around in circles.

Brother Ramses wrote:"although a bike is not a car as such... it counts as a mode of transportation because it can get a person from point A to point B."

You're really going to turn "weapon" into "car", but "single handed weapon" into "mode of transportation"? A "car" is a more specific than a "form of transportation", "a weapon" is not more specific than "a single handed weapon". It's a poor analogy.

You'd be better off going with "although a bike is not a car as such... it counts as a small car because it can get a person from point A to point B."

so no one cares that discounting the wording you dont get +1 attack for a storm shield even if it said it was a weapon?

blaktoof wrote:so no one cares that discounting the wording you dont get +1 attack for a storm shield even if it said it was a weapon?

Sorry, meant to reply to your post, but forgot. First coffee of the morning and all.

Two problems, though... even if we agree that the shield would count as a special CCW, you still get the attack under certain gear combinations.

And we had the 'what counts as a SCCW?' argument not so long ago... with opinions being somewhat divided. It can be argued that a SCCW is anything with special rules... which would include the storm shield... But it can also be argued that a SCCW is anything with special rules that directly affect how you hit with it in close combat, which would not.

You could also argue (so I guess that's actually 3 problems ) that it doesn't actually count as any sort of close combat weapon, since it is never defined as such. It is only defined as counting as a single handed weapon, not a close combat weapon. So it grants the bonus solely through the rule on page 37 that grants +1 attack for having two single handed weapons, rather than through the CCW combinations listed on page 42, because it doesn't actually fit into any of those combinations.

Eh? A Nemesis Force Weapon counts as a Force Weapon in the hands of a Grandmaster. Is that what you're thinking of?

May I try to add another angle to the argument if it is still going... I beleive that SS do grant +1 to close combat. Note: I havent read all posts but I can see where this is going and it may have already ended in the inevitable school yard hate fest between GK power players arguing that it doesnt matter what you think the rules say that the shield techinically gets +1A and those of us who know that it doesnt.

Anyway onto my argument (and I would'nd normally call someone a nasty powerplayer to thier face), Ive done no small amount of real sword fighting with heavy and light shields and real swords and have found that for the oddest reason that GW's rules normally follow the reality of life.
In my experiance, fighting with a shield in one hand and a weapon[insert any one or two handed weapon here] in the other hand does not empower you to attack fast nor place yourself in a position that you would never have to gain more chances to hit the other opponent, even a shield bash or check is not sufficient to claim a +1A (especially in the warhammer universe)... A SHIELD IS ONLY A DEFENSIVE WARGEAR.

Note: I tend to even agree that you may find that even in the wording that the GK SS donot gain extra attack acording to the rules.

Since some individuals continue to stop reading the rule at, "counts as a single handed weapon" it is absolutely useless to argue RAW when the whole rule is not read.

So to those of you that want to count a SH storm shield as a single handed weapon that confers +1 attack, why the redundancy of the rule?

Why include "because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield" at all then?

Lord Kas wrote:it may have already ended in the inevitable school yard hate fest between GK power players arguing that it doesnt matter what you think the rules say

between GK power players arguing

GK power players

what

Brother Ramses wrote:By the RAW a storm shield is not a weapon:

"although a storm shield is not a weapon as such...."

By the RAW is counts as a single handed weapon:

"it counts as a single handed weapon.."

By the RAW why does it count as a single handed weapon:

"because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield."

Please show me where in the RAW that I have provided that it tells you to confer +1 attack for the storm shield as a single handed weapon.

The one and only reason why it tells you to count the storm shield as a single handed weapon is " because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield". Nothing more, nothing less. Just, "because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield".

And

Brother Ramses wrote:Since some individuals continue to stop reading the rule at, "counts as a single handed weapon" it is absolutely useless to argue RAW when the whole rule is not read.

So to those of you that want to count a SH storm shield as a single handed weapon that confers +1 attack, why the redundancy of the rule?

Why include "because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield" at all then?

He got it perfectly.

Brother Ramses wrote:
Page 16 DHC

"although a storm shield is not a weapon as such... it counts as a single handed weapon because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield"[/i]

If GW wanted you to have +1 attack all they would have had to print was,

"although a storm shield is not a weapon as such... it counts as a single handed weapon"

There would be absolutely no need to add,

"because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield"

QFT, Brother Ramses.
Forget the stuff about a car or bike or whatever, this IS IT!
Honestly, this answers the post. I porbably gonna get flak for this but...I challenge anyone to refute this LOGICALLY.
Anyone, I've put this out there so come on, tackle this qoutw of you think you're hard enough.

(P.S. Brother Ramses, I am trusting that this qoute is accurate, otherwise this thread is gonna pummel me.)

*Edit , I agree with Brother Ramses , i would imagine the only reason they would say its not a weapon , yet it count as a weapon
for the sole purpose of people not grabbing 2 weapons in 1 hand.

Can we please refrain from OT remarks in YMDC? Thanks.

OT?

Lord Kas wrote:In my experiance, fighting with a shield in one hand and a weapon[insert any one or two handed weapon here] in the other hand does not empower you to attack fast nor place yourself in a position that you would never have to gain more chances to hit the other opponent, even a shield bash or check is not sufficient to claim a +1A (especially in the warhammer universe)... A SHIELD IS ONLY A DEFENSIVE WARGEAR.

No offense, but I have no idea why you would think this was in any way relevant to a discussion of the rules for a miniature wargame. From my experience, soldiers don't run around the battlefield with large discs attached to their feet, freezing in place when it's the enemies' turn to shoot at them...

Brother Ramses wrote:Since some individuals continue to stop reading the rule at, "counts as a single handed weapon" it is absolutely useless to argue RAW when the whole rule is not read.

You're still missing the point, then.

I'm reading the whole rule. What I'm saying is that it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. Continuing to insist that I'm ignoring part of the rule won't change that. I'm not ignoring it. I'm taking it to mean what it actually says, rather than what I think it's supposed to mean.

Why include "because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield" at all then?

Because what they wrote for the rule is not what they intended...

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Can we please refrain from OT remarks in YMDC? Thanks.

Just to point out, just making a post about not posting OT comments doesn't help you at all.

Now that's done, I can easily see both sides. The shield description is muddled. Not sure why GW wants something to count as a weapon, yet it isn't. And yet be easily debated that it is or isn't. This may just be one of those that has to be decided beforehand, I dunno. Just my opinion.

insaniak wrote:Because what they wrote for the rule is not what they intended...

So you have been arguing RAI this whole time despite saying your argument was RAW. Gotcha.

Um... I'm pretty sure Insaniak is saying it wasn't intended to give an extra attack, but with the way it was written it does.

Thus, he was arguing the RAW.

(Or are you just being catty?)

Brother Ramses wrote:

insaniak wrote:Because what they wrote for the rule is not what they intended...

So you have been arguing RAI this whole time despite saying your argument was RAW. Gotcha.

No. I've been arguing RAW despite thinking that the RAW is different to what was actually intended.

RAW, the shield grants the attack, because it counts as a single handed weapon.
RAI, (or at least what I assume to be RAI) and how I would play it, the shield does not grant the attack as it only counts as a single handed weapon for the purposes of determining how much the model can carry.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Um... I'm pretty sure Insaniak is saying it wasn't intended to give an extra attack, but with the way it was written it does.

Thus, he was arguing the RAW.

(Or are you just being catty?)

You have a condition:

"..it counts as a single handed weapon..."

On its own, there is nothing with this RAW that prevents you from getting +1 attack for having two single handed weapons; one being a SH storm shield, the other being another single handed weapon.

However, GW attached to the above RAW modification:

"because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield"

Now what they have done is taken the condition of "counts as a single handed weapon" with all the bonuses of having a single handed weapon and specifically limited to only one thing, "because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield". The RAW is very clear there and trying to attack GW for their writing now is the last losing defense against,

If GW wanted you to have +1 attack all they would have had to print was,

"although a storm shield is not a weapon as such... it counts as a single handed weapon"

There would be absolutely no need to add,

"because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield"

Don't take it up with me, I was just trying to explain what Insaniak was getting at.

LunaHound wrote:*Edit , I agree with Brother Ramses , i would imagine the only reason they would say its not a weapon , yet it count as a weapon
for the sole purpose of people not grabbing 2 weapons in 1 hand.

The reason why per the RAW would be that they do not want to have a person with 2 single handed weapons and a storm shield, thus getting the +1 attack for two single-handed weapons and a 4+ inv. By specifically classifying the storm shield as not a weapon, but counting as a single handed weapon it is filling the single hand weapon slot without conferring a +1 attack bonus.

Brother Ramses wrote:Now what they have done is taken the condition of "counts as a single handed weapon" with all the bonuses of having a single handed weapon and specifically limited to only one thing,

No, they haven't... because that's not what the word 'because' means. It's not a limitation. It's an explanation.

It doesn't limit anything. It explains why something is the way it is.

The reason for something to act the way it is does not in itself limit when that thing acts in that way. It just doesn't. English just doesn't work that way.

But we've been over this too many times for it to still be amusing. Unless someone's got something new to add, I think this has gone about as far as it's going to.

The RAW is very clear there and trying to attack GW for their writing now is the last losing defense against,

Who was doing that?

Pointing out that what is on the page isn't what they actually intended is not an attack. It's a statement that I personally don't think that they wrote the rule the way that they intended it to work.

If the weapon counts as a single handed weapon, in all aspects, as you contend the RAW points out and that,

"because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield"

is only an explanation and not a limitation then why not also include,

"Engaged models with two single-handed weapons (typically a close combat weapon and/or pistol in each hand) get an extra +1 attack."

to further explain why something the way it is?

Again, back to PERMISSIVE RULE SET. The rule has to specifically tell you what you can do, NOT what you can't do. As has been the RAW throughout this thread, the DH storm shield rule tells you that you that the shield counts as a single handed weapon for taking up that weapon "slot" and nothing more beyond the +4 inv save in close combat.

Neither of your arguments deal with 40k being a permissive ruleset, so there's no point in going down that road. Also, I don't think Insaniak is saying that it was meant to only be an explanation and not a limitation, but that it's written that way.

I see two arguments here:

"The English language cannot express things perfectly; you must look into the context in which it was written to derive what the author is saying. In this instance, "because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield" modifies the meaning of "it counts as a single handed weapon" to only be relevant in the context of carrying a weapon in each hand."

And:

"There rules concerning the meaning of words and grammar that give meaning to sentences independent of the author's intentions. The word "because" only implies a rationale behind the ruling, it does not act as any sort of prohibition on when the Storm Shield functions as a single handed weapon."

Brother Ramses wrote: then why not also include,...

Didn't we just cover that?

I'd point out, yet again, that the rule doesn't say what was probably intended, but I'm a little concerned that it's going to start wearing out those keys on my keyboard.

Again, back to PERMISSIVE RULE SET. The rule has to specifically tell you what you can do, NOT what you can't do.

Which it does. The shield counts as a single handed weapon, and single handed weapons grant the attack bonus.

As has been the RAW throughout this thread, the DH storm shield rule tells you that you that the shield counts as a single handed weapon for taking up that weapon "slot" and nothing more beyond the +4 inv save in close combat.

And as I've explained numerous times through the thread, it does nothing of the sort.

Look, I've explained that it doesn't mean what you think it means.
I've given examples to show why it doesn't mean what you think it means.
I've explained that the odd wording suggests that it was supposed to mean what you think it means, but doesn't.

And so far, your respose has been to ignore the presented explanations, to claim that I'm ignoring the part of the rule that I've just spent several pages trying to explain to you, to completely confuse whether I was arguing RAW or RAI, and to continue to claim that the passage in question means something that it very definitely doesn't.

Since I can't think of any new ways of explaining it, and since it ultimately won't affect my game in the slightest, I think that's about where I'll stop wasting my time. Again.

...I don't see what you're doing insaniak. The RAW clearly seems to say that the storm shield takes up the slot of one single handed weapon, yet is not ACTUALLY a weapon, therefore it denies the +1 attack.

It is like the Prasedium Protectiva In the witch hunter codex. In fact, it is almost EXACTLY the same.

Emperors faithful: OT means off topic

Thanks.

insaniak wrote:

Lord Kas wrote:In my experiance, fighting with a shield in one hand and a weapon[insert any one or two handed weapon here] in the other hand does not empower you to attack fast nor place yourself in a position that you would never have to gain more chances to hit the other opponent, even a shield bash or check is not sufficient to claim a +1A (especially in the warhammer universe)... A SHIELD IS ONLY A DEFENSIVE WARGEAR.

No offense, but I have no idea why you would think this was in any way relevant to a discussion of the rules for a miniature wargame. From my experience, soldiers don't run around the battlefield with large discs attached to their feet, freezing in place when it's the enemies' turn to shoot at them...

Thankyou mate for your reply,
In aswer to your question I have only one thing to say, the reason that I believe that real life examples are relevant to this discussion is because GW seems to believe so aswell...

ARGUMENT 1) the GW 5th editon rule book has numerous notations from the authors of real world reasons for rules! (examples left unmentioned as I do not have a rule bppk infront of me)

ARGUMENT 2) Dave the head of the Parramatta Australia GW store used a real world illustration to give me a reasoning as for rules from his own military combat and steel re-enacyment history.

Me: So mate why cant my troopers use thier guns in close combat, it makes sense, just keep shooting at close range?
Dave: well because two things with some weapons like plasma pistols you dont wnat them working too close to you8 as you may get hit or cop back flow! and secondly because of the flowing nature of melee, youdont want to risk hitting your own guys with your guns or shooting yourself/the enemy takign your gun and using it on you!.

SUMMERY:
In responce to the men sticking to bases and staying still, you may wish to note that GW says that the static nature of movement, represents the troops moving naturally while stil keeping a proper and fair order to the game. The trops are actually moving naturally all you see is the representation of real life scenarios on your table.

hope this help, every Aussie I've met sees fit to use real life logic to find a solution unless they are a rules nazi (as i like to say) and prefer thier own benefit to that of appropriate thinking and logic.

Playing according to real life is fine.
But you have to admit if there is an argument between "real life" and the rules, the rules should take precedent. After all, it is in the future mate. And "real life" is not always, or even mostly, going to be the fairest way to play.

It still has no relevance in a rules discussion taking place here.

Horses do not move two steps in a given direction and then one step at a right angle to the previous two, yet we still accept that tha is the way rooks move when it comes to the rules of chess.

See? The real world and our experiences therein has no impact on the rules we are discussing.
The "reality" for 40K is defined by the rules, not real-world experiences.

...I KNOW. He does too, you don't have to rub it in SteelMage99.

Steelmage99 wrote:Horses do not move two steps in a given direction and then one step at a right angle to the previous two, yet we still accept that tha is the way rooks move when it comes to the rules of chess.

Er... no we don't...

Knights, on the other hand...

Modquisition back on.

A reminder of my earlier warning and the seriousness of that warning.

Emperors Faithful wrote:...I don't see what you're doing insaniak. The RAW clearly seems to say that the storm shield takes up the slot of one single handed weapon, yet is not ACTUALLY a weapon, therefore it denies the +1 attack.

It is like the Prasedium Protectiva In the witch hunter codex. In fact, it is almost EXACTLY the same.

Great point EF that is very short and to the point by looking at the statement in reverse.

1. A shield uses the arm that is holding it so no other weapon can be equipped on that arm,
2. and that is the reason it counts as a single handed weapon,
3. but it isn't a weapon.

Why would you read it reverse? No one reads sentences in reverse.

Also, if it isn't a weapon, but it counts as a weapon, nothing's changed. It's solely a matter of whether the last clause is only a justification for the rule, or if it modifies the "counting as" function to only apply to that situation.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Why would you read it reverse? No one reads sentences in reverse.

Also, if it isn't a weapon, but it counts as a weapon, nothing's changed. It's solely a matter of whether the last clause is only a justification for the rule, or if it modifies the "counting as" function to only apply to that situation.

The last clause is not needed UNLESS it is a modification. "Counts as a single-handed weapon" in the RAW is all the justification you need. There is no reason, whatsoever, to include the last clause other then as a modification to the "Counts as a single-handed weapon".

Like I asked before, why the redundancy?

The Praesidium Protectiva contains a sentence that forbids a model equipped with one gaining a bonus attack for being equipped with two single-handed weapons.

The DH SS doesn't. The comparison is flawed.

Brother Ramses wrote:The last clause is not needed UNLESS it is a modification. "Counts as a single-handed weapon" in the RAW is all the justification you need. There is no reason, whatsoever, to include the last clause other then as a modification to the "Counts as a single-handed weapon".

Like I asked before, why the redundancy?

I agree, the last sentence seems to be an obvious display of the author's intent.

The problem is where you draw the line between trying to apply a rule based on the intent of the writer, and based on the literal meaning of the words.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:The last clause is not needed UNLESS it is a modification. "Counts as a single-handed weapon" in the RAW is all the justification you need. There is no reason, whatsoever, to include the last clause other then as a modification to the "Counts as a single-handed weapon".

Like I asked before, why the redundancy?

I agree, the last sentence seems to be an obvious display of the author's intent.

The problem is where you draw the line between trying to apply a rule based on the intent of the writer, and based on the literal meaning of the words.

Well in this case the author did not include any other bonuses or negatives of having a single-handed weapon equipped on one arm. You earlier mentioned that this argument has nothing to do with the permissive rule set when in fact it does.

If the author wanted you to have +1 attack he would have ended the sentence at:

"counts as a single-handed weapon"

because that would mean, per RAW,

1. that it takes up a slot
2. that it grants +1 attack

However the author did not leave the sentence at,

"counts as a single-handed weapon"

He then explained why it counts as a single-handed weapon. The specific inclusion of it taking up a slot AND the specific exclusion of the +1 attack.

Permissive rule set: If the rule does not say you can do something, then you can't.

The DH storm shield tells you to count it as a single handed weapon. It then clarifies why it counts as a single-handed weapon. That clarification does not include +1 attack.

I do think that this is one of those areas that's most easily handled by discussing it with one's opponent before a match, anyway. It's not like one can say to them "Oh, the guys on dakka agree with me", and have that carry any weight -- so till it's FAQed, it'll need to be discussed.

The easy approach for a DH player to take is "It gives me +1 attack in CC if I use RAW from the DH codex. Alternatively, if you prefer, I can treat it as a SS from the SM codex, in which case I don't get the +1 attack in CC, but do get a 3+ Invulnerable Save at all times, instead of just a 4+ in CC. I don't mind either way."

(I agree, incidentally, that RAI are that it doesn't give you an extra attack, but that RAW are that it does, simply because of the very specific meaning of "counts as" in a rules context; if it had said "counts as a single-handed weapon solely for purposes of determining how many weapons a character may have", that would have been a lot clearer, but it doesn't, so we can assume it counts as a single-handed weapon for all purposes.)

I would like an answer to this question:

Per RAW in the DH codex:

"although a storm shield is not a weapon as such... it counts as a single handed weapon because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield"

Despite not being a weapon, what is the reason given why a DH storm shield is to be counted as a single-handed weapon? It tells you despite not being a weapon to count is as a single handed weapon for one reason, and only one reason. Anyone care to answer?

To Insaniak, Orkeo, and others in the same camp I would completely agree with you had the sentence just been,

"although a storm shield is not a weapon as such... it counts as a single handed weapon."

and even possibly,

"although a storm shield is not a weapon as such... it counts as a single handed weapon. Nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield"

However attached to as part of the sentence with the "because" modifies how the storm shield counts as a single-handed weapon.

Done. I got stuff to do.

hmmm.

"although a storm shield is not a weapon as such... it counts as a single handed weapon because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield"

So, because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield, it counts as a single handed weapon?

Seems as permissive as exclusive.

I must be missing something again. Off to check!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hmm. Guess I am looking in the wrong place.

My Codex: Daemonhunters has the stormshields on page 18 and nothing about it counting as a weapon (single handed or otherwise) is listed.

shrug

kirsanth wrote:hmmm.

"although a storm shield is not a weapon as such... it counts as a single handed weapon because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield"

So, because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield, it counts as a single handed weapon?

Seems as permissive as exclusive.

I must be missing something again. Off to check!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hmm. Guess I am looking in the wrong place.

My Codex: Daemonhunters has the stormshields on page 18 and nothing about it counting as a weapon (single handed or otherwise) is listed.

shrug

its in the bit with points cost i think it little (4) but don't quote me on that ... i can't be bother to check

Tri wrote:
its in the bit with points cost i think it little (4) but don't quote me on that ... i can't be bother to check

Oh, I see the problem, I was looking in the section describing the rules for Daemonhunter's Storm Shields.

shrug

Brother Ramses wrote:I would like an answer to this question:

Per RAW in the DH codex:

"although a storm shield is not a weapon as such... it counts as a single handed weapon because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield"

Despite not being a weapon, what is the reason given why a DH storm shield is to be counted as a single-handed weapon? It tells you despite not being a weapon to count is as a single handed weapon for one reason, and only one reason. Anyone care to answer?

To Insaniak, Orkeo, and others in the same camp I would completely agree with you had the sentence just been,

"although a storm shield is not a weapon as such... it counts as a single handed weapon."

and even possibly,

"although a storm shield is not a weapon as such... it counts as a single handed weapon. Nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield"

However attached to as part of the sentence with the "because" modifies how the storm shield counts as a single-handed weapon.

Done. I got stuff to do.

actually the answer is even simplier than I thought.

See that line of rules refers to rules on how many items a model can have, back in 4th edition it mattered how many items a model could have so some rules were worded as such.

As per the gw faq on wargear items that have rules that no longer pertain to the current edition not being usable the item does not function so storm shields for DH have no effect whatsever other than costing points.

blaktoof wrote:actually the answer is even simplier than I thought.

See that line of rules refers to rules on how many items a model can have, back in 4th edition it mattered how many items a model could have so some rules were worded as such.

As per the gw faq on wargear items that have rules that no longer pertain to the current edition not being usable the item does not function so storm shields for DH have no effect whatsever other than costing points.

Right church. Wrong pew.

I think Blaktoof has the gist of it. Under the 5th edition rules, wargear that has no application or doesn't work under the new rules just doesn't work.

I would argue that since "one-handed" and "two-handed" weapons, and weapon limits are no longer part of the game, and have no impact, that the little endnote 4 on page 16 can be ignored.

The result is that the description of the Stormshield on page 18 is the actual rule that is followed on how the stormshield works.

However, that logic (ignoring restrictions in the codex on carrying limits) means I could arm my characters with two one-handed weapons, and a storm shield for the same effect.

If that doesn't cut it, and the DH limits on carrying still apply (as codex trumps rulebook), then all that is meant by the rule on page 16 is that it only applies as a rule regarding carry limits. It has zero impact on adding attacks.

The actual rule for the SS is on page 18, and makes no mention of extra attacks.

Its gotta be one or the other.

*edited for sleepiness

Cruentus wrote:I would argue that since "one-handed" and "two-handed" weapons, and weapon limits are no longer part of the game, and have no impact, that the little endnote 4 on page 16 can be ignored.

Explain how they are no longer in the game; they're part of the codex, what rules in the BRB makes that invalid?

Weapon limits are no longer appearing in codices. That doesn't mean they're no longer valid for the codex they're printed in. You use the rules in your codex, regardless of whether or not newer codices have those restrictions.

Brother Ramses wrote:Well in this case the author did not include any other bonuses or negatives of having a single-handed weapon equipped on one arm. You earlier mentioned that this argument has nothing to do with the permissive rule set when in fact it does.

Your opposition says that the rules do state you can get an extra attack.

They're aware of it being a permissive ruleset, they say they have permission. Telling them that they need permission isn't contributing much.