How many attacks does Eldrad get on the charge with the Staff of Ulthamar? I was watching Fritz's youtube videos, and they play it as 2 per subsequent assault phase - so I guess 3 on the charge.#

Also, does a Farseer only get 1 attack per subsequent round of combat if equipped with a singing spear?

garigon wrote:How many attacks does Eldrad get on the charge with the Staff of Ulthamar? I was watching Fritz's youtube videos, and they play it as 2 per subsequent assault phase - so I guess 3 on the charge.#

He gets his base attacks only. He has more than 1 special CCW so never gets the bonus attacks.

Gwar is correct almost all the time, probably over 99.9% as has been claimed by some, but this is one of those few times that his statements are not in keeping with the RAW.

Eldrad gets +1 attack for using two ccweapons as long as the player is not trying to use both the witch blade and the staff of ulthamar at the same time. There are rules in the brb (pg 42 in particular) that deal with a model that attempts to use two different special ccws, and those models do not gain an extra attack. However, in no interpretation of the rules can this rule completely limit Eldrad since:

1) either the player can choose to use the pistol and one of his special ccws or

2) a model is always using all of the weapons with which he is equipped; in which case the rule cant apply to Eldrad since he is not "using" two weapons, he is using three.

So either interpretation of the word "using" shows that Eldrad is fine. There was a long involved thread at one time about the exact meaning of wielding, using and equipped in which some people equated the terms and some drew distinctions between the terms.

There can be a better arguement made that the staff isnt listed as a one handed ccw, but that still allows eldrad to use the witch blade and pistol at the very least.

INAT has faqed the staff to be a one handed weapon, at least partially because the writer of the eldar codex played the staff as being a one handed weapon.


The overall best answer however is: keep eldrad out of cc so that you never have to worry about his attacks


Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:Gwar is correct almost all the time, probably over 99.9% as has been claimed by some, but this is one of those few times that his statements are not in keeping with the RAW.

Answer me this:
How many Special CCW does Eldrad have? Just a single number please.
Does he have to choose which one of these special CCW to use? Yes or no Please.

Keep in mind you must always use a Special Weapon if you have one.

Ahh, but no, one doesnt have to always use a special *weapon* if one has one. One does always have to use special attcks, but attacks are certainly not the same thing as weapons.

Eldrad has two special cc weapons and one nonspecial cc weapon. So for special ccw it is: 2.

No, eldrad has no rule requiring him to use any particular number of his special weapons. Now if he had a special close combat attack he would be required to use that, since he does not have a special attack we can skip the rule on pg 35. There is nothing requiring Eldrad to choose his two special ccw as his combat weapons. Most eldar players would prefer to gain +1 attack by having him wield one of his special ccws and his pistol. In theorey one could probably say he was wielding only his pistol, or punching to only use his base stats. So the answer would be : no.


Sliggoth

Eldrad can fight with either:
   Shuriken Pistol + Staff of Ulthamar (Stat Line + 1 attack)
   Shuriken Pistol + Witchblade (Stat Line + 1 attack)

Belphegor wrote:Eldrad can fight with either:
   Shuriken Pistol + Staff of Ulthamar (Stat Line + 1 attack)
   Shuriken Pistol + Witchblade (Stat Line + 1 attack)

No, he can't. He has to use the STaff and the Witchblade. By your logic you can turn off power fists, which you are not allowed to do.

Page 42 under attacking with two different Special Weapons seems relevant in regards to using Staff of Ulthamar+Witchblade
I'm not seeing where you have to choose a special weapon over a pistol when there are three applicable single-handed weapons are carried (in a case where only two may be used).

Gwar! wrote:

Belphegor wrote:Eldrad can fight with either:
   Shuriken Pistol + Staff of Ulthamar (Stat Line + 1 attack)
   Shuriken Pistol + Witchblade (Stat Line + 1 attack)

No, he can't. He has to use the STaff and the Witchblade. By your logic you can turn off power fists, which you are not allowed to do.

Sliggoth wrote:Ahh, but no, one doesnt have to always use a special *weapon* if one has one. One does always have to use special attcks, but attacks are certainly not the same thing as weapons.

Eldrad has two special cc weapons and one nonspecial cc weapon. So for special ccw it is: 2.

No, eldrad has no rule requiring him to use any particular number of his special weapons. Now if he had a special close combat attack he would be required to use that, since he does not have a special attack we can skip the rule on pg 35. There is nothing requiring Eldrad to choose his two special ccw as his combat weapons. Most eldar players would prefer to gain +1 attack by having him wield one of his special ccws and his pistol. In theorey one could probably say he was wielding only his pistol, or punching to only use his base stats. So the answer would be : no.


Sliggoth

Can you respond to this directly please, GWAR? Id like to hear your reasonsing around this.

The rules don't really cover when you have three different weapons. Some people think you get to choose two of those weapons, and that is generally how I see it played.

So, what happens if you have three different special weapons?

The reason given is that you NEVER get the bonus "such is the penalty for wielding so many complex weapons"

So, riddle me this: if wielding 2 complex weapons meanms you never get the attacks, why does having 3 weapons suddenly make it easier?

Amazingly the "RAI"ist go silent at that point.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The reason given is that you NEVER get the bonus "such is the penalty for wielding so many complex weapons"

So, riddle me this: if wielding 2 complex weapons meanms you never get the attacks, why does having 3 weapons suddenly make it easier?

Amazingly the "RAI"ist go silent at that point.

When you wield 1 complex weapon and 1 simple weapon, you don't have a penalty. Having does not mean the same as "wielding". So if Eldrad uses his Staff and his pistol, he's kosher. The RAI crowd doesn't have to say anything because that's RAW BABY!

Yes, it all comes down to the simple bit that wielding is not the same as toting around somewhere on the model's body. Its the concept of why a model armed with a two handed weapon and two one handed ccw can use the two one handed ccw to gain an attack, even thos they are also armed with a heavy rifle or the like.


Sliggoth

I think this quote from the BRB may be relevant here
Page 42 two different special weapons

"When it is their turn to attack these models must choose which weapon to use that turn, but they never get the bonus attack for using two weapons (such is the penalty for wielding too many complex weapons)."

RAW basically states he can only use one of the special weapons not that he can not use the pistol as a normal hence the additional attack. RAI seems to go the same way in my opinion. I say this because he must CHOOSE one of the special weapons but he still has the pistol to use making him a special weapon and normal weapon.

Gwar! wrote:

Sliggoth wrote:Gwar is correct almost all the time, probably over 99.9% as has been claimed by some, but this is one of those few times that his statements are not in keeping with the RAW.

Answer me this:
How many Special CCW does Eldrad have? Just a single number please.
Does he have to choose which one of these special CCW to use? Yes or no Please.

Keep in mind you must always use a Special Weapon if you have one.

Eldrad qualifies for both "A Normal and a Special Weapon" and "Two Different Special Weapons". There is no information about which one takes precedence, so the player can choose to give him one more attack or not.

You've also already agreed with me in your own FAQ: http://www.wargamingfaqs.com/40k/Eldar#Elrad_Ulthran

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Sliggoth wrote:Gwar is correct almost all the time, probably over 99.9% as has been claimed by some, but this is one of those few times that his statements are not in keeping with the RAW.

Answer me this:
How many Special CCW does Eldrad have? Just a single number please.
Does he have to choose which one of these special CCW to use? Yes or no Please.

Keep in mind you must always use a Special Weapon if you have one.

Eldrad qualifies for both "A Normal and a Special Weapon" and "Two Different Special Weapons". There is no information about which one takes precedence, so the player can choose to give him one more attack or not.

You've also already agreed with me in your own FAQ: http://www.wargamingfaqs.com/40k/Eldar#Elrad_Ulthran

WHAT THE FAQ SAYS AND WHAT THE RULES SAY DO NOT HAVE ANY CONNECTION TO EACH OTHER.
Sorry, it's just you are the 3rd person to do this today and it is ticking me off massively.

Yes, it is unclear, and I feel that the RaW is that you cannot do what you say, but it IS unclear, hence the Clarification.

How can say that you "feel" the RAW is one way? Are you finally coming to your senses and admitting that RAW can be subjective?

MasterSlowPoke wrote:How can say that you "feel" the RAW is one way? Are you finally coming to your senses and admitting that RAW can be subjective?

No, it is a figure of speech. The RaW is unclear, I do admit that. However, I am of the opinion that in this particular instance, the RaW favors the "No bonus attack" result, but I can see why others would think otherwise.

I'm in the no additional attacks camp, for the same reason Gwar has already posted. Eldrad has two different special ccw. He is required to choose one of them to attack with. Inn doing so, he falls into the two different special weapons rule which has the phrase "NEVER" gets the +1 for additional weapons. Sure, he has a pistol Does the pistol/special rule say that it ovcerrides the "nevern" in the two different special paragraph? No, it doesn't.

And as non-rules support, this question came up prior to the last US GTs. In a judge's conference weks prior to the GTs, GW decided that Eldard did not get +1 attack. Took a couple weeks to get the answer as the US GW staff wanted to contact the UK Studio before ruling on it.................

The problem being that the entire rules section being used is called: fighting with two single-handed weapons.

If eldrad is fighting with two weapons then that means he gets to choose two of his weapons.

OR

If eldrad is fighting with all three of his weapons then this entire section cannot apply to him.


Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:The problem being that the entire rules section being used is called: fighting with two single-handed weapons.

If eldrad is fighting with two weapons then that means he gets to choose two of his weapons.

Exactly, he has to choose, which means he cannot get the bonus attack.

Sliggoth wrote:The problem being that the entire rules section being used is called: fighting with two single-handed weapons.

If eldrad is fighting with two weapons then that means he gets to choose two of his weapons.

OR

If eldrad is fighting with all three of his weapons then this entire section cannot apply to him.


Sliggoth

As an avid eldar player, I think this is a ridiculous argument.

Is this a permissive rule set?

No, it isn't.

That means he doesn't get to choose which two weapons he gest to use, he gets to choose which special weapon to use, because the rules let you do that

Also, as has been said, the word 'never' is very clear.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:
Eldrad qualifies for both "A Normal and a Special Weapon" and "Two Different Special Weapons". There is no information about which one takes precedence, so the player can choose to give him one more attack or not.

This is correct and cannot be refuted. Eldrad has both 'A Normal and a Special Weapon' as much as he has 'Two Different Special Weapons'. There is absolutely no indication that one set of rules takes precedence over the other, therefore there is no clear RAW on this matter.

Huh that is what I get for trusting AB, it lists the staff as a Two-Handed weapon with nothing to back it up. RaW is a little unclear because he is fighting with 3 weapons so the situation isn't covered.

RAI seems to be rather clear to me that they intended to prevent 2 special weapons from giving each other a +1 attack for CCW and in this instance your just ignoring the other special CCW and using the pistol to bolster the special weapon.

Gwar! wrote:

Belphegor wrote:Eldrad can fight with either:
   Shuriken Pistol + Staff of Ulthamar (Stat Line + 1 attack)
   Shuriken Pistol + Witchblade (Stat Line + 1 attack)

No, he can't. He has to use the STaff and the Witchblade. By your logic you can turn off power fists, which you are not allowed to do.

Powerfists aren't applicable to this discussion IMO because they're listed as not getting the extra attack under the Powerfist section. Just like Eviserators state that an extra attack can't be gained in the WH and DH codex, same with Relic blades in codex Ultramarines.
There's nothing specifically that states that Eldrad doesn't get his extra attack. Also, he's got a pistol, why would he have a pistol? Just for the 1 shot before charging? Seems like a waste, and a lot of complication to go though.

The never arguement can only possibly if one believes that wielding = wearing or carrying. So there are two hurdles for the never part of the rule to take effect, first one has to believe that wielding = the total number of weapons that the model is equipped with AND one has to then somehow say that the rule (which only coveras using two weapons) somehow applies when one is faced with the problem that this model has three weapons.

If one does for some reason think wielding = equipped with, then one can bring in the fluff arguement that three would be harder than two, of course.


Sliggoth

yakface wrote:

MasterSlowPoke wrote:
Eldrad qualifies for both "A Normal and a Special Weapon" and "Two Different Special Weapons". There is no information about which one takes precedence, so the player can choose to give him one more attack or not.

This is correct and cannot be refuted. Eldrad has both 'A Normal and a Special Weapon' as much as he has 'Two Different Special Weapons'. There is absolutely no indication that one set of rules takes precedence over the other, therefore there is no clear RAW on this matter.

If it weren't for the word "never" in one of them, I'd agree with you. Similar to assaulting after running but cannot assaulting after deep striking. One allows, one disallows. Which one takes precedence?

Sliggoth wrote:The never arguement can only possibly if one believes that wielding = wearing or carrying. So there are two hurdles for the never part of the rule to take effect, first one has to believe that wielding = the total number of weapons that the model is equipped with AND one has to then somehow say that the rule (which only coveras using two weapons) somehow applies when one is faced with the problem that this model has three weapons.

If one does for some reason think wielding = equipped with, then one can bring in the fluff arguement that three would be harder than two, of course.

Sliggoth

Gw already did it for us:
FIGHTING WITH TWO SINGLE-HANDED WEAPONS
Some models are equipped with two single-handed weapons they can use in close combat, with the rules given below for the different possible combinations

Equipped. Nuff said?

RAW: He has two special weapons and a normal weapon. Zoom in: Two special weapons. He doesn't get an extra attack. Zoom in Moar: The normal adds an attack for using the two weapons, but the two specials essentially "remove" an extra attack. Hence, no extra attacks.

If I am wrong please let me know and explain how this is wrong.

don_mondo wrote:
Gw already did it for us:
FIGHTING WITH TWO SINGLE-HANDED WEAPONS
Some models are equipped with two single-handed weapons they can use in close combat, with the rules given below for the different possible combinations

Equipped. Nuff said?

No, because Eldrad is NOT equipped with two single-handed weapons, he is equipped with three.

This is why the rules presented must be applied to the use of two weapons, because any other interpretation means that the rules presented don't cover any combination of weapons besides what is listed there, and Eldrad doesn't fall into any of those categories.

Sliggoth wrote:The never arguement can only possibly if one believes that wielding = wearing or carrying. So there are two hurdles for the never part of the rule to take effect, first one has to believe that wielding = the total number of weapons that the model is equipped with AND one has to then somehow say that the rule (which only coveras using two weapons) somehow applies when one is faced with the problem that this model has three weapons.

If one does for some reason think wielding = equipped with, then one can bring in the fluff arguement that three would be harder than two, of course.


Sliggoth

Hasn't this been covered ad nauseum in the Marneus Calgar threads? First of all, the RAW camp is reading the passage too broadly when it should be read very finely. The RAW camp is saying that the rules on page 42 refer to the character's profile that he is choosing between. When the RAI camp (speaking for some of us here) believes that it is talking about the one he is deciding to use between the two he's chosen. It's not talking about Eldrad choosing amongst the weapons he has on him. It's talking about Eldrad choosing which of the two are going to be his main weapon in that assault (of the ones he's chosen to use). And then it goes on to say that he'll never get a bonus attack for using two weapons (because he's wielding too many special close combat weapons.) Again: it's not talking about choosing from his profile. It's talking about choosing the one between the two that he's chosen. If you had 10 CCWs, and you chose to use two of them, you don't lose your attack because you chose two weapons (broad reading). You lose your attack because the two you chose were two different special weapons (fine reading).

This is what I love about the Marneus Calgar threads - that the RAW loyalists keep bringing up a broad reading as if to say that a choice of any weapon on his profile precludes him from a bonus attack. So, he was given a "pair of matched powerfists" (where, anywhere else in the world but dakkadakka.com would be considered to be two single-handed power fists, even on the tabletops of GW, I'd wager) with the express rule of being allowed to use them together to gain an attack (pg. 42 BGB, A Normal and a Special Weapon heading), then has the ability revoked the very next paragraph by simply having a power sword. So, they gave him a pair of matched power fists for what? So he'd look like Mega Man? Why not just give him 1? Why even call them a "pair"?

Anyway, I'll digress because Gwar! has probably already alerted a mod simply because I'm replying. However, if you want to get RAW dirty:

As Yakface pointed out (at least, what I got from his post) that the "two different special weapons" paragraph doesn't apply to Eldrad. He doesn't have two special weapons, he doesn't have a normal and a special weapon, and he doesn't have two of the same special weapon. Nor does he have two normal close combat weapons. He has two special weapons and a normal weapon. He has three. So, none of those paragraphs apply. So, for the RAW loyalists, Eldrad may not attack at all, because there's no rules stating how he has to choose between three weapons. Yep, I'm sure that's exactly what GW meant.

Yes, this was all hashed out in a long thread about Marneus a while back; its why some people have taken to the arguement that a matched pair of power fists = one ccw, a most unusual line of reasoning. It also has come up with regards to Mad Doc Grotsnik since he has a pk, urty syringe and a slugga.

The rules on pg 42 in question all talk about using two weapons. This particular point is why the camp that wants to look at more than two weapons on a model cant use those rules....they specifically only apply to models using two weapons.

This makes one fall back to the basic rules on pg 37, where the paragraph there mentions that a model with more than two weapons gain no additional benefit beyond the +1 attack.


One either has to accept the idea that a model does indeed get to pick which two weapons to fight with, or else one has to pitch the whole series of rules on pg 42 since they do not cover the models with more then two weapons. Thats why the arguement goes in this direction, the one interpretation causes the rules to implode while the other interpretation works perfectly fine.


Sliggoth


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I apologize if I come across as a bit testy in any of my replies here, but this idea was worked through in excrutiating detail on the Marneus thread a few months back.

I asked my local games workshop employee about this, he said Eldrad can choose which weapons to use. So he can choose to use the witch-blade or staff in conjunction with his pistol.

Except he is "equipped" with 2 and therefore has to choose, meaning he NEVER gets the attack.

It even fits the fluff justification for the rule - having 2 weapons makes things "too complex", yet adding a *third* one somehow makes it all better? Uh, no.

The staff is not described as single handed so no +1A. It seems like many in the camp for +1A are conveniently ignoring this fact.

G

Black Blow Fly wrote:The staff is not described as single handed so no +1A. It seems like many in the camp for +1A are conveniently ignoring this fact.

G

It also doesn't say it is a 2 handed weapon, so how do we play a zero handed hovering weapon?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except he is "equipped" with 2 and therefore has to choose, meaning he NEVER gets the attack.

It even fits the fluff justification for the rule - having 2 weapons makes things "too complex", yet adding a *third* one somehow makes it all better? Uh, no.

What if you equip him with the staff and the pistol?

But he is always equipped with the 3 weapons - as equip is not the same as "wield" in english english usage.

Eldrad is always equipped with the 3 weapons, he then chooses which two to wield. The act of choosing restricts him.

Sliggoth wrote:
One either has to accept the idea that a model does indeed get to pick which two weapons to fight with, or else one has to pitch the whole series of rules on pg 42 since they do not cover the models with more then two weapons.
Sliggoth

Sure they do. Two is part of three, is it not..................... Or to put it another way, if you have three, do you not also have two?

In the same way that you still roll doubles on 3 dice...

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

[...]

Two different special weapons
When it is their turn to attack, these models must choose which weapon to use that turn, but they never get the bonus attack for using two weapons (such is the penalty for wielding too many complex weapons!).

This is the exact wording from the rulebook.

Eldrad has two special weapons and a normal weapon. He can equip them in three different combinations;

1. He chooses the staff and sword.

2. He chooses the staff and pistol.

3. He chooses the sword and pistol.

In all three cases he has 'chosen which weapon to use that turn', so he can 'never get the bonus attack for using two weapons'. Nowhere is it stated that the rules are mutually exclusive - the wording for 'a normal and a special weapon' rule AND the 'two different special weapons' rule BOTH apply.

The 'two different special weapons' rule precludes him from receiving a bonus attack for using two different weapons. Note that the wording says that he cannot receive a bonus attack for using two different weapons, not two different special weapons. The staff and pistol are two different weapons, as are the sword and pistol.

Actually, if you have three then you dont have two. You may have two plus one, but you do not have two.

A key part of the rule should be understood by this line:

"Of course, if a model is using a two handed close combat weapon (such as....), it may not use it together with another weapon."

This shows clearly that GW has considered the idea of a model using extra weapons and discards it as an obvious impossibility. The number of weapons being cosidered throughout this rules section is quite celarly being spelled out. It is two (and only two) one handed weapons. GW tells us that any other combination isnt being considered here.

The rules are FIGHTING with two one handed weapons. This section doesnt care about other weapons, this is a case where GW is thinking that people are sensible enough to realize that most models have two hands to at most can have one two handed weapon or two one handed weapons.

Eldrad in the eldar codex, Mad doc in the ork codex and Marneus all have this same case, having two+ special weapons and a total of three cc weapons. All three either have the option of choosing which two cc weapons to fight with or else all three run into the problem of having to fight with three one handed weapons while only having two hands (which led to one daakite creating a famous avatar picture of Marneus with a sword growing out of his head).

Sliggoth

So if you roll 3 dice you can never have a double?

Nope, sorry, your argument breaks down there.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So if you roll 3 dice you can never have a double?

Nope, sorry, your argument breaks down there.

Sure you can have a double.

But you still have three dice. Rolling a double doesn't suddenly make one of the dice disappear.

The "doubles on three dice" situation is not analogous to this situation here.

So when you have 3 weapons you dont also have 2 weapons? You do, in fact, have 2+1 weapon

Same situation here. the situations are exactly analogous.

With respect though, 2 isn't the same as 2+1. If you really want to get pedantic, it's like you're saying 2 = 3

Every one is forgetting the order the rules happen in

First part... "Fighting with two single-handed weapons" In order to use this rule the model must only be using 2 weapons ... it is a logical to assume that the model can pick 2 weapons from its available weapons. (if you don't agree, then hay, game just broke not the first time)

"Fighting with two single-handed weapons" then goes on to say that you use the rules below for the different combinations you are using. So what you do is take the combination that is being used and compare it to the list and follow the rule given.

So eldrad may use 2 special weapons or 1 special weapon and a normal close combat weapon. At no point should any model trigger two rules, since that would be breaking "Fighting with two single-handed weapons".

Tri wrote:Every one is forgetting the order the rules happen in

First part... "Fighting with two single-handed weapons" In order to use this rule the model must only be using 2 weapons ... it is a logical to assume that the model can pick 2 weapons from its available weapons. (if you don't agree, then hay, game just broke not the first time)

"Fighting with two single-handed weapons" then goes on to say that you use the rules below for the different combinations you are using. So what you do is take the combination that is being used and compare it to the list and follow the rule given.

So eldrad may use 2 special weapons or 1 special weapon and a normal close combat weapon. At no point should any model trigger two rules, since that would be breaking "Fighting with two single-handed weapons".

This.

Eldrad is never, under any circumstances, "using" all three of his weapons at once. He uses two of them at a time, as they are all single-handed (double-handed weapons are called out as such, all others are assumed to be single-handed) and Eldrad has two hands.

Therefore, AFTER the player has decided which combination he is using, the player THEN refers to page 42 to determine what, if any, bonuses he receives for THOSE TWO WEAPONS. The third weapon is entirely irrelevant at this point; it may as well not exist, because Eldrad is not using it.

Now, if you decide to fight with the staff and the sword, you must THEN "choose which weapon to use that turn", and you cannot get a bonus attack. I have difficulty seeing why anyone would ever do this, but it's perfectly legal to cheat yourself out of an attack this way.

Except it states "equipped"

You are "equipped" with all your weapons, what youthen choose to wield is there - but the act of choosing limits you.

As I said - why does having 2 complex weapons mean you dont get the attack, but you are propsing that adding another somehow ignores this? Um, no.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So when you have 3 weapons you dont also have 2 weapons? You do, in fact, have 2+1 weapon

Same situation here. the situations are exactly analogous.

There is no such things as "exactly analogous;" that would be "identical."

Analogous only means that they have things in common. When you draw an analogy, you merely look at the similarities without addressing the differences of the situation. Those differences are what make analogies ineffective when being used to argue a position.

Personally, I don't have a dog in the hunt in this debate, and don't really care. I just don't like seeing analogies being used during a debate in an effort to prove a point. To quote the old axiom, "analogies are always suspect."

Belphegor's Face - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->| WALL!
.... really this is becoming very, internet.

BlueDagger wrote:

Black Blow Fly wrote:The staff is not described as single handed so no +1A. It seems like many in the camp for +1A are conveniently ignoring this fact.

G

It also doesn't say it is a 2 handed weapon, so how do we play a zero handed hovering weapon?

You should take the conservative route. Unfortunately the rules dont say it is single handed and there is absolutely no way to infer it.

G

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except it states "equipped"

You are "equipped" with all your weapons, what youthen choose to wield is there - but the act of choosing limits you.

As I said - why does having 2 complex weapons mean you dont get the attack, but you are propsing that adding another somehow ignores this? Um, no.

There is an order and you are ignoring it. Lets do this in order (full rules read the BGB)

(0)Close combat weapons
... used in close combat
... come in two types normal and special
(1)Normal CCW ... don't do anything AP is ignored.
(1)Special CCW ... Many different types see list below for rules
(2)Power weapon ... ignores armour saves
(2)Lightning claw ... is a power weapon and rerolls wounds
(2)Force weapn ... see page 50
...
(1)Fighting with Two single-handed weapons // using 2 weapons //
... alows models to use more then one weapon at once
... look at the list below for the combinations // At this point that we must have already picked 2 weapons since you are fighting with 2 CCW //
(2)Two Normal CCW ... if you picked two normal then +1a see page 37
(2)Two of the same special ... if you picked this combination then +1a and you get the weapons bonuses and penalties.
(2)A normal and a special weapon ... if you picked this combinationl then +1a (Unless it is a power fist, thunder hammer or Lightning claw) and you get the weapons bonuses and penalties.
(2)Two different special weapons ... pick this combination and you must choose which weapons bonuses and penalties to use and do not get an extra attack.

BeRzErKeR wrote:
Eldrad is never, under any circumstances, "using" all three of his weapons at once. He uses two of them at a time, as they are all single-handed (double-handed weapons are called out as such, all others are assumed to be single-handed) and Eldrad has two hands.

Sorry but that is one hell of a stretch. The staff is a special weapon only available to Eldrad. I remember Phil saying it is double handed... sorry.

G

Very few weapons state they are single handed ... chainswords are never mentioned as being 1 or 2 handed ... in fact in the newer books the only time, that the number of hands is mention, is when the weapon is two handed. So unless people like the idea of all weapons being two handed unless stated otherwise, i would assume that they are all one handed unless stated otherwise.

Black Blow Fly wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:
Eldrad is never, under any circumstances, "using" all three of his weapons at once. He uses two of them at a time, as they are all single-handed (double-handed weapons are called out as such, all others are assumed to be single-handed) and Eldrad has two hands.

Sorry but that is one hell of a stretch. The staff is a special weapon only available to Eldrad. I remember Phil saying it is double handed... sorry.

G

Phil Kelly could state that it instant kills pink fluffy gnomes, unfortunately unless it is in the rules book, codex, or FAQ it doesn't matter. If a weapon is two-handed it specifically states it, such as the singing spear because it is a penalty.

All this talk about 2 handed, it doesn't matter. You NEVER get the bonus attack anyway as he has more than 1 special weapon.

Gwar! wrote:All this talk about 2 handed, it doesn't matter. You NEVER get the bonus attack anyway as he has more than 1 special weapon.

You're wrong.

yakface wrote:

don_mondo wrote:
Gw already did it for us:
FIGHTING WITH TWO SINGLE-HANDED WEAPONS
Some models are equipped with two single-handed weapons they can use in close combat, with the rules given below for the different possible combinations

Equipped. Nuff said?

No, because Eldrad is NOT equipped with two single-handed weapons, he is equipped with three.

This is why the rules presented must be applied to the use of two weapons, because any other interpretation means that the rules presented don't cover any combination of weapons besides what is listed there, and Eldrad doesn't fall into any of those categories.

This.

He has three. So, none of those paragraphs apply. So, for the RAW loyalists, Eldrad may not attack at all, because there's no rules stating how he has to choose between three weapons. Yep, I'm sure that's exactly what GW meant.

This. RAW is what we have. RAI is a bunch of guessing. Common sense is the heat that tempers the cold hard steel of the rules into something solid and useful. Eldrad wasn't written under the current ruleset and has 3 weapons. That isn't covered under the RAW.

Zain60 wrote:

He has three. So, none of those paragraphs apply. So, for the RAW loyalists, Eldrad may not attack at all, because there's no rules stating how he has to choose between three weapons. Yep, I'm sure that's exactly what GW meant.

This. RAW is what we have. RAI is a bunch of guessing. Common sense is the heat that tempers the cold hard steel of the rules into something solid and useful. Eldrad wasn't written under the current ruleset and has 3 weapons. That isn't covered under the RAW.

Exactly, this isn't a "RAW vs. RAI debate," but a "possible RAW vs. possible RAW" debate.

Black Blow Fly wrote:The staff is not described as single handed so no +1A. It seems like many in the camp for +1A are conveniently ignoring this fact.

G

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat1020000&prodId=prod1060036


He's holding it in one hand, on the official model.

Its especially amusing to see someone claiming to have talked to Phil kelly about the staff and claiming it to be two handed, since the one and only source of data we have on the handedness of the staff actually comes from a battle report where Phil used Eldrad. In that WD report (back when the players actually wrote a few of the reports, Phil wrote the eldar side of it) eldrad was described as getting two attacks for multiple turns of the combat, actually managing to finish off a badly wounded Abaddon.

Now WD is by no means a good source of information. In this case we do however have the author of the Eldar codex himself writing about how eldrad uses his weapons in cc. And eldrad used his staff and his pistol to receive an extra attack in cc.

So the indication is that the author of the codex believes that the staff is a one handed weapon. Not much to go on, but it is better than no data at all. The rules for +1 attack change from version 4 to version 5, but the handedness of the staff should stay the same at least.




Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:Its especially amusing to see someone claiming to have talked to Phil kelly about the staff and claiming it to be two handed, since the one and only source of data we have on the handedness of the staff actually comes from a battle report where Phil used Eldrad. In that WD report (back when the players actually wrote a few of the reports, Phil wrote the eldar side of it) eldrad was described as getting two attacks for multiple turns of the combat, actually managing to finish off a badly wounded Abaddon.

Now WD is by no means a good source of information. In this case we do however have the author of the Eldar codex himself writing about how eldrad uses his weapons in cc. And eldrad used his staff and his pistol to receive an extra attack in cc.

So the indication is that the author of the codex believes that the staff is a one handed weapon. Not much to go on, but it is better than no data at all. The rules for +1 attack change from version 4 to version 5, but the handedness of the staff should stay the same at least.

Phil Kelly also thinks models with the Mark of The Wulfen get to use Thunderhammers. I wouldn't listen to a word he says.

Sasori wrote:

Black Blow Fly wrote:The staff is not described as single handed so no +1A. It seems like many in the camp for +1A are conveniently ignoring this fact.

G

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat1020000&prodId=prod1060036


He's holding it in one hand, on the official model.

Best arguement eva!



See that 1 handed sniper rifle? He gets +1 Attack with it and his combat blade.

That is one pimping single handed sniper rifle! Hey, how about the Marine models where you can make them to hold a Bolter in 1 hand and a Bolt Pistol in the other, they get +1A too!

Deminyn wrote:

Sasori wrote:

Black Blow Fly wrote:The staff is not described as single handed so no +1A. It seems like many in the camp for +1A are conveniently ignoring this fact.

G

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat1020000&prodId=prod1060036


He's holding it in one hand, on the official model.

Best arguement eva!



See that 1 handed sniper rifle? He gets +1 Attack with it and his combat blade.

I wasn't aware that sniper rifles were a CC weapon, unlike the witchblade and staff.

Sasori wrote:

Deminyn wrote:

Sasori wrote:

Black Blow Fly wrote:The staff is not described as single handed so no +1A. It seems like many in the camp for +1A are conveniently ignoring this fact.
G

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat1020000&prodId=prod1060036
He's holding it in one hand, on the official model.

Best arguement eva!
[for img see above]
See that 1 handed sniper rifle? He gets +1 Attack with it and his combat blade.

I wasn't aware that sniper rifles were a CC weapon, unlike the witchblade and staff.

Ack! You are so totally true! You, like, totally rocked my argument and I am, so, like, totally wrong. Dude, like, what was I thinking? Really! Like a cc sniper wpn! Dude!

Deminyn wrote:

Sasori wrote:

Deminyn wrote:

Sasori wrote:

Black Blow Fly wrote:The staff is not described as single handed so no +1A. It seems like many in the camp for +1A are conveniently ignoring this fact.
G

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat1020000&prodId=prod1060036
He's holding it in one hand, on the official model.

Best arguement eva!
[for img see above]
See that 1 handed sniper rifle? He gets +1 Attack with it and his combat blade.

I wasn't aware that sniper rifles were a CC weapon, unlike the witchblade and staff.

Ack! You are so totally true! You, like, totally rocked my argument and I am, so, like, totally wrong. Dude, like, what was I thinking? Really! Like a cc sniper wpn! Dude!

There is really no need to act like a jerk.

Yer right, I was just having a bit of humour at your expense since I, from my first post, considered this whole thread a joke and it seemed you took me serious when I suggested that a sniper weapon could be a 1 handed weapon. On a separate note, how a miniature is modeled only matters for LoS, weapon mounts, access points, cover and armour facing. (This probably isn't exhaustive) but never does it validate calling a weapon 1 handed. I'm sure there is a bandage sister with her 2 handed chain sword in one hand, or a relic blade in one hand for a vanguard squad. In fact, I'll go look for one.

Deminyn wrote:Yer right, I was just having a bit of humour at your expense since I, from my first post, considered this whole thread a joke and it seemed you took me serious when I suggested that a sniper weapon could be a 1 handed weapon. On a separate note, how a miniature is modeled only matters for LoS, weapon mounts, access points, cover and armour facing. (This probably isn't exhaustive) but never does it validate calling a weapon 1 handed. I'm sure there is a bandage sister with her 2 handed chain sword in one hand, or a relic blade in one hand for a vanguard squad. In fact, I'll go look for one.

Well, it was a bit fun, since there doesn't really seem to be any evidence pointing to it being a one hand, or a two hand weapon. figured if it's modeled that way, I'll play it that way /shrug.

-Necron Lord with Warscythe (I don't know if it's 2 handed in the rules though)
-lol, do the tau even have access to ccw ?
-Why yes they can, Tau etheral model w honour staff (a 2 handed weapon being held in 1 hand)
-Njal storm caller wielding a 1 handed weapon in 2 hands?
-Emp Champ (1 hand for a wpn that can be 1 or 2) so this isn't really a good example
-There are warlocks with the singing spear in 1 hand (a 2 handed weapon), then warlocks with a witchblade or a 2handed witchblade... (a 1 handed weapon)
-Dark Eldar Incubi holding a 2 hander in 1 hand
-Odd thing I just realized, All standard bearers are carrying a standard that doesn't take up any hands...
-1/2 the plague bearers 1 hand, other 1/2 use 2 hands...


Personally, he's in the same pose as the warlock with the spear, so I'd say the same # of hands as the spear.

Honestly if a weapon isn't said to be a one or two handed weapon it should be played as a one handed weapon since two handed is actually a penalty.

BlueDagger wrote:Honestly if a weapon isn't said to be a one or two handed weapon it should be played as a one handed weapon since two handed is actually a penalty.

Not always. The Axe Morkai is S8 when used two handed. Hardly a penalty.

Gwar! wrote:

BlueDagger wrote:Honestly if a weapon isn't said to be a one or two handed weapon it should be played as a one handed weapon since two handed is actually a penalty.

Not always. The Axe Morkai is S8 when used two handed. Hardly a penalty.

I'm sure he meant in most cases. I think we can agree that the Axe Morkai is more of the exception, than the rule when it comes to two hand weapons.

Sasori wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

BlueDagger wrote:Honestly if a weapon isn't said to be a one or two handed weapon it should be played as a one handed weapon since two handed is actually a penalty.

Not always. The Axe Morkai is S8 when used two handed. Hardly a penalty.

I'm sure he meant in most cases. I think we can agree that the Axe Morkai is more of the exception, than the rule when it comes to two hand weapons.

And The Black Sword?
Two examples right there, so I very much doubt that the Axe Morkai is an Exception.

Alright then, you win Gwar.

Now spin the wheel to see how MANY internets you have won.


*Internets are awarded upon answering a skill testing question. Available for pick up only.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BlueDagger wrote:Honestly if a weapon isn't said to be a one or two handed weapon it should be played as a one handed weapon since two handed is actually a penalty.

Most people believe that, if a rule is ambiguous, you play the LEAST advantageous of the two, not the MOST.

I'm failing to understand why him getting 1 more attack sparks a giant rules debate based on the fact of 'he has three weapons etc etc *didn't bother reading the rest of the whining, I got the basic jist of it*

He has 2 hands. He has a pistol, a witchblade and his staff, that requires 2 hands.

Choose to use the pistol/witchblade combo, yeah why not +1 attack? pistol and power weapon, slugga and choppa do the same thing, it's not under the terms of the powerfist/lightning claw/thunderhammer schpiel of needing both of the same weapon to get the bonus as I recall.

He wants to use the staff? Fine, stuck with just 1 attack then unless he finds a way to coddle the staff between his legs as he swings his sword and pistol around pelvic thrusting enemies to death.

Deminyn wrote:

Most people believe that, if a rule is ambiguous, you play the LEAST advantageous of the two, not the MOST.

Right, but from what I recall (and correct me if I'm wrong because I don't have my codices in front of me), every two-handed weapon says:

"This is a two-handed weapon that. . ."

That would preclude the fact that if it doesn't have that rule, it is a one-handed weapon. You don't see power swords or powerfists or sluggas or pistols or anything say "one-handed weapon". They simply say CCW.

Eldrad's staff does not have a rule stating that is a two-handed weapon, as most if not all do, therefore it defaults to a one-handed weapon.

The power sword on my marine sergeant doesn't say it's not a two-handed weapon and that would be LEAST advantageous for me. Does that mean that the power sword is two-handed?

Alright guys, there are alerts coming off this thread, so I just want to remind everyone to keep their cool.

The biggest reason for the furor in this thread is that many of the arguements being raised would affect other models in the game as well. The most obvious other model is Marneus Calgar and his multiple weapons, but there are others.

From a more recent codex there is the SW runic weapons. And the particular unique staff of the stormcaller. If they arent one handed weapons then a runic priest has the option of taking two two-handed weapons?

So the discussion here touches on many other similar model questions in the game.


Sliggoth

Tri wrote:Very few weapons state they are single handed ... chainswords are never mentioned as being 1 or 2 handed ... in fact in the newer books the only time, that the number of hands is mention, is when the weapon is two handed. So unless people like the idea of all weapons being two handed unless stated otherwise, i would assume that they are all one handed unless stated otherwise.

It's obvious that certain weapons such as chainswords and pistols are single handed. Unfortunately the staff is very unique and +1A for this weapon is a big advantage. From a strictly background POV it's obvious that Eldrad is not a close combat monster, the to wound on 2+ was thrown as a perk. Eldrad is a master of psychic warfare.

The batrep mentioned is several years old and was played using the prior CSM codex... Let's face it, we all know that the rules can get all mushed up during a batrep, it happens all the time... Plus batreps are by no means official.

G

Black Blow Fly wrote:

it's obvious that certain weapons such as chainswords and pistols are single handed. Unfortunately the staff is very unique and +1A for this weapon is a big advantage.

G

How is it "obvious"? Please provide a rules quote.

Chainswords and pistols are not defined by the rules as single-handed weapons. By arguing that they are, you are accepting the claim that weapons are assumed to be single-handed unless specifically called two-handed. You can't have it both ways.

You yourself have stated the rules for pistols and chainswords, I don't see any reason to repeat that. I can't think of any instance in the rules where it's explicitly stated that if a weapon is not cited as either single or double handed that it automatically defaults to single handed.

G

Black Blow Fly wrote:You yourself have stated the rules for pistols and chainswords, I don't see any reason to repeat that. I can't think of any instance in the rules where it's explicitly stated that if a weapon is not cited as either single or double handed that it automatically defaults to single handed.

G

Agreed.

And on the eldrad topic: witchblade + pistol (+1A)
Staff + pistol (+1A if the staff is one handed, none if it's two (we don't seem to have established this yet))
Staff + witchblade (none)

Black Blow Fly wrote:You yourself have stated the rules for pistols and chainswords, I don't see any reason to repeat that. I can't think of any instance in the rules where it's explicitly stated that if a weapon is not cited as either single or double handed that it automatically defaults to single handed.

G

There are also no rules to state that at CC weapon is two-handed unless it is mentioned specifically as such.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Black Blow Fly wrote:

it's obvious that certain weapons such as chainswords and pistols are single handed. Unfortunately the staff is very unique and +1A for this weapon is a big advantage.

G

How is it "obvious"? Please provide a rules quote.

BeRzErKeR.. Are you really going to argue that a pistol is a two handed weapon? Really?? Im sorry but this idea is nothing more then grasping at straws to stay alive at this point.

jp400 wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Black Blow Fly wrote:

it's obvious that certain weapons such as chainswords and pistols are single handed. Unfortunately the staff is very unique and +1A for this weapon is a big advantage.

G

How is it "obvious"? Please provide a rules quote.

BeRzErKeR.. Are you really going to argue that a pistol is a two handed weapon? Really?? Im sorry but this idea is nothing more then grasping at straws to stay alive at this point.

Nonsense. In fact, if we're going to start applying common sense and saying things are "obvious", I might mention that in the real world, pistols are almost always fired two-handed.

But regardless, I am not arguing, and have never argued, that pistols are two-handed. What I am saying is that they are never DEFINED in the rules as a one-handed weapon. So if you're going to say that Eldrad's staff is two-handed, I can say, with just as much rules backing, that a pistol is two-handed.

Kind of silly, no?

BeRzErKeR wrote:

jp400 wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Black Blow Fly wrote:

it's obvious that certain weapons such as chainswords and pistols are single handed. Unfortunately the staff is very unique and +1A for this weapon is a big advantage.

G

How is it "obvious"? Please provide a rules quote.

BeRzErKeR.. Are you really going to argue that a pistol is a two handed weapon? Really?? Im sorry but this idea is nothing more then grasping at straws to stay alive at this point.

Nonsense. In fact, if we're going to start applying common sense and saying things are "obvious", I might mention that in the real world, pistols are almost always fired two-handed.

But regardless, I am not arguing, and have never argued, that pistols are two-handed. What I am saying is that they are never DEFINED in the rules as a one-handed weapon. So if you're going to say that Eldrad's staff is two-handed, I can say, with just as much rules backing, that a pistol is two-handed.

Kind of silly, no?

jp400 wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Black Blow Fly wrote:

it's obvious that certain weapons such as chainswords and pistols are single handed. Unfortunately the staff is very unique and +1A for this weapon is a big advantage.

G

How is it "obvious"? Please provide a rules quote.

BeRzErKeR.. Are you really going to argue that a pistol is a two handed weapon? Really?? Im sorry but this idea is nothing more then grasping at straws to stay alive at this point.

BeRzErKeR is completely right. If has nothing to do with the fact that we are stating that a pistol is a two handed weapon, but is merely point out that if the rules don't define the weapon is a two handed weapon you can't assume that it is one.

The rules do not define it as a two handed weapon, so placing the restriction of a two handed weapon upon it is absurd. It is liked to telling a BA assault squad player that his squad doesn't get +1 attack for his chainsword/pistol because you think his chain sword would require two hands. See how that would go over.

This thread might as well be closed on the facts that has been pointed out a few times now lead to a stalemate on the debate.
- Eldrad has 3 single handed CCW and the rules do not cover this situation

BlueDagger wrote:This thread might as well be closed on the facts that has been pointed out a few times now lead to a stalemate on the debate.
- Eldrad has 3 single handed CCW and the rules do not cover this situation

I disagree ... there are no rules for using more then two weapons ... but there are rules for using 2 weapons. It is not a massive leap that a model with ten thousand weapons could choose two of them so as to use the "fighting with two single-handed weapons" and then compare those two weapons with the list to see the effect.

After all we are playing a rule set that includes deployment ... without any defined method, for doing so.

Until GW states whether or not the staff is single or double handed the best route is to be conservative and assume it's double handed. From a background POV farseers are not considered to be strong in close combat. Seeing that hte staff wounds on 2+ and ignores armor saves it can have a big impact if you give Eldrad the +1A.

G

Black Blow Fly wrote:Until GW states whether or not the staff is single or double handed the best route is to be conservative and assume it's double handed. From a background POV farseers are not considered to be strong in close combat. Seeing that hte staff wounds on 2+ and ignores armor saves it can have a big impact if you give Eldrad the +1A.

G

Why is assuming it to be double-handed "conservative"? The vast majority of weapons are single-handed, wouldn't assuming it was single-handed be more "conservative"?

For that matter, EVERY SINGLE WEAPON that is double-handed is POINTED OUT as double-handed. Big choppas, for instance, specifically say; "this is a two-handed close-combat weapon."

In short, double-handed weapons are named as such. Always. If it isn't called a double-handed weapon, it isn't one. "From a background POV" really doesn't matter at all. From a background POV Space Marines ought to be T6 with five wounds each, but does that have any effect on the rules? No.

Again, why are people discussing the handedness? It could be one, two, seven or six thousand handed, it doesn't matter, he can NEVER receive the bonus attack anyway, as he has a Witchblade as well.

Black Blow Fly wrote:Until GW states whether or not the staff is single or double handed the best route is to be conservative and assume it's double handed. From a background POV farseers are not considered to be strong in close combat. Seeing that hte staff wounds on 2+ and ignores armor saves it can have a big impact if you give Eldrad the +1A.

G

No offense, but that is a rather ridiculous conclusion to make. Why would the "best" route be to nerf a weapon without a rules backing just because you think it is strong? Most players I know that use Eldrad take him to use 3 psy powers a turn, not to CC with him. By using the staff as a power weapon your losing that ability.

It's not a nerf, it doesn't matter!

Gwar! wrote:It's not a nerf, it doesn't matter!

Yes, it does, because no, it isn't.

Either;

1. He doesn't have two weapons, he has three, so that whole section of the rules doesn't apply to him. Game breaks because it can't handle him. Boom.

Or;

2. He chooses which TWO weapons he's using before anything else happens. He THEN applies pg. 42 to those TWO weapons, thus satisfying all rules involved. He only loses the bonus attack if for some strange reason he uses the sword and the staff.

Yes, he has to choose. Therefore, he NEVER gets the bonus attack. It's that simple.

Gwar! wrote:Yes, he has to choose. Therefore, he NEVER gets the bonus attack. It's that simple.

So what happens if he chooses the sword and the staff? He chose, but now he's using two special weapons, so he has to choose AGAIN, right?

So it's possible to need to choose twice.

Since that's so, to which choice does the rule apply? Oh, right, the one where you are using two special weapons, and you have to choose BETWEEN them.

You know, the choice Eldrad never has to make if he decides at the beginning that he's using, say, the staff and his pistol. That one.

Gwar! wrote:Yes, he has to choose. Therefore, he NEVER gets the bonus attack. It's that simple.

er ... "Fighting with two single-handed weapons" gives a list of possible combinations ... so unless Eldrad first choose a combination of 2 different special weapons, then "Two different special weapons" is never called. If he does then he must choose again what weapon effects he wants and gets no bonus attack.


(damn ninjaed with the same point ^_^)

Gwar! wrote:Again, why are people discussing the handedness? It could be one, two, seven or six thousand handed, it doesn't matter, he can NEVER receive the bonus attack anyway, as he has a Witchblade as well.

No one is refuting that he has a witchblade as well Gwar or that he has 2 special CC weapons. He has 3 single handed weapons, therefor the rules don't cover what to do in that instance. He completes the requirements for a special weapon + normal CCW AND 2 special weapons, therefor the rules don't cover which takes precedence.

Neither take precidence, they both apply.

One rule says you can get the attack, the other says you NEVER get the extra attack, so you can never get it with Eldrad.

yakface wrote:There is no need to consult a dictionary on this issue, as there is no need to decide what "wield" means in this case.

The rules for fighting with two single-handed weapons on page 42 of the rulebook *ONLY* work if you assume that they refer to the combinations that the model is able to choose to utilize in that phase.

Why do I say that?

Because the list of combinations on page 42 of the rulebook is not exhaustive. For example, Marneus Calgar actually has THREE special weapons (two powerfists and a power weapon). Eldrad has two special weapons and one normal close combat weapon.

If you want to try to claim that these rules dictate how the model is forced to make his attacks, then the entire system breaks down because there are no rules for models with 3 special weapons or models with two special weapons and one normal weapon.

The only way the rules function as written is if you assume that the player controlling the model gets to choose which two weapons his model is going to use and then consult the rules for fighting with two single-handed weapons to see how those weapons work together.


So ultimately we have one interpretation in which the rules do not work at all and then we have another interpretation that works just fine. As you can't play with the former why is it worth even arguing about?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/240925.page

It's most conservative as an eldar player not to take hte +1A. I think that is so simple and easy to understand it bares no need for any explanation... Assuming you understand the definition of conservative.

G

Honestly, I use the Extra attack, but if it came down that my opponent was so adamant that he didn't get it, I'd just ask for a simple dice off. That way it's impartial, and fair. Of course, everyone I play with really wouldn't be bothered we all try to be generous when it comes to these things, we know the rulebook, and the rule writers aren't perfect.

Sasori wrote:Honestly, I use the Extra attack, but if it came down that my opponent was so adamant that he didn't get it, I'd just ask for a simple dice off. That way it's impartial, and fair. Of course, everyone I play with really wouldn't be bothered we all try to be generous when it comes to these things, we know the rulebook, and the rule writers aren't perfect.

It's not fair at all, because you are not following the rules.

Is it fair if I say my Rhinos are AV 14 all round on a 4+?

Black Blow Fly wrote:It's most conservative as an eldar player not to take hte +1A. I think that is so simple and easy to understand it bares no need for any explanation... Assuming you understand the definition of conservative.

G

? what has conservative got to do with it? rules are you can fight with two hand weapons ...pick two, now look at the list.

Gwar! wrote:

Sasori wrote:Honestly, I use the Extra attack, but if it came down that my opponent was so adamant that he didn't get it, I'd just ask for a simple dice off. That way it's impartial, and fair. Of course, everyone I play with really wouldn't be bothered we all try to be generous when it comes to these things, we know the rulebook, and the rule writers aren't perfect.

It's not fair at all, because you are not following the rules.

Is it fair if I say my Rhinos are AV 14 all round on a 4+?

except that, as it has been pointed out many times in the thread, the rules are not clear for this issue. You just seem to deny it over and over again.

Sasori wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Sasori wrote:Honestly, I use the Extra attack, but if it came down that my opponent was so adamant that he didn't get it, I'd just ask for a simple dice off. That way it's impartial, and fair. Of course, everyone I play with really wouldn't be bothered we all try to be generous when it comes to these things, we know the rulebook, and the rule writers aren't perfect.

It's not fair at all, because you are not following the rules.

Is it fair if I say my Rhinos are AV 14 all round on a 4+?

except that, as it has been pointed out many times in the thread, the rules are not clear for this issue. You just seem to deny it over and over again.

The rules are perfectly clear, as has been pointed out multiple times.

So, I ask you again, if it's fair for someone to claim that Eldrad gets +1 A on a 4+, why is it not fair for my Rhinos to be AV14 all round on a 4+ or for my Long Fangs to be Relentless Jump Infantry on a 4+?

yakface wrote:

MasterSlowPoke wrote:
Eldrad qualifies for both "A Normal and a Special Weapon" and "Two Different Special Weapons". There is no information about which one takes precedence, so the player can choose to give him one more attack or not.

This is correct and cannot be refuted. Eldrad has both 'A Normal and a Special Weapon' as much as he has 'Two Different Special Weapons'. There is absolutely no indication that one set of rules takes precedence over the other, therefore there is no clear RAW on this matter.

Gwar! this was summed up on page 1.

Your analogy is also flawed. there is a difference between rules that are not clear, and a set stat on a vehicle.

This is more pointless than arguing with a brick wall. I think most of your rulings are right, but you never admit when you are wrong. This is just one of those cases.

Actually, I do admit when I am wrong.
However, unlike some people, I only do it when I am wrong, not when other people want me to be.

Yakface is correct that there is no indication which takes precidence, because there is no need to. Both rules apply. One says you get an attack. One says you NEVER get an attack. I cannot comprehend how much clearer it has to be.

Gwar I agree with you this time but not for the same reason. You are very consistent with your position in general and I respect you for that. It makes me sanda blue panda to see peoples trying to say the rules obviously support +1A. Yakface I think has summed it up well, the RAW does not support either position. I tend to be conservation and not take advantage of grey areas of hte rules. That is just me though.

G

Again, its conveniently being ignored that the never rule is specifically describing a model wielding/ using two different cc weapons.

If one holds to this idea, then does one believe that the SM codex gave Marneus Calgar a power sword just so that Calgar never gets to use any of his special weapons?

There are two interpretations to this section of the rules it seems:

1) The rules on pg 42 apply to any model that has 3 (or more) cc weapons on the model, and all of the liabilites apply.

2) The rules on pg 42 apply to whichever two cc weapons any model is using during the current cc.


Version 1 is telling us that 3=2 in this case, and that Calgar's gauntlets are a significant detriment to his cc ability.

Version 2 is telling us that the rules work rather simply as written and there is no conflict between any of the rules in question.



Which version does GW go with? Well, unless they issue a faq we will never really know. Altho, if GW believes it is version 2 then they will never issue a faq simply because there is no need for a faq.....



Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:
1) The rules on pg 42 apply to any model that has 3 (or more) cc weapons on the model, and all of the liabilites apply.

Version 1 is telling us that 3=2 in this case, and that Calgar's gauntlets are a significant detriment to his cc ability.

Wait how? "Fighting with two single-handed weapons" tells you that you may use two weapons ... without this you may only use one. Then it tells you to look up the effect of using those two weapons. You MUST choose Two weapons before looking up any combinations .... If you don't you are trying to Fight with Three single-handed weapons and there are no rules for that.

This thread is throwing off alerts.

I don't understand the controversy and I am not going to read four pages to try and sort out who is right or wrong.

What I am going to do is;

A. Remind everyone to keep their cool in YMDC. It generates more complaints than any other forum in the site.
B. Lock the thread to save further argument.

If someone wants to continue the argument, please start a new thread and be polite and reasonable.