Just checking up on this fast: Black Templars Rechlysiarcs and Masters of Sanctity can take a pair of Lightning Claws, but they don't replace anything, leaving the chap with the LCs and his Crozius. My question is, does this work as normal when models need to choose between two special CCWs? I'd say yes, since it doesn't mention any exception in either the BT codex or the BRB, but I wanted to check with my fellow dakkites just to make sure.

Key word you are looking for is 'never'. As in models with two diefferent special weapons never get the +1 attack. Your Chaplain would have three special weapons, and if he has two (a subset of three) he cannot have +1 attack.

Be prepared for violent disagreement with my point of view, but never means never.

Ahh, Old Codex Syndrome(OCS).

The Problem truly lies with the Rulebooks, and formats for Wargear selection.

In 3rd edition when you had access to the armory and selected a weapon you also selected a Basic weapon to replace.

In 4th edition if you had access to the armory and selected a weapon you lost all your original weapons(Crap for Chaplains and Librarians who wanted better ranged weapons)

Now in 5th edition we have no such language(because Armories are being phased out for a new selection format); and so are left with Characters who have their base gear plus whatever they buy. Then you do have the line in the CC section that says if you wield 2 different special Weapons that you never gain the bonus attacks.

For those that argue that you are only using 1 weapon(or set of weapons with the paired Lightning claws) and therefore should get the Bonus attack: the 2 different weapons also tells us you only gain the benefits from 1 weapon per assault phase, so there would be no reason to tell us the rest of the "cannot ever gain bonus attack" rule since you are always attacking with the 1 weapon.

imo he would get +1a, if he didnt what would be the point of allowing him to take a pair of LC's? you can only use 2 weapons in cc and if you use the LC's ther is nothing to "choose" between.

a pair of LCs confers +1A...

you are not choosing to attack with a LC and your Crozius are you? Because those are 2 different special weapons, and would therefore cost you the +1A.

Swing with both the LCs and you are golden.

Spongemonkee: the point in the option is as I said; OCS, in the edition the Codex was writ you would have only had the pair of Lightning Claws if that is the option you chose.

Armbarred; You could not choose to attack with Crozius and lightning Claw even if those were the only 2 weapons you had. You only attack with 1 weapon at a time, it does not matter if you had a pair of 1 Special and a third Special. You get no Bonus if you have 2 different specials.

You would not expect to get a bonus attack for having 2 power Swords and a Relic blade would you?

Doesn't matter what you choose to attack with, as part of the rule covers choosing between weapon. In fact, it's the choosing that means the two different special weapons rule applies and kicks in the 'never' clause. Bear in mind that the two different special weapons rule is the ONLY rule that describes how to decide what you attack with when equipped with two different special weapons. All the other rules have defaults that cannot be applied in the case of a model with three or more weapon, with two of them being special weapons. So if you have to use that rule to decide what weapon you're going to use, just seems to me the rest of it applies as well. After all, if two special weapons is so confusing that it denies +1 attack, you think three or more makes it easier?

And you always only attack with one weapon, it's whether or not the second weapon gives you a bonus attack that's being debated. Two lightning claws is two weapons (especialy in the BT codex), the crozius is another. So he can choose to attack with any one of them, but the two special weapons rule and the intro prargraph spell it out very clearly. If your equipped with two weapons (and remember, two is a subset of three), then you don't get a bonus attack. Never means never. Nothing in the pair of lightning claws rule overrides that word 'never'.

But anyways, there have been numerous threads on this, so run some searches and you'll find them in all their multi-page glory. Have fun.

Do note that the Pair of Lightning claws is explicitly stated as being two weapons in the BT entry. The Player can choose to use those two as his "two weapons" and would thus be considered to be two of the same special weapons, and would gain the +1 attack. The "never" clause as you stated only kicks in if he only has 2 special weapons (which would be the case if the pair of lightning claws count as a single weapon). While indeed that you can argue that I'm using the same logic you're using to argue against your point, Lightning Claws are explicitly stated to grant a +1 attack if two of them are used.

And you people need to read the actual starting paragraph. It said "possible combinations", meaning that you choose a set of weapons to use before actually entering combat. That's your combination for the turn. If you chose to use a single lightning claw and a Crozius, you would then have to choose between what to use. If you chose to use two Lightning claws (again, they are considered to be two separate weapons) then you have no problem. There's a reason why the rulebooks doesnt specify what happens if a model has more than 2 weapons (because you can only ever fight in combat with 2).

This is the same long debate as with Calgar and his Dual PF + Power Sword.

Honestly, I would avoid the problem and never take the pair of LCs, since there's a fairly strong argument (now that Armouries are out of date) that the Chaplain cannot even take a pair of LCs, since he is already equipped with the crozius.

Give him a power fist instead, and enjoy the versatility.

...and the same as with Eldrad (pistol, Witchblade, staff).

Do note that, by RAW, it is never specified that a model's choice of weapons have any impact what so ever about the rules for different special weapons etc.. Also, should the pair have been a single item, it would have had a weapons profile in the codex which would've told you to use the weapon two-handed and with +1 A (should "Pair of Lightning Claws" not have a separate entry in the codex, the weapons would do absolutely nothing, since Lightning Claws in BRB only deals with a single at a time.)

What is not written is not written. Implied or intended are things we can only speculate about, and try to keep speculations at a minimum

Chaplains and LCs will definately become invalid when the book is updated. They were just flatout broken in the old rules, especially with the ability to consolidate into another combat in 4th ed. "Combat Hopping" made chaplains deadly when they had Jump Packs and LCs.

As long as you have a pair of lightning claws the model benefits from +1 attack. That's all there is to it.

I guess I just opened a can of worms, didn't I? I'm afraid that the "doesn't get any extra attack" side is the one I feel makes the most sense, and the chap doesn't get an extra A, since he has to choose which weapon to use. On a slightly related note though, why would he not be allowed to take a pair of LCs just because he has a crozius? Is there a rule about max amount of melee weapons or something?

You DO get to choose what you attack with. It is just like Marneus Calgar having the gauntlets of ultramar and a power sword. You may choose to swing with the power sword if you want to strike at initiative however you lose 1 attack because you are no longer using two similar special CC weapons. In your Chaplain example you could choose (although there is no benefit whatsoever for doing so) to forfeit the benefit of dual LCs in favor of striking with the crozius instead.

The only real argument for the dual LCs granting +1 Attack is the argument that you lose the Crozius when selecting the LCs.

On page 30, under options: "Any model who takes an upgrade weapon loses the weapon he was originally armed with unless otherwise stated."

But like I said, it's one of those back and forth arguments that doesn't really affect that much of the game. It's only one attack after all. Best solution is take one LC (for cheaper) and avoid the argument, since it probably won't go anywhere productive. Or give him a power fist.

Unfortunately anyone arguing that you wouldnt get +1 attack for the LC is clearly violating the spirit of the rules (since getting that +1 is the entire point of getting a pair of lightning claws). Any player with common sense wouldn't argue it, and most judges would side with you. It's only the truely dickish powergamers would argue it with the strict definition of the RAW, and even then you have a pretty good position to argue for the +1 attack anyways.

"NEVER" is fairly strong.

It isnt dickish; it worked fine in 3rd and 4th ed, 5th ed has more restrictive rules.

Asking someone to follow the current rules isnt being "powergamer" at all. Just wanting someone to follow the rules, so they are playing the same game as you are.

it's being dickish because it's violating what the designers evidently intended for the written rules. If a pair of LCs were some obscure piece of wargear (like the Holy Orb of Antioch, which I still have no clue what it actually does despite owning the codex) then it's forgivable that it's some oversight and the one arguing against it has a point. But most players should know what a pair of lightning claws does, what the designers meant for it to do, and how to use it. Arguing using a half-ass worded line of rule just so you can deny your opponent one attack from such a well-known weapon is pretty dickish in my books, and it's also violating the Most Important Rule as well.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:it's being dickish because it's violating what the designers evidently intended for the written rules.

Huh, I had no idea Graham McNeill, Gav Torpe and Pete Haines posted on Dakka.

Hi Graham McNeill, Gav Torpe and Pete Haines!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can I have an Autograph!

okay... theres alot of posts here and I haven't got time to read them all. It's getting late.

A pair of Lightning Claws gives you +1. Correct!

Use of A Lightning Claw and the Crozious negates the bonus. Correct?

Since the Crozious does nothing for you, (no strength increase like a PF or re-rolls like Master Crafted) because it's just a power weapon... wouldn't you always use the LC's and leave the Crozious in the back of the Rhino?

When you are armed with 1 Special and 1 normal, or 2 of the same special Close combat weapons, you have no choice as to what you make your attacks with. If your Weapons are both 1-handed, or do not otherwise state you cannot gain a bonus attack with them(looking at you relic blade), then you gain a bonus attack. this bonus attack does not mean that you are making attacks with both weapons, it is merely a bonus attack by virtue of equipment(that which you wield).

Only when you are armed with two different Special weapons do you ever have a choice of which weapon you fight with. Now, note the singularity of that word Weapon this is also how they term it in the BRB by the way. It does not matter if you are equiped with a thousand Lightning Claws, if you have another different special close combat weapon you still must choose which 1 weapon you fight with, and by virtue of needing to make that choice you negate any 2-weapon bonus attacks possible.

In the case of the Chaplain with Bolt pistol, Crozius and 2 lightning claws you never ever gain the benefit of 2 weapons because you must always choose between fighting with just the crozius or just 1 of your 2 lightning claws.

There you have your RAW absolute answer; RAW you only choose to use 1 weapon when you have the chouce of what weapons to use in Close Combat, and of course you only ever have the choice when 2 different special weapons are available.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:it's being dickish because it's violating what the designers evidently intended for the written rules. If a pair of LCs were some obscure piece of wargear (like the Holy Orb of Antioch, which I still have no clue what it actually does despite owning the codex) then it's forgivable that it's some oversight and the one arguing against it has a point. But most players should know what a pair of lightning claws does, what the designers meant for it to do, and how to use it. Arguing using a half-ass worded line of rule just so you can deny your opponent one attack from such a well-known weapon is pretty dickish in my books, and it's also violating the Most Important Rule as well.

I'm a BT player, and I still object to your logic.

How do you know that Chaplains were intended to get +1A with dual Lightning Claws in 5th edition? The most recent set of primary rules (aka the BRB) makes a big deal about models wielding multiple special weapons, so one could argue just as easily that GW felt that Chaplains should NOT get the +1 Attack. There's really no way to know what they intended here.

The rules in this case are reasonably clear. The Chaplain has multiple special weapons, therefore does not get +1 Attack. The only argument otherwise is that he loses the crozius when he upgrades, which is debatable. Furthermore, there's a case to be made that he cannot even take a pair of LCs (which Gwar! can explain I'm sure).

I'm not sure how it violates the "Most Important Rule" to be denied a single LC attack. Assaulting out of BT Land Raiders, sure, but this?

Also, I'm not sure how you're confused about the Holy Orb of Antioch. It's an impressive and effective piece of wargear that explicitly states how to use it.

geordie09 wrote:okay... theres alot of posts here and I haven't got time to read them all. It's getting late.

A pair of Lightning Claws gives you +1. Correct!

Use of A Lightning Claw and the Crozious negates the bonus. Correct?

Since the Crozious does nothing for you, (no strength increase like a PF or re-rolls like Master Crafted) because it's just a power weapon... wouldn't you always use the LC's and leave the Crozious in the back of the Rhino?

Not quite. Models wielding multiple special weapons (e.g. Lightning Claw, Lightning Claw, Crozius) do not get a bonus. The fact that you have the crozius denies you the +1 Attack, as you must follow the rules for 2 different special weapons (you choose which to use that turn, and do not gain the +1 Attack, simply for having different ones - even if they are not used).

However the Lightning Claws fulfills the requirements of having Two of the Same Special Close Combat Weapons. And again I must point out that in the introductory paragraph of the section, it lists those as "Different Possible Combinations". The Two Different Special Close combat weapons only come into argument if The Chaplain only holds a single lightning Claw and the Crozius.

EDIT: @ Xcaliber: Well for one, the Lightning claw is stated to give you a +1 attack when you have a second one (Which is what is stated under the "exceptions" for where the lightning claw appears in under "A normal close combat weapon and a special Close combat weapon" and indirectly implied under "Two of the Same Special Close Combat weapon" as the lightning claw fulfills that criteria). And indeed they make a big deal about models ARMED WITH ONLY TWO WEAPONS. Show me where it addresses models armed with 3 or more weapons.

And I never said I was confused about how to use a Holy Orb, I just didnt know what it does. It's (again) an obscured piece of wargear that if there was ever a dispute about the rules it would be understandable.

I think these kinds of forum topics (rules discussions that throw the spirit of the game in the face of every well-intentioned player) are funny because if anyone ever told me I could not use dual lightning claws b/c the unit originally had another special weapon i would pack up my stuff immediately. Actually I would be sure to smack their largest, most heavy, all metal model on the floor before packing up.

Deuce11 wrote:I think these kinds of forum topics (rules discussions that throw the spirit of the game in the face of every well-intentioned player) are funny because if anyone ever told me I could not use dual lightning claws b/c the unit originally had another special weapon i would pack up my stuff immediately. Actually I would be sure to smack their largest, most heavy, all metal model on the floor before packing up.

Yes, and the person wanting to play by the rules is the immature one. </sarcasm>

You yourself said the rules are badly worded. Only an immature person would force another to go by the strict wording of a rulebook and apply the logic of a hardwired computer to a game designed for humans.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:However the Lightning Claws fulfills the requirements of having Two of the Same Special Close Combat Weapons. And again I must point out that in the introductory paragraph of the section, it lists those as "Different Possible Combinations". The Two Different Special Close combat weapons only come into argument if The Chaplain only holds a single lightning Claw and the Crozius.

No, it comes into play anytime the Chaplain has another Special weapon other than the Crozius.

In 4th Edition when the Codex came out if the Chaplain chose to purchase a pair of lightning Claws, he did indeed lose the Crozius(hell he lost it if he chose 1 lightning Claw, or even if he bought a Plasma Pistol); so yes when the codex was written he was clearly intended to be able to benefit from the pair of Lightning Claws, because that was RAW at the time. Sadly this is no longer the case because The RAW has changed.

Again i will state this, but slightly more clearly: When you are equipped with 2 different Special Close combat weapons you you choose which weapon, and only that one weapon, to fight with in any given close combat. Were it the way that many of you are saying then the Chaplain could also fight with his crozius and gain a bonus attack because you could choose to have him fight with Crozius and bolt pistol. "Pair of lightning Claws" is also not a single weapon; we know this because your codex tells you it is 2 weapons.

If you have a Lightning Claw, a Lightning Claw, and a Crozius, you have 2 different special weapons. You also happen to have 3 weapons, but as long as any two of them are different, you must follow the rules for 2 different special weapons.

Thus, no bonus.

You could put a million weapons on the model, and as long as any two of them are different special weapons, you would not gain any bonus attacks.

EDIT: The Holy Orb of Antioch is a grenade. It's based on the humorous "Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch" of Monty Python fame.

Gwar! wrote:

Deuce11 wrote:I think these kinds of forum topics (rules discussions that throw the spirit of the game in the face of every well-intentioned player) are funny because if anyone ever told me I could not use dual lightning claws b/c the unit originally had another special weapon i would pack up my stuff immediately. Actually I would be sure to smack their largest, most heavy, all metal model on the floor before packing up.

Yes, and the person wanting to play by the rules is the immature one. </sarcasm>

Don't get me wrong, it would be an accident [sarcasm (indicated specifically for those without the reading comprehension to recognize sarcasm without it pointed out to them.)]

geordie09 wrote:okay... theres alot of posts here and I haven't got time to read them all. It's getting late.

A pair of Lightning Claws gives you +1. Correct!

Use of A Lightning Claw and the Crozious negates the bonus. Correct?

Since the Crozious does nothing for you, (no strength increase like a PF or re-rolls like Master Crafted) because it's just a power weapon... wouldn't you always use the LC's and leave the Crozious in the back of the Rhino?

No, doesn't matter which one (or two) you use. Possession of both negates the bonus, having to choose between them negates the bonus. Doesn't matter what you choose to attack with. Show me where it describes how you choose which special weapon to use. And then read the entire rule, to include the sentence containing the word "never".

Nuff said?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

MechaEmperor7000 wrote: The Two Different Special Close combat weapons only come into argument if The Chaplain only holds a single lightning Claw and the Crozius.

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!).

Does the Chaplain have two different special weapons? Does the Chaplain have to choose between two different special weapons?

Yes to both, which means "never" kicks in and the rule says I don't care what other weapons you might have, never means never and is going to override any other rules (barring them saying they overrule this one, of course).

And for those wanting to argue intent......... Yeah, two special weapons is too complex (such is the penalty" bit) so having more than that makes it easier? Yeah, right, and I've always found juggling 4 or 5 balls easier than juggling 3 balls. Not! Sure, the two lighting claws rule says +1 attack, as long as those are the only special weapons you are equipped with. Add more stuff, and it all starts going downhill as you start trying to juggle those extra balls and wind up dropping more than you catch.

On that note it's very hard to juggle anything while wearing lightning claws, the things are huge and ungainly.

But no I've always assumed that he could put the crozius on a belt loop or maglock it somewhere, what with the fact that his Lclaws are infinitely better in every way and in no way will he ever use a crozius again.

I mean you pay an extra five points to get a pair, but this edition that five points goes up in smoke because we follow the rules to the letter without any interpretation or variance given for older codexes where the obvious intent goes against the raw of the current edition? Sad times.

That being said I think my Master of Sanctity might be grabbing the fist from the armoury, the BT need more fist swings anyway.

don_mondo wrote:

geordie09 wrote:okay... theres alot of posts here and I haven't got time to read them all. It's getting late.

A pair of Lightning Claws gives you +1. Correct!

Use of A Lightning Claw and the Crozious negates the bonus. Correct?

Since the Crozious does nothing for you, (no strength increase like a PF or re-rolls like Master Crafted) because it's just a power weapon... wouldn't you always use the LC's and leave the Crozious in the back of the Rhino?

No, doesn't matter which one (or two) you use. Possession of both negates the bonus, having to choose between them negates the bonus. Doesn't matter what you choose to attack with. Show me where it describes how you choose which special weapon to use. And then read the entire rule, to include the sentence containing the word "never".

Nuff said?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

MechaEmperor7000 wrote: The Two Different Special Close combat weapons only come into argument if The Chaplain only holds a single lightning Claw and the Crozius.

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!).

Does the Chaplain have two different special weapons? Does the Chaplain have to choose between two different special weapons?

Yes to both, which means "never" kicks in and the rule says I don't care what other weapons you might have, never means never and is going to override any other rules (barring them saying they overrule this one, of course).

And for those wanting to argue intent......... Yeah, two special weapons is too complex (such is the penalty" bit) so having more than that makes it easier? Yeah, right, and I've always found juggling 4 or 5 balls easier than juggling 3 balls. Not! Sure, the two lighting claws rule says +1 attack, as long as those are the only special weapons you are equipped with. Add more stuff, and it all starts going downhill as you start trying to juggle those extra balls and wind up dropping more than you catch.

If they are using Two different special weapons then they follow this, otherwise they follow the rules for using Two of the same special weapon.

Key Terms are Using, and Wielding.

RAW you get the +1 attack for using/wielding 2 LC's

and you do not if you are using/wielding 1 LC and 1 Crozius.

they could have five different special weapons, but the two the model uses are the rules you go by.

DeathReaper wrote:RAW you get the +1 attack for using/wielding 2 LC's

and you do not if you are using/wielding 1 LC and 1 Crozius.

they could have five different special weapons, but the two the model uses are the rules you go by.

Do you even know what RaW means? From your posts, I don't think you do.

The rules very clearly state that if you have had to choose between special weapons, you can NEVER (Hint: This means not ever) get the bonus attack for 2 weapons.

Gwar! wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:RAW you get the +1 attack for using/wielding 2 LC's

and you do not if you are using/wielding 1 LC and 1 Crozius.

they could have five different special weapons, but the two the model uses are the rules you go by.

Do you even know what RaW means? From your posts, I don't think you do.

The rules very clearly state that if you have had to choose between special weapons, you can NEVER (Hint: This means not ever) get the bonus attack for 2 weapons.

It states you do not get the +1 attack for USING two different special weapons.

It even goes on to say 'Such is the penalty for wielding too many complex weapons.'

Simply having two different weapons only means you have options on which rules you would like to use.

"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."

"Two different special weapons" (defined by the above as a combination of equipped weapons that they can use).

"...choose which weapon to use that turn, but they NEVER get the bonus attack..."

Given the above quotes, the subheader "Two Different Special Weapons" is, as defined by the main paragraph of "Two Single Handed Weapons," a combination of equipped weapons they can use in close combat.

It then goes on to state under those rules that, as part of meeting the requirements of the subheader (implied; the choice of weapon has no relevance), they NEVER gain the bonus attack.

Does the chaplain meet the requirements of the subheader "Two Different Special Weapons"? Yes. He has LC, LC, Crozius. Two of those are different. He gains no bonus attack.

If you want to argue that the RAW only applies when equipped with two weapons, then the rules do not cover the situation. In that case, now you're begging for house rules. As a Templars player with an old codex, there are more important house rules that need to be in play for the army to work properly.

I am a Templars player; they are my primary army. You DO NOT NEED a 6 attack chaplain with lightning claws. 5 attacks is plenty good, and already better than what other marine codices get for non-SCs. Besides, we're talking about a Chaplain, which is already a beastly character with amazing options and rules. Templars have the best Chaplains currently available. Be happy with what you have.

Xca|iber wrote:I am a Templars player; they are my primary army. You DO NOT NEED a 6 attack chaplain with lightning claws. 5 attacks is plenty good, and already better than what other marine codices get for non-SCs. Besides, we're talking about a Chaplain, which is already a beastly character with amazing options and rules. Templars have the best Chaplains currently available. Be happy with what you have.

I will actually disagree as often it's hard to negotiate buying the terminator armor for him(As he needs to be leading foot squads) or spending the marines worth points for another attack. Also on terms of needs, with so many t5 and t6 multi-wound models out there I'd argue he could use even more attacks. Killing thunderwolf cavalry is damn near impossible with a master.

But need and want are not the discussion, the discussion is the raw context of it. I'd say argue it out, that or give me back five points for my second lightning claw that I can't use. Though I don't think anyone would have the beard full of neck to actually try and call this.
"Crafty Templar are trying to use dual LC's and NOT use the glowy stick of office? NOT ON MY WATCH."

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

Note they are equipped with two single handed weapons they can use

Allowing them the use of only two single handed weapons in any given combat, no more no less, mo matter how many they may have.

Which two they use will determine the rules they use:

If they use two of the same special weapon, you use the rules for 'two of the same special weapon'.

If they use two different special weapons, you use the rules for 'two different special weapons'.

DeathReaper wrote:

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

Note they are equipped with two single handed weapons they can use

By that logic Models with 3 Special CCW can never ever use the 3rd one...

Gwar! wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

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

Note they are equipped with two single handed weapons they can use

By that logic Models with 3 Special CCW can never ever use the 3rd one...

Usually models only have but two hands to smite unbelievers with.

Gwar! wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

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

Note they are equipped with two single handed weapons they can use

By that logic Models with 3 Special CCW can never ever use the 3rd one...

Actually, since there are no rules to cover it, I guess models with three or more possible close combat weapons default to no attacks except those on their profile, and no special weapon abilities may be used.................

Or we could just follow the rules

Multitude of normal close combat weapons are fine, but if the model has 2 or more special close combat weapons they do not get additional attacks for it. Also, a model like that would only get one additional attack for 2+ close combat weapons

However, models which have 3+ gripping limbs capable of having weapons with special rules will have unique rules detailing how to deal with this situation.

Okay so, being armed with both a pair of LC's and the Crozious negates the bonus. I'm down with that... but wouldn't it have been better for GW to just limit the Rec to one LC instead of giving you a pair for an extra 5 pts which whilst not penalising you as you still won't get the +1, costs you 5 pts for essentially NOWT?

geordie09 wrote:Okay so, being armed with both a pair of LC's and the Crozious negates the bonus. I'm down with that... but wouldn't it have been better for GW to just limit the Rec to one LC instead of giving you a pair for an extra 5 pts which whilst not penalising you as you still won't get the +1, costs you 5 pts for essentially NOWT?

Because they couldnt see the future?

BT wasnt released in 5th ed, so they probably couldnt anticipate the rules change,....

nosferatu1001 wrote:

geordie09 wrote:Okay so, being armed with both a pair of LC's and the Crozious negates the bonus. I'm down with that... but wouldn't it have been better for GW to just limit the Rec to one LC instead of giving you a pair for an extra 5 pts which whilst not penalising you as you still won't get the +1, costs you 5 pts for essentially NOWT?

Because they couldnt see the future?

BT wasnt released in 5th ed, so they probably couldnt anticipate the rules change,....

Thats a decent point...

geordie09 wrote:Okay so, being armed with both a pair of LC's and the Crozious negates the bonus. I'm down with that... but wouldn't it have been better for GW to just limit the Rec to one LC instead of giving you a pair for an extra 5 pts which whilst not penalising you as you still won't get the +1, costs you 5 pts for essentially NOWT?

Just being equipped with multiple weapons does not negate the rules for the weapons you are using.

since P.42 says 'Some models are equipped with two single-handed weapons they can USE in close combat...'

Therefore the actual weapons USED in said combat determine what weapon rules you would use in said combat.

Death reaper; you are misquoting. it is weapon. Singular. not Weapons plural.

You only choose 1 weapon to use when you have the choice between weapons, and you only have the choice between weapons when you have multiple special weapons.

Is it possible to model your chaplain without a crozius and claim WYSIWYG, only leaving you with the two lightning claws?

Kommissar Kel wrote:Death reaper; you are misquoting. it is weapon. Singular. not Weapons plural.

You only choose 1 weapon to use when you have the choice between weapons, and you only have the choice between weapons when you have multiple special weapons.

I am not misquoting.

P. 42 clearly states that 'Some models are equipped with two single-handed weapons they can USE in close combat...' (under the 'Fighting with two single-handed weapons at the beginning of said section)

If you are using "Two different special weapons" '...chose which weapon to use that turn...'

If you are using "Two of the same special weapon" 'These models gain one additional attack...'

so it matters what you are using, not what you are equipped with. What weapons you are using will determine the rules set that you use for that fight.

Bottom line is, if you are not using "Two different special weapons", then you do not use the rules for such.

DeathReaper wrote:
If you are using "Two different special weapons" '...chose which weapon to use that turn...'

If you are using "Two of the same special weapon" 'These models gain one additional attack...'

It never says this. There are simply headings, to which the player is referred by the ruleset, given the relevant wargear combinations.

Xca|iber wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
If you are using "Two different special weapons" '...chose which weapon to use that turn...'

If you are using "Two of the same special weapon" 'These models gain one additional attack...'

It never says this. There are simply headings, to which the player is referred by the ruleset, given the relevant wargear combinations.

It says it under the 'Fighting with two single-handed weapons' at the beginning of the section

'Some models are equipped with two single-handed weapons they can USE in close combat...' thus it is what they are using that determines the rules they use, not what they are equipped with.

It makes the distinction that you have to be using the weapon for the rule to apply.

Mahtamori wrote:...and the same as with Eldrad (pistol, Witchblade, staff).

I didn't see anyone else catch this. But, Mahtamori, Eldrad's staff is actually just an item of wargear that modifies his CC attacks, it's not an actual weapon. It's more like a mandiblaster than a Singing Spear.

Edit: This statement was wrong, see below.

Grakmar wrote:

Mahtamori wrote:...and the same as with Eldrad (pistol, Witchblade, staff).

I didn't see anyone else catch this. But, Mahtamori, Eldrad's staff is actually just an item of wargear that modifies his CC attacks, it's not an actual weapon. It's more like a mandiblaster than a Singing Spear.

Errm... What?

Page 51, Codex: Eldar:
In combat it always wounds on a roll of...

It is a close combat weapon, he has that, a Witchblade and a Pistol, so has to choose what one to use.

It doesn't make his witchblade ignore Armour, and it doesn't count as S9 vs vehicles. They are two separate weapons.

DR - except it also states that simply having (being equipped with) means you have to make a choice as to whcih weapon to USE, as you are so fond of caps on this word, meaning you are still denied the extra attack.
NEVER is a very strong word. THe fluff reason for it (complexity and all that) is also very compelling - your argument is that having two different special weapons will deny an attack, but having *3*, a MORE complex situation, will result in the extra attack?

Yeah, you notice they all keep ignoring that "complexity" issue.........?

Gwar! wrote:

Grakmar wrote:

Mahtamori wrote:...and the same as with Eldrad (pistol, Witchblade, staff).

I didn't see anyone else catch this. But, Mahtamori, Eldrad's staff is actually just an item of wargear that modifies his CC attacks, it's not an actual weapon. It's more like a mandiblaster than a Singing Spear.

Errm... What?

Page 51, Codex: Eldar:
In combat it always wounds on a roll of...

It is a close combat weapon, he has that, a Witchblade and a Pistol, so has to choose what one to use.

It doesn't make his witchblade ignore Armour, and it doesn't count as S9 vs vehicles. They are two separate weapons.

Ah, my mistake. So, I guess he does have 2 special CCWs and 1 normal one. Thanks, Gwar!

I now will feel a little awkward when using the Staff + pistol because I think the staff should be 2-handed. But, it doesn't say it is...

Grakmar wrote:Ah, my mistake. So, I guess he does have 2 special CCWs and 1 normal one. Thanks, Gwar!

I now will feel a little awkward when using the Staff + pistol because I think the staff should be 2-handed. But, it doesn't say it is...

You should feel awkward because you don't get the bonus attack even if you do that.
You had to choose between your special CC, so can NEVER get the bonus attack.

Gwar! wrote:

Grakmar wrote:Ah, my mistake. So, I guess he does have 2 special CCWs and 1 normal one. Thanks, Gwar!

I now will feel a little awkward when using the Staff + pistol because I think the staff should be 2-handed. But, it doesn't say it is...

You should feel awkward because you don't get the bonus attack even if you do that.
You had to choose between your special CC, so can NEVER get the bonus attack.

But, I thought that with Eldrad's weaponry, I could choose between his 2 special CCWs, but then use his pistol to gain the bonus attack.

So, my options would be:
1) Spear + Pistol
2) Witchblade + Pistol

Either one would grant the bonus for 2 CCWs.

No, because once you go to the act of choosing between two different special weapon, you NEVER (there's that word again) get +1 attack for using two weapons.

don_mondo wrote:No, because once you go to the act of choosing between two different special weapon, you NEVER (there's that word again) get +1 attack for using two weapons.

Well, page 42 is a little ambiguous. It lists "the rules given below for for the different possible combinations". But, it only has "A normal and a special weapon" that does grant +1 attack, and "Two different special weapons" that does not grant +1 attack. Eldrad either doesn't fit into either of these categories or he fits into both, as he has "A normal and two different special weapons".

Grakmar wrote:

don_mondo wrote:No, because once you go to the act of choosing between two different special weapon, you NEVER (there's that word again) get +1 attack for using two weapons.

Well, page 42 is a little ambiguous. It lists "the rules given below for for the different possible combinations". But, it only has "A normal and a special weapon" that does grant +1 attack, and "Two different special weapons" that does not grant +1 attack. Eldrad either doesn't fit into either of these categories or he fits into both, as he has "A normal and two different special weapons".

So, he fits into both.

One says he can get the attack, the other says he can NEVER get it.

Which one do you think wins?

Gwar! wrote:

Grakmar wrote:

don_mondo wrote:No, because once you go to the act of choosing between two different special weapon, you NEVER (there's that word again) get +1 attack for using two weapons.

Well, page 42 is a little ambiguous. It lists "the rules given below for for the different possible combinations". But, it only has "A normal and a special weapon" that does grant +1 attack, and "Two different special weapons" that does not grant +1 attack. Eldrad either doesn't fit into either of these categories or he fits into both, as he has "A normal and two different special weapons".

So, he fits into both.

One says he can get the attack, the other says he can NEVER get it.

Which one do you think wins?

Well, when you change font sizes like that, it's not really a fair fight between the two

I respectfully disagree with how this should be interpreted and will be in favor of making a house rule to adjust it. But, I concede that from RAW, he wouldn't get a bonus attack.

(Poor Eldrad, you're even more worthless at killing things than I had thought But, you are the best buffing model in the game! )

Grakmar wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Grakmar wrote:

don_mondo wrote:No, because once you go to the act of choosing between two different special weapon, you NEVER (there's that word again) get +1 attack for using two weapons.

Well, page 42 is a little ambiguous. It lists "the rules given below for for the different possible combinations". But, it only has "A normal and a special weapon" that does grant +1 attack, and "Two different special weapons" that does not grant +1 attack. Eldrad either doesn't fit into either of these categories or he fits into both, as he has "A normal and two different special weapons".

So, he fits into both.

One says he can get the attack, the other says he can NEVER get it.

Which one do you think wins?

Well, when you change font sizes like that, it's not really a fair fight between the two

I respectfully disagree with how this should be interpreted and will be in favor of making a house rule to adjust it. But, I concede that from RAW, he wouldn't get a bonus attack.

(Poor Eldrad, you're even more worthless at killing things than I had thought But, you are the best buffing model in the game! )

They NEVER get the extra attack if they are wielding/using two different special weapons.

They will get the extra attack if they are wielding/using two of the same special weapon.

If the model is using/wielding dual LC's they will get the extra attack even if they have a crozius in its sheath/hanging off their belt etc.

When a model uses two different special weapons thats when they never get the +1 attack, since they are wielding/using two different specials.

Though the rules do not state what happens if you have 3 special weapons (By Strict RAW) But the rules do say its what weapons you are using/wielding that matters and not simply what you are equipped with.

Except that isnt true, as the rules quotes have shown.

You are ignoring the NEVER waaaay too much here.

OK, hijacking my own thread a bit there, what's so ambiguous about the part on pg. 30 of the Black Templars Codex? It does clearly state that you lose your old weapon(s) if you buy upgrade weapons. Thus, if I buy one lightning claw for my chaplain, he loses his crozius. If I buy two, he loses his crozius and the only weapons I have is LCs, yes?


Hmm, now that I think abou it, wouldn't this mean that if you took a pfist for "versatility" you'd end up with only a fist, as it's an upgrade?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except that isnt true, as the rules quotes have shown.

You are ignoring the NEVER waaaay too much here.

I am not ignoring the never. it is what you use/wield determines the rule set that you use. Its only never when you use/wield two different special weapons. Simply having two special weapons means nothing, by the rules you have to use them to gain any benefit. Since we know a model can only use two single-handed weapons at a time, we then know that a third weapon hanging at the side adds nothing to the combat.

so the steps for having 3 or more CCW's look like this

1. Determine what CCW's you will use for the combat.

2. Determine what category those two weapons fall into.

and thus never does not even come into play unless you use/wield two different special weapons.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:OK, hijacking my own thread a bit there, what's so ambiguous about the part on pg. 30 of the Black Templars Codex? It does clearly state that you lose your old weapon(s) if you buy upgrade weapons. Thus, if I buy one lightning claw for my chaplain, he loses his crozius. If I buy two, he loses his crozius and the only weapons I have is LCs, yes?


Hmm, now that I think abou it, wouldn't this mean that if you took a pfist for "versatility" you'd end up with only a fist, as it's an upgrade?

Yes if it states you lose the crozius then "he loses his crozius and the only weapons [you] have is LCs"

but either way you are good, even if he had his crozius still (See my post above)

Either way you arent good, see the other 3 pages of people disproving DR.

Have you CHOSEN which special CCW to use? Then you may NEVER gain the bonus. Whether you attempt to obfuscate by trying to pretend you havent chosen until you only had 2 weapons left or not, you have still chosen.

Never is really, really, REALLY strong.

Having read the thread again, more carefully, supposedly there's some sort of controversy about the templar chaps being able to take 2 LCs legally at all. Why is this?

Just wanted to note that ustilizing army builder to build a BT list, you can take the 1st LC as an extra weapon but in order to take a second LC you need to then drop the crozius.

Not claiming AB as a definitive source for all rules and equipping models but thought it was interesting it was set-up this way.

From a personal standpoint I disagree with those stating that taking the 2 LCs and having a 3rd weapon automatically loses you the extra attack. I have read all of the posts and have seen nothing that would convince me of the other position. I think the folks attempting to defend the loss of attack position are demonstrating rules lawyering at its worst. The dual LC wielding model is well known to benefit from the extra attack but some folks just seem to take the opposite point of view to either be difficult or gain some benefit for their own little plastic army in a game that is supposed to be fun. Some rules are clearly written and some seem fairly universally clear in their intent, but certain types of people would rather ignore the second part of this just because they can.

You do not need to be Jervis Johnson or Gav Thorpe or Matt Ward to have a reasonable understanding of intent of something that is written by a third party, but you do have to have a modicum of reasonableness and a willingness to play a game the way it was probably intended.

If you asked a reasonable person with knowledge of the rules and the game if a model with 2 LCs would get an extra attack the answer would be yes. If you asked that same reasonable person if the same would apply if that model somehow picked up a shiny sword laying on the ground and stuck it in his belt the answer would still be yes even though that model now had a 3rd weapon, as a reasonable person would still expect that model to fight with his two LC and not the sword in his belt.

If I were in a game we someone like this I would let them have their way, finish the game and then avoid them like the plague from that point on. In my opinion, in some of these rules discussions, a bit of common sense and reasonableness would go a long way towards resolving some of these issues. I think to often we are looking to make things more difficult than they have to be, or some would be lawyer, is obviously frustrated and wants to show us all how smart they are in pointing out loopholes in the rules.

Death reaper; when you are equipped with more than 1 special weapons, you only get to USE 1 weapon(not 1 pair of weapons, not 1 special and 1 normal: 1 weapon) The fact that when you are presented with a choice, you can only choose to use 1 means you are never going to gain the benefits of fighting with 2 weapons.


almightyWalrus; that rule is there for troopers taking upgrades(anything listed under "options" in the army list), the armory is for Characters and simply states that you may select 2 weapons, only one of which may be two-handed.

This is also thew crux of the issue, when the codex was written the BRB told us how to deal with armory purchases, this no longer exists in 5 th edition.

edit: sorry got your name wrong

nosferatu1001 wrote:Either way you arent good, see the other 3 pages of people disproving DR.

Have you CHOSEN which special CCW to use? Then you may NEVER gain the bonus. Whether you attempt to obfuscate by trying to pretend you havent chosen until you only had 2 weapons left or not, you have still chosen.

Never is really, really, REALLY strong.

"Have you CHOSEN which special CCW to use?"

No, your choice only matters if you are WIELDING two different special weapons.

I have yet to see anything disproving that simply having three weapons prevents you from gaining a +1 attack it only makes a distinction for what weapons you are using/wielding.

and "Never is really, really, REALLY strong." if you are using/wielding 'two different special weapons' that rule will apply.

However you are not using/wielding 'two different special weapons', you do not use the rules for such, since you are using/wielding 'two of the same special weapon' in this case the 2 LC's.

A special weapon not in use (hanging at your side, or still in its sheath) has no bearing on the combat.

therefore models armed with power sword, bolt pistol, power fist, force weapon, dual lightning claws, and a crozius arcanum have many options on which rules to use dependent on which two weapons they chose to use/wield. since we can not determine what rules to look at till we see what two weapons the model will use in any given situation, we then have to determine which two we will use and look at the rules for that set of weapons.

Reaper: even if you could choose the 2 weapons you are useing/wielding(you cant as I keep telling you, you only choose to use/wield 1) you still have to make a choice by being equipped with multiple special weapons. That Choice alone means that you are fighting with 2 special weapons and as such you do not gain the bonus attack(not Ever)

Hiamar - "it alwyas worked this way" is a REALLY bad argument to make.

It always used to be that youcould assault from a moving, closed topped transport (3rd ed) therefore you should still be able to do it now.

You have ALWAYS been able to fire a heavy flamer plus multilaser after moving a chimera 6", so you can still do so now! (4th ed)

You could ALWAYS fire weapons from a firepoint after moving 12"! (4th ed)

See how that argument flounders? 5th ed has changed a LOT of rules and the rules for using weapons HAS changed. You can no longer gain an extra attack if you have 2 or more different special CCW. Deal with it, or houserule it, but know it IS a houserule.

DR - see above. You have no rules support for your position.

DeathReaper wrote:
"Have you CHOSEN which special CCW to use?"

No, your choice only matters if you are WIELDING two different special weapons.

Wrong. You are equipped with more than one special weapon, you have to choose between them, and that means no bonus attack.

As for not having seen anything, try reading our responses and the rules, it's all right there for you..........................

nosferatu1001 wrote:Hiamar - "it alwyas worked this way" is a REALLY bad argument to make.

It always used to be that youcould assault from a moving, closed topped transport (3rd ed) therefore you should still be able to do it now.

You have ALWAYS been able to fire a heavy flamer plus multilaser after moving a chimera 6", so you can still do so now! (4th ed)

You could ALWAYS fire weapons from a firepoint after moving 12"! (4th ed)

See how that argument flounders? 5th ed has changed a LOT of rules and the rules for using weapons HAS changed. You can no longer gain an extra attack if you have 2 or more different special CCW. Deal with it, or houserule it, but know it IS a houserule.

DR - see above. You have no rules support for your position.

P. 42 supports my position 'Some models are equipped with two single-handed weapons they can USE in close combat...' , it matters what you are using/wielding not what you have on you. The rulebook assumes that you only have 2 CCW's so when you have more than 2 you have to look at what you are using/wielding to determine your bonuses.

Kommissar Kel wrote:Reaper: even if you could choose the 2 weapons you are useing/wielding(you cant as I keep telling you, you only choose to use/wield 1) you still have to make a choice by being equipped with multiple special weapons. That Choice alone means that you are fighting with 2 special weapons and as such you do not gain the bonus attack(not Ever)

Being equipped with more than one special weapon only matters if you are using/wielding 'two different special weapons' simply having them does not stop you from using dual LC's


I suspect that when the BT book gets updated the chaplains wont even have an option for dual LC's, this is a Hypothesis however since the book is not out .

ARE EQUIPPED - you keep not bolding that, despite it being right there.

Have you chosen which weapon you want to fight with? Did you have more than one special, different CCW to choose from? If the answer is YES then you never gain the bonus.

You have been shown the rules, repeatedly, which show you are wrong on this.

Kommissar Kel wrote:
almightyWalrus; that rule is there for troopers taking upgrades(anything listed under "options" in the army list), the armory is for Characters and simply states that you may select 2 weapons, only one of which may be two-handed.

Ah, but upon looking at the Chaplain entry, it says "Options: A Chaplain can be given any equipment allowed from the Black Templars Armoury.". Thus, since the rule allowing me to purchase special weapons is under "options", I replace my base weapon (in this case the crozius) with my 2 lightning claws. At no point in the codex (that I've found at least) does it say that the rule regarding options only applies to troopers.

Reaper; Being equipped with multiple weapons means that you must make a choice as to which weapon to use, if you make that choice you are only able to choose 1 weapon, therefore can never gain the bonus for fighting with 2 weapons(because, you know, you are only fighting with 1 weapon). Please go back and read it again note when the word "Weapon" does, nad does not have an "S" on the end of it. That "S" denotes plurality(meaning more than 1), the lack of that "S" denotes singularity(1, and only 1). If you do this you will find that models Equipped with more than 1 weapon, must choose to Use only 1 weapon. You cannot, never, ever choose to use 2 Lightning claws, you can only choose to use 1 of them.

Walrus: Between the options rules on page 30, the Armory, and the individual options in the army list you will find the differences in when you do or do not exchange weapons(based on the Page 30 rules). Any Squad that can exchange basic weapons for upgrades actually tell you to replace the basic weapons, this satisfies the wording on page 30 that "upgrade weapons" replace basic weapons. Chaplains and similar characters that have the options listing in their armylisting simply tell you that they have access to the armory, and the armory simply tells you that you may select up to 2 weapons. now where between any of those 2 areas does it tell you that the Armory weapons are "upgrade weapons" nor does it tell you exactly which weapons would be replaced(that was in the core rulebooks when the codex came out).

Of course when 4th edition came out i never "upgraded" my Chaplain's(or librarian's) pistols to anything else, because I liked having the Free Power(/force) weapon(4th edition stated that all base weapons were lost if you selected any weapons from the armory; and games workshop actually told me when phoned that "it should work just like it did in 3rd", to which i replied then so should all the vehicle rules and every other rule you guys changed and why did I buy this "new edition" rule book if nothing actually changed).

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:
almightyWalrus; that rule is there for troopers taking upgrades(anything listed under "options" in the army list), the armory is for Characters and simply states that you may select 2 weapons, only one of which may be two-handed.

Ah, but upon looking at the Chaplain entry, it says "Options: A Chaplain can be given any equipment allowed from the Black Templars Armoury.". Thus, since the rule allowing me to purchase special weapons is under "options", I replace my base weapon (in this case the crozius) with my 2 lightning claws. At no point in the codex (that I've found at least) does it say that the rule regarding options only applies to troopers.

This is the only legitimate argument for Chaplains getting twin LCs and the bonus attack. Taking this approach, it comes down to whether you interpret "selecting from the armoury" to be the same as "taking an upgrade weapon." Since neither of those terms are well defined (since both have been phased out in 5th), it's unclear. Note that if you take the "replacement" approach, all other choices from the weapons section of the Armoury will also remove his Crozius. (Which is why I don't subscribe to that interpretation).

Like I said, I'm a Templars player and I've come to terms with the fact that I can win without that extra attack, and that RAW I shouldn't have it in the first place. Frankly the fact that my Chaplains can take a ton of awesome wargear more than makes up for one measly attack. Denying a player the bonus is not being TFG. Being TFG is not allowing BT Terminators the benefits of Terminator Armour since it's not listed in their wargear (so no 5+ save), or not letting anything benefit from zeal because no unit types are given in the codex.

nosferatu1001 wrote:ARE EQUIPPED - you keep not bolding that, despite it being right there.

Have you chosen which weapon you want to fight with? Did you have more than one special, different CCW to choose from? If the answer is YES then you never gain the bonus.

You have been shown the rules, repeatedly, which show you are wrong on this.

I am correct, the rules support me:

"Did you have more than one special, different CCW to choose from?" you have more than one, but are not using more than one, therefore you do not use the 'two different special weapons' since you are equipped with, but not using 'two different special weapons'.
You have to satisfy both the 'equipped' and the 'use' clause in this statement to make the statement true. so if you are not using a weapon you do not use any of the rules for said weapon. you have to follow all the rules.

Being equipped with something does not mean you have to use it. look at space marine tac. squad, they have a bolter and a bolt pistol, they get to chose which to fire with and use the rules for what they are actually using, instead of adding the rules for both to the situation.

Yes the rules seem a little ambiguous due to it not listing what happens if you have more than 2 CCW's but models that are equipped with 2 or more weapons may use any combination of them in CC, and thus you look to whatever you are using to derive your rules for that combat.

You have to be wielding/using 'two different special weapons' to follow the rules for 'two different special weapons' simply having one strapped to your hip does not add or subtract any rules.

DeathReaper wrote:You have to be wielding/using 'two different special weapons' to follow the rules for 'two different special weapons'

So you are saying that a model equiped with two different special weapons does not have to follow the rules for "two different special weapons?"

kirsanth wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:You have to be wielding/using 'two different special weapons' to follow the rules for 'two different special weapons'

So you are saying that a model equiped with two different special weapons does not have to follow the rules for "two different special weapons?"

That is what he is saying in the case of a model with 3 or more CCWs. Because, a model can only attack with 2 weapons, so if he has 2 special+1 normal, he can choose to just grab the 1 special+1 normal.

DeathReaper: The rules, unfortunately, don't really cover this. There is, in fact, nothing stating that a model is restricted to only using 2 CCWs at a time (or an equal number to the number of arms). And, there's no rule allowing you not to use a weapon you have. So, a model is assumed to be using every weapon it is equipped with. That means that it is always using 2 special weapons if it has 2 in it's inventory.

This isn't particularly logical, but that's the way it goes sometimes.

If it helps: Assume your models are all really dumb, and they take a while to decide which weapon loadout they want to attack with, and because they took so long, they loose the ability to get a bonus attack.

But, I do agree with your argument in spirit and hope this makes it into errata, or at least into 6th edition!

DR - no, really, just no. The rules do not support it because you entirely ignore the "are equipped" clause.

As soon as you are equpped with 2 or more different special CCW you can NEVER gain the bonus attack, as you must choose.

You also have ignored KKs excellent point. Dont let that stop you though.

Reaper if you are not using more than 1 because you chose to use another weapon(which you HAVE to do) you are still not using 2 weapons because you are Choosing to use 1 weapon, and as such you do not gain an additional attack(because you only gain that from using 2 weapons to begin with).

Kommissar Kel wrote:Reaper if you are not using more than 1 because you chose to use another weapon(which you HAVE to do) you are still not using 2 weapons because you are Choosing to use 1 weapon, and as such you do not gain an additional attack(because you only gain that from using 2 weapons to begin with).

kirsanth wrote:So you are saying that a model equiped with two different special weapons does not have to follow the rules for "two different special weapons?"

you can use 2 weapons to attack in CC. see below.

nosferatu1001 wrote:DR - no, really, just no. The rules do not support it because you entirely ignore the "are equipped" clause.

As soon as you are equpped with 2 or more different special CCW you can NEVER gain the bonus attack, as you must choose.

You also have ignored KKs excellent point. Dont let that stop you though.

I understand what you are trying to say about being equipped with multiple weapons, and I am not ignoring the equipped clause, i am reading the rest of it where it tells you that you can use those two weapons in CC.
I.E. if you are EQUIPPED with AND are USING... Both equipped and using have to apply, or the sentence does not.

So you have to be equipped with a weapon to use it, but you do not have to use a weapon you are equipped with. you have to be equipped with and be using 2 different special weapons for that rule to take effect.

note p.37 under number of attacks, second bullet point '+1 two weapons: engaged models with two single-handed weapons get an extra +1 attack. models with more than two weapons gain no additional benefit.' so having more than two weapons does nothing because you can only use two at a time, the two you use will determine the rules you use. if its dual LC then you get +1 attack, if its a Crozius and a Power fist, you do not get the +1 attack.

DeathReaper wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:Reaper if you are not using more than 1 because you chose to use another weapon(which you HAVE to do) you are still not using 2 weapons because you are Choosing to use 1 weapon, and as such you do not gain an additional attack(because you only gain that from using 2 weapons to begin with).

kirsanth wrote:So you are saying that a model equiped with two different special weapons does not have to follow the rules for "two different special weapons?"

you can use 2 weapons to attack in CC. see below.

not if you have to make a choice between Special Close combat weapons, see the rules.

Hint if you forget where they are it is the bottom section of the second column on page 42. Look to the 13th word under "Two different special weapons"; now is that word in the singular or plural?

Kommissar Kel wrote:
not if you have to make a choice between Special Close combat weapons, see the rules.

Hint if you forget where they are it is the bottom section of the second column on page 42. Look to the 13th word under "Two different special weapons"; now is that word in the singular or plural?

\

Yes!

"if you have to make a choice between Special Close combat weapons, see the rules."

If you are Using/Wielding 'Two different special weapons' you chose aka have to make a choice of which weapon to use that turn.

If you are Using/Wielding 'Two of the same special weapon' you get the bonus attack.

you have to use a weapon in order to use the rules for that weapon.

if you are not using a weapon you can not use the rules for that weapon.

Ok let's then go back to the Beginning of that section shall we; FIGHTING WITH TWO SINGLE-HANDED WEAPONS(caps used because that is direct from book): "Some models may be equipped with two single-handed weapons they can use in close combat, with the rules given below for the different possible combinations."

It then goes on to tell you 2handed weapons cannot be used with a second weapon(again support the only fighting with 1 weapon in some circumstances).

then we go through the 4 Types to see which ones we have available on our chaplain:
1)Two normal close combat weapons; no he doesn't have that
2) Two of the Same close combat weapons; well he does have two of the same, but then I see a few other types, I should keep reading.
3) A normal and a Special weapon; Hey look he has this too!, but wait there is one other type available, lets keep going.
4) Two different special weapons; Yep he definitely qualifies for this, but now how do i choose what type i get?

We know that he has a normal, and 3 specials, we also know that 2 of the special are the same and thus the 3rd is different, we are never given any options to choose which rules we need to use, so the only option we have is to use the most restrictive rule available, especially since it is the only rule that gives us an option as to which special weapon we may use to attack with.

Look back to the basis of the rules themselves; you need only to be equipped with the weapons in order to discover which weapon(or combination of weapons) you can use. If you are equipped with 2 different special weapons you must use that ruleset; no matter how many other rulesets you have available, because only the 2 different special weapons ruleset allows you to make any choice as to what weapon is used.

PS; lets just all agree to thank what ever deities we all believe in that the BT have no 2-handed Close combat weapons; there is literally NO way to figure out how a Chaplain with BP, Crozius and a 2 handed CCW(special or not) chooses to make his attacks.

Kommissar Kel wrote:Ok let's then go back to the Beginning of that section shall we; FIGHTING WITH TWO SINGLE-HANDED WEAPONS(caps used because that is direct from book): "Some models may be equipped with two single-handed weapons they can use in close combat, with the rules given below for the different possible combinations."

It then goes on to tell you 2handed weapons cannot be used with a second weapon(again support the only fighting with 1 weapon in some circumstances).

then we go through the 4 Types to see which ones we have available on our chaplain:
1)Two normal close combat weapons; no he doesn't have that
2) Two of the Same close combat weapons; well he does have two of the same, but then I see a few other types, I should keep reading.
3) A normal and a Special weapon; Hey look he has this too!, but wait there is one other type available, lets keep going.
4) Two different special weapons; Yep he definitely qualifies for this, but now how do i choose what type i get?

We know that he has a normal, and 3 specials, we also know that 2 of the special are the same and thus the 3rd is different, we are never given any options to choose which rules we need to use, so the only option we have is to use the most restrictive rule available, especially since it is the only rule that gives us an option as to which special weapon we may use to attack with.

Look back to the basis of the rules themselves; you need only to be equipped with the weapons in order to discover which weapon(or combination of weapons) you can use. If you are equipped with 2 different special weapons you must use that ruleset; no matter how many other rulesets you have available, because only the 2 different special weapons ruleset allows you to make any choice as to what weapon is used.

He qualifies for #4 only if he is "FIGHTING WITH TWO SINGLE-HANDED WEAPONS(caps used because that is direct from book)"

He is not Fighting with 'Two different special weapons.'

He is fighting with 'Two of the Same close combat weapons.'

Kommissar Kel wrote:"If you are equipped with 2 different special weapons you must use that ruleset"

You have to be equipped with and using 'Two different special weapons.' just being equipped does not follow the
"Some models may be equipped with two single-handed weapons they can use in close combat, with the rules given below for the different possible combinations." since it mentions you are equipped with and using. both apply. if you are not using a particular weapon you can not use the rules for said weapon.

if he is not Fighting with 2 singlehanded weapons(because he has 4) then none of the Types are available, and as such he does not get a bonus anyway.

Also it does not say "equipped with and Using" It says "Equipped with, that they can use"

You can use any of the 4(well only three based on the lack of options to use the normal once you get into the ruleset) Weapons you are equipped with; the only way to figure out which weapons you do use is to go through and find the subset of rules that best fit with what you are equipped with.

It seems after reading through the weapons section of the assault rules several times that the rules simply don't cover this at all. Superficially the rules would seem to state that no bonus attack is granted because of the need to choose...but if you look deeper the rules are only ever talking about two weapons. The idea that a character could have a special weapon and then a pair of special weapons which can be used together isn't even touched on within the rules. The assumption the rules make is that you either have a pair of special weapons listed as working together (e.g. power fist, lightning claws) or two different special weapons whose abilities must be chosen between (i.e. do I use the lightning claw in my left hand or the thunder hammer in my right).

So house rule it is.

On a related tangent someone earlier mentioned that the BT chaplain would actually trade in the Crozius but I can find no such reference in the codex.

It's clear that by using the rules from the Templar codex if you equip a Chaplain with a pair of lightning claws the model loses his Crozius, so irregardless of the rules for multiple special weapons the Chaplain gains +1A for having a pair of lightning claws.

In regards to old Eldrad the rules for his magical staff unfortunately do not define it as a single handed weapon so he does not get +1A.

BloodThirSTAR wrote:It's clear that by using the rules from the Templar codex if you equip a Chaplain with a pair of lightning claws the model loses his Crozius, so irregardless of the rules for multiple special weapons the Chaplain gains +1A for having a pair of lightning claws.

In regards to old Eldrad the rules for his magical staff unfortunately do not define it as a single handed weapon so he does not get +1A.

I apologize for this pet peeve but it's 'regardless'. And I looked in the special characters, wargear, and Chaplain section of the Codex:BT and could find no mention of losing or trading in the Crozius. It would make the whole issue a lot easier to deal with.

zeshin wrote:On a related tangent someone earlier mentioned that the BT chaplain would actually trade in the Crozius but I can find no such reference in the codex.

I mentioned it in relation to 4th edition, it was in the 4th edition Main rule book. I will Quote it later, when I find mine.

The OP also referenced the wording in Options: on page 30 of the codex where it tells you that basic weapons are lost when a model upgrades his weapons(although that was handled already).

Edit: No Bloodstar, it doesn't. Not anywhere. As i just said earlier in this Post it did say that in the 4th edition rules, but 5th edition is doing away with armory pages and the options are now part of the armylists, so we are stuck with 4 weapon-toting Chaplains for Black templar.(and a 'nilla Company Champion that can have 4or 5 weapons as well)

Kommissar Kel wrote:

zeshin wrote:On a related tangent someone earlier mentioned that the BT chaplain would actually trade in the Crozius but I can find no such reference in the codex.

I mentioned it in relation to 4th edition, it was in the 4th edition Main rule book. I will Quote it later, when I find mine.

The OP also referenced the wording in Options: on page 30 of the codex where it tells you that basic weapons are lost when a model upgrades his weapons(although that was handled already).

The one section I didn't check. Though in reading through the 'options' section it says "Any model who takes an upgrade weapon loses the weapon he was originally armed with unless otherwise stated." This A: seems to be referring only to actual upgrade weapons choices primarily found in squads and B: if it applied to the Chaplain would mean you could never have a Crozius and another weapon (not even a pistol) because the first weapon picked would replace the Crozius.

Edit: also the BT chapies can only have three weapons as they start with a Crozius and are limited to two weapons by the wargear section of the codex.

The first Part is what I told the OP(armory choices are not considered "upgrades")

#2 ah, you are correct i hadn't, noticed that they do not come with a pistol.

BloodThirSTAR wrote:In regards to old Eldrad the rules for his magical staff unfortunately do not define it as a single handed weapon so he does not get +1A.

That's actually not the issue. It's not defined as single-handed, but it's also not defined as two-handed, so it's defaulted to one hand.

If all he had in his wargear was the staff and a pistol, there'd be no problem and he'd get a bonus attack.

But, he has a witchblade (that is actually totally worthless, the staff is better in every way), so he has 2 "special" ccw, and therefor doesn't get the bonus attack by RAW.

Grakmar wrote:But, he has a witchblade (that is actually totally worthless, the staff is better in every way), so he has 2 "special" ccw, and therefor doesn't get the bonus attack by RAW.

Not against vehicles. The Staff doesn't get S9 against them. The Witchblade does.

Gwar! wrote:

Grakmar wrote:But, he has a witchblade (that is actually totally worthless, the staff is better in every way), so he has 2 "special" ccw, and therefor doesn't get the bonus attack by RAW.

Not against vehicles. The Staff doesn't get S9 against them. The Witchblade does.

Yeah, I guess I read the staff description and thought "Oh, it's just a power-weapon witchblade". But, you're right, no S9 vs vehicles.

Still, I'd rather he "forget" the witchblade at home and get the bonus attack.

Perhaps I'm just not seeing the problem here. If there is a special character that fits this situation, shouldn't we just differ to his rules. Calgar apparently has a power sword and the gauntlets(which are 2 power fists), the advantage to choosing the power sword is it strikes in initiative order. Now, I am not an expert so the question is does he get +1 A for having two power fists if he uses the gauntlets? That, to me, is the same as having 2 claws with the crozius. If not, then all these other guys are right in saying you wouldn't get the +1. Also, I have always been told by friends that an old codex is not over ruled by new rulebook, so like Templars have different point costs for a lot of things then would be found in the current space marines codex. So by that theory it shouldn't matter what the big rulebook says if the Templar codex specifically states he loses the crozius. People arguing about intent have no real basis, as we do not know the intent of rules unless they are clarified. So even if you think its unfair its ridiculous to argue the chaplain can't take lightning claws at all because "armories are no longer in use". That is really stretching just to get your way. Just my thought on the matter, and of course I could be completely wrong.

Arise, ye threads of yore! Let your broken husks haunt these decripit halls once again!


Nice necro there.