So lawyer me this:

+1 Two Weapons: Engaged models with two singlehanded weapons (often a Melee weapon and or pistol in each hand) get +1 Attack. Models with more than two weapons gain no additional benefit; you only get one extra Attack, even if you have four arm and a sword in each.

Key phrase here, OFTEN a melee and or pistol. The word often leave the possibilities wide open because the +1 attacks are no longer exclusive to melee weapons and pistols. Other ramifications of this that a Space Marine Terminator with a power sword and assault cannon, neither weapon has the two handed rule and no weapon has a one handed rule, would have 3 attacks.

Tactical Squad Space Marine Wargear:
Power armour, Boltgun, Bolt pistol, Frag grenades, Krak grenades

That is his standard wargear. How does that grant two attacks during the assault? Key things there no assigned melee and has a bolt pistol.

No Specified Melee Weapon: If a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type, it is treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon.

So he has a melee weapon by default even those it is not listed in his wargear. Close combat weapons are not two handed.

Pistols as Close Combat Weapons: A pistol can be used as a close combat weapon. If this is done, use the profile given above - the Strength, AP and special ruIes of the pistol's Shooting profile are ignored (see page 52).

Bolt pistol, that is a second close combat weapon that is one handed. Seems to me that is +1 attacks.

Pistols are melee weapons, ergo, they have a specified melee weapon.

majortwitch wrote:

No Specified Melee Weapon: If a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type, it is treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon.

So he has a melee weapon by default even those it is not listed in his wargear. Close combat weapons are not two handed.

Pistols as Close Combat Weapons: A pistol can be used as a close combat weapon. If this is done, use the profile given above - the Strength, AP and special ruIes of the pistol's Shooting profile are ignored (see page 52).

Bolt pistol, that is a second close combat weapon that is one handed. Seems to me that is +1 attacks.

Bolt Pistol is a Melee weapon (read the Pistol type). Since he has a Melee weapon, the "No Specified Melee Weapon" rule does not come into play.

So no, he doesn't get an extra attack.

nice try

So, he gets a single CCW for having no melee weapons, then gets a bonus attack for having two melee weapons?

No. If you are using a pistol as a CCW, you can't claim another CCW on the basis that you don't have any melee weapons, because a CCW is a melee weapon and you are using your pistol as a CCW.

This is so blatantly ridiculous. For once the rules are clear in their intention and written in a logical fashion and yet you are still looking for a loophole.

There's clearly a specified close combat weapon, otherwise you could never claim to have a seconf one.

The way that is worded are pistols are only counted as close combat weapons during the assault. So that would mean they would have two weapons outside of the assault yet only one during. So a moot point as that leaves them with a single weapon in the assault.

But back to first point! What stops you from using the bolt gun as your second weapon? The +1 Two Weapons is wide open. And bolt gun is not two handed, so what am i missing there.

majortwitch wrote:
The way that is worded are pistols are only counted as close combat weapons during the assault. So that would mean they would have two weapons outside of the assault yet only one during. So a moot point as that leaves them with a single weapon in the assault.

But back to first point! What stops you from using the bolt gun as your second weapon? The +1 Two Weapons is wide open. And bolt gun is not two handed, so what am i missing there.

It's not a Melee weapon so cannot be used in assault.

But is it being used? If you have a power sword and pistol you can swing the sword twice and not use the pistol. Just swing the pistol twice and not use the boltgun? Or does the boltgun disappear in the assault? And where is that it states it cannot be used in the assault?

majortwitch wrote:
But is it being used? If you have a power sword and pistol you can swing the sword twice and not use the pistol. Just swing the pistol twice and not use the boltgun? Or does the boltgun disappear in the assault? And where is that it states it cannot be used in the assault?

p51 wrote:However, it's worth remembering that if a model has two or more Melee weapons he gains +1 Attack in close combat (see page 24).

p24 wrote: +1 Two Weapons: Engaged models with two single-handed weapons (often a Melee weapon and/or pistol in each hand) get +1 Attack.

You have no permission to count Bolters as a weapon in CC.

From page 50 of the 6th edition rulebook under the heading 'Type':

A shooting weapon always has one of the following types: Assault, heavy, ordnance, pistol, rapid fire or salvo... A Shooting weapon can only be used to make Shooting attacks.

majortwitch wrote:
The way that is worded are pistols are only counted as close combat weapons during the assault.

So during the assault you have a specified melee weapon. So during the assault you can't claim to have an Unspecified melee weapon (because at that time you have one), which is the one time it would be useful.

I love this. Your last point: "Pistols as [CCW]..." argument done.

With his logic, everybody has two attacks.

rigeld2 wrote:

p51 wrote:However, it's worth remembering that if a model has two or more Melee weapons he gains +1 Attack in close combat (see page 24).

That is a reminder that if you happen to have two melee weapons that get extra attack. It goes back to reference page 24 where the vagueness lies. It isn't saying its worth remembering that if a model ONLY has two or more Melee weapons... it is a reminder not a further expansion of rule.

 Ghaz wrote:
From page 50 of the 6th edition rulebook under the heading 'Type':

A shooting weapon always has one of the following types: Assault, heavy, ordnance, pistol, rapid fire or salvo... A Shooting weapon can only be used to make Shooting attacks.

This was covered, the boltgun isn't being used to make the extra attack only qualify. And would this mean the pistol could not be used as CCW? Other rules supersede this line such as the +1 Two Weapons rule.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
With his logic, everybody has two attacks.

Very true, this was mostly done to point out very poor wording of rules.

As I have come to realize you don't even need a pistol. Even Guardsman with a his lasgun qualifies for two attacks.

majortwitch wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

p51 wrote:However, it's worth remembering that if a model has two or more Melee weapons he gains +1 Attack in close combat (see page 24).

That is a reminder that if you happen to have two melee weapons that get extra attack. It goes back to reference page 24 where the vagueness lies. It isn't saying its worth remembering that if a model ONLY has two or more Melee weapons... it is a reminder not a further expansion of rule.

Your interpretation requires literally ignoring the rule on page 51. Why are you ignoring a rule?

majortwitch wrote:
Very true, this was mostly done to point out very poor wording of rules.

I'll disagree with that. If you have no close combat weapon you count as having one. It's simple and elegant. If you then try to justify using this rule when you already have a CCW, then you run into problems

As I have come to realize you don't even need a pistol. Even Guardsman with a his lasgun qualifies for two attacks.

How so? At most he can claim a single Unspecified combat weapon. Where would he get a second from?

He's claiming Lasguns, Bolters, etc. are a second weapon and therefore give an additional attack.
edit: when combined with either a pistol or non-specified melee weapon

rigeld2 wrote:
He's claiming Lasguns, Bolters, etc. are a second weapon and therefore give an additional attack.
edit: when combined with either a pistol or non-specified melee weapon

That's just strange.
The rule doesn't turn a lasgun in a melee weapon. It just gives a CCW weapon. And they're not pistols.
I'm just really not seeing the logic here.
And somehow doing this without even a pistol? Just no.

I am not ignoring the rule. I am sure how else to explain it. Try two: "if a model has" we have a "if" there. If tells of one possibility. It is not stating that models with only with two melee weapons get an extra attack. It is not an if and only if statement. If does not exclude non melee weapons which are allowed by page 24.

majortwitch wrote:
I am not ignoring the rule. I am sure how else to explain it. Try two: "if a model has" we have a "if" there. If tells of one possibility. It is not stating that models with only with two melee weapons get an extra attack. It is not an if and only if statement. If does not exclude non melee weapons which are allowed by page 24.

No, page 24 does not allow non melee weapons. It has explicit permission for melee weapons and pistols (which are also melee weapons). Cite permission for any other type of weapon.

majortwitch wrote:
The way that is worded are pistols are only counted as close combat weapons during the assault. So that would mean they would have two weapons outside of the assault yet only one during. So a moot point as that leaves them with a single weapon in the assault.

But back to first point! What stops you from using the bolt gun as your second weapon? The +1 Two Weapons is wide open. And bolt gun is not two handed, so what am i missing there.

Yes, while not in Assault, the Space marine has no Melee weapon and defaults to the assumed Melee weapon.

Once the Space marine is in assault though, he has a melee weapon(the Pistol, which in assault is a normal CCW), so no longer has the assumed Melee weapon.

So in any given Phase the Space marine has exactly 1 Melee weapon.

This also comes up all the time, you are not going to find some new argument for 2 weapons, a model only has 2 weapons when it actually has 2+ weapons, and it only actually uses 1 weapon for any given attack.

Yeah this is an odd look at the rules. I like how he broke it up with the phases.

So in the shooting phase we look at the gear. Marine = Boltgun, Bolt pistol, frak grenades, krak grenades. which weapons have a shooting profile? He can shoot with the boltgun or the pistol, or throw a grenade.

Then he gets in to an assault. again we look at the wargear. The boltgun cannot be used as a close combat weapon, the pistol can though! So he gets the normal attack for having one close combat weapon, this would be the same as if he did NOT have a pistol. Benefit to having a pistol though is that marines can still fire something before charging.

If he had a Chainsword AND a bolt pistol, that is 2 close combat weapons, so he would get a +1 attack for having two weapons that can be used in an assault.

rigeld2 wrote:

No, page 24 does not allow non melee weapons. It has explicit permission for melee weapons and pistols (which are also melee weapons). Cite permission for any other type of weapon.

And back to my first post!

majortwitch wrote:

+1 Two Weapons: Engaged models with two singlehanded weapons (often a Melee weapon and or pistol in each hand) get +1 Attack. Models with more than two weapons gain no additional benefit; you only get one extra Attack, even if you have four arm and a sword in each.

Key phrase here, OFTEN a melee and or pistol. The word often leave the possibilities wide open because the +1 attacks are no longer exclusive to melee weapons and pistols. Other ramifications of this that a Space Marine Terminator with a power sword and assault cannon, neither weapon has the two handed rule and no weapon has a one handed rule, would have 3 attacks.

If the word often was replaced with only on page 24 we would not* be talking right now.

Run charcaradons if you want a tactical to have 2 ccw. Just means you lose the 24" rapid fire bolters.

Poly Ranger wrote:
Run charcaradons if you want a tactical to have 2 ccw. Just means you lose the 24" rapid fire bolters.

Or take both for 1 ppm.

Can you do that? I missed that rule!

majortwitch wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

No, page 24 does not allow non melee weapons. It has explicit permission for melee weapons and pistols (which are also melee weapons). Cite permission for any other type of weapon.

And back to my first post!

majortwitch wrote:

+1 Two Weapons: Engaged models with two singlehanded weapons (often a Melee weapon and or pistol in each hand) get +1 Attack. Models with more than two weapons gain no additional benefit; you only get one extra Attack, even if you have four arm and a sword in each.

Key phrase here, OFTEN a melee and or pistol. The word often leave the possibilities wide open because the +1 attacks are no longer exclusive to melee weapons and pistols. Other ramifications of this that a Space Marine Terminator with a power sword and assault cannon, neither weapon has the two handed rule and no weapon has a one handed rule, would have 3 attacks.

If the word often was replaced with only on page 24 we would not* be talking right now.

Yes, the possibilities are open.
Have you found permission yet? That rule only tells you in general what allows it. Page 51 reminds you, specifically, what is required.
You cannot pretend to satisfy one and not the other - you must satisfy both. Your interpretation ignores one of the two rules.

Okay so this a full run down of things:

+1 Two Weapons: Engaged models with two singlehanded weapons (often a Melee weapon and or pistol in each hand) get +1 Attack. Models with more than two weapons gain no additional benefit; you only get one extra Attack, even if you have four arm and a sword in each.

The first restriction is that weapon must be singlehanded. The is a two handed special rule but there is no "one handed" special rule. Bolt pistols and boltguns have no special rule of two handed, so therefore both are able to used in a single hand. Key word here, OFTEN a melee and or pistol. The word often leave the possibilities wide open because the +1 attacks are no longer exclusive to melee weapons and pistols. Furthering this the use of the world weapon in the last part. "models with more than two weapons" nowhere in there is the word melee. This fails to exclude boltguns or other ranged weapons.

No Specified Melee Weapon: If a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type, it is treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon.

This pretty straight forward, no weapon listed the model is still counted as having a CCW. Even if the model only has a boltgun it has two weapons.

TYPE: A shooting weapon always has one of the following types: Assault, Heavy, Ordnance, Pistol, Rapid Fire or Salvo. These rules (found on the next two pages) measure a weapon's portability and affect the way they can be fired, depending whether or not the model carrying them moved that turn. A shooting weapon can only be used to make Shooting attacks.

The boltgun, or any other gun, isn't being used to make the extra attack. It is there to qualify for the second attack. You need two single handed weapons to gain the benefit. Adhering strictly to this would this mean the pistol could not be used as CCW? Other rules supersede this such as the +1 Two Weapons rule.

MORE THAN ONE WEAPON: Unless otherwise stated, if model has more than one Shooting weapon, he must choose which one to shoot - he cannot fire both in the same Shooting phase. If a model has more than one Melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with when he comes to strike blows - he cannot mix and match the abilities of several different Melee weapons. However, it's worth remembering that if a model has two or more Melee weapons he gains +1 Attack in close combat (see page24).

The first sentence is not relevant to this, and it does not present any issues either. From the start: "If a model has more than one Melee weapon" the models in question do not have more than one melee weapon. Thus voids the rest of text because it is a continuation of it. So we are back to the "if". IF: a conjunction used to indicate the circumstances that would have to exist in order for a event to happen. If the model happens to have two or more MELEE weapons you are required to choose one for use. The models in question do not have multiple melee weapons and cannot choose. If nothing else you seem to be using the "However" clause out of context, it is one half of the rule. It is a reminding the player that if you happen to have multiple melee weapons you can benefit from the rule on page 24.

I fail see how this is not accounting for all applicable rules

Did you read the section after "No Specified Melee Weapons"?

It's called "Pistols as Close Combat Weapons".
From that section "A pistol can be used as a close combat weapon" it then goes on to give it a profile for close combat. This isn't restricted to the assault phase either. So at all times a model with a pistol has a Specified Close Combat Weapon.

1: It's specifically Melee weapons.
Only Melee Weapons have a One-Handed and Two-Handed designations, and you require two models with the Melee Rule for the +1.

2: In the specific example given in the rulebook directly following the rule, it states that Tactical Marines with Bolters get 1 attack + 1 for charging.

 grendel083 wrote:
Did you read the section after "No Specified Melee Weapons"?

It's called "Pistols as Close Combat Weapons".
From that section "A pistol can be used as a close combat weapon" it then goes on to give it a profile for close combat. This isn't restricted to the assault phase either. So at all times a model with a pistol has a Specified Close Combat Weapon.

I have no idea what relevance that holds to the current topic, as the current topic does not even revolve around pistols anymore.
But, yes I did read it.

 Ovion wrote:
1: It's specifically Melee weapons.
Only Melee Weapons have a One-Handed and Two-Handed designations, and you require two models with the Melee Rule for the +1.

2: In the specific example given in the rulebook directly following the rule, it states that Tactical Marines with Bolters get 1 attack + 1 for charging.

1. I feel that has already be covered. Multiple times. If what you say is true I would love to see page numbers confirming your text.
2. That only an example and should not be treated as rule. But, it is listed as "a unit of five space marines" which are assumed to be from a tactical squad. However, it does not specify it being a standard unit of five space marines. Which leave room to conjure that those marines perhaps have a special rule that inhibits them from taking the +1. They are just noted to have boltguns, so do they even have power armour on?

majortwitch wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
Did you read the section after "No Specified Melee Weapons"?

It's called "Pistols as Close Combat Weapons".
From that section "A pistol can be used as a close combat weapon" it then goes on to give it a profile for close combat. This isn't restricted to the assault phase either. So at all times a model with a pistol has a Specified Close Combat Weapon.

I have no idea what relevance that holds to the current topic, as the current topic does not even revolve around pistols anymore.
But, yes I did read it.

 Ovion wrote:
1: It's specifically Melee weapons.
Only Melee Weapons have a One-Handed and Two-Handed designations, and you require two models with the Melee Rule for the +1.

2: In the specific example given in the rulebook directly following the rule, it states that Tactical Marines with Bolters get 1 attack + 1 for charging.

1. I feel that has already be covered. Multiple times. If what you say is true I would love to see page numbers confirming your text.
2. That only an example and should not be treated as rule. But, it is listed as "a unit of five space marines" which are assumed to be from a tactical squad. However, it does not specify it being a standard unit of five space marines. Which leave room to conjure that those marines perhaps have a special rule that inhibits them from taking the +1. They are just noted to have boltguns, so do they even have power armour on?

You stopped reading too soon:

BRB, pg. 24 wrote:Alternatively, a unit of five Orks with two Melee weapons rolls fifteen dice (2 Attacks on their profile +1 for two weapons = 3 each). If they were charging, however, they would roll twenty (2 Attacks on their profile +1 for assaulting+ 1 for two weapons = 4 each!).

Emphasis mine. The "reminder" text makes it quite clear that one needs two melee weapons to qualify for the additional attack bonus.

majortwitch wrote:

TYPE: A shooting weapon always has one of the following types: Assault, Heavy, Ordnance, Pistol, Rapid Fire or Salvo. These rules (found on the next two pages) measure a weapon's portability and affect the way they can be fired, depending whether or not the model carrying them moved that turn. A shooting weapon can only be used to make Shooting attacks.

The boltgun, or any other gun, isn't being used to make the extra attack. It is there to qualify for the second attack.

Except you need two melee weapons to qualify for the +1 attack.

Cite rules that tell us that a boltgun is a melee weapon and you have a case, but as of right now you have nothing.

 grendel083 wrote:
Did you read the section after "No Specified Melee Weapons"?

It's called "Pistols as Close Combat Weapons".
From that section "A pistol can be used as a close combat weapon" it then goes on to give it a profile for close combat. This isn't restricted to the assault phase either. So at all times a model with a pistol has a Specified Close Combat Weapon.

Exactly as Grendel said here.

I'm so confused how this is even an argument.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Cite rules that tell us that a boltgun is a melee weapon and you have a case

If he can do that he has a specified close combat weapon (no again no bonus as pistols have been taken out of the equation).

Still claiming the x2 melee weapon bonus with no melee weapons is right up top of the list for outrageous rules arguements.

What major twitch has been trying to explain to you all is that there is an unintended error or "Loop hole" in the rule set.

The section on page 24 never mentions a MELEE weapon (SO STOP SAYING IT DOES)

The walker rule says MELEE weapon, So guess what they don't get extra attack from Lascannons. But a Necron can get an extra attack from a bug zapper if its listed in a weapons section, and doesn't specify two handed.

you all need to get the past 10 years of rules out of you head and read the page.

In 3rd edition there was two handed and one handed ranged and melee weapons THIS is no longer the case.

They wrote a crappy rule set that doesn't define One handed weapons. and doesn't restrict guns from earning a model extra attacks.

The rule on page 51 has nothing nothing to do with a guy attacking with a bolt gun or assblaster cannon.
In ranged weapon rules, It states they cannot be used to attack. Thats it its over no attacking with guns. This ushers in caveat 6. the HEY if you dont have a knife you get one free rule.

This all said you dont even need a a knife. I necron carring an (assblaster cannon) and a (Poop launcher sling shot) gets an extra attack, but cannot actual attack, unless we once again usher in Caveat 6. Use the knife we didnt give you and kill those orc bastards

Two-attack Boltgunner wrote:


What major twitch has been trying to explain to you all is that there is an unintended error or "Loop hole" in the rule set.

The section on page 24 never mentions a MELEE weapon (SO STOP SAYING IT DOES)

Yes it does. TWICE! (My capslock works too!)

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

Two-attack Boltgunner wrote:


What major twitch has been trying to explain to you all is that there is an unintended error or "Loop hole" in the rule set.

The section on page 24 never mentions a MELEE weapon (SO STOP SAYING IT DOES)

Yes it does. TWICE! (My capslock works too!)

There are two clear examples within the Assault section showing this interpretation is wrong.

Id like to add a third:

BRB Chapter 3 "More than one Weapon wrote:if a model has two or more Melee weapons he gains +1 Attack in close combat.

 grendel083 wrote:
Now there are two clear examples within the Assault section showing this interpretation is wrong.
Can you explain those without resorting to petty insults?

No, that is my friend (if you thought it was me). We are in skype being amused at the lack understanding presented by most people posting here. I brought him by to make sure I just was not being slowed.

Can anyone quote for me a page which defines 'Single Handed Weapons?'

majortwitch wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
Now there are two clear examples within the Assault section showing this interpretation is wrong.
Can you explain those without resorting to petty insults?

No, that is my friend (if you thought it was me). We are in skype being amused at the lack understanding presented by most people posting here. I brought him by to make sure I just was not being slowed.

Might want to check who you're replying to, think you got the wrong quote there.

So we're ignoring examples, and the several instances where "melee" are stated?

BRB Chapter 3 "More than one Weapon wrote:if a model has two or more Melee weapons he gains +1 Attack in close combat.

majortwitch wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
Now there are two clear examples within the Assault section showing this interpretation is wrong.
Can you explain those without resorting to petty insults?

No, that is my friend (if you thought it was me). We are in skype being amused at the lack understanding presented by most people posting here. I brought him by to make sure I just was not being slowed.

Well, I've had to give your friend an immediate suspension because his first two posts ever out of the gate were completely insulting for no apparent reason.

Everyone else: please do not respond to petty insults with insults of your own. There is no reason that a discussion about rules needs to include insults.

JinxDragon wrote:
Can anyone quote for me a page which defines 'Single Handed Weapons?'

Doesn't matter since you may only use Melee Weapons in close combat.

"Nana naana, nana Naaana, Heyheyhey....."

majortwitch wrote:
Bolt pistols and boltguns have no special rule of two handed, so therefore both are able to used in a single hand.

You're making an illogical leap here that having a special rule detailing which weapons are two-handed somehow makes single-handed the default.

If I like cookies that have chocolate cream centres, or that have vanilla cream centres, and only one specific cookie in the supermarket has chocolate cream centres, that doesn't mean that every other cookie has vanilla cream. Some might not have cream at all.


The thing here is that some weapons are specifically listed as being two-handed because that makes a difference to how they function. Most other weapons in the game simply aren't given a number of hands designation at all, because it isn't necessary. So a bolter isn't one-handed, because it is never defined as such. It's just a bolter.

In order to be used in close combat, the weapon would either have to be defined as a melee weapon (strictest reading) or by the looser reading at the least be defined as single-handed.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Can anyone quote for me a page which defines 'Single Handed Weapons?'

Doesn't matter since you may only use Melee Weapons in close combat.

It is relevent, as the rule being use to gain +1 attacks requires that these weapons be single-handed.
As there are no single-handed weapons listed in the game you will never be able to claim this bonus.
However later in the Weapons section is a rule allowing you to claim a bonus for two melee weapons (no single-handed requirement, but a melee requirement this time).

An Ork Big Choppa has the rule "Two-Handed"
Does a Bolter have "Single-Handed" listed in its rules? If no then it can't qualify.

 insaniak wrote:

majortwitch wrote:
Bolt pistols and boltguns have no special rule of two handed, so therefore both are able to used in a single hand.

You're making an illogical leap here that having a special rule detailing which weapons are two-handed somehow makes single-handed the default.

If I like cookies that have chocolate cream centres, or that have vanilla cream centres, and only one specific cookie in the supermarket has chocolate cream centres, that doesn't mean that every other cookie has vanilla cream. Some might not have cream at all.

Not sure how you find that to be illogical. Two-handed weapons are two-handed weapons, yes? Weapons without the two-handed special rule are not two-handed. So what does that leave pistols, boltguns, and lascannons as? Single-handed, three-handed the rules are simply unclear about the handiness of most weapons. But it would be the most logical to assume that they are in fact single-handed. Does three-handed make sense for boltgun, it cannot be two-handed as two-handed are clearly defined.

majortwitch wrote:
Weapons without the two-handed special rule are not two-handed.

Doesn't necessarily mean they're Single-Handed weapons. Any rule to support the claim?

So what does that leave pistols, boltguns, and lascannons as? Single-handed, three-handed the rules are simply unclear about the handiness of most weapons. But it would be the most logical to assume that they are in fact single-handed. Does three-handed make sense for boltgun, it cannot be two-handed as two-handed are clearly defined.

So your entire argument is based on assumption? How is that more valid than the rules examples you've chosen to ignore?

Oranges are Oranges. Apples are not Oranges. Grapes are not Oranges.Grapes must be Apples.

That's your failed logic. It is a leap to assume weapons that are not two-handed are one-handed.

Grendel083,
Thank you for saving me the trouble of explaining that line of reasoning.

majortwitch wrote:
Not sure how you find that to be illogical.

It's illogical because you are making an assumption (that weapons that are not two-handed must be one-handed) based on the premise that there are only these two possible states... something that is not actually backed up by the rules.

Two-handed weapons are two-handed weapons, yes? Weapons without the two-handed special rule are not two-handed. So what does that leave pistols, boltguns, and lascannons as? Single-handed, three-handed the rules are simply unclear about the handiness of most weapons.

The rules are unclear because there is simply no need for them to be specific here. If the weapon has the 'melee' attribute, it can be used in close combat. Being two-handed has some special effects on that.

If the weapon is not a melee weapon, and isn't specifically defined as one-handed, then it doesn't matter how many hands are required to weild it... because that only matters for close combat, which the weapon can't be used for.

Does three-handed make sense for boltgun, it cannot be two-handed as two-handed are clearly defined.

Three-handed wouldn't make any sense, no. But again, you are assuming that 'handedness' must be defined when this is simply not the case.

Bleh. The rules are clear.

 insaniak wrote:
It's illogical because you are making an assumption (that weapons that are not two-handed must be one-handed) based on the premise that there are only these two possible states... something that is not actually backed up by the rules.

To be fair haven't seen much rule citing from you. Also saying that not two-handed is not single handed, most melee are what for handiness, that is not stated anywhere? What is handiness for a lightning claw? How did you determine that? They are undefined, yet are default to single-handed as single-handed is required to qualify for the +1 attack.
If nothing else, in older editions there was only two states for weapons two-handed or one-handed. That causes me to believe they would default one-hand as that is only states two that has existed in the game before for handiness.

 insaniak wrote:
The rules are unclear because there is simply no need for them to be specific here. If the weapon has the 'melee' attribute, it can be used in close combat. Being two-handed has some special effects on that.

Thank you, for demonstrating your ability to read and analyze previous posts.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Ahhh.... the old "oops I'm wrong so I'll cleverly start arguing the other way and hope nobody notices." trick.

You demean yourself, sir!

majortwitch wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
It's illogical because you are making an assumption (that weapons that are not two-handed must be one-handed) based on the premise that there are only these two possible states... something that is not actually backed up by the rules.

To be fair haven't seen much rule citing from you. Also saying that not two-handed is not single handed, most melee are what for handiness, that is not stated anywhere? What is handiness for a lightning claw? How did you determine that? They are undefined, yet are default to single-handed as single-handed is required to qualify for the +1 attack.
If nothing else, in older editions there was only two states for weapons two-handed or one-handed. That causes me to believe they would default one-hand as that is only states two that has existed in the game before for handiness.

 insaniak wrote:
The rules are unclear because there is simply no need for them to be specific here. If the weapon has the 'melee' attribute, it can be used in close combat. Being two-handed has some special effects on that.

Thank you, for demonstrating your ability to read and analyze previous posts.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Ahhh.... the old "oops I'm wrong so I'll cleverly start arguing the other way and hope nobody notices." trick.

You demean yourself, sir!

How about this, only pistol weapons and weapons with the melee special rule are closed combat weapons. That's what they rules are.

you can't make the assumption that if it's not two handed, it HAS to be one-handed. All logic aside, the weapon does not state it has the One-Handed special rule, therefor it doesn't. Pistols are given specific permission to be used as melee weapons, so they would grant a bonus attack with a second melee weapon. Bolters and lascannons don't have any mention to being one-handed or melee because within the bounds of the rules they are not.

Also, simply because it says "often a melee and or pistol" does not mean that because it's vague, it's inclusive of other weapons that are never listed. it's an example of the most common combination that grants you the bonus attack. You still need to have legal weapons that conform to all the games rules.

pyre wrote:
you can't make the assumption that if it's not two handed, it HAS to be one-handed.

To be fair the rules make that assumption.

majortwitch wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
It's illogical because you are making an assumption (that weapons that are not two-handed must be one-handed) based on the premise that there are only these two possible states... something that is not actually backed up by the rules.

To be fair haven't seen much rule citing from you. Also saying that not two-handed is not single handed, most melee are what for handiness, that is not stated anywhere? What is handiness for a lightning claw? How did you determine that? They are undefined, yet are default to single-handed as single-handed is required to qualify for the +1 attack.

Incorrect. Being a Melee weapon qualifies for the +1 attack.

If nothing else, in older editions there was only two states for weapons two-handed or one-handed. That causes me to believe they would default one-hand as that is only states two that has existed in the game before for handiness.

Old editions are old and have less than zero basis on current editions. Things change, sometimes significantly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

pyre wrote:
you can't make the assumption that if it's not two handed, it HAS to be one-handed.

To be fair the rules make that assumption.

Citation required.

majortwitch wrote:
Also saying that not two-handed is not single handed, most melee are what for handiness, that is not stated anywhere?

Nor is it stated anywhere that anything that isn't two-handed is single-handed. Which is what you would actually need for this to be true.

There is no rule to cite that says that weapons that aren't two-handed don't have to be single handed. What there is, is a complete lack of anything in the rules that says that weapons must be one or the other.

What is handiness for a lightning claw? How did you determine that?

You don't determine it, because it doesn't matter. It's not two-handed, because it doesn't have the two-handed rule, and it's a melee weapon. That's all you need to know. The Close Combat weapon rules on page 51 tell us that having two melee weapons grants the +1.

Page 24 does grant a bnous for having two single-handed weapons... but that can only apply to weapons that are defined as single-handed.

If nothing else, in older editions there was only two states for weapons two-handed or one-handed.

Some older editions also had a movement stat for each model. That has no bearing on the current rules.

Mind blown.

I am almost at a loss. I have brought three other people to read the thread, two them didn't even know a thing about warhammer. For everything presented they ended up seeing the rules ways that I do. One of them was dumbfounded by the insubstantiality of many of the counter arguments. This is just silliness, people want rules cited (which I tried in earnest to do - albeit I am not perfect) but don't cite rules themselves or if they do only parts of a rule without context. There was real discussion at one point now, it just circular arguments over things that have been covered. If you are going to see rules as intended and not as written, please, and I do mean please, enjoy your close mindedness. Other than have an excellent rest of the day or night!

majortwitch wrote:
Mind blown.

I am almost at a loss. I have brought three other people to read the thread, two them didn't even know a thing about warhammer. For everything presented they ended up seeing the rules ways that I do. One of them was dumbfounded by the insubstantiality of many of the counter arguments. This is just silliness, people want rules cited (witch I tried in earnest to do - albeit I am not perfect) but don't cite rules themselves or if they do only parts of a rule without context. There was real discussion at one point now, it just circular arguments over things that have been covered. If you are going to see rules as intended and not as written, please, and I do mean please, enjoy your close mindedness. Other than have an excellent rest of the day or night!

You do know that by the pure 'raw' there are no weapons defined as being single-handed, correct? So by the RAW, you can never claim to be wielding two single-handed weapons and therefore never claim the +1A bonus for wielding two single-handed weapons.

So in your original post:

Bolt pistol, that is a second close combat weapon that is one handed. Seems to me that is +1 attacks.

You have made a leap supported by the rules that both the bolt pistol and the free close combat weapon you get are both single-handed, when the rules never specify that either of them are.


So no matter how you slice it, you're not talking about playing by the RAW, you're making assumptions and playing as you think the designers 'intended it' to be (that weapons not specified as being two-handed are single-handed).

majortwitch wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

majortwitch wrote:
Bolt pistols and boltguns have no special rule of two handed, so therefore both are able to used in a single hand.

You're making an illogical leap here that having a special rule detailing which weapons are two-handed somehow makes single-handed the default.

If I like cookies that have chocolate cream centres, or that have vanilla cream centres, and only one specific cookie in the supermarket has chocolate cream centres, that doesn't mean that every other cookie has vanilla cream. Some might not have cream at all.

Not sure how you find that to be illogical. Two-handed weapons are two-handed weapons, yes? Weapons without the two-handed special rule are not two-handed. So what does that leave pistols, boltguns, and lascannons as? Single-handed, three-handed the rules are simply unclear about the handiness of most weapons. But it would be the most logical to assume that they are in fact single-handed. Does three-handed make sense for boltgun, it cannot be two-handed as two-handed are clearly defined.

So by your logic a tormentor helm must be a single-handed weapon, even though it takes no hands to use?

 Ghaz wrote:

So by your logic a tormentor helm must be a single-handed weapon, even though it takes no hands to use?

Does the Tormentor helm even have a rules presence at all in the current codex (I can't seem to find it)?


The only thing modern 40k seems to specify anymore is when a weapon takes two-hands to use. That does make it reasonable to assume that when it doesn't specify one way or another, all other melee weapons are assumed to be single-handed.

No, the tormentor helm is not in the current codex but it does give a somewhat fluffy example of a weapon that is neither one- or two-handed.

 Ghaz wrote:
No, the tormentor helm is not in the current codex but it does give a somewhat fluffy example of a weapon that is neither one- or two-handed.

Well sure, and I think we could reasonably expect that if Tormentor Helms were in the current game they'd have special rules explaining how they worked exactly, much the way that Servo-arms, Tyranid tail attacks, etc, work.

But back in previous editions a weapon being single-handed was basically denoted in the codex's wargear page, something that isn't done anymore. So again, it seems reasonable to assume that the way they write current codexes is that if a melee weapon isn't specified as being two-handed (or some other form of bonus attack) then we kind of have to assume that it is single-handed, or else pretty much nobody ever is getting the +1A bonus for wielding two single-handed weapons.

It may be a reasonable assumption that if it's not listed as a "two handed" weapon that it is a single handed weapon but since there is no "single handed" rule all we can actually say RAW is that those weapons are not "two handed".


BTW can the OP quit with the appeals to authority and nameless hordes of people that agree with him? It's pure logical fallacy. Me and the guys here in the design team office find it laughable. :p



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also to the OP did you every think the often in that crucial sentence was that the weapons are often in hands.... many models don't have hands in fact there is an entire codex of freaky limbed biomorphed things that don't have "hands".

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

pyre wrote:
you can't make the assumption that if it's not two handed, it HAS to be one-handed.

To be fair the rules make that assumption.

Citation required.

Page 24:

"Engaged models with two single-handed weapons (often a Melee weapon and/or pistol in each hand) get + 1 Attack."

Either everything is a single-handed weapon unless it has the Two-Handed rule and the rules work just fine,

Or nothing is a single-handed weapon as there is no defining rule that states that weapons are single-handed and you can never claim the +1 for attacking with two single-handed weapons...

Since #2 leads to a useless rule and #1 does not, I would lean towards the interpretation that does not make the rule useless.

It's not useless - it explains that Melee weapons and pistols (also Melee) fit that rule.

Your assertion is still incorrect - the rules did not make that assumption in the quote you provided.

rigeld2 wrote:
It's not useless - it explains that Melee weapons and pistols (also Melee) fit that rule.

Your assertion is still incorrect - the rules did not make that assumption in the quote you provided.

The rules make the assumption.

Page 24:

"Engaged models with two single-handed weapons (often a Melee weapon and/or pistol in each hand) get + 1 Attack."

Melee weapons and/or pistols are often single-handed weapons, If it has the two handed rule, then clearly that is the exception to the Melee weapon and/or pistol being single-handed.

The rules assume that Melee weapons and/or pistols are all single-handed.

Which is not the same thing as your original assertion, that all weapons are single handed if they are not two-handed.

Huge difference. Your recent statement is supported by rules. Your original one is not.

majortwitch wrote:
If you are going to see rules as intended and not as written

Rules as Intended: Melee weapons only, that's painfully clear.
Rules as Written: There are no Single-Handed weapons. That bonus can never be claimed. But p51 has a rule allowing the bonus to be claimed by two melee weapons.

There is no scenario, written or intended, that allows a model to claim this bonus in the way you claim.
There are clear examples provided within the rules showing this interpretation is wrong.
Why is your assumption about Single-Handed weapons more valid than these examples provided in the rules?

Also, the specific example given in the OP is given in the BRB and the models only have a single attack.

Also also, the 2,000 people in my living room right now all see it my way and are dumbfounded at the ignorance they see in this thread.

Has anyone pointed out that on pg 24 underneath the rules for # of attacks it says:

For example, a unit of five Space Marines with Bolters roll five dice for their attacks in close combat. If they were charging, however, they would roll ten dice (1 Attack on their profile +1 for charging= 2 each).

I don't think they would have used that example if this weren't the case.

My bad, I see that it has on page 2 of this thread, and right above this post (sorry Slave, I should learn to read). I would just like to point out also that under shooting weapons on page 50 under Type, last sentence it says: A shooting weapon can only be used to make shooting attacks.

The pistol is the exception to this rule because it specifically states it can be used in melee. The bolter does not, ergo it cannot be used in combat, so cannot contribute to bonus attacks while in combat.

HiveGuard wrote:
Has anyone pointed out that on pg 24 underneath the rules for # of attacks it says:

For example, a unit of five Space Marines with Bolters roll five dice for their attacks in close combat. If they were charging, however, they would roll ten dice (1 Attack on their profile +1 for charging= 2 each).

I don't think they would have used that example if this weren't the case.

Ovion mentioned it on page 2, to which majortwitch replied:

majortwitch wrote:
That only an example and should not be treated as rule. But, it is listed as "a unit of five space marines" which are assumed to be from a tactical squad. However, it does not specify it being a standard unit of five space marines. Which leave room to conjure that those marines perhaps have a special rule that inhibits them from taking the +1. They are just noted to have boltguns, so do they even have power armour on?

...yeah

I actually did...in the post above yours.

@ Danielbeeaver: Dear God. had I read that level of argument in the first place I would've left this thread long ago. Wow, thanks for saving me some time in the future.

Also bottom of page 51: However it's worth remembering that if a model has two or more Melee weapons he gains +1 Attack in close combat (see page 24)

Regardless of the "often" listed in that rule I site again that shooting weapon can only be used to make shooting attacks.

The rule on pg 24 doesn't automatically give permission to non-Melee weapons to generate extra attacks.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Dear God. had I read that level of argument in the first place I would've left this thread long ago. Wow, thanks for saving me some time in the future.

To be fair, the original question (whether space marines have 2 attacks) is valid, and we actually had a few people in our store confused about that. They usually played Tau and IG, and they initially interpreted it the way the OP did: that every unit has a CC weapon, and the SM's furthermore have an extra one in the form of the bolt pistol. The RAW are a little confusing, but the example in the BRB puts the confusion to rest - as I'm sure that example was meant to do.

As for the two/one handed assumption thing:
I would like to point out that a las-cannon, a weapon larger then a man, doesn't state it is a 'two handed' weapon. This weapon system can be found on infantry models, often a weapon team consisting of one model with multiple 'people' on it. It is clear these weapons are not designed to be used by one person, let alone wielded in a single hand. Clearly the 'logic' that anything not labeled as two handed must therefore be one handed has to be incorrect because it creates situations where weapons normally found on vehicle are being carried around 'one handed.'

The only way we can confirm if a weapon is one handed is if the Rules tell us that weapon is one handed, and there is no Rule for that.

How has this thread managed to reach three pages?

twj wrote:
How has this thread managed to reach three pages?

Well it had gone for 24hours without anyone posting in it.
It was destined to fall off the front page and forever be forgoten.
Until....

rigeld2 wrote:
Which is not the same thing as your original assertion, that all weapons are single handed if they are not two-handed.

Huge difference. Your recent statement is supported by rules. Your original one is not.

The rules assume all weapons are one handed unless they have the two handed rule, it just does not make a difference for non melee weapons.

 yakface wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
No, the tormentor helm is not in the current codex but it does give a somewhat fluffy example of a weapon that is neither one- or two-handed.

Well sure, and I think we could reasonably expect that if Tormentor Helms were in the current game they'd have special rules explaining how they worked exactly, much the way that Servo-arms, Tyranid tail attacks, etc, work.

But back in previous editions a weapon being single-handed was basically denoted in the codex's wargear page, something that isn't done anymore. So again, it seems reasonable to assume that the way they write current codexes is that if a melee weapon isn't specified as being two-handed (or some other form of bonus attack) then we kind of have to assume that it is single-handed, or else pretty much nobody ever is getting the +1A bonus for wielding two single-handed weapons.

The whole Question was fallacious for 2 reasons:

1) Tormentor Helms were Pistols, so while not taking any hands they granted +1A with a Single handed weapon.

2) Tormentor Helms specifically granted +1 Attack for being Pistols, with the addition that they even granted the attack to 2-handed weapon wielders(Like the Punisher they were so often paired with).

Just to go back to the OP for a bit.

On page 51 it states
"If a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with
the Melee Type"

This means that a pistol, which can be used as a CCW does not meat that requirment. It is not specifically stated as having the melee type, and isn't stated to "count as" a CCW either.

Am I reading that correctly?

If yes, how would Space Marines not get +1A for having a pistol (which can be used as a close combat weapon) and the close combat weapon they are treated as being armed with by not having a weapon specifically stated as having the melee type?

Curiosity compelled me to ask. And first post

Pistols specifically have the melee type. This has been covered

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Pistols specifically have the melee type. This has been covered

So according to the Rule on Page 50.

"Melee Type
Weapons withthe Melee type can only be used in close combat."

So a pistol can only be used in close combat if what you have said is true.

Also can you point out where a Pistol is stated to specifically have the melee type?

Ansel Darach wrote:
Also can you point out where a Pistol is stated to specifically have the melee type?

It's in the rule for the Weapon Type: Pistol.

BRB Weapon Type: Pistol wrote:A Pistol also counts as a close combat weapon in the Assault phase.

A pistol counts as a close combat weapon.
A close combat weapon has the "melee" type.

So by having a Pistol, they have a Specified Melee Weapon, so can't claim the "free" one.

Pistols don't have the melee type. They count as a close combat weapon in the assault phase.

A close combat weapon does have the melee type. So in the assault phase, when you are counting how many weapons the model has, the pistol counts as having the melee type.

Ansel Darach wrote:
Curiosity compelled me to ask. And first post

Welcome aboard! There's nothing wrong with asking, it's how we learn

 grendel083 wrote:

Ansel Darach wrote:
Also can you point out where a Pistol is stated to specifically have the melee type?

It's in the rule for the Weapon Type: Pistol.

Ok.

No where does it state a pistol to be "specifically of the melee type" in that entry.

Pistol weapons are listed as "pistol", which is not "melee".

However it does say in that entry that a pistol "counts as a close combat weapon in the Assault Phase".

I guess the question now is, do you consider something that "Counts As" something else to Specifically be the thing it's counting as?

I say no, counting as something does not make it specifically the thing it's counting as.

Also, saying yes counting as something does make it specifically the thing it's counting as is another correct interpretation.

This would be a good question for the FAQ, as the wording of 'counts as" is ambiguous and in my opinion should never be used in a ruleset.

If that were the case, any model with just a pistol could claim an unspecified melee weapon, and thus the x2 weapon bonus.
There are rule examples in the assault section showing that this isn't correct.

Well, as it is written it can be read that way.

Like I said, it's something that should be FAQed for clarity, and then never used again.

MTG cut the"counts as" statement from it's ruleset entirely for instance.

Counts As (Obsolete)
Some older cards were printed with text stating that the card "counts as" something. Cards printed with this text have received errata in the Oracle card reference to state that the card actually is that thing.

Ansel Darach wrote:
I guess the question now is, do you consider something that "Counts As" something else to Specifically be the thing it's counting as?

Yes, of course you do. Because they count as the same thing... so they are treated exactly the same within the rules.

If you don't treat them the same, you're not counting them to be the same thing.

majortwitch wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

majortwitch wrote:
Bolt pistols and boltguns have no special rule of two handed, so therefore both are able to used in a single hand.

You're making an illogical leap here that having a special rule detailing which weapons are two-handed somehow makes single-handed the default.

If I like cookies that have chocolate cream centres, or that have vanilla cream centres, and only one specific cookie in the supermarket has chocolate cream centres, that doesn't mean that every other cookie has vanilla cream. Some might not have cream at all.

Not sure how you find that to be illogical. Two-handed weapons are two-handed weapons, yes? Weapons without the two-handed special rule are not two-handed. So what does that leave pistols, boltguns, and lascannons as? Single-handed, three-handed the rules are simply unclear about the handiness of most weapons. But it would be the most logical to assume that they are in fact single-handed. Does three-handed make sense for boltgun, it cannot be two-handed as two-handed are clearly defined.

You are attempting to introduce reasoning based on outside factors into a separate self-contained system. The fact that in real life the use of most weapons requires a number of hands has no bearing on a permissive rule set that does not permit 'real life' to be a factor.

DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

pyre wrote:
you can't make the assumption that if it's not two handed, it HAS to be one-handed.

To be fair the rules make that assumption.

Citation required.

Page 24:

"Engaged models with two single-handed weapons (often a Melee weapon and/or pistol in each hand) get + 1 Attack."

Either everything is a single-handed weapon unless it has the Two-Handed rule and the rules work just fine,

Or nothing is a single-handed weapon as there is no defining rule that states that weapons are single-handed and you can never claim the +1 for attacking with two single-handed weapons...

Since #2 leads to a useless rule and #1 does not, I would lean towards the interpretation that does not make the rule useless.

Since #1 is never stated that leaves only #2 as an option.

While you are misreading the rule perhaps you should also point out that it states that each hand can hold a pistol and a melee weapon. That of course also does not mean anything as no number of hands is ever required for any rule... not even to wield a Two Handed weapon... By the Two Handed rule one handed models or even zero handed models are not denied their use.

Ansel Darach wrote:
I guess the question now is, do you consider something that "Counts As" something else to Specifically be the thing it's counting as?

Quite simple.

If you are not treating it as a CCW then you are not 'counting it as' a CCW which you are clearly told to do.

If you are treating it as a CCW then you also must admit the model has a CCW.

That is why treated as = is


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS:

It might have been more productive to argue that krack grenades are a melee weapon even if you do not or cannot always use them.

The reason you cannot give a pistol the melee type in the current rules is that it would make a plasma pistol an amazingly good melee weapon.
Instead they have the pistol type and an explaination of what that means in cc. What is a ccw in the brb? It's very clearly defined. So in cc the pistol counts as a specific melee weapon with defined stats which include the melee rule. That is more than enough to debunk any ideas of pistols not counting and then counting.

Ansel Darach wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

Ansel Darach wrote:
Also can you point out where a Pistol is stated to specifically have the melee type?

It's in the rule for the Weapon Type: Pistol.

Ok.

No where does it state a pistol to be "specifically of the melee type" in that entry.

Pistol weapons are listed as "pistol", which is not "melee".

However it does say in that entry that a pistol "counts as a close combat weapon in the Assault Phase".

I guess the question now is, do you consider something that "Counts As" something else to Specifically be the thing it's counting as?

I say no, counting as something does not make it specifically the thing it's counting as.

Also, saying yes counting as something does make it specifically the thing it's counting as is another correct interpretation.

This would be a good question for the FAQ, as the wording of 'counts as" is ambiguous and in my opinion should never be used in a ruleset.

Welcome to GamesWorkshop. But yes, thus the page 52 reference to the pg 51 CC profile overrides the no specified Melee weapon because the it assault triggers the the pistol rule tell you to use the Close Combat weapon profile.