To me this is crystal clear, but some of my friends are unconvinced.

If a model can take the same weapon 2 times, does it get a number of attacks equal to the sum of the attacks of each weapon (or in this case, twice the number of attacks, since the model is equipped with two identical weapons)?

Say you have chaos warriors: they have the option to take 2 "chaos close combat weapon"; its profile grants 2 attacks. Since by the rules a model must attack with all the weapons it is equipped with, and each weapon grants 2 attacks, I'd say a chaos warrior so equipped attacks 4 times. Which is the same mechanism that allows dragons to attack with bite and claws, and a glade lord to attack with sword and spear.

The rebuttal is based on 2 objections:

1. a dark elf dreadlord equipped with 2 exile blades would get 12 attacks. Obviously much better than other loadouts.
2. a dark elf dreadlord has a rule called "exile blades" which says he gets to reroll results of 1 when he rolls to hit.

I fail to see how these 2 points imply that you get less attacks, but I wrote them here to give you a complete picture.

Your opinion?

Vetril does the chaos warrior weapon that you can take two of have any special rule applied to it if you take a second one?

All of the weapons I have seen able to take in pairs have given a special rule advantage for doing so rather than adding attacks. For this reason, i thought the special rule itself was the benefit of the second weapon alone. Starts to seem a bit crazy if you double the attacks as well as hand out the special rules... I doubt other weapons wielded alone would be a valid choice in that circumstance.

I would say that if there are special rules regarding any weapon that is dual-wielded, that rule is the benefit for dual wielding. I dont think the intent was to double attacks. The wording for models attacking with different weapons explicitly states which ones you can use together in the same phase and which ones cannot be used with another weapon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Furthermore, it doesnt state anywhere that models with two of the same weapon double their attacks for that weapon profile, which would have easily fit in the four pages if it was intended to be there.

However if there was a dual wielded weapon that had no special rule attached to it for dual wielding i would say you have a point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In the case of the dreadlord, the rule says that if you choose to carry two blades you get rerolls of 1 on to hit rolls. I believe that is the sole intended benefit, that's the bonus rule you get for equipping two swords.

Also, with other units that have the same loadout options (roughly) rerolls of 1 to hit and reroll failed saves are commo.ly the two choices available, suggesting that gw wants you to choose between those two benefits multiple times, even though the amount of attacks you would get would be different for all those units if it was played your way. It would be strange if they valued the decision between double swords and sword and board the same across these vastly different weapons, especially when one takes weapon stats other than attacks into the equation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In the case of the chaos warriors, their shields are better, but the benefit to having a second sword is the same rerolls of 1's to hit. Personally I would go with sword and board for those guys, but i dont think the attacks double as well as gain the special rule.

Maybe someone else has reasons to think/support the other way of playing?

Where this would get silly is orcs with two choppas... Nothing could survive a blob of 50 orks if they doubled their attacks as well as reroll 1's.

However, the rules seem clear to me:

COMBAT PHASE
[...]
Step 2: Each model in the unit attacks with all of the melee weapons it is armed with (see Attacking).

ATTACKING
[...]
The number of attacks a model can make is determined by the weapons that it is armed with.
[...]
melee weapons can be used in the combat phase. The number of attacks a model can make is equal to the Attacks
characteristic for the weapons it can use.

Might be unintended, but it's worded very specifically, which makes me think it's actually designed to work this way.

12 attacks from a dreadlord seem scary, but it boils down to roughly 4 wounds before saves are made.

Yeah, after reading the rules explicitly, i would say this is a bit of a conundrum. It really is very vague how they want you to treat the inclusion of the duplicated weapon. Do they want it to confer the special rule only, like a piece of wargear or do they want you to attack with it as if it was an actual second weapon... Hmm..

Would be nice if they, you know, told you this in the rules or something. How to resolve attacks with dual weapons seems like an important rule..

After your rules quotes the only things i question are whether it completely invalidates other weapon options and also why they would choose to write it this way, as if it just conferred a special rule and make no other specific mention of what to do. Also it seems strange to drastically increase the force multiplication a second weapon gives you in comparison to their other games, but AoS is a different beast altogether..

Would be nice to hear several players' opinions on this.

Edit: also i agree that it specifically states the model attacks with the weapons it's equipped with.. But the format and wording on the warscrolls makes it confusing. Are they treating it as another equipped weapon or a piece of wargear to confer the special rule?

A dragon has 2 weapons, the Maw and the Claws. It attacks with both and each weapon has its number of attacks, so that seems to confirm my point.
There's confusion regarding other weapons such as the "Sacrificial Knives" used by witch elves, but really that's 1 weapon which happens to represent a pair of daggers (and thus it has a plural name, akin to the dragon's claws).
For me it was quite obvious, since I play wood elves and glade lords can be armed with a sword and a spear (there's a model dual wielding those), with no rules that give rerolls. There would literally be no advantage in having two weapons, in that case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Now I think that there's plenty of small rules which might have gone unnoticed by some.
For example, I wouldn't be surprised if someone hasn't realized that wardancers get their normal save AND a 6+ "ward save".

Except that the spear would let you attack an extra inch away, right? And perhaps has a different rend or damage value? Or is it that he can have two spears or two swords as well, in which case they dont give any benefit to that loadout at all?

I see the added range of a spear as a benefit, however if he can be equipped with two swords or two spears and it does nothing in terms of special rules, that would just about seal it for me.

He could however in my interpretation attack with both the sword and spear, as they are two seperate weapons he is equipped with like a daemon prince's sword and malefic talons. I dont think he is dual wielding spears or swords in that situation but rather wielding a sword and spear.. Can he choose two swords or two spears instead? Are there special rules for those loadouts if they exist?

The spear is actually better than the sword at everything - range 2 instead of 1, wounds on 3+ instead of 4+, and -1 rend instead of -.
The thing is: if you don't get to use the sword attacks, why give the option to use a sword AND a spear? If you can get the attacks from only one weapon, you can use the spear, which is always better than the sword.
But then, why have the sword at all, if you only use the spear?

The glade lord can use a sword (and a bow), a sword and a spear, or a greatsword. None of these combinations gives him special rules.

They are two different weapons, you would always attack with both unless the sword is out of range. All of his loadouts are to carry two different weapons which gives him the privilege of toting two weapon profiles to use. Quite a few daemon models have the same situation of two seperate Weapons and the rules allow you to attack with the weapons you are equipped with. My point of contention is that in the case of wielding duplicates of weapons i have never seen a case in a warscroll where you have the option to do so, yet recieve no benefit, which would imply that your interpretation is correct of it so existed.

However because it gives a benefit in the form of a special rule, it causes me to believe the special rule is the benefit whereas a second different type of weapon (which is much rarer, to support my point) gives you the ability to use both profiles when within 1", or perhaps at leadt one profile up to 3" away.

As for the dreadlord getting 12 attacks, my theory is that having 6 attacks on the exile blade is a mistake: I guess they originally had a weapon for the dreadlord that represented 2 swords, and they called it "Exile Blades" - giving 6 attacks, which is twice the attacks you get normally.
Later on, they might have wanted to give the option to use a sword with a shield, but didn't want to introduce a new weapon.
So, they edited the Exile Blades profile to make the weapon a single sword: "we'll write in the description that you can take 2", they might have thought - but they forgot to halve the attacks.

Basically, our debate is over whether gw intended us to treat duplicates of the same weapon the same as two different weapons and grant them a second profile with which to attack or not. Seeing as how two different weapons benefit you in the sense that you get to attack two different ways and the duplicate weapon scenario benefits you in terms of granting rerolls, it is difficult if not impossible to know if they want you to grant a profile or confer the special rule, or both.

However, the special rule that grants the rerolls doesn't say it replaces the general rules - and those say that you attack with all weapons; so logically if you have two swords, you attack with both.
For me this mechanic would be irrelevant, since my models don't use 2 instances of the same weapon: they either use two different melee weapons, or one weapon which is already a pair of daggers/swords/whatever.
For my opponents it would be a bonus, though, and I am convinced they are supposed to benefit from it, according to the current rules.

No, I think Exile Blade is meant to be 6 attacks. 3+/4+/-/1 is the offensive power of a basic infantry model (in fact, I was trying to compare it to Gors and Orcs, but even they get rend -1)

That's exactly the offensive power of 6 Dwarf warriors. (ignoring things like rerolls from wielding 2), which is extremely unimpressive.

Did the math: Dual Exile Blades result in .4 average damage (somebody check my math here, because I have to have messed up somewhere). A Chill blade results in an average of 2.6 with -1 rend.

Don't ever take Exile Blades, let alone 2.

I actually think 6 is the intended number for a single exile blade as well as two... But two gives you rerolls. 3 attacks would be pretty sub par with that statline. It gives you twice the attacks of the spear... If it was only 3 attacks why would anyone ever take a single exile blade?

Maybe my reading of the rules is skewed by the fact that I am a programmer - for me, two identical instances of one thing are not the same object.

Using one Exile Blade allows one to use a shield - or carry a crossbow, granting a ranged attack.

But so does using one tyrant lance. Which if the attacks of exile blade was 3, would make using the blade xompletely pointless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I understand where youre coming from based on reading the rules and i feel that its gw fault for bring so vague. It could have been spelled out clearly. You are right, two of the same object arent the same object. However, two of the same sword still forces you to attack the way that oneweapon was intended, it just gives you a slightly better chance of parrying or swatting away defences and scoring a hit, which is what i.think the special rule is emulating. Comparitively, if one has a sword and spear like the glade lord, his fighting style instantly has changed, and the two weapon profiles would come into play in real life as he thrusts with the spear until the enemy gets close and lets loose with his sword.

RAW is fethed in this circumstance.. Everything im saying is just based on the math and formatting of the rules and stats in question. I'm really just looking at what was most likely intended.

You do have a point though - a lord hitting with the combined might of 6 dorfs is not really impressive. 12 attacks in exchange for a better save are probably not even worth it.

...Which supports my interpretation?

Edit - I practice historical european martial arts, and I train with 3 types of bladed weapons. Don't overthink it, using 2 swords is completely different from using one - it changes everything.

I'm sure it does, i have no background in martial arts whatsoever, haha. I was just referring to the type of damage caused by the weapons still being the same whereas the two seperate weapons scenario gives you possibly two "types" of damage to deal like a weapon profile, which combined could possibly be more deadly than doubling up on one damage type.

Y'know, like a dude with a mace and short sword. Two short swords will slash or stab, but with a mace you can club to break defenses and then stab or slash, maximizing damage when your opponent has lost his footing, and forcing him to brace fora large blunt impact rather than attack you or parry your sword.

Really though, im no official on the rules haha. I honestly dont know how it's supposed to work.just explaining my interpretation.

I wish it was clear-cut. In the rulebook. That would be nice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It would be kinda easy to find out. Run some units in perpetual combat with other units, and see which makes more sense for damage output with all other things considered (like the dreadlord's mount attacks).

Seems like it could have been done for us, though.

This is another example of GW having rushed and generally not thought through these rules, especially regarding equipment, reinforcing the fact that AoS is a poor ruleset. As such, there really is no clear answer here and people will naturally fall into two camps:

RAW - I can see where you're coming from, Vetril. An exile blade has 6 attacks and thus if you have two blades each dishing out 6 attacks it makes sense that the model will have 12 attacks. As it is the weapon, not the model, that has the attacks (another silly rule on GW's part) I think it'll be very hard for someone to prove you wrong in the rules. But...

RAI - I think, like you say, it is pretty ridiculous that a dreadlord could have 12 attacks when the other options are no way near this kind of power level. I think RAI is most likely that having two of the same weapon does not double your attacks and that this is how most people will play it. However, like I say, there's really nothing to prove this is the case.

 The Shadow wrote:
This is another example of GW having rushed and generally not thought through these rules, especially regarding equipment, reinforcing the fact that AoS is a poor ruleset. As such, there really is no clear answer here and people will naturally fall into two camps:

RAW - I can see where you're coming from, Vetril. An exile blade has 6 attacks and thus if you have two blades each dishing out 6 attacks it makes sense that the model will have 12 attacks. As it is the weapon, not the model, that has the attacks (another silly rule on GW's part) I think it'll be very hard for someone to prove you wrong in the rules. But...

RAI - I think, like you say, it is pretty ridiculous that a dreadlord could have 12 attacks when the other options are no way near this kind of power level. I think RAI is most likely that having two of the same weapon does not double your attacks and that this is how most people will play it. However, like I say, there's really nothing to prove this is the case.

Did the math: Dual Exile Blades result in .4 average damage (somebody check my math here, because I have to have messed up somewhere). A Chill blade results in an average of 2.6 with -1 rend.

Don't ever take Exile Blades, let alone 2.

So if you get 12 attacks, make that .8 average damage... compared to 2.6 with -1 rend...

I'd say the Chill Blade is pretty close to that kind of power level

For the orginal question of taking two hand weapons on a chaos warrior:

-The warscroll tells you exactly what you get when you do that. You may re-roll to hit rolls of a 1. This is a common bonus for two weapons. Other races might have other things.
-The weapons that you use are all listed on the profile, those are what you use. Some of the options on the far left then give you a bonus which might be extra attacks, re rolls, etc.

Originally I played this as doubling the attacks though looking at the Dwarf Dragon Slayer again the stat line states "Runic Axes" plural which would imply that the 6 attacks is for both together. And in this case your choosing between 6 damage 1 attacks or 3 damage D3 attacks which are roughly compairable.

Now the Dreadlord scroll just says "Exile Blade" singular because he can choose to have 1 or 2 blade which of course screws things up a bit!

I'm personally leaning towards it being you still only get 6 attacks even with a pair of weapons.

Though ultimately we shouldn't be worrying ourselfs with the exact interpresttation of these current warscrolls as they are just place holders. While GW have clearly put a lot of time into creating new rules for nearly every exisiting model they're also not going to have spent too much time play testing them. Maybe something to revisit if we find a similar set of weapon options with the new model's warscrolls.

It seems pretty clear.

They give the stats for the Dreadlords exile blade.

They give a special rule for using 'Exile Blades", like many other examples of using two weapons, you can re-roll 1's.

 mikhaila wrote:
For the orginal question of taking two hand weapons on a chaos warrior:

-The warscroll tells you exactly what you get when you do that. You may re-roll to hit rolls of a 1. This is a common bonus for two weapons. Other races might have other things.
-The weapons that you use are all listed on the profile, those are what you use. Some of the options on the far left then give you a bonus which might be extra attacks, re rolls, etc.

This exactly. You are told in the rules that taking multiples of the same weapon type grant you rerolls. Doubling your attacks and taking rerolls is a bit much.

While I agree that using 2 exile blades grants a dreadlord rerolls, I'd also like to point out that nowhere it does say that you get to ignore the general rules - which clearly say your model must attack with all its weapons. Attacking has a precise meaning within the rules and it describes how many attacks you roll when you are using a weapon.
If you think 12 attacks are too much I have no problem letting you have 6, but imho you are houseruling.
I'll run some numbers today to see if the weapon loadout is grossly out of line.

you should read the orc warscrolls

savage orc warboss: granite choppa 7 attacks, 2x granite choppa = reroll failed hit rolls => 14 attacks + reroll?
black orc big bos: deff choppa 6 attacks, 2x deff choppa = every 6 1 bonus attack => 12 attacks + ? bonus attacks
orc warboss: boss choppa 6 attacks, 2x boss choppa = 8 attacks instead of 6 attacks => wait what? only 8 attacks? stupid rule, the only orc rule i found that give more attacks for 2x same weapon

As PenPen points out, there are a lot of examples where a model may have two of the same weapon, and it spells out for you exactly what benefit that gives you.

The Dreadlord has such a rule, and does not anywhere say he gets 12 attacks.

The Orc Warboss is the one that calls it for me: it's the only time it explicitely states These Bosses make 8 attacks, instead of 6.

This means dual-wielding is generally pretty poor - a skaven warlord is the same - getting rerolls of a 1 with barbed blades is not even slightly as good as getting three additional (better!) attacks with a halberd. But then, since one CHAOS HERO warscroll can be either a Skaven Warlord with two barbed blades and no shield, or Archaeon The Everchosen, I think complaining that two of the weapon options for the Skaven Warlord aren't quite on par is a bit myopic......

The rules spell out exactly what you're supposed to do: attack with all the weapons you have. It's explicitly written. The fact that a unit has a rule that grants it rerolls when it uses 2 weapons does not mean that you get to ignore the general rules, otherwise it would have said so: "instead of attacking with all your weapons, you get rerolls".

Anyway, some math. I broke down the binomial distribution for both dual wielded Exile Blades (12 attacks and rerolls) and a single Chillblade, and then I calculated the probability to inflict X wounds before saves are made. The results:

Exile Blades

x | P(x)
0 | 0.3%
1 | 2%
2 | 7.2%
3 | 15.3%
4 | 22%
5 | 22.5%
6 | 16.8%
7 | 9.2%
8 | 3.7%
9 | 1%
10 | 0.2%
11 | <0.1%
12 | <0.1%

Chillblade
x | P(x)
0 | 17.6%
1 | 13.8%
2 | 17.4%
3 | 21.3%
4 | 11.7%
5 | 9.1%
6 | 5.8%
7 | 1.9%
8 | 0.9%
9 | 0.3%

The Chillblade is missing a 0.2%, but that's due to rounding errors since you need to perform additional passages since each wound turns into D3 wounds.

Looking at the numbers, to can see the Exile Blades perform better than the Chillblade (but not by much - usually by 1 or 2 wounds). What makes them strong is that they have a 14% chance to inflict 7+ wounds. By comparison, a Chillblade only has a 3.1% to inflict 7+ wounds. Will this be significant during a game? Unlikely, since you attack very few times.
Rending contributes to close the gap between the 2 examined loadouts, but I haven't looked into the adjusted probabilities. Still, rending means that a model is 16.6% less likely to save against wounds caused by a Chillblade.

Yes, the rules spell out exactly what you are supposed to do, and you are ignoring what it says to add your own interpretation.

The rules say exactly what number of attacks you get with an exile blade, and what you get with two.

You're making up the rest.

Mikhail, if you bothered to review the discussion, you'd see that I directly quoted the relevant rules on my second post. I'm not making anything up.

Vetril wrote:
The rules spell out exactly what you're supposed to do: attack with all the weapons you have. It's explicitly written. The fact that a unit has a rule that grants it rerolls when it uses 2 weapons does not mean that you get to ignore the general rules, otherwise it would have said so: "instead of attacking with all your weapons, you get rerolls".

orc warboss: boss choppa 6 attacks, 2x boss choppa = 8 attacks instead of 6 attacks

orc warboss has 1 boss choppa he has 6 attacks
orc warboss has 2 boss choppas he has 8 attacks x 2 => 16 attacks?
do you realy think thats how it works?

No, the warboss has a rule that explicitly states he gets a total of 8 attacks when he uses 2 choppas. Why is that they felt the need to point it out?
If the dreadlord had a similar rule that explicitly specified the number of attacks for using 2 exile blades, I'd agree that he doesn't get to make 12 attacks. As it is, imho he does.

Furthermore, I fail to see how perceived balance has any weight in this discussion. It might well be that having 12 attacks is unbalanced, but it is no reason to ignore specific, explicit rules. It wouldn't even be the first time GW releases rules that by RAW are unbalanced (or even by RAI, for what it matters).

Choppa
Boss:
Orc Warbosses can carve their way through even more foes when they wield a pair of Boss Choppas. These Bosses make 8 attacks, instead of 6.

thats the exact rule
it doesnt say These Bosses make 8 attacks, instead of 12.
its These Bosses make 8 attacks, instead of 6.

where would be the logic in giving everyone with 2 weapons more attacks and only him less?

I wouldn't know, but oobviously if they felt the need to write down that he gets 8 attacks, it is because that's an exception to a general rule.
The rules do say that a model with multiple weapons attacks with all of them, and go on to explain how many attacks you get from your weapons. Where does it say that the general rules ddon't apply in the case of a dreadlord?
Show me solid evidence and I will immediately change my mind!

but if its only an exception to a general rule
why write 8 attacks instead of 6
by your logic it should be 8 attacks instead of 12
the general rule would be 6 attacks x 2 weapons = 12 attacks
then his rule 8 attacks instead of 12

or

is his rule 8 attacks instead of 6 attacks so 8 x 2 = 16 attacks

Rihgu wrote:

Did the math: Dual Exile Blades result in .4 average damage (somebody check my math here, because I have to have messed up somewhere). A Chill blade results in an average of 2.6 with -1 rend.

Don't ever take Exile Blades, let alone 2.

So if you get 12 attacks, make that .8 average damage... compared to 2.6 with -1 rend...

I'd say the Chill Blade is pretty close to that kind of power level

That maths is terrible.

2 exile blades (assuming 12 attacks) results in 9.33 hits (remember you re-roll 1s to hit), 4.66 wounds and hence 4.66 damage
Chillblade results in 2 hits, 1.33 wounds wounds and therefore 2.66 damage, with -1 rend

It depends how much you think -1 rend is worth, but I'm not sure if it's worth 2 whole points of damage. Still, it could be, in which case I take your point. If only we had something like points values to help us estimate the worth of things...

PenPen wrote:
Choppa
Boss:
Orc Warbosses can carve their way through even more foes when they wield a pair of Boss Choppas. These Bosses make 8 attacks, instead of 6.

This is the best evidence I've seen thus far in the rules that proves that double weapons don't give double attacks, and frankly a lot better than anything I thought people would find. I think this reinforces this side of the argument very strongly indeed.

It says 8 instead of 6 because normally you get 6 by virtue of having 1 choppa. If you take a second choppa, you get 8 attacks instead of 6.
Why would they tell you that a model attacks with all its weapons, and why would they refer to weapons (plural) in the rules that tell you how many attacks you roll, if having two weapons of a kind is supposed to give rerolls? Furthermore, the dreadlord rule says that you scroll 1s if you are equipped with 2 exile blades. It says nothing about the number of attacks, so you must use the general rules to figure it out. It's very different from the Warboss rule.
I still feel you are ignoring the general rules when you choose to conclude that a dreadlord with 2 blades only gets 6 attacks. It seems arbitrary to me.

found another nice example that gw doesnt know, how to write rules
ogres:
Ogre Club or Blade 3 attacks
Ogre Clubs and blades:
All Ogres know that two clubs are better than one. You can re-roll hit rolls of 1 for an Ogre armed with more than one Ogre Club or Blade.

Mournfang Cavalry:
Ogre Clubs and Blades 3 attacks
Ogre Clubs and blades:
All Ogres know that two clubs are better than one. You can re-roll hit rolls of 1 for an Ogre armed with more than one Ogre Club or Blade.

i think single and plural of the weapon is the same for gw

I think attacks are based upon the weapons that show in the profile, not in anything mentioned in the unit rules subsection.

If the profile states:

@Weapon: X Attacks, Y to-hit, Z-to wound, etc.

and only mentions the weapon a single time in the weapon profile, that doesn't change if the rules section gives you an option to have two of those weapons. If you have two, you only get the specific benefit listed in the rules section for having two of those weapons, nothing else.

I interpret the section of the rules stating that the model attacks with the weapons it has to be referring specifically to the weapons appearing in the weapon section of the unit's entry, nothing else.

Vetril wrote:
Mikhail, if you bothered to review the discussion, you'd see that I directly quoted the relevant rules on my second post. I'm not making anything up.

I reviewed the entire discussion and read the rules twice. You are choosing to only read part of the rules, and not look at the examples of other similar warscrolls.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Saldiven wrote:
I think attacks are based upon the weapons that show in the profile, not in anything mentioned in the unit rules subsection.

If the profile states:

@Weapon: X Attacks, Y to-hit, Z-to wound, etc.

and only mentions the weapon a single time in the weapon profile, that doesn't change if the rules section gives you an option to have two of those weapons. If you have two, you only get the specific benefit listed in the rules section for having two of those weapons, nothing else.

I interpret the section of the rules stating that the model attacks with the weapons it has to be referring specifically to the weapons appearing in the weapon section of the unit's entry, nothing else.

Exactly this.

At this point I'm just tired of repeating myself.
Play the game as you prefer, as I said your interpretation is at worst irrelevant to me.

[brainfart]

Vetril wrote:
At this point I'm just tired of repeating myself.
Play the game as you prefer, as I said your interpretation is at worst irrelevant to me.

Hey, you came here looking for other peoples opinions. Apologies that everyone seems to disagree with you. Good luck arguing with your friends. Hope they don't notice this thread, might make it tougher to convince them.

 mikhaila wrote:

Vetril wrote:
At this point I'm just tired of repeating myself.
Play the game as you prefer, as I said your interpretation is at worst irrelevant to me.

Hey, you came here looking for other peoples opinions. Apologies that everyone seems to disagree with you. Good luck arguing with your friends. Hope they don't notice this thread, might make it tougher to convince them.

I merely feel I clearly made my point. I don't argue with friends, we'll reach a common ground and play together. By the way, since I play wood elves, your interpretation is advantageous to me.

I think the "all their weapons" is for units like a Skaven Warlord who can use:

Warpforged Blade
Pair of Barbed Blades
War halberd and Barbed Blade

It's to make it clear that in option 3, you don't have to pick one weapon or the other during combat. You get to use both.

Sigmarites, I think, also come with their hammers and a sword?

 streamdragon wrote:
I think the "all their weapons" is for units like a Skaven Warlord who can use:

Warpforged Blade
Pair of Barbed Blades
War halberd and Barbed Blade

It's to make it clear that in option 3, you don't have to pick one weapon or the other during combat. You get to use both.

Sigmarites, I think, also come with their hammers and a sword?

Soulgrinders come with three close combat weapons, as another example.

Weighing in to agree with the Mikhaila camp. Stat line of weapon offers the attacks for the weapon, and using a pair grants the ability shown in he description. One blade gives you X attacks. Two blades gives you X attacks plus a bonus rule. Not 2X attacks plus bonus rule. GW has always been a permissive ruleset: if it tells you you can do it, go for it. It's like a twin linked bolter: you don't get extra shots, despite it basically being a double tap, you just re-roll a miss. As such, I'd say no way to doubled attacks PLUS a bonus. If I were playing another player in a friendly game and they were adamant about doing so, I'd pack up my stuff.

RAW : You get teice the attacks.
RAI : You only get the special ability

 Allot wrote:
RAW : You get teice the attacks.
RAI : You only get the special ability

I disagree with your interpretation of "RAW."

The weapons the unit is armed with are in the weapons section at the top of the warscroll. Everything down below are special rules, not weapons.

My take on multiple weapons:

Take Orcs:

Description
A unit of Orcs has 10 or more models.
Units of Orcs are armed either with
Choppas or Pigstikka Spears, and carry
Waaagh! Shields. Some units of Orcs are
instead armed with a pair of Choppas.

That's their base equipment. And from what I can gather, what each indevidual model is either geared the same (Descriptions often tell you what they HAVE or can have) or if they are able to be geared separately. Regardless, in the example of this Orc unit, they are either armed with Choppas OR spears but always have a shield. Or, you give up a weapon AND shield for a pair of choppas.

Choppas: Wielding two weapons gives
an Orc a better chance of landing a blow.
You can re-roll hit rolls of 1 for a model
attacking with two Choppas.

So for basic Orcs, having two chopps does not grant extra attacks like some would think. Instead, the benefit is you get to Reroll 1's on your melee attacks if your unit is equipped with double choppas.

Then we go back to the Orc Warboss:

Description
An Orc Warboss is a single model. Some
Orc Warbosses are armed with a Boss
Choppa and a Boss Shield, while others
wield a pair of Boss Choppas. Some instead
enter battle with a single Massive Choppa
or a Great Waaagh! Banner.

Again, we have some options for him. Base, he comes with the Boss Choppa and Boss Shield. Or, you can give him two Boss Choppas, but no shield. OR, you can give him a Massive Choppa OR a Great Waaaagh! Banner.

Choppa Boss: Orc Warbosses can carve
their way through even more foes when
they wield a pair of Boss Choppas. These
Bosses make 8 attacks, instead of 6.

So unlike the basic Orc Boyz, he has permission to gain extra attacks by having double choppas as opposed to Rerolling 1's.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

RAW : You get teice the attacks.
RAI : You only get the special ability

Agreed but will be playing it 100% RAI.

I'll even add on to my previous post, another example that applies a bit more to the situation. Savage Orcs have multiple weapon profiles. But they don't get to use all of them.

A unit of Savage Orcs has 10 or more
models. Some units of Savage Orcs fight
with Stone Choppas while others fight with
Flint Spears. These units also carry either
Bone Shivs to make themselves even more
fighty, or Crude Shields for much needed
protection in combat.

Some units of Savage Orcs are instead
armed with Feral Bows. These units are
also equipped with either Stone Choppas,
to hack the foe apart up close, or fistfuls
of Extra Arrows to make themselves dead
shooty; Savage Orcs with Extra Arrows
simply punch anything that gets too close
with their Gnarled Fists.

For every ten Savage Orcs in the unit, two
may carry a Big Stabba between them.

The description is pretty clear. You decide what the unit is equipped with, and that is what they get. You have several options.

-They Stone Choppas or Flint Spears, AND also get either bone Shives or Shield.

-They get Bows AND a Stone Choppa or Extra Arrows which means they punch with their fist instead of getting a real close combat weapon, but also get +1 to hit on their ranged attacks.

-For every 10, two of the models may replace their wargear to share a Big Stabba profile. (At least, that is how i interpret this rule, I could very well be incorrect and these two models still get their base gear but also share this weapon)

Thanks for clarifying something that was never questioned Melevolence

As I've yet to play a game (perhaps this Sunday), this is good to know that one doesn't just double the number of attacks because an extra weapon is used. Makes sense, as it's clearly (in most cases) ruled that you get special benefits and not always just extra attacks.

Hahahaha I keep thinking that the meaning of TFG should instead refer to Age of Sigmar as "That Freaking Game".

I can see both sides of the discussion here. But with GW games it is very confusing as what is meant to be used RAW and RAI. So, as it says in our oh so well written four page rules to play by, it says to roll off if an agreent cannot be reached. So, I would say bring up your points to an opponent if you are using that model, or if your opponent is using it instead. And roll away. One can only hope that this is a public beta test of the system before they hammer it out a little more and release the MKII rule set with our input taken into account.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I very frequently talk negatively about GW and it's games nowadays, but it seems like they are making an honest effort, and in a White Dwarf it even says to send them your input about the game. Which to me says that GW in their very vague fashion are interested in our opinion for once. Which I very happy about if that is the truth.

Ogre tyrant has the same problem with 2 slicers/bashers/clubs.

You get 6 attacks if you have 1 of those weapons, and rerolls if you have duplicates.

3+\3+ rend -1 damage 2

And

Ogres w/ 2 clubs or blades get to reroll 1's
Base: 3A 4+\3+ R0 D2

Can honestly say I won't play a game with someone trying for doubled attacks AND reroll bonuses. The scroll dictates what one weapon does, and lays out what adding a duplicate does. There is no RAW vs RAI here. There IS however RAIP*

*rules as interpreted poorly.

Honestly I can see the argument going either way, but from this thread alone I can see that the rules need to be clarified.

Yea, I feel that the rules need to be based out a little more. Even though I do have faith this system could it fact be good thing for GW if they expand it a little more.

Going by the rules as written you get both double the attacks and the special rule. There is nothing saying you can't have both that doesn't rely on assumptions.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Going by the rules as written you get both double the attacks and the special rule. There is nothing saying you can't have both that doesn't rely on assumptions.

There is also nothing saying you CAN have both that doesn't rely on assumptions. My take is that the rules are written such that the assumption has to be one instance of the line. Take the Empire Master Engineer as an example...

"...Master Engineers prefer to shoot their foes; most carry a few Pistols into battle alongside a Repeater Handgun or an Artisan Repeater Pistol."

Under Missile Weapons, there is a listing for "Pistol".

How many Pistols do you suggest I get to attack with? How many is a few?

I think a lot of confusion comes from the old fantasy game where the number of attacks a model has is an inherent characteristic modified by weapon type. So, the stat block of a Sigmarine armed with a Warhammer could be read as "A warhammer wielding Sigmarine gets two attacks". From this reading, I can understand why people think that only the special rule is gained since adding another Warhammer is a modification of the model's attack characteristic.

However, I put it to you that in AoS a model has no inherent attack characteristic. Its number of attacks is wholly dependent on what weapon it is wielding. IOW, in AoS it is "A warhammer grants a Sigmarine two attacks" rather than "A warhammer wielding Sigmarine has two attacks". My precedent is the Lord Castellan who has a rule that specifies that when whatever condition is met he can add +1 attacks to both of his weapons when he attacks. It does not include a provision that he may attack with both. It should be noted that both weapons are different but there is nothing in the rules AFAIK that would make this an exceptional case.

Going by your Empire guy example that line about how him having multiple pistols is purely flavor text. And historically, some guys did carry multiple pistols so that they could discard their pistol and draw another after firing to get around the lengthy reload time of muzzle loaded guns.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I think a lot of confusion comes from the old fantasy game where the number of attacks a model has is an inherent characteristic modified by weapon type. So, the stat block of a Sigmarine armed with a Warhammer could be read as "A warhammer wielding Sigmarine gets two attacks". From this reading, I can understand why people think that only the special rule is gained since adding another Warhammer is a modification of the model's attack characteristic.

However, I put it to you that in AoS a model has no inherent attack characteristic. Its number of attacks is wholly dependent on what weapon it is wielding. IOW, in AoS it is "A warhammer grants a Sigmarine two attacks" rather than "A warhammer wielding Sigmarine has two attacks". My precedent is the Lord Castellan who has a rule that specifies that when whatever condition is met he can add +1 attacks to both of his weapons when he attacks. It does not include a provision that he may attack with both. It should be noted that both weapons are different but there is nothing in the rules AFAIK that would make this an exceptional case.

Going by your Empire guy example that line about how him having multiple pistols is purely flavor text. And historically, some guys did carry multiple pistols so that they could discard their pistol and draw another after firing to get around the lengthy reload time of muzzle loaded guns.

It's not flavor text at all. It's telling you what he's equipped with. "Pistol" is one of the Missile Weapons listed in the chart. How many does he have? A few? How many is that? I contend that he's equipped with Pistols, so he gets to make a "Pistol" attack. There are no special rules associated with having multiple Pistols as there are with many other weapon types, so he just gets the single attack.

Been following this since it started. Looking at the Engineer I see what you mean Kriswall. However the difference between the other examples and the Engineer example is the fact that they state an exact amount of the other weapons (pair, two, etc.). So for the Engineer all you really can do is make the one pistol shot since you have no idea how many it does have. However with the Engineer you would still get the pistol shot and either D3 shots from the Handgun or 3 shots from the Artisan pistol all within the same shooting phase.

 Kriswall wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I think a lot of confusion comes from the old fantasy game where the number of attacks a model has is an inherent characteristic modified by weapon type. So, the stat block of a Sigmarine armed with a Warhammer could be read as "A warhammer wielding Sigmarine gets two attacks". From this reading, I can understand why people think that only the special rule is gained since adding another Warhammer is a modification of the model's attack characteristic.

However, I put it to you that in AoS a model has no inherent attack characteristic. Its number of attacks is wholly dependent on what weapon it is wielding. IOW, in AoS it is "A warhammer grants a Sigmarine two attacks" rather than "A warhammer wielding Sigmarine has two attacks". My precedent is the Lord Castellan who has a rule that specifies that when whatever condition is met he can add +1 attacks to both of his weapons when he attacks. It does not include a provision that he may attack with both. It should be noted that both weapons are different but there is nothing in the rules AFAIK that would make this an exceptional case.

Going by your Empire guy example that line about how him having multiple pistols is purely flavor text. And historically, some guys did carry multiple pistols so that they could discard their pistol and draw another after firing to get around the lengthy reload time of muzzle loaded guns.

It's not flavor text at all. It's telling you what he's equipped with. "Pistol" is one of the Missile Weapons listed in the chart. How many does he have? A few? How many is that? I contend that he's equipped with Pistols, so he gets to make a "Pistol" attack. There are no special rules associated with having multiple Pistols as there are with many other weapon types, so he just gets the single attack.

That is an excellent question but here is the thing: RAW he can shoot with all of his guns. They do seem to have specified that he can only take a certain weapon alongside his pistols but they have failed to mention how many he has. Sooo... he can shoot with however many you think he has. He could dual wield his pistol(s) with his rifle and shoot them. I know it's stupid and I know it's gamey but that's the rules we got. Hopefully they will errata this soon and add rules about attacking with multiple weapons. Or just state that the Engineer has x number of pistols.

I don't have a dog in this fight, and I can see both sides of the debate...

... but I just realized how crazy Boneripper is if multiple weapons are left. With Braziers he'll do 16x 3+/3+ attack that each cause 3 damage.

 Altruizine wrote:
I don't have a dog in this fight, and I can see both sides of the debate...

... but I just realized how crazy Boneripper is if multiple weapons are left. With Braziers he'll do 16x 3+/3+ attack that each cause 3 damage.

still nothing in comperison to the high elf repeater bolt thrower and its 72 RAW shots

PenPen wrote:

 Altruizine wrote:
I don't have a dog in this fight, and I can see both sides of the debate...

... but I just realized how crazy Boneripper is if multiple weapons are left. With Braziers he'll do 16x 3+/3+ attack that each cause 3 damage.

still nothing in comperison to the high elf repeater bolt thrower and its 72 RAW shots

How do you get to 72 shots? I can't figure out an interpretation that allows me to multiply 6 (the number of attacks a bolt thrower has inherently) with the 12 in the "War machine Crew Table". RAW I'd say there are two worthless rows in the "War machine Crew Table" and the bolthrower gets 6 shots even if it has no crew, because it's number of attacks is 6 and now *. (I'd also say RAI the bolt thrower should probably have Attacks: * so you then look up the crew table)

 Nepenthe wrote:

PenPen wrote:

 Altruizine wrote:
I don't have a dog in this fight, and I can see both sides of the debate...

... but I just realized how crazy Boneripper is if multiple weapons are left. With Braziers he'll do 16x 3+/3+ attack that each cause 3 damage.

still nothing in comperison to the high elf repeater bolt thrower and its 72 RAW shots

How do you get to 72 shots? I can't figure out an interpretation that allows me to multiply 6 (the number of attacks a bolt thrower has inherently) with the 12 in the "War machine Crew Table". RAW I'd say there are two worthless rows in the "War machine Crew Table" and the bolthrower gets 6 shots even if it has no crew, because it's number of attacks is 6 and now *. (I'd also say RAI the bolt thrower should probably have Attacks: * so you then look up the crew table)

1 bolt has 6 attacks
2 crew fire 12 bolts
12 x 6 = 72 attacks

1 sword has 6 attacks
model has 2 swords
2 x 6 = 12 attacks

same raw logic ^^

PenPen wrote:

 Nepenthe wrote:

PenPen wrote:

 Altruizine wrote:
I don't have a dog in this fight, and I can see both sides of the debate...

... but I just realized how crazy Boneripper is if multiple weapons are left. With Braziers he'll do 16x 3+/3+ attack that each cause 3 damage.

still nothing in comperison to the high elf repeater bolt thrower and its 72 RAW shots

How do you get to 72 shots? I can't figure out an interpretation that allows me to multiply 6 (the number of attacks a bolt thrower has inherently) with the 12 in the "War machine Crew Table". RAW I'd say there are two worthless rows in the "War machine Crew Table" and the bolthrower gets 6 shots even if it has no crew, because it's number of attacks is 6 and now *. (I'd also say RAI the bolt thrower should probably have Attacks: * so you then look up the crew table)

1 bolt has 6 attacks
2 crew fire 12 bolts
12 x 6 = 72 attacks

1 sword has 6 attacks
model has 2 swords
2 x 6 = 12 attacks

same raw logic ^^

Which is pretty much ridiculous and I'd walk away from anyone trying to do that. In a tourney I'd be calling over the TO real quick.

Silly arguement on the bolt thrower that is only possible with RAW.

It's a typo. They forgot to put the * in for attacks. You have those tables below for the models that have variable stats based on crew, or wounds. For all other warmachines you can see that they have a table for number of wounds and a * on stats that correspond to the tables.

Null argument. You either go with the typo theory and its inline with other warmachines like the Dark Elf version, or you go RAW and your opponent walks away from the table.

It's an internet phenomeon. RAW has ZERO meaning for the game itself and I have barely ever seen anyone arguing RAW in the years I've been REF/TO. There's a single case I remember on a major ETC tournament by a rather...troublesome team but that has been settled rather quickly. Use common sense, not RAW.

I can see it both ways, but RAW it seems it would be double attacks for two of the same weapon.

Models use all weapons in combat
weapons dictate number of attacks
If I have one weapon - I get that # of attacks
If I have two weapons - since I get to attack with ALL, I also have those # of attacks.

There isn't anything saying that I get all the attacks if I am using a sword and spear, but I don't get them if I'm using two swords.

That being said, RAI I think it should go the other way, or else if my Ogres can get 6 attacks with rerolling 1s, i'm going to be ripping off some Iron Fists from my models lol

oooh, nice catch, yes that would make my bulls rather nasty Although finding someone to play with might be tough after the first time.

i'm just saying that
if someone wants to play double attacks + rule with 2x same weapon
i will shoot him with 72 attacks from my bolt thrower
raw is raw

PenPen wrote:
i'm just saying that
if someone wants to play double attacks + rule with 2x same weapon
i will shoot him with 72 attacks from my bolt thrower
raw is raw

I tend to agree. I have a couple of Highborn Bolt Throwers. I'll just ask before the game how my opponent feels. If he feels that we double down, I'll toss down a half dozen Bolt Throwers, claim the assassinate Sudden Death objective and start unloading shots. That's 432 shots. Half hit, so 216. Two thirds wound, so 144. Rend is -1, so we'll that versus a 4+ save unit (the most common), 96 damage is caused. That's a reliable 16 damage per Bolt Thrower, on average. I have 36" range, so even if I go second, I should have at least a turn (probably two) before I get charged. One turn should be enough to kill one model... or, to kill the fast units that could charge me.

Yup. I think that's what I'll do when people want to play RaW that you get double, triple, etc. attacks for more weapons equipped.

PenPen wrote:
i'm just saying that
if someone wants to play double attacks + rule with 2x same weapon
i will shoot him with 72 attacks from my bolt thrower
raw is raw

Ah, i see your point.

Yessir, i will agree to that!

So wait, Karl Franz gets to swing with the Warhammer and dreadclaw gets to attack?

Well gak, now I want to buy him.

And some more demigryphs...

 Kriswall wrote:

PenPen wrote:
i'm just saying that
if someone wants to play double attacks + rule with 2x same weapon
i will shoot him with 72 attacks from my bolt thrower
raw is raw

I tend to agree. I have a couple of Highborn Bolt Throwers. I'll just ask before the game how my opponent feels. If he feels that we double down, I'll toss down a half dozen Bolt Throwers, claim the assassinate Sudden Death objective and start unloading shots. That's 432 shots. Half hit, so 216. Two thirds wound, so 144. Rend is -1, so we'll that versus a 4+ save unit (the most common), 96 damage is caused. That's a reliable 16 damage per Bolt Thrower, on average. I have 36" range, so even if I go second, I should have at least a turn (probably two) before I get charged. One turn should be enough to kill one model... or, to kill the fast units that could charge me.

Yup. I think that's what I'll do when people want to play RaW that you get double, triple, etc. attacks for more weapons equipped.

I am not sure bolt throwers are the best comparison as the rules for firing state "the crew...they may fire the war machine.." so the crew are firing the machine, plural on crew, firing the singular on war machine. Whereas the OP question has to do with a singular model using plural weapons.

I agree with you however that having two weapons does not mean you get to double your attacks, there is no such rule in the game.

from the warscrolls section on abilities

Abilities: Abilities are things that the model can do
during a game that are not covered by the standard
game rules.

listed under dreadlord abilities are:

Tyrant Shield: You can re-roll failed save
rolls for a Dreadlord with a Tyrant Shield.

and

Exile Blades: A Dreadlord with two blades
is a whirlwind of death few can escape
from. You can re-roll hit rolls of 1 for a
Dreadlord equipped with two Exile Blades.

and some other stuff that are not germaine to the topic at hand.

listed under description for dread lord is:

Some
Dreadlords enter battle carrying a
viciously sharp Exile Blade and a Tyrant
Shield, whilst others eschew the protection
of a shield and prefer to wade through
battle wielding an Exile Blade in each
hand. A few Dreadlords instead carry
a single double-handed and deadly
Chillblade to war.

the description tells us options the unit can take, but does not give rules for them.

So having two exile blades, the ability we gain is listed under the dread lords abilities, re-rolls of 1's. There are no general rules for attacking with two weapons and as abilities covers things models can do that are not covered by the general rules [attacking with two weapons] this is how you can attack with two exile blades as a dreadlord, by re-rolling 1s.

just as "tyrant shield" has rules [ability] you get from being equipped with a exile sword and a tyrant shield.

There are no general rules for attacking with two weapons, you have to look at the rules granted specifically for doing so under the abilities of the model in question.

So there are multiple ways of doubling a number, 1 * 2 = 2 but also 1 + 1 = 2. The high elf repeater bolt thrower (if you did not go with how the rest of the war machines are presented) could just as easily be 12 extra volleys so only 18 shots. But looking at every other warscroll for artillery (that I have seen and I have gone through dwarfs, skaven, dark elves, and empire) and seeing as how all the rest are similar fashion then all that can be taken away is that it is a typo. With 1 crew member you get 6 attacks total, with 2 you get 12 total.

The discussion about 2 of the same weapon getting double attacks I would argue that if the weapon profile is plural then no you would not. If the weapon profile is singular then yes you would. This comes in play with units such as:

Skaven Warlords
Skaven Monks
Doombulls
Minotaurs
Dreadlords
Beastlords
Ogres
Tyrants
Orc Warboss
Savage Orc Warboss
...

the list goes on, most of which are your big boss type characters.

@blaktoof

The second step of the Combat phase in the rules reads:

Step 2: Each model in the unit attacks with
all of the melee weapons it is armed with
(see Attacking).

That is how you end up getting double the attacks for wielding two of the same weapon. But again I would argue that this is only the case if the weapon stat line is singular and not plural for that weapon.

attacking with all of your weapons does not mean you get to double the attacks.

it means if the profile lists 2+ weapons and the model has 2+ weapons it makes the attacks with each weapon profile.

example malekith on dragon, has 3 weapon profiles, it attacks witch each profile in melee.

there is no actual rule telling you to double your attacks.

if you were meant to have double attacks there would be a separate profile showing for example 12 attacks for 2 exile blades. just as there are separate attack profiles for the separate weapon load out profiles.

also no idea where you are getting the rules for firing double shots with 2 crew, that is not a rule.

in fact the rule says the crew[plural]...they[plural] may fire the bolt thrower[singular]. regardless of how many crew you have the bolt thrower fires one time, if you had 1099 crew for 1 bolt thrower, it would fire one shooting attack of 6shots. not 1099 shooting attacks of 6 shots.

blaktoof wrote:
attacking with all of your weapons does not mean you get to double the attacks.

it means if the profile lists 2+ weapons and the model has 2+ weapons it makes the attacks with each weapon profile.

example malekith on dragon, has 3 weapon profiles, it attacks witch each profile in melee.

there is no actual rule telling you to double your attacks.

if you were meant to have double attacks there would be a separate profile showing for example 12 attacks for 2 exile blades. just as there are separate attack profiles for the separate weapon load out profiles.

also no idea where you are getting the rules for firing double shots with 2 crew, that is not a rule.

in fact the rule says the crew[plural]...they[plural] may fire the bolt thrower[singular]. regardless of how many crew you have the bolt thrower fires one time, if you had 1099 crew for 1 bolt thrower, it would fire one shooting attack of 6shots. not 1099 shooting attacks of 6 shots.

...Well duh, what if you have 2 weapons of the same kind?

I find it funny that you guys think that a melee specialist unit with 4 or 6 attacks has too many attacks. In the mean time I've been pumping out a lot more arrows. If everyone is determined to play it like that, I can only be happy - all my units either don't have the option to take more than one weapon or can only take 2 different weapons.

To the guy insisting that if one applies the rules to dual wielding then he should get to shoot 72 times with the bolt thrower: that's clearly a typo, whereas to screw up the rules for dual wielding, they should have worded poorly multiple sentences. Either way if you insist, I guess the opponent can always walk away.

Gryph wrote:


The discussion about 2 of the same weapon getting double attacks I would argue that if the weapon profile is plural then no you would not. If the weapon profile is singular then yes you would. This comes in play with units such as:

Skaven Warlords
Skaven Monks
Doombulls...
...

There is one problem with the Monks if we are using that assumption. The Plague Monks have a special rule/ability called "Frenzied Assault", which goes as follows

Frenzied Assault: On a turn in which they charge, all models in this unit make 3 attacks with their Foetid Blades, rather than 2

There is a also an ability for using Foetid Blades plural stating you get to reroll all failed hit rolls for models armed with more than one Foetid Blade.

However, the weapon profile only says Foetid Blade even though you can take two of them. Now, as someone who was an English major and used to be an English teacher, I could use this and the discussion in this thread as proof of the importance of precision in pluralizing words, especially in rules/technical manuals. But, as a rational human being, I can look at this and say that, especially because it doesn't specifically say in the main rulesheets that using two of one items means you double the attacks or count that attack characteristic twice, it means that you never double the attacks unless a special rule tells you to on the warscroll.

We can argue RAW and RAI until we are blue in the face - I think in the 430ish pages of warscrolls, we can cut GW a bit of slack for inconsistently pluralizing some of the weapon choices and look at the examples given that state that multiple weapons give special rules and not extra attacks (a la 8th Edition). This is a completely different game from 8th Ed and I think the interpretation people are making saying that having two of the same type of weapons doubles the attacks are hangovers from that.

Those are my thoughts and how we've played our games. If your group wants to shoot each bolt thrower 72 times, enjoy your one turn of AoS per game against HEs then... At least you will have plenty of time to try other games after you rage quit following that experiment

@HobbyBox

I see no problem with the Frenzied Assault rule.

With the way the rules are written a Monk would have:

Two Foetid Blades - 4 Attacks normal, 6 attacks on the charge.
Foetid Blade and Woe-Stave - 3 attacks normal, 4 attacks on the charge.

The thing with the Plague Monk unit is they are a glass cannon. They have no save and a bravery of 5.

Most of the other examples I provided also get benefits for wielding two of the same weapons. Skaven Warlords re-roll 1s to hit, Savage Orc Warboss re-roll all failed hits, Orc Warboss gets 8 attacks instead of 6 (yes, I would count that as 16 attacks at that point). So I fail to see how the Frenzied Assault rule is a problem.

The whole HE bolt thrower example I talked about 4 posts up and agree that is one that is definitely a typo especially since it is a one off. But having so many different units with this type of rule set and singular vs. plural weapons to me means it is more meant to be. If it was just one or two units then sure, a typo, but so many units?

@blaktoof

So to take the Dreadlord as an example.

Dreadlord can have a Chillblade OR Exile Blade and Tyrant Shield OR two Exile Blades. Chillblade is easy, just the 3 attacks but all pretty dangerous. Exile Blade and Tyrant Shield, again easy as it is 6 attacks and you get to re-roll all failed saves (that is awesome!). Finally two Exile Blades. So if you are suppose to attack with each weapon you have (as per the rules) and the weapon entry states Exile Blade, not BladeS, then in order to attack with all melee weapons you would use the Exile Blade entry twice for attacking with.

Your example of Malekith also show attacking with all melee weapons. A Skaven Warlord can have a War Halberd and Barbed Blade which comes out to 8 attacks for it.

Does 10 or 12 attacks seem all that crazy when a dwarf organ gun on average (of firing all 4 barrels) has 13 attacks? The Dark Elf Reaper Bolt Thrower has 12 attacks? The Hellpit Abomination being able to get 18 attacks and no less than 9? War Hydra being able to get 6 to 10 melee attacks and 2 to 6 ranged?

Vetril wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
attacking with all of your weapons does not mean you get to double the attacks.

it means if the profile lists 2+ weapons and the model has 2+ weapons it makes the attacks with each weapon profile.

example malekith on dragon, has 3 weapon profiles, it attacks witch each profile in melee.

there is no actual rule telling you to double your attacks.

if you were meant to have double attacks there would be a separate profile showing for example 12 attacks for 2 exile blades. just as there are separate attack profiles for the separate weapon load out profiles.

also no idea where you are getting the rules for firing double shots with 2 crew, that is not a rule.

in fact the rule says the crew[plural]...they[plural] may fire the bolt thrower[singular]. regardless of how many crew you have the bolt thrower fires one time, if you had 1099 crew for 1 bolt thrower, it would fire one shooting attack of 6shots. not 1099 shooting attacks of 6 shots.

...Well duh, what if you have 2 weapons of the same kind?

I find it funny that you guys think that a melee specialist unit with 4 or 6 attacks has too many attacks. In the mean time I've been pumping out a lot more arrows. If everyone is determined to play it like that, I can only be happy - all my units either don't have the option to take more than one weapon or can only take 2 different weapons.

To the guy insisting that if one applies the rules to dual wielding then he should get to shoot 72 times with the bolt thrower: that's clearly a typo, whereas to screw up the rules for dual wielding, they should have worded poorly multiple sentences. Either way if you insist, I guess the opponent can always walk away.

Translation: "my way is clearly right, but you're taking advantage of a typo and are obviously wrong". We all KNOW the bolt thrower thing isn't legit. It's only a sarcastic response to people like you trying to word a rule the way you want it to be. Quit trying to bend the rules, and the rest of us will stop giving sarcastic responses. 90% of this thread disagrees with you. You have like 1 or 2 supporters. Can you POSSIBLY accept the fact that you're wrong? Please? Thanks.

Gryph wrote:
@HobbyBox

I see no problem with the Frenzied Assault rule.

With the way the rules are written a Monk would have:

Two Foetid Blades - 4 Attacks normal, 6 attacks on the charge.
Foetid Blade and Woe-Stave - 3 attacks normal, 4 attacks on the charge.

The thing with the Plague Monk unit is they are a glass cannon. They have no save and a bravery of 5.

Most of the other examples I provided also get benefits for wielding two of the same weapons. Skaven Warlords re-roll 1s to hit, Savage Orc Warboss re-roll all failed hits, Orc Warboss gets 8 attacks instead of 6 (yes, I would count that as 16 attacks at that point). So I fail to see how the Frenzied Assault rule is a problem.

The whole HE bolt thrower example I talked about 4 posts up and agree that is one that is definitely a typo especially since it is a one off. But having so many different units with this type of rule set and singular vs. plural weapons to me means it is more meant to be. If it was just one or two units then sure, a typo, but so many units?

@blaktoof

So to take the Dreadlord as an example.

Dreadlord can have a Chillblade OR Exile Blade and Tyrant Shield OR two Exile Blades. Chillblade is easy, just the 3 attacks but all pretty dangerous. Exile Blade and Tyrant Shield, again easy as it is 6 attacks and you get to re-roll all failed saves (that is awesome!). Finally two Exile Blades. So if you are suppose to attack with each weapon you have (as per the rules) and the weapon entry states Exile Blade, not BladeS, then in order to attack with all melee weapons you would use the Exile Blade entry twice for attacking with.

Your example of Malekith also show attacking with all melee weapons. A Skaven Warlord can have a War Halberd and Barbed Blade which comes out to 8 attacks for it.

Does 10 or 12 attacks seem all that crazy when a dwarf organ gun on average (of firing all 4 barrels) has 13 attacks? The Dark Elf Reaper Bolt Thrower has 12 attacks? The Hellpit Abomination being able to get 18 attacks and no less than 9? War Hydra being able to get 6 to 10 melee attacks and 2 to 6 ranged?

yes, 10 or 12 attacks seems crazy when we have all the examples of other charaters. When you are able to wield two of the same weapon, it' gives a special rule on what benefit that gives you. This is your bonus.

Saying that you double attacks with 2 weapons of the same kind is not an idea from 8th - in which you didn't double attacks when dual wielding anyway. It comes from reading the AoS rules.
RAW, I KNOW I am right. I could write down a formal demonstration using Boolean logic to show you why the alternate ruling is wrong, but I doubt you would consider that proof, otherwise you'd already be agreeing with me, I think.
This is not the first case where an illogical ruling for AoS was presented, in my opinion - I'm talking about the idea that seed units are needed to summon more of the same type.
I find it funny because both have no logical basis, according to the rules.
You can disregard what I say, of course, but don't pretend that I high five you and tell you you are right when you are not.
I don't benefit either from doubling attacks, because I play wood elves - find me a case from their warscrolls where you can equip a model with 2 weapons of the same kind. My opponents do benefit from rolling more attacks. So as you can see I'm not trying to twist a rule for personal gain (and what a gain... An advantage in a toy soldiers game that I play for fun with friends).
Finally, the weapon naming criteria are very consistent - plurals are used only for multiple weapons that on a mechanical level are to be considered a single one: "sacrificial daggers" and "ancient bows" are a single weapon which has a plural name, since it represents multiple objects. Just like "claws".

@mikhaila

All the other characters, especially the ones who do duel wield the same weapon and their weapon profile is plural not singular, have some other pretty good bonuses besides the weapons themselves. Chaos Lord for example has the ability to heal every time he kills a hero or monster. Lokhir Fellheart heals a wound every hero phase and can re-roll saves of 1. So just saying all the examples of other characters doesn't mean much when even the ones that dual wield but don't get double the weapon attack profile are actually getting some pretty awesome bonuses outside of their weapons.

Gryph wrote:
@mikhaila

All the other characters, especially the ones who do duel wield the same weapon and their weapon profile is plural not singular, have some other pretty good bonuses besides the weapons themselves. Chaos Lord for example has the ability to heal every time he kills a hero or monster. Lokhir Fellheart heals a wound every hero phase and can re-roll saves of 1. So just saying all the examples of other characters doesn't mean much when even the ones that dual wield but don't get double the weapon attack profile are actually getting some pretty awesome bonuses outside of their weapons.

Change my statement to "other characters, their weapons and rules, as pertains to the arguement"

I was not saying to compare the arguement at hand to the rest of the game.

You asked a question, I answered. Yes it seems Crazy.

If someone could find a circumstance in which someone gets the option to wield duplicates of the same weapon, and it says nothing about giving them any bonus, we could put this to rest. However i dont think it exists because the intent is not to double your attacks. If the intent was to double the attacks, the orc warboss would say "he makes 8 attacks instead of 12" rather than "he makes 8 attacks instead of 6." this rule directly supports the interpretation that the intent is NOT to double attacks. Even disregarding all the other points that have been brought up, looking at this statement clearly shows intent. I dont know how this has been disregarded.

Furthermore why would he get more attacks, but have a clause that specifically denotes how many, and every other character with this option has NO such mention of extra attacks. Instead, in the same warscroll spot, it says they get to reroll 1's.

@Vetril - your programming brain doesnt have a problem with this? What does boolean logic say about this exact situation with the warboss vs. Other characters. Because any way i look at this it's undoubtedly clear the intent is not to double attacks.

Also there is no rule telling you to double them. Anywhere. It would have been very easy to do it in the main rules, or even on the warscrolls like the warboss. Instead that variable on the waracroll has been filled with rerolling ones for most characters that have the option to wield duplicate weapons.

My programming brain tells me that when you use two boss choppas you get 8 attacks instead of the 6 you get when you use one.

There are rules, you daemon. I'm saying you double attacks because if you use two weapons with the same profile, you are effectively multiplying by 2.

COMBAT PHASE
[...]
Step 2: Each model in the unit attacks with all of the melee weapons it is armed with (see Attacking).

ATTACKING
[...]
The number of attacks a model can make is determined by the weapons that it is armed with.
[...]
melee weapons can be used in the combat phase. The number of attacks a model can make is equal to the Attacks
characteristic for the weapons it can use.

It can't be better worded than this. Do note:

1. it says "all the weapons".
2. it says "armed with", not "available" or "optional" or "weapons listed on the warscroll".
3. it says the number of attacks is equal to the A characteristic for "the weapons it can use", plural. What weapons can it use? "All of the melee weapons it is armed with".

Now tell me:
1. where it says that since you also get to reroll 1s, you can ignore these rules.
2. why with 1 sword and 1 spear you get more attacks, and with 2 chaos close combat weapons you don't.
3. why a dragon gets more attacks using maw and claws.

It's no use arguing with him guys. Just tell him if he gets to double all attacks with two hand weapons, you get to do 72 attacks with high elf bolt throwers. Or watch, point and laugh as everyone refuses to play a game with him.

Haha. I'll definitely take the daemon tag as a compliment. For what it's worth, i understand your point of view. I'm definitely going to pass this question to the others in my group and play it both ways a bit to see which one feels right, because i believe it's unnecessarily vague. At the moment though i'm fairly convinced in my interpretation and will just agree to disagree for the time being.

You seem like an intelligent fellow and i have no reason to think either one of us is correct over the other that doesn't ultimately boil down to my personal interpretation of the rules, or the intent.

Maybe if they would have made the rules at least a 8 or 6 page pdf it could have saved everyone from alot of the rules confusions that have been prevalent since the AOS release.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Timetowaste85 - Vetril stands to gain nothing from this argument. He plays wood elves and has no characters who can wield duplicate weapons. He's actually a part of this conversation because he believes his opponents should get the benefit.

What about war dancers? Those are wood elves and have multiple blades.

And I don't buy twisting a rule until you think it says what you want it to say to make a disadvantage for you is a likelihood. Most of us want to find loopholes to gain an advantage, a hidden rule, against our opponent. Forcing a crazy interpretation to screw yourself over? No way.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
What about war dancers? Those are wood elves and have multiple blades.

Not the same thing. The Description for War Dancers states: "They fight with Weaving Blades.", not "They fight with two Weaving Blades." like the Dreadlord in question does.

Still, I do believe that the rule for Exile Blades tells us how the interaction with Two Exile Blades works as opposed to just assuming that the model gets to use twice the number of Attacks one of the weapon provides. After all, we are not given any specific direction to double the base Attacks for two, are we?

 timetowaste85 wrote:
What about war dancers? Those are wood elves and have multiple blades.

And I don't buy twisting a rule until you think it says what you want it to say to make a disadvantage for you is a likelihood. Most of us want to find loopholes to gain an advantage, a hidden rule, against our opponent. Forcing a crazy interpretation to screw yourself over? No way.

Wardancers have a single weapon called "Weaving Blades" and no option to acquire another one.

I don't play Warhammer or Age of Sigmar trying to find loopholes to game the system and crush my opponent.
That's bad sportsmanship and I expect TFG to do it.
Incidentally this is the reason why I refuse to play tournaments. The scene here is full of rule lawyers and downright cheaters.
Warhammer is a game first and foremost. You're supposed to have fun with it, not cringe at the thought of playing because your opponent is going to give you a headache debating rules.
That said.

Thanks Charistoph for the moral support. I do believe that the rules do tell us to attack with both exile blades, since they say that the model attacks with all the weapons it is armed with. Since each exile blade grants 6 attacks, the total is 12, or twice as many attacks you'd get from one blade.
All in all I think this is in line with the things other heroes can do - you get a killy dark elf hero that will fold quickly under any kind of shooting.
Chaos warriors with 2 weapons would get 4 attacks, which to me seems reasonable considering they are some of the best warriors in the setting; I've also noticed that they tend to reach melee range after taking heavy losses anyway; dual wielding would make it so that a full unit trashes most opposing melee units (as expected) and an almost depleted unit can still inflict losses. Imho it fits with the expectations.

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
If someone could find a circumstance in which someone gets the option to wield duplicates of the same weapon, and it says nothing about giving them any bonus, we could put this to rest. However i dont think it exists because the intent is not to double your attacks. If the intent was to double the attacks, the orc warboss would say "he makes 8 attacks instead of 12" rather than "he makes 8 attacks instead of 6." this rule directly supports the interpretation that the intent is NOT to double attacks. Even disregarding all the other points that have been brought up, looking at this statement clearly shows intent. I dont know how this has been disregarded.

Furthermore why would he get more attacks, but have a clause that specifically denotes how many, and every other character with this option has NO such mention of extra attacks. Instead, in the same warscroll spot, it says they get to reroll 1's.

@Vetril - your programming brain doesnt have a problem with this? What does boolean logic say about this exact situation with the warboss vs. Other characters. Because any way i look at this it's undoubtedly clear the intent is not to double attacks.

Also there is no rule telling you to double them. Anywhere. It would have been very easy to do it in the main rules, or even on the warscrolls like the warboss. Instead that variable on the waracroll has been filled with rerolling ones for most characters that have the option to wield duplicate weapons.

Actually, I think the issue is that the rules as written DO support doubling the attacks. Combat Phase Sections - "Step 2: Each model in the unit attacks with all of the melee weapons it is armed with (see attacking)." Under the attacking sections we see that "The number of attacks a model can make is determined by the weapons that it is armed with" and "The number of attacks a model can make is equal to the Attacks characteristic for the weapons it can use".

Let's explore this idea using an Orc Warboss armed with a "pair of Boss Choppas". Per the first quote above, we know he can attack with all the melee weapons he's armed with. That means he can attack with both Boss Choppas. We know the number of attacks he can make is determined by adding up the Attacks characteristics for the weapons he can use. An individual Boss Choppa has an Attacks characteristic of 6. Since we have two Boss Choppas, we add 6 and 6 to get 12 total attacks. 6 Attacks come from Boss Choppa #1 and the other 6 come from Boss Choppa #2. But wait! The "Choppa Boss" special rule tells me that an Orc Warboss armed with a pair of Boss Choppas makes 8 attacks instead of 6. Ok. So, I need to change the Attacks characteristic of the Boss Choppa Melee Weapon from 6 to 8. Then I double it from 8 to 16 for two weapons.

This is the RaW.

RaI is likely that the Warboss simply gets 8 attacks. That's also HIWPI.

And I'd argue that the RaW tell you straight up that an Orc Boss makes 8 attacks with 2 weapons instead of 6. It doesn't say "instead of 6 for each weapon". Most scrolls give you a re-roll for adding a second weapon. But this Boss gives you additional attacks. It doesn't say "for each weapon", it says "do 8 attacks instead of 6 if you have a second blade". Honestly, I'm at a loss at this point how people keep messing it up. If it said "each" on the boss scroll, I'd hang my head and admit defeat. But it doesn't. It says they can do more damage when they have two blades: make 8 attacks instead of 6. Not 8 attacks each instead of 6 each.

Kris, I know you said you'll play this way too, and I don't feel it's RaI, it's clearly RaW. You're playing the correct way. Just bring lots of high elf bolt throwers in case you play against TFGs and Power Gamers who insist on the doubled attacks.

And people need to stop saying "in 8th edition, this did this". For better or for worse, it doesn't matter what 8th did. This is a new game with new stats. We can't rely on what used to be. It makes me sad. I enjoyed 8th (except magic; I'd rather play 8th edition with 6th or 7th edition spells). But I can treat both games as separate with units having different abilities in each game.

I think there's an implied mechanic at play in AoS. Units gain access to rules through various means through the course of play. This Rule Set determines how the unit behaves. I am pretty sure the Rule Set is a SET - no duplcates allowed.

So, you can cast Mystic Shield on a unit 10 times, but it doesn't give +10 Sv). A model cab be armed with 1 or 2 Exile Blades, butit only adds to the Rule Set once; same with a few Pistols. Of course, if you have 2 Exile Blades, the unit gets Exile Blades added, and so on.

When you get to combat, you look for all the melee rules (profiles) in the Rule Set and apply them.

This concept seems to hold for all the debatable situations I've looked, and applying the principle looks like it works for all the other examples people have raised in this thread.

IWO, for the OP, 6 attacks and re-roll 1s to-hit.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
And people need to stop saying "in 8th edition, this did this". For better or for worse, it doesn't matter what 8th did. This is a new game with new stats. We can't rely on what used to be. It makes me sad. I enjoyed 8th (except magic; I'd rather play 8th edition with 6th or 7th edition spells). But I can treat both games as separate with units having different abilities in each game.

You're the only one who has been referencing 8th. I never have, and I've been saying that 2 or 3 times now. Frankly I'm tired of repeating myself. I invite you to read carefully what I write next time.

Snapshot wrote:
I think there's an implied mechanic at play in AoS. Units gain access to rules through various means through the course of play. This Rule Set determines how the unit behaves. I am pretty sure the Rule Set is a SET - no duplcates allowed.

So, you can cast Mystic Shield on a unit 10 times, but it doesn't give +10 Sv). A model cab be armed with 1 or 2 Exile Blades, butit only adds to the Rule Set once; same with a few Pistols. Of course, if you have 2 Exile Blades, the unit gets Exile Blades added, and so on.

When you get to combat, you look for all the melee rules (profiles) in the Rule Set and apply them.

This concept seems to hold for all the debatable situations I've looked, and applying the principle looks like it works for all the other examples people have raised in this thread.

IWO, for the OP, 6 attacks and re-roll 1s to-hit.

But why? That seems quite arbitrary to me. If you have two weapons, you are told by the rules to use both. This is a simple rule. Why introduce exceptions and implied rules? Leave balance out of the equation for a moment - we all know GW has always published unbalanced rules, and without points can you even say that something is truly unbalanced anyway?

About the Boss Choppas - I don't think you get 16 attacks. I think you get 8. Because the specific rule of the unit tells you you get 8 attacks for using 2 weapons; that imho overrides the general procedure.
On the contrary, the rules that allow the player to reroll 1s don't say anything about the numbers of attacks granted by the two weapons. This means that you stick to the default rules, right?
And in fact in the warscrolls breakdown, it says: "abilities are things that the model can do during a game that are not covered by the standard game rules". That means that unless it changes a standard rule, you default to that. For example, standard rules say that you can't run and charge; but if you have a rule that says you can, you ignore the standard rules.
If you follow the same reasoning it fits what we have.

Vetril wrote:
[
But why? That seems quite arbitrary to me. If you have two weapons, you are told by the rules to use both. This is a simple rule. Why introduce exceptions and implied rules? Leave balance out of the equation for a moment - we all know GW has always published unbalanced rules, and without points can you even say that something is truly unbalanced anyway?

Actually, it doesn't say you have two weapons, just two of the same weapon, and that weapon is only listed once, correct?

Two weapons would be like a Monster with claws listed as one weapon and a mouth as another. This is not the case with the Dreadlord, as it only lists the Exile Blade once.

About the Boss Choppas - I don't think you get 16 attacks. I think you get 8. Because the specific rule of the unit tells you you get 8 attacks for using 2 weapons; that imho overrides the general procedure.
On the contrary, the rules that allow the player to reroll 1s don't say anything about the numbers of attacks granted by the two weapons. This means that you stick to the default rules, right?
And in fact in the warscrolls breakdown, it says: "abilities are things that the model can do during a game that are not covered by the standard game rules". That means that unless it changes a standard rule, you default to that. For example, standard rules say that you can't run and charge; but if you have a rule that says you can, you ignore the standard rules.
If you follow the same reasoning it fits what we have.

And let us look at the Doombull, it says when armed with two weapons, you make 5 Attacks, not 4.

for everyone who thinks singular or plural weapon(s) make a difference

read ogres singular club
read mournfang cav plural clubs
both dual weapon rule the same
but
mournfang can equip club & ironfist but have no club as weapon, so club & ironfist ogres have 0 attacks


btw the boss choppa
8 instead of 6 ... not 12, 6!

and yes raw, you get 12 attacks, but the bolt thrower gets 72 attacks raw
raw sucks!

PenPen wrote:

and yes raw, you get 12 attacks, but the bolt thrower gets 72 attacks raw
raw sucks!

Why RAW? It's actually only an interpretation and an assumption that if a model possesses two of a weapon, it can use the Weapon List twice. I don't remember that rule being listed anywhere. Do you?

 timetowaste85 wrote:
And I'd argue that the RaW tell you straight up that an Orc Boss makes 8 attacks with 2 weapons instead of 6. It doesn't say "instead of 6 for each weapon". Most scrolls give you a re-roll for adding a second weapon. But this Boss gives you additional attacks. It doesn't say "for each weapon", it says "do 8 attacks instead of 6 if you have a second blade". Honestly, I'm at a loss at this point how people keep messing it up. If it said "each" on the boss scroll, I'd hang my head and admit defeat. But it doesn't. It says they can do more damage when they have two blades: make 8 attacks instead of 6. Not 8 attacks each instead of 6 each.

Kris, I know you said you'll play this way too, and I don't feel it's RaI, it's clearly RaW. You're playing the correct way. Just bring lots of high elf bolt throwers in case you play against TFGs and Power Gamers who insist on the doubled attacks.

And people need to stop saying "in 8th edition, this did this". For better or for worse, it doesn't matter what 8th did. This is a new game with new stats. We can't rely on what used to be. It makes me sad. I enjoyed 8th (except magic; I'd rather play 8th edition with 6th or 7th edition spells). But I can treat both games as separate with units having different abilities in each game.

Agreed. There is no place for the argument of 'you gain double attacks' in any way shape or form. Each warscroll tells you clearly in black and white exactly what happens when you dual wield. I can't fathom how this is so damn difficult to understand. If anyone ever tries to argue in my area they gain double attacks, you bet your butt they won't have any games with me. It isn't even a debate. The rules are clear as day.

I would say that you don't get to double the attacks I would say that you just get the special rule applying for carrying two weapons which is usually in their warscroll. I think the rules as written could be interpreted as you doubling the amount of attacks but I think that would just be to much.

Melevolence wrote:
Agreed. There is no place for the argument of 'you gain double attacks' in any way shape or form. Each warscroll tells you clearly in black and white exactly what happens when you dual wield. I can't fathom how this is so damn difficult to understand. If anyone ever tries to argue in my area they gain double attacks, you bet your butt they won't have any games with me. It isn't even a debate. The rules are clear as day.

Oddly enough, double the Attacks is actually inaccurate for what is being presented.

It is being argued that the Weapon is present twice, so therefore can be used twice. THIS is what provides the "double the Attacks" concept.

Sadly, there is absolutely nothing that says we do this when a Weapon is possessed twice, but only listed only once, but there is nothing to say one cannot, either.

So, in the end, it depends on how limited you see the game.

Why should they have listed it twice? What would have been the benefit of having two lines in the weapons table that are identical?
I think you are arguing semantics when you say that you don't have two weapons, but two of the same weapon. Either way you must attack with both.

So again why can you do it with two different weapons but you can't if you have two of the same? Find me a rule that says you don't attack with all your weapons if you have two of the same kind.

By the way, stop trying to coerce me into changing my mind through saying "well then I'll play bolt throwers with 72 shots or I'll not play with you if you go this way with dual wielding". Reality check, those are not arguments nor proof of anything. And I don't give a gak because I am never going to play with you anyway. Stick to discussing the rules and to presenting evidence that supports your position.

Charistoph wrote:

Melevolence wrote:
Agreed. There is no place for the argument of 'you gain double attacks' in any way shape or form. Each warscroll tells you clearly in black and white exactly what happens when you dual wield. I can't fathom how this is so damn difficult to understand. If anyone ever tries to argue in my area they gain double attacks, you bet your butt they won't have any games with me. It isn't even a debate. The rules are clear as day.

Oddly enough, double the Attacks is actually inaccurate for what is being presented.

It is being argued that the Weapon is present twice, so therefore can be used twice. THIS is what provides the "double the Attacks" concept.

Sadly, there is absolutely nothing that says we do this when a Weapon is possessed twice, but only listed only once, but there is nothing to say one cannot, either.

So, in the end, it depends on how limited you see the game.

Nothing says I can't declare myself the winner of the game before we start. Doesn't mean it makes it a legal way to win the game.

The game doesn't say I can't burn your models. Doesn't mean I'm allowed to do so.

The whole 'it doesn't say I can't ' argument is not a valid argument. It has no basis. It isn't even rules as written. Nothing in the rules at all says anything remotely close to what people are trying to insinuate. All I've heard in defense of gaining the extra attacks is 'It doesn't say I cant' and 'But I have two weapons...I get to use them both', which also has no rules to back up that claim either. The rules tells you the benefits of having multiple weapons. But you only get the attacks of the weapon profile, regardless of how many you wield. (Unless your dual wield rules state otherwise) This isn't rocket science and comes down to if you want to be THAT guy for even trying to lawyer it in the first place.

Well in an obtuse way, the rules do say how things operate.

Almost the first para says"

"All models are described by warscrolls,
which provide all of the rules for using
them in the game."

If I'm armed with a weapon, I examine the table to find out what rule I'm allowed to use. If I have an Exile Blade, I can use that rule (profile). If I have 2, I can use the Exile Blade rule, and also the Exile Blades ability. When my model attacks, he uses the rules he has available to him. The concept of having the same rule twice, or "a few times" in the case of a model carrying "a few Pistols" isn't part of the the system.

So the wargear tells you what rules your model can use. If you have more than 1 copy of a wargear item, unless there is a rule that matches that situation, you don't get to duplicate rules.

Agree with snapshot. The rules say that the model attacks with the options on the warscroll, exile blade is listed once, so it can be used once. The benefit of having two us the re-roll. If having two was intended to give more actual attacks, 'exile blades' would be on the warscroll with a different profile.

I'm still not absolutely 100% convinced the rules are as clear as they could be, or if it's another instance of ex-WFB thinking filling expectations.
However, for me it came down to the rules for liberators (which I think is going to be the model for new units, going forward)

Got a shield? Reroll 1's on your saves.
Swap shield for another weapon, reroll 1's to hit instead.
Nice, simple choice where the 'best' option is a matter of intended battlefield role and using them properly.
The greatblades/hammers are indeed objectively better - which is why you are limited on the number you can take.

If twin weapons gave you double attacks, they would be an absolute no-brainer in nearly all cases because there isn't a drawback - more attacks that are more likely to hit is always the better option.

Melevolence wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

Melevolence wrote:
Agreed. There is no place for the argument of 'you gain double attacks' in any way shape or form. Each warscroll tells you clearly in black and white exactly what happens when you dual wield. I can't fathom how this is so damn difficult to understand. If anyone ever tries to argue in my area they gain double attacks, you bet your butt they won't have any games with me. It isn't even a debate. The rules are clear as day.

Oddly enough, double the Attacks is actually inaccurate for what is being presented.

It is being argued that the Weapon is present twice, so therefore can be used twice. THIS is what provides the "double the Attacks" concept.

Sadly, there is absolutely nothing that says we do this when a Weapon is possessed twice, but only listed only once, but there is nothing to say one cannot, either.

So, in the end, it depends on how limited you see the game.

Nothing says I can't declare myself the winner of the game before we start. Doesn't mean it makes it a legal way to win the game.

The game doesn't say I can't burn your models. Doesn't mean I'm allowed to do so.

The whole 'it doesn't say I can't ' argument is not a valid argument. It has no basis. It isn't even rules as written. Nothing in the rules at all says anything remotely close to what people are trying to insinuate. All I've heard in defense of gaining the extra attacks is 'It doesn't say I cant' and 'But I have two weapons...I get to use them both', which also has no rules to back up that claim either. The rules tells you the benefits of having multiple weapons. But you only get the attacks of the weapon profile, regardless of how many you wield. (Unless your dual wield rules state otherwise) This isn't rocket science and comes down to if you want to be THAT guy for even trying to lawyer it in the first place.

That is a longer version of what I was saying, really.

There are just some people who do not see a lack of permission as a denial of permission. This can cause problems as has been said.

Vetril wrote:Why should they have listed it twice? What would have been the benefit of having two lines in the weapons table that are identical?
I think you are arguing semantics when you say that you don't have two weapons, but two of the same weapon. Either way you must attack with both.

Well, every rule discussion is about semantics and grammer when you boil it down.

But as for why it should be listed twice, Snapshot detailed well enough:

Snapshot wrote:Well in an obtuse way, the rules do say how things operate.

Almost the first para says"

"All models are described by warscrolls,
which provide all of the rules for using
them in the game."

If I'm armed with a weapon, I examine the table to find out what rule I'm allowed to use. If I have an Exile Blade, I can use that rule (profile). If I have 2, I can use the Exile Blade rule, and also the Exile Blades ability. When my model attacks, he uses the rules he has available to him. The concept of having the same rule twice, or "a few times" in the case of a model carrying "a few Pistols" isn't part of the the system.

So the wargear tells you what rules your model can use. If you have more than 1 copy of a wargear item, unless there is a rule that matches that situation, you don't get to duplicate rules.

That is true if you choose to disregard the fact that the model has indeed two weapons in his hands.
Right now the discussion has devolved into a yes no repetition, so I don't think continuing it is going to be productive, especially if people keep misrepresenting my position: I never said you can because the rules don't say that you can't; I said that you can (actually that you must) because the rules say you attack with all weapons. It tells you to.

After speaking with two stores full of people, I still haven't found anyone who agrees with Vetril. Good luck finding games.

Everyone so far has agreed that having a pair of duplicate weapons gives you be number of attacks shown, as well as the bonus ability for carrying a pair. Not the number shown, then doubled, then add the bonus. The bonus listed is your ONLY bonus for duel wielding the same weapon. Everyone. I'm not sure why you can't accept that you're wrong, but when 99% of a group tells you you're wrong (yes, I realize 2 people on here have agreed with you), there's a really good chance that you may be incorrect.

Like I said; if GW comes out and states you get BOTH the doubled attacks AND the bonus ability, I'll eat a slice of humble pie. But I'm not counting on it.

Vetril wrote:
That is true if you choose to disregard the fact that the model has indeed two weapons in his hands.
Right now the discussion has devolved into a yes no repetition, so I don't think continuing it is going to be productive, especially if people keep misrepresenting my position: I never said you can because the rules don't say that you can't; I said that you can (actually you must) because the rules say you attack with all weapons. It tells you to.

Actually, that is incorrect on the last part.

Yes, he has two weapons in his hands. That is not really in question. The problem is that they are the same weapon, and it is only listed once as an available weapon in the weapon list.

What is in question is what is allowing you to pick the same weapon twice when you make Attacks, and THAT is not a written rule nor are you told that you cannot. So, you are taking it from the basic position that "It says to use all my weapons, and it doesn't say not use the Weapon Profile Twice, so I'm going to use it Twice, since I have it Twice."

It may not be what you are intending, or even think you are saying, but that is how it is coming across.

Charistoph, if you have two oranges for lunch, do you eat two or one?

The weapon is listed once because duplicating a line makes no sense! Would you write down the exact same thing twice?

timetowaste, you surely are wasting my times with your snide remarks. Congrats on being the first user ever who made it to my ignored list.

I had another careful read of "Attacking" and it says:

"The number of attacks a model can make is equal to the attacks characteristic for the weapons it can use."

When you wield 1 or 2 Exile Blades, you can use Exile Blade, so you look up the # of attacks.

When you wield 1, 2, or a few Pistols, you can use Pistol, so you look up the # of attacks.

Etc, etc.

The rule doesn't say your # of attacks is determined by how many of the weapon you have, but simply whether you can use it.

Snapshot wrote:
I had another careful read of "Attacking" and it says:

"The number of attacks a model can make is equal to the attacks characteristic for the weapons it can use."

When you wield 1 or 2 Exile Blades, you can use Exile Blade, so you look up the # of attacks.

When you wield 1, 2, or a few Pistols, you can use Pistol, so you look up the # of attacks.

Etc, etc.

The rule doesn't say your # of attacks is determined by how many of the weapon you have, but simply whether you can use it.

That's the semantic moneyshot, but unfortunately doesn't cover the response "but it says weaponS, and I have two if them!"
I'm still going with the fact that if you get double attacks there is absolutely no contest in what you pick as your option, which doesn't "feel" right.

First I'm not sure a moneyshot is good or bad in this context!

Second, if my parsing of the rule is wrong, how do we play an attack from a unit that has "a few Pistols"? The only thing that makes sense is to look at the weapons the model has, disregarding the number of weapons, and match them to the profiles.

As we all know, when a model has duplicate weapons, there is an additional ability that is enabled.

And you're right, it's the vibe!

Snapshot wrote:
First I'm not sure a moneyshot is good or bad in this context!

Second, if my parsing of the rule is wrong, how do we play an attack from a unit that has "a few Pistols"? The only thing that makes sense is to look at the weapons the model has, disregarding the number of weapons, and match them to the profiles.

As we all know, when a model has duplicate weapons, there is an additional ability that is enabled.

And you're right, it's the vibe!

That might be a problem with the unit that has "a few pistols", and not a problem with the rules per se. Meaning, they should have defined how many pistols that unit has.

Because we're now well into semantics, I had a look at units who are armed exclusively with 2 weapons.
E.g. Witch elves are armed with Sacrificial kniveS
The weapon entry refers to knives plural, but provides multiple attacks so no help there.
However, free company and night runners might be the solution. Refers to being armed with weapons *plural*, weapon entry is plural, but only conveys 1 attack.
This gets past the argument "but I have two lots of weapon X" but does not confer multiple attacks.
Incidental I know, but still just as valid an inference.
In the case of the night runners, it even states the champion "makes 2 attacks with his stabbing bladeS instead of 1".
Unless you want to argue that a single blade only gives you half an attack...

Vetril wrote:
Charistoph, if you have two oranges for lunch, do you eat two or one?

The weapon is listed once because duplicating a line makes no sense! Would you write down the exact same thing twice?

timetowaste, you surely are wasting my times with your snide remarks. Congrats on being the first user ever who made it to my ignored list.

If that's supposed to make me feel bad, it doesn't. I've gone to multiple stores trying to find ANYONE who agrees with you. I haven't found anyone. I have had the idea laughed at though when I've asked.

It has been presented to you by multiple people, in multiple different ways and examples, but you refuse to believe you can be wrong. Ignoring me just shows that you're sticking your head in the sand and refusing to accept opinions different from yours. I'm being serious when I say good luck in getting games: you're going to mostly be met by a firm "no" at best, and being laughed at or sworn at if you try to do it. I don't ever see a TO letting you do it, so your tournament options are next to none. What do you actually gain by disagreeing with EVERYONE?

Vetril wrote:Charistoph, if you have two oranges for lunch, do you eat two or one?

Honestly, it would not be uncommon for me to save an orange for later. Not really a valid example, especially since I don't govern my lunch by a GW ruleset, or any other gamess for that matter.

Vetril wrote:The weapon is listed once because duplicating a line makes no sense! Would you write down the exact same thing twice?

As I said, so you could use the weapon twice. If it listed a Sword on one line, and a Dagger on another, you would be able to generate Attacks from both Sword and Dagger. When a Knight is listed as being able to use Lance AND Sword as one weapon line, you generate Attacks based on that one line. You do not have permission to go back to that line in the same Phase just because you have another of those weapons.

So, too, if you have two Exile Blades, you refer to the one line, and then check for Abilities that are granted for carrying two. It's not that difficult a concept, really, but only if you make it one.

RoperPG wrote:
Because we're now well into semantics, I had a look at units who are armed exclusively with 2 weapons.
E.g. Witch elves are armed with Sacrificial kniveS
The weapon entry refers to knives plural, but provides multiple attacks so no help there.
However, free company and night runners might be the solution. Refers to being armed with weapons *plural*, weapon entry is plural, but only conveys 1 attack.
This gets past the argument "but I have two lots of weapon X" but does not confer multiple attacks.
Incidental I know, but still just as valid an inference.
In the case of the night runners, it even states the champion "makes 2 attacks with his stabbing bladeS instead of 1".
Unless you want to argue that a single blade only gives you half an attack...

would love to see someone try to roll half a dice

blaktoof wrote:
would love to see someone try to roll half a dice

D3, but odds are that it would land point up.

You guys really need to take some programming classes.
A weapon, as defined by AOS, is a stat line which alei happens to have a name. Names can be singular or plural, but it's still one weapon. Witches have one weapon which grants 2 attacks. Runners have 1 weapon that grants 1 attack. Neither units have the option to take a 2nd melee weapon in addition to what they have already. So why are you pretending that they'd be a good example to demonstrate how multiple weapons work?
Charistoph, where is it written in the rules that you can't reference the same weapon more than once anyway? Before you retort with "then I'll atrack with the same weapon infinite times", I'll point out that you normally only have one or two instances of tha same weapon. You're making up restrictions to justify your interpretation.
Bottom line, stop making silly examples which fall apart as soon as one examines them.
Yesterday I sent an email to GW's rule queries mailbox, hopefully someone writes back and puts this silliness to rest.

Step 2: Each model in the unit attacks with
all of the melee weapons it is armed with
(see Attacking)

ATTACKING
Blows hammer down upon the foe,
in icting bloody wounds.
When a unit attacks, you must  rst pick the
target units for the attacks that the models
in the unit will make, then make all of the
attacks, and  nally in‘ ict any resulting
damage on the target units.
 e number of attacks a model can make is
determined by the weapons that it is armed
with.  e weapon options a model has are
listed in its description on its warscroll.
Missile weapons can be used in the shooting
phase, and melee weapons can be used in
the combat phase.  e number of attacks
a model can make is equal to the Attacks
characteristic for the weapons it can use.

last part "the weapons it can use", not "the weapons it has" or "the weapons it carries"
2 swords = can use sword

Are you saying that you can equip a guy with 2 axes and he can't use both for some magical reason (aka because you say so)? I guess they carry them around to make a fashion statement? O_o
But seriously, where does it say in the rules that you can equip 2 weapons of the same kind but that you can't use the 2nd?

there is a difference between using and can use if you ask me

model has axe in left hand and sword in right hand
can he use axe and sword? yes, is he using axe and sword? yes
how many attacks? can use sword=* , can use axe=* => *+* attacks

model has sword in left hand and sword in right hand
can he use sword? yes, is he using sword and sword? yes
how many attacks? can use sword=*, sword again? already can use sword => * attacks

I know this will count for nothing, but here goes - I have a mate who works in the GW studio.
I emailed him, and his response was exactly as I thought;
I.e. a Liberator with 2 hammers doesn't get two lots of attacks, it gets access to the special rule of rerolling 1's when you are armed with two.
He did concede how it might appear confusing though.

That's actually more compelling evidence than what has been posted so far by some, Roper. Thanks.

Vetril wrote:You guys really need to take some programming classes.

Basic, Pascal, C+, Cobol, and Java, with a little HTML. You need to remember some of yours.

Vetril wrote:Charistoph, where is it written in the rules that you can't reference the same weapon more than once anyway? Before you retort with "then I'll atrack with the same weapon infinite times", I'll point out that you normally only have one or two instances of tha same weapon. You're making up restrictions to justify your interpretation.
Bottom line, stop making silly examples which fall apart as soon as one examines them.

I didn't make any silly examples, you are. I asked where does it tell you to use the same Weapon line twice? What grants you permission?

To use a programming reference, the Weapon list is called up based on what is equipped. What is in the Equipped Variable is "Exile Blade{2}". It pulls up Exile Blade to use as a weapon, notes the {2}, and adds the subsequent modification to the Weapon and processes the Attack. It then classes the Equipped Variable as "Used", which it then ignores for the rest of the process as an option until the next applicable Phase.

Vetril wrote:Are you saying that you can equip a guy with 2 axes and he can't use both for some magical reason (aka because you say so)? I guess they carry them around to make a fashion statement? O_o
But seriously, where does it say in the rules that you can equip 2 weapons of the same kind but that you can't use the 2nd?

Considering that every case of this lists how to use them both in the Warscroll, I don't really understand your point.

I think Vetril's point makes sense. The model attacks with each weapon it is armed with. How do you tell what weapons a model is armed with? You don't look at the battlescroll - that lists all the weapons the model could be armed with. You look at the model. Then, having established what weapons the model is equipped with, you reference the battlescroll for the statistics of those weapons.

I don't think attacking once for each hand is how you're intended to play it in general - there are too many instances of multiple weapons being glommed together on the battlescrolls - but it does make sense as an interpretation, and the only way we'll get a truly definitive answer is if Games Workshop clarifies it.

Charistoph wrote:

Vetril wrote:You guys really need to take some programming classes.

Basic, Pascal, C+, Cobol, and Java, with a little HTML. You need to remember some of yours.

Meh, bunch of antiques/useless and a decent one (HTML is not a programming language). You might want to apply the mindset you learnt in this case too.

Charistoph wrote:
I didn't make any silly examples, you are. I asked where does it tell you to use the same Weapon line twice? What grants you permission?

To use a programming reference, the Weapon list is called up based on what is equipped. What is in the Equipped Variable is "Exile Blade{2}". It pulls up Exile Blade to use as a weapon, notes the {2}, and adds the subsequent modification to the Weapon and processes the Attack. It then classes the Equipped Variable as "Used", which it then ignores for the rest of the process as an option until the next applicable Phase.

The ruleset grants permission: it says to attack with all the weapons the model is equipped with.
To continue with the programming OO analogy, the weapons are not a single instance with a counter. They are two distinct instances with their own stats, which happen to be identical if the weapons are of the same type. When you attack, you walk through the equipped weapons list and for each you call the attack method. Nowhere in the rules it says that you can reference a certain weapon only once when you are equipped with more than one of that kind. Do I have to write down some code to make what I am saying perfectly clear? I can do that, if it helps.

Charistoph wrote:

Vetril wrote:Are you saying that you can equip a guy with 2 axes and he can't use both for some magical reason (aka because you say so)? I guess they carry them around to make a fashion statement? O_o
But seriously, where does it say in the rules that you can equip 2 weapons of the same kind but that you can't use the 2nd?

Considering that every case of this lists how to use them both in the Warscroll, I don't really understand your point.

Nowhere in the warscrolls does it say "if you use 2 weapons of the X type, the normal rules do not apply and instead you get this bonus" - it only says "if you use 2 weapons of the X type, you get this bonus", meaning, as written, it does not modify the normal rules, but instead applies an additional effect on top of them.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I think Vetril's point makes sense. The model attacks with each weapon it is armed with. How do you tell what weapons a model is armed with? You don't look at the battlescroll - that lists all the weapons the model could be armed with. You look at the model. Then, having established what weapons the model is equipped with, you reference the battlescroll for the statistics of those weapons.

I am in the camp of no, you don't double attacks (even though the rules are written in a way it can be argued)

Your post though has me thinking... The rules don't give instructions on how to tell what a model is armed with. It doesn't say WYSIWYG or anything of the sort. We just assume it's what is on the model (and rightfully so), but could I just glue every available weapon to the model, hanging off belt, sheathed, etc.... and always attack with everything since the model would be "armed" with everything available?

Graxous wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I think Vetril's point makes sense. The model attacks with each weapon it is armed with. How do you tell what weapons a model is armed with? You don't look at the battlescroll - that lists all the weapons the model could be armed with. You look at the model. Then, having established what weapons the model is equipped with, you reference the battlescroll for the statistics of those weapons.

I am in the camp of no, you don't double attacks (even though the rules are written in a way it can be argued)

Your post though has me thinking... The rules don't give instructions on how to tell what a model is armed with. It doesn't say WYSIWYG or anything of the sort. We just assume it's what is on the model (and rightfully so), but could I just glue every available weapon to the model, hanging off belt, sheathed, etc.... and always attack with everything since the model would be "armed" with everything available?

You know what's really weird? It sort of doesn't matter. Because there aren't any points values, as long as you don't make a model totally unbeatable you're just changing what your opponent has to bring to balance the game out.

Another thing that's interesting about your example is that sort of already happens. There are models with bows and such that aren't (apparently) prohibited from firing their bow in the shooting phase and then drawing their melee weapons, fighting in melee, then sheathing the melee weapon, firing the bow again in the next shooting phase and then drawing the melee weapon to fight the same foe again.

That said, I think most of the warscrolls actually describe what a model is or can be armed with. For example, the entry for Liberators says they can either dual wield swords, dual wield hammers, be equipped with a greatblade or greathammer or have a sword or hammer and a single shield. It seems like strapping all the weapons to your Liberators would contradict the warscroll.

Charistoph wrote:

Vetril wrote:You guys really need to take some programming classes.

Basic, Pascal, C+, Cobol, and Java, with a little HTML. You need to remember some of yours.

Vetril wrote:Charistoph, where is it written in the rules that you can't reference the same weapon more than once anyway? Before you retort with "then I'll atrack with the same weapon infinite times", I'll point out that you normally only have one or two instances of tha same weapon. You're making up restrictions to justify your interpretation.
Bottom line, stop making silly examples which fall apart as soon as one examines them.

I didn't make any silly examples, you are. I asked where does it tell you to use the same Weapon line twice? What grants you permission?

To use a programming reference, the Weapon list is called up based on what is equipped. What is in the Equipped Variable is "Exile Blade{2}". It pulls up Exile Blade to use as a weapon, notes the {2}, and adds the subsequent modification to the Weapon and processes the Attack. It then classes the Equipped Variable as "Used", which it then ignores for the rest of the process as an option until the next applicable Phase.

Vetril wrote:Are you saying that you can equip a guy with 2 axes and he can't use both for some magical reason (aka because you say so)? I guess they carry them around to make a fashion statement? O_o
But seriously, where does it say in the rules that you can equip 2 weapons of the same kind but that you can't use the 2nd?

Considering that every case of this lists how to use them both in the Warscroll, I don't really understand your point.

You think of the Equipped Variable as "Exile Blade{2}". I think of it more as an Equipped Variable Array with [Exile Blade; Exile Blade]. Two weapons, each processed in turn.

From a pseudo code standpoint I would say something like this...

Start Attack
For each Weapon in ArrayOfWeapons[]
Make W To Hit rolls where W is the number of attacks the current weapon has
Make X To Wound rolls where X is the number of successful hits
Make Y Armor Save rolls where Y is the number of successful wounds
Deal Z Damage where Z is the number of successful wounds times the current weapon's damage stat
Next Weapon
End Attack

We are told to process attacks on a per weapon basis. Exile Blade is A weapon. Two Exiled Blades isn't A weapon. It's TWO weapons.

Now, having said that, I totally think RaI is that we don't get double attacks. We get the special rule instead. This is how everyone else I know who plays reads it. This is how I'll be playing it.

Vetril wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

Vetril wrote:You guys really need to take some programming classes.

Basic, Pascal, C+, Cobol, and Java, with a little HTML. You need to remember some of yours.

Meh, bunch of antiques/useless and a decent one (HTML is not a programming language). You might want to apply the mindset you learnt in this case too.

Antiques, they may be, but the provided the basis and disciplines for anything in use today. If anything, these antiques were much harder to use and required more discipline, so we had to be more precise.

Now get off my lawn.

Charistoph wrote:
I didn't make any silly examples, you are. I asked where does it tell you to use the same Weapon line twice? What grants you permission?

To use a programming reference, the Weapon list is called up based on what is equipped. What is in the Equipped Variable is "Exile Blade{2}". It pulls up Exile Blade to use as a weapon, notes the {2}, and adds the subsequent modification to the Weapon and processes the Attack. It then classes the Equipped Variable as "Used", which it then ignores for the rest of the process as an option until the next applicable Phase.

The ruleset grants permission: it says to attack with all the weapons the model is equipped with.
To continue with the programming OO analogy, the weapons are not a single instance with a counter. They are two distinct instances with their own stats, which happen to be identical if the weapons are of the same type. When you attack, you walk through the equipped weapons list and for each you call the attack method. Nowhere in the rules it says that you can reference a certain weapon only once when you are equipped with more than one of that kind. Do I have to write down some code to make what I am saying perfectly clear? I can do that, if it helps.

Going back from the programming disciplines I learned with anique languages, it goes back to how the subroutines are built.

We have a call for the Weapon, where does it say it can go back and use it again? You are calling and expecting a routine that is not present, and so it "breaks down".

Charistoph wrote:

Vetril wrote:Are you saying that you can equip a guy with 2 axes and he can't use both for some magical reason (aka because you say so)? I guess they carry them around to make a fashion statement? O_o
But seriously, where does it say in the rules that you can equip 2 weapons of the same kind but that you can't use the 2nd?

Considering that every case of this lists how to use them both in the Warscroll, I don't really understand your point.

Nowhere in the warscrolls does it say "if you use 2 weapons of the X type, the normal rules do not apply and instead you get this bonus" - it only says "if you use 2 weapons of the X type, you get this bonus", meaning, as written, it does not modify the normal rules, but instead applies an additional effect on top of them.

Getting that bonus means the normal rules don't apply, it is why it is a bonus, otherwise it would be standard.

To be honest, the real debate is actually which Weapon is being called in this procedure, the set up in the Description or the Weapon List? Since the Weapon List provides the Attacks, I'm going to go with that. Since I do not have permission to use the same Weapon on the list twice, I cannot use it twice, making the second useless from that standpoint. Then we go to Abilities and it tells me what to do with the second Weapon.

you are all ignoring the rules

this is what you read and what you think is all there is

Step 2: Each model in the unit attacks with
all of the melee weapons it is armed with
(see Attacking)

but there is the "see attacking" part

ATTACKING
Blows hammer down upon the foe,
in icting bloody wounds.
When a unit attacks, you must  rst pick the
target units for the attacks that the models
in the unit will make, then make all of the
attacks, and  nally in‘ ict any resulting
damage on the target units.
 e number of attacks a model can make is
determined by the weapons that it is armed
with.  e weapon options a model has are
listed in its description on its warscroll.
Missile weapons can be used in the shooting
phase, and melee weapons can be used in
the combat phase. the number of attacks
a model can make is equal to the Attacks
characteristic for the weapons it can use.

last bold part
the number of attacksa model can make is equal to the Attacks characteristic for the weapons it can use
doesnt matter if you have 1 "sword" or 5 "sword"s equiped
X "sword" equiped (X > 0) you can use "sword" and if you can use "sword" you get the number of attacks for "sword"
replace "sword" with any weapon still the same

why is it "weapons it can us" and "all of the melee weapons it is armed with"?
maybe because there are mixed weapon loadouts, like "sword and axe", or " legs and fangs and goblins"

PenPen wrote:
you are all ignoring the rules

this is what you read and what you think is all there is

Step 2: Each model in the unit attacks with
all of the melee weapons it is armed with
(see Attacking)

but there is the "see attacking" part

ATTACKING
Blows hammer down upon the foe,
in icting bloody wounds.
When a unit attacks, you must  rst pick the
target units for the attacks that the models
in the unit will make, then make all of the
attacks, and  nally in‘ ict any resulting
damage on the target units.
 e number of attacks a model can make is
determined by the weapons that it is armed
with.  e weapon options a model has are
listed in its description on its warscroll.
Missile weapons can be used in the shooting
phase, and melee weapons can be used in
the combat phase. the number of attacks
a model can make is equal to the Attacks
characteristic for the weapons it can use.

last bold part
the number of attacksa model can make is equal to the Attacks characteristic for the weapons it can use
doesnt matter if you have 1 "sword" or 5 "sword"s equiped
X "sword" equiped (X > 0) you can use "sword" and if you can use "sword" you get the number of attacks for "sword"
replace "sword" with any weapon still the same

why is it "weapons it can us" and "all of the melee weapons it is armed with"?
maybe because there are mixed weapon loadouts, like "sword and axe", or " legs and fangs and goblins"

That's interesting, but you haven't demonstrated that the model can't use all of the weapons it is equipped with. If anything, you've disproved your own point.

1. A model is armed with two axes.
2. Per the rules, the model attacks with all of the melee weapons it is armed with. I.e., the model attacks with BOTH axes.
3. It can therefore use BOTH axes.
4. Assume the Axes line has an Attacks characteristic of 1.
5. You can use the first axe AND you can use the second axe. We know this because we are explicitly told the model can attack with both.
6. The Attacks characteristic for the first weapon the model can use is 1. The Attacks characteristic for the second weapon the model can use is 1. 1+1=2
7. Per the letter of the core rules, the model in question gets two attacks.

I don't believe this is GW's intention... but it IS what they actually wrote on the paper.

I'll never understand why anyone thinks it's appropriate to use programming rules for anything other than programming.

Language, prose writing, and normal conversation have literally zero relationship to computer code, and even game rules have no relation unless the writer had that in mind while writing the rules.

 Kriswall wrote:
That's interesting, but you haven't demonstrated that the model can't use all of the weapons it is equipped with. If anything, you've disproved your own point.

1. A model is armed with two axes.
2. Per the rules, the model attacks with all of the melee weapons it is armed with. I.e., the model attacks with BOTH axes.
3. It can therefore use BOTH axes.
4. Assume the Axes line has an Attacks characteristic of 1.
5. You can use the first axe AND you can use the second axe. We know this because we are explicitly told the model can attack with both.
6. The Attacks characteristic for the first weapon the model can use is 1. The Attacks characteristic for the second weapon the model can use is 1. 1+1=2
7. Per the letter of the core rules, the model in question gets two attacks.

I don't believe this is GW's intention... but it IS what they actually wrote on the paper.

Not quite. No where is it listed that you can use the same Weapon line twice. So, you do not have permission to use it twice.

Saldiven wrote:
I'll never understand why anyone thinks it's appropriate to use programming rules for anything other than programming.

Language, prose writing, and normal conversation have literally zero relationship to computer code, and even game rules have no relation unless the writer had that in mind while writing the rules.

Well... language is a broad subject and we aren't talking about conversations. We're talking about a technical document written partly in prose form and partly using tables of data.

Logical thought is useful when reading a technical document... and a game's rule set is most certainly a technical document. It describes a set of processes and object characteristics required to play a game. Games Workshop has just traditionally had an issue with writing unambiguous technical documents. Ambiguity and vague or incomplete statements may be fine when writing a novel or having a conversation about the weather. These things cause issues when present in a technical document.

There is a reason that Technical Writing classes are difficult for many people. There are numerous additional elements you have to be aware of when writing a technical document. Ideally, there should be no ambiguity, as few words as possible and should be written at a level that a child can understand. IKEA and LEGO both provide textbook example technical documents for assembling their kits... almost no words and a series of unambiguous images. Magic the Gathering card text is another good example. There isn't a lot of extraneous text, everything is consistent and standardized and there is rarely any debate as to the meaning.

Sure, the AoS rule set is mostly (but not completely) written in prose. It's also a technical document describing a set of procedures. It should be written as such. The parts describing the processes, such as how to perform an attack, should share more in common with a computer program than with a short paragraph describing someone's day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Charistoph wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
That's interesting, but you haven't demonstrated that the model can't use all of the weapons it is equipped with. If anything, you've disproved your own point.

1. A model is armed with two axes.
2. Per the rules, the model attacks with all of the melee weapons it is armed with. I.e., the model attacks with BOTH axes.
3. It can therefore use BOTH axes.
4. Assume the Axes line has an Attacks characteristic of 1.
5. You can use the first axe AND you can use the second axe. We know this because we are explicitly told the model can attack with both.
6. The Attacks characteristic for the first weapon the model can use is 1. The Attacks characteristic for the second weapon the model can use is 1. 1+1=2
7. Per the letter of the core rules, the model in question gets two attacks.

I don't believe this is GW's intention... but it IS what they actually wrote on the paper.

Not quite. No where is it listed that you can use the same Weapon line twice. So, you do not have permission to use it twice.

The Characteristics section is just a reference telling you "how effective its weapons are". The Description section, on the other hand "tells you what weapons the model can be armed with". You're not using the weapon line EVER to make an attack. You're using the weapons you're armed with. The 'weapon line' in the Characteristics section is simply a reference literally telling you how effective the weapons you're armed with are.

If you disagree, cite the rule telling you that the Characteristics section in any way, shape or form tells you what the model is armed with. The attacking rules only care about what weapons you're armed with and what characteristics each of those weapons has for the purposes of determining number of attacks. If I'm armed with two distinct weapons, with the first having one attack and the second having one attack, I'll be able to make a total of two attacks. The rules don't treat "armed with Sword (1 attack) and Spear (1 attack)" any differently from "armed with Sword (1 attack) and Sword (1 attack)". Sure, sometimes you get extra rules for having multiples of the same weapon... but those rules don't say "instead of making attacks with the model's second sword, instead re-roll to hit rolls of 1". The rules usually just tell you to "re-roll to hit rolls of 1". I fall back on the core rules and make my attacks for the second weapon I'm armed with just as I would for any other weapon.

AGAIN... this is not what I think GW intended, but it IS what they wrote. This requires an FAQ or Errata to clarify or correct. I doubt this will happen anytime soon.

I think we're going in a circle now, but no-one has explained to me how I resolve attacks with "a few Pistols" if we are using the weapon attack profile multiple times?

The weapon load-out tell us which rules on the warscroll unlock for the particular model. Attacking with all weapons says we can unlock all the rules associated with those weapons and use them in the same combat (or shooting) phase.

My contention is that unlocking a rule twice (or a few times for those pesky Pistols) is the same as unlocking the rule once. Some models unlock extra rules if they have duplicate weapons.

This reading is (a) consistent with the writing of the core rules, (b) does not produce blatantly OP attack profiles, and (c) allows GW a little scope for flair in their Descriptions (Pistols anyone?).

Saldiven wrote:
I'll never understand why anyone thinks it's appropriate to use programming rules for anything other than programming.

Language, prose writing, and normal conversation have literally zero relationship to computer code, and even game rules have no relation unless the writer had that in mind while writing the rules.

Thinking in code is good because programming languages are logical, specific and restricted. Given some code and the language rules, it can be universally understood in only a single way. It's pretty much ambiguity free, and helps greatly in avoiding fallacies and logical mistakes.

Snapshot wrote:
I think we're going in a circle now, but no-one has explained to me how I resolve attacks with "a few Pistols" if we are using the weapon attack profile multiple times?

The weapon load-out tell us which rules on the warscroll unlock for the particular model. Attacking with all weapons says we can unlock all the rules associated with those weapons and use them in the same combat (or shooting) phase.

My contention is that unlocking a rule twice (or a few times for those pesky Pistols) is the same as unlocking the rule once. Some models unlock extra rules if they have duplicate weapons.

This reading is (a) consistent with the writing of the core rules, (b) does not produce blatantly OP attack profiles, and (c) allows GW a little scope for flair in their Descriptions (Pistols anyone?).

To me, "a few pistols" is a problem with the loadout definition, not with the attack general rules. It should have been clearly defined. As a personal solution, I'd shoot with two, since the engineer has two hands.

Weapons though are not rules. Weapons are game entities with characteristics. You don't unlock weapons, you choose a loadout for the model and it will use the weapons listed under the loadout.

 Kriswall wrote:
The Characteristics section is just a reference telling you "how effective its weapons are". The Description section, on the other hand "tells you what weapons the model can be armed with". You're not using the weapon line EVER to make an attack. You're using the weapons you're armed with. The 'weapon line' in the Characteristics section is simply a reference literally telling you how effective the weapons you're armed with are.

And yet, it is that Characteristic which defines almost everything that the Weapon does, including defining all the Attacks permitted by the Weapon.

 Kriswall wrote:
If you disagree, cite the rule telling you that the Characteristics section in any way, shape or form tells you what the model is armed with. The attacking rules only care about what weapons you're armed with and what characteristics each of those weapons has for the purposes of determining number of attacks. If I'm armed with two distinct weapons, with the first having one attack and the second having one attack, I'll be able to make a total of two attacks. The rules don't treat "armed with Sword (1 attack) and Spear (1 attack)" any differently from "armed with Sword (1 attack) and Sword (1 attack)". Sure, sometimes you get extra rules for having multiples of the same weapon... but those rules don't say "instead of making attacks with the model's second sword, instead re-roll to hit rolls of 1". The rules usually just tell you to "re-roll to hit rolls of 1". I fall back on the core rules and make my attacks for the second weapon I'm armed with just as I would for any other weapon.

"The number of attacks a model can make is equal to the Attacks characteristic for the weapons it can use."

Then further on, in the Abilities actually tell you what to do when you have two of the same weapon, but oddly, none of them tell you to double the Attacks or use the Attacks profile twice, but instead either provide rerolls, a few bonus Attacks, or a Charge bonus.

So, by using a Weapon line twice, you are actually ignoring the other rules of the warscroll as they exist and put your own interpretation on them.

 Kriswall wrote:
AGAIN... this is not what I think GW intended, but it IS what they wrote. This requires an FAQ or Errata to clarify or correct. I doubt this will happen anytime soon.

Correction, it is but one interpretation, and a far-fetched one to boot, and requires ignoring, or at least placing priority of one rule over others, in order to be applied.

Charistoph, you still haven't explained why you can't reference the same weapon twice. Your whole argument is based on this yet you haven't justified this fundamental premise.

After following this post for a bit and not being able to make up my mind about which side I take. I think I finally figured out what makes sense to.

In the first example about the exile blades, the following is what I think the rules intend to depict. I acknowledge the rules could be more fleshed out but I think this what they are going for.

The dark elf strikes with his primary hand weapon (exile blade #1), with six attacks. Any attacks that fail to hit whether its due to the opponent dodging, parrying, or whatever the dark elf follows up that attack with his off hand (exile blade #2) trying to score another blow. That's where the special rule came in.

It's not that the second weapon is exactly the same as his first, its that he uses it to gain more attacks than he would without it. Since he going to counter or strike again when he misses or is parried.

So in the Orc Warlord example, instead of waiting for an opening due to a clumsy dodge or a parry that leaves an opening (a reroll to hit). He instead lashes out with both weapons simultaneously striking even more than he would with just one.

With the wood elf glade lord or whatever it was. He uses the two weapons because he is skilled enough with those two weapons simultaneously or trained to use both in a manner that allows both to be used at maximum efficiency. Basically the same.

Same with shields etc. The special rule shows what that weapon is used for. Not that it needs a line of its own or to be duplicated.

I know that's kinda hard to imagine but im writing this on my phone so its a little difficult to convey things as well.

Hope that helps people.

Vetril wrote:
Charistoph, you still haven't explained why you can't reference the same weapon twice. Your whole argument is based on this yet you haven't justified this fundamental premise.

I've said it repeatedly, "One does not have permission to reference the same weapon twice". Even more importantly, in every single case it specifically states what to do with multiple weapons.

How is this not clear?

Wagnar wrote:
After following this post for a bit and not being able to make up my mind about which side I take. I think I finally figured out what makes sense to.

In the first example about the exile blades, the following is what I think the rules intend to depict. I acknowledge the rules could be more fleshed out but I think this what they are going for.

The dark elf strikes with his primary hand weapon (exile blade #1), with six attacks. Any attacks that fail to hit whether its due to the opponent dodging, parrying, or whatever the dark elf follows up that attack with his off hand (exile blade #2) trying to score another blow. That's where the special rule came in.

It's not that the second weapon is exactly the same as his first, its that he uses it to gain more attacks than he would without it. Since he going to counter or strike again when he misses or is parried.

So in the Orc Warlord example, instead of waiting for an opening due to a clumsy dodge or a parry that leaves an opening (a reroll to hit). He instead lashes out with both weapons simultaneously striking even more than he would with just one.

With the wood elf glade lord or whatever it was. He uses the two weapons because he is skilled enough with those two weapons simultaneously or trained to use both in a manner that allows both to be used at maximum efficiency. Basically the same.

Same with shields etc. The special rule shows what that weapon is used for. Not that it needs a line of its own or to be duplicated.

I know that's kinda hard to imagine but im writing this on my phone so its a little difficult to convey things as well.

Hope that helps people.

Yep, you summed things up nicely.

Actually we are argueing because the rule is fethed up.

There are rules indicates two same weapons dont double attacks. Perfect case is Boss Choppa from Orc Boss and the Plegue Monks.

But there are also rules indicates two weapons should double attacks. One example is the big guys in Skaven.
Lord Skreech Verminking, he has a Pleaguereaper that has 5 attacks at full health (he also get one Doom Glaive with 4 attacks)
Verminlord Corruptor, he has two Pleaguereapers in his armory. In the WS it writes he gain 10 attacks at full health with Pleaguereapers. (Notice this 's' at the end)
Exact the same weapon, one with 's' and one without. The WS of 'Pleaguereapers' is exactly doubled from 'Pleaguereaper'

Also if we look back into Dreadlord and the fking exile blade. If you have a shield you can get reroll all failed saves, but with two weapons you have same attack and only reroll '1's: Tell me the defference between 'all failed' and '1'?
I culculated the average of 12 attacks with Exile blade against 4+ armor target. The result is fair like 2,3xxxx (I have considered reroll of 1s)
One Empire General with great weapon has 2,2xxxx damage against same target.
Vampire lord with Possessed Sword has 2,4
Tomb King with Dynastic Sword has 2,4 with Shield
Dwarven Tharn with Rune Axe has 3,2xxxxxx

So Dreadlord is not dreadful at all.
If the attack number with two blades is just 6, the the Dreadlord with no protection will have average 1,1xxxx damage against 4+ enemy. I can say then he is somehow quite dreadful

Been saying that since page 1 Aeonotakist

Converting average damage to Rend-0 equivalent wounds, the Dreadlord with a chill blade does an average 2.33 saveable wounds. A single Exile Blade does 2.0 saveable wounds.

Give him a second Exile Blade with the reroll 1's ability and he does 2.33 saveable wounds.

Let him swing twice with the Exile Blade and he's doing 4.0 wounds.

Vetril wrote:
Been saying that since page 1 Aeonotakist

And many people have been telling you that you're wrong since page 1

Chosen have a Chaos Greataxe and no further weapon options. It's in the table under the table heading Melee Weapons.

Am I allowed to glue more arms on for more axes and if so should I just go for the axes?

pretzel wrote:
Chosen have a Chaos Greataxe and no further weapon options. It's in the table under the table heading Melee Weapons.

Am I allowed to glue more arms on for more axes and if so should I just go for the axes?

Does the Warscroll's description section tell you that you can? Warscroll key... "The description tells you what weapons the model can be armed with." Chosen Warscroll Description... "Chosen wield mighty double-handed Chaos Greataxes that can cleave a warrior in half with one blow."

Looks like the description does NOT tell you that some Chosen have extra arms glued on and wield more than one Chaos Greataxe.

If you have nothing useful to contribute, it would probably be best to keep your combative and sarcastic comments to yourself.

 mikhaila wrote:

Vetril wrote:
Been saying that since page 1 Aeonotakist

And many people have been telling you that you're wrong since page 1

Doesn't mean they are right, or they would have proven it.

Vetril wrote:

 mikhaila wrote:

Vetril wrote:
Been saying that since page 1 Aeonotakist

And many people have been telling you that you're wrong since page 1

Doesn't mean they are right, or they would have proven it.

We've established this isn't something that can be proven short of a comment from GW. Instead, there's an almost overwhelming avalanche of circumstantial evidence. In front of a jury of your peers, you are being found wrong over and over. This doesn't mean you're wrong. It just means you're very likely wrong. There is a right answer. We just won't be able to say who is right and who is wrong until the almighty GW speaks.

Ultimately, you don't need the agreement of strangers of the internet to have fun with your friends. I wouldn't expect to get your way at an average FLGS or organized play event, though.

You get to attack with each of your listed weapons in the chart once. Having a second hand weapon on a warrior doesnt add another listing on the chart.

Yesterday and the weeks before I was convinced that you don't get extra attacks from an extra weapon, just the ability. After reading the various army warscrolls though I'm not so sure.

Dragon Slayer get the option for a pair of Runic Axes, the weapon profile for Runic Axes and the ability Runic Axes.
Chaos Lord get the option for a pair Chaos Rune-axes, the weapon profile for Chaos Rune-axes and the ability Chaos Rune-axes.
Dragon Ogres get the option for a pair of Ancient Weapons, the weapon profile for Ancient Weapons and the ability Furious Attack.

Ogres get the option for an Ogre Club or Blade in each hand, the weapon profile for Ogre Club or Blade and the ability Ogre Clubs and Blades.
Mournfang Cavalry also get the option for an Ogre Club or Blade in each hand, but the weapon profile says Ogre Clubs and Blades and the ability Ogre Clubs and Blades.

I think all other models that get the option for a pair of hand weapons have the singular name for the weapon in the profile.
It's like they went s crazy, maybe typos, maybe not. If it is double same weapons, double attacks, Warriors of Chaos is looking good.
Bring on the FAQ ASAP please.
Not trying to be combative, the table for greataxe is headed melee weapons, for a model that can only get one melee weapon.

pretzel wrote:


Ogres get the option for an Ogre Club or Blade in each hand, the weapon profile for Ogre Club or Blade and the ability Ogre Clubs and Blades.
Mournfang Cavalry also get the option for an Ogre Club or Blade in each hand, but the weapon profile says Ogre Clubs and Blades and the ability Ogre Clubs and Blades.

only 1 little problem with the cavalry, they can have ironfists too
but there is no singular club or blade in profile
clubs and blades makes ironfist impossible

So I have read through this entire thread, as well as the thread discussing the same problem on warseer. I will submit my opinion on the subject because, well its the internet and my opinion means something! Right...?

But really, to me it boils down to this.... The camp that says double your attacks is relying on the wording of "how a model attacks" rule, the fact that GW forgot/does know how to use plurals (e.g. Foetid Blade(s)) and is ignore the circumstantial evidence that would paint a picture refuting that. That evidence would be the how similar rules look on units, like the warboss, and the fact that reading the ruling this way would make selecting your weapon option in every single case an exercise in stupidity. "Did you take the two weapons to double your attacks? No? You messed up badly".

The reason for that is because in just about every situation where a unit can take a pair weapon, if you not only get to double it's attack but also get the bonus ability, there is absolutely no reason to take another option. Whereas if you don't double the attacks and just take the ability, then you end up coming out with similarly balanced options that come down to preference.

Examples that I have seen in threads:

(1) Liberators - You can choose between 2 attacks and a re-roll 1s to save or get 4 attacks and reroll 1s to hit. This choice presented would be either having a unit that is slightly more durable or more than doubling the base damage output of that unit. And then, why would you ever take the 1 in 5 special weapon when you will statistically do more damage with the paired hammers/blades?
(2) Plague Monks - You can either have 2 foetid blades or 1 foetid blade and a staff. The choice would be between 4 attacks that hit/would on 4+ that reroll all misses. Or 2 attacks that hit/would on 4+ and 1 attack that hits/woulds on 4+/5+. That isn't even an actual option and you would never take the staff.

I for one am in support of the idea that there should be actual give and take in your weapon choices and not a clear-cut winner in 90% of the situations for every unit. Without point costs, the options should be relatively balanced and allow you to make choices that best support your army synergy or unit battlefield role.

tldr: Double attacks follows a very specific reading of a rule and GW's inability to proofread/use plurals consistently. It also ignores context provided by other units and makes the two weapon choice vastly stronger than any other choice. For that reason I believe the attacks should not double and you simply get the special rule associated with the weapon.

I'm still confused about what to do when the warscroll description gives permission to wield a duplicate weapon.

To make things easier to compare, here's the Rend-0 equivalent Wounds for various combinations (Rend-0 equivalent just scales up the Wounds for a weapon with Rend -1/-2 so you can compare it to a Rend 0 weapon - it's not 100% correct because there's no difference if the target has a Save of '-', but that's fairly rare).

Unit Weapon R A H W R D R0 Dmg Dreadlord Chillblade 1 3 3 3 -1 d3 3.11 Dreadlord Exile Blade 1 6 3 4 0 1 2.00 Single Exile Blade Dreadlord Exile Bladex2 6 3rr1 2.33 Paired EB, Only attack once, reroll 1s (Exile Blades ability) Dreadlord Exile Bladex2 12 3rr1 4.67 Paired EB, Attack with each EB, AND reroll 1s (Exile Blades ability) Skaven WL WF Blade 1 3 3 3 -2 d3 3.56 Skaven WL War Halberd 2 3 3 3 -1 1 1.56 Skaven WL Barbed Blade 1 5 3 4 0 1 1.67 Skaven WL Halberd+BB 3.23 Combined damage from multi-weapon attacks Skaven WL Barbed Bladex2 5 3rr1 1.94 Paired BB, Only attack once, but reroll 1s of Flurry of Rusted Steel Skaven WL Barbed Bladex2 10 3rr1 3.89 Paired BB, Attack with each BB, AND reroll 1s of Flurry of Rusted Steel

Regardless of the "camp" you're in, something seems screwy here.

If you believe that you attack with BOTH paired weapons (ie, x2) the Skaven Warlord BBx2 wounds of 3.89 is in the same ballpark as the WarpForged Blade and Halberd+BB (Halberd has 2" range, so the discrepancy is reasonable). But, the Dreadlord is ludicrously OP with 4.67 for EBx2 versus 3.11 and 2.0 for the Chillblade and EBx1 respectively.

If you think that double attacks is not the way, then the Dreadlord looks about right with even(-ish) damage across the different loadouts. But the Skaven Warlord is ridiculously UNDER-powered with BBx2. Even with the rerolls of 1s to-hit, this loadout only does 1.94 wounds compared to 3.56 and 3.23 for the others.

I've got no idea anymore....

EDIT: I should clarify that the idea of Rend-0 Equivalent rules is not precise, because the value of Rend changes depending on the targets Save. For example, a Rend -1 Wound means 1/6 extra Save fails for targets with a Save, but makes absolutely no difference to a Target with Save '-'. Similarly, a -2 Rend allows an extra 2/6 Wounds to damage the target for targets with Saves <= 5, but only 1/6 extra for targets with Save 6. So Rend is a really nice mechanic, but it's game effect is variable based on the target. For my purposes, I assume the Rend delivers its full value - situationally, the actually damage that gets through is less than stated for lightly/no armoured targets. I just find it easier than talking about X Rend -1 Wounds and trying to do some mental calculations to see if that is more and less than Y Rend 0 wounds.

EDIT2: Fixed error in chart. Chillblade has 3+ Wound, not 4+ as I had in the original

What are the stats for WF blade attacking unarmoured? As you scale up wounds for rend-2. Would be interesting to see, as perhaps one is better at unarmoured targets?

That's really interesting, Snapshot. If you assume the dual barbed blades are meant to attack once for each blade (for ten total attacks), the dual blades perform ~40% better at mashing enemies with no save and the warpforged blade performs ~40% better at mashing enemies with a 3+ save. It seems like that particular model is balanced around attacking twice with the barbed blades.

So either this is an error and they should have added a "dual barbed blades" profile with 10 attacks, or there's some kind of axiom here that models that can wield different weapons in each hand should be able to attack with the same profile twice if they dual wield it.

ETA: kyrellification, Warpforged Blade deals 2.67 wounds against models with no save.

Yeah the WF blade seems a clear no brainer for damage output. Perhaps the buff for two was meant to be different but it went FUBAR. Maybe re-roll all misses or extra attacks like one of the Orc ones?

Who knows

kyrellification wrote:
What are the stats for WF blade attacking unarmoured? As you scale up wounds for rend-2. Would be interesting to see, as perhaps one is better at unarmoured targets?

Warpforged Blade does 2.67 vs models with no Save (ie, the Rend -2 is worth nothing to combat power). I have really only looked through a subset of the warscrolls, but I get the impression Save '-' is somewhat rare.

Oops, didn't realise question already answered...

Aeonotakist also made a good point. Lord Verminking from Skaven uses a Doom Glaive and a Plaguereaper. Lord Verminking gets 5, 5, 4, 4, 3 attacks with it (depending on how many wounds it has taken). The Verminlord Corruptor wields two Plaguereapers and gets 10, 9, 8, 7, 6 attacks with the them (depending on how many wounds it has taken). So the Verminking gets half the attacks with one Plaguereaper (rounding up) that the Corrupter gets with wielding two. Not only that but the Corrupter gets to reroll all failed hit rolls. To me this pretty much sums up how they meant the other units to be.

That's one of those situations where the rule (table) is making it explicit that the pair gives 2x attacks. I agree that it lends weight to the 2x attack for paired weapons though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In my ludicrously complicated in-house points system, I re-evaluated Liberators and they went from +1pt for Paired Warblades/hammers to +7pt. The base cost for a Libby in my system is 23pts. No surprise really, since "1-attack plus paired bonus" is substantially inferior to "2-attacks plus paired bonus". It happens that this is also the upgrade cost for Grandblade/hammers.

Gryph wrote:
Aeonotakist also made a good point. Lord Verminking from Skaven uses a Doom Glaive and a Plaguereaper. Lord Verminking gets 5, 5, 4, 4, 3 attacks with it (depending on how many wounds it has taken). The Verminlord Corruptor wields two Plaguereapers and gets 10, 9, 8, 7, 6 attacks with the them (depending on how many wounds it has taken). So the Verminking gets half the attacks with one Plaguereaper (rounding up) that the Corrupter gets with wielding two. Not only that but the Corrupter gets to reroll all failed hit rolls. To me this pretty much sums up how they meant the other units to be.

I believe that is a result of them attempting the balance the two different units (that come from the same kit and the only real difference is weapon loadouts) with each other in terms of useful and damage output. I do not believe this instance speaks to how they instead the weapons to work. It is also worth noting that this is one of the few times that in the model description it says it is armed with a pair of them and then makes those plural in the weapon listing table. The case for doubling the attacks would actually have been a lot stronger if this listing only had 5 attacks because then it would have been vastly under performing compared to the same model with a different loadout. If that was the case, it would have been a stronger point to say they intended you to double it for each weapon.

Snapshot wrote:

kyrellification wrote:
What are the stats for WF blade attacking unarmoured? As you scale up wounds for rend-2. Would be interesting to see, as perhaps one is better at unarmoured targets?

Warpforged Blade does 2.67 vs models with no Save (ie, the Rend -2 is worth nothing to combat power). I have really only looked through a subset of the warscrolls, but I get the impression Save '-' is somewhat rare.

Oops, didn't realise question already answered...

Yes but there are a lot of "immune to rend" models (all the ethereal for example)

It is still better to take WF blades though.

Killermonkey wrote:

Gryph wrote:
Aeonotakist also made a good point. Lord Verminking from Skaven uses a Doom Glaive and a Plaguereaper. Lord Verminking gets 5, 5, 4, 4, 3 attacks with it (depending on how many wounds it has taken). The Verminlord Corruptor wields two Plaguereapers and gets 10, 9, 8, 7, 6 attacks with the them (depending on how many wounds it has taken). So the Verminking gets half the attacks with one Plaguereaper (rounding up) that the Corrupter gets with wielding two. Not only that but the Corrupter gets to reroll all failed hit rolls. To me this pretty much sums up how they meant the other units to be.

I believe that is a result of them attempting the balance the two different units (that come from the same kit and the only real difference is weapon loadouts) with each other in terms of useful and damage output. I do not believe this instance speaks to how they instead the weapons to work. It is also worth noting that this is one of the few times that in the model description it says it is armed with a pair of them and then makes those plural in the weapon listing table. The case for doubling the attacks would actually have been a lot stronger if this listing only had 5 attacks because then it would have been vastly under performing compared to the same model with a different loadout. If that was the case, it would have been a stronger point to say they intended you to double it for each weapon.

If it only had 5 attacks in the weapon profile then it would be a stronger case for NOT doubling attacks as then it would show a prime example that when you get paired weapons you only get the bonus, not the extra attacks. But they went out of their way to quite obviously give it 2x attacks PLUS still give it the paired bonus of reroll all attacks.

As far as the warscroll making the weapon description plural, that is because the Plaguereapers can't be equipped with anything else such as a shield, or war halberd, or anything else. So there is no need to make it singular.

Finally, looking at Snapshot's damage chart, a Skaven Warlord with dual Barbed Blades (if it only gets the reroll 1s and not the added attacks) does under perform compared to the Barbed Blade and War Halberd. But when you look at doubling the attacks for having two and having re-roll 1s it comes on par with Barbed Blade and War Halberd. So saying they only doubled the Verminlord Corrupters attacks to make it on par with the Verminking's attacks but not doing the same for other models does not fit.

@Snapshot, also your calculation for the Dreadlord's Chillblade is incorrect. The W is 3+ not 4+. So it should be something closer to 2.66666... I know, not a big change.

Gryph wrote:

Killermonkey wrote:

Gryph wrote:
Aeonotakist also made a good point. Lord Verminking from Skaven uses a Doom Glaive and a Plaguereaper. Lord Verminking gets 5, 5, 4, 4, 3 attacks with it (depending on how many wounds it has taken). The Verminlord Corruptor wields two Plaguereapers and gets 10, 9, 8, 7, 6 attacks with the them (depending on how many wounds it has taken). So the Verminking gets half the attacks with one Plaguereaper (rounding up) that the Corrupter gets with wielding two. Not only that but the Corrupter gets to reroll all failed hit rolls. To me this pretty much sums up how they meant the other units to be.

I believe that is a result of them attempting the balance the two different units (that come from the same kit and the only real difference is weapon loadouts) with each other in terms of useful and damage output. I do not believe this instance speaks to how they instead the weapons to work. It is also worth noting that this is one of the few times that in the model description it says it is armed with a pair of them and then makes those plural in the weapon listing table. The case for doubling the attacks would actually have been a lot stronger if this listing only had 5 attacks because then it would have been vastly under performing compared to the same model with a different loadout. If that was the case, it would have been a stronger point to say they intended you to double it for each weapon.

If it only had 5 attacks in the weapon profile then it would be a stronger case for NOT doubling attacks as then it would show a prime example that when you get paired weapons you only get the bonus, not the extra attacks. But they went out of their way to quite obviously give it 2x attacks PLUS still give it the paired bonus of reroll all attacks.

As far as the warscroll making the weapon description plural, that is because the Plaguereapers can't be equipped with anything else such as a shield, or war halberd, or anything else. So there is no need to make it singular.

Finally, looking at Snapshot's damage chart, a Skaven Warlord with dual Barbed Blades (if it only gets the reroll 1s and not the added attacks) does under perform compared to the Barbed Blade and War Halberd. But when you look at doubling the attacks for having two and having re-roll 1s it comes on par with Barbed Blade and War Halberd. So saying they only doubled the Verminlord Corrupters attacks to make it on par with the Verminking's attacks but not doing the same for other models does not fit.

@Snapshot, also your calculation for the Dreadlord's Chillblade is incorrect. The W is 3+ not 4+. So it should be something closer to 2.66666... I know, not a big change.

Oops quite right, 2.67 Rend-1 Wounds. 3.11 Rend-0 wounds for anyone finds that comparison helpful. Will fix chart.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Can honestly say I won't play a game with someone trying for doubled attacks AND reroll bonuses. The scroll dictates what one weapon does, and lays out what adding a duplicate does. There is no RAW vs RAI here. There IS however RAIP*

*rules as interpreted poorly.

I agree. How many pages has this thread gone to on a point that is clearly spelled out on a Chaos Warrior scroll?

Relapse wrote:

I agree. How many pages has this thread gone to on a point that is clearly spelled out on a Chaos Warrior scroll?

Indeed, or the scroll for the Doombull
"Slaughter Storm: An extra weapon allows a Doombull to brutally hack through even more foes. A Doombull equipped with a pair of Doombull Axes makes 5 attacks instead of 4."

Well, when you get a poster who thinks it's better to block people who disagree with him and carry on with his near Mandle-Logic, the amount of fallacies will continue for a while, and occasionally other posters will fall under the sway of "I can get more attacks this way". We've even had someone contact GW and get an answer (yes, I realize that's not even usually "official", but this is a new game); and the answer was they don't stack. If a representative of the company says it's so...we should accept it as so.

I don't know how much clearer that Chaos Warrior scroll could be on the topic.

Relapse wrote:
I don't know how much clearer that Chaos Warrior scroll could be on the topic.

Oh, I know. But some people wouldn't admit there was a grizzly bear right in front of them, even if it swiped off their nose.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I don't know how much clearer that Chaos Warrior scroll could be on the topic.

Oh, I know. But some people wouldn't admit there was a grizzly bear right in front of them, even if it swiped off their nose.

The issue is that the rules are poorly written.

There are obvious rules benefits for taking two weapons. It seems obvious that GW intends us to get the same number of attacks as for one instance of a weapon and then add some special rules for the second instance.

BUT...

What they ACTUALLY wrote says that we base the number of attacks on the weapons we can attack with and that we can attack with every weapon we're equipped with. If I'm equipped with two hammers, per the core rules, I can attack with each hammer. there is NO rule telling me that I make a single set of attacks with both at the same time. If a hammer gets 3 attacks, I should get 3 for the first and 3 for the second. If I don't get 3 for the second, I've not attacked with it. I didn't make to hit, to wound, etc. rolls, so it can't have been an attack. That's how attacks are explained in the core rules. So, I know I can attack with it, but you're telling me I can't.

This is the issue. I'm 99.99% certain GW doesn't actually want us to attack with both weapons. I'm 99.99% certain they want us to only attack with one and gain a benefit from having a second equipped. BUT... this is not what they wrote. This needs an FAQ to clarify. The rules are poorly written.

This thread really needs a lock. This has boiled down to a yes/no argument.

For any new readers...

1. The intention seems to be that you get to make one set of attacks despite have two of the same weapons and that instead of a second set of attacks, you gain some other rules benefit as listed in your abilities.
2. Expect to see it played as above in every organized play event you go to.
3. Some people are ignoring tons and tons of circumstantial evidence and sticking with a very rigid interpretation of the rules to grant double attacks when two weapons are equipped.
4. The rules are written so vaguely that it's impossible to conclusively prove the people from point 3 wrong without an Errata or FAQ from GW.

I don't see this progressing any farther.

I get the feeling GW suffers from a translation issue. I remember reading a post about how the German rules were much clearer. A lot of lines in the rules would not get past an English technical writer. They are blatantly ambiguous. Wish they would figure that out. Does anyone know if the master draft of their rules are in English or another language?

I'd be extremely surprised if it wasn't English...

but that would explain everything

they use google translate or some poor guy to translation everthing to english

maybe they write everything in ork

 timetowaste85 wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I don't know how much clearer that Chaos Warrior scroll could be on the topic.

Oh, I know. But some people wouldn't admit there was a grizzly bear right in front of them, even if it swiped off their nose.

I think I am beginning to see why there are only four pages of rules if this is the amount of comment a clearly written war scroll can generate. I envision the next version to have one sentence of rules that goes along the lines of, "Do whatever the hell you feel like".

GW have never been any good at writing clearly.

I was only half way though the tread when I found a warscroll that might put the to rest so forgive me if its been said and didn't work.

The empire witch hunter has an option to dual wield pistols, and the bonus it gets for wielding 2 is getting 2 attacks, instead of the 1 on the weapon profile.

This says to me that it should be weapon profile once plus bonus. Otherwise the bonus for the witch hunter is essentially saying "you get 2 attacks instead of your 2 attacks"

 DarbNilbirts wrote:
I was only half way though the tread when I found a warscroll that might put the to rest so forgive me if its been said and didn't work.

The empire witch hunter has an option to dual wield pistols, and the bonus it gets for wielding 2 is getting 2 attacks, instead of the 1 on the weapon profile.

This says to me that it should be weapon profile once plus bonus. Otherwise the bonus for the witch hunter is essentially saying "you get 2 attacks instead of your 2 attacks"

There are a few more like that as well, such as the Doombull, and have been referenced.

Certain parties still argue that the number of Attacks will be referenced based on the carried Weapons first, and then special rules second. There is no complete basis for this, as the number of Attacks by a Weapon is a set number, even if you have two or more. It is the Abilities which then provide a use for multiple/paired Weapons or expand the number of Attacks.

Charistoph wrote:
There are a few more like that as well, such as the Doombull, and have been referenced.

Certain parties still argue that the number of Attacks will be referenced based on the carried Weapons first, and then special rules second. There is no complete basis for this, as the number of Attacks by a Weapon is a set number, even if you have two or more. It is the Abilities which then provide a use for multiple/paired Weapons or expand the number of Attacks.

That's your personal opinion. RAW does not say that and you still haven't provided any quote that supports your own stance - otherwise we wouldn't be here discussing it.

Vetril wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
There are a few more like that as well, such as the Doombull, and have been referenced.

Certain parties still argue that the number of Attacks will be referenced based on the carried Weapons first, and then special rules second. There is no complete basis for this, as the number of Attacks by a Weapon is a set number, even if you have two or more. It is the Abilities which then provide a use for multiple/paired Weapons or expand the number of Attacks.

That's your personal opinion. RAW does not say that and you still haven't provided any quote that supports your own stance - otherwise we wouldn't be here discussing it.

Actually, it DOES say that the number of Attacks by a Weapon is the from the profile. I will admit that the "even if you have two or more" is added on by myself, but the statement is not excluded, either. It is a matter of perspective, and one I've tried to get people to understand. It does not tell you to use that Attacks profile twice, so you do not have permission to do so.

I'm not going to be dragged into this discussion again. I think you are plain wrong. People can read the rules themselves and figure it out.

Charistoph wrote:

Vetril wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
There are a few more like that as well, such as the Doombull, and have been referenced.

Certain parties still argue that the number of Attacks will be referenced based on the carried Weapons first, and then special rules second. There is no complete basis for this, as the number of Attacks by a Weapon is a set number, even if you have two or more. It is the Abilities which then provide a use for multiple/paired Weapons or expand the number of Attacks.

That's your personal opinion. RAW does not say that and you still haven't provided any quote that supports your own stance - otherwise we wouldn't be here discussing it.

Actually, it DOES say that the number of Attacks by a Weapon is the from the profile. I will admit that the "even if you have two or more" is added on by myself, but the statement is not excluded, either. It is a matter of perspective, and one I've tried to get people to understand. It does not tell you to use that Attacks profile twice, so you do not have permission to do so.

And again, you aren't using the attacks profile twice for a single weapon. Nobody is saying that. You're using it once each for two different weapons.

Round and round we go.

"you get 2 attacks instead of your 2 attacks." people are not addressing this? Attack doubling camp?

Rule is blatantly clear. You don't double attacks. Any benefits of doubling weapons are in the special rules on the scroll. Boom. End thread now.

Maybe someone can go play the models in question at Warhammer World for a big event, ask for a rules judge, (and assuming they just don't say roll a 4+) maybe get an answer? Maybe also make some GW redshirts head explode. Good either way.

 Kriswall wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
Actually, it DOES say that the number of Attacks by a Weapon is the from the profile. I will admit that the "even if you have two or more" is added on by myself, but the statement is not excluded, either. It is a matter of perspective, and one I've tried to get people to understand. It does not tell you to use that Attacks profile twice, so you do not have permission to do so.

And again, you aren't using the attacks profile twice for a single weapon. Nobody is saying that. You're using it once each for two different weapons.

Round and round we go.

And again, that is NOT what I said.

I believe the comment about the warscroll that says you get two attacks instead of one when you have two of the same weapon is very important to this topic, is it not? There is no.reason for it to say that if it was already the norm. Kind of feel like that puts a stake through this ones heart. Double attacks is shown to be a no.

The witch hunter scroll is a great piece of evidence. It seems that the way it's intended to work is you use the scroll entry once. That said, we also know of models like the Skaven Warlord that have a particular option that's insanely weak compared to its other loadouts if you assume you can only attack once with the weapon and balanced with them if you assume it attacks once with each hand.

I might have asked this earlier, but are there any other models that have loadout options similar to the Skaven Warlord's? It can take:

a) Big two-handed weapon
b) One-handed weapon A + one-handed weapon B
c) One-handed weapon B times two

It's possible there's an axiom here that models that have the option of both b) and c) expect the model to attack twice with its weapon for c). I'm curious if there are any other models that fit into these categories that we could analyse in the same way as the Skaven Warlord back on page 6. The alternative is that the Skaven Warlord is a unique oversight.

I can tell you categorically that if you were playing at a GW event, they would inform you that you do not get double attacks, just the special rule.

So if you use weapon A + weapon B, more attacks. Two weapon C, no extra attacks.

Makes sense (not).

Vetril wrote:
So if you use weapon A + weapon B, more attacks. Two weapon C, no extra attacks.

Makes sense (not).

you get extra attacks if there is a special rule that says so, like the orc or the witch hutner or a doombull
or you just hit better like everyone else with 2 weapons c

PenPen wrote:

Vetril wrote:
So if you use weapon A + weapon B, more attacks. Two weapon C, no extra attacks.

Makes sense (not).

you get extra attacks if there is a special rule that says so, like the orc or the witch hutner or a doombull
or you just hit better like everyone else with 2 weapons c

He's making the point that if the Warlord has a Halberd and Blade, then it can make the full Attacks with both Weapons, which is correct, and that it is stupid, which is also correct in that this model is allowed this option in the first place.

Vetril wrote:
So if you use weapon A + weapon B, more attacks. Two weapon C, no extra attacks.

Makes sense (not).

Well, no. But that's not the choices. If you purposefully phrase things to not make sense, they don't

A+B = use both weapons
A+A = use one weapon plus special ability.

...It's exactly what I wrote?

 mikhaila wrote:

Vetril wrote:
So if you use weapon A + weapon B, more attacks. Two weapon C, no extra attacks.

Makes sense (not).

Well, no. But that's not the choices. If you purposefully phrase things to not make sense, they don't

A+B = use both weapons
A+A = use one weapon plus special ability.

I 100% agree this is the intent. It's how I'm playing it and it's how everyone I know is playing it. I think this is just another example of poor rules writing. The obvious intent is that A+A = use one weapon plus special ability. The actual rules seem to support A+A = use both weapons plus special ability. I think that's an oversight and an FAQ (not holding breath) would clear this up.

You guys might want to just give up. At this point you're arguing with a troll. He's never going to play it right, no matter what any of us tell him. He's going to stick fingers in his ears, ignore us all, and drive away any opponents who want to play correctly. Let him piss off all players he encounters, we should all just keep playing correctly, and ignore cheaters like this.

 Kriswall wrote:
The actual rules seem to support A+A = use both weapons plus special ability.

To be fair, it only works that way if you choose to look at it that way.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
You guys might want to just give up. At this point you're arguing with a troll. He's never going to play it right, no matter what any of us tell him. He's going to stick fingers in his ears, ignore us all, and drive away any opponents who want to play correctly. Let him piss off all players he encounters, we should all just keep playing correctly, and ignore cheaters like this.

I hope you're not talking about me. I've said over and over that I would play it one weapon plus ability even though I think RaW supports both weapons. My feeling is that this is poor rules writing that needs an errata to be more clear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Charistoph wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
The actual rules seem to support A+A = use both weapons plus special ability.

To be fair, it only works that way if you choose to look at it that way.

That's generally how interpretation works.

We can probably all dial it down a notch or two yes ?

thank you !

 Kriswall wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
You guys might want to just give up. At this point you're arguing with a troll. He's never going to play it right, no matter what any of us tell him. He's going to stick fingers in his ears, ignore us all, and drive away any opponents who want to play correctly. Let him piss off all players he encounters, we should all just keep playing correctly, and ignore cheaters like this.

I hope you're not talking about me. I've said over and over that I would play it one weapon plus ability even though I think RaW supports both weapons. My feeling is that this is poor rules writing that needs an errata to be more clear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Charistoph wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
The actual rules seem to support A+A = use both weapons plus special ability.

To be fair, it only works that way if you choose to look at it that way.

That's generally how interpretation works.

I'm not talking about you. I play it the same way as you. 1 weapon plus the bonus awarded for taking a second. As does everyone I've talked to in real life.

The problem with GW rules is that you have people who purposefully misconstrue their intent and look for anything they can turn into a loophole. Guess how many YMDC issues I had in 6th when we didn't have wide range access to Internet and people to pick apart every written letter in a book and share with the world. That's right, the answer is "none". Flash forward to today, and you get readers who are deliberately obtuse about it, and even with evidence and a majority rule will say "nope, no evidence; two identical weapons give you double attacks and a bonus". Despite rules on the cards telling you EXACTLY what happens when you get duplicate weapons in the bonus rule section. And despite someone on here saying a quick call to GW sorted it out (but the poster in question agreed to that ruling for enough time to post an agreement, then went right back to his old ways).

People looking to cheat in this way, and in ways similar to the Screaming Bell/Kairos thing (which doesn't/can't work at all) are what makes the wargaming hobby less enjoyable. Well, ok, the Kairos thing could be fun. Because GW literally gave permission on the SB card to brand somebody who cheats in this method. Time to bring a brand that says "cheat" and a blow torch to every game. Let's see somebody try it...

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I'm not talking about you. I play it the same way as you. 1 weapon plus the bonus awarded for taking a second. As does everyone I've talked to in real life.

The problem with GW rules is that you have people who purposefully misconstrue their intent and look for anything they can turn into a loophole. Guess how many YMDC issues I had in 6th when we didn't have wide range access to Internet and people to pick apart every written letter in a book and share with the world. That's right, the answer is "none". Flash forward to today, and you get readers who are deliberately obtuse about it, and even with evidence and a majority rule will say "nope, no evidence; two identical weapons give you double attacks and a bonus". Despite rules on the cards telling you EXACTLY what happens when you get duplicate weapons in the bonus rule section. And despite someone on here saying a quick call to GW sorted it out (but the poster in question agreed to that ruling for enough time to post an agreement, then went right back to his old ways).

People looking to cheat in this way, and in ways similar to the Screaming Bell/Kairos thing (which doesn't/can't work at all) are what makes the wargaming hobby less enjoyable. Well, ok, the Kairos thing could be fun. Because GW literally gave permission on the SB card to brand somebody who cheats in this method. Time to bring a brand that says "cheat" and a blow torch to every game. Let's see somebody try it...

I think this is where you're being unfair and ignoring an entire class of player. I'm a perfect example as I don't fit into your above statements.

I would play one weapon plus ability as I think that's the likely intent. HOWEVER, I do read RaW to allow both weapons plus ability. I'm not "purposefully misconstruing" anything. I'm not looking 'for anything I can turn into a loophole'. I'm not being 'deliberately obtuse'. I'm not "looking to cheat". I also don't care what the majority opinion is. The mob is not always right. The mob is just generally louder. What I'm looking to do is get an accurate picture of what the rules ACTUALLY say, compare that to what GW PROBABLY MEANT and then ask for an FAQ or Errata to clear things up if necessary.

We effectively have two rules in play paraphrased below.

Rule #1 - If a model is equipped with more than one weapon, that model can make attacks with each weapon in turn. To make an attack, roll a number of to hit dice equal to the weapon's attack characteristic.

Rule #2 - This varies per model, but is generally written as 'If a model is equipped with two of the same weapon, add this additional benefit'.

I have yet to see a rule #2 that says something like "If a model is equipped with two of the same weapon, INSTEAD OF MAKING ATTACKS WITH THE SECOND WEAPON, add this additional benefit."

That's my issue. I think GW forgot wording telling us not to make the second set of attacks. There is no 'instead' telling us to replace the attacks with a special benefit. In the absence of an 'instead', I assume it's an ADDED benefit on top of the normal attacks that I would get for attacking with both weapons.

I have yet to see anyone explain where the extra attacks go if we're never told NOT to make them or to INSTEAD do something else. We're effectively told to do A and B and there seems to be an implied understanding that being told to do B overrides A. I'm just looking for some wording to back up NOT making the attacks.

If you treat it like twin-linked (you know, like a twin weapon ), it works in an IDENTICAL fashion. Hit with what you hit with, and reroll the misses.

Again: someone has called GW. And has gotten a response. With how much GW is pushing their staff to know so much about AoS to train everyone, I'm hopeful their phone people got a bit of info on the matter as well.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
If you treat it like twin-linked (you know, like a twin weapon ), it works in an IDENTICAL fashion. Hit with what you hit with, and reroll the misses.

Again: someone has called GW. And has gotten a response. With how much GW is pushing their staff to know so much about AoS to train everyone, I'm hopeful their phone people got a bit of info on the matter as well.

Well, it's not a twin-linked weapon. It's two weapons. A Tau Crisis Suit with a single twin-linked Fusion Blaster makes 1 shot with a re-roll. A Tau Crisis Suit with two Fusion Blasters makes 2 shots, not 1 with a re-roll. Your analogy is bad. If I treated the Crisis Suit with two Fusion Blasters like twin-linked (you know, like a twin weapon), then I'd be playing it wrong.

Also, calling GW is well known to be useless. The guy on the phone has no more insight then you do. I used to work for GW. I guess that makes my opinion 'more correct'! (joking) The only useful comment from GW is from the authors in either an interview (never happens) or in the form of an official FAQ/Errata. I'm fairly certain the 40k You Make Da Call forum tenants say that calls or emails to GW aren't useful evidence of how rules work.

Does the tau fusion gun, when douboed, get two attacks, plus refilling fails? I somehow doubt it, otherwise you'd have mentioned it. So that argument is also flawed. This is something new. All we have is what is on the scrolls. And the scrolls blatantly say "this is what you get when you run duplicate weapons". I feel the scrolls, if they intended to gain the additional attacks, would say something like the following: "in addition to an increase in attacks, you may also reroll failed rolls to hit". Boom. Would end all argument. But they don't. So the only logical thing is to take the scroll exactly at its word. You get X attacks when you field one axe
Duplicate axes: reroll failed rolls to hit when you equip with a second axe

This is what we get. It's not written in Swahili. It's written in English (at least my version is).

GW is toting this as a simple, stripped down game. The simple thing is reading exactly what is on the scrolls and doing it. The complicated thing is changing and adding things that aren't clearly written. Which becomes the argument of doing exactly what is on the scrolls or house ruling.

And if you worked for GW while they were pushing knowledge of the rules on everyone who worked for them, I'd have probably agreed to you being an authoritative figure on the subject. But from your tone, it ended a while ago. So you're just one of us at this point.

& again, the sole thing that makes this interesting is if you run the numbers, which Games Workshop's designers presumably did when they designed the miniature's rules, the Skaven Warlord's three weapon options are all diverse and balanced as long as you assume it makes attacks with each of the dual blades and benefits from the special rule. If you only allow it to make one attack, benefiting from the special rule, the dual blades option is about half as strong as the other two.

However, since nobody has brought forwards another model that works the same way with the same issue, it seems the Skaven Warlord is probably just an error and should be played as if the rule allows it to attack a second time with the weapon profile as well as rerolling 1s. There is plenty of evidence that you're meant to, in general, play that you only use the profile once, like the orc warboss and the witch hunter, as well as the legions of models that would have wildly off internal balance if dual wielding let them attack twice, like Liberators.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Does the tau fusion gun, when douboed, get two attacks, plus refilling fails? I somehow doubt it, otherwise you'd have mentioned it. So that argument is also flawed.

I already agreed that your twin-linking example is a bad example. There is no rule telling me I get to re-roll when I have two of the same weapon in 40k, so I'm not even sure why you brought up the example. It's not actually a similar situation.

This is something new. All we have is what is on the scrolls. And the scrolls blatantly say "this is what you get when you run duplicate weapons". I feel the scrolls, if they intended to gain the additional attacks, would say something like the following: "in addition to an increase in attacks, you may also reroll failed rolls to hit".

So, you need a comment attached to every section of a warscroll saying 'in addition to following the core rules, do this'? Seems unnecessary. I think there is a default expectation that you follow the core rules. Also, I'm not sure you're understanding. If I'm equipped with two Axes and each Axe gets 2 attacks, I'm never saying you should 'increase' your attacks value to 4. You'd make 2 attacks with one of the Axes and then you'd make 2 attacks with the other Axe just as you would if you had two different weapons. There is no wording anywhere telling me not to make attacks with the second Axe. If you disagree, cite examples telling me not to attack with a second weapon.

Boom. Would end all argument. But they don't. So the only logical thing is to take the scroll exactly at its word. You get X attacks when you field one axe
Duplicate axes: reroll failed rolls to hit when you equip with a second axe

Agreed. Do exactly what the rules say. The core rules say to make a number of attacks equal to the attacks characteristics of each weapon I'm equipped with. A given warscroll might introduce an additional benefit for using multiples of the same weapon.

Why aren't you following the core rules? What specific, unambiguous wording are you using to NOT make attacks with a weapon you're equipped with? You haven't answered this question. Feel free to use literally any warscroll as an example.

This is what we get. It's not written in Swahili. It's written in English (at least my version is).

GW is toting this as a simple, stripped down game. The simple thing is reading exactly what is on the scrolls and doing it. The complicated thing is changing and adding things that aren't clearly written. Which becomes the argument of doing exactly what is on the scrolls or house ruling.

And if you worked for GW while they were pushing knowledge of the rules on everyone who worked for them, I'd have probably agreed to you being an authoritative figure on the subject. But from your tone, it ended a while ago. So you're just one of us at this point.

Just as an FYI, the direction has historically been 'you'll probably be getting lots of questions about the new rules, so make sure you read them'. I know current GW employees (including people who answer phones and email) and that's still what they're getting. There is no real 'training' on how the rules work. The GW employees outside the rules studio gain their understanding the same way we do... reading the rules.

Again - I play this as single weapon plus benefit and think GW needs to issue an FAQ/Errata to clarify their intent. That's my end game here. This is not a cut and dried situation.

rules

Step 2: Each model in the unit attacks with
all of the melee weapons it is armed with
(see Attacking)

ATTACKING
Blows hammer down upon the foe,
in icting bloody wounds.
When a unit attacks, you must first pick the
target units for the attacks that the models
in the unit will make, then make all of the
attacks, and finally in‘ ict any resulting
damage on the target units.
the number of attacks a model can make is
determined by the weapons that it is armed
with. the weapon options a model has are
listed in its description on its warscroll.
Missile weapons can be used in the shooting
phase, and melee weapons can be used in
the combat phase. the number of attacks
a model can make is equal to the Attacks
characteristic for the weapons it can use.

last part in bold
the number of attacks a model can make is equal to the Attacks characteristic for the weapons it can use
dont stop reading at
Step 2: Each model in the unit attacks with all of the melee weapons it is armed with

i have 1 sword, can i use sword?
i have 2 swords, can i use sword?
i have 14 arms with 14 swords, can i use sword?
i have 1 sword, 1 halbert and 1 dagger on my tail, can i use sword, halbert and dagger?
i have 6 legs, 1 claw and 1 big fething sword, can i use legs, claw and big fething sword?

So again, where does it say you actually don't attack with all the weapons?

This was posted on page 1 btw.

maybe its a problem with me and my knowledge of the english language

rules say you attack with all weapons you have, lets say 2 swords
now the rules say "the number of attacks a model can make is equal to the Attacks characteristic for the weapons it can use"
i have 2 swords, so i think i can use sword right?
now i look at the number of attacks for sword, lets say 6 attacks
i get 6 attacks with 2 swords

lets try this
i have 1 sword and 1 mace
now the rules say "the number of attacks a model can make is equal to the Attacks characteristic for the weapons it can use"
i have 1 sword and 1 mace, so i think i can use sword and i can use mace
now i look at the number of attacks for sword, lets say 6 attacks
now i look at the number of attacks for mace, lets say 6 attacks
i get 12 attacks with 1 sword and 1 mace

it doesnt matter how many swords i have, i could have 100 swords and it would still be what weapons can it use
how many weapons do you need to be able to use a weapon? 1+

i never say you arent attacking with all your weapons
if you have 1+ weapons of the same type, you can use that type and that type gives you a number of attacks

I think it's obvious that your grasp of the English language is better than some native speakers...

What I question is the reason why you only assign 6 attacks with 2 swords.
If the sword has a profile with 6 attacks, and you have 2, when you attack with both you roll 6 dice for the first and 6 dice for the second. 12 attacks, not 6. Which is how it works with all the other combinations of weapons.
What I don't get is the logical leap that makes people say "oh if you have 2 weapons of the same kind you don't attack with both because you reroll 1s / you can only refer to a weapon profile once" - even though the rules tell you to attack with both.
You guys have no problem taking the extra attacks if the model has 2 different weapons, why does it become a no-no if the weapons are the same?
"Because that loadout would be much better" is not a good reason in a game without points. Let's say it is, so what? The opponent will take more models to balance it out - and how do you know that's not the way they designed it?
You assume all loadouts must be equivalent, but that's just that - your own assumption.

maybe because there are special rules with 2 weapons that make no sense with double attacks

maybe because we dont stop reading the rules at attack with both

yes you attack with both weapons, but the number of attacks you get is equal to the attacks characteristics of the weapons you can use
you have 2 swords, you can use sword, sword has 6 attacks, you get 6 attacks because you can use sword, the end,
there is no rule that says "the number of attacks you get is equal to the attacks characteristics of the weapons you can use multiplide by the number of weapons"
you could have 4 arms with 4 swords, wouldn'T chance the fact that you can use sword and get 6 attacks for can use sword

And again, making no excuses for how people perceive it to be written, I can tell you that the GW studio play 2*weapon = single weapon plus special rule.

Your argument that it makes no difference in a game without points is coming at it from the wrong angle.
There are trade-offs in 99%+ of all weapon options. That there are a couple of cases where there is still an objectively better option does not mean that all choices are intended to be so.

PenPen wrote:
rules

Step 2: Each model in the unit attacks with
all of the melee weapons it is armed with
(see Attacking)

ATTACKING
Blows hammer down upon the foe,
in icting bloody wounds.
When a unit attacks, you must first pick the
target units for the attacks that the models
in the unit will make, then make all of the
attacks, and finally in‘ ict any resulting
damage on the target units.
the number of attacks a model can make is
determined by the weapons that it is armed
with. the weapon options a model has are
listed in its description on its warscroll.
Missile weapons can be used in the shooting
phase, and melee weapons can be used in
the combat phase. the number of attacks
a model can make is equal to the Attacks
characteristic for the weapons it can use.

last part in bold
the number of attacks a model can make is equal to the Attacks characteristic for the weapons it can use
dont stop reading at
Step 2: Each model in the unit attacks with all of the melee weapons it is armed with

i have 1 sword, can i use sword?
i have 2 swords, can i use sword?
i have 14 arms with 14 swords, can i use sword?
i have 1 sword, 1 halbert and 1 dagger on my tail, can i use sword, halbert and dagger?
i have 6 legs, 1 claw and 1 big fething sword, can i use legs, claw and big fething sword?

Your interpretation assumes both swords are the same weapon.

Let's call my two Swords Stabbers and Sharps McGee for ease of differentiation.

"Each model in the unit attacks with all of the melee weapons it is armed with."
"The number of attacks a model can make is equal to the Attacks characteristic for the weapons it can use."

Am I armed with Stabbers? Per the Description, Yes.
Can I attack with Stabbers? Per the first quoted rule, Yes.
Does this mean I can use Stabbers? Per the first quoted rule, Yes.
Does this mean I make a number of attacks equal to Stabber's Attacks characteristic when in combat? Per the second quoted rule, Yes.

Am I armed with Sharps McGee? Yes.
Can I attack with Sharps McGee? Yes.
Does this mean I can use Sharps McGee? Yes.
Does this mean I make a number of attacks equal to Sharps McGee's Attacks characteristic when in combat? Per the second quoted rule, Yes.

You need to quote a specific, unambiguous rule telling me that the core rules don't apply to Sharps McGee. It's a weapon I'm armed with and I can use it in combat.

so your argument is that 2 different weapons that are named different and have different profiles give more attacks
than 2 same weapons who have same profil, but get extra rules for more attacks or rerolls
and the rules are wrong?

If they're not 'the same weapon', quote me the specific, unambiguous rule that shows both different swords on the same warscrolls.

PenPen wrote:
so your argument is that 2 different weapons that are named different and have different profiles give more attacks
than 2 same weapons who have same profil, but get extra rules for more attacks or rerolls
and the rules are wrong?

I don't know, you're the one saying a model that has 2 axes can't attack with both because they are both called axes. That's mental contortionism.

RoperPG, do you know a GW designer or something?

RoperPG wrote:
If they're not 'the same weapon', quote me the specific, unambiguous rule that shows both different swords on the same warscrolls.

Here's an example from the Warriors of Chaos Warscroll...

"Some units eschew defence, hefting double handed Chaos Greatblades or entering into battle with a Chaos Hand Weapon in each hand."

Is it your contention that the specific Warrior has the same, actual, physical weapon in both hands? Look at the model, dude. It's clearly two distinct weapons. Just because they're the same weapon type doesn't change that there are two of them present.

I want to be very clear. If a model is equipped with a weapon in each of its two hands, how many weapons is it armed with?

Vetril wrote:RoperPG, do you know a GW designer or something?

I asked a guy I know how his friends at work play this rule, and where they work makes it authoritative enough for me.
But I'm fully aware this is just words on the internet, so no more or less effective as evidence than saying "this! Because banana!"

Kriswall wrote:

RoperPG wrote:
If they're not 'the same weapon', quote me the specific, unambiguous rule that shows both different swords on the same warscrolls.

Here's an example from the Warriors of Chaos Warscroll...

"Some units eschew defence, hefting double handed Chaos Greatblades or entering into battle with a Chaos Hand Weapon in each hand."

Is it your contention that the specific Warrior has the same, actual, physical weapon in both hands? Look at the model, dude. It's clearly two distinct weapons. Just because they're the same weapon type doesn't change that there are two of them present.

I want to be very clear. If a model is equipped with a weapon in each of its two hands, how many weapons is it armed with?

Sorry, I was being a little flippant.
Of course a model with two swords has two swords, but the question is how the rules interpret that.
The rules are unfortunately not explicit enough to withstand legal scrutiny.
But in the absence of absolute, then all we have is reasonable doubt.
There are enough variations on the 'if you have a pair of x' that, when taken as a whole, indicate where the intent is.

But that's only suitable if you're happy to accept you won't get it in stone any time soon.

RoperPG wrote:

Vetril wrote:RoperPG, do you know a GW designer or something?

I asked a guy I know how his friends at work play this rule, and where they work makes it authoritative enough for me.
But I'm fully aware this is just words on the internet, so no more or less effective as evidence than saying "this! Because banana!"

Kriswall wrote:

RoperPG wrote:
If they're not 'the same weapon', quote me the specific, unambiguous rule that shows both different swords on the same warscrolls.

Here's an example from the Warriors of Chaos Warscroll...

"Some units eschew defence, hefting double handed Chaos Greatblades or entering into battle with a Chaos Hand Weapon in each hand."

Is it your contention that the specific Warrior has the same, actual, physical weapon in both hands? Look at the model, dude. It's clearly two distinct weapons. Just because they're the same weapon type doesn't change that there are two of them present.

I want to be very clear. If a model is equipped with a weapon in each of its two hands, how many weapons is it armed with?

Sorry, I was being a little flippant.
Of course a model with two swords has two swords, but the question is how the rules interpret that.
The rules are unfortunately not explicit enough to withstand legal scrutiny.
But in the absence of absolute, then all we have is reasonable doubt.
There are enough variations on the 'if you have a pair of x' that, when taken as a whole, indicate where the intent is.

But that's only suitable if you're happy to accept you won't get it in stone any time soon.

Yes, yes, yes. There is tons of circumstantial evidence leading us to believe that GW's intent was to give models with two of the same weapon a special ability INSTEAD of following the standard core rules and making attacks with both weapons. I'm not disputing the intent. Intent seems pretty clear.

I'm saying the rules NEVER tell me NOT to make attacks with the second weapon. It's simply not there. There hasn't been a single citation from ANY warscroll telling me that INSTEAD of making attacks as normal, I get a benefit.

I think this is a problem that needs to be addressed with an FAQ or Errata.

The rules are super explicit. You just keep letting perceived intent color your interpretation.

1. Do the rules tell me what a model is armed with? Absolutely. It's in each warscroll's description section. "The description tells you what weapons the model can be armed with, and what upgrades (if any) it can be given."
2. Do the rules tell me what weapons I can attack with? Absolutely. It's in the Combat section. "Each model in the unit attacks with all of the melee weapons it is armed with (see Attacking)."
3. Do the rules tell me how many attacks total I get? Absolutely. It's in the Attacking section. "The number of attacks a model can make is determined by the weapons that it is armed with." ... "The number of attacks a model can make is equal to the Attacks characteristic for the weapons it can use." - I think this is the sticking point. More on that below.
4. Do the rules tell me how to make the attacks once I know how many to make? Absolutely. There is a whole section called Making Attacks.

Now, let's consider Johnny Badman. He's a bog standard Warrior of Chaos. He has a Chaos Hand Weapon in his left hand and a Chaos Hand Weapon in his right hand. The Attacks characteristic for a Chaos Hand Weapon is 2.

So...

1. Do the rules tell me what Johnny Badman is armed with? Absolutely. He's armed with two Chaos Hand Weapons.
2. Do the rules tell me what weapons he can attack with? Absolutely. He can attack with two Chaos Hand Weapons.
3. Do the rules tell me how many attacks total he gets? Absolutely. I'm explicitly told that he can use both Chaos Hand Weapons when he's attacking as he's armed with both. The number of attacks he gets is equal to the Attacks characteristics for the weapons he can use. He can use two weapons. The Attacks characteristic for the first is 2. The Attacks characteristic for the second is 2. Adding 2 and 2 gives 4. He'll make 4 total attacks... 2 with the first weapon's profile (Chaos Hand Weapons) and 2 with the second weapon's profile (Chaos Hand Weapon).
4. Do the rules tell him how to make the attacks once he know how many to make? Absolutely. There is a whole section called Making Attacks.

The fact that his special ability gives him a benefit when using two of the same weapon is somehow being interpreted as a RaW instruction to not make attacks with the second weapon as per the core rules. Here is his rule... "Berserk Fury - Warriors of Chaos who wield a blade in each hand batter aside the enemy's defences. You can re-roll hit rolls of 1 for Warriors of Chaos wielding a pair of Chaos Hand Weapons." You'll note a total absence of wording telling me not to make attacks with a weapon my model is armed with.

So...

Answer these questions with yes or no.

Is my Warrior armed with two weapons? Yes or No.
Can be attack with both weapons? Yes or No.
Does the Berserk Fury ability tell me NOT to attack with both weapons? Yes or No.

Other than intangible, perceived intent, why are you ignoring the core rules telling you to make attacks with a weapon one of your models is armed with?

End thought... the rules don't appear to match with GW's community perceived intent. They need to add wording that a model can't make attacks with multiples of the same weapon. Any benefits for using multiples of the same weapon will be listed on a unit's warscroll.

 Kriswall wrote:
The rules are super explicit. You just keep letting perceived intent color your interpretation.

As are you. You are perceiving that the number of Weapons carried by the model are the last word, and not just one of the words.

 Kriswall wrote:
Answer these questions with yes or no.

I'm going to go with "no". Largely because these aren't actually Yes or No questions when dealing with the Warscrolls.

 Kriswall wrote:
Does the Berserk Fury ability tell me NOT to attack with both weapons? Yes or No.

Actually, I think it DEFINES how to Attack with two of the same Weapon.

 Kriswall wrote:
Other than intangible, perceived intent, why are you ignoring the core rules telling you to make attacks with a weapon one of your models is armed with?

No, it's not intangible. The entire Warscroll defines the situation, not just the Description. In order for this to work as a doubling of Attacks, one must accept that the number of Weapons a model carries is the final word. Yet, nothing actually states that. In fact, the phrasing from both the Rules and the Warscrolls in question definitely indicate a different definition than what you are espousing.

You have two of the same Weapon. The Weapon generates Attacks according to the profile. Nothing says you can or are to use this profile twice. Indeed, the phrasing for the Attacks generated could just as easily mean that ALL Attacks from that Weapon, no matter the quantity, are specifically listed in the Profile.

 Kriswall wrote:
End thought... the rules don't appear to match with GW's community perceived intent. They need to add wording that a model can't make attacks with multiples of the same weapon. Any benefits for using multiples of the same weapon will be listed on a unit's warscroll.

Only if you look at it in a very limited point of view which allows the Description to have ultimate authority instead of being just one part of the picture. It has two of the same Weapon, so I can use the Profile twice, even though the definition of what I do when the model has two of the same Weapon says to do something else.

Well, I agree with the intent and that's how I would play it, so this is sort of a moot discussion.

Ultimately, I think we need an FAQ/Errata to clarify that the various special abilities replace the core rules instead of adding to them.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Does the tau fusion gun, when douboed, get two attacks, plus refilling fails? I somehow doubt it, otherwise you'd have mentioned it. So that argument is also flawed. This is something new. All we have is what is on the scrolls. And the scrolls blatantly say "this is what you get when you run duplicate weapons". I feel the scrolls, if they intended to gain the additional attacks, would say something like the following: "in addition to an increase in attacks, you may also reroll failed rolls to hit". Boom. Would end all argument. But they don't. So the only logical thing is to take the scroll exactly at its word. You get X attacks when you field one axe
Duplicate axes: reroll failed rolls to hit when you equip with a second axe

This is what we get. It's not written in Swahili. It's written in English (at least my version is).

GW is toting this as a simple, stripped down game. The simple thing is reading exactly what is on the scrolls and doing it. The complicated thing is changing and adding things that aren't clearly written. Which becomes the argument of doing exactly what is on the scrolls or house ruling.

And if you worked for GW while they were pushing knowledge of the rules on everyone who worked for them, I'd have probably agreed to you being an authoritative figure on the subject. But from your tone, it ended a while ago. So you're just one of us at this point.

Actually it's still flawed. Remenber one case, verminlord A uses pleague glaive and verminglord B uses pleague glaiveS and got different attack.
If we follow what exactly said by GW in 4 pages, the pair weapons rule just does not exist in the scroll. Because they have to get a seperate line for 'XXX weaponS' (and they really did in a few scrolls)
If we are really strict about rule, we should ban that option no matter it is written in description or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vetril wrote:
What I question is the reason why you only assign 6 attacks with 2 swords.
If the sword has a profile with 6 attacks, and you have 2, when you attack with both you roll 6 dice for the first and 6 dice for the second. 12 attacks, not 6. Which is how it works with all the other combinations of weapons.
What I don't get is the logical leap that makes people say "oh if you have 2 weapons of the same kind you don't attack with both because you reroll 1s / you can only refer to a weapon profile once" - even though the rules tell you to attack with both.
You guys have no problem taking the extra attacks if the model has 2 different weapons, why does it become a no-no if the weapons are the same?
"Because that loadout would be much better" is not a good reason in a game without points. Let's say it is, so what? The opponent will take more models to balance it out - and how do you know that's not the way they designed it?
You assume all loadouts must be equivalent, but that's just that - your own assumption.

Interesting thing is most double weapons need to attack double time to get a similar level as other set up...

If attack once they are just bs. Some people keep doing maths on target with - save to show there is some balance. But please I think in the game the average armor save should be 5+ around

Interesting thing is most double weapons need to attack double time to get a similar level as other set up...

If attack once they are just bs. Some people keep doing maths on target with - save to show there is some balance. But please I think in the game the average armor save should be 5+ around

Depends on the model. Ogre bulls getting 6 attacks each and rerolling 1's, because of taking two weapons, vs weapon and ironfirst, would be amazing.

Aeonotakist wrote:


Interesting thing is most double weapons need to attack double time to get a similar level as other set up...

If attack once they are just bs. Some people keep doing maths on target with - save to show there is some balance. But please I think in the game the average armor save should be 5+ around

When comparing weapon damage potential, you need to factor out the target's save, and the simplest way is to compare Wounds prior to the Save - it's the average amount of Damage potential that is important (which gets reduced by whatever Save the target has). It gets tricky for Mortal Wounds and Rend.

For Mortal Wounds, you can either just quote them separately (which is safer), or if you want to fold the MW into the regular Wound potential you need to make some sort of guess about the equivalence. For example, if you assume the average Save is 5+, you would need to inflict 6 (regular) Wounds to do the same damage as 4 Mortal Wounds. Again, this isn't exact, because you're specific target might have a 3+ save and/or be able to take saves against Mortal Wounds.

Same with Rend. This is easy to calculate, but only if you assume that targets have a Save; Rend -1 is useless against Save "-" and Rend -2 is only as effective as Rend -1 against Save 6+. But IF you assume that the average save is 5+, Rend -1 will generate 7/6 more damage than an identical attack that is Rend 0; and Rend -2 will generate 8/6 more than Rend 0.

This is all very simple to do in a spreadsheet and it's quite interesting to compare weapons with very different attack profiles. Remarkably, most weapon combos for units with options come out to be pretty similar (of course, there are certain combos that seem weak/strong - either by design or mistake).

I'm in the weapon-profile-trumps-number-of-weapons camp. I've made what I think is a pretty clear post about it on my blog if you're interested:

https://ghalmaraz.wordpress.com/2015/08/21/weapon-profile-not-number-of-weapons-determines-number-of-attacks/

maerdymachus wrote:
I'm in the weapon-profile-trumps-number-of-weapons camp. I've made what I think is a pretty clear post about it on my blog if you're interested:

https://ghalmaraz.wordpress.com/2015/08/21/weapon-profile-not-number-of-weapons-determines-number-of-attacks/

I disagree wholeheartedly.

You're interpretation requires not being able to use the second hand weapon. In that case, fine. You don't get your double attacks, but you also don't get your re-rolls as that would be using the second weapon.

"Your interpretation requires not being able to use the second hand weapon. In that case, fine. You don't get your double attacks, but you also don't get your re-rolls as that would be using the second weapon."

The only thing my interpretation does is limit the number of *attacks* generated by wielding two weapons. Weapons, not number of weapons, determine the number of *attacks* you can make. In a fluff sense, you may be "attacking" with the extra weapon when you reroll 1s, but in a rules sense, you aren't: your attacks have already been made.

You get +1 attack for each weapon profile they get to attack with, not each weapon they are holding on their model. Deathmaster snitch doesn't get +3 attacks because hes holding 3 weeping blades. All 3 of those blades are represented by a single weapon profile. In the same way, holding 2 hand weapons is represented by a single weapon profile and the ability to reroll 1's to hit (or whatever your duel wielding special ability is for that model).

Does anyone actually want a Prosecutor to throw 4 shots and make 4 attacks in melee, re-rolling ones?

Hmm, do I want to re-roll armor saves of 1, or do I want to do more than twice as much damage....

It's really hard to find units where you'd want anything other than paired weapons.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:
Does anyone actually want a Prosecutor to throw 4 shots and make 4 attacks in melee, re-rolling ones?

Hmm, do I want to re-roll armor saves of 1, or do I want to do more than twice as much damage....

It's really hard to find units where you'd want anything other than paired weapons.

Blame to the carelessly written rules. For DE, the single handed weapon is so weak for a dragon rider (3+/4+/D1 no rend) that reroll 1 will never compete with shiled (reroll all failed saves)

Also for the rat warlord, you can pick one warbarb with a halberd to get additional attck for that heavy long-range weapon, or pick two warbarbs to get reroll 1. Nobody will be so stupid to go for the later one.

GW just put no effort in writting old ruls, or AoS will not be like now.