How many attacks does a Helbrute with two Helbrute fists get?
It has two weapons, the two fists, that both say "Each the the bearer fights, if it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon.". So if it has two of "this weapon" is it two extra attacks? Each "this weapon" generating one of them?
That seems to be how I read it, but that does seem a touch absurd. The Power Scourge generates three extra attacks, that would make it nearly as useful as that.
It says that if you are equipped with 2 fists, you make one additional attack. The "this weapon" is defined in this case as 2 Helbrute fists. You would need to be equipped with 4 Helbrute fists somehow to get the two extra attacks you want.
doctortom wrote: It says that if you are equipped with 2 fists, you make one additional attack. The "this weapon" is defined in this case as 2 Helbrute fists. You would need to be equipped with 4 Helbrute fists somehow to get the two extra attacks you want.
This weapon usually means the weapon that the stat line is for, so a Helbrute fist.
The Daemon Prince's talons are an example with a similar wording, "each time the bearer fights, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon." So I've taken that to mean one set of talons gives one extra attack and two sets of talons would grant two extra attacks. If two sets didn't give an addtional extra attack then there would be no reason to take two of them.
So I see the wording as similar, "<if condition>, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon".
The condition for the talons is simpler, "Each time the bearer fights". The fists is "each time the bearer fights, if it is equipped with two Helbrute fists".
Getting back into 9th and picking up the new Codex is challenging
If they had meant for it to be 2 additional attacks, they'd have said that you get +1 attack for each of the fists. They didn't. They said you get +1 attack for having two helbrute fists.
doctortom wrote: If they had meant for it to be 2 additional attacks, they'd have said that you get +1 attack for each of the fists. They didn't. They said you get +1 attack for having two helbrute fists.
If they'd have said that that would also mean that you've get an extra attack with a fist for having just one fist, which you could couple with the scourge for an extra four attacks in total. They might have wanted to give a bonus for going all fist but nothing for just taking the one.
You could probably split the attacks between the fists and get the additional attack for each fist though.
"If a model has more than one melee weapon, select which it will use before resolving any attacks. If a model has more than one melee weapon and can make several attacks, it can split them between these weapons however you wish – declare which attacks are being made with which weapons before any attacks are resolved." P 22 PDF rules.
p5freak wrote: Helbrutes only get +1 attack for two fists, not +1 attack for each fist.
That is true if they only attack with one fist.
If they split the attacks between the fists, they get +1 for the first set of attacks with the one fist, and +1 for the other set of attacks with the other fist.
...What on Earth are you people talking about? It doesn't matter how you split your attacks, it only matters what weapons the Helbrute is equipped with.
Indeed, you have to generate the additional attack with the Helbrute's fists before you can even split your attacks to begin with.
The weapon ability doesn't say a helbrute gets one extra attack per fist it says that if the helbrute has 2 fists it makes 1 extra attack with this weapon. Note, it doesn't say per weapon only that you get an extra attack if you use a fist and your helbrute has 2 fists. So regardless of how many fists you use you only get one extra attack. The ability is fulfilled whether you use one fist or two fists.
p5freak wrote: Helbrutes only get +1 attack for two fists, not +1 attack for each fist.
Sadly, not with the current rules
One attack with one fist triggers the rule for an additional attack. One attach with the other fist triggers the rule again
Prove otherwise.
Easy. “Fights” is a defined rules term. Your logic is trying to claim you get an extra attack for allocating an attack to that weapon, which is not what the rule says.
It’s one attack extra each time it fights if you have a pair of fists. As a unit fights once per Fight phase (barring special rules/starts) it’s one extra attack, cannot be two.
You started from a misread sadly so it doesn’t work how you think.
JohnnyHell wrote: Easy. “Fights” is a defined rules term. Your logic is trying to claim you get an extra attack for allocating an attack to that weapon, which is not what the rule says.
You are correct that trying to claim you get an extra attack for allocating an attack to that weapon is incorrect, My initial reading was not accurate, but the result is the same as I initially said, just not for the reason I stated.
Codex. Death Guard (9th edition) HELLBRUTE Dataslate wrote:Weapon: Helbrute fist. Abilities: Each time the bearer fights, if it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon.
The Hellbrute can be equipped with two "Helbrute fist" Each time the bearer fights, it gets to use the rule that says "Each time the bearer fights, if it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon." and since they have two of these weapons, they have this ability twice, and as such get to invoke the ability of each fist, because it has two fists so it gets that ability twice.
RAI the Hellbrute probably only gets 1 attack no matter how many "Helbrute fist" the model is equipped with.
But RAW 100% the Hellbrute gets to use the ability of all weapons it is equipped with.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: ... it says that if the helbrute has 2 fists it makes 1 extra attack with this weapon...
Right, and how many weapons called Hellbrute Fist does the hellbrute have?
If it has 2, you can use that rule twice, for a total of 2 extra attacks.
No, its only +1 attack, because a unit can only fight once per fight phase. The helbrute gets +1 attack each time he fights. He makes multiple attacks, but can only fight once per fight phase.
p5freak wrote: No, its only +1 attack, because a unit can only fight once per fight phase. The helbrute gets +1 attack each time he fights. He makes multiple attacks, but can only fight once per fight phase.
Your statement is incorrect. It is not only +1 attack. While it is true that a unit can only fight once per fight phase, what you said about the helbrute getting +1 attack each time he fights is inaccurate.
The helbrute gets +1 attack each time he fights per weapon that has that rule...
Since he has two weapons that have that rule he would in fact get +1 attack for each weapon.
p5freak wrote: No, its only +1 attack, because a unit can only fight once per fight phase. The helbrute gets +1 attack each time he fights. He makes multiple attacks, but can only fight once per fight phase.
Your statement is incorrect. It is not only +1 attack. While it is true that a unit can only fight once per fight phase, what you said about the helbrute getting +1 attack each time he fights is inaccurate.
The helbrute gets +1 attack each time he fights per weapon that has that rule...
Since he has two weapons that have that rule he would in fact get +1 attack for each weapon.
That isn't what the rule says:
Each the the bearer fights, if it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon..
There is no requirement for the unit to fight with the Helbrute fists at all. If it is armed with other weapons it could attack with those and still be make an additional attack with the Helbrute fist. The wording is very similar to other weapons that give an additional attack with a specific weapon such as chainswords/astares chainswrods. The only difference here is the requirement to be equipped with 2 rather than only one in order to make the additional attack.
eg.
Astartes chainsword
Each time the bearer fights, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon.
p5freak wrote: No, its only +1 attack, because a unit can only fight once per fight phase. The helbrute gets +1 attack each time he fights. He makes multiple attacks, but can only fight once per fight phase.
Your statement is incorrect. It is not only +1 attack. While it is true that a unit can only fight once per fight phase, what you said about the helbrute getting +1 attack each time he fights is inaccurate.
The helbrute gets +1 attack each time he fights per weapon that has that rule...
Since he has two weapons that have that rule he would in fact get +1 attack for each weapon.
Your statement is incorrect. It doesnt say he makes 1 additional attack with each fist, or every time he attacks with a fist.
p5freak wrote: No, its only +1 attack, because a unit can only fight once per fight phase. The helbrute gets +1 attack each time he fights. He makes multiple attacks, but can only fight once per fight phase.
Your statement is incorrect. It is not only +1 attack. While it is true that a unit can only fight once per fight phase, what you said about the helbrute getting +1 attack each time he fights is inaccurate.
The helbrute gets +1 attack each time he fights per weapon that has that rule...
Since he has two weapons that have that rule he would in fact get +1 attack for each weapon.
That isn't what the rule says:
Each the the bearer fights, if it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon..
There is no requirement for the unit to fight with the Helbrute fists at all. If it is armed with other weapons it could attack with those and still be make an additional attack with the Helbrute fist. The wording is very similar to other weapons that give an additional attack with a specific weapon such as chainswords/astares chainswrods.
Aash wrote: The only difference here is the requirement to be equipped with 2 rather than only one in order to make the additional attack (with a single hellbrute fist).
You are missing an important part of it though. (I fixed your inaccuracy with the Cyan text)
It is not about attacking with the Helbrute fists.
You don't have to make any attacks, out of the 5 it gets, with the fists to get the additional attacks.
The helbrute gets +1 attack each time he fights per weapon that has that rule. It has two weapons with that rule so it gets +1 attack per Hellbrute Fist as noted in the quote about the abilities of said fist from the Hellbrute Dataslate.
p5freak wrote: No, its only +1 attack, because a unit can only fight once per fight phase. The helbrute gets +1 attack each time he fights. He makes multiple attacks, but can only fight once per fight phase.
Your statement is incorrect. It is not only +1 attack. While it is true that a unit can only fight once per fight phase, what you said about the helbrute getting +1 attack each time he fights is inaccurate.
The helbrute gets +1 attack each time he fights per weapon that has that rule...
Since he has two weapons that have that rule he would in fact get +1 attack for each weapon.
Your statement is incorrect. It doesnt say he makes 1 additional attack with each fist, or every time he attacks with a fist.
My statement is not incorrect. Re-read it carefully.
There is no requirement for the unit to fight with the Helbrute fists at all. If it is armed with other weapons it could attack with those and still be make an additional attack with the Helbrute fist. The wording is very similar to other weapons that give an additional attack with a specific weapon such as chainswords/astares chainswrods. The only difference here is the requirement to be equipped with 2 rather than only one in order to make the additional attack.
eg.
Astartes chainsword
Each time the bearer fights, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon.
Not sure how much this is worth but the 8th Edition FAQ did include clarification that two chainswords would grant two extra attacks. The wording for that weapon was, in my DG Codex, "each time the bearer fights it can make 1 additional attack with this weapon".
The FAQ entry was:
Q: If a model is equipped with two chainswords, do they get to make 2 extra close combat attacks?
A: Yes (though both must be made with a chainsword).
But that is 8th, I don't believe there's been any similar clarification for 9th?
The bearer of the Hellbrute fists is selected to fight At this point we see that the Hellbrute is equipped with a Hellbrute Fist (lets call this weapon #1), and a second Hellbrute Fist (lets call this weapon #2). We make our 5 attacks with any given weapon (does not matter which). Then we check our special rules Weapon #1, the Hellbrute Fist, has a rule about extra attacks.
So we check the rule and see if we satisfy the conditions:
Condition 1: "Each time the bearer fights" (Yes, satisfied) Condition 2: "if it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists" (Yes, satisfied) We satisfied both conditions, as the bearer is fighting and it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists, therefore we get the benefit. The benefit is "it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon."
So we get +1 attack with weapon #1 for simply having that weapon (and using its special rules).
Now we check for other weapons on the dataslate:
Weapon #2 , the other Hellbrute Fist, also has a rule about extra attacks.
So we check the rule and see if we satisfy the conditions:
Condition 1: "Each time the bearer fights" (Yes, satisfied) Condition 2: "if it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists" (Yes, satisfied) We satisfied both conditions, as the bearer is fighting and it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists, therefore we get the benefit. The benefit is "it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon."
So we get +1 attack with weapon #2 for simply having that weapon (and using its special rules).
Count all the +1's and you get +2. Simple (Though you need to make 1 attack with with weapon #1, and one attack with with weapon #2).
p5freak wrote: No, its only +1 attack, because a unit can only fight once per fight phase. The helbrute gets +1 attack each time he fights. He makes multiple attacks, but can only fight once per fight phase.
Your statement is incorrect. It is not only +1 attack. While it is true that a unit can only fight once per fight phase, what you said about the helbrute getting +1 attack each time he fights is inaccurate.
The helbrute gets +1 attack each time he fights per weapon that has that rule...
Since he has two weapons that have that rule he would in fact get +1 attack for each weapon.
Your statement is incorrect. It doesnt say he makes 1 additional attack with each fist, or every time he attacks with a fist.
Yet it does
WITH THIS WEAPON
Each fist is a separate weapon that has that rule.
The bearer of the Hellbrute fists is selected to fight
At this point we see that the Hellbrute is equipped with a Hellbrute Fist (lets call this weapon #1), and a second Hellbrute Fist (lets call this weapon #2).
We make our 5 attacks with any given weapon (does not matter which).
Then we check our special rules
Weapon #1, the Hellbrute Fist, has a rule about extra attacks.
So we check the rule and see if we satisfy the conditions:
Condition 1: "Each time the bearer fights" (Yes, satisfied)
Condition 2: "if it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists" (Yes, satisfied)
We satisfied both conditions, as the bearer is fighting and it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists, therefore we get the benefit.
The benefit is "it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon."
So we get +1 attack with weapon #1 for simply having that weapon (and using its special rules).
Now we check for other weapons on the dataslate:
Weapon #2 , the other Hellbrute Fist, also has a rule about extra attacks.
So we check the rule and see if we satisfy the conditions:
Condition 1: "Each time the bearer fights" (Yes, satisfied)
Condition 2: "if it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists" (Yes, satisfied)
We satisfied both conditions, as the bearer is fighting and it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists, therefore we get the benefit.
The benefit is "it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon."
So we get +1 attack with weapon #2 for simply having that weapon (and using its special rules).
Count all the +1's and you get +2. Simple (Though you need to make 1 attack with with weapon #1, and one attack with with weapon #2).
Ah, I see now. Reading this, I agree that RAW the additional attack is triggered twice. I don't think this is intentional, but without a clarification via FAQ you've convinced me.
Your argument that you have 2 weapons therefore the rule comes into play twice is irrelavent.
The rule says if you have 2 fists then you make an extra attack. It does not say that each time you use this weapon you make an extra attack. So, assuming that you have 2 fists during your fight phase you make an extra attack. It doesn't matter if you do it after using your left fist or your right fist.
You just go over the following list- Do you have 2 fists? If yes continue if not then end.
Did you make an extra attack using this weapon during your fignt phase? If yes then end if no, then make another attack or make your extra attack. Repeat until all of your attacks are made.
The rule is fulfilled once you make that extra attack. It doesn't matter how many fists you have making attacks it only matters that you have 2 fists and you have made an extra attack using one or the other of them.
The this weapon refers to the weapon system as a whole and not as each piece. Otherwise it would say each time you make an attack sequence using a fist then make an extra attack. Going by your example you wouldn't be able to make any extra attacks since you are using Helbrute fist #1 and Helbrute fist #2. Neither of them are, specifically, a "Helbrute fist".
JohnnyHell wrote: Easy. “Fights” is a defined rules term. Your logic is trying to claim you get an extra attack for allocating an attack to that weapon, which is not what the rule says.
You are correct that trying to claim you get an extra attack for allocating an attack to that weapon is incorrect, My initial reading was not accurate, but the result is the same as I initially said, just not for the reason I stated.
Codex. Death Guard (9th edition) HELLBRUTE Dataslate wrote:Weapon: Helbrute fist. Abilities: Each time the bearer fights, if it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon.
The Hellbrute can be equipped with two "Helbrute fist" Each time the bearer fights, it gets to use the rule that says "Each time the bearer fights, if it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon." and since they have two of these weapons, they have this ability twice, and as such get to invoke the ability of each fist, because it has two fists so it gets that ability twice.
RAI the Hellbrute probably only gets 1 attack no matter how many "Helbrute fist" the model is equipped with.
But RAW 100% the Hellbrute gets to use the ability of all weapons it is equipped with.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: ... it says that if the helbrute has 2 fists it makes 1 extra attack with this weapon...
Right, and how many weapons called Hellbrute Fist does the hellbrute have?
If it has 2, you can use that rule twice, for a total of 2 extra attacks.
I mean, this is completely NOT at all RAW, but you do you. Just know it’s completely not what the rule says.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: The weapon ability doesn't say a helbrute gets one extra attack per fist......
Ah, but per weapon it says you get an extra attack. And he has 2 of these weapons which has their own rules with a condition that is met.
I would give them +2 attacks.
There are 2 sources of the ability that grant +1 attack to itself.
If the Hellbrute had the ability as written it would only grant +1 total.
Abilities can be duplicated and have compounding results - to ignore this is to ignore that different abilities also stack with one another. Its like saying you can't add 1+1 because theyre they same number.
JohnnyHell wrote: Easy. “Fights” is a defined rules term. Your logic is trying to claim you get an extra attack for allocating an attack to that weapon, which is not what the rule says.
You are correct that trying to claim you get an extra attack for allocating an attack to that weapon is incorrect, My initial reading was not accurate, but the result is the same as I initially said, just not for the reason I stated.
Codex. Death Guard (9th edition) HELLBRUTE Dataslate wrote:Weapon: Helbrute fist. Abilities: Each time the bearer fights, if it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon.
The Hellbrute can be equipped with two "Helbrute fist" Each time the bearer fights, it gets to use the rule that says "Each time the bearer fights, if it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon." and since they have two of these weapons, they have this ability twice, and as such get to invoke the ability of each fist, because it has two fists so it gets that ability twice.
RAI the Hellbrute probably only gets 1 attack no matter how many "Helbrute fist" the model is equipped with.
But RAW 100% the Hellbrute gets to use the ability of all weapons it is equipped with.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: ... it says that if the helbrute has 2 fists it makes 1 extra attack with this weapon...
Right, and how many weapons called Hellbrute Fist does the hellbrute have?
If it has 2, you can use that rule twice, for a total of 2 extra attacks.
I mean, this is completely NOT at all RAW, but you do you. Just know it’s completely not what the rule says.
If a Space Marine had two chain swords equipped nobody would be arguing against them getting 2 additional attacks - 1 for each chain sword. Chainsword Rule: "Each time the bearer fights, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon"
Seems like the Helbrute fist is the same, just with a condition on when you get the bonus attack.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Your argument that you have 2 weapons therefore the rule comes into play twice is irrelavent.
How is having a rule for one weapon that grants you an extra attack with that weapon, and having another rule with a different weapon that grants you an extra attack with that weapon, irrelevant?
Leo_the_Rat wrote: It does not say that each time you use this weapon you make an extra attack.
We already know this, but that does not matter.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: The this weapon refers to the weapon system as a whole and not as each piece.
What "weapon system as a whole" what does that even mean? There are clearly two weapons on that Hellbrute and Weapon #1 is called "Helbrute fist", and Weapon #2 is called "Helbrute fist"
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Neither of them are, specifically, a "Helbrute fist".
Your statement is demonstrably incorrect.
Both of the weapons are specifically called "Helbrute fist" as noted on the Hellbrute Dataslate.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: So, assuming that you have 2 fists during your fight phase you make an extra attack. It doesn't matter if you do it after using your left fist or your right fist.
That is not quite how it works, check out the breakdown I have provided below.
JohnnyHell wrote: I mean, this is completely NOT at all RAW, but you do you. Just know it’s completely not what the rule says.
It is RAW though, why do you think it is not? Got any citation that specifies otherwise?
Re-read this breakdown and tell me where you think the logic is incorrect:
Spoiler:
Basically the process goes like this:
The bearer of the Hellbrute fists is selected to fight
At this point we see that the Hellbrute is equipped with a Hellbrute Fist (lets call this weapon #1), and a second Hellbrute Fist (lets call this weapon #2).
We make our 5 attacks with any given weapon (does not matter which).
Then we check our special rules
Weapon #1, the Hellbrute Fist, has a rule about extra attacks.
So we check the rule and see if we satisfy the conditions:
Condition 1: "Each time the bearer fights" (Yes, satisfied)
Condition 2: "if it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists" (Yes, satisfied)
We satisfied both conditions, as the bearer is fighting and it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists, therefore we get the benefit.
The benefit is "it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon."
So we get +1 attack with weapon #1 for simply having that weapon (and using its special rules).
Now we check for other weapons on the dataslate:
Weapon #2 , the other Hellbrute Fist, also has a rule about extra attacks.
So we check the rule and see if we satisfy the conditions:
Condition 1: "Each time the bearer fights" (Yes, satisfied)
Condition 2: "if it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists" (Yes, satisfied)
We satisfied both conditions, as the bearer is fighting and it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists, therefore we get the benefit.
The benefit is "it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon."
So we get +1 attack with weapon #2 for simply having that weapon (and using its special rules).
Count all the +1's and you get +2. Simple (Though you need to make 1 attack with with weapon #1, and one attack with with weapon #2).
Assuming the rules quotes in the first post are accurate, and each fist is bought separately (i.e. there is no weapon called "2 Hellbrute Fists") it looks like you get 2 bonus attacks. You have two weapons that have a rule that activates under certain conditions and there doesn't seem to be any reason why you can't activate the same rule on each weapon.
Leo - reread and note that it does, indeed, say yiu get another attack with this weapon. Singular. There are two weapons. Each weapon, singular, is a helbrute fist. Each weapon, singular, has a rule stating that having two of these weapons - which the model definitely has - gives you another attack with this weapon, singular.
Weapon A - I make an attack with this weapon. It has a rule stating I get to make another attack with this weapon, but on,y once each time the model fights. So I get another attack
Weapon B - I make an attack with this helbrute fist, as I am fully entitled to do. I am still fighting, but THIS weapon - which is not the same as weapon A, by definition (it's trite) - also has a rule saying, each time I fight , I get to make an additional attack with this weapon. So I get to make an additional attack
This is unarguable RAW. Possibly not intended, but RAW it works.
Your argument relies on deciding that "two helbrute fists" is some kind of "lsingle system" meaning yiu can't select each weapon individually but that is flat out wring. Unarguably so.
JakeSiren wrote: If a Space Marine had two chain swords equipped nobody would be arguing against them getting 2 additional attacks - 1 for each chain sword. Chainsword Rule: "Each time the bearer fights, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon"
Seems like the Helbrute fist is the same, just with a condition on when you get the bonus attack.
Thats because the chainsword rule is worded differently. It doesnt say if you have two chainswords you make 1 additional attack with this weapon. The helbrute gets one additional attack when he has two fists, no more, no less.
JakeSiren wrote: If a Space Marine had two chain swords equipped nobody would be arguing against them getting 2 additional attacks - 1 for each chain sword. Chainsword Rule: "Each time the bearer fights, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon"
Seems like the Helbrute fist is the same, just with a condition on when you get the bonus attack.
Thats because the chainsword rule is worded differently. It doesnt say if you have two chainswords you make 1 additional attack with this weapon. The helbrute gets one additional attack when he has two fists, no more, no less.
Which isn't how the rule is worded, as you know - it's been quoted often enough in this thread
Every time it fights, if it has two fists, it makes one extra attack with THIS weapon
I then attack with the second fist, as I'm perfectly entitled to do, and get to make an extra attack with THIS weapon.
You aren't even arguing based on the rules, just what you've made up and are presenting as fact.
JakeSiren wrote: If a Space Marine had two chain swords equipped nobody would be arguing against them getting 2 additional attacks - 1 for each chain sword. Chainsword Rule: "Each time the bearer fights, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon"
Seems like the Helbrute fist is the same, just with a condition on when you get the bonus attack.
Thats because the chainsword rule is worded differently. It doesnt say if you have two chainswords you make 1 additional attack with this weapon. The helbrute gets one additional attack when he has two fists, no more, no less.
But the rule is still written as "<condition>, <effect>"
For the chainsword the condition is simple "Each time the bearer fights", you check the condition for each of the two chain swords a model might be equipped with, it's true for both, so the effect happens, which gives you two extra attacks.
The Helbrute fist condition is more complex, "Each time the bearer fights, if it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists". But in the same way that you'd evaluate if for the left and right chainsword you evaluate it for the left and right Helbrute fist. As with the chainsword it'll be "true" for both, so the effect will fire for the left fist and also for the right fist.
p5freak wrote: Each time you fight with the helbrute you check if he is equipped with two fists, if yes, he gets +1 attack. No more, no less.
Are you saying the rules quote in the OP is wrong? That says you get an extra attack "with this weapon", so it would apply to each of the 2 fists, giving overall +2 attacks. There doesn't seem to be anything preventing you applying the special rule of each of the fists every time the unit fights.
The rules quote is correct. Lets see what the power scourge says.
Power scourge
Each time the bearer fights, it makes 3 additional attacks with this weapon.
Its worded just like the chainsword. You get 6 additional attacks, when you have two power scourges and attack with both. Why does the power fist say if it is equipped with the 2 helbrute fists ? Its from the same author, so the meaning must be different, otherwise it would be worded like the power scourge.
Each time the bearer fights, if it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon.
p5freak wrote: The rules quote is correct. Lets see what the power scourge says.
Power scourge Each time the bearer fights, it makes 3 additional attacks with this weapon.
Its worded just like the chainsword. You get 6 additional attacks, when you have two power scourges and attack with both. Why does the power fist say if it is equipped with the 2 helbrute fists ? Its from the same author, so the meaning must be different, otherwise it would be worded like the power scourge.
Each time the bearer fights, if it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon.
I disagree with the bolded part. The meaning is what the rule says. Even if it's not what the author meant (which we can't say for sure here), the RAW works and makes sense. We have two weapons with a special rule. We can apply each of those special rules for each weapon for a total of +2 attacks.
p5freak wrote: The rules quote is correct. Lets see what the power scourge says.
Power scourge
Each time the bearer fights, it makes 3 additional attacks with this weapon.
Its worded just like the chainsword. You get 6 additional attacks, when you have two power scourges and attack with both. Why does the power fist say if it is equipped with the 2 helbrute fists ? Its from the same author, so the meaning must be different, otherwise it would be worded like the power scourge.
Each time the bearer fights, if it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon.
Guessing at intentions is difficult, but if the author didn't want one a one fisted Helbrute to get any extra attacks and wanted to give one with two fists two extra then that's how I'd write it.
It clearly states 'each time it fights' and not 'each time it makes an attack.'
Each time the helbrute is selected as an eligible unit to fight with, if it has two PFs equipped, then add 1 to A for that instance of fighting. Then, you allocate [base A] + 1 attacks however you wish.
p5freak wrote: The rules quote is correct. Lets see what the power scourge says.
Power scourge Each time the bearer fights, it makes 3 additional attacks with this weapon.
Its worded just like the chainsword. You get 6 additional attacks, when you have two power scourges and attack with both. Why does the power fist say if it is equipped with the 2 helbrute fists ? Its from the same author, so the meaning must be different, otherwise it would be worded like the power scourge.
Each time the bearer fights, if it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon.
The difference iis right there in the rule:
Each time the bearer fights, if it is armed with 2 Helbrute fists, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon.
A power scourge can make it's additional attacks even if the Helbrute only has a single power scourge. For a Helbrute fist to make it's additional attack the Helbrute must have TWO fists. If it does have two fists, then each fist grants an additional attack.
skchsan wrote: It clearly states 'each time it fights' and not 'each time it makes an attack.'
Each time the helbrute is selected as an eligible unit to fight with, if it has two PFs equipped, then add 1 to A for that instance of fighting. Then, you allowcate [base A] + 1 attacks however you wish.
It's not ambiguous.
That's not what it says. Each of the fists has a special rule giving +1A if it has two fists. The result is you can apply the rule of each weapon when the Helbrute fights, giving you +2A total. What reason do you have for not applying the +1A from each fist when the Helbrute attacks?
p5freak wrote: The rules quote is correct. Lets see what the power scourge says.
Power scourge
Each time the bearer fights, it makes 3 additional attacks with this weapon.
Its worded just like the chainsword. You get 6 additional attacks, when you have two power scourges and attack with both. Why does the power fist say if it is equipped with the 2 helbrute fists ? Its from the same author, so the meaning must be different, otherwise it would be worded like the power scourge.
Each time the bearer fights, if it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon.
Ah so you're guessing now?
The wording is different because you only get to make additional attacks when you have two fists. If you only have one, yiu get no bonus. This is different to the scourge which always gets three extra per scourge, even if you only have one
You Kay only fight once, but you cannot say the rule only procs once. It absolutely procs once for each fist. That's unarguable.
We're arguing because you're ignoring what's written and making up your own version of the rules.
Not for any reason of ambiguity.
Two different fists, each rule processes once for each fist, exactly the same as for a power scourge or chain sword - except for the condition that it needs two fists before you get any extra attacks
I'm not arguing intent, just stating what the rules actually state. You're the one attempting to claim intent, or that it's "one weapon system" or other such made up rubbish.
nosferatu1001 wrote: We're arguing because you're ignoring what's written and making up your own version of the rules.
Not for any reason of ambiguity.
No, you ignore whats written. If a rule is written differently from the same author, it must mean something different, otherwise it wouldnt be written differently.
skchsan wrote: It clearly states 'each time it fights' and not 'each time it makes an attack.'
Each time the helbrute is selected as an eligible unit to fight with, if it has two PFs equipped, then add 1 to A for that instance of fighting. Then, you allowcate [base A] + 1 attacks however you wish.
It's not ambiguous.
That's not what it says. Each of the fists has a special rule giving +1A if it has two fists. The result is you can apply the rule of each weapon when the Helbrute fights, giving you +2A total. What reason do you have for not applying the +1A from each fist when the Helbrute attacks?
I noticed that I did indeed make a blunder. Despite, what you're claiming is not supported by the text.
The rules state "Each time the bearer fights, if it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon." Do note, it does not state "each time the bearer make an attack with helbrute fist". Given, there is no other precedents or rules resolution that would otherwise give you the room to interpret the text the way you do; Helbrute fist's extra attack works just like any other "make additional attack using this weapon" like freki and geki, TWC's claws and teeth, and chainswords.
When a helbrute attacks, if it has two helbrute fists equipped, then you make 1 additional attack using the weapon's profile.
You don't claim the bonus attack "each time" helbrute makes an attack.
FWIW, it seems like edition lag as the rules for helbrute in CSM codex simply states "if its equipped with two melee weapons, then add 1 to A"
skchsan wrote: It clearly states 'each time it fights' and not 'each time it makes an attack.'
Each time the helbrute is selected as an eligible unit to fight with, if it has two PFs equipped, then add 1 to A for that instance of fighting. Then, you allowcate [base A] + 1 attacks however you wish.
It's not ambiguous.
That's not what it says. Each of the fists has a special rule giving +1A if it has two fists. The result is you can apply the rule of each weapon when the Helbrute fights, giving you +2A total. What reason do you have for not applying the +1A from each fist when the Helbrute attacks?
I noticed that I did indeed make a blunder. Despite, what you're claiming is not supported by the text.
The rules state "Each time the bearer fights, if it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon." Do note, it does not state "each time the bearer make an attack with helbrute fist". Given, there is no other precedents or rules resolution that would otherwise give you the room to interpret the text the way you do. Helbrute fist's extra attack works just like any other "make additional attack using this weapon" like freki and geki and chainswords.
When a helbrute attacks, if it has two helbrute fists equipped, then you make 1 additional attack using the weapon's profile.
Twice, because it is armed with 2 Helbrute Fist. It has to be armed with 2 fist to activate the rule, but it is activated on both fist
skchsan wrote: It clearly states 'each time it fights' and not 'each time it makes an attack.'
Each time the helbrute is selected as an eligible unit to fight with, if it has two PFs equipped, then add 1 to A for that instance of fighting. Then, you allowcate [base A] + 1 attacks however you wish.
It's not ambiguous.
That's not what it says. Each of the fists has a special rule giving +1A if it has two fists. The result is you can apply the rule of each weapon when the Helbrute fights, giving you +2A total. What reason do you have for not applying the +1A from each fist when the Helbrute attacks?
I noticed that I did indeed make a blunder. Despite, what you're claiming is not supported by the text.
The rules state "Each time the bearer fights, if it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon." Do note, it does not state "each time the bearer make an attack with helbrute fist". Given, there is no other precedents or rules resolution that would otherwise give you the room to interpret the text the way you do. Helbrute fist's extra attack works just like any other "make additional attack using this weapon" like freki and geki and chainswords.
When a helbrute attacks, if it has two helbrute fists equipped, then you make 1 additional attack using the weapon's profile.
Twice, because it is armed with 2 Helbrute Fist. It has to be armed with 2 fist to activate the rule, but it is activated on both fist
So then, if you take two helbrute fists, then do you have two entries of helbrute fists on your wargear?
I mean, I do see where your argument is coming from, but the RAW isn't written ambiguously enough to claim that this is a RAW loophole.
skchsan wrote: It clearly states 'each time it fights' and not 'each time it makes an attack.'
Each time the helbrute is selected as an eligible unit to fight with, if it has two PFs equipped, then add 1 to A for that instance of fighting. Then, you allowcate [base A] + 1 attacks however you wish.
It's not ambiguous.
That's not what it says. Each of the fists has a special rule giving +1A if it has two fists. The result is you can apply the rule of each weapon when the Helbrute fights, giving you +2A total. What reason do you have for not applying the +1A from each fist when the Helbrute attacks?
I noticed that I did indeed make a blunder. Despite, what you're claiming is not supported by the text.
The rules state "Each time the bearer fights, if it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon." Do note, it does not state "each time the bearer make an attack with helbrute fist". Given, there is no other precedents or rules resolution that would otherwise give you the room to interpret the text the way you do. Helbrute fist's extra attack works just like any other "make additional attack using this weapon" like freki and geki and chainswords.
When a helbrute attacks, if it has two helbrute fists equipped, then you make 1 additional attack using the weapon's profile.
Twice, because it is armed with 2 Helbrute Fist. It has to be armed with 2 fist to activate the rule, but it is activated on both fist
So then, if you take two helbrute fists, then do you have two entries of helbrute fists on your wargear?
Yes. The Helbrute comes with a multi-melta and a Helbrute fist (singular), with the option to replace the multi-melta with a Helbrute fist. Then the options go on to say 'for each Helbrute fist this model is equipped with' it can be equipped with a combi-bolter, heavy flamer, etc.
skchsan wrote: It clearly states 'each time it fights' and not 'each time it makes an attack.'
Each time the helbrute is selected as an eligible unit to fight with, if it has two PFs equipped, then add 1 to A for that instance of fighting. Then, you allowcate [base A] + 1 attacks however you wish.
It's not ambiguous.
That's not what it says. Each of the fists has a special rule giving +1A if it has two fists. The result is you can apply the rule of each weapon when the Helbrute fights, giving you +2A total. What reason do you have for not applying the +1A from each fist when the Helbrute attacks?
I noticed that I did indeed make a blunder. Despite, what you're claiming is not supported by the text.
The rules state "Each time the bearer fights, if it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon." Do note, it does not state "each time the bearer make an attack with helbrute fist". Given, there is no other precedents or rules resolution that would otherwise give you the room to interpret the text the way you do. Helbrute fist's extra attack works just like any other "make additional attack using this weapon" like freki and geki and chainswords.
When a helbrute attacks, if it has two helbrute fists equipped, then you make 1 additional attack using the weapon's profile.
Twice, because it is armed with 2 Helbrute Fist. It has to be armed with 2 fist to activate the rule, but it is activated on both fist
So then, if you take two helbrute fists, then do you have two entries of helbrute fists on your wargear?
Yes. The Helbrute comes with a multi-melta and a Helbrute fist (singular), with the option to replace the multi-melta with a Helbrute fist. Then the options go on to say 'for each Helbrute fist this model is equipped with' it can be equipped with a combi-bolter, heavy flamer, etc.
But do you physically alter the wargear it's equipped with two separate & distinct entries for helbrtue fist - i.e. helbrute fist 1 & helbrute fist 2, or is it simply two (2) helbrute fists? In other words, when you fight with said helbrute, do you claim "the helbrute will attack with his left fist first, and then with his right fist", or does it simply "fight with its helbrute fists"?
If it indeed is the former (where the two are clearly distinguished as separate wargear), then your argument holds, but there are 0 precedents where you consider two weapons of the same name as two separate and distinct wargear (i.e. scything talons), so I think that argument hold very little water.
It may not go as far as p5freak's argument where he claims "if you take multiple same-name weapons, they become a weapon system", but there's nothing in the rules that tells you to treat the two same-name weapons as if they are two distinct wargear whose's abilities are triggered once per weapon.
Astartes Chainsword,"Each time the bearer fights, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon". When carrying two this ability processes for each of them and grants two extra attacks.
Malefic talons, "Each time the bearer fights, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon." When equipped with two sets this ability processes for each of them and grants two extra attacks.
Helbrute fist, "Each time the bearer fights, if it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon." When equipped with two why would the ability not process for each of them and grant 2 extra attacks?
Both talons and chainswords seem to demonstrate that "it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon" can fire twice and generate 2 extra attacks in total when there are two of "this weapon" being caries.
Allowing two extra attacks from a dual fisted Helbrute seems consistent, I can't argue if it's "RAI", but to me it logically matches up with talons and chain swords.
PlagueGardener wrote: Astartes Chainsword,"Each time the bearer fights, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon". When carrying two this ability processes for each of them and grants two extra attacks.
Malefic talons, "Each time the bearer fights, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon." When equipped with two sets this ability processes for each of them and grants two extra attacks.
Helbrute fist, "Each time the bearer fights, if it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon." When equipped with two why would the ability not process for each of them and grant 2 extra attacks?
Both talons and chainswords seem to demonstrate that "it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon" can fire twice and generate 2 extra attacks in total when there are two of "this weapon" being caries.
Allowing two extra attacks from a dual fisted Helbrute seems consistent, I can't argue if it's "RAI", but to me it logically matches up with talons and chain swords.
It's not logically consistent because its an apples to oranges comparison.
There is no logical link to consider the precedents set forth by weapon triggering additional attack to also apply to 'paired' weapons triggering additional attack. There are weapons that check whether the weapon is equipped, only, and there are weapons that check whether the weapon is equipped more than once.
Take for example of a weapon that is more accurately analogous: scything talon - You can re-roll hit rolls of 1 for this weapon. If the bearer has more than one pair of monstrous scything talons, it can make 1 additional attack with this weapon each time it fights.
So does that mean a carnifex equipped with two pairs of scything talons get +2 attacks?
skchsan wrote: It clearly states 'each time it fights' and not 'each time it makes an attack.'
Each time the helbrute is selected as an eligible unit to fight with, if it has two PFs equipped, then add 1 to A for that instance of fighting. Then, you allowcate [base A] + 1 attacks however you wish.
It's not ambiguous.
That's not what it says. Each of the fists has a special rule giving +1A if it has two fists. The result is you can apply the rule of each weapon when the Helbrute fights, giving you +2A total. What reason do you have for not applying the +1A from each fist when the Helbrute attacks?
I noticed that I did indeed make a blunder. Despite, what you're claiming is not supported by the text.
The rules state "Each time the bearer fights, if it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon." Do note, it does not state "each time the bearer make an attack with helbrute fist". Given, there is no other precedents or rules resolution that would otherwise give you the room to interpret the text the way you do. Helbrute fist's extra attack works just like any other "make additional attack using this weapon" like freki and geki and chainswords.
When a helbrute attacks, if it has two helbrute fists equipped, then you make 1 additional attack using the weapon's profile.
Twice, because it is armed with 2 Helbrute Fist. It has to be armed with 2 fist to activate the rule, but it is activated on both fist
So then, if you take two helbrute fists, then do you have two entries of helbrute fists on your wargear?
I mean, I do see where your argument is coming from, but the RAW isn't written ambiguously enough to claim that this is a RAW loophole.
Are you arguing that a model armed with two of a weapon doesn’t benefit from both of them? I’m sure a lot of vehicles are being misplayed when shooting if that is the case.
Rules wise, it doesn’t matter if a model is armed with 2 Helbrute Fist or Helbrute Fist and Helbrute Fist. It only matters that it isn’t armed with Twin Helbrute Fist.
skchsan wrote: It clearly states 'each time it fights' and not 'each time it makes an attack.'
Each time the helbrute is selected as an eligible unit to fight with, if it has two PFs equipped, then add 1 to A for that instance of fighting. Then, you allowcate [base A] + 1 attacks however you wish.
It's not ambiguous.
That's not what it says. Each of the fists has a special rule giving +1A if it has two fists. The result is you can apply the rule of each weapon when the Helbrute fights, giving you +2A total. What reason do you have for not applying the +1A from each fist when the Helbrute attacks?
I noticed that I did indeed make a blunder. Despite, what you're claiming is not supported by the text.
The rules state "Each time the bearer fights, if it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon." Do note, it does not state "each time the bearer make an attack with helbrute fist". Given, there is no other precedents or rules resolution that would otherwise give you the room to interpret the text the way you do. Helbrute fist's extra attack works just like any other "make additional attack using this weapon" like freki and geki and chainswords.
When a helbrute attacks, if it has two helbrute fists equipped, then you make 1 additional attack using the weapon's profile.
Twice, because it is armed with 2 Helbrute Fist. It has to be armed with 2 fist to activate the rule, but it is activated on both fist
So then, if you take two helbrute fists, then do you have two entries of helbrute fists on your wargear?
I mean, I do see where your argument is coming from, but the RAW isn't written ambiguously enough to claim that this is a RAW loophole.
Are you arguing that a model armed with two of a weapon doesn’t benefit from both of them? I’m sure a lot of vehicles are being misplayed when shooting if that is the case.
Rules wise, it doesn’t matter if a model is armed with 2 Helbrute Fist or Helbrute Fist and Helbrute Fist. It only matters that it isn’t armed with Twin Helbrute Fist.
This too is an apples to oranges comparison as rules for determining the number of attacks works differently from shooting to fighting.
This argument would only hold if and only if number of shooting attacks is something that's governed by the unit's characteristics.
The rules for helbrute fist checks for whether the model was equipped with the fists twice (specifically). What it does not check for is whether there are two distinct entries of 'helbrute fist' wargear on it's datasheet (because that's literally not a thing).
nosferatu1001 wrote: We're arguing because you're ignoring what's written and making up your own version of the rules.
Not for any reason of ambiguity.
No, you ignore whats written. If a rule is written differently from the same author, it must mean something different, otherwise it wouldnt be written differently.
I've ignored nothing
Yet again, you've cut the bit where I explained what the additional text functionally does. That you've deliberately omitted means you're not arguing in good faith, yet again
Your "contribution" to this thread is over at that point.
Skschan - erm. , write out a full war gear list for a double fist helbrute. If you do it PROPERLY you will write
Helbrute fist
Helbrute fist
I then choose the "left" fist to make one attack with, which triggers the rule as the helbrute indeed has two fists.
I then choose the "right " fist to make one attack with, which....
Your argument ignores that this literally already occurs.
Tyrsnidd are a terrible counter for you to make , as there they have two distinct weapons, one for a single and one for a "double ", which is NOT THE CSSE HERE.
there is no "twin helbrute fist" item of war gear , unlike for nids
nosferatu1001 wrote: We're arguing because you're ignoring what's written and making up your own version of the rules.
Not for any reason of ambiguity.
No, you ignore whats written. If a rule is written differently from the same author, it must mean something different, otherwise it wouldnt be written differently.
I've ignored nothing
Yet again, you've cut the bit where I explained what the additional text functionally does. That you've deliberately omitted means you're not arguing in good faith, yet again
Your "contribution" to this thread is over at that point.
Skschan - erm. , write out a full war gear list for a double fist helbrute. If you do it PROPERLY you will write
Helbrute fist Helbrute fist
I then choose the "left" fist to make one attack with, which triggers the rule as the helbrute indeed has two fists. I then choose the "right " fist to make one attack with, which....
Your argument ignores that this literally already occurs.
Tyrsnidd are a terrible counter for you to make , as there they have two distinct weapons, one for a single and one for a "double ", which is NOT THE CSSE HERE. there is no "twin helbrute fist" item of war gear , unlike for nids
Functionally, "pair of scything talon" = "helbrute fist" Two (2) "pair(s) of scything talon" = Two (2) "helbrute fist"
On your datasheet, where the rules for each weapon is listed, there is a single entry for 'helbrute fist'. By taking additional 'helbrute fist', you're not adding another entry of 'helbrute fist' under the 'weapons' section.
You are mistaking the common nomenclature for listing what equipment a unit has via battlescribe where it enters multiple weapons, i.e. "helbrute fist, helbrute fist" as a short hand as to mean that there are multiple entries for 'helbrute fist'. This is simply to show you how many times that particular weapon was taken by the unit, it does not, add another line in the 'weapons' section.
For each Helbrute fist this model is equipped with, it can be equipped with 1 of the following: 1 combi-bolter; 1 heavy flamer. That Helbrute fist cannot then be replaced.
By that wording, a Helbrute that replaces it's multi-melta with a Helbrute fist does most assuredly does gain two additional attacks as it has two 'Helbrute fist'.
skchsan wrote: But do you physically alter the wargear it's equipped with two separate & distinct entries for helbrtue fist - i.e. helbrute fist 1 & helbrute fist 2, or is it simply two (2) helbrute fists? In other words, when you fight with said helbrute, do you claim "the helbrute will attack with his left fist first, and then with his right fist", or does it simply "fight with its helbrute fists"?
If it indeed is the former (where the two are clearly distinguished as separate wargear), then your argument holds, but there are 0 precedents where you consider two weapons of the same name as two separate and distinct wargear (i.e. scything talons), so I think that argument hold very little water.
It may not go as far as p5freak's argument where he claims "if you take multiple same-name weapons, they become a weapon system", but there's nothing in the rules that tells you to treat the two same-name weapons as if they are two distinct wargear whose's abilities are triggered once per weapon.
It is two separate weapons. That's been made clear by various people already. As far as precedent goes, we have chainswords and lightning claws as examples of applying a weapon's bonus for each one you have. I find the idea that a Helbrute equipped with 2 Helbrute Fists only has 1 weapon frankly absurd. Having duplicate weapons does not mean you only have 1 of that weapon in any case I can think of.
p5freak and skchsan, Please re-read this breakdown and tell me why you think the logic is incorrect:
Spoiler:
Basically the process goes like this:
The bearer of the Hellbrute fists is selected to fight
At this point we see that the Hellbrute is equipped with a Hellbrute Fist (lets call this weapon #1), and a second Hellbrute Fist (lets call this weapon #2).
We make our 5 attacks with any given weapon (does not matter which).
Then we check our special rules
Weapon #1, the Hellbrute Fist, has a rule about extra attacks.
So we check the rule and see if we satisfy the conditions:
Condition 1: "Each time the bearer fights" (Yes, satisfied)
Condition 2: "if it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists" (Yes, satisfied)
We satisfied both conditions, as the bearer is fighting and it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists, therefore we get the benefit.
The benefit is "it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon."
So we get +1 attack with weapon #1 for simply having that weapon (and using its special rules).
Now we check for other weapons on the dataslate:
Weapon #2 , the other Hellbrute Fist, also has a rule about extra attacks.
So we check the rule and see if we satisfy the conditions:
Condition 1: "Each time the bearer fights" (Yes, satisfied)
Condition 2: "if it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists" (Yes, satisfied)
We satisfied both conditions, as the bearer is fighting and it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists, therefore we get the benefit.
The benefit is "it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon."
So we get +1 attack with weapon #2 for simply having that weapon (and using its special rules).
Count all the +1's and you get +2. Simple (Though you need to make 1 attack with with weapon #1, and one attack with with weapon #2).
Because its each time it fights, not each time it attacks.
As per wording of the rules for helbrute fists, it is an ability that is checked for when you fight, not when you resolve the attack with the said weapon. (i.e. plasma's ability is checked on the hit roll, certain weapons' abilities trigger on wound roll, etc, different weapons & their abilities are triggered at different points/subphases/etc).
You check once how many helbrute fists you have equipped at the timing of you selecting your helbrute with 2x helbrute fists equipped.
The game makes clear distinction as to what "fight" is and what "attack" is. The rules are specific in their usage of the term "fight".
Thus, you get one additional attack using the weapon profile, not +1 A or +2 A. It's more akin to how bolter discipline can grant 1 additional attack using the bolter's profile - this is a "make a duplicate attack regardless of A characteristic" mechanic, which is explicitly different from "+X to A characteristic" mechanics.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slipspace wrote: It is two separate weapons. That's been made clear by various people already. As far as precedent goes, we have chainswords and lightning claws as examples of applying a weapon's bonus for each one you have. I find the idea that a Helbrute equipped with 2 Helbrute Fists only has 1 weapon frankly absurd. Having duplicate weapons does not mean you only have 1 of that weapon in any case I can think of.
Can you point me to the bolded? AFAIK this is not the case, but I may be misinformed. I'm not saying that the helbrute fist counts only as 1 weapon - you simply cannot invoke the same rule twice because there are no precedents for doing so - if we follow this logic then two chainswords should give you 4 extra attacks, not 2 (swing CS#1, claim +1 attack, then claim +1 from inactive CS#2, then swing the CS#2, claim +1 attack, then claim +1 from CS#1 that is inactive). But that's not how it works as far as I understand the rules.
Sk- no, you're wrong. Sorry only one way to say it now
You've ignored that, bar the requirement to hold two fists to trigger the rule, the rule is EXACTLY THE SAME as for a chain sword. We know 2 chainswords grant two attacks , yet you're adamant that - despite identical wording bar a requirement that is irrelevant to the discussion , that helbrute fists are different
To do this you are ignoring
- there are two weapons, EACH ONE with the rule
- these are not a single weapon
- you've concocted, out of whole cloth, that fight is a point in time, when it's a sequence. That's why the rule is fightS. It is continuing. You check the rules, plural, during the fight sequence
Why do you only check how many fists you have once? You have TWO RUKES, you are ignoring one of them. What gave you permission to break the rules here? Why does one rule not matter to you?
Again
Explain how your reasoning fits with the chain sword rule. Under your ignoring of rules concept, the entirely separate, not the same chain sort woukdnt be looked at, meaning on,y one additional attack, yet we know that's wrong
skchsan wrote: "When a unit fights" is a mechanic that's clearly defined in the rulebook.
Yes. And when it fights, helbrute fist 1 makes one additional attack, as does fist 2
We know this is correct. Again. How are you squaring your reading of this, when it would result in only one chainsword attack, which is simply not correct?
You ignore that a differently written rule from the same author must mean something different, otherwise it wouldnt be written differently.
and RAI you may be correct. The intent may have been to give only +1 attack if the hellbrute had two fists. However RAW, that is not how they wrote that rule.
You ignore that a differently written rule from the same author must mean something different, otherwise it wouldnt be written differently.
Yes, and it does mean something diffeeent. It means you only get the extra attacks, plural, by having two fists. Unlike the scourge, which only needs one
Why do you insist on ignoring this? Is it because you yet again know you're wrong, but cannot accept it? You're arguing in bad faith. Third time now, minimum.
You ignore that a differently written rule from the same author must mean something different, otherwise it wouldnt be written differently.
And we've shown that the only difference is what the rule says (i.e., that you need to Helbrute fists for a Helbrute fist to give you 1 additional attack).
JohnnyHell wrote: Is this thread about a rule that’s not ambiguous actually still going? Sheeeesh.
You have one person arguing dishonestly, and another from an honest position that can't explain why helbrutes can on,y get one attack from the same rule that lets double chainswords get two
Slipspace wrote: It is two separate weapons. That's been made clear by various people already. As far as precedent goes, we have chainswords and lightning claws as examples of applying a weapon's bonus for each one you have. I find the idea that a Helbrute equipped with 2 Helbrute Fists only has 1 weapon frankly absurd. Having duplicate weapons does not mean you only have 1 of that weapon in any case I can think of.
Can you point me to the bolded? AFAIK this is not the case, but I may be misinformed. I'm not saying that the helbrute fist counts only as 1 weapon - you simply cannot invoke the same rule twice because there are no precedents for doing so - if we follow this logic then two chainswords should give you 4 extra attacks, not 2 (swing CS#1, claim +1 attack, then claim +1 from inactive CS#2, then swing the CS#2, claim +1 attack, then claim +1 from CS#1 that is inactive). But that's not how it works as far as I understand the rules.
I just wanted to question this as it seems confused.
Say we have a Space Marine with two Chainswords. The special rule is "Each time the bearer fights, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon"
When they go to attack we check the special rules for each weapon and see if they apply.
For CS#1 we invoke the rule "Each time the bearer fights, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon", which gives us +1 attack for a CS profile.
For CS#2 we invoke the rule "Each time the bearer fights, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon", which gives us +1 attack for a CS profile.
This gives us a total of +2 CS attacks.
If we can't invoke each equipped weapons special rule, we would only get +1 CS attack.
Slipspace wrote: It is two separate weapons. That's been made clear by various people already. As far as precedent goes, we have chainswords and lightning claws as examples of applying a weapon's bonus for each one you have. I find the idea that a Helbrute equipped with 2 Helbrute Fists only has 1 weapon frankly absurd. Having duplicate weapons does not mean you only have 1 of that weapon in any case I can think of.
Can you point me to the bolded? AFAIK this is not the case, but I may be misinformed. I'm not saying that the helbrute fist counts only as 1 weapon - you simply cannot invoke the same rule twice because there are no precedents for doing so - if we follow this logic then two chainswords should give you 4 extra attacks, not 2 (swing CS#1, claim +1 attack, then claim +1 from inactive CS#2, then swing the CS#2, claim +1 attack, then claim +1 from CS#1 that is inactive). But that's not how it works as far as I understand the rules.
That is exactly how it works. You talk about precedent for invoking the same rule twice. Why do we need precedent and where is this precedent anyway? AFAIK the only thing close to a restriction like that applies specifically to auras. We're just following the rules here. There's nothing that says you don't get to use all rules that apply from your equipped weapons/upgrades. Why are you adding an extra restriction without justification?
JohnnyHell wrote:Is this thread about a rule that’s not ambiguous actually still going? Sheeeesh.
Apparently so. Though if it's not ambiguous I'm wondering why your initial replies seem to indicate you don't think you get +2A as that's what the rules actually say, as discussed over the last 3 pages? Difficult to say if you still think that since your last few posts haven't actually been adding anything to the discussion.
As a side question would this mean that a Relic Space Marine Terminator with a pair of Lightning Claws would get 4 base attacks (Stat of 2 for Attacks +1 for the left claw +1 for the right claw)?
Also, what about units like warp talons? They have 2 lightning claws the troopers only have an A of 1 but the champions has an A of 2. Does this mean they have 2 and 4 attacks respectively?
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Even if it has an A of 1? How do you use the second claw and get that additional attack?
Sinple answer is that you don't need use the second claw to get that additional attack, because the abilities of a Lightning Claw say "Each time the bearer fights, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon."
So each time they fight, even if they have 1 attack and use that attack on a CCW that is not a Lightning Claw, they get 1 additional attack with their weapons called Lightning Claw. If they have two Lightning Claw weapons, they get 1 additional attack with Lightning Claw #1, and 1 additional attack with Lightning Claw #2.
Why doesn't the Helbrute Fist follow the same logic as Astartes Chainswords?
I mean:
40k 9th Core Rulebook page 230 wrote:If a model has more than one melee weapon, select which it will use before resolving any attacks. If a model has more than one melee weapon and can make several attacks, it can split them between these weapons however you wish - declare which attacks are being made with which weapons before any attacks are resolved.
So I have two Astartes Chainswords, and A2 on my profile.
I split them between both my swords. My swords have the special rule:
Codex Space Marines, page 152 wrote:Each time the bearer fights, it makes one additional attack with this weapon.
So my first attack is with Chainsword #1, and the special rule triggers, so I get +1 Attack with that weapon. My second attack is with Chainsword #2, and the special rule triggers, so I get +1 Attack with that second weapon. 4A in total.
But say I don't split my attacks. Say I put all of my 2 attacks into Astartes Chainsword #1. I am attacking with an Astartes Chainsword, so I get +1A, and that's it. 3A in total.
So why wouldn't this also apply to the Helbrute fist in the Deathguard Codex? Two Helbrute fists are two distinct weapons, and why would the special rule that applies to the weapon trigger for each weapon? Helbrute Fist one attacks, we check, it has two of them, so +1A. Helbrute Fist two attacks, we check, yep, still has two fists, so another +1A, for +2A in total.
Gut feeling says that that's not what GW intended, but what they intended isn't the same as what they wrote.
H.B.M.C. wrote: But say I don't split my attacks. Say I put all of my 2 attacks into Astartes Chainsword #1. I am attacking with an Astartes Chainsword, so I get +1A, and that's it. 3A in total.
Not quite, otherwise things like mounted cavalry attacks wouldn't work. For example, Thunderwolf Cav have Crushing teeth and claws which say "Each time the bearer fights, it makes 3 additional attacks with this weapon and no more than 3 attacks can be made with this weapon". So even if you assign all of your attacks to your Astartes Chainsword, you still get to activate the Crushing teeth and claws special rule and make three attacks with them.
Same thing with two chainswords - just having the wargear allows access to it's special rules. It's worth noting here that most special rules have specific conditions that they need to meet before you can gain their benefit.
HBMC - what you're missing is that you don't need to make ANY attacks with the chainsword initially, for it to trigger. It's not "when using this chainsword to attack, make one additional attack", which is what you're saying, but "when fighting" - which is a condition of the model, not the weapon
If you have a power fist and chainsword, and make ALL your attacks with the fist, you get one additional attack with the chainsword.
If your model has a fist and 50 chainswords, it makes 50 chainsword attacks p,us the fist attacks, for example.
So why wouldn't this also apply to the Helbrute fist in the Deathguard Codex? Two Helbrute fists are two distinct weapons, and why would the special rule that applies to the weapon trigger for each weapon? Helbrute Fist one attacks, we check, it has two of them, so +1A. Helbrute Fist two attacks, we check, yep, still has two fists, so another +1A, for +2A in total.
Theres a difference between chainswords, that say "this weapon gives you +1 attack with this weapon", and the Helbrute fists that say "having two of these gives you +1A with this weapon".
Each time the bearer fights, if it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon.
It's there in plain English, "two fists, 1 additional attack", not "if you attack with a fist, and have two, you get 1 extra attack", its fight over all, not a fist attack itself that gives the +1A.
The key is "fights", rather than "attacks".
Compare it to the Heavy Flamer, Multi-melta or Helbrute hammer, which all say "Each time an attack made with this weapon", so those have per-attack rules, compared to per-fight rules, like the Power Scourge, which says "Each time the bearer fights", or are people playing the Scourge such that each attack is +3 more attacks, and are making 20 attacks, 5 + 3x5, with it?
The point is you have TWO separate fist weapons. Both fists meet the condition to trigger their effect (fighting and having two fists), so each fist gets to trigger that rule and add their own +1 attack.
So why wouldn't this also apply to the Helbrute fist in the Deathguard Codex? Two Helbrute fists are two distinct weapons, and why would the special rule that applies to the weapon trigger for each weapon? Helbrute Fist one attacks, we check, it has two of them, so +1A. Helbrute Fist two attacks, we check, yep, still has two fists, so another +1A, for +2A in total.
Theres a difference between chainswords, that say "this weapon gives you +1 attack with this weapon", and the Helbrute fists that say "having two of these gives you +1A with this weapon".
Each time the bearer fights, if it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon.
It's there in plain English, "two fists, 1 additional attack", not "if you attack with a fist, and have two, you get 1 extra attack", its fight over all, not a fist attack itself that gives the +1A.
The key is "fights", rather than "attacks".
Compare it to the Heavy Flamer, Multi-melta or Helbrute hammer, which all say "Each time an attack made with this weapon", so those have per-attack rules, compared to per-fight rules, like the Power Scourge, which says "Each time the bearer fights", or are people playing the Scourge such that each attack is +3 more attacks, and are making 20 attacks, 5 + 3x5, with it?
The plain english is “two fists, 1 additional attack” with this weapon. Two Fists is not a weapon, A Fist is a weapon and there are two of them.
JakeSiren wrote: For example, Thunderwolf Cav have Crushing teeth and claws which say "Each time the bearer fights, it makes 3 additional attacks with this weapon and no more than 3 attacks can be made with this weapon". So even if you assign all of your attacks to your Astartes Chainsword, you still get to activate the Crushing teeth and claws special rule and make three attacks with them.
I was not aware of that rule. Thank you for pointing it out. It makes for an interesting comparison and helps clarify things for me.
nosferatu1001 wrote: HBMC - what you're missing is that you don't need to make ANY attacks with the chainsword initially, for it to trigger. It's not "when using this chainsword to attack, make one additional attack", which is what you're saying, but "when fighting" - which is a condition of the model, not the weapon
You are completely correct! I did not read it that way initially, but yes, the condition for the Astartes Chainsword's +1A is "Each time the bearer fights" and not "Each time the bearer fights with this weapon". So yes, you could have an Astartes Chainsword and a Thunder Hammer, have A50 on your profile, make 50 attacks with the Thunder Hammer and still make a 51st attack with the Astartes Chainsword because you have met the condition of "Each time the bearer fights".
But that actually strengthens the argument for the two extra attacks with the fists because of the inclusion of "... with this weapon.". It specifies "with this weapon" and a Helbrute with two fists has two such weapons. Thus the effect would trigger twice, as the condition is met twice every time the Helbrute fights.
I'm actually now more convinced than ever that this is not what GW intended, but as I said above, what they intended and what they wrote are not the same thing.
It takes rewriting rules to not allow both fists to give another attack.
Fictional - wrong. You've failed to read or condense the entire rule. With the fist, yiu get another attack. With the other fist, you get another attack
But you're still effectively counting each fist twice. This is a rules interpretation requiring a certain degree of "the rules doesn't tell me I can't [count each fist twice, once per weapon, for total of two additional attacks]." The primary issue on hand is that the rule in question is tied to the weapon as its ability. In other words, this is a supposed RAW loophole that relies on the poor structure of the rules and not just the actual rules themselves being poorly written.
The RAW is insufficient in explaining what to do in this particular situation. There's no precedent for counting the same wargear multiple times for purpose of multiple rules, even if they are identical rules. In the case of CS's you count the number of CS's the model is equipped with, and apply the rule per CS; in the case of pairs of scything talons, you check whether you have more than 1 pair, and apply the rule when more than 1 pair; in the case of HBF, you check whether it is equipped with two HBF's, and apply the rule if it is equipped with two HBF's. There are actually no more apples to apples comparison (that I can think of) since the rules for LC's been revised.
If you are equipped with two same melee weapon, you don't declare "I swing my right CCW, then my left CCW" - this is not something that's instantiated by the rule since by "Weapon", it points to the "WEAPONS" section on the datasheet that shows the available equipment. Per rules, if you have multiple weapons, you can split them up however you wish, but the rules aren't clear when there are multiples of the same weapon. When you're taking multiple helbrute fists, your datasheet doesn't become:
Helbrute Fist (Base): MELEE/MELEE/x2/-3/3/Each time the bearer fights, if it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon. Helbrute Fist (Replaces MM): MELEE/MELEE/x2/-3/3/Each time the bearer fights, if it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon.
Rather, there's still only 1 entry for HBF under "Weapons" no matter how many times you take it, despite the unit description effectively becomes "A Helbrute is equipped with: multi-melta; Helbrute fist; Helbrute fist." In other words, there is no effective way in the rules to distinguish two same weapons when declaring an attack - it's number of attacks/quantities can be drawn up from summing up the A characteristics, but the rule doesn't give you the room to say "I swing with my right HBF here and my left HBF there." At best, what you can declare would be "I will split up my melee attacks using helbrute fists into these two squads, since this model is equipped with two HBF's."
Helbrute Fist: MELEE/MELEE/x2/-3/3/Each time the bearer fights, if it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon.
Hence, I think it's fallacious to assume that "if has two" as to mean "check if there is another fist other than the one I am currently declaring to attack with."
The moment you’ve decided the phrasing the of the rule means “count each fists twice, since simply having two fists doesn’t make the first fist disappear, so it must mean that you count each fist twice”, you’ve detached your interpretation from strict RAW reading.
The wording of the rule falls short of providing ample premises to draw a logical conclusion that would yield “You get 2 additional attacks because you have 2 fists”. This is simply “my/our interpretation of RAW” and not the actual RAW.
Your entire analysis is flawed, for every single reason already posted.
You do indeed have two weapons. You cannot possibly claim otherwise.
Each weapon has a rule you evaluate when the model fights. Again, you cannot reasonably claim otherwise.
Exactly the same as the chainswords, every time you fulfil the requirements you get another attack
The only difference is that you have an additional requirement. Why you're deciding this magically changes everything I have no idea. It can't be explained any more than this.
Condition met? Then process the result
You have two fists. I can point to them on the model. Each has a rule. I can point to this on the data sheet. Why you think you ignore the existence of one weapon is a mystery
That's because you're not listening/reading anything I've posted.
The point stands - your interpretation requires you to count the weapons more than once in order to invoke the fist's abilities twice, once per weapon. Please explain to me (as I am a new comer to this particular discussion that's been taking place for the past few months supposedly) why this works the way it does.
If we follow this logic, then pair of scything talons, whose ability triggers upon instance of "having more than 1 pair of", would yield 2 additional attacks as opposed to 1 since having more than 1 pair of scything talons will have more than 1 pair, always, and it's limited to 2 additional attacks only because say, a carnifex, only has weapon slots for two pairs of scything talons.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DeathReaper wrote: Please re-read this breakdown and tell me why you think the logic is incorrect: The bearer of the Hellbrute fists is selected to fight At this point we see that the Hellbrute is equipped with a Hellbrute Fist (lets call this weapon #1), and a second Hellbrute Fist (lets call this weapon #2). We make our 5 attacks with any given weapon (does not matter which). Then we check our special rules Weapon #1, the Hellbrute Fist, has a rule about extra attacks.
Emphasis mine.
Weapons are taken pre-deployment, during "muster army".
You need to know when your weapon's abilities are triggered/procced.
The weapons' ability requires you to check at "when fighting", not "when attacking".
Hence, it would be illegal to check for existence of HBF #2 when attacking with HBF #1, and vice versa.
skchsan wrote: The point stands - your interpretation requires you to count the weapons more than once in order to invoke the fist's abilities twice, once per weapon. Please explain to me (as I am a new comer to this particular discussion that's been taking place for the past few months supposedly) why this works the way it does.
You count each weapon, each weapon has a special rule, and whenever the conditions for the special rule are met, the rule kicks in.
Each fist has a rule that provides +1A if the model has two fists. To meet that condition you have to:
1). Fight in melee.
2). Fight in melee using the fists.
3). Be equipped with two fists.
Each fist is a separate weapon. Therefore if you meet the conditions of one fist, you meet the conditions of both automatically. Therefore you gain +1A for each weapon.
skchsan wrote: The point stands - your interpretation requires you to count the weapons more than once in order to invoke the fist's abilities twice, once per weapon. Please explain to me (as I am a new comer to this particular discussion that's been taking place for the past few months supposedly) why this works the way it does.
You count each weapon, each weapon has a special rule, and whenever the conditions for the special rule are met, the rule kicks in.
Each fist has a rule that provides +1A if the model has two fists. To meet that condition you have to:
1). Fight in melee. 2). Fight in melee using the fists. 3). Be equipped with two fists.
Each fist is a separate weapon. Therefore if you meet the conditions of one fist, you meet the conditions of both automatically. Therefore you gain +1A for each weapon.
Then would you say:
This unit contains 3 Raveners.. Each model is armed with two pairs of scything talons. Scything Talon... You can re-roll hit rolls of 1 for this weapon. If the bearer has more than one pair of scything talons, it can make 1 additional attack with this weapon each time it fights.
Note, the unit description states the models are armed with two pairs of scything talons; however, there are no weapons entry for a PAIR of scything talons - just "scything talon". So, given the word "pair" shares definition with standard English, we will now assume the models are equipped with four scything talons.
So, Raveners equipped with two pairs of scything talon now hits for 8 times - 4 attacks base + (4) 1 extra attack per Scything Talon (not PAIR of Scything Talon) = 8 hits
Afterall, I fulfill the requirements for having more than 1 pair of scything talon at the moment of activation for attacking with, so I claim the bonus for EACH scything talon it has, just like how HBF works, right?
You'd be correct, except there's a specific FAQ for Scything Talons that limits it to 1 extra attack. I'm fairly sure that's what they meant for HBF but it's not what the rules actually say. The rules are clear for HBF, but some people are adding their own interpretation to them, IMO.
Sk - I am listening. You've not added anything. You're making up restrictions that do. Not. Exist.
I look at every weapon I have to proc any rules. When fighting:
HBF 1 says - do you have two HBF? Why yes, yes I do. Oh great, you get an extra attacks
HBF 2 says the exact same thing. Why am I not processing this rule? Explain it, because according to the chainsword precedent, I must do so. And when I process this rule, I discover I STILL have two HBF , so I STILL get an extra attack.
It doesn't matter that I'm counting them twice, because the rule makes no such distinction or requirement
I meet the requirements twice, so I process the rules twice
Not to do so is breaking the rules
This thread is definitely done.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here's the faq
Q: If a model has more than one pair of scything/monstrous scything/ massive scything talons, does it make 1 additional attack with one of those pairs, or 1 additional attack with each of those pairs?
A: 1 additional attack with one of those pairs.
My interpretation (and yes, there is room for interpretation, despite others suggesting otherwise) is that the RAW, which is what this forum is concerned about, says you get one additional attack with EACH fist, because they are each a separate weapon with the wording that, when you attack, you get one extra attack with this weapon.
HOWEVER, my interpretation is also that this is not RAI, and we will see a change or clarification (depending on your viewpoint) come through when the CSM/DG/TSFAQ hits.
Octopoid wrote: HOWEVER, my interpretation is also that this is not RAI, and we will see a change or clarification (depending on your viewpoint) come through when the CSM/DG/TSFAQ hits.
We've already had the first FAQ for the Death Guard codex, and any changes in the Thousand Sons or Chaos Space Marines codex will not apply to the Death Guard codex. This most likely won't be looked at until the next FAQ update that is due in September
You don’t add the weapon info to the model twice. You have the weapon twice. You look up the rule when using it. A Chainsword tells you you get an extra attack for having one. So having two gets +2. The Fist rules say you get an extra attack for having two. Not difficult to follow.
Outside of contorting plain English for internet points on Reddit/YMDC, it’s not a difficult rule to parse. This subforum just likes to have silly circle jerks.
Why not? Your weapons are 2 Helbrute Fists. You apply the rules for both weapons because you have both. Seems like a weird take. Do we get to use the melta rule only once if we have 2 Multimelta sponsons on a Leman Russ?
You have the weapon twice. You look up the rule when using it. A Chainsword tells you you get an extra attack for having one. So having two gets +2. The Fist rules say you get an extra attack for having two. Not difficult to follow.
Outside of contorting plain English for internet points on Reddit/YMDC, it’s not a difficult rule to parse. This subforum just likes to have silly circle jerks.
I'm not sure why you're saying you get +2 attacks for two chainswords if you're also saying you don't have the weapon twice. How does that follow?
DeathReaper wrote: Please re-read this breakdown and tell me why you think the logic is incorrect:
The bearer of the Hellbrute fists is selected to fight
At this point we see that the Hellbrute is equipped with a Hellbrute Fist (lets call this weapon #1), and a second Hellbrute Fist (lets call this weapon #2).
We make our 5 attacks with any given weapon (does not matter which).
Then we check our special rules Weapon #1, the Hellbrute Fist, has a rule about extra attacks.
Emphasis mine.
Weapons are taken pre-deployment, during "muster army".
Sure, but why does that matter exactly? We have two weapons on the Hellbrute Dataslate... Not just one.
You need to know when your weapon's abilities are triggered/procced.
Yes, and the Hellbrute has a weapon that can use its abilities "Each time the bearer fights".
Each time the bearer fights, it gets to use the rule that says "Each time the bearer fights, if it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon." From Weapon #1, and also from Weapon #2. (If you do not think so, please prove otherwise).
The weapons' ability requires you to check at "when fighting", not "when attacking".
And your point? "Each time the bearer fights" you need to check your weapons to see if the fulfill the conditions for that extra attack. Weapon #1 100% fulfils the conditions. Weapon #2 also 100% fulfills the conditions for that extra attack
There are two different weapons that both have rules, why are you not allowing one of those weapons to use its rules???
Here is the crux of your false argument, because for some reason, you are not allowing the rules for both weapons to be used. Why?
Hence, it would be illegal to check for existence of HBF #2 when attacking with HBF #1, and vice versa.
Scything talons
You can re-roll hit rolls of 1 for this weapon. If the bearer has more than one pair of scything talons, it can make 1 additional attack with this weapon each time it fights
Automatically Appended Next Post: If a model has more than one pair of scything/monstrous scything/massive scything talons, does it make 1 additional attack with one of those pairs, or 1 additional attack with each of those pairs?
A:
1 additional attack with one of those pairs.
Why not? Your weapons are 2 Helbrute Fists. You apply the rules for both weapons because you have both. Seems like a weird take. Do we get to use the melta rule only once if we have 2 Multimelta sponsons on a Leman Russ?
You have the weapon twice. You look up the rule when using it. A Chainsword tells you you get an extra attack for having one. So having two gets +2. The Fist rules say you get an extra attack for having two. Not difficult to follow.
Outside of contorting plain English for internet points on Reddit/YMDC, it’s not a difficult rule to parse. This subforum just likes to have silly circle jerks.
I'm not sure why you're saying you get +2 attacks for two chainswords if you're also saying you don't have the weapon twice. How does that follow?
It’s hard to respond to something I didn’t say, so I won’t.
Why don't you have two,weapons with two stat lines and two rules? Prove it.
I think you've mis-understood Johnny's intent with his statement. It's not a RAW discussion. He's not wrong that a plain reading reveals the intent. And he's not wrong that people on this forum like to contort the plain reading for fun / points / etc.
To be honest, while everyone seems to agree on the RAW, I don't believe that anyone is genuinely advocating that it should be played as +2 attacks.
Why don't you have two,weapons with two stat lines and two rules? Prove it.
I think you've mis-understood Johnny's intent with his statement. It's not a RAW discussion. He's not wrong that a plain reading reveals the intent. And he's not wrong that people on this forum like to contort the plain reading for fun / points / etc.
To be honest, while everyone seems to agree on the RAW, I don't believe that anyone is genuinely advocating that it should be played as +2 attacks.
No contortion
Completely plain reading, completely backed up by the chainsword rule also function8g on a per chainsword basis. The only way to not arrive at +2 attacks would also mean that chainswords would not get an additional,attack per chainsword. As we know that to be false, the attempt to claim +1 attack only fails
Is it RAI? Well I've asked and it's not been faq, so that is one point FOR RAI.
So as I read the Helbrute rules, it literally reads "add 1 attack if this model has two melee weapons, under battering onslaught. Am I missing something?
I can't believe there's still debate over this. Let's try an analogy:
Say one day GW decides that they want to make another Daemon Engine, and come up with, say, a possessed Khornate Knight Armiger. This theoretical model has the option to either have a meltagun and a chain-cleaver, or two chain-cleavers. However, since this is a Khorne-aligned model, the rules guys want to give a bonus for going full melee, so they add a lore bit where if the model doesn't have any guns, some Daemon Prince blesses it by setting its chain-cleavers on fire, which obviously makes them more powerful. The stats for this model's chain-cleavers would then have the following rule:
"Each time the bearer fights with this weapon, if it is equipped with two chain-cleavers, the model it is fighting receives one mortal wound" (or something like that, I'm not too experienced with rules syntax).
Under the interpretation of Johnny Hell and skchsan, the target of this attack would only receive a mortal wound once. But that doesn't make logical sense! The mortal wounds inflicted here represent the chain-cleavers being on fire; are we to believe that if this model is granted its bonus, only one chain-cleaver is set alight?
The DG dreadnaught rule relies on the same logic, just a bit harder to understand. Each fist (there are two individual fists, just like there are two individual chain-cleavers on this hypothetical Armiger) says that if you only have fists, it gets two attacks. Otherwise, it gets one attack. That's two plus two attacks, which is four in total. Simple as.
As for the scything talons, the FAQ explicitly changed the way the weapon works. It's no different from increasing a points cost or removing a special rule.
Except for every editition of this unit in the past a pair of melee units has counted as a single weapon, ala 1 attack. Never before has two melee weapons counted as 2 extra attacks, that I am aware of. Has there ever been a precedent for a pair of weapons giving more than 1 attack? Ala Telemon Fists?
The past really doesn't enter into the conversation. This is a new edition of the rules and there may be new writers. These new writers are in no way beholden to what previous editions did or did not do.
The only thing that matters is what is written in the current BRB, any contemporaneous codices and, any errata/FAQ associated with them.
Ok, then I suggest as always you discuss it with the opponent before hand, and if not, have fun pissing off your opponents. I don't understand the intent behind these posts. It's always "Can I have permission to play a rule based purely on my semantic interpretation, for a in game advantage?"
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Ok, then I suggest as always you discuss it with the opponent before hand, and if not, have fun pissing off your opponents. I don't understand the intent behind these posts. It's always "Can I have permission to play a rule based purely on my semantic interpretation, for a in game advantage?"
The intent is to understand what the rules actually say. Armed with that knowledge you can then have a reasonable discussion about it before a game. Your last sentence completely ignores the possibility this is what the designers intended, essentially arguing not only RAI, but implying anyone who disagrees with you is some sort of rules-lawyering TFG, which I personally think is more questionable behaviour than suggesting a DG Helbrute might get +2 Attacks with double fists.
The problem with your position is there's a whole spectrum of possibilities and scenarios when it comes to determining intent. On the one hand, any reasonable person would accept the 8th Edition assault weapon rules should not be played RAW and the RAI was to allow you to fire after advancing. The RAW was clear but the RAI also very clear to literally everyone except (possibly) one single poster on this board. But there are lots of scenarios where it isn't as clear as that, including this one. I'm fairly sure the RAI is to allow only +1A but I'm not sure enough to tell my opponent they don't get +2A because the RAW is clear but the RAI is not.
The benefit of having these discussions here is to thrash out the actual arguments away from the table so when you do come across them at the table you're at least aware of the argument and what the rule says. I think a lot of these discussions degenerate because people insist on arguing RAI instead of RAW. It's perfectly OK to examine the RAW yet come down on the side of RAI, or suggest it's something to discuss with your opponent beforehand. What annoys me is people who will argue for an interpretation but won't back that up when challenged, yet continue to put forward that argument.
Dakka is in no way EVER a citable source for rules confirmation. If I went to a tourney and said, "But the people on Dakka Dakka Dakka YMDC forums told me that I get an extra 2 attacks for double fists!" I'd be laughed out of the building. This entire forum is for semantic arguments that always devolve into a complete circle jerk about who is right and how they have correctly interpreted the "divine will of the writers". It's 20 individual prophets claiming to know the will of the emperor.
Dakka is in no way EVER a citable source for rules confirmation. If I went to a tourney and said, "But the people on Dakka Dakka Dakka YMDC forums told me that I get an extra 2 attacks for double fists!" I'd be laughed out of the building. This entire forum is for semantic arguments that always devolve into a complete circle jerk about who is right and how they have correctly interpreted the "divine will of the writers". It's 20 individual prophets claiming to know the will of the emperor.
Dakka does not need to be a citable source. It serves as a basis for a well formed position on what the rules actually say.
If you hash out what the RAW actually is, you can have a discussion with a TO about the rules from an informed position with citations already in your mind.
Explain to me how Dakka Dakka in any way helps formulate a coherent argument as to RAW with a TO? The first question out of ANY TO is always, some form of Cite your Source. IF your source is essentially I had a really good 5 page argument on the internet, prepare to have the TO deny your argument.
I see the debate is still ongoing, I do just assume that everyone is arguing with good intent and not just to be "that guy". The world's a nicer place that way.
I've fired an email off to GW's FAQ address, I'll update if they ever come back.
Thanks for everyone's contributions. Personally I'm more unsure about the rule than I was before but I just can't get over the similarity the chainsword and Prince's talons. I'll discuss this with my opponent should it come up on the table.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Explain to me how Dakka Dakka in any way helps formulate a coherent argument as to RAW with a TO? The first question out of ANY TO is always, some form of Cite your Source. IF your source is essentially I had a really good 5 page argument on the internet, prepare to have the TO deny your argument.
FYI, a TO saying "Cite your source" is terrible judging, unless you count "Show me the rules" as the same thing. What matters (in the context of judging a rules query) is the rules, not things like unofficial rules blogs or promo posts like a Warhammer Community article.
And the idea is that the player should respond "Here's the rules - the Codex and FAQ - and here's the datasheet. The rule giving +1 attack is a weapon rule, it has two fists so each has the rule, both meet the conditions, so it gets +2 attacks total."
The point of this thread is to identify that that is what the rules say and to help people form a simple, cohesive, and accurate explanation in case anyone does challenge it.
As a to I'd never utter "cite your source", as that's an obnoxious way to ask to be shown the written rule in question, plus any applicable faq
Being shown the clear rule, written down with the conditions clearly met, ans showing these conditions do not materially alter the result over the chainsword faa where we KNOW you check the rule for each chainsword, and get a bonus each time? I'd be convinced.
That's the use of Dakka. No one has said to use it as a bloody source. But it does let you check your reasoning.
And that TO is fully within their right to say "No, that refers to a pair of weapons, not just a single one".
I would argue threads like this are a form of subtle asking a parent for permission to stick your hand in the cookie jar. As far as I have seen, (limited personal experience and not ever a TO) I have never seen anyone use this rule in this manner. Can anyone provide proof of this actually being allowed by a TO?
This forum is a way to test out interpretations of rules, before using them in game. You make the call, it's not called Help Me Understand the Rule. I was actually argue that is for tactics. This is specifically for people to argue rule interpretations.
No it doesn't, though. It is a weapon rule for the SINGLE weapon. Why posters keep making up this idea that having two of the same weapon somehow makes it into a single weapon pair I have no idea.
Trying to claim every obvious misprint or mistake is somehow legal is not winning anyone any e-points. It's like when the warsuits came out with -1 damage and 240pts. No one believed that meant they nullify 1 damage weapons, or that they actually costed 240 per model. Why do people twist themselves into pretzels trying to find obvious errors for a game play advantage?
You know what, sure. It's two attacks. Go ahead and glue up that model and spend the time painting it to get it BATTLE READY. Invest all that time and effort, and when you are done, there will likely be a correction FAQ out. But you will still be stuck with a giant useless model that has only 1 extra attack.
Awesome. So how precisely, using rules sources, are you claiming it only has one attack? Because so far you've contributed nothing.
I note your silence regarding the similarities to chainswords as well
It's not obviously wrong. Cos, you know, chainswords. Which in your made up rules would also be one weapon? But then we know that's wring. Meaning yiur argument isn't consistent. Pretty good indication it's wrong. It's not as obviously wrong as two different point costs for the exact same model would be. But then I'd not be so foolish as to suggest so.
Oh and btw. Already have one. Been running it since 4th.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Trying to claim every obvious misprint or mistake is somehow legal is not winning anyone any e-points. It's like when the warsuits came out with -1 damage and 240pts. No one believed that meant they nullify 1 damage weapons, or that they actually costed 240 per model. Why do people twist themselves into pretzels trying to find obvious errors for a game play advantage?
You know what, sure. It's two attacks. Go ahead and glue up that model and spend the time painting it to get it BATTLE READY. Invest all that time and effort, and when you are done, there will likely be a correction FAQ out. But you will still be stuck with a giant useless model that has only 1 extra attack.
Okay, you have a different opinion on what the rules and the intent are. That's okay - I respect your right to have an opinion, even if I disagree with it. But there's no need to be abrasive about it.
My perspective of this thread is that some people have correctly realised that double-fist Helbrutes have gotten a nice, but not incredible, buff, and other people are... what were the words you used? "Twisting themselves into pretzels" to find an argument against the buff. Because that extra attack apparently takes it from "useless" to OP even though it doesn't actually make a huge difference in practice.
Full disclosure: Death Guard are one of my armies, but I don't use helbrutes in them, and if I did it certainly wouldn't be a double-fist.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Explain to me how Dakka Dakka in any way helps formulate a coherent argument as to RAW with a TO? The first question out of ANY TO is always, some form of Cite your Source. IF your source is essentially I had a really good 5 page argument on the internet, prepare to have the TO deny your argument.
The source would be the rulebook. You look at the quotes posted on Dakka, write the pages down, and quote the rules to the TO. Simple.
Aelyn wrote: Full disclosure: Death Guard are one of my armies, but I don't use helbrutes in them, and if I did it certainly wouldn't be a double-fist.
Why not, if I may ask? Double fists with flamers strikes me as a very solid option.
Aelyn wrote: Full disclosure: Death Guard are one of my armies, but I don't use helbrutes in them, and if I did it certainly wouldn't be a double-fist.
Why not, if I may ask? Double fists with flamers strikes me as a very solid option.
Because it doesn't feel Death Guard to me, plain and simple. I'm far more interested in something that feels right than something that's currently the "best option" (and I don't necessarily think double-fist is the best option) - it would feel better to me with a missile launcher or a scourge on one arm and Reaper autocannon or twin heavy bolter on the other.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Trying to claim every obvious misprint or mistake is somehow legal is not winning anyone any e-points. It's like when the warsuits came out with -1 damage and 240pts. No one believed that meant they nullify 1 damage weapons, or that they actually costed 240 per model. Why do people twist themselves into pretzels trying to find obvious errors for a game play advantage?
You know what, sure. It's two attacks. Go ahead and glue up that model and spend the time painting it to get it BATTLE READY. Invest all that time and effort, and when you are done, there will likely be a correction FAQ out. But you will still be stuck with a giant useless model that has only 1 extra attack.
What makes you think it's an "obvious misprint or mistake"?
Warsuits being -1dmg with no bottom limit was an obvious error because it's obscenely powerful and makes no sense.
Helbrute fists getting +2 attacks if you have two of them is consistent with chainswords and lightning claws, and yet no one thinks those should be limited to only +1 attack total.
It's far from being an obvious mistake. Look at the CSM Helbrute: if you take a pair of fists, it means you aren't taking a multimelta. There, a second fist grants you +1 attack total; a multimelta grants you 2 shooting attacks at range (so you can use it more often than a fist) that can also be used while in engagement range, costing only 5pts. I would go so far as to say that +2 attacks is the "obvious" intent to balance out the options here.
(Sidenote: amusingly, the 40k app actually lists the CSM Helbrute fists as having the same ability as the DG Helbrute fists, while also having the old Battering Onslaught unit ability so you'd get a total of +3 attacks. If you want to talk about "obvious mistakes", then that's a good example right there!)
The closest precendent we have against the RAW is scything talons, which were FAQed to only get +1 attack even if a model has multiple. This reminds me of the Daemon FAQ which prevents their stratagems from working on DAEMON units outside their codex, even though there was another FAQ saying that you normally could use stratagems on units outside of its codex (as long as it had the right keywords). The FAQ only clarifies the intent for that instance of the rule.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Trying to claim every obvious misprint or mistake is somehow legal is not winning anyone any e-points. It's like when the warsuits came out with -1 damage and 240pts. No one believed that meant they nullify 1 damage weapons, or that they actually costed 240 per model. Why do people twist themselves into pretzels trying to find obvious errors for a game play advantage?
You know what, sure. It's two attacks. Go ahead and glue up that model and spend the time painting it to get it BATTLE READY. Invest all that time and effort, and when you are done, there will likely be a correction FAQ out. But you will still be stuck with a giant useless model that has only 1 extra attack.
You seem to misunderstand the purpose of this sub-forum, while also injecting a large amount of your own prejudices into the debate.
Nobody claimed people would be citing Dakka as a source, merely that having the debate here is preferable to trying to thrash it out at the table. If a TO asked for a rules citation for the +2A that would come from the rules themselves, but anyone aware of this thread would hopefully be able to present their rules reasoning for one side or the other after fully understanding what the debate actually is rather than coming in blind.
You've also failed to address the point I made earlier about what counts as a clear and obvious error where we can invoke RAI over RAW. As I stated, it's a spectrum with the stupidly written assault weapon rules on one end and things like this towards the other. For reference, while everyone who's been playing 40k for a while spotted the obvious -1 damage error with the warsuits, not every player would automatically assume it's a mistake. If you've played other games you may have come across similar mechanics that do reduce damage to 0 and I can completely understand a new player being genuinely confused as to why everyone plays this clearly written rule "incorrectly". I'm not saying the RAI clearly isn't for it to reduce damage to a minimum of 1 but you are attributing malice to people's opinions when the explanation might be much more benign.
I notice you still haven't given any actual rules quote to back up your previous assertions that you don't get +2A. Can you provide any rules basis for that assertion? Saying you don't think it's intentional won't really get you very far if someone else believes it is. There's not even loads of precedent in your favour here, unlike with the -1 damage ability.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Explain to me how Dakka Dakka in any way helps formulate a coherent argument as to RAW with a TO? The first question out of ANY TO is always, some form of Cite your Source. IF your source is essentially I had a really good 5 page argument on the internet, prepare to have the TO deny your argument.
The source would be the rulebook. You look at the quotes posted on Dakka, write the pages down, and quote the rules to the TO. Simple.
Good luck at this hypothetical tournament with this hypothetical TO who somehow doesn’t just read the rule and say “it says you get +1A for two fists. You have two fists. So it’s +1. Move along.”
Only because you refuse to acknowledge the rules of both weapons that the model is equipped with.
Ah yes, it’s entirely my fault you’re misapplying a rule and honking at me. Sure! “Refuse to acknowledge” aka the “I’m right you’re wrong nerr nerrr” of Dakka. Sigh.