Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Hang on, what DOES grant an additional attack?

I know pistols do, and duplicates of the same special weapon (aka, 2 power fists) but what else?
Just to recap.

Please don't divert this thread further off course.

Check out page 37 of the rulebook in the 'number of attacks' section and page 42 of the rulebook for your answer.

So really the question is whether or not the Storm Sheild ACTS as a close combat weapon (therby granting the close combat attack), or if it simply REPLACES a close combat weapon (in which case it does not confer a bonus attack).

I don't have the DeamonHunter codex so I can't say for sure. It's got to be one or the other though.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I'm going to make sure that my mega armored Warboss is pinned to his bike really well.

Then he probably won't fall off a lot, and it's legal to use him.

:3

Yes, this is most awesome and Cake!

Gwar! wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:I'm going to make sure that my mega armored Warboss is pinned to his bike really well.

Then he probably won't fall off a lot, and it's legal to use him.

:3

Yes, this is most awesome and Cake!

Also don't forget to model on extra people, so you can also fire all the weapons.

Tri wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:I'm going to make sure that my mega armored Warboss is pinned to his bike really well.

Then he probably won't fall off a lot, and it's legal to use him.

:3

Yes, this is most awesome and Cake!

Also don't forget to model on extra people, so you can also fire all the weapons.

Damn right! Gretchin count as people right??

Could we please keep this on topic and not digress with silly OT comments? They add nothing to the discussion.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Could we please keep this on topic and not digress with silly OT comments? They add nothing to the discussion.

Neither did your "ZOMG MY CLUB PLAYS LIKE THIS" posts, but that didn't stop you.

EVEN If you could get an extra attack with the stormshield

it falls under the category of a special weapon since it has rules other than "normal ccwpn"

as such per page42 you cannot get an additional attack with it if used with another special weapon.

so even if it were considered a close combat weapon, not count as for equipment allocation, but just flat out is, then you could -only- get an additional attack with it if you paired it with simply a normal close combat weapon, or a second storm shield since you must have two of the same special weapons, or special weapon+normal cc weapon, to get an addiotnal attack if one is a special weapon p42.

furthermore powerfists, thunderhammers, and lightning claws may only get an additional attack if paired with a copy of themselves - ie 2 powerfists, or 2 thunderhammers, or 2 lightning claws. p42.

cliff notes-
-if- storm shield is a weapon then:
only
storm shield+ normal close combat weapon
or
storm shield + storm shield

grants +1 attack.

Gwar my club's decision is directly related to this discussion. You may not like it but it's relevant. As I said we came to the same conclusions as insaniak.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Gwar my club's decision is directly related to this discussion. You may not like it but it's relevant. As I said we came to the same conclusions as insaniak.

No, it is not. If I were to say "My club lets all Storm Shields give a 2+ Invulnerable save and +6 Bonus attacks", would that be relevant?

That's obviously not what I said though.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:That's obviously not what I said though.

Why is your club more important than mine or anyone elses?

I never said it was but you have said it has no bearing here, while in fact it does.

He actually said it has as much bearing as anyone else's club.

Which is to say none outside of said club.

yakface wrote:I don't know why anyone even cares about this. Because of how the RAW for the Storm Shield is written in the Daemonhunter codex (that it only works against a single opponent in CC) it sucks so badly that anyone who wants to take it and get the +1 Attack bonus is fine by me.

They're not too bad actually; nowhere near as good as Smurf ones sure, but given that the worst your GKGM needs to hit anything in the game is a 4+, is able to wound pretty much everything thanks to his S6, and will insta-jib anything he wounds once by passing an Ld10 psychic test, an extra attack can be quite important. A 4++ save against a single opponent can also be important, because if he fails to hit, wound or poon a DP or something similar then having 4++ on 3 wounds might just allow him to survive for another attempt.

Tri wrote:

Gwar! wrote:It isn't a Glitch! You don't get the bonus attack!!!!!

Sorry gwar you do.

"Normal Close Combat Weapons
weapons like chainwords, rifle butts, combat blades,
bayonets, ect., do not confer any particular bonus to
the model using them (skipping bit on pistols)"

also
"4 although a storm shield is not a weapon as such, it counts as a single-handed weapon because nothing else can be used by the arm hold the shield."
so in its own rules it is clarified as being a CCW

Are you now saying that my assault marines don't get an extra attack for 2 ccw?

I am re-opening this thread. Please consider this a public warning to all posters, Rule #1 and #2 will be rigidly enforced on the remainder of this thread. Posts that are unnecessarily ascerbic, vitriolic, or just plain rude wil be treated as those violating Rule #1. Posts that intentionally go off topic will be considered violating Rule #2. If you are in doubt that the post you are about to make could potentially violate that, change it.

Argue the points gentlemen, not the personalities, and in a polite, debative manner, and not the arena of the common bar. Seriously, cut the crap or don't post. I promise I will be crankier than even my normal self.

I will occasionally revisit this thread. If others spot violations AFTER THIS POST, please report directly to me via PM and note my warning in the report.

Frazzled thank you for moderating this thread.

I fail to see how this is even needs a discussion.

If the storm shield is a weapon since it has rules beyond "normal close combat weapon"
it is a special weapon.

as such you would only get a bonus attack with a storm shield if you have:
storm shield+storm shield
or
storm shield +normal close combat weapon.

storm shield + anything else = no addtional attack as per p42.

since both of those are not only combinations people are not arguing about, nor combinations of weapons people would take there is really no reason to talk about this.

yakface wrote:
I don't know why anyone even cares about this. Because of how the RAW for the Storm Shield is written in the Daemonhunter codex (that it only works against a single opponent in CC) it sucks so badly that anyone who wants to take it and get the +1 Attack bonus is fine by me.


And I agree with Insaniak, BTW.

If you have a law that says: "although a truck isn't technically a car as such, it counts as a car."

This means that any laws applying to cars also apply to trucks (because they count as being a car).

What else do we think "counts as" means except that item 'B' is treated, for all intents and purposes, as item 'A'.

Had to drive to Yuma and back to Tucson today so a little loopy but here I go anyways. I am going to clean up your analogy Yak so it is actually relevant and comparative to the actual rule.

"although a bike is not a car as such... it counts as a mode of transportation because it can get a person from point A to point B."

The bike does not run on gas, is not as fast as the car, does not take up a parking space like a car, and does not have doors like a car. It counts as a mode of transportation because it can get a person from point A to point B and that is it. No extras for counting as a train, car, or plane (all modes of transportation), just that it is a mode of transportation that can get a person from point A to point B.

<deep breath>

Now I am going to delve into RAI for just a moment because +7hrs on the road gives plenty of time for thinking:

If the DH storm shield gives +1 attack then why the redundancy in the rule?

Page 16 DHC

"although a storm shield is not a weapon as such... it counts as a single handed weapon because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield"

If GW wanted you to have +1 attack all they would have had to print was,

"although a storm shield is not a weapon as such... it counts as a single handed weapon"

There would be absolutely no need to add,

"because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield"

If it counts as a single handed weapon and that is it without ANY restrictions or limitions, there would be no need to add the above line because we already know that single handed weapons take up the use of the arm holding it. Why the added redundancy of telling us that nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield if it already counts as a single handed weapon for all purposes including taking up the use of the arm?

There can be two reasons:

1. GW sucks at writing their rules. (I am guessing you will agree with this to support your +1 attack argument)
2. GW added the line specifically to tell you how it counts as a single handed weapon, in that you cannot use the arm holding the shield for anything else but holding the shield. None of the extras for counting as a single handed weapon, just that nothing else can be equipped on the arm holding the shield.

Brother Ramses wrote:"although a bike is not a car as such... it counts as a mode of transportation because it can get a person from point A to point B."

While your analogy is slightly different to the actual rule, it still does nothing for your point. If the bike counts as a mode of transport, then it counts as a mode of transport. Adding on the reason that it counts as a mode of transport doesn't effect when it counts. It just tells you why the decision was made to count it as a mode of transport.

It counts as a mode of transportation because it can get a person from point A to point B and that is it.

Sure. But, again, that doesn't affect when it counts as a mode of transportation. Just tells you why it was given that classification. It's always a mode of transport.


A reason for something to be classed as it is does not in itself impose limitations on that thing.

If an apple is classed as a granny smith because it is green, that doesn't mean that the apple is only a granny smith for the purposes of determining the colour of the apple. It's classed as a granny smith. The reason is just extraneous description.


But I suspect that this is just going to keep going around in circles.

Brother Ramses wrote:"although a bike is not a car as such... it counts as a mode of transportation because it can get a person from point A to point B."

You're really going to turn "weapon" into "car", but "single handed weapon" into "mode of transportation"? A "car" is a more specific than a "form of transportation", "a weapon" is not more specific than "a single handed weapon". It's a poor analogy.

You'd be better off going with "although a bike is not a car as such... it counts as a small car because it can get a person from point A to point B."

so no one cares that discounting the wording you dont get +1 attack for a storm shield even if it said it was a weapon?

blaktoof wrote:so no one cares that discounting the wording you dont get +1 attack for a storm shield even if it said it was a weapon?

Sorry, meant to reply to your post, but forgot. First coffee of the morning and all.

Two problems, though... even if we agree that the shield would count as a special CCW, you still get the attack under certain gear combinations.

And we had the 'what counts as a SCCW?' argument not so long ago... with opinions being somewhat divided. It can be argued that a SCCW is anything with special rules... which would include the storm shield... But it can also be argued that a SCCW is anything with special rules that directly affect how you hit with it in close combat, which would not.

You could also argue (so I guess that's actually 3 problems ) that it doesn't actually count as any sort of close combat weapon, since it is never defined as such. It is only defined as counting as a single handed weapon, not a close combat weapon. So it grants the bonus solely through the rule on page 37 that grants +1 attack for having two single handed weapons, rather than through the CCW combinations listed on page 42, because it doesn't actually fit into any of those combinations.

Eh? A Nemesis Force Weapon counts as a Force Weapon in the hands of a Grandmaster. Is that what you're thinking of?

May I try to add another angle to the argument if it is still going... I beleive that SS do grant +1 to close combat. Note: I havent read all posts but I can see where this is going and it may have already ended in the inevitable school yard hate fest between GK power players arguing that it doesnt matter what you think the rules say that the shield techinically gets +1A and those of us who know that it doesnt.

Anyway onto my argument (and I would'nd normally call someone a nasty powerplayer to thier face), Ive done no small amount of real sword fighting with heavy and light shields and real swords and have found that for the oddest reason that GW's rules normally follow the reality of life.
In my experiance, fighting with a shield in one hand and a weapon[insert any one or two handed weapon here] in the other hand does not empower you to attack fast nor place yourself in a position that you would never have to gain more chances to hit the other opponent, even a shield bash or check is not sufficient to claim a +1A (especially in the warhammer universe)... A SHIELD IS ONLY A DEFENSIVE WARGEAR.

Note: I tend to even agree that you may find that even in the wording that the GK SS donot gain extra attack acording to the rules.

Since some individuals continue to stop reading the rule at, "counts as a single handed weapon" it is absolutely useless to argue RAW when the whole rule is not read.

So to those of you that want to count a SH storm shield as a single handed weapon that confers +1 attack, why the redundancy of the rule?

Why include "because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield" at all then?

Lord Kas wrote:it may have already ended in the inevitable school yard hate fest between GK power players arguing that it doesnt matter what you think the rules say

between GK power players arguing

GK power players

what

Brother Ramses wrote:By the RAW a storm shield is not a weapon:

"although a storm shield is not a weapon as such...."

By the RAW is counts as a single handed weapon:

"it counts as a single handed weapon.."

By the RAW why does it count as a single handed weapon:

"because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield."

Please show me where in the RAW that I have provided that it tells you to confer +1 attack for the storm shield as a single handed weapon.

The one and only reason why it tells you to count the storm shield as a single handed weapon is " because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield". Nothing more, nothing less. Just, "because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield".

And

Brother Ramses wrote:Since some individuals continue to stop reading the rule at, "counts as a single handed weapon" it is absolutely useless to argue RAW when the whole rule is not read.

So to those of you that want to count a SH storm shield as a single handed weapon that confers +1 attack, why the redundancy of the rule?

Why include "because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield" at all then?

He got it perfectly.

Brother Ramses wrote:
Page 16 DHC

"although a storm shield is not a weapon as such... it counts as a single handed weapon because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield"[/i]

If GW wanted you to have +1 attack all they would have had to print was,

"although a storm shield is not a weapon as such... it counts as a single handed weapon"

There would be absolutely no need to add,

"because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield"

QFT, Brother Ramses.
Forget the stuff about a car or bike or whatever, this IS IT!
Honestly, this answers the post. I porbably gonna get flak for this but...I challenge anyone to refute this LOGICALLY.
Anyone, I've put this out there so come on, tackle this qoutw of you think you're hard enough.

(P.S. Brother Ramses, I am trusting that this qoute is accurate, otherwise this thread is gonna pummel me.)