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.

Gwar, what is the fallacy?
A fallacy is a case of unsound logic. The argument you may wish to make is that my assumptions (particularly the second one) are bad.

Ghaz wrote:And yet again, where does page 37 say that those rules apply only to close combat weapons and pistols? Pages 28-32 say no such thing, do they? Pages 28-32 say absolutely nothing about gaining an extra +1 Attack in close combat. As worded, the rules on page 37 allow ANY TYPE OF WEAPON will provide an extra +1 Attack in close combat as long as they're single-handed. If they wanted it to only apply to pistols and close combat weapons then they would have worded it as such as they did in the 3rd edition rulebook.

You're still making the same baseless assumption that only a close combat weapon will provide an extra +1 Attack in close combat when page 37 does not make that distinction.

Ok, Ghaz, refer specifically to page 29 under the section for pistols which does indeed state that a model armed with a pistol and a CCW gets an extra attack in close combat. How can you miss that? Under the sections describing all other weapon types: rapid fire, assault, blast, ordinance, heavy, lance, ect., it does not mention gaining an extra attack in CC.

ajfirecracker:

The information given on p.37 does indeed settle whether the "claws" entry under "Weapons" on the Necron Flayed Ones profile counts as one close combat weapon or two. It tells us how many attacks each model gets, which is its A, +1 if charging, +1 if extra close combat weapon, and other bonuses.

Where we apply that information to the Necron Flayed Ones, we find that "Claws" count as a single close combat weapon and that, like Tomb Spyders, the bonus is represented by the model's profile

Compare this to codeces of similar vintage.

Codex: Tyranids specifies on p.31 "Close Combat Biomorphs" that being equipped with Scything Talons are the only way to gain the bonus for two close combat weapons. So citing any Bio-Weapons entry as giving the unit/model the extra close combat weapon bonus, unless it cites Scything Talons, is incorrect.

Codex: Black Templars lists both close combat weapons and pistols on the entries of units like the Black Templars Assault Squad.

What you have cited on p.33 is background information, and is therefore irrelevant.

We can also assume that by "Claws" they mean both sets of claws are a single CCW. I am going to assume every Space Marine and Imperial Guardsmen have two fists as well, but I wouldn't say they are an additional close combat weapon in addition to their bolt pistol for the form, and the CCW for the later. Granted, neither are listed in thier wargear, but fists are not really wargear.

In the 4th edition rules there was a bit mentioning that all models counted as being equipped with a single close combat weapon unless stated otherwise, which lead to the claim that models like Flayed Ones has a close combat weapon and their claws, which gave them the bonus. This sort of multiplication of entities beyond necessity is shown to be false if you just read the codex: Tomb Spyders, for example, have claws and lose an Attack from their profile if they upgrade one to a Particle Projector.

Nurglitch wrote:In the 4th edition rules there was a bit mentioning that all models counted as being equipped with a single close combat weapon unless stated otherwise, which lead to the claim that models like Flayed Ones has a close combat weapon and their claws, which gave them the bonus. This sort of multiplication of entities beyond necessity is shown to be false if you just read the codex: Tomb Spyders, for example, have claws and lose an Attack from their profile if they upgrade one to a Particle Projector.

But the loss of an attack is a Special Rule unique to the Spyder and not a general rule of any sort.

Do we run into a dual-close-combat-weapon situation very often? Isn't it usually with a pistol?

I am near to weeping with pride for how good people have been in this thread.

Moderator Applause Mode: ON!

Gwar!:

Yes, it is a general rule. We see it in the Space Marine and Chaos Space Marine books when a Dreadnought upgrades its only Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon to a Missile Launcher, In particular it's relevant in the Necron codex because it establishes that something armed with "Claws" has the effects of those claws represented in its profile, rather than inferred through its wargear (Chaos Space Marines) or special rules (Mandi-Blasters).

Nurglitch wrote:Gwar!:

Yes, it is a general rule. We see it in the Space Marine and Chaos Space Marine books when a Dreadnought upgrades its only Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon to a Missile Launcher, In particular it's relevant in the Necron codex because it establishes that something armed with "Claws" has the effects of those claws represented in its profile, rather than inferred through its wargear (Chaos Space Marines) or special rules (Mandi-Blasters).

Dreadnoughts do not lose an attack when they upgrade their only DCCW. They lose an attack if they replace a Secondary DCCW. That only applies to DCCW anyway. Claws are never referred to as CCW. It is a special rule unique to the Spyder that states they lose an attack if they take the Particle thingamawotzit.

Gwar!:

See the Chaos Dreadnought entry in the Army List section of Codex: Chaos Space Marines, p.95.

Again, it is a special rule applicable only to the Chaos Dreadnought.

Gwar! wrote:Again, it is a special rule applicable only to the Chaos Dreadnought.

Indeed. An interesting query is as thus: what happens if a chaos dreadnought with one DCCW loses it due to a "weapon destroyed" result. Does the rule in the army list entry for the Chaos Dreadnought only apply if you replace all of its DCCWs, or does it apply if the DCCW is destroyed too?

Also, as a counter to the Chaos Dreadnought entry: a loyalist dreadnought does not lose an attack if it replaces its DCCW.

Let's try a different tack then:

According to p.12 in Codex: Necrons, Claws as the Flayed Ones' standard weapons. Since Claws are not listed in the Necron Armoury, nor in the 4th or 5th edition special close combat weapon lists, they cannot be a special close combat weapon.

According to the 5th edition section Close Combat Weapons, p.42, normal close combat weapons are close combat weapons that do not confer any particular bonus to the model using them, that are not special close combat weapons.

Therefore, Claws are just a normal close combat weapon, are covered by the model's profile, and do not receive a bonus for having two or more.

Nurglitch, would you therefore give Wraiths the bonus for having multiple normal CCW?

No, that is the exact opposite of my conclusion. My conclusion was that stuff liked "Claws" for Flayed Ones and "Claws and Barbed Tail" was integrated into the models profile. That's why a Flayed Ones has A2 and a Wraith has A3.

Nowhere does the codex state that bonuses for those weapons are incorporated into the profile.
If claws are a normal CCW, then claws and a barbed tail must be 2 normal CCW (subject to the barbed tail being a normal CCW).

If you interpret claws as one CCW and claws and a barbed tail as a different single CCW, then you're obliged to consider bolter and frag grenades as some sort of strange weapon (combi-frag?) that we've yet to see rules for.

I do not claim to understand RaI allowing claws and a barbed tail to confer an extra attack, but they must, RaW, do so if the two objects are individual normal CCW (since there's two of them).

Edit: Also, wraiths are completely different creatures (per fluff and rules) from anything else in the game. There's no way to claim knowledge of what their profile would be without "claws and a barbed tail", since they only appear in W40K with that weapon set. As a result, you cannot claim that any bonus is integrated into their profile unless the rules say so.

@ those who interpret claws as not being CCW, what the heck are they?

ajfirecracker wrote:@ those who interpret claws as not being CCW, what the heck are they?

A Description, the same way a Marine has 2 Fists but does not get a bonus attack.

ajfirecracker:

Firstly, it is my argument that, because these weapons are never mentioned in the Codex or Rulebook as conferring any particular bonus to the model using them, they are close combat weapons as described on p.42 of the rulebook.

Secondly, your inference that "If claws are a normal CCW, then claws and a barbed tail must be 2 normal CCW (subject to the barbed tail being a normal CCW)." is logically invalid. It's like claiming that you have three objects because you have a pair of gloves, a right hand glove, and a left hand glove.

Here's the correct version of my argument:

"If "Claws" are not detailed as conferring a particular bonus on the model using them, then they are a normal close combat weapon, and if "Claws and a Barbed Tail" are not detailed as conferring a particular bonus on the model using them, then they are a normal close combat weapon."

I'm not obliged to consider Bolters and Frag Grenades as any sort of close combat weapon because the rules for them are covered by Ranged Weapons and Grenades respectively. After all, we are talking about close combat weapons, not ranged weapons or grenade weapons.

Nurglitch, how can you say that thing claws are equivalent in gaming terms to "claws and a barbed tail"? If you think that these descriptions should be treated as normal CCW (failing any other rules for them), then you have to consider the operator "and" to indicate a new item (specifically, a new CCW in this case), as it does in every other codex. Failure to do so results in things like frag grenades being counted as part of a weapon, which leaves the player without rules for the majority of units in the game.

Also, the gloves example is a false analogy. "Claws and a barbed tail" includes more than just claws, leading me to claim that it must include more weapons than "claws". The analogy, however, could be used to criticize your viewpoint, which is saying that "a right glove" is a type of glove, as is "a left glove", as is "a right glove and a left glove". If the wraith entry said "claws and claws" rather than "claws and a barbed tail", would you still deny the extra attack?

To respond to the analogy more directly: I'm saying I have two (not three!) objects because I have a right glove and a left glove. You're saying that I have one object, which is not a pair of gloves, but rather, a single glove.

Yup, which is why "Claws and a Barbed Tail" indicates a single close combat weapon.

You seem to be missing the part of the rules for close combat weapons where what isn't mentioned as providing a particular bonus is a normal close combat weapon.

Claws are not mentioned as providing a particular bonus.

Claws and Barbed Tail are not mentioned as providing a particular bonus.

Therefore both are a normal close combat weapons, and no bonus applies to the model's number of attacks.

Nurglitch, my interpretation is that claws provide no particular bonus, and a barbed tail provides no particular bonus. As a result, they're both translated into normal ccw, and since there's 2, you get any bonus that occurs when you've got 2 normal ccw. The only way to not confer the bonus under your interpretation of the rules is to declare that weapons entries like "bananas and potatoes" is referring to a special wargear item called "bananas and potatoes" which follows the rules for neither bananas nor potatoes (nor rules that result from having both). This is clearly ridiculous if applied to SM, which is why I insist on doing it. If "claws" is an item with certain properties, and "a barbed tail" would be an item with the same properties then "claws" and "a barbed tail" must be two such items. Otherwise entries like "bolt pistol and chainsword" would not refer to "bolt pistol" and "chainsword", but a special compound entity called "bolt pistol and chainsword" which follows the rules for neither.

To clarify: my position is that if you default unspecified items to normal ccw, then any model with multiple unspecified items should get the bonus. I don't think you should default this, but you could argue RaW via "weapons like..." on p. 42.
I think the correct interpretation is (as has been stated by others, possibly yourself) that the bonus is included. There is however no RaW to support this, only RaI/house rules. The strictest RaW interpretation is that the weapons listed have no game effect whatsoever, but I'm profoundly uncomfortable with that interpretation.

As to the "fists" argument: no, SM do not have fists. Show me the rule that mentions a weapon called a "fist" or "fists". Unlike fists, the necron codex clearly indicates that FO have claws and wraiths have claws and a barbed tail.

Also, nurglitch, citing the "do not confer any particular bonus" bit does nothing for your argument. The purpose of that phrase is to tell you that if you've got a combat blade (for example) you follow your profile exactly. If you have multiple of these "do not confer any particular bonus" weapons, you do get a particular bonus, i.e. +1A.

The weapon is "Claws and barbed tail" is the assertion, as I read it.

Very much like "Claws" is plural, but is one weapon.

Yes, the assertion is that "claws and a barbed tail" is one weapon.

The problem is that "and" in a line of weapons or wargear is used to indicate multiple items with multiple effects, not crazy compound items (like "bolter and frag grenades" or "bolt pistol and a chainsword")

So Ripper Swarms with "jaws, claws and mandibles" should add attacks to the 3 they have?

Ummm.

If any unspecified item is a normal CCW, then yes, rippers should get +1A, except that the nid codex specifies that you must have scything talons.

ajfirecracker wrote:If any unspecified item is a normal CCW, then yes, rippers should get +1A, except that the nid codex specifies that you must have scything talons.

Where do you get the idea that unspecified items are ccw?

I was examining the rules under Nurglitch's interpretation that unspecified weapons are normal CCWs.

Under that interpretation (which I personally disagree with, but which could be supported by p.42 see: "like"), I think wraiths should get +1A.

ajfirecracker wrote:I was examining the rules under Nurglitch's interpretation that unspecified weapons are normal CCWs.

Under that interpretation (which I personally disagree with, but which could be supported by p.42 see: "like"), I think wraiths should get +1A.

Why? Wraiths only have 1 Weapon "Claws and Barbed Tail"

Gwar! wrote:

ajfirecracker wrote:I was examining the rules under Nurglitch's interpretation that unspecified weapons are normal CCWs.

Under that interpretation (which I personally disagree with, but which could be supported by p.42 see: "like"), I think wraiths should get +1A.

Why? Wraiths only have 1 Weapon "Claws and Barbed Tail"

This is also the way I interpret the rule, because the armoury gives no entry to signify they are separate weapons. If "claws" alone had an entry, there would be an argument.