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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

would love to see someone try to roll half a dice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Charistoph wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Charistoph wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Graxous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Charistoph wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vetril wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

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

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

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

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

Now get off my lawn.

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

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

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

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

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

Charistoph wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

you are all ignoring the rules

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

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

but there is the "see attacking" part

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

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

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

PenPen wrote:
you are all ignoring the rules

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

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

but there is the "see attacking" part

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Charistoph wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hope that helps people.

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

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

How is this not clear?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hope that helps people.

Yep, you summed things up nicely.