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.

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.

It's plus two attacks.

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.

 ArcaneHorror wrote:

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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

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.”

If my TO said that I'd point out that each fist says I get +1 attack, and I have two fists.

Circular thread is circular.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Circular thread is circular.

Only because you refuse to acknowledge the rules of both weapons that the model is equipped with.

I eagerly await the FAQ, email response, or proof of a TO allowing this type of play at a major.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I eagerly await the FAQ, email response, or proof of a TO allowing this type of play at a major.

I eagerly await a positive contribution from you, that addresses a single point raised so far.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Circular thread is circular.

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.

I think this thread has reached the end of its useful lifespan for now.