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.

*Edit , I agree with Brother Ramses , i would imagine the only reason they would say its not a weapon , yet it count as a weapon
for the sole purpose of people not grabbing 2 weapons in 1 hand.

Can we please refrain from OT remarks in YMDC? Thanks.

OT?

Lord Kas wrote: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.

No offense, but I have no idea why you would think this was in any way relevant to a discussion of the rules for a miniature wargame. From my experience, soldiers don't run around the battlefield with large discs attached to their feet, freezing in place when it's the enemies' turn to shoot at them...

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.

You're still missing the point, then.

I'm reading the whole rule. What I'm saying is that it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. Continuing to insist that I'm ignoring part of the rule won't change that. I'm not ignoring it. I'm taking it to mean what it actually says, rather than what I think it's supposed to mean.

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

Because what they wrote for the rule is not what they intended...

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Can we please refrain from OT remarks in YMDC? Thanks.

Just to point out, just making a post about not posting OT comments doesn't help you at all.

Now that's done, I can easily see both sides. The shield description is muddled. Not sure why GW wants something to count as a weapon, yet it isn't. And yet be easily debated that it is or isn't. This may just be one of those that has to be decided beforehand, I dunno. Just my opinion.

insaniak wrote:Because what they wrote for the rule is not what they intended...

So you have been arguing RAI this whole time despite saying your argument was RAW. Gotcha.

Um... I'm pretty sure Insaniak is saying it wasn't intended to give an extra attack, but with the way it was written it does.

Thus, he was arguing the RAW.

(Or are you just being catty?)

Brother Ramses wrote:

insaniak wrote:Because what they wrote for the rule is not what they intended...

So you have been arguing RAI this whole time despite saying your argument was RAW. Gotcha.

No. I've been arguing RAW despite thinking that the RAW is different to what was actually intended.

RAW, the shield grants the attack, because it counts as a single handed weapon.
RAI, (or at least what I assume to be RAI) and how I would play it, the shield does not grant the attack as it only counts as a single handed weapon for the purposes of determining how much the model can carry.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Um... I'm pretty sure Insaniak is saying it wasn't intended to give an extra attack, but with the way it was written it does.

Thus, he was arguing the RAW.

(Or are you just being catty?)

You have a condition:

"..it counts as a single handed weapon..."

On its own, there is nothing with this RAW that prevents you from getting +1 attack for having two single handed weapons; one being a SH storm shield, the other being another single handed weapon.

However, GW attached to the above RAW modification:

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

Now what they have done is taken the condition of "counts as a single handed weapon" with all the bonuses of having a single handed weapon and specifically limited to only one thing, "because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield". The RAW is very clear there and trying to attack GW for their writing now is the last losing defense against,

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"

Don't take it up with me, I was just trying to explain what Insaniak was getting at.

LunaHound wrote:*Edit , I agree with Brother Ramses , i would imagine the only reason they would say its not a weapon , yet it count as a weapon
for the sole purpose of people not grabbing 2 weapons in 1 hand.

The reason why per the RAW would be that they do not want to have a person with 2 single handed weapons and a storm shield, thus getting the +1 attack for two single-handed weapons and a 4+ inv. By specifically classifying the storm shield as not a weapon, but counting as a single handed weapon it is filling the single hand weapon slot without conferring a +1 attack bonus.

Brother Ramses wrote:Now what they have done is taken the condition of "counts as a single handed weapon" with all the bonuses of having a single handed weapon and specifically limited to only one thing,

No, they haven't... because that's not what the word 'because' means. It's not a limitation. It's an explanation.

It doesn't limit anything. It explains why something is the way it is.

The reason for something to act the way it is does not in itself limit when that thing acts in that way. It just doesn't. English just doesn't work that way.

But we've been over this too many times for it to still be amusing. Unless someone's got something new to add, I think this has gone about as far as it's going to.

The RAW is very clear there and trying to attack GW for their writing now is the last losing defense against,

Who was doing that?

Pointing out that what is on the page isn't what they actually intended is not an attack. It's a statement that I personally don't think that they wrote the rule the way that they intended it to work.

If the weapon counts as a single handed weapon, in all aspects, as you contend the RAW points out and that,

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

is only an explanation and not a limitation then why not also include,

"Engaged models with two single-handed weapons (typically a close combat weapon and/or pistol in each hand) get an extra +1 attack."

to further explain why something the way it is?

Again, back to PERMISSIVE RULE SET. The rule has to specifically tell you what you can do, NOT what you can't do. As has been the RAW throughout this thread, the DH storm shield rule tells you that you that the shield counts as a single handed weapon for taking up that weapon "slot" and nothing more beyond the +4 inv save in close combat.

Neither of your arguments deal with 40k being a permissive ruleset, so there's no point in going down that road. Also, I don't think Insaniak is saying that it was meant to only be an explanation and not a limitation, but that it's written that way.

I see two arguments here:

"The English language cannot express things perfectly; you must look into the context in which it was written to derive what the author is saying. In this instance, "because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield" modifies the meaning of "it counts as a single handed weapon" to only be relevant in the context of carrying a weapon in each hand."

And:

"There rules concerning the meaning of words and grammar that give meaning to sentences independent of the author's intentions. The word "because" only implies a rationale behind the ruling, it does not act as any sort of prohibition on when the Storm Shield functions as a single handed weapon."

Brother Ramses wrote: then why not also include,...

Didn't we just cover that?

I'd point out, yet again, that the rule doesn't say what was probably intended, but I'm a little concerned that it's going to start wearing out those keys on my keyboard.

Again, back to PERMISSIVE RULE SET. The rule has to specifically tell you what you can do, NOT what you can't do.

Which it does. The shield counts as a single handed weapon, and single handed weapons grant the attack bonus.

As has been the RAW throughout this thread, the DH storm shield rule tells you that you that the shield counts as a single handed weapon for taking up that weapon "slot" and nothing more beyond the +4 inv save in close combat.

And as I've explained numerous times through the thread, it does nothing of the sort.

Look, I've explained that it doesn't mean what you think it means.
I've given examples to show why it doesn't mean what you think it means.
I've explained that the odd wording suggests that it was supposed to mean what you think it means, but doesn't.

And so far, your respose has been to ignore the presented explanations, to claim that I'm ignoring the part of the rule that I've just spent several pages trying to explain to you, to completely confuse whether I was arguing RAW or RAI, and to continue to claim that the passage in question means something that it very definitely doesn't.

Since I can't think of any new ways of explaining it, and since it ultimately won't affect my game in the slightest, I think that's about where I'll stop wasting my time. Again.

...I don't see what you're doing insaniak. The RAW clearly seems to say that the storm shield takes up the slot of one single handed weapon, yet is not ACTUALLY a weapon, therefore it denies the +1 attack.

It is like the Prasedium Protectiva In the witch hunter codex. In fact, it is almost EXACTLY the same.

Emperors faithful: OT means off topic

Thanks.

insaniak wrote:

Lord Kas wrote: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.

No offense, but I have no idea why you would think this was in any way relevant to a discussion of the rules for a miniature wargame. From my experience, soldiers don't run around the battlefield with large discs attached to their feet, freezing in place when it's the enemies' turn to shoot at them...

Thankyou mate for your reply,
In aswer to your question I have only one thing to say, the reason that I believe that real life examples are relevant to this discussion is because GW seems to believe so aswell...

ARGUMENT 1) the GW 5th editon rule book has numerous notations from the authors of real world reasons for rules! (examples left unmentioned as I do not have a rule bppk infront of me)

ARGUMENT 2) Dave the head of the Parramatta Australia GW store used a real world illustration to give me a reasoning as for rules from his own military combat and steel re-enacyment history.

Me: So mate why cant my troopers use thier guns in close combat, it makes sense, just keep shooting at close range?
Dave: well because two things with some weapons like plasma pistols you dont wnat them working too close to you8 as you may get hit or cop back flow! and secondly because of the flowing nature of melee, youdont want to risk hitting your own guys with your guns or shooting yourself/the enemy takign your gun and using it on you!.

SUMMERY:
In responce to the men sticking to bases and staying still, you may wish to note that GW says that the static nature of movement, represents the troops moving naturally while stil keeping a proper and fair order to the game. The trops are actually moving naturally all you see is the representation of real life scenarios on your table.

hope this help, every Aussie I've met sees fit to use real life logic to find a solution unless they are a rules nazi (as i like to say) and prefer thier own benefit to that of appropriate thinking and logic.

Playing according to real life is fine.
But you have to admit if there is an argument between "real life" and the rules, the rules should take precedent. After all, it is in the future mate. And "real life" is not always, or even mostly, going to be the fairest way to play.

It still has no relevance in a rules discussion taking place here.

Horses do not move two steps in a given direction and then one step at a right angle to the previous two, yet we still accept that tha is the way rooks move when it comes to the rules of chess.

See? The real world and our experiences therein has no impact on the rules we are discussing.
The "reality" for 40K is defined by the rules, not real-world experiences.

...I KNOW. He does too, you don't have to rub it in SteelMage99.

Steelmage99 wrote:Horses do not move two steps in a given direction and then one step at a right angle to the previous two, yet we still accept that tha is the way rooks move when it comes to the rules of chess.

Er... no we don't...

Knights, on the other hand...

Modquisition back on.

A reminder of my earlier warning and the seriousness of that warning.

Emperors Faithful wrote:...I don't see what you're doing insaniak. The RAW clearly seems to say that the storm shield takes up the slot of one single handed weapon, yet is not ACTUALLY a weapon, therefore it denies the +1 attack.

It is like the Prasedium Protectiva In the witch hunter codex. In fact, it is almost EXACTLY the same.

Great point EF that is very short and to the point by looking at the statement in reverse.

1. A shield uses the arm that is holding it so no other weapon can be equipped on that arm,
2. and that is the reason it counts as a single handed weapon,
3. but it isn't a weapon.

Why would you read it reverse? No one reads sentences in reverse.

Also, if it isn't a weapon, but it counts as a weapon, nothing's changed. It's solely a matter of whether the last clause is only a justification for the rule, or if it modifies the "counting as" function to only apply to that situation.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Why would you read it reverse? No one reads sentences in reverse.

Also, if it isn't a weapon, but it counts as a weapon, nothing's changed. It's solely a matter of whether the last clause is only a justification for the rule, or if it modifies the "counting as" function to only apply to that situation.

The last clause is not needed UNLESS it is a modification. "Counts as a single-handed weapon" in the RAW is all the justification you need. There is no reason, whatsoever, to include the last clause other then as a modification to the "Counts as a single-handed weapon".

Like I asked before, why the redundancy?

The Praesidium Protectiva contains a sentence that forbids a model equipped with one gaining a bonus attack for being equipped with two single-handed weapons.

The DH SS doesn't. The comparison is flawed.

Brother Ramses wrote:The last clause is not needed UNLESS it is a modification. "Counts as a single-handed weapon" in the RAW is all the justification you need. There is no reason, whatsoever, to include the last clause other then as a modification to the "Counts as a single-handed weapon".

Like I asked before, why the redundancy?

I agree, the last sentence seems to be an obvious display of the author's intent.

The problem is where you draw the line between trying to apply a rule based on the intent of the writer, and based on the literal meaning of the words.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:The last clause is not needed UNLESS it is a modification. "Counts as a single-handed weapon" in the RAW is all the justification you need. There is no reason, whatsoever, to include the last clause other then as a modification to the "Counts as a single-handed weapon".

Like I asked before, why the redundancy?

I agree, the last sentence seems to be an obvious display of the author's intent.

The problem is where you draw the line between trying to apply a rule based on the intent of the writer, and based on the literal meaning of the words.

Well in this case the author did not include any other bonuses or negatives of having a single-handed weapon equipped on one arm. You earlier mentioned that this argument has nothing to do with the permissive rule set when in fact it does.

If the author wanted you to have +1 attack he would have ended the sentence at:

"counts as a single-handed weapon"

because that would mean, per RAW,

1. that it takes up a slot
2. that it grants +1 attack

However the author did not leave the sentence at,

"counts as a single-handed weapon"

He then explained why it counts as a single-handed weapon. The specific inclusion of it taking up a slot AND the specific exclusion of the +1 attack.

Permissive rule set: If the rule does not say you can do something, then you can't.

The DH storm shield tells you to count it as a single handed weapon. It then clarifies why it counts as a single-handed weapon. That clarification does not include +1 attack.