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.

Elessar wrote: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.

Agreed - this is GW trying to inject a little 'fluff' into the rules - I don't know why they couldn't just list 'natural weapon' and be done with it.

The problem I have is this: IF you accept that unspecified weapons are normal CCW, then either wraiths get +1A or you make RaI calls as to what sorts of "and" are listing different items and what sorts of "and" are listing compound, single items.

I think that to avoid making RaI calls under that interpretation, you would be forced to always assume that "and" refers to multiple items.

Also, claws are not listed in the armory as a separate item, but they are listed under flayed ones as a separate item. While the flayed ones entry is not the armory, it is still rules.

unistoo wrote:

Elessar wrote: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.

Agreed - this is GW trying to inject a little 'fluff' into the rules - I don't know why they couldn't just list 'natural weapon' and be done with it.

Quite.

To say that an item of wargear not mentioned anywhere in your armoury or the rule book is a CCW is big leap.

To get +1A you need two single-handed CCWs. "Claws" and "barbed tail" are not defined as CCWs or as single-handed.

Natural weapons would indeed be a better description but less flavourful.

I don't remember where it's from, but at least once GW has put 'a bad attitude' in place of weaponry. Claws COULD be the same.

500 posts, happy fracking b'day to me.

Scott-S6:

Except that pointed out that the rulebook describes normal close combat weapons on p.42 of the rulebook as being weapons that have no particular bonuses like special close combat weapons.

Since the Necron codex assigns no particular bonuses to "Claws" or "Claws and a Barbed Tail", unlike the Staff of Light and Warscythe, and the rulebook assigns no particular bonuses either, they fall into the category of

So my argument is essentially a disjunctive syllogism, that weapons are either normal close combat weapons or special close combat weapons, and that "Claws" and "Claws and a Barbed Tail" are labels that do not refer to ranged weapons, miscellaneous wargear such as grenades, or special close combat weapons, and that close combat weapons that have no particular bonus are not special close combat weapons, that therefore "Claws" and "Claws and a Barbed Tail" refer to normal close combat weapons.

Given that the rules on p.42 tell us that they are normal close combat weapons, does this mean that they could confer the general bonus of +1 for having more than one?

Again, we are provided with no details, and so the default position is that in each case they are single normal close combat weapons.

The error lies in equating the claws mentioned under the flayed ones rules to mean the same thing as the word claws under the wraiths heading.

Claws for the flayed ones are a weapon.

Claws alone for the wraiths are not a weapon, however their claws and tail do indeed make a weapon.



Perhaps you can argue that flayed ones claws are a ccw, but there is no way that we can call the wraiths claws ALONE a weapon.



Sliggoth

I'm not. I'm claiming "Claws and a Barbed Tail" are a close combat weapon. I'm using the plural because I'm referring to both terms, "Claws" and "Claws and a Barbed Tail".

Nurglitch, I think sliggoth may have been replying to me.

The essence of my argument is this:
We must either make some assumption about what "and" means in a line of weapons, or make RaI calls about what it means in a particular case. As a result, I think it makes sense to assume that "and" in a line of weapons always indicates separate items (consistent with bolter and a chainsword)

The claims that "claws and a barbed tail" are a single item are RaI judgments at best. How do you know that the designers intended for this to be a unique case of the word "and" denoting a compound item, but elsewhere denoting multiple items?

As I've said before, I'm personally in favor of breaking the rules and playing RaI that the bonuses are included in the profile. However, even this approach fails somewhat against wraiths, who have no corollary model to compare (unlike FO vs. Warriors, where some fluff-based comparison might be made).

A strict RaW approach would either give them the bonus attack on the basis of having 2 CCW (p. 42 weapons "like"), or deny them the attack on the basis of their weapons having no in-game function whatsoever ('the rules are just fluff' in this case).

The problem with saying that the rules are just fluff here is that you're forced to make RaI calls as to when the rules are fluff and when they are not.

Therefore, if you wish to play the game such that you break no rule and you never make RaI calls, I believe you must give them +1A.

To reiterate my earlier claim for those who may have missed it: natural weapons should be counted as multiple weapons if they are listed as such. If space marines had 2 fists in their gear/weapons list, then they too would deserve an extra attack. Because they do not, they may not get the extra attack without 2 non-natural weapons.

Edit: In reply to Scott, I would have you note that the wraiths' weapons are listed as such, not as general wargear. Thus we know they are weapons, and we know they do not shoot. It's not hard to move from there to CCW (see above).
Edit 2: In reply to Elessar and any other with a similar view: Claws do have a lone entry, under the weapons for the Flayed Ones. We know from this entry that "claws" are some sort of thing that satisfies the description "weapon(s)". It follows that wraiths have this thing and another thing, as per this post.

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

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

I disagree with your logic. A lightning claw gives no bonus. A pair of lightning "Claws" does. Granted they are special weapons, but I don't think that the grammer approach is the right way to debate this issue.

gothmog wrote:

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

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

I disagree with your logic. A lightning claw gives no bonus. A pair of lightning "Claws" does. Granted they are special weapons, but I don't think that the grammer approach is the right way to debate this issue.

Seriously?

A "pair of lightning claws" is plural because the pair is two claws. Yes The pair is one pair of . . . two.


carry on with the actual discussion.

editing to add: the answer was deliberately simplistic.

kirsanth, I would be willing to bet that you can dig through the various Imperium codices over the years and find an entry wherein a single model may take "lightning claws", which has pretty universally been interpreted as a pair.

The current DA codex might be an example, iirc.

ajfirecracker wrote:kirsanth, I would be willing to bet that you can dig through the various Imperium codices over the years and find an entry wherein a single model may take "lightning claws", which has pretty universally been interpreted as a pair.

Not about to go digging, but I certainly can't think of any. 'Pair of Lightning Claws' or 'Lightning Claws (Pair, counts as 2 weapons)' have been the norm.

The current DA codex might be an example, iirc.

Nope. 'Pair of Lightning Claws' is used for everyone who can take them.

Oh, well. It's off-topic anyway. It might have some bearing on how most people would play FO claws (if they played consistently in terms of grammar interpretations), but it's not even vaguely RaW.

Remember to check my last post above this one if you want to see my most recent arguments on CCW, weapons in profiles, and wraiths in particular. I think this area of conversation should be what is currently "on topic".

An entry in a unit's wargear is not equivalent to an entry in the armoury section.

Does no-one else remember a 'bad attitude' being listed under weaponry for something once? I don't thin ki imagined it...

I'm unclear ajfirecracker what you're saying isn't RAW, our assertion that FOs don't get +1A? That IS the RaW.

Also, I don't think it's listed ANYWHERE that Marines get "Bolter and Chainsword", or indeed 'and' anything. Wargear is now a convenient list system, presumably to avoid such confusion.

Fine, elessar. GK "storm bolter and NFW".

And an entry in the wargear is in some ways equivalent to an entry in the armory. For example, we can deduce that an entry in the wargear which is listed as a weapon must be a weapon, unless it is multiple weapons. Otherwise you're dismissing rules without any apparent cause.

I've said before that I'd play RaI bonuses are included, but that's obviously not RaW.

Okay, but we seen SB + BFW, and then we need to know what that means, so we go to the Armoury, where we discover they are separate entities, and have their own entries. If we try to do that fro Claws and Barbed Tail, we get no info. With nothing to say they aren't the same thing, we have to assume they are.

Pretty logical to me.

Elessar, it's a RaI call that "and" in this case means 1 compound item, but for GK "and" means two separate items.

If we adopt either convention as constant, then either GK get nothing since there is no item called "SB and NFW", or wraiths get +1A.

The fact that you've got some sort of procedure for your decision does not excuse the fact that you're advocating we make RaI calls of some sort about whether or not "and" means "and".

I think it's thoroughly nonsense to claim that "and" is ever used by GW to indicate compound items, except where they explicitly say so (which might just be never).

Edit: We also know from the FO entry that claws are a thing that satisfies the description "weapon(s)". There's simply no reason to assume that GW uses the term "Claws" to indicate an entire weapon at point A and part of a weapon at point B.

Nah, it's not RaI.

It's a simple process:

Read unit entry.
See Stormbolter and Nemesis Force Weapon.
Go to Armoury.
Discover SB and NFW are separate items, not a compound item.
Attempt to repeat for Wraith.
No such split can be proved, because neither has an entry in the Armoury.

From the tyranid codex we have the example of ripper swarms being armed with jaws, claws and mandibles; this appears to be an attempt by GW to equip the rippers with a ccw altho we arent told that any of these are ccws. This wording dates back to olden days (3rd at the least) and looks to be an explanation of why the rippers have multiple attacks in their stat line.

From the necron codex we have the wraiths listed with claws and a tail, the flayed ones with claws. This is also from 3rd edition days, and has 3 attacks in the stat line for wratihs and 2 for the flayed ones.

Option 1) Take the wording to be an explanation of why the stat line number of attacks vary.

Option 2) Take the wording to mean multiple ccws so the rippers and wraiths should receive +1 cc attack.


The difficulty for option 2 is that under the RAW we have no defintion of claws, jaws, mandibles or tail being ccws. Not singularly or in any combination are they defined this way. Especially they are not defined as one handed weapons, whcih is the key required to gain +1 attack.

Even wandering into the realm of fluff the tail, jaws or mandibles are simply NOT going to be able to be considered one handed weapons


Sliggoth

@Elessar: The RaI is your method. You're interpreting rules with that method. The fact that the method will yield consistent results does not remove the fact that it inherently makes assumptions about how the rules are intended to be played. (Assumptions for which there is no rules basis) Also, the Necron armory has no preface specifying that it is the proper source for what is and is not a weapon (unlike some other armories) so "claws" must be considered "weapon(s)" as per the Flayed ones entry. Otherwise it becomes illegal to field FO, something that is clearly not the case.

@sliggoth: The entire exercise, if you bother to read back, has been conducted under the assumption that unspecified items are normal CCW. Rippers don't get the bonus because the Tyranid codex requires scything talons to get a bonus attack.

I like Option 1, but it's clearly RaI, and even then there's simply no basis for wraiths to have 3 (rather than 4) attacks, even in the fluff they're not comparable to FO.

Of course, if you make a weaker version of the assumption that unspecified crap is a normal ccw (namely, that unspecified stuff is a ccw if it's a weapon with no shooting attack, which can be supported via the broad wording of some of p. 42 BRB) then you can give the wraiths +1A while still playing strict RAW.
Edit: The tricky issue is, of course, handedness, which is the point of this thread in general.

@aj I have been following and reading the entire thread. What I am pointing out is that even assuming these items to be normal ccws, we still have nothing to show them being one handed ccws...which is the requirement to get 1+ attack.

Even if they are ccws, they still fail this test. Unless there is somehow proof that they are one handed then they do not get the bonus, and RAW is not showing them as being one handed.



Sliggoth

@sliggoth: my edit above (which precedes your post by about 10 minutes) does acknowledge that this is a sticking point. I understand that.

In general though, other posters have made a variety of arguments, mostly from p.42, that normal CCW should be assumed to be one-handed. I like this assumption, but I do agree with you that RaW almost no weapons should confer a bonus (as almost no weapons are specified as single-handed weapons).

@all: I'm not sure if this was brought up, but it seems pistols are only listed as single-handed in the fluff (at least in BRB) and then only in terms of their weight, not in terms of how they are used/counted. As a result, I think RaW pistols do not confer a bonus attack unless the codex specifiesthat they are 1 handed.

Pistols are actually one of the very few weapons that the BRB lists specifically as being a one handed weapon, both on theri entry on pg 29 as well as on pg 37. The entry on pg 37 under number of attacks/ +1 two weapons is where pistols are chosen as one of the examples of a one handed weapon giving the bonus attack.


Normal ccws (per pg 42) unfortunately list rifle butts as an example. So we know from RAW that being a normal ccw does not per se make a weapon a one handed weapon, since GW has (the few times its defined rifles) given them the two handed designation.


Sliggoth

Actually, they define rifles butts as being two handed on that very page. It's one of the examples of 2-handed weapons.

Page 29, as I mentioned, only describes pistols as one-handed in terms of fluff, and only then in terms of their weight. So, perhaps a pistol could be used one-handed, but how do we know (aside from the bit of fluff) whether a particular model is using their pistol in this way? Well, let's check the rules. They say that it counts as a CCW, with no mention of handedness.

Page 37 does not show that any particular pistol is one-handed, but that it is "typical" to have a one-handed pistol and another weapon.

I still think 1 is NOT equal to 0.9r/i

Pg 37 says "Engaged models with two single handed weapons (typically a close combat weapon and/ or pistol in each hand)"


This does indeed define a pistol as a one handed weapon.


And yes, I was quoting the rules on pg 42 to describe how the RAW does define a rifle butt as a 2 handed ccw. That was to show that normal ccws are not by their nature either one or two handed, but can be either.



Sliggoth

By that logic, "close combat weapon"(s) are single-handed (via p.37). Which clearly contradicts your already noted observations about rifle butts.

P. 37 Shows that it is typical for a model with 2 single-handed weapons to have a single-handed pistol among them. It does not, RaW, show that all pistols (or all CCW) are single-handed.

@aj Hmmm, Im not sure how the combination of the Pg 29 pistol rules and the pg 37 cc rule can be taken to mean anything other than that the pistol is a one handed/ single handed weapon that can be used in cc. There is nothing anywhere that mentions that some pistols are two handed weapons; while the rule on normal close combat weapons does indeed mention that at least some of those weapons are indeed two handed weapons. Some regular close combat weapons are one handed, some are two handed. All pistols however are one handed.



Sliggoth

Sliggoth, I understand your argument and I sympathize. I think it makes sense for them to be 1-handed.

At this point, however, your argument is a combination of fluff and "there's nothing to say I can't". There's nothing to say you can't assume that they're one-handed. There's nothing to say you could take a 2-handed pistol.

But the rules don't actually say they're 1-handed, and the rules don't actually say you can't take a 2-handed pistol, either. If we assume that unspecified CCW are 1-handed, then yes, pistols are 1-handed CCW per the rules. But unless we make that assumption, there's just no rule that states all pistols are 1-handed CCW.

There is no rule stating that you may count all pistols as being 1-handed, therefore you may not.

You may, however, count "typical" pistols as being 1-handed, should you find a rule describing what typical means.

Pistols can be used in combination with another CC weapon. With no mention of this only being 1handed weapons.

If it helps for you to assume that means it can be two handed and used with another (potentially 2handed) CC weapon, feel free to model you troopers with three or four arms.

I am sure THAT would go over better.


On a related note, you think the "Pistol Weapons are light enough to be carried and fired one handed" is fluff? This rather matters in relation to "In addition a pistol counts as a close combat weapon in the Assault phase".

The I think I understand what you are saying. Just not why.