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.

I do think that this is one of those areas that's most easily handled by discussing it with one's opponent before a match, anyway. It's not like one can say to them "Oh, the guys on dakka agree with me", and have that carry any weight -- so till it's FAQed, it'll need to be discussed.

The easy approach for a DH player to take is "It gives me +1 attack in CC if I use RAW from the DH codex. Alternatively, if you prefer, I can treat it as a SS from the SM codex, in which case I don't get the +1 attack in CC, but do get a 3+ Invulnerable Save at all times, instead of just a 4+ in CC. I don't mind either way."

(I agree, incidentally, that RAI are that it doesn't give you an extra attack, but that RAW are that it does, simply because of the very specific meaning of "counts as" in a rules context; if it had said "counts as a single-handed weapon solely for purposes of determining how many weapons a character may have", that would have been a lot clearer, but it doesn't, so we can assume it counts as a single-handed weapon for all purposes.)

I would like an answer to this question:

Per RAW in the DH codex:

"although a storm shield is not a weapon as such... it counts as a single handed weapon because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield"

Despite not being a weapon, what is the reason given why a DH storm shield is to be counted as a single-handed weapon? It tells you despite not being a weapon to count is as a single handed weapon for one reason, and only one reason. Anyone care to answer?

To Insaniak, Orkeo, and others in the same camp I would completely agree with you had the sentence just been,

"although a storm shield is not a weapon as such... it counts as a single handed weapon."

and even possibly,

"although a storm shield is not a weapon as such... it counts as a single handed weapon. Nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield"

However attached to as part of the sentence with the "because" modifies how the storm shield counts as a single-handed weapon.

Done. I got stuff to do.

hmmm.

"although a storm shield is not a weapon as such... it counts as a single handed weapon because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield"

So, because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield, it counts as a single handed weapon?

Seems as permissive as exclusive.

I must be missing something again. Off to check!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hmm. Guess I am looking in the wrong place.

My Codex: Daemonhunters has the stormshields on page 18 and nothing about it counting as a weapon (single handed or otherwise) is listed.

shrug

kirsanth wrote:hmmm.

"although a storm shield is not a weapon as such... it counts as a single handed weapon because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield"

So, because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield, it counts as a single handed weapon?

Seems as permissive as exclusive.

I must be missing something again. Off to check!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hmm. Guess I am looking in the wrong place.

My Codex: Daemonhunters has the stormshields on page 18 and nothing about it counting as a weapon (single handed or otherwise) is listed.

shrug

its in the bit with points cost i think it little (4) but don't quote me on that ... i can't be bother to check

Tri wrote:
its in the bit with points cost i think it little (4) but don't quote me on that ... i can't be bother to check

Oh, I see the problem, I was looking in the section describing the rules for Daemonhunter's Storm Shields.

shrug

Brother Ramses wrote:I would like an answer to this question:

Per RAW in the DH codex:

"although a storm shield is not a weapon as such... it counts as a single handed weapon because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield"

Despite not being a weapon, what is the reason given why a DH storm shield is to be counted as a single-handed weapon? It tells you despite not being a weapon to count is as a single handed weapon for one reason, and only one reason. Anyone care to answer?

To Insaniak, Orkeo, and others in the same camp I would completely agree with you had the sentence just been,

"although a storm shield is not a weapon as such... it counts as a single handed weapon."

and even possibly,

"although a storm shield is not a weapon as such... it counts as a single handed weapon. Nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield"

However attached to as part of the sentence with the "because" modifies how the storm shield counts as a single-handed weapon.

Done. I got stuff to do.

actually the answer is even simplier than I thought.

See that line of rules refers to rules on how many items a model can have, back in 4th edition it mattered how many items a model could have so some rules were worded as such.

As per the gw faq on wargear items that have rules that no longer pertain to the current edition not being usable the item does not function so storm shields for DH have no effect whatsever other than costing points.

blaktoof wrote:actually the answer is even simplier than I thought.

See that line of rules refers to rules on how many items a model can have, back in 4th edition it mattered how many items a model could have so some rules were worded as such.

As per the gw faq on wargear items that have rules that no longer pertain to the current edition not being usable the item does not function so storm shields for DH have no effect whatsever other than costing points.

Right church. Wrong pew.

I think Blaktoof has the gist of it. Under the 5th edition rules, wargear that has no application or doesn't work under the new rules just doesn't work.

I would argue that since "one-handed" and "two-handed" weapons, and weapon limits are no longer part of the game, and have no impact, that the little endnote 4 on page 16 can be ignored.

The result is that the description of the Stormshield on page 18 is the actual rule that is followed on how the stormshield works.

However, that logic (ignoring restrictions in the codex on carrying limits) means I could arm my characters with two one-handed weapons, and a storm shield for the same effect.

If that doesn't cut it, and the DH limits on carrying still apply (as codex trumps rulebook), then all that is meant by the rule on page 16 is that it only applies as a rule regarding carry limits. It has zero impact on adding attacks.

The actual rule for the SS is on page 18, and makes no mention of extra attacks.

Its gotta be one or the other.

*edited for sleepiness

Cruentus wrote:I would argue that since "one-handed" and "two-handed" weapons, and weapon limits are no longer part of the game, and have no impact, that the little endnote 4 on page 16 can be ignored.

Explain how they are no longer in the game; they're part of the codex, what rules in the BRB makes that invalid?

Weapon limits are no longer appearing in codices. That doesn't mean they're no longer valid for the codex they're printed in. You use the rules in your codex, regardless of whether or not newer codices have those restrictions.

Brother Ramses wrote: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.

Your opposition says that the rules do state you can get an extra attack.

They're aware of it being a permissive ruleset, they say they have permission. Telling them that they need permission isn't contributing much.