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.

That's pretty much the crux of it: the rules don't say anything about them being special close combat weapons or being one or two handed. So, following p.42, they default to being a single close combat weapon.

The weight of items has no in-game rules.

The actual rules for pistols in CC are: "In addition [to making ranged attacks] a pistol can be used as a close combat weapon in the Assault phase".

The actual rule has no mention of handedness. Of course, I'd prefer to play games where unspecified CCW are single-handed. I think it makes sense.

Also, just because "Pistol weapons are light enough to be carried and fired one-handed" does not imply that every unit with a pistol is using it in this manner.
I think the entire paragraph is fluff, and only the second paragraph is rules. For example, the term "trooper" is not a rules term, so if you insist that the paragraph is indeed rules, I would point out that only "troopers" may fight in close combat with the weapons combinations listed.

I think RaI is about as clear as it can get, and RaW are about as unclear as it can get.

Of course, should we decide that unspecified CCW are single-handed, it potentially opens up (presumably) unintended benefits for certain units, as per the discussion above.

Edit: @nurglitch Are you saying they default to being single-handed? Or are you saying they default to being one weapon? (Without explicit handedness)

ajfirecracker wrote:
The actual rule has no mention of handedness. . . I think the entire paragraph is fluff, and only the second paragraph is rules.

If, then.

I do not think the rules are only in the second paragraph, for the same reason that I think that "Terminator" is a game term.

shrug

ajfirecracker:

I'm saying they default to being a single close combat weapon.

Upon further reflection, the point is mostly moot.

Most instances of +1A from pistols are Pistol+CCW (of some sort) rather than 2 pistols, so we'd still have to make some sort of default decision to allow for the bonuses (with the exception of the odd IC).

kirsanth, I don't follow the Terminator argument, seeing as it's used repeatedly (in armories, unit names, etc.) in real rules.

Also, the pistol may be light enough to be fired one handed, but is it "x" enough? Accurate? Small? Banana?
The fluff only tells us the weight of the pistol, not any other information that might be relevant.

Suppose we are told, for example, that a skilled Land Raider driver may use the mass of the vehicle to crush entire enemy units. Does this mean I may place my Land Raider on top of enemy units, destroying them? Of course not! (Unless there's also a special rule to this effect.)

P. 42,37,29 etc. etc. may show intent, (I think they do), but they don't show any rules substantiating the claim that all pistols are single-handed CCW.

Counter-argument: P.29 says pistols may be used with sword, axe, or other ccw. P. 42 says 2-handed items may not be used with anything. Therefore all swords, axes, pistols, and "other ccw" are single-handed unless otherwise specified. Therefore wraiths, bananas, assault marines, and everyone get +1A subject to having 2 unspecified CCW. The drawbacks are that the paragraph really does strike me as fluff (i.e. it flirts with but doesn't embrace rules terminology) and that you're left with the ugly rules situation of including everything but "pistols" "swords" and "axes" under "other close combat weapon".

Should you play RaW such that only those three things are single-handed unless otherwise specified, see above point about being moot.

It was argued that "Terminator" is only used in the fluff of the "Terminator Armor" section.

And of course it is moot, that is why there is debate.

"In addition a pistol counts as a close combat weapon in the Assault phase." p.29, Weapons, Rulebook.

kirsanth: I'm using moot here to mean a point which could be debated but which is irrelevant. There is also an alternate meaning, which I am not using, which means open to debate.

I'm saying that pistol handedness doesn't matter because most CCW you can get with them are not "swords" or "axes", making pistol handedness open to debate, but irrelevant.

ajfirecracker wrote:kirsanth: I'm using moot here to mean a point which could be debated but which is irrelevant. There is also an alternate meaning, which I am not using, which means open to debate.

That is american, and even so, generally non-standard.
See: OED

Or AskOxford if you like:
• adjective: subject to debate or uncertainty: a moot point.

• verb: put forward for discussion.

editing to add: The word means one thing, and is commonly used to mean the exact opposite. This tends to make the word a moot point.
Sorry for the rant/diversion but I blame Gwar! for that word comming up so often lately.

kirsanth wrote:Sorry for the rant/diversion but I blame Gwar! for that word comming up so often lately.

Moot Moot Moot Moot Moot Moot Moot Moot Moot Moot

But I agree it is a Moot Point

Counter-argument to my above counter-argument: Since we don't know what troopers are (although we might like to assume), it could be that they are unique in being able to use multiple 2-handed weapons together. So the implication that pistols are always one-handed is not purely supported by RaW.

I do know know about everyone else. But I have for eternity and a day played stormbolters as one-handed and applicable for two one-handed weapons to get the +1 attack in close combat. I have never had an issue with it, nor have I seen it occur otherwise. That is how I will continue to play it.

Skinnattitar, storm-bolters are shooting weapons, similar to (for example) bolters. GK have a special rule letting them have the bonus, why would they need it if the storm-bolters did not normally confer the bonus?

Surely you don't play such that all assault weapons are one-handed?

If you were playing storm bolters as one handed weapons for an eternity and a day then at least most of the time you were indeed playing it against the RAW. In the previous SM codex stormbolters were listed under two handed weapons, so up until the new codex came out in 2008 came out we knew that storm bolters were defined as two handed weapons.

GW has moved away from explicitly defining the handedness of weapons recently but there are several current lists that do still tell us how many weapons are used.

And actually, since this is a matter of determining the language that GW uses, it is one of the few places that using a previous codex is useful. GW has taken to writing in a short hand form now since THEY all know what they mean, so at times its good to refer back to when they still explained terms a bit more completely.



Sliggoth

Skinnattittar wrote:I do know know about everyone else. But I have for eternity and a day played stormbolters as one-handed and applicable for two one-handed weapons to get the +1 attack in close combat. I have never had an issue with it, nor have I seen it occur otherwise. That is how I will continue to play it.

Is this a joke, or serious?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Why do you think Assault Terminators were invented then?

Sliggoth wrote:@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

I couldn't agree more with this post. As far as I can tell, it is the essence of the argument when it comes to normal ccw conferring the +1a bonus. Special weapons get defined clearly, regardless of 1 handed or 2 handedness (although I in no way mean to say that 2 handed special weapons get the bonus). Normal ccws really are only vaguely defined, and are given the further stipulation of 2 "1 handed weapons" to get the bonus, without universally defining what weapons are 1 handed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Skinnattittar wrote:I do know know about everyone else. But I have for eternity and a day played stormbolters as one-handed and applicable for two one-handed weapons to get the +1 attack in close combat. I have never had an issue with it, nor have I seen it occur otherwise. That is how I will continue to play it.

When it comes to models in term armor, I have played this way as well, since the rougue trader days. And no, there have never been any issues with the bonus attack in the myriad clubs, leagues and tournaments I've played in.

That being said...there are some good points presented here. I must admit that it is a valid debate, and with few absolute answers...hence the continuation of said debate.

It reminds me of the most numerous gripe I've heard from 40k players since I got into the gameback in the md to late eighties: "GW makes the rules vague, jumbled and sometimes contradictory."

Man, I wanna go to THOSE tournaments! I'd never take assault terminators, my 3-attack regular terminators with better shooting ability will kick the crap out of everything!

And hell, my chaos terminators just all got the icon of khorne for free! I mean check it out, all our combi-bolters and combi-meltas and such have blades and spikes sticking out of them. They're obviously close combat weapons!

Obviously in the case of powerfists, 5th edition fixes this anyway because the "second close combat weapon" is meaningless. But man, all my power weapon termies getting extra attacks? That'd be great!


I always wondered when I first started why that pistol-grip stormbolter couldn't give extra attacks, or why it was 2-handed. Point is it's just too big and heavy to wield as a ccw, whether you actually need 2 hands to carry and shoot it or not.

Spellbound wrote:Man, I wanna go to THOSE tournaments! I'd never take assault terminators, my 3-attack regular terminators with better shooting ability will kick the crap out of everything!

And hell, my chaos terminators just all got the icon of khorne for free! I mean check it out, all our combi-bolters and combi-meltas and such have blades and spikes sticking out of them. They're obviously close combat weapons!

Obviously in the case of powerfists, 5th edition fixes this anyway because the "second close combat weapon" is meaningless. But man, all my power weapon termies getting extra attacks? That'd be great!


I always wondered when I first started why that pistol-grip stormbolter couldn't give extra attacks, or why it was 2-handed. Point is it's just too big and heavy to wield as a ccw, whether you actually need 2 hands to carry and shoot it or not.

Wise guy, huh?

This thread... is over.

Feel free to start a new one if there are any fresh angles to pursue.