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.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
If you treat it like twin-linked (you know, like a twin weapon ), it works in an IDENTICAL fashion. Hit with what you hit with, and reroll the misses.

Again: someone has called GW. And has gotten a response. With how much GW is pushing their staff to know so much about AoS to train everyone, I'm hopeful their phone people got a bit of info on the matter as well.

Well, it's not a twin-linked weapon. It's two weapons. A Tau Crisis Suit with a single twin-linked Fusion Blaster makes 1 shot with a re-roll. A Tau Crisis Suit with two Fusion Blasters makes 2 shots, not 1 with a re-roll. Your analogy is bad. If I treated the Crisis Suit with two Fusion Blasters like twin-linked (you know, like a twin weapon), then I'd be playing it wrong.

Also, calling GW is well known to be useless. The guy on the phone has no more insight then you do. I used to work for GW. I guess that makes my opinion 'more correct'! (joking) The only useful comment from GW is from the authors in either an interview (never happens) or in the form of an official FAQ/Errata. I'm fairly certain the 40k You Make Da Call forum tenants say that calls or emails to GW aren't useful evidence of how rules work.

Does the tau fusion gun, when douboed, get two attacks, plus refilling fails? I somehow doubt it, otherwise you'd have mentioned it. So that argument is also flawed. This is something new. All we have is what is on the scrolls. And the scrolls blatantly say "this is what you get when you run duplicate weapons". I feel the scrolls, if they intended to gain the additional attacks, would say something like the following: "in addition to an increase in attacks, you may also reroll failed rolls to hit". Boom. Would end all argument. But they don't. So the only logical thing is to take the scroll exactly at its word. You get X attacks when you field one axe
Duplicate axes: reroll failed rolls to hit when you equip with a second axe

This is what we get. It's not written in Swahili. It's written in English (at least my version is).

GW is toting this as a simple, stripped down game. The simple thing is reading exactly what is on the scrolls and doing it. The complicated thing is changing and adding things that aren't clearly written. Which becomes the argument of doing exactly what is on the scrolls or house ruling.

And if you worked for GW while they were pushing knowledge of the rules on everyone who worked for them, I'd have probably agreed to you being an authoritative figure on the subject. But from your tone, it ended a while ago. So you're just one of us at this point.

& again, the sole thing that makes this interesting is if you run the numbers, which Games Workshop's designers presumably did when they designed the miniature's rules, the Skaven Warlord's three weapon options are all diverse and balanced as long as you assume it makes attacks with each of the dual blades and benefits from the special rule. If you only allow it to make one attack, benefiting from the special rule, the dual blades option is about half as strong as the other two.

However, since nobody has brought forwards another model that works the same way with the same issue, it seems the Skaven Warlord is probably just an error and should be played as if the rule allows it to attack a second time with the weapon profile as well as rerolling 1s. There is plenty of evidence that you're meant to, in general, play that you only use the profile once, like the orc warboss and the witch hunter, as well as the legions of models that would have wildly off internal balance if dual wielding let them attack twice, like Liberators.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Does the tau fusion gun, when douboed, get two attacks, plus refilling fails? I somehow doubt it, otherwise you'd have mentioned it. So that argument is also flawed.

I already agreed that your twin-linking example is a bad example. There is no rule telling me I get to re-roll when I have two of the same weapon in 40k, so I'm not even sure why you brought up the example. It's not actually a similar situation.

This is something new. All we have is what is on the scrolls. And the scrolls blatantly say "this is what you get when you run duplicate weapons". I feel the scrolls, if they intended to gain the additional attacks, would say something like the following: "in addition to an increase in attacks, you may also reroll failed rolls to hit".

So, you need a comment attached to every section of a warscroll saying 'in addition to following the core rules, do this'? Seems unnecessary. I think there is a default expectation that you follow the core rules. Also, I'm not sure you're understanding. If I'm equipped with two Axes and each Axe gets 2 attacks, I'm never saying you should 'increase' your attacks value to 4. You'd make 2 attacks with one of the Axes and then you'd make 2 attacks with the other Axe just as you would if you had two different weapons. There is no wording anywhere telling me not to make attacks with the second Axe. If you disagree, cite examples telling me not to attack with a second weapon.

Boom. Would end all argument. But they don't. So the only logical thing is to take the scroll exactly at its word. You get X attacks when you field one axe
Duplicate axes: reroll failed rolls to hit when you equip with a second axe

Agreed. Do exactly what the rules say. The core rules say to make a number of attacks equal to the attacks characteristics of each weapon I'm equipped with. A given warscroll might introduce an additional benefit for using multiples of the same weapon.

Why aren't you following the core rules? What specific, unambiguous wording are you using to NOT make attacks with a weapon you're equipped with? You haven't answered this question. Feel free to use literally any warscroll as an example.

This is what we get. It's not written in Swahili. It's written in English (at least my version is).

GW is toting this as a simple, stripped down game. The simple thing is reading exactly what is on the scrolls and doing it. The complicated thing is changing and adding things that aren't clearly written. Which becomes the argument of doing exactly what is on the scrolls or house ruling.

And if you worked for GW while they were pushing knowledge of the rules on everyone who worked for them, I'd have probably agreed to you being an authoritative figure on the subject. But from your tone, it ended a while ago. So you're just one of us at this point.

Just as an FYI, the direction has historically been 'you'll probably be getting lots of questions about the new rules, so make sure you read them'. I know current GW employees (including people who answer phones and email) and that's still what they're getting. There is no real 'training' on how the rules work. The GW employees outside the rules studio gain their understanding the same way we do... reading the rules.

Again - I play this as single weapon plus benefit and think GW needs to issue an FAQ/Errata to clarify their intent. That's my end game here. This is not a cut and dried situation.

rules

Step 2: Each model in the unit attacks with
all of the melee weapons it is armed with
(see Attacking)

ATTACKING
Blows hammer down upon the foe,
in icting bloody wounds.
When a unit attacks, you must first pick the
target units for the attacks that the models
in the unit will make, then make all of the
attacks, and finally in‘ ict any resulting
damage on the target units.
the number of attacks a model can make is
determined by the weapons that it is armed
with. the weapon options a model has are
listed in its description on its warscroll.
Missile weapons can be used in the shooting
phase, and melee weapons can be used in
the combat phase. the number of attacks
a model can make is equal to the Attacks
characteristic for the weapons it can use.

last part in bold
the number of attacks a model can make is equal to the Attacks characteristic for the weapons it can use
dont stop reading at
Step 2: Each model in the unit attacks with all of the melee weapons it is armed with

i have 1 sword, can i use sword?
i have 2 swords, can i use sword?
i have 14 arms with 14 swords, can i use sword?
i have 1 sword, 1 halbert and 1 dagger on my tail, can i use sword, halbert and dagger?
i have 6 legs, 1 claw and 1 big fething sword, can i use legs, claw and big fething sword?

So again, where does it say you actually don't attack with all the weapons?

This was posted on page 1 btw.

maybe its a problem with me and my knowledge of the english language

rules say you attack with all weapons you have, lets say 2 swords
now the rules say "the number of attacks a model can make is equal to the Attacks characteristic for the weapons it can use"
i have 2 swords, so i think i can use sword right?
now i look at the number of attacks for sword, lets say 6 attacks
i get 6 attacks with 2 swords

lets try this
i have 1 sword and 1 mace
now the rules say "the number of attacks a model can make is equal to the Attacks characteristic for the weapons it can use"
i have 1 sword and 1 mace, so i think i can use sword and i can use mace
now i look at the number of attacks for sword, lets say 6 attacks
now i look at the number of attacks for mace, lets say 6 attacks
i get 12 attacks with 1 sword and 1 mace

it doesnt matter how many swords i have, i could have 100 swords and it would still be what weapons can it use
how many weapons do you need to be able to use a weapon? 1+

i never say you arent attacking with all your weapons
if you have 1+ weapons of the same type, you can use that type and that type gives you a number of attacks

I think it's obvious that your grasp of the English language is better than some native speakers...

What I question is the reason why you only assign 6 attacks with 2 swords.
If the sword has a profile with 6 attacks, and you have 2, when you attack with both you roll 6 dice for the first and 6 dice for the second. 12 attacks, not 6. Which is how it works with all the other combinations of weapons.
What I don't get is the logical leap that makes people say "oh if you have 2 weapons of the same kind you don't attack with both because you reroll 1s / you can only refer to a weapon profile once" - even though the rules tell you to attack with both.
You guys have no problem taking the extra attacks if the model has 2 different weapons, why does it become a no-no if the weapons are the same?
"Because that loadout would be much better" is not a good reason in a game without points. Let's say it is, so what? The opponent will take more models to balance it out - and how do you know that's not the way they designed it?
You assume all loadouts must be equivalent, but that's just that - your own assumption.

maybe because there are special rules with 2 weapons that make no sense with double attacks

maybe because we dont stop reading the rules at attack with both

yes you attack with both weapons, but the number of attacks you get is equal to the attacks characteristics of the weapons you can use
you have 2 swords, you can use sword, sword has 6 attacks, you get 6 attacks because you can use sword, the end,
there is no rule that says "the number of attacks you get is equal to the attacks characteristics of the weapons you can use multiplide by the number of weapons"
you could have 4 arms with 4 swords, wouldn'T chance the fact that you can use sword and get 6 attacks for can use sword

And again, making no excuses for how people perceive it to be written, I can tell you that the GW studio play 2*weapon = single weapon plus special rule.

Your argument that it makes no difference in a game without points is coming at it from the wrong angle.
There are trade-offs in 99%+ of all weapon options. That there are a couple of cases where there is still an objectively better option does not mean that all choices are intended to be so.

PenPen wrote:
rules

Step 2: Each model in the unit attacks with
all of the melee weapons it is armed with
(see Attacking)

ATTACKING
Blows hammer down upon the foe,
in icting bloody wounds.
When a unit attacks, you must first pick the
target units for the attacks that the models
in the unit will make, then make all of the
attacks, and finally in‘ ict any resulting
damage on the target units.
the number of attacks a model can make is
determined by the weapons that it is armed
with. the weapon options a model has are
listed in its description on its warscroll.
Missile weapons can be used in the shooting
phase, and melee weapons can be used in
the combat phase. the number of attacks
a model can make is equal to the Attacks
characteristic for the weapons it can use.

last part in bold
the number of attacks a model can make is equal to the Attacks characteristic for the weapons it can use
dont stop reading at
Step 2: Each model in the unit attacks with all of the melee weapons it is armed with

i have 1 sword, can i use sword?
i have 2 swords, can i use sword?
i have 14 arms with 14 swords, can i use sword?
i have 1 sword, 1 halbert and 1 dagger on my tail, can i use sword, halbert and dagger?
i have 6 legs, 1 claw and 1 big fething sword, can i use legs, claw and big fething sword?

Your interpretation assumes both swords are the same weapon.

Let's call my two Swords Stabbers and Sharps McGee for ease of differentiation.

"Each model in the unit attacks with all of the melee weapons it is armed with."
"The number of attacks a model can make is equal to the Attacks characteristic for the weapons it can use."

Am I armed with Stabbers? Per the Description, Yes.
Can I attack with Stabbers? Per the first quoted rule, Yes.
Does this mean I can use Stabbers? Per the first quoted rule, Yes.
Does this mean I make a number of attacks equal to Stabber's Attacks characteristic when in combat? Per the second quoted rule, Yes.

Am I armed with Sharps McGee? Yes.
Can I attack with Sharps McGee? Yes.
Does this mean I can use Sharps McGee? Yes.
Does this mean I make a number of attacks equal to Sharps McGee's Attacks characteristic when in combat? Per the second quoted rule, Yes.

You need to quote a specific, unambiguous rule telling me that the core rules don't apply to Sharps McGee. It's a weapon I'm armed with and I can use it in combat.

so your argument is that 2 different weapons that are named different and have different profiles give more attacks
than 2 same weapons who have same profil, but get extra rules for more attacks or rerolls
and the rules are wrong?

If they're not 'the same weapon', quote me the specific, unambiguous rule that shows both different swords on the same warscrolls.

PenPen wrote:
so your argument is that 2 different weapons that are named different and have different profiles give more attacks
than 2 same weapons who have same profil, but get extra rules for more attacks or rerolls
and the rules are wrong?

I don't know, you're the one saying a model that has 2 axes can't attack with both because they are both called axes. That's mental contortionism.

RoperPG, do you know a GW designer or something?

RoperPG wrote:
If they're not 'the same weapon', quote me the specific, unambiguous rule that shows both different swords on the same warscrolls.

Here's an example from the Warriors of Chaos Warscroll...

"Some units eschew defence, hefting double handed Chaos Greatblades or entering into battle with a Chaos Hand Weapon in each hand."

Is it your contention that the specific Warrior has the same, actual, physical weapon in both hands? Look at the model, dude. It's clearly two distinct weapons. Just because they're the same weapon type doesn't change that there are two of them present.

I want to be very clear. If a model is equipped with a weapon in each of its two hands, how many weapons is it armed with?

Vetril wrote:RoperPG, do you know a GW designer or something?

I asked a guy I know how his friends at work play this rule, and where they work makes it authoritative enough for me.
But I'm fully aware this is just words on the internet, so no more or less effective as evidence than saying "this! Because banana!"

Kriswall wrote:

RoperPG wrote:
If they're not 'the same weapon', quote me the specific, unambiguous rule that shows both different swords on the same warscrolls.

Here's an example from the Warriors of Chaos Warscroll...

"Some units eschew defence, hefting double handed Chaos Greatblades or entering into battle with a Chaos Hand Weapon in each hand."

Is it your contention that the specific Warrior has the same, actual, physical weapon in both hands? Look at the model, dude. It's clearly two distinct weapons. Just because they're the same weapon type doesn't change that there are two of them present.

I want to be very clear. If a model is equipped with a weapon in each of its two hands, how many weapons is it armed with?

Sorry, I was being a little flippant.
Of course a model with two swords has two swords, but the question is how the rules interpret that.
The rules are unfortunately not explicit enough to withstand legal scrutiny.
But in the absence of absolute, then all we have is reasonable doubt.
There are enough variations on the 'if you have a pair of x' that, when taken as a whole, indicate where the intent is.

But that's only suitable if you're happy to accept you won't get it in stone any time soon.

RoperPG wrote:

Vetril wrote:RoperPG, do you know a GW designer or something?

I asked a guy I know how his friends at work play this rule, and where they work makes it authoritative enough for me.
But I'm fully aware this is just words on the internet, so no more or less effective as evidence than saying "this! Because banana!"

Kriswall wrote:

RoperPG wrote:
If they're not 'the same weapon', quote me the specific, unambiguous rule that shows both different swords on the same warscrolls.

Here's an example from the Warriors of Chaos Warscroll...

"Some units eschew defence, hefting double handed Chaos Greatblades or entering into battle with a Chaos Hand Weapon in each hand."

Is it your contention that the specific Warrior has the same, actual, physical weapon in both hands? Look at the model, dude. It's clearly two distinct weapons. Just because they're the same weapon type doesn't change that there are two of them present.

I want to be very clear. If a model is equipped with a weapon in each of its two hands, how many weapons is it armed with?

Sorry, I was being a little flippant.
Of course a model with two swords has two swords, but the question is how the rules interpret that.
The rules are unfortunately not explicit enough to withstand legal scrutiny.
But in the absence of absolute, then all we have is reasonable doubt.
There are enough variations on the 'if you have a pair of x' that, when taken as a whole, indicate where the intent is.

But that's only suitable if you're happy to accept you won't get it in stone any time soon.

Yes, yes, yes. There is tons of circumstantial evidence leading us to believe that GW's intent was to give models with two of the same weapon a special ability INSTEAD of following the standard core rules and making attacks with both weapons. I'm not disputing the intent. Intent seems pretty clear.

I'm saying the rules NEVER tell me NOT to make attacks with the second weapon. It's simply not there. There hasn't been a single citation from ANY warscroll telling me that INSTEAD of making attacks as normal, I get a benefit.

I think this is a problem that needs to be addressed with an FAQ or Errata.

The rules are super explicit. You just keep letting perceived intent color your interpretation.

1. Do the rules tell me what a model is armed with? Absolutely. It's in each warscroll's description section. "The description tells you what weapons the model can be armed with, and what upgrades (if any) it can be given."
2. Do the rules tell me what weapons I can attack with? Absolutely. It's in the Combat section. "Each model in the unit attacks with all of the melee weapons it is armed with (see Attacking)."
3. Do the rules tell me how many attacks total I get? Absolutely. It's in the Attacking section. "The number of attacks a model can make is determined by the weapons that it is armed with." ... "The number of attacks a model can make is equal to the Attacks characteristic for the weapons it can use." - I think this is the sticking point. More on that below.
4. Do the rules tell me how to make the attacks once I know how many to make? Absolutely. There is a whole section called Making Attacks.

Now, let's consider Johnny Badman. He's a bog standard Warrior of Chaos. He has a Chaos Hand Weapon in his left hand and a Chaos Hand Weapon in his right hand. The Attacks characteristic for a Chaos Hand Weapon is 2.

So...

1. Do the rules tell me what Johnny Badman is armed with? Absolutely. He's armed with two Chaos Hand Weapons.
2. Do the rules tell me what weapons he can attack with? Absolutely. He can attack with two Chaos Hand Weapons.
3. Do the rules tell me how many attacks total he gets? Absolutely. I'm explicitly told that he can use both Chaos Hand Weapons when he's attacking as he's armed with both. The number of attacks he gets is equal to the Attacks characteristics for the weapons he can use. He can use two weapons. The Attacks characteristic for the first is 2. The Attacks characteristic for the second is 2. Adding 2 and 2 gives 4. He'll make 4 total attacks... 2 with the first weapon's profile (Chaos Hand Weapons) and 2 with the second weapon's profile (Chaos Hand Weapon).
4. Do the rules tell him how to make the attacks once he know how many to make? Absolutely. There is a whole section called Making Attacks.

The fact that his special ability gives him a benefit when using two of the same weapon is somehow being interpreted as a RaW instruction to not make attacks with the second weapon as per the core rules. Here is his rule... "Berserk Fury - Warriors of Chaos who wield a blade in each hand batter aside the enemy's defences. You can re-roll hit rolls of 1 for Warriors of Chaos wielding a pair of Chaos Hand Weapons." You'll note a total absence of wording telling me not to make attacks with a weapon my model is armed with.

So...

Answer these questions with yes or no.

Is my Warrior armed with two weapons? Yes or No.
Can be attack with both weapons? Yes or No.
Does the Berserk Fury ability tell me NOT to attack with both weapons? Yes or No.

Other than intangible, perceived intent, why are you ignoring the core rules telling you to make attacks with a weapon one of your models is armed with?

End thought... the rules don't appear to match with GW's community perceived intent. They need to add wording that a model can't make attacks with multiples of the same weapon. Any benefits for using multiples of the same weapon will be listed on a unit's warscroll.

 Kriswall wrote:
The rules are super explicit. You just keep letting perceived intent color your interpretation.

As are you. You are perceiving that the number of Weapons carried by the model are the last word, and not just one of the words.

 Kriswall wrote:
Answer these questions with yes or no.

I'm going to go with "no". Largely because these aren't actually Yes or No questions when dealing with the Warscrolls.

 Kriswall wrote:
Does the Berserk Fury ability tell me NOT to attack with both weapons? Yes or No.

Actually, I think it DEFINES how to Attack with two of the same Weapon.

 Kriswall wrote:
Other than intangible, perceived intent, why are you ignoring the core rules telling you to make attacks with a weapon one of your models is armed with?

No, it's not intangible. The entire Warscroll defines the situation, not just the Description. In order for this to work as a doubling of Attacks, one must accept that the number of Weapons a model carries is the final word. Yet, nothing actually states that. In fact, the phrasing from both the Rules and the Warscrolls in question definitely indicate a different definition than what you are espousing.

You have two of the same Weapon. The Weapon generates Attacks according to the profile. Nothing says you can or are to use this profile twice. Indeed, the phrasing for the Attacks generated could just as easily mean that ALL Attacks from that Weapon, no matter the quantity, are specifically listed in the Profile.

 Kriswall wrote:
End thought... the rules don't appear to match with GW's community perceived intent. They need to add wording that a model can't make attacks with multiples of the same weapon. Any benefits for using multiples of the same weapon will be listed on a unit's warscroll.

Only if you look at it in a very limited point of view which allows the Description to have ultimate authority instead of being just one part of the picture. It has two of the same Weapon, so I can use the Profile twice, even though the definition of what I do when the model has two of the same Weapon says to do something else.

Well, I agree with the intent and that's how I would play it, so this is sort of a moot discussion.

Ultimately, I think we need an FAQ/Errata to clarify that the various special abilities replace the core rules instead of adding to them.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Does the tau fusion gun, when douboed, get two attacks, plus refilling fails? I somehow doubt it, otherwise you'd have mentioned it. So that argument is also flawed. This is something new. All we have is what is on the scrolls. And the scrolls blatantly say "this is what you get when you run duplicate weapons". I feel the scrolls, if they intended to gain the additional attacks, would say something like the following: "in addition to an increase in attacks, you may also reroll failed rolls to hit". Boom. Would end all argument. But they don't. So the only logical thing is to take the scroll exactly at its word. You get X attacks when you field one axe
Duplicate axes: reroll failed rolls to hit when you equip with a second axe

This is what we get. It's not written in Swahili. It's written in English (at least my version is).

GW is toting this as a simple, stripped down game. The simple thing is reading exactly what is on the scrolls and doing it. The complicated thing is changing and adding things that aren't clearly written. Which becomes the argument of doing exactly what is on the scrolls or house ruling.

And if you worked for GW while they were pushing knowledge of the rules on everyone who worked for them, I'd have probably agreed to you being an authoritative figure on the subject. But from your tone, it ended a while ago. So you're just one of us at this point.

Actually it's still flawed. Remenber one case, verminlord A uses pleague glaive and verminglord B uses pleague glaiveS and got different attack.
If we follow what exactly said by GW in 4 pages, the pair weapons rule just does not exist in the scroll. Because they have to get a seperate line for 'XXX weaponS' (and they really did in a few scrolls)
If we are really strict about rule, we should ban that option no matter it is written in description or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vetril wrote:
What I question is the reason why you only assign 6 attacks with 2 swords.
If the sword has a profile with 6 attacks, and you have 2, when you attack with both you roll 6 dice for the first and 6 dice for the second. 12 attacks, not 6. Which is how it works with all the other combinations of weapons.
What I don't get is the logical leap that makes people say "oh if you have 2 weapons of the same kind you don't attack with both because you reroll 1s / you can only refer to a weapon profile once" - even though the rules tell you to attack with both.
You guys have no problem taking the extra attacks if the model has 2 different weapons, why does it become a no-no if the weapons are the same?
"Because that loadout would be much better" is not a good reason in a game without points. Let's say it is, so what? The opponent will take more models to balance it out - and how do you know that's not the way they designed it?
You assume all loadouts must be equivalent, but that's just that - your own assumption.

Interesting thing is most double weapons need to attack double time to get a similar level as other set up...

If attack once they are just bs. Some people keep doing maths on target with - save to show there is some balance. But please I think in the game the average armor save should be 5+ around

Interesting thing is most double weapons need to attack double time to get a similar level as other set up...

If attack once they are just bs. Some people keep doing maths on target with - save to show there is some balance. But please I think in the game the average armor save should be 5+ around

Depends on the model. Ogre bulls getting 6 attacks each and rerolling 1's, because of taking two weapons, vs weapon and ironfirst, would be amazing.

Aeonotakist wrote:


Interesting thing is most double weapons need to attack double time to get a similar level as other set up...

If attack once they are just bs. Some people keep doing maths on target with - save to show there is some balance. But please I think in the game the average armor save should be 5+ around

When comparing weapon damage potential, you need to factor out the target's save, and the simplest way is to compare Wounds prior to the Save - it's the average amount of Damage potential that is important (which gets reduced by whatever Save the target has). It gets tricky for Mortal Wounds and Rend.

For Mortal Wounds, you can either just quote them separately (which is safer), or if you want to fold the MW into the regular Wound potential you need to make some sort of guess about the equivalence. For example, if you assume the average Save is 5+, you would need to inflict 6 (regular) Wounds to do the same damage as 4 Mortal Wounds. Again, this isn't exact, because you're specific target might have a 3+ save and/or be able to take saves against Mortal Wounds.

Same with Rend. This is easy to calculate, but only if you assume that targets have a Save; Rend -1 is useless against Save "-" and Rend -2 is only as effective as Rend -1 against Save 6+. But IF you assume that the average save is 5+, Rend -1 will generate 7/6 more damage than an identical attack that is Rend 0; and Rend -2 will generate 8/6 more than Rend 0.

This is all very simple to do in a spreadsheet and it's quite interesting to compare weapons with very different attack profiles. Remarkably, most weapon combos for units with options come out to be pretty similar (of course, there are certain combos that seem weak/strong - either by design or mistake).

I'm in the weapon-profile-trumps-number-of-weapons camp. I've made what I think is a pretty clear post about it on my blog if you're interested:

https://ghalmaraz.wordpress.com/2015/08/21/weapon-profile-not-number-of-weapons-determines-number-of-attacks/

maerdymachus wrote:
I'm in the weapon-profile-trumps-number-of-weapons camp. I've made what I think is a pretty clear post about it on my blog if you're interested:

https://ghalmaraz.wordpress.com/2015/08/21/weapon-profile-not-number-of-weapons-determines-number-of-attacks/

I disagree wholeheartedly.

You're interpretation requires not being able to use the second hand weapon. In that case, fine. You don't get your double attacks, but you also don't get your re-rolls as that would be using the second weapon.

"Your interpretation requires not being able to use the second hand weapon. In that case, fine. You don't get your double attacks, but you also don't get your re-rolls as that would be using the second weapon."

The only thing my interpretation does is limit the number of *attacks* generated by wielding two weapons. Weapons, not number of weapons, determine the number of *attacks* you can make. In a fluff sense, you may be "attacking" with the extra weapon when you reroll 1s, but in a rules sense, you aren't: your attacks have already been made.

You get +1 attack for each weapon profile they get to attack with, not each weapon they are holding on their model. Deathmaster snitch doesn't get +3 attacks because hes holding 3 weeping blades. All 3 of those blades are represented by a single weapon profile. In the same way, holding 2 hand weapons is represented by a single weapon profile and the ability to reroll 1's to hit (or whatever your duel wielding special ability is for that model).

Does anyone actually want a Prosecutor to throw 4 shots and make 4 attacks in melee, re-rolling ones?

Hmm, do I want to re-roll armor saves of 1, or do I want to do more than twice as much damage....

It's really hard to find units where you'd want anything other than paired weapons.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:
Does anyone actually want a Prosecutor to throw 4 shots and make 4 attacks in melee, re-rolling ones?

Hmm, do I want to re-roll armor saves of 1, or do I want to do more than twice as much damage....

It's really hard to find units where you'd want anything other than paired weapons.

Blame to the carelessly written rules. For DE, the single handed weapon is so weak for a dragon rider (3+/4+/D1 no rend) that reroll 1 will never compete with shiled (reroll all failed saves)

Also for the rat warlord, you can pick one warbarb with a halberd to get additional attck for that heavy long-range weapon, or pick two warbarbs to get reroll 1. Nobody will be so stupid to go for the later one.

GW just put no effort in writting old ruls, or AoS will not be like now.

In as official a response as it gets at this stage, MongooseMatt reported that the TO's at the Warhammer World AoS event weekend confirmed 2*Weapon is single-profile-plus-special-rule, not double-profile-plus-special-rule.