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.

Hey all,
the Eversor entry in DH says he has:
1. Executioner Pistol
2. Power Weapon
3. Neuro-Gauntlet

All of these are Classed as Close Combat weapons, but is the Neuro-Gauntlet a "special" CC weapon and thus activates the rule negating a chance to get +1 attack for 2 CC weapons?

It seems contrary to the nature of the Eversor that he wouldn't get the +1, but im wondering if this is another steamer left for us to sort through on our own...

He gets the +1.

What prevents him from doing a Calgar and selecting which two weapons to weild? Pistol + Special CCW for +1A.

Spetulhu wrote:What prevents him from doing a Calgar and selecting which two weapons to weild? Pistol + Special CCW for +1A.

The fact that the BGB states very clearly that any model holding 2 special weapons may pick between them but may never get +1A from having 2. (such is the penalty for wielding too many complex weapons) -pg42

'Special Close Combat Weapons' other than those specifically listed on page 42 are never strictly defined, but the impression given by the rules on that page for SCCWs is that a SCCW is any CCW that confers a bonus, or has special rules that govern how it works in close combat.

The Neuro Gauntlet would certainly seem to fit that criteria.

So the Eversor has 2 SCCWs and a pistol.

As a model with 2 SCCWs, he would be bound by the rule on page 42, under the entry 'Two Different Special Weapons'... which requires him to choose one or the other, and specifically states that he doesn't get a bonus for using two weapons.

So, as far as I can see, by RAW you can't choose to use the pistol and one of the SCCWs... you're stuck with just a single SCCW in combat, and he never gets the +1.


That being said, I suspect it's just one of those things that got overlooked with the changes to how close combat works in 5th edition, and I'd allow him to choose which two weapons he's using, and allow the +1 for the pistol as a mark of his position as a close combat fiend.

There was an extemely long thread on the topic of what effect a model carrying more than 2 cc weapons had. In order to make the rules work at all it came down to allowing the model to choose which two ccw he uses each turn, so it is indeed possible to wield a special and a regular cc weapon to gain +1 attack even if the model has 2+ special and 1+ regular ccw.


iirc the thread indeed started as a discussion of Calgar and his magic gloves, then wandered over into the problems of any model with extra ccws.


Sliggoth

you know though in this case the Neuro-Gauntlet specifically says it also ignores armor saves.....so there really is no point for the "power weapon" quoted directly above the gauntlets paragraph and represented on the models(the sword on his back).

With that in mind i would say there's no logical reason he wouldn't receive his +1 as there would never be a reason to use the power weapon.

edit: then again i guess 4+ to wound isn't great against low toughness targets, i fight to many space marines....

Sliggoth wrote:There was an extemely long thread on the topic of what effect a model carrying more than 2 cc weapons had. In order to make the rules work at all it came down to allowing the model to choose which two ccw he uses each turn, so it is indeed possible to wield a special and a regular cc weapon to gain +1 attack even if the model has 2+ special and 1+ regular ccw.

I find this hard to believe since every thread on the subject matter of whether models with 2 special close combat weapons and another plain one such as a pistol and whether the attack bonus can be gained has failed to come to any consensus on how the rule functions.

Perhaps I missed the lone thread where everyone agreed with eachother?

A Neuro gauntlet is not a Normal CCW, so it is obviously a Special CCW. As such, you won't get the +1A because you have 2 Special Weapons.

Gwar! wrote:A Neuro gauntlet is not a Normal CCW, so it is obviously a Special CCW. As such, you won't get the +1A because you have 2 Special Weapons.

Which is one stand point.The other is ...

You are fighting with 2 Weapons which 2? The 2 non-identical special CCW rules is a sub of the "Fighting with 2 CCW" rule and would only applied to a model with which only has or is using 2 non-identical special CCW. If you Choose to use a pistol and special CCW you get +1 attack and any bonus that come with the special CCW.

insaniak wrote:
As a model with 2 SCCWs, he would be bound by the rule on page 42, under the entry 'Two Different Special Weapons'... which requires him to choose one or the other, and specifically states that he doesn't get a bonus for using two weapons.

So, as far as I can see, by RAW you can't choose to use the pistol and one of the SCCWs... you're stuck with just a single SCCW in combat, and he never gets the +1.

I completely disagree with this assessment.

You can read the rules on page 42 for "Fighting with Two Single-Handed Weapons" in one of two ways:


1) You can read it, as you have indicated, that it is an exhaustive list given is for how a model is equipped. If the model is carrying that combination of weapons, then he has to follow the rules given.

The problem with this reading is that: The Eversor doesn't have two special weapons. What he does have is 'two special weapons and one normal weapon'.

So if you're going by the interpretation that the rules dictate how the model has to attack, then the only thing we can conclude is that there are no rules to cover the Eversor's situation and we have to make up our own rules.


2) Interpretation #2 is that the list of possible combinations given for a model choosing to "fight" with two single-handed weapons (which actually fits with the name of the section) as opposed to what weapons the model simply has.

In this interpretation, a model like the Eversor would have a choice:

A) He chooses to fight with a special weapon and a normal weapon, in which case he follows the rules for "A Normal and a Special Weapon" OR he chooses to fight with his two special weapons, in which case he follows the rules for "Two Different Special Weapons."

B) If the Eversor chooses to fight with a special weapon and a close combat weapon he would then get the +1A bonus, but, if for some reason, he chooses to fight with both his special weapons then he would then not get the +A bonus.


So just to re-iterate, there are two RAW interpretations here:

RAW Interpetation #1: There are no rules for a model with two special weapons and a normal weapon so there are no rules for the Eversor and we have no idea how he is supposed to fight in CC.

RAW Interpretation #2: The Eversor can choose which two weapons to fight with and, based on that choice, it dictates whether or not he will get the +1A bonus or not.


But there is NO RAW interpretation that completely disallows the Eversor to get his +1A bonus for having two single-handed weapons.

I was under the Impression that a Model must Always fight with their special weapons, so if you have 2 Specials and a Normal you must always choose the two specials.

Gwar! wrote:I was under the Impression that a Model must Always fight with their special weapons, so if you have 2 Specials and a Normal you must always choose the two specials.

As I mentioned above, that rule is found in the section called "Two different Special Weapons".

The Eversor has "a Normal and a Special Weapon" as much as he has "Two Different Special Weapons", so why would you try to claim I have to follow the latter rules instead of the former?


As I illustrated in my last post, the Eversor does not have "Two different Special Weapons", he has "Two different Special Weapons and a Normal Weapon".

As there is no category for such a combination there can be only one of two explanations:

1) There are no rules for the Eversor's combinations of weapons and therefore we have no rules for how he fights in CC.
2) The categories listed are for combinations USED in combat (as opposed to what weapons the model is carrying), in which case the Eversor can choose to fight with one special weapon and one normal weapon in order to gain the +1A bonus in CC.

yakface wrote:As I mentioned above, that rule is found in the section called "Two different Special Weapons".

It's also found on page 35, under 'Who can fight'

If the model has Special attacks, it has to use them. That, to me, says that a model with two special attacks and a normal one would have to use the two specials. You can't opt to use the lesser weapon.

The Eversor has "a Normal and a Special Weapon" as much as he has "Two Different Special Weapons", so why would you try to claim I have to follow the latter rules instead of the former?

Because you have to break no rules.

The rules for using a normal and a special weapon allow the +1.
The rules for using 2 special weapons disallow it.

Since the Eversor fits both categories, the only way to not break one of those rules is to apply the restriction.

As I illustrated in my last post, the Eversor does not have "Two different Special Weapons", he has "Two different Special Weapons and a Normal Weapon".

Which means he has two special weapons.

It's unneccessary to have a category for that specific configuration. He does have two SCCWs. They're not the sum total of his equipment, but he has them.

insaniak wrote:
It's also found on page 35, under 'Who can fight'

If the model has Special attacks, it has to use them. That, to me, says that a model with two special attacks and a normal one would have to use the two specials. You can't opt to use the lesser weapon.

What it says is:

"All engaged models will fight in this turn's Assault phase with their full number of Attacks and use any special close combat attack they have."


So how exactly is an Eversor fighting with one of his Special Weapons & a Normal weapon not following this rule? Either way he is using a special close combat attack.

Now, if he had TWO normal weapons & a Special weapon then he obviously would not be allowed to use the two normal weapons together as this would be breaking the rule.

The Eversor has "a Normal and a Special Weapon" as much as he has "Two Different Special Weapons", so why would you try to claim I have to follow the latter rules instead of the former?

Because you have to break no rules.

The rules for using a normal and a special weapon allow the +1.
The rules for using 2 special weapons disallow it.

Since the Eversor fits both categories, the only way to not break one of those rules is to apply the restriction.

As I illustrated in my last post, the Eversor does not have "Two different Special Weapons", he has "Two different Special Weapons and a Normal Weapon".

Which means he has two special weapons.

It's unneccessary to have a category for that specific configuration. He does have two SCCWs. They're not the sum total of his equipment, but he has them.

But a model CAN'T be in two of the categories at once! Or are you trying to say that if a model had two normal close combat weapons AND two of the same special weapon they'd actually be getting a +2A bonus (one because they're in the first category and one because they're in the 2nd category)???

The categories list the different possible configurations. Either these are for weapons the model is USING or they are for weapons the model is CARRYING. If they are for the weapons the model is CARRYING then they absolutely DO NOT cover the Eversor:

He has two different special weapons AND a normal weapon. This is an undefined category if these truly do describe what weapons the model is carrying (as opposed to what they are fighting with).

The pg 35 rule has two problems. It says "use any special close combat attack they have".

1) Attack is singular, so the rule is talking about one type of special attack. It is most certainly not saying use more than one special attack.

2) Attack isnt the same as weapon. So this rule doesnt really apply at all to attacking with 1, 2 or more weapons since it is only talking about an attack. It seems to be referring to things such as the inherent special attack MC have or the like. Or how some models have one attack that they use at a different Init from their other attacks. Etc.



Sliggoth

yakface wrote:So how exactly is an Eversor fighting with one of his Special Weapons & a Normal weapon not following this rule? Either way he is using a special close combat attack.

He's using 'a' special attack.
He's not using 'any special attack' that he has. To do that, he has to use them all.

It's dodgy wording, but to me seems to be what it's implying. I'm happy to admit that it's not conclusive, though.

But a model CAN'T be in two of the categories at once!

Why not?

Does the model have a SCCW and a CCW? Yes he does.
Does the model have two SCCWs? Yes he does.

He therefore fits (assuming the categories are talking about the weapons that the model is carrying) into both categories.

Personally, I'm still leaning towards the interp that the categories are referring to what the model is using ... but that you are forced to use the SCCW's. In which case he can only be in one category.

Or are you trying to say that if a model had two normal close combat weapons AND two of the same special weapon they'd actually be getting a +2A bonus (one because they're in the first category and one because they're in the 2nd category)???

That would be a potential problem with that interpretation. Another reason to assume that they're talking about the weapons that the model is actually using.

If they are for the weapons the model is CARRYING then they absolutely DO NOT cover the Eversor:

They do, because it's not listed as an exhaustive list. It doesn't ask for the model to only be carrying two SCCW's... just that they have two.

I have 10 fingernails.

I would be excluded from a category for people with only 2 fingernails.
I would be included in a category for people who have 2 fingernails, or who are using two fingernails to scratch their head.


But again, I'm not really happy with the idea that the categories are defining the weapons that the model has. The wording of the entire section suggests more strongly that they're talking about the weapons the model is choosing to use.

So the problem just comes back to whether or not you can choose to use the CCW, or are forced to use the two SCCWs.

The problem is that you can only use the special rules of one weapon at a time. Even if you were using two special close combat weapons, you still can't use all of your special attacks.

I'd go with +1 attack for eversor. He is using a special attack when using normal CCW with SCCW. You can use only one SCCW effect in one assault phase anyways.

And i repeat, the pg 35 rule says attack, it doesnt say weapon.

You cant apply a rule about an attack to a weapon, since 40k actually has special attacks. Special attacks are things like the tyranids bio plasm attack, do not confuse special attacks with special weapons.


Sliggoth

Weapons don't have 'attacks', models do. For example, a power weapon doesn't make it's own attacks ignore armor saves, but those attacks of the model now ignore armor saves. Special weapons give the models wielding them special attacks.

So far I've seen posts for every special character that has two special weapons and why they should not be held to the 2 special weapon rule.

How many character / models in the game actually come with 2 special weapons? (I'm not arguing the point of who the rule applies to and who it doesn't) I just want to know how many COULD this rule actually apply to.
The posters here seem pretty educated, can we come up with a list?
Betcha it is less than 10 models.

Eldrad
Calagar
Eversor
...

I mean really...eliminate those with one power fist cause the PF rule trumps the two special weapon rule cause you can't get the extra attack anyway. Eliminate those with two of the same special weapons cause they get the attack...how many are left?

So Calgar will always have to use a Power Fist and his Power Sword, never getting the +1A for two fists? Eldrad always dualwields his Witchblade and staff for no bonus attack even when he has a pistol? IG's Kell has PF, PS and a pistol - never a bonus attack? Mad Dok Grotsnik has a Klaw, pistol and poisoned CCW. I lack Eldar, CSM, Tau Deldar and the non-vanilla marine books.

I'm putting this under the same dodgy wording that people use when they try to make you use your powersword against a tank instead of your Meltabombs (which IMO are also a special attack).

edit: could I also argue that someone with grenades never gets the +1A, at least not if he could use the grenades on his CC target?

Spetulhu, IMO, yep, sure nuff. All of those (except the meltabomb thing) are correct. What it boils down to is whether you can choose which weapons you are 'using' for that round or whether the more restrictive "never" supercedes that. IMO, the more restrictive rule is going to limit the player on options, denying him the opportunity to use the pistol and one speciall ccw so as to gain +1 attack.
Also, note that I tagged the word 'using', because it really doesn't matter what weapons they say they want to use. All that matters is what they're equipped with.
"FIGHTING WITH TWO SINGLE-HANDED WEAPONS
Some models are equipped with two single-handed weapons they can use in close combat, with the rules given below for the different possible combinations."
Equipped with. To me, the combination of the words "equipped with" in the opening paragraph and the word "never" later on make it very clear. If you posess, carry, have, are equipped with, two special ccw weapons, then you never get the +1 attack for using two weapons.

don_mondo wrote:Spetulhu, IMO, yep, sure nuff. All of those (except the meltabomb thing) are correct. What it boils down to is whether you can choose which weapons you are 'using' for that round or whether the more restrictive "never" supercedes that. IMO, the more restrictive rule is going to limit the player on options, denying him the opportunity to use the pistol and one speciall ccw so as to gain +1 attack.
Also, note that I tagged the word 'using', because it really doesn't matter what weapons they say they want to use. All that matters is what they're equipped with.
"FIGHTING WITH TWO SINGLE-HANDED WEAPONS
Some models are equipped with two single-handed weapons they can use in close combat, with the rules given below for the different possible combinations."
Equipped with. To me, the combination of the words "equipped with" in the opening paragraph and the word "never" later on make it very clear. If you posess, carry, have, are equipped with, two special ccw weapons, then you never get the +1 attack for using two weapons.

This is my Position, and the one backed up by the rules. Be prepared for people getting buthurt however.

This has been all gone through before, on the Calgar thread.

The RAW does not support exactly what some posters seem to think here.

If you take the words wield and use to mean that a model carrying multiple weapons is always wielding those weapons, then the whole fighting with two single handed weapons section of the rules doesnt apply since the models do not have two weapons, they have more than two. RAW says using two weapons, if you claim its using all the weapons its carrying, this section cannot be applied.


If the words wield and use mean that we look at whichever two ccws that the model is actually using in this combat (out of however many weapons it may happen tp be carrying) then the rule works quite well.

So the RAW supports idea that a model may carry many weapons but wields/ uses two of them at most in any one cc.


And again, the rule on pg 35 says special attack, no where in the brb have I been able to find anything that tells us that a special attack is the same as a special weapon. Special attack WAS however used to describe the attack that eldar scorp mandi blasters gave when the mandi blaster added in an extra attack at an increased Init for the scorpion model. Rather similar to the bioplasm special attack that tyranids can deliver at twice their regular init.

Sliggoth

Sigh. What they are wielding/using at any given time means nothing, all that matters is if they are equipped with them. See previous post.

Although I realize this is a bit off topic, I came up with another situation that runs along the same rules.

An Inquisitor could buy a Power Weapon, A Bolt Pistol and an Eviserator. (why you would do this is another question all togeather)

How does this interplay with the rules above? Given that an Eviserator is a two handed weapon, he is prohibited from using the power weapon (or the bolt pistol) in conjunction with it. Therefore violating that he must use any special attack he has, if any is read as all.

If he uses the power weapons rules, then he is prohibited from using the Eviserator, but is allowed to use the bolt pistol. Does the Eviserator's own rule prohibiting it's use override the two special weapons reqirement to use it?

Or is it because he posesses both the Eviserator and the Powerweapon he cannont get +1A even under the power weapons rules?

Mars.Techpriest wrote:An Inquisitor could buy a Power Weapon, A Bolt Pistol and an Eviserator.

No, you can't.

Inquisitors have the old "Two Single handed Weapons or One Single handed and a Two Handed Weapon" limit.

Deamonhunters actualy says "Subject to normal limitations" rather then "Two single or one two handed"