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.

Posted By Phazael on 12/11/2006 12:55 PM
Actually, only weapons classified as pistols grant an extra attack in CC, not all one handed shooting weapons.

As has been pointed out several times so far, this is not true. ANY one-handed weapon grants the extra attack.

Rulebook, page 40:
"+1 Two Weapons: Engaged models with two single-handed weapons (typically a close combat weapons and/or pistol in each hand) have an extra +1 attack..."

While I agree with the sentiment here, RAW is RAW, and if they don't explicitly say something, then it's not there.

I think everyone is going to play that Witchblades are 1-handed weapons. The RAW just doesn't support it.

Sorry, should have been a little clearer there. I wasn't suggesting that those assumptions followed the RAW... that's why I called them assumptions, not rules. I was merely pointing out what seemed to me to be the sensible way to play it.

Posted By insaniak on 12/11/2006 1:16 PM

Posted By Phazael on 12/11/2006 12:55 PM
Actually, only weapons classified as pistols grant an extra attack in CC, not all one handed shooting weapons.

As has been pointed out several times so far, this is not true. ANY one-handed weapon grants the extra attack.

Rulebook, page 40:
"+1 Two Weapons: Engaged models with two single-handed weapons (typically a close combat weapons and/or pistol in each hand) have an extra +1 attack..."

Your quote of the rulebook lists Pistols and CCWs.  Can you find an example of a shooting weapon other than a pistol (or true grit situations) that functions as a close combat weapon at all?  There are two I can come up with and those both explicitly note that their hand to hand combat effects (Staff of Light and Kroot Rifles) in their descriptions.  Of those, the Kroot rifle is the one weapon in the game that I can think of that actually counts as two weapons.  If you look in the description of pistols in the 4th Ed RB, it even classifies them as a one handed CCW.

What is RAW?

The way it is worded, it assumes most all CC weapons are single handed, and most ranged as two, as it says "Engaged models with two single handed weapons (Typically a close combat weapon and/or pistol in each hand)"

This allows for exceptions, but talks about it as is it were the norm.  The weird thing is most all other weapons in the codex specify if they're one handed or not.  I ask because it does not say, and some models only have one witchblade with two hands, some a witchblade and a pistol, and some two witchblades, so they seemed one-handed.  Just the rules didn't say, so I wanted to make sure.

With the wording and modeling, it seems they intended it to be one-handed, but no rules say it is.

Right, and that's what you/we are stuck with. I think you'll do fine playing it as a 1-handed weapon. But, if somebody challenges you, you won't have any recourse to the RAW to prove your case.

What are the RAW? That's the Rules As Written. Going "by the RAW" is the practice here at Dakka, which has since been endorsed by Jervis Jackson in the pages of White Dwarf. That is, read the rules, see what they say, and if they provide an unambiguous conclusion, play that way. Don't worry if it's not fluffy, or seems unintuitive, just play that way. Should the RAW turn out to be ambiguous, then you should take the interpretation that is least advantageous to you.

In the case of Witchblades, that means you can't claim the +1A with them. The rules are ambiguous, so you should assume the least advantageous conclusion is valid.

But, like I said, I don't think many people will notice, much less object, if you treat it as a 1-handed weapon.

Posted By Phazael on 12/11/2006 1:54 PM
Your quote of the rulebook lists Pistols and CCWs.

It lists pistols and close combat weapons as typical examples. Not as the only possible options.


Other examples of shooting weapons that are single handed? Kai Gun on a Statured Daemon Prince is the obvious example that springs to mind.

Can always just dice for it, too.

Guns are not CCWs by default, only pistols. Some models are made to hold them in a single hand, but they in no way convey an added attack, or are Tau Battlesuits with two guns going to start getting an extra attack?

Been thinking about this one for a couple of days and I have an idea.

The important thing, it seems to me, is not to ask whether or not a witchblade is a one-handed weapon. The answer to that question can't be determined from the rules, so it doesn't get us anywhere.

But we know from the rules that a model equipped with a pistol and a close-combat weapon can get +1 attack, since that is listed as a typical example.

So I think if you can show that a witchblade is a type of close combat weapon, it might be possible to move logically to the conclusion that WB + pistol = extra attack, without having to even ask the question of whether it is one-handed or two-handed.

This whole situation -- by RAW -- is being made vastly more complicated than it is.

By RAW, weapons may have the quality "single handed weapon". They may also have the quality "two-handed weapon". Both of these qualities grant additional rules.

There exists no requirement in the rules that weapons must be single handed or two-handed.

Weapons with neither option specified are just that -- weapons that are neither single handed nor two-handed. Any claim that a weapon has to be one or the other is a false dichotomy.

Posted By Phazael on 12/12/2006 10:34 AM
Guns are not CCWs by default, only pistols.

Nobody said they were.

What the RULES say though is that ANY single-handed weapon grants the extra attack in close combat. It doesn't matter if it's a gun, a pistol, a stick, or a lump of cheese... if it's a single-handed weapon, it grants a +1.

It's really that simple.



Lowinor: What additional rules does a two-handed weapon have?

I'm not aware of any BTB rules on two-handed weapons, but it's common in the codices to have a rule to the effect of "models with armory access may only have two weapons and only one of them can be two-handed". I should have clarified that there aren't universal rules for two-handed weapons, but two-handed weapons do behave differently than weapons that are neither single handed nor two-handed in some cases.

Posted By Lowinor on 12/12/2006 12:45 PM
I'm not aware of any BTB rules on two-handed weapons, but it's common in the codices to have a rule to the effect of "models with armory access may only have two weapons and only one of them can be two-handed".

The rules actually (in every codex I can think of) simply restrict the weapons that models can select from the armoury. While many players extrpolate that to apply to the weapons that models can carry, it's nothing to do with the weapon itself. In most cases (the Marine codex and Guard Heavy Teams being the obvious exceptions) there is no way for a model to get two two-handed weapons outside of the armoury anyway.

The way I see it, two-handed weapons function exactly as listed in their own rules entry, while single-handed weapons function as their rules entry, but also have an additional rule bestowed by the Close Combat rules, which grants them the +1 attack in close combat.

As such, two-handed (as the one that has no additional rules) should be the 'default' status.

Well, yes -- that's what I said. Most codices limit models with armory access to one two-handed weapon.

"Two-handed weapon" is still a quality that is specifically assigned by the rules and there are no rules present which specify that anything without the specification should have the property.

"Two-handed weapon" is in and of itself a rule. The armory rules in most codices interact with the rule. As such, strictly by RAW, we have no method to assign a rule to an item that is not specified to it.

Basically, both settings mean something. There is no requirement for any weapon to have either setting. As such there's no RAW basis for assigning a default, and as the rules work perfectly fine without a default, I don't feel there's a good reason to append a default anyway.

Unspecified weapons count as weapons, but do not contribute to the +1A for two single handed weapons, nor do they count against the limit of one two-handed weapon for codex armory rules. This is, as far as I can see, the only valid RAW conclusion, and I don't think there's a compelling reason to amend it anyway.

Posted By Lowinor on 12/12/2006 1:40 PM
As such, strictly by RAW, we have no method to assign a rule to an item that is not specified to it.

Of course there's not. I mentioned some time ago that this was merely the way I feel it should be played, not the RAW answer.

Posted By Lowinor on 12/12/2006 1:40 PM
and as the rules work perfectly fine without a default, I don't feel there's a good reason to append a default anyway.

I don't agree that they work 'perfectly fine' though.

For starters, the general assumption that comes from the Armoury weapons limit is that this is the maximum number of weapons a model may carry. (yes, not RAW... just the way that most players seem assume it was meant to be played, as has been discussed on here numerous times). So any weapons that a model already has also count towards the Armoury limit.

If you don't count any undefined weapon as either one- or two-handed, you're allowing models with Armoury access to stack up more weapons than they would otherwise be allowed. For example, a WGBL with an Assault Cannon and twin Lightning Claws suddenly becomes possible, since the Assault Cannon, being neither one- nor two-handed, does not prevent him from purchasing two one-handed weapons from the Armoury.

Er, a weapon that is neither single handed nor two-handed is still a weapon -- an Assault Cannon is a Ranged Weapon and a Heavy Weapon, and both directly qualify to be a weapon. They're just not a single handed weapon or a two-handed weapon. Since a Paired Lightning Claw counts as two single handed weapons, you couldn't take it with an Assault Cannon, as then you'd have three total weapons.

Of course, this is assuming you can take an Assault Cannon on a WGBL, which I disagree with due to choosing the least advantageous interpretation of an ambiguous rule, but that's neither here nor there and an ambiguous rule in the first place

Actually, after another look at the Wolves codex, you're right... The SW Armoury is one of the few that actually specifies that characters can only carry 2 weapons, and the others mention selecting 2 weapons... which we've already said means the same, for all practical purposes.

It would still allow him to take the Assault Cannon and a Storm Bolter or Combi-weapon... although I'm not sure why you would want to do so.

Don t imperial terminators have special rules to let them fire 2 weapons at once, ie cyclone missile launcher and a storm bolter? If so, then storm bolter + assault cannon would give you 2 extra shots.

No. The Cyclone has a special rule that allows the model carrying it to also fire a storm bolter.

Pg 48 of the rulebook states that the witchblade is a close combat weapon, and the 2nd paragraph states that a model armed with two close combat weapons may use one for an addtional attack. While this doesn't spell it out in perfectly plain english, its clear now that a close combat weapon is indeed a one handed weapon, and that since a witchblade is a close combat weapon then it must be a one handed weapon. Its all on page 48.

Sorry, but you're making an assumption that all close combat weapons are single handed when there is no proof that they are.

Show me anywhere where you have an example of a close combat weapon that we know is a two handed weapon but doesn't say that its a two handed weapon? I've looking in all the 4th ed codexs that I own.. Tau and Eldar both are consistent. They assume all close combat weapons are one handed unless otherwise specified. If you look at the Eldar Codex it says that the singing spear is a witchblade but must be used with two hands (which of course implies that the witchblade is a one handed weapon)

Now where is this single handed and two handed terminology comming from? Well in the Chaos and Marines Codexes, but the same terminology does not exist in the Tau or Eldar Codexes and its not used in the BGB either.

If you don't accept that Close Combat Weapons are in fact one handed weapons, then you should accept that "a singing spear = a witchblade but must be used two handed" and thus even though the witchblade is defined as a CCW, its explicity implied that its a one handed weapon by the poorly organized eldar codex in the singing spear entry.

And I am absolutely making the assumption that all close combat weapons are single handed weapons based on page 46, because we have no proof that they are two handed weapons unless we are told they are. But I like my reasoning better in the above paragraphs of this reply.

Again, you're making an assumption that if it doesn't say that it's two handed then it must be one handed. You can not support that with an appropriate rule. You don't play the game by assumptions, but by the rules.

Did the 3rd ed Eldar Codex note whether a Witchblade was one or two handed?

I personally say we go by WYSIWYG for the witchblade. I have seen it as a 1 handed weapon and the singing spear is shown as a two handed weapon.

Usually the wargear lists on each codex tell you if the weapon is 1 handed or 2 handed. Heavy weapons count as a 2 handed weapon as per house rule in our store and it works out.

Posted By Ghaz on 12/16/2006 5:50 PM
Again, you're making an assumption that if it doesn't say that it's two handed then it must be one handed. You can not support that with an appropriate rule. You don't play the game by assumptions, but by the rules.

Ghaz, you're arguements aren't doing much for me. Show me that a witchblade is a two handed weapon. Show me that its not a one handed weapon. Read the 2nd paragraph on page 46 and explain to me that all the weapons given as examples on that page including the witchblade, can not be interchanged in that paragraph for a power axe or powerfist, and that the off hand weapon whichever is chosen doesn't count as a 2nd ccw adding an additional attack. Show me the rules that disproves this.

BTW the definatition for the witchblade is the same in eldar codex now as it was before so... why are we worried that it suddenly changed to a 2 handed weapon whereas before we played it as a 1 handed weapon. And how would you play it? I know I'll play it the way I always have ... since I've seen nothing in the rules to lead me to beleive that a change to its basic function has occured.

btw I have enough warlocks and farseer models that show the witchblade weildiing 1 handed, and 2 handed, and the same story with the singing spear, so WYSIWYG won't help us.

Show me where it says that a witchblade is one handed. That's what you need to do.

Posted By skyth on 12/16/2006 11:07 PM
Show me where it says that a witchblade is one handed. That's what you need to do.

The singing spear in the eldar codex is a witchblade but it must be weilded with two hands in close combat. Thats the strongest current arguement that the weapon is a one handed weapon. Show me anything that even remotely suggests that it might be a two handed weapon and I'll sing your name in praises for a year.

As has already been pointed out in this thread, there is no stated requirement for a weapon to be categorised as either one- or two-handed.

So, if you're going to claim that a particular weapon is one-handed, it's up to you to find a rule that actually says so.