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.

Webbe:

That's incorrect: Wargear is a bonus to a model's profile. Special Rules change a model's profile.

Also, I'd like to draw your attention to the definite/indefinite articles used in the rules you've kindly posted, since they illustrate my previous point about reference, context, and scope.

Two normal close combat weapons indicate they add one bonus attack, which isn't problematic since the rule expresses an addition, and not a limit, to the bonus attacks that a model can claim.

The text of two special close combat weapons of the same type refers to 'the' bonus attack. Which bonus attack? The bonus attack confered by having two special close combat weapons. The definite article means that the reference is restricted to the matter of fighting with two single-handed weapons.

Similarly, the text of the two special close combat weapon of different types refers to "the bonus attack", again fixing the reference as referring to the universe of discourse defined as two single-handed weapons, rather than to the larger universe of bonus attacks referred to by the rules addressing Power Fists.

Of course, it is entirely likely that, as in other matters, the writers have simply mispoken themselves (see the rules for Kustom Force Fields and the errata released for them). But as it stands, the rules for what can give bonus attacks to models with Power Fists (and thus Power Klaws), Thunder Hammers, and Lightening Claws limit the bonus attacks to the one contributed by having a duplicate of any of the listed types.

At this point it's probably helpful to point out the difference between what the rules say, which is admittedly unpalatable, and how the players should apply the rules to their own games, which I suppose that's why this forum is called "You Make The Call" rather than just "Warhammer 40k Rules".

I'd suggest playing it literally, so that Power Fists et al can only get a bonus attack from a duplicate of the same type because (and I haven't run the numbers), because it levels out the range of options available to units that have Power Fists and stuff as part of their options.

If one assumes that the options given to any unit should all be live options, given their points costs and effective in combination with whatever other options that a unit has available, then the existence of what appears to be a 'no-brainer' option indicates that we have not read the rules properly and thus have misinterpreted the comparative utility of said options.

Given the overwhelming popularity of Power Klaws, and assuming it's not because my fellow players are too stupid to recognize the utility of competing options such as Big Choppas and Choppas (attacks at higher initiative for lower Strength, AP, and costs, and more attacks at higher initiative for much lower Strength, lower Ap and cost, respectively) then we have strong inductive reasons to believe that Power Klaw armed Orks getting bonus attacks from Squigs is a misreading of the rules.

Of course, if one does not agree to these premises, then one could draw the usual conclusion that the GW editing team has let another one slip by. But, reading charitably as one should instead of assuming the worst, one should determine that the fault is not with the user before declaring the product faulty.

Plus, I think it's bloody stupid that a Squig fighting alongside an Ork armed with a Power Klaw acts as a Power Klaw, but that's just an expression of taste and hence irrelevant to what the rules say and how they should be applied.

Nurglitch wrote:The text of two special close combat weapons of the same type refers to 'the' bonus attack. Which bonus attack? The bonus attack confered by having two special close combat weapons. The definite article means that the reference is restricted to the matter of fighting with two single-handed weapons.

Exactly. The restriction being applied is being applied to bonus attacks provided by close combat weapons.

A Squig is not a close combat weapon. It is therefore not included in the restriction.


The section which includes this rule is dealing with the different combinations of close combat weapons. Within that context, the rules given in that section apply to the different combinations of close combat weapons, not to anything else that might provide a bonus attack.

insaniak:

I think you missed my point. My point was that the definite article used in the portion of text referring to two special close combat weapons contrasted with the portion of text referring to combinations involving Power Fists.

[Cherry-picking a quote out of context from my post and applying it to the wrong conclusion is an ironic way of indicating that you missed my point, by the by.]

That contrast showed that while some parts of the rules describing the interactions between two single-handed weapons were limited to the scope of bonus attacks provided by extra close combat weapons, other parts were not limited to that context.

That's why it doesn't matter that Squigs (and bonus attacks from charging, Icons of Khorne, Mandiblasters, etc) are not additional single-handed weapons, because the rules concerning Power Fists provide a universal limit predicated on having a Power Fist.

We know this is a universal limit because the indefinite article is used to reference which bonus attacks are permitted to a model armed with a Power Fist or two. This is distinctly unlike the definite article used to reference the bonus attacks gained from using single-handed close combat weapons.

I mean I'm really glad that people on this board recognize that the referents and scopes of rules are important to interpreting the text of the rules properly, especially since I've harped on it at length, but in this case people seem to be missing how the referents of rules can generalize out of their local contexts (vis-a-vis limits vs disjoints, and the locality of referents).

Nurglitch,

Like I said before, you are correct by the RAW.

But it's a situation where no one will possibly play with that rule interpretation because it creates a ludicrous situation where all bonus attacks, even the +1A for charging cannot be used with a powerfist.

While this may be the correct way to play by the RAW no one will play that way because within the context of how the rule is written I would wager that upwards of 95% of people will understand the restriction is meant for only the bonus attack provided by having two weapons. Even the designer notes and podcasts put out by GW have indicated that is what the goal of this restriction is.

So yes, it should be FAQ'd because you are right about what it says. But it still will never be played that way so there really isn't any point trying to argue with others about it and continuing to foster a negative climate.

Yakface:

Yes, I already addressed all that in a previous post:

Nurglitch wrote:Of course, it is entirely likely that, as in other matters, the writers have simply mispoken themselves (see the rules for Kustom Force Fields and the errata released for them). But as it stands, the rules for what can give bonus attacks to models with Power Fists (and thus Power Klaws), Thunder Hammers, and Lightening Claws limit the bonus attacks to the one contributed by having a duplicate of any of the listed types.

At this point it's probably helpful to point out the difference between what the rules say, which is admittedly unpalatable, and how the players should apply the rules to their own games, which I suppose that's why this forum is called "You Make The Call" rather than just "Warhammer 40k Rules".

I'd suggest playing it literally, so that Power Fists et al can only get a bonus attack from a duplicate of the same type because (and I haven't run the numbers), because it levels out the range of options available to units that have Power Fists and stuff as part of their options.

If one assumes that the options given to any unit should all be live options, given their points costs and effective in combination with whatever other options that a unit has available, then the existence of what appears to be a 'no-brainer' option indicates that we have not read the rules properly and thus have misinterpreted the comparative utility of said options.

Given the overwhelming popularity of Power Klaws, and assuming it's not because my fellow players are too stupid to recognize the utility of competing options such as Big Choppas and Choppas (attacks at higher initiative for lower Strength, AP, and costs, and more attacks at higher initiative for much lower Strength, lower Ap and cost, respectively) then we have strong inductive reasons to believe that Power Klaw armed Orks getting bonus attacks from Squigs is a misreading of the rules.

Of course, if one does not agree to these premises, then one could draw the usual conclusion that the GW editing team has let another one slip by. But, reading charitably as one should instead of assuming the worst, one should determine that the fault is not with the user before declaring the product faulty.

I think, if you're going to argue that the rule creates a ludicrous situation, then the only constructive way to continue this thread will be to check whether, in all the cases that a model in a 5th edition codex has the option of a Power Fist, that the expected value per cost of that Power Fist option is actually over-valued by comparison to the other options (and hence when the rule is read literally that the game will be distorted).

Nurglitch wrote:insaniak:

I think you missed my point. My point was that the definite article used in the portion of text referring to two special close combat weapons contrasted with the portion of text referring to combinations involving Power Fists.

No, I got your point. I chose to use it to illustrate how you were incorrect given the context of the actual rules entry.

[Cherry-picking a quote out of context from my post and applying it to the wrong conclusion is an ironic way of indicating that you missed my point, by the by.]

Indeed. It's possibly as silly as arguing a rule that you have taken out of context from a rulebook that you don't have.

Nurglitch wrote:
I think, if you're going to argue that the rule creates a ludicrous situation, then the only constructive way to continue this thread will be to check whether, in all the cases that a model in a 5th edition codex has the option of a Power Fist, that the expected value per cost of that Power Fist option is actually over-valued by comparison to the other options (and hence when the rule is read literally that the game will be distorted).

Yes, I personally believe that removing any type of bonus attack from a powerfist wielding close combat model makes them a ridiculously over-valued weapon choice.

But there are other factors that can lead people to willingly disregard the RAW. In this particular case, as I pointed out, Alessio Cavatore himself on the GW podcast explains this rule and why it was created. He specifically compares it to the Lightning Claw rule in previous editions where models could only get the bonus attack for having two weapons if they have two of the same weapon.

There is no indication made in that podcast or in the designer notes in WD that the intention was to completely neuter these weapons by making them never able to utilize a bonus attack of any sort.

Nurglitch wrote:I think, if you're going to argue that the rule creates a ludicrous situation, then the only constructive way to continue this thread will be to check whether, in all the cases that a model in a 5th edition codex has the option of a Power Fist, that the expected value per cost of that Power Fist option is actually over-valued by comparison to the other options (and hence when the rule is read literally that the game will be distorted).

If you are going to start talking 'point value'... there is a reason why an attack squig is 15 points and only available on basically 2 models.

If you honestly think about it, The *REASON* they made the attack squig was sue to the way Ork models have always been. I USED to be able to give my Ork a Slugga and gain an extra power klaw attack. *ALL* of our models and future models give orks ONE powerklaw, Orks from years of modeling will *NEVER* have dual powerfists. They would honestly have to redo half the lines models.

So to bring orks in line with the 5th edition rules on powerfists guess what they did? They made a wargear option that gives the ork the equivalent of a second powerfist. On a WYSIWYG model that can just be hanging around. The attack squig.

So if turning my Warboss's 4 attacks into powerfists for 25 points, then How can you argue that the 15 points for a 5th attack is 1: not the correct cost and in line with the rest of the game and 2: Somehow intended to be not powerfist quality?

Working as intended. Thy brought orks in line with everyone else by getting rid of free special weapon attacks and gave attack squigs because of it.

My first response to logic presented here would be that this is simply a space marine player who wants his terminator honors but is going to lawyer his game up a notch by trying to powergame down ork opponents.

yeah...
In nameing it a attack squig it clearly invokes a notion that the squig does the damage...
i don't see how a choppa armed orks attack squig that's biting your head is weaker than the one that belongs to a ork who has a power-claw...

Power gaming is when someone is bending the rules to get more bang for buck... soooo
concidering both are 15pts... why does one squig leave teeth marks while the other squig crushes your head...

PaniC..

'Cause if da boss has a klaw, he can krump the guy with the biggest squig and take it!

Yakface:

What we personally, and perhaps fervently, believe isn't really relevant when what we're dealing with can be objectively quantified. I think they won't be over-valued, points-wise, and you think they will be: both require proof in the form of number crunching, The wonderful thing, I think, about such proof, is that it may be the case that we are both wrong, and that our disagreement is a small part of a bigger picture.

Of course we can disregard the rules and play however we want for whatever reason we want. I just think it would be a good idea to play, where the rules yield an unsatisfying result, according to a set of rules that increases the field of live options available to the player. Of course, I don't regard the rules as yielding an unsatsifying result, but since I haven't run the numbers to check that the rules regarding Power Fists actually yield a satisfying result, that's just a hypothesis. We should test our competing hypotheses about what is the case, I think, before we charge off trying to argue what should be the case.

nkelsch:

I disagree with your evaluation of the Attack Squig. In particular, I think your appeal to historical precedent is irrelevant. What is relevant is how the Attack Squig and its cost interacts with the other options and combinations available to the units that have Attack Squigs as an option.

Let us take the Ork Warboss as an example. For weapon combinations for an Ork Warboss, if we follow the rule as quoted from the rulebook so that a Power Klaw provides identical attacks to a Power Klaw and Attack Squig combination, we have:


Power Klaw
S10 I1 A4 Power Weapon

Big Choppa
S7/8 I4/5 A4 Close Combat Weapon

Big Choppa and Attack Squig
S7/8 I4/5 A5 Close combat weapon

Choppa and Slugga
S5/6 I4/5 A5 Close Combat Weapon

Choppa and Slugga and Attack Squig
S5/6 I4/5 A6 Close Combat Weapon

So in descending order, on the charge, Strength-wise we have S10, S8, and S6 (S10, S7, S5, if not charging). Attack-wise we have A4, A5, A6, charging without the Attack Squig and A4, A6, A7 with the Squig. Initiative-wise we have I1, I5, I5 on the charge and I1, I4, I4 receiving. Armour-Piercing, we have PW, CCW, CCW.

What does this all means? If we take the matter of Initiative to cancel out the matter of Armour Piercing, we're left with a regression of Strength in proportion to a progression of Attacks. The expected value of the S10 attacks is, point for point, higher than the Choppa and Big Choppa: you're more likely to cause wounds with a Power Klaw hitting four times than with a Choppa hitting six times or a Big Choppa hitting five times.

However, when we factor in the Squig bonus attack to the Choppa and the Big Choppa, then we end up with the Big Choppa edging out the Choppa over the Power Klaw in expected value by 20% and 5% respectively.

This is where we recognize two things:

(1) that the assumption that Initiative cancels out Armour Piercing is a mere algebraic convenience, and doesn't reflect the actual interaction between these values, and that these values are variables.

(2) that the relative costs of these options is +25 for the Klaw, +20 for the Big Choppa and Squig, and +15 for the Choppa and Squig.

Now, armour saving throws of 2+ have up to 82% of obtaining, as a maximum effectiveness, and the cost of a Big Choppa is precisely 80% that of the Klaw. This ~20% reduction in effectiveness in armour piercing is reflected in the 20% reduction in cost, with the rest of the under-costing in favour of the Big Choppa taken up if we multiply the expected value of the weapons with the additional utility gained by having a higher expected value in the first and subsequent iterations of combat - being more likely to kill stuff earlier in the game has knock-on effects. Likewise we can do the same with Initiative, given the value of killing your enemy first. We can do the same for the choppa and find that its cost/effective bounds are commiserate with its points cost.

The deal-breaker is then going to be what else is in your army to deal with those enemy models that collapse the field of live options at either end: I5+ enemy models result in an automatic preference for Power Klaws, T3- models result in an automatic preference for Choppa and Squig, and Dreadnoughts of all armies create of preference for Big Choppas and Squigs.

What all this would show, if someone bothered to graph it out, is that the Power Klaw is one of three live options for arming an Ork Warboss if and only if we follow the Power Fist rules quoted in this thread.

If the Power Fist rules in the rulebook are taken to allow a Power Fist armed model to gain +1A from a Squig when using a Power Klaw, then the Power Klaw is a no-brainer choice in terms of its costs and its payouts.

I'd appreciate it if someone else ran the numbers to confirm/disconfirm the conclusions of this analysis. Someone good with Spreadsheets...

Nurglitch wrote:If the Power Fist rules in the rulebook are taken to allow a Power Fist armed model to gain +1A from a Squig when using a Power Klaw, then the Power Klaw is a no-brainer choice in terms of its costs and its payouts.

Working. As. Intended.

Your major flaw is that you assume all wargear should benefit all builds equally. It shouldn't. It doesn't take a dissertation to see that the attack squig benefits most from being paired with a powerklaw. The same way Terminator honors doesn't benefit a character armed with a bolter as much as other builds. If you gave a warboss a choppa/slugga and then gave him an attack squig you are not using your points effectively. Not to mention, how completely ineffective for 15 points would that wargear be if it didn't get powerklaw effects? Why would wargear only available to 2 models in the ork army be so utterly expensive and worthless? Use some logic here.

Restriction on Powerfists only applies to bonus attacks from extra CCW, not all bonus attacks from all sources. They explicitly streamlined and restricted close combat, they are not going to introduce segmented die rolls for bonus attacks when mixed with powerklaws.

Considering that most people clearly can wrap their brains around this and this situation has been specifically addressed by designers, I think it will be fine for most of us out there until an FAQ can be made to silence beardy rulezboyz.

nkelsch:

It doesn't seem like you did me the courtesy of reading and digesting what I wrote, particularly if you're going to use the epithet "dissertation" to describe my post.

Your assertion, that the restriction on bonus attacks for Power Fists only applies to bonus attacks from extra close combat weapons, is clearly fallacious as I have already demonstrated. The rules covering bonus attacks for the Power Fist generalize out of the scope of single-handed close combat weapons. You're engaging in wishful thinking by confusing what the text of the rules state and how the game is commonly played.

If we're talking about how the game should be played, I've put forth an argument to the effect that people should not play the way it is commonly played, and play strictly following the rules on Power Fists. My argument is summed up as saying: If we play in the usual way, then Power Fists are the no-brainer option, but if we play by the rules, then Power Fists are merely one of a set of live options open to players. Given that the designers made the game with options instead of just giving everyone Power Fists, it follows that the game works better when we follow the rules.

What I am arguing, put another way, is that where only a second Power Fist gives a Warboss any bonus attack, and hence where an Attack Squig only benefits Warbosses with Choppas and Big Choppas, we can see that the Power Klaw is one of three live options rather than the only live option, or 'no brainer' option.

Furthermore, I'm not assuming that all wargear should benefit all possible combinations of wargear equally. Where you got that from, I can't imagine. Indeed, if I'm arguing that the Attack Squig does not give a Power Klaw armed Warboss any benefit, then clearly I cannot be assuming that the Attack Squig benefits a Power Klaw armed Warboss in the same way as a Big Choppa armed Warboss, that is to say 'equally'.

Thus, if we assume that GW intended all of those Wargear options to be playable, and not some sort of sick joke to taunt players with, then this application of the rules is the way to play as the designers intended. If we wish to maximize variety in the so-called 'meta-game', and see different kinds of Warboss on the table (unlike 4th edition...), then we should apply the rules in this fashion in our games and tournaments.

The apparently ludicrous and unpalatable situation wherein a Warboss armed with a Power Klaw does not get +1A for an Attack Squig, or for charging, is a design feature rather than a mistake. It just seems ludicrous and unpalatable because we're used to combining Power Fists and Attack Squigs: good old fashioned selection bias at work when we apply rules of thumb rather than crunching the numbers.

As I have shown, the Attack Squig is certainly not useless. Indeed, I have also shown that it is necessary for the Attack Squig to be so expensive given the leveling effect of the bonus attack it contributes to the model. The added expense of the Attack Squig keeps the Big Choppa and Choppa options from being the no-brainer options.

In fact, if you want to come close to matching the combat cost-effectiveness of a Warboss armed with a Power Klaw with a Warboss armed with a Big Choppa or Choppa, you'll have to buy an Attack Squig!

I think that most people find this rule to be unpalatable because they haven't run the numbers and considered the consequences of this rule. That's okay: even very smart people tend to engage in fallacious reasoning when they haven't gotten a pen and paper (or spreadsheet) out to run the numbers. I've run the numbers and put down my method and conclusions for anyone inclined to check them. So let us consider the consequences of the rule:

One consequence is a greater variety of weapon options on Warbosses, since there is no longer a no-brainer combination (Power Klaw and Attack Squig). Just as Warbosses can now choose from a variety of ranged weapons, and not just the slugga that gave the extra Power Klaw attack under the 4th edition rules, players now have the competitive option of running Warbosses with Big Choppas and Choppas.

I haven't checked, but I'd bet that this is the case for all troops with the option of being armed with a Power Fist, that taking a Power Fist is no longer the no-brainer option, but one of several live options open to players now that the combination of Strength, Attacks, and the Power Weapon ability no longer overwhelms the cost-effectiveness of other options.

This can only be a good thing from the perspective of facing a greater variety of armies.

That's all well and good nurglitch, but it still doesn't demonstrate that that's what the rules say. The rules say that a model armed with a powerfist doesn't gain an extra attack from having an extra ccw. It doesn't say that it can never have an extra attack by any means, any more than it says that it's been a very naughty boy and has to go to it's room without any attacks.

Greebynog:

Yes, that's because I already showed what the text of the rules state, back on page 1. And reiterated/summarized for your convenience at the top of the page in my reply to Webbe.

To reiterate/summarize for your convenience: the use of the indefinite article, when all the other combinations of single-handed weapons use the definite article, indicates the expression of a limit to bonus attacks in general, rather than expressing the addition of a bonus attack according to the scope of the local context.

So, in fact, the use of the indefinite article means that the text does actually say that a model using a Power Fist can never have a bonus attack unless it is armed with a second Power Fist.

Given that this is the case, then, the question is whether we should apply the rule as written or whether we should ignore the use of the indefinite article as a typo to be errata'd.

If it is a typo, then as I explained, it'll unbalance the cost-effectiveness of the options of units that have Power Fists as options. The Warboss' Power Klaw in combination with an Attack Squig is a no-brainer option if the authors intended to use the definite article, which means Choppas and Big Choppas, with or without Attack Squigs, are dead options; they are not cost-effective.

Conversely, if the use of the indefinite article is intentional, such that the rule really does refer to bonus attacks in general (i.e.: not definitely within the local context), then the Warboss' wargear options are all live (cost-effective) options and thus balanced.

On a personal note, this thread reminds me of all the fuss and nonsense about whether an Ork Nob in a Ork Boyz Mob could take a Power Klaw if the mob took Shootas. I was right about that one too...

Nurglitch wrote:

On a personal note, this thread reminds me of all the fuss and nonsense about whether an Ork Nob in a Ork Boyz Mob could take a Power Klaw if the mob took Shootas. I was right about that one too...

In that case your argument happened to agree with how the vast majority of other human beings (including the codex author) figured it was supposed to be played.

In this case you are not (I'll run a poll if you'd like me to prove it).

Again, I'd like you to get away from the Attack Squig because it doesn't illustrate the ridiculous proposition you are claiming as well as the idea that any and all powerfists can't utilize the +1 Attack bonus for charging.

When you put it into those terms I'll be surprised if you find anyone who would possibly agree with you that the rule as written was intentional.

nkelsch wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:If the Power Fist rules in the rulebook are taken to allow a Power Fist armed model to gain +1A from a Squig when using a Power Klaw, then the Power Klaw is a no-brainer choice in terms of its costs and its payouts.

... Restriction on Powerfists only applies to bonus attacks from extra CCW, not all bonus attacks from all sources. They explicitly streamlined and restricted close combat, they are not going to introduce segmented die rolls for bonus attacks when mixed with powerklaws.

Considering that most people clearly can wrap their brains around this and this situation has been specifically addressed by designers, I think it will be fine for most of us out there until an FAQ can be made to silence beardy rulezboyz.

yeah...
by RAW you don't get any extra attacks from the squig if you have a Claw so no segmented die rolls required. buying claw was a waste of points...like buying three guns when you can only fire one per turn.

I'd give you the +1 bonus for charging though since that's not a peice of wargear granting the extra attack, that's the momentum of a PowerClaw on the charge hurting.

PAniC..

Where does it say that wargear grants bonuses while special rules modify stats? On p.37 it states the opposite, that special rules confer "bonuses".
Nurglich is not "correct by RAW" at all. The indefinite article in the quoted section is used within the context of bonus attacks granted by having two single-handed weapons and further restricted to the context of a normal and a special weapon. The sentence at the start of the para about PF, LC and TH makes this very clear just in case the big bold headings weren't sufficient for context. From p.42:

These models gain one additional attack. All of their attacks, including the bonus attack, benefit from the special weapon’s bonuses.
Power fists, thunder hammers and lightning claws are an exception to this.

Therefore the second paragraph specifically addresses itself to the first paragraph and only applies in that context. The use of definite article elsewhere is not relevant as it simply differentiates the attack granted by the second single-handed weapon from all the other attacks the model has.
The attack squig bonus attack is a completely different matter, is not covered on p.42, but is sufficiently covered by p.37 and Codex:Orks.

Can I suggest that as Lincoln managed the Gettysburg Address in 270-odd words, it would be reasonable to voluntarily limit posts to about that length?

Boss Ardnutz wrote:Where does it say that wargear grants bonuses while special rules modify stats? On p.37 it states the opposite, that special rules confer "bonuses".
Nurglich is not "correct by RAW" at all. The indefinite article in the quoted section is used within the context of bonus attacks granted by having two single-handed weapons and further restricted to the context of a normal and a special weapon. The sentence at the start of the para about PF, LC and TH makes this very clear just in case the big bold headings weren't sufficient for context. From p.42:

These models gain one additional attack. All of their attacks, including the bonus attack, benefit from the special weapon’s bonuses.
Power fists, thunder hammers and lightning claws are an exception to this.

Therefore the second paragraph specifically addresses itself to the first paragraph and only applies in that context. The use of definite article elsewhere is not relevant as it simply differentiates the attack granted by the second single-handed weapon from all the other attacks the model has.
The attack squig bonus attack is a completely different matter, is not covered on p.42, but is sufficiently covered by p.37 and Codex:Orks.

Can I suggest that as Lincoln managed the Gettysburg Address in 270-odd words, it would be reasonable to voluntarily limit posts to about that length?

No, because how else can he throw out personal attacks questioning peoples intelligence and dazzle everyone with his manipulated statistics?

It is pretty clear that the bonus rules for powerfists only apply to additional CCW, not all increased attacks. And instead of giving orks the ability to take dual powerklaws (which is unorky) they gave us attack squigs (which is very orky)

I think Nurglitch was just having a bad day and needed to assault a website. It is ok, it has happened before.

What a ridiculous argument.

Of course the attack squig grants +1A even if the model is armed with a PK.

That's how everyone plays it because that's precisely how it works.

I think nurglitch was fine to propose a deviation from the common train of thought. Just because he turned out to be wrong, doesn't mean that we should be angry with him. The wonderfull thing about forums (esspecially this one) is the variety of opinions and ideas. Face it- if it wasn't for nurglitch, most of the people who responded would have never even thought about the mechanics of the rule, and its true implications.
If anything- thank you nurglitch for showing a different veiw of things.

Yes, thank you Nurglitch for telling us all about a book you don't have. For an encore, maybe you can tell us the endings of some movies you haven't seen, or some unbeatable strategies for video games you haven't played.

I don't usually open my mouth on these types of things if I don't know 100% I'm correct, but I've been reading through this and I just want to throw this idea out.

I don't have my rule book on hand atm, it's at my friends house, but I'm fairly certain you only get 1 bonus attack for having multiple CC weapons. That is to say if a model has a pistol, a choppa and some other kind of choppa or a second pistol, it will still have 4+1 attacks. That cuts out any kind of "bonus attack" from an attack squig if you're using a slugga and a choppa.

I'm also fairly certain you don't get a bonus attack if you are using a 2 handed weapon. That cuts out any kind of "bonus attack" if you use a big choppa.

I'm 100% sure that you don't get a bonus attack for having an additional cc weapon if you're using a power klaw. That cuts out any kind of "bonus attack" if you're using the klaw.

If you go by these three, and use Nurglitch's logic that the attack squig is a "bonus attack" (more on this in a minute), logically the only reason to take an attack squig is if you take a shoota.

The one thing that negates all three of those limitations, and the logical assumption that follows, is that the codex specifically states "+1 attack", not "Gains a bonus attack". The Squig changes the statline, just like 'Eavy Armor would change the statline, just like Cybork bodies, just like Nid biomorphs.

-Kyvik

Can we all just agree that Nurglitch is wrong and lock this thread please?

Thank you.

Kyvik wrote:
If you go by these three, and use Nurglitch's logic that the attack squig is a "bonus attack" (more on this in a minute), logically the only reason to take an attack squig is if you take a shoota.
-Kyvik

Wrong wrong wrong. Squig is not a CCW therefore does not conflict with or factor in to any of the weapon combos so everything you posted is not based on anything.

ATTACK SQUIG: An attack squig is a voracious predator with a massive snapping gob, usually trained to go for the face. A character with an attack squig benefits from +1 attack. Pg92 - ork Codex

This is not a CCW bonus attack. It is not a bonus attack at all. It modifies the base statline of the character like terminator honors. It modifies the statline like Cybork body and doesn't impact other armor sets.

PLEASE lock this thread before Nurglitch comes back.

Just to further clarify this: The entry on attack squigs says that the model gains +1 Attack. Bold emphasis is mine. The capitialization of the word Attack is inline with GW rule-writing that characteristics are generally capitialized.

Hence, the squig modifies the profile and is not a "bonus" attack (lowercase "a").

edit - whoo-hoo, I'm now a "tough-as-nails ork". Generally I ignore stuff like this, but I must admit I find the group names to be fun on dakka dakka.

biztheclown wrote:Yes, thank you Nurglitch for telling us all about a book you don't have. For an encore, maybe you can tell us the endings of some movies you haven't seen, or some unbeatable strategies for video games you haven't played.

Did nurglitch personally wrong you in some way?

why even say something like that?

It's just not nice. I don't know what you were planning to achieve with a post like that.

BiztheClown: Agreed. Amazing, isn't it?