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.

Permissive argument in a RAW topic. If this isn't sarcasm, then I fear for what kids think 'logic' means these days.

Yes, it was sarcasm! I'll have to use the little [sarcasm][/sarcasm[ brackets next time, sorry! Alas I see these "permissive arguments" more and more often. My response? I "finally give in" to my opponents arguments and let them have their way, then at the start of my turn I put every single model I've lost back on the table and repair all damage to my vehicles backing this up with the exact same argument my opponent just used: "The rules don't say I can't!".

What hand weapons go in isn't even an issue anymore. As has been pointed out, where does it even say that close combat weapons are single handed? The number of hands a weapon takes is no longer a factor in the game even if some old books still use the armory. Stop thinking of weapons in terms of hands. It doesn't exist any more. Here's how it works:

Close combat weapons give 1 attack. 2 close combat weapons gives 2 attacks.

You can take the number of attacks on your profile even if you don't have a close combat weapon. Ex: Thousand Sons who only have bolters.

Some weapons that are not close combat weapons count as them in terms of giving the +1 attack. Ex: Pistols, And weapons marked as One Handed Weapons.

Some close combat weapons prevent you from gaining an extra attack for having a second ccw. These are marked as two handed.

Sorry, but that's not true. The number of hands a weapon takes to use is very important. From page 37 of the Warhammer 40,000 5th edition rulebook:

Engaged models with two single-handed weapons (typically a close combat weapon and/or pistol in each hand) get an extra +1 attack.

The rules clearly say "single-handed weapons", not "close combat weapons".

Drudge Dreadnought wrote:Some close combat weapons prevent you from gaining an extra attack for having a second ccw. These are marked as two handed.

Which once again means you're making an assumption that if the rules don't tell us how many hands it takes to use a weapon then it must be single-handed. There is no rule that would lead one to believe a weapon is either single- or two-handed if the rules do not say which it is.

Ghaz, I agree with you. However, you're not offering a solution, just pointing out an ambiguity. In the face of an ambiguity, you still have to make a choice about how to play the game, assuming that you are indeed going to play it.

In this case, there are a couple good reasons to choose not to consider a storm bolter as a single-handed weapon. One reason, of course, is historical: the storm bolter has never been a single-handed weapon. Another good reason is along the lines of yak's argument, and I think it's quite convincing. If we consider "single-handed" to be a special rule that allows a gun to be used as a ccw, then only the weapons that clearly state that they are single handed should be able to take advantage of that rule.

No, the SM codex does not clearly specify what is and is not a single handed weapon. No, the rules do not give us a clear guide of how to make this determination. Yes, GW should make this clear. They probably won't, though, and even if they eventually do, we have to establish a way to play in the meantime. This is a problem with the RAW argument: where the rules fail, we still have to make a reasonable judgment of how to play the game if we are actually to play it.

What solution is there? There is no 'official' solution and I'm sure that they'll just go on playing it like they always have regardless of whatever I have to say on the matter. The most we can hope for is for Yakface to submit this to GW with the rest of the questions and hope it gets answered.

A simple solution that I used in 4th edition (that does fly in the face of my previous argument, but still) is that you assume that all close combat weapons are single-handed unless otherwise specified, and that all ranged weapons are two-handed unless otherwise specified (pistols).

Obviously this isn't RAW, but it seems to work.

Sorry, but that's not true. The number of hands a weapon takes to use is very important. From page 37 of the Warhammer 40,000 5th edition rulebook:

Engaged models with two single-handed weapons (typically a close combat weapon and/or pistol in each hand) get an extra +1 attack.

The rules clearly say "single-handed weapons", not "close combat weapons".

No, it isn't important. You are caught up in the language, which is not surprising as a couple editions ago that same language meant something completely different now than it does today.

Single handed weapons used to mean weapons that are carried in one hand. Now it means weapons that give +1 attack in close combat. Forget any meaning those words actually have. In terms of the rules the phrase "Single-handed weapons" could be replaced by any character string. The rule could say that engaged models with two blue weapons (typically a close combat weapon and/or pistol in each hand) get an extra +1 attack and it would mean exactly the same thing. It has nothing to do with them being single handed, it has to do with the fact that they give +1 attack. The hands they would be carried in if they were real weapons rather than a statline in our imagination have absolutly nothing to do with how they function.

Which once again means you're making an assumption that if the rules don't tell us how many hands it takes to use a weapon then it must be single-handed. There is no rule that would lead one to believe a weapon is either single- or two-handed if the rules do not say which it is.

No. Simply no. There is no logic to back up the assumption you are making. Remember, this isn't real life. This is abstraction we are dealing with. Going with the previous example, what if Blue weapons gave +1 attack and Red weapons prevented you from gaining an extra attack. By your logic, then every weapon in the game is either red or blue. It isn't. You are confused because in real life every weapon is either one or two handed. But this isn't real life.

If a weapon is neither blue (+1 attack) or red (no extra attack) then it is NEITHER and gives neither. That is all there is to it. One handed and two handed are just character strings that they continued to use simply because they used to mean what they actually say and they wanted things to be backwards compatible. What GW has done here is an excellent solution to the problem that is very easy to understand as long as you don't try to apply real life logic to something that isn't. Yakface has it all right.

Yes, the wording is important. You're making up your own rules. If they wanted it to say 'close combat weapons', then that's what it would have said. They used the term 'single-handed weapons' for an express purpose and you trying to blow it off as 'unimportant' does not change that. Yakface does not have it right because neither you nor him can provide actual rules in the rule book to back your claims. You can go on and on all you like, but it's meaningless unless you can support your arguments with facts which is something you've failed to do.

Cheexsta wrote:A simple solution that I used in 4th edition (that does fly in the face of my previous argument, but still) is that you assume that all close combat weapons are single-handed unless otherwise specified, and that all ranged weapons are two-handed unless otherwise specified (pistols).

Obviously this isn't RAW, but it seems to work.

Agreed completely and that's my house ruling as well. It's not RAW, but it works.

Ghaz wrote:Yes, the wording is important. You're making up your own rules. If they wanted it to say 'close combat weapons', then that's what it would have said. They used the term 'single-handed weapons' for an express purpose and you trying to blow it off as 'unimportant' does not change that. Yakface does not have it right because neither you nor him can provide actual rules in the rule book to back your claims. You can go on and on all you like, but it's meaningless unless you can support your arguments with facts which is something you've failed to do.

You are the one making up rules. Nowhere in the rulebook does it say weapons are either one OR two handed. We are explaining the situation as it exists, not trying to make up new stuff to explain it. Two close combat weapons give +1 attack. It says that. Two single handed weapons give +1 attack. It says that too. Two handed weapons deny the extra attack. Thats all that is said. This backs up what i'm saying perfectly, and i don't see anything backing up your claims.

Swordbreaker wrote:

Permissive argument in a RAW topic. If this isn't sarcasm, then I fear for what kids think 'logic' means these days.

Yes, it was sarcasm! I'll have to use the little [sarcasm][/sarcasm[ brackets next time, sorry! Alas I see these "permissive arguments" more and more often. My response? I "finally give in" to my opponents arguments and let them have their way, then at the start of my turn I put every single model I've lost back on the table and repair all damage to my vehicles backing this up with the exact same argument my opponent just used: "The rules don't say I can't!".

Ah, now that's permissive. Didn't mean to martyr your post; I'm sure you excluded yourself from the comment because you can read properly. Hurrah indeed.

Some weapons are not single handed or double handed. They mount onto the wielder in some other way. Probably why they are not listed as either.

I personally feel that unless the weapons specifically says its single handed or a pistol you cannot combine it with another single handed or pistol weapon to get +1 attack.

Jayden63 wrote:Some weapons are not single handed or double handed. They mount onto the wielder in some other way. Probably why they are not listed as either.

I personally feel that unless the weapons specifically says its single handed or a pistol you cannot combine it with another single handed or pistol weapon to get +1 attack.

So what about all the close combat weapons that fail to specify their handedness, they are the big issue, it's fine to use the "single handed means it's single handed, two handed means it's two handed, anything else is just ambiguous" until you come to the ambiguous weapons that we KNOW should be 1 handed like the simple power weapon which is never specified as either.

Drunkspleen wrote:

Jayden63 wrote:Some weapons are not single handed or double handed. They mount onto the wielder in some other way. Probably why they are not listed as either.

I personally feel that unless the weapons specifically says its single handed or a pistol you cannot combine it with another single handed or pistol weapon to get +1 attack.

So what about all the close combat weapons that fail to specify their handedness, they are the big issue, it's fine to use the "single handed means it's single handed, two handed means it's two handed, anything else is just ambiguous" until you come to the ambiguous weapons that we KNOW should be 1 handed like the simple power weapon which is never specified as either.

Power weapons are not a weapon like a close combat weapon or pistol are. They are a TYPE of close combat weapon. They fall under the heading of special close combat weapons on page 42 of the rulebook.

"A bolter is a not defined as a two handed weapon, therefore it must be a one handed weapon."

This assumption is a logical fallacy. It is the same as saying:
"A landspeeder is not defined as a tank. Therefore a landspeeder must be an infantry model."

The assumption also violates rules as written. Unless something specifically says you can do something you cannot actually do it. Otherwise there is no rule stopping me from using a sharpie on my rulebook and changing the rules how I like.

That is, unless a bolter is specifically described as one handed, you cannot assume that it is one handed. Even if a bolter is described as NOT two handed, you cannot make the assumption that a bolter is one handed.

Real life example:
"A footspike is NOT two handed, therefore a footspike must be one handed." Obviously untrue since a footspike goes on the foot.

Logic classes for the win.

Drudge Dreadnought wrote:Power weapons are not a weapon like a close combat weapon or pistol are. They are a TYPE of close combat weapon. They fall under the heading of special close combat weapons on page 42 of the rulebook.

Never the less, close combat weapons aren't automatically classed as 1 or 2 handed in the core rulebook, and plenty of them fail to categorize themself into one of the two in codices either.

Never the less, close combat weapons aren't automatically classed as 1 or 2 handed in the core rulebook, and plenty of them fail to categorize themself into one of the two in codices either.

They don't have to. Its just a close combat weapon, and if you have two of them or one and a one handed weapon you get a second attack. If they are two handed it is indicated, like the relic blade which is a two handed close combat weapon that is also a power weapon.

But the rules don't say two close combat weapons grant an extra attack, they say two one handed weapons grant an extra attack.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:
Why would you NEED to spell out that something is two-handed when it doesn't affect anything? I can't actually think of any two-handed CCWs off the top of my head either.

Eviscerator. :-)

scuddman wrote:"A bolter is a not defined as a two handed weapon, therefore it must be a one handed weapon."

This assumption is a logical fallacy. It is the same as saying:
"A landspeeder is not defined as a tank. Therefore a landspeeder must be an infantry model."

If one is under the impression that there are but single- and double-handed weapons, then it is not a fallacy. Then it must follow that it is one if it is not the other.

In the case of unit types, there are more than two possible definitions. Now don't get me wrong, I personally believe with weapons there are more than two as well, such as the techmarine thingy (is that still there?) or instances were the creature in question uses scythes and has four arms...but obviously some peers believe there's only 1h and 2h and perhaps specials, so small a category as not to matter.

The assumption also violates rules as written. Unless something specifically says you can do something you cannot actually do it.

Ha. The RAW specifically encourages you to ignore it and play any way you like (given that you've agreed upon it with your opponent, which isn't actually that new). Didn't you notice that we've entered the age of "Just say yes"? :-) [/sarcasm]

Drudge Dreadnought wrote:You are the one making up rules. Nowhere in the rulebook does it say weapons are either one OR two handed. We are explaining the situation as it exists, not trying to make up new stuff to explain it.

Yes, you are trying to make up stuff to explain it. You've not shown a single instance where the rules talk about these 'neither-handed' weapons. Unless you can show a page and a quote, you ARE making up rules.

Drudge Dreadnought wrote:Two close combat weapons give +1 attack. It says that.

Again, rules quote and page number please. Because it says no such thing.

Drudge Dreadnought wrote:Two single handed weapons give +1 attack. It says that too. Two handed weapons deny the extra attack. Thats all that is said. This backs up what i'm saying perfectly, and i don't see anything backing up your claims.

And none of that supports your claims in the least that all close combat weapons are single-handed unless noted otherwise. You are once again making up the rule that all close combat weapons are single-handed unless they specifically say that they're two-handed. YOU HAVE NO SUPPORT FOR THAT ARGUMENT. If you did, you could actually provide a rules quote and page number and yet amazingly you can not. That's because it is NOT true.

Yes, you are trying to make up stuff to explain it. You've not shown a single instance where the rules talk about these 'neither-handed' weapons. Unless you can show a page and a quote, you ARE making up rules.

This is the thing you are just still not getting. I have NEVER claimed the existance of "neither-handed" weapons. I have claimed that there are weapons, and that some are one handed or two handed and that some are not marked. Once again, you are still stuck on this idea of handedness that is not supported in the rulebook anymore. Handed weapons exist, but nowhere in the rulebook does it say weapons are either one or two handed.

The rules don't talk about 'neither-handed' weapons. Thats the point. Its completely undefined. I've never claimed that on some page it says this or that about all weapons that are not one or two handed. The whole point of what i'm saying is that the rules mention things for weapons marked as one handed, and weapons marked as two handed, and they don't mention other weapons at all. This is really simple.

Again, rules quote and page number please. Because it says no such thing.

"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..."

"Two normal close combat weapons: These models gain one bonus attack (see page 37)"

page 42 of the rulebook.

And none of that supports your claims in the least that all close combat weapons are single-handed unless noted otherwise.

Thats because i never made that claim. Ever. I claimed that having two close combat weapons gives +1 attack, not that they are one handed.

Why don't you try re-reading my posts and seeing what they actually say without looking for ways to argue for a minute? What i'm saying is ridiculously simple. I'm just taking the rules at face value without trying to infer or assume anything based on them.

Either way, it is your turn. Show me where in the rulebook it says that all weapons are either one or two handed?

Hello to everyone. I have been looking around the forums for a while now and thought it is about time I chipped in.

Drunkspleen wrote:So I noticed that when 5th ed came out that it said "Engaged models with two single-handed weapons...get an extra +1 attack." Using the old armory rules it seemed logical enough that it was allowing for 1 handed ranged weapons other than pistols would grant you the bonus attack, but now looking at the new armory it's not as clear cut anymore.

For example, the storm bolter never says if it is a 2 or 1 handed weapon, presumably then you can assume it's 1 handed and claim +1 attack in close combat if wielding it with a close combat weapon.

Is this phrase from the core rules just a terrible choice of words in saying that pistols can give you +1 attack, or is it really meant to allow other weapons to grant it.

The example of the stormbolter not being labelled as a one or two-handed weapon shouldn't make much difference to it being used in close combat. It is not a one or two-handed close combat weapon and so can only be used in cc as a rifle butt.

Weapon types: pistol weapons on pg 29 of the bbb tell us that pistols are the only weapon type that counts as a close combat weapon in cc.

You can swing a rifle butt in cc, "Of course, if a model is using a two-handed close combat weapon (such as a rifle's butt or a two-handed battle axe), it may not use it together with another weapon." bbb pg 42 close combat weapons: fighting with two single handed weapons, meaning no additional attack.

Personally I do not see where the presumption or the assumption comes from. I can see the value in using the older edition codex as a reference point, ie: the old wargear sections being clearly listed as one / two-handed, but with a new rulebook we must look solely at the new rules and the new weapons and upgrades system. Otherwise we are ending up in a whole new Stormcaller.

Historically the stormbolter is a big hefty gun, so using it for an extra attack in cc is a little far fetched to me, (yeah yeah, grey knights get away with it). And besides, is shooting me with it first and then assaulting me not enough?

My big mek would love to presume his ordnance1 weapon is an additional cc though.