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.

Though I disagree with your conclusion don, I do agree that if the rules pertain to merely being equipped with multiple special weapons, you may have to accept that Calgar does not get a bonus attack. He does have more than "only a second power fist."

Although, how do you deal with my first point?

Actually, he moves into a different category, since he now has 3 special weapons.

He may choose to use the 2 Power fists for +1 Attack from a pair.

InquisitorFabius wrote:Actually, he moves into a different category, since he now has 3 special weapons.

He may choose to use the 2 Power fists for +1 Attack from a pair.

So you agree that what matters is the weapons the model chooses to use? In that case, your opinion must be that Eldrad gets the bonus attack.

When you read an article about Corvettes and they mention 'the car', do you think that they're talking about an AMC Gremlin? No, because the subject of the article is the Corvette. It's the same here. The only way that it can apply to ALL weapons is if it were written as such:

they never get the bonus attack for using two weapons OF ANY TYPE (such is the penalty for wielding too many complex weapons!)...

As it is written, the only way it can be read this way is if you totally ignore the header. Sorry, but the passage you keep quoting does not exist in a vacuum and does not prove your case.

InquisitorFabius wrote:Actually, he moves into a different category, since he now has 3 special weapons.

He may choose to use the 2 Power fists for +1 Attack from a pair.

And where is this other category in the rulebook?

but the rule, in a vacuum, does account for these 3 weaponed models.

"When it is their turn to attack, these models must choose which weapon to use that turn..." So eldrad chooses to use his staff and pistol.

"but they never get the bonus attack for using two weapons" so regardless of eldrad's choice to use his staff and pistol he does not gain the bonus attack.

When you expand out of the vacuum you get the heading "Two different special weapons" which definitely applies to Eldrad in the section which describes "Some models are equipped with two single-handed weapons they can use in close combat" which also applies to him, and he additionally has a third close combat weapon.

It fits that Eldrad falls into both the "A normal and a special weapon" and "two different special weapons" categories at once, but one of them in this case Two different special weapons is more strict and is worded such as to override the other options.

Drunkspleen wrote:"but they never get the bonus attack for using two weapons" so regardless of eldrad's choice to use his staff and pistol he does not gain the bonus attack.

When you expand out of the vacuum you get the heading "Two different special weapons" which definitely applies to Eldrad in the section which describes "Some models are equipped with two single-handed weapons they can use in close combat" which also applies to him, and he additionally has a third close combat weapon.

It fits that Eldrad falls into both the "A normal and a special weapon" and "two different special weapons" categories at once, but one of them in this case Two different special weapons is more strict and is worded such as to override the other options.

No, because you're missing one little word:

... they never get the bonus attack for USING two weapons (such is the penalty for wielding too many complex weapons!)...

If Eldrad is using his Witchblade and Shuriken Pistol, then he's not using two special weapons, is he? No. So those rules don't apply.

but he is a model with "Two different special weapons" which means he "never gets the bonus attack for using two weapons" regardless of what he is using, the rule is specifically written that the model's choice of weapons does not effect this lack of a bonus attack.

Drunkenspleen, your last post isn't addressing a point, but merely re-iterating your position, which as it stands ignores part of the rule you keep quoting.

“Some models are equipped with two [or more] single-handed weapons they can use in close combat, with the rules given below for the different possible combinations.”

The key here is the “different possible combinations.” Does that mean, “equipment combinations,” or “use combinations?”

If “the different possible combinations” referred to a character’s equipment, it would be superfluous to have said “can use in close combat.” Obviously, if a model is equipped with single-handed weapons then they can use them in close combat. By adding the phrase about “use,” the sentence suggests that the “combinations” refers to what a model chooses to use. Think about it. If the rule said, "Some models are equipped with two [or more] single-handed weapons, and the rules given below are for the different possible combinations,” then there would be no question.

Drunkspleen wrote:
The RAW on this is very clear that "they NEVER get the bonus attack for using two weapons (such is the penalty for wielding too many complex weapons!)" (Bold mine)

True, but the emphasis is on the wrong part:
"they never get the bonus attack for USING two special weapons"

ok putting it another way a model has a bolter and a sniper rifle ... since the sniper rifle is a heavy 1 weapon he cannot move and shoot his bolter ... but that madness you say? yes it is you only ever count the weapons being used ...

i think that this rules only in there to stop people putting a power fist and a power weapon on the same model and claming that the fist gives the power weapon +1A

Doesn't matter what they are using, bottom line is that the rule says they never get the +1 attack for using two different weapons as long as they possess, have, are equipped with (I'll let someone else go through the thesaurus) two different special weapons. Doesn't matter what part of the sentence you emphasize, the rule as a whole states this quite clearly (IMO). Never means just that, never. You would have to be able to point to a line that specifically exempted a model from the "never" in this rule for it to be negated. And there ain't no such line that I'm aware of in anyone's profile.

don_mondo wrote:Doesn't matter what they are using, bottom line is that the rule says they never get the +1 attack for using two different weapons as long as they possess, have, are equipped with (I'll let someone else go through the thesaurus) two different special weapons.

No, it doesn't. It's already been quoted, but here it is again:

... they never get the bonus attack for USING two weapons (such is the penalty for wielding too many complex weapons!)...

'Using', not 'having'.

And the first paragraph says equipped.....................

don_mondo wrote:Doesn't matter what they are using, bottom line is that the rule says they never get the +1 attack for using two different weapons as long as they possess, have, are equipped with (I'll let someone else go through the thesaurus) two different special weapons. Doesn't matter what part of the sentence you emphasize,

But don, you yourself are emphasizing one part of the sentence and ignoring the other. And you've provided no reason for doing so.

don_mondo wrote:the rule as a whole states this quite clearly (IMO).

The (IMO) is the key part of your sentence. You haven't addressed mine or anyone else's points but to assert you are right. And you are selectively reading.

don_mondo wrote:Never means just that, never. You would have to be able to point to a line that specifically exempted a model from the "never" in this rule for it to be negated. And there ain't no such line that I'm aware of in anyone's profile.

Ok, once again I will point to the line and restate my argument for the third time - “Some models are equipped with two [or more] single-handed weapons they can use in close combat, with the rules given below for the different possible combinations.”

If “the different possible combinations” referred to a character’s equipment, it would be superfluous to have said “can use in close combat.” Obviously, if a model is equipped with single-handed weapons then they can use them in close combat. By adding the phrase about “use,” the sentence suggests that the “combinations” refers to what a model chooses to use. Think about it. If the rule said, "Some models are equipped with two [or more] single-handed weapons, and the rules given below are for the different possible combinations,” then there would be no question.

And the specific paragraph that prevents them from getting the extra attack says 'using', so what's your point?

Back and forth we go. The first paragraph establishes the basic guidleines, models equipped, then the later paragraph spells out the benfits and/or negatives for each circumstance. So if a model is equipped with two different special weapons, nothing else matters. It never gets the +1 attack, regardless of what it is using.

I think you and I are just gonna have to agree to disagree, cause you ain't changing my mind on this one. This is how we ruled it at the US GTs. Totally unofficial, I know, but we threw it up and got a word from on high response..........................

I always thought the INTENT was for the weapon combination being USED to be what matters. What else is Eldrad’s pistol for? Marneus Calgar (who is in the first true 5th ed codex)’s weapons are another great example. He has the dual fists, AND he has a power weapon, so he can use the fists and get +1 attack, or choose to use the weapon and strike at initiative. His wargear would just be silly if it weren’t intended to be used in multiple different ways.

Regarding the RAW I was on the fence when I read this the other day, but Deadlygopher’s got me sold. That phrase “they can use in close combat” would be totally superfluous if the combination chosen was irrelevant. Is it 100% cut & dried? No. But the text there makes a clear enough indication for me to see the writing as matching the intent.

don_mondo wrote:Back and forth we go. The first paragraph establishes the basic guidleines, models equipped, then the later paragraph spells out the benfits and/or negatives for each circumstance. So if a model is equipped with two different special weapons, nothing else matters. It never gets the +1 attack, regardless of what it is using.

I think you and I are just gonna have to agree to disagree, cause you ain't changing my mind on this one. This is how we ruled it at the US GTs. Totally unofficial, I know, but we threw it up and got a word from on high response..........................

I guess so. There's nothing more that can be done to get you to respond to points against you or convince you to put forth substantive points of your own. An argument that consists of nothing more than "I'm right," cannot be countered. That doesn't mean it's persuasive though.

As long as you also argue that Calgar and similar characters do not get a bonus attack, you're at least being consistent.

Yep, I say Calgar doesn't get it either. Never means never.

Mannahnin wrote:I always thought the INTENT was for the weapon combination being USED to be what matters. What else is Eldrad’s pistol for? Marneus Calgar (who is in the first true 5th ed codex)’s weapons are another great example. He has the dual fists, AND he has a power weapon, so he can use the fists and get +1 attack, or choose to use the weapon and strike at initiative. His wargear would just be silly if it weren’t intended to be used in multiple different ways.

Regarding the RAW I was on the fence when I read this the other day, but Deadlygopher’s got me sold. That phrase “they can use in close combat” would be totally superfluous if the combination chosen was irrelevant. Is it 100% cut & dried? No. But the text there makes a clear enough indication for me to see the writing as matching the intent.

That's pretty much how I feel about it two. The rules are even under separate headings, meaning applying them universally may not be correct.

I think the two "using" and "wielding" in that sentence outweigh the one "never".

Mannahnin wrote:I think the two "using" and "wielding" in that sentence outweigh the one "never".

Never say die!

Never give up! Never surrender!

Okay. Eldrad (for point of argument & because I agree he uses his pistol & staff) is quite choppy. Hes got 3 attacks on a charge which is not gonna get amazingly often because he cant fleet.

Which is the best unit to pair him up with to make the most use of his psykic abilites? Massed scorpian attacks & MEQ? Rending harlie hits & 5++? Banshees? DA's.... ?


Otherwise the title should just be renamed: Is Eldrad choppy? No. Yuriel Is.

... have one of each and start him with the unit thats best against your enemys army

Good point sir. Personally I think scorps win as you loose infiltrate but again eldred and a decently tough (eldar wise) CC bodyguard.. but good point.. The eldrad plug&play list.

He gets 2 attacks, one with the staff one with the shuriken pistol.

The two special weapons rule is if the character ONLY has two special weapons to choose from. Eldar can choose the pistol and the staff.

"When it is their turn to attack, these models must choose which weapon to use that turn..."

This means that you can only use 1 special weapon and that additional special weapons don't grant +1a. You choose which special weapon you want to use, and then you also choose the pistol which grants another attack.

don_mondo wrote:Drunkspleen has the right of it. The staff is indeed a separate weapon, as it clearly states in the staff description. "or be use as a powerful weapon." So no +1 attack for Eldrad.

Agreed.

G

But which unit to put him with? Seers or a scorp squad? All others loose too much from various exarch abilities/unit rules.