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.

Ghaz wrote:

Kallbrand wrote:Think all the weapons who are 2 handed have it stated in their description or are a special type that is 2h in its "normal" state.

Except there's no rule that states that's the case. It's just an assumption on your part.

You seem to dispute the rather straightforward way to determine 1h or 2h: "if it ain't specified it's 1H, if it's defined as 2H it's 2H".
How would you go about to determine if something is 1H or 2H then?

Ghaz wrote:Actually just because some of the two-handed items are specifically mentioned in the rules as being such does not mean that those are the only ones.

Example? I'm dying to hear of your twohander that is definately 2H by RAW but somehow fails to reference this crucial fact in it's own rules, in references made within those rules, errata's or FAQ's.

btw there is no such

singing spear with re-rolls to wound.

item in whole Eldar codex

Honest.

The thing here that works as a rule would actually be the pistol rules, it sais you get +1A for using it with another CC weapon. And since there is nothing specified about the staff, there isnt any other limitation on it. You know the old, if it isnt in the rule it isnt there.

Zubb wrote:btw there is no such

singing spear with re-rolls to wound.

item in whole Eldar codex

Honest.

Pg 53: under spear of twilight description. Yes, It IS a singing spear with rerolls to wound.

On Lances no extra attack, second weapon is mounted to jetbike. Jetbike is nowhere listed as cc weapon and guns on jetbike are 2 handed(waste of time to argue about).

Eldrad carries Pistol and witchblade, in addition to the Staff, so he gets extra attacks from them. As it stands there is no reason to use the staff in HtH because the witchblade is superior. Honestly, IMHO, the weapon description looks half written. If you forego a ranged pistol attack for a "third" psychic attack in a turn, you'd be considered to be armed with the witchblade and staff which means No extra attack because of different CC weapons with different profiles. Which means no extra attack and only one of the charge in attacks would be able to hurt a tank.

When GW does this its to keep a character from being over powered,i.e.... You get an extra psychic attack you lose a close combat attack. Its a yin/yang balancing act that they do.

So I feel this is pretty much a waste of time to argue, also. I leave you gentelmen to your debate.

You make a good point and it does seem like what was intended. A character with a laser lancer and a pistol/additional CCW (i.e autarch) gets the bonous to A on the charge round as the lance can be used a a str6 power weapon... right?

Tooled up farseer (on bike or just using fleet) + yuriel > eldred + any other combination.

Eldatrict storm.. Woo

Guide.. (for 210pts) woo.

A slightly pointless post


As for the Eldar FAQ, I am making a 1-3 vibrocannon containing list purely due to the referance given for them in the FAQ. Pure awesome.

focusedfire wrote:

Zubb wrote:btw there is no such

singing spear with re-rolls to wound.

item in whole Eldar codex

Honest.

Pg 53: under spear of twilight description. Yes, It IS a singing spear with rerolls to wound.

What? In my Codex (Copyright 2006), the description of the Spear of Twilight is;

Eldar Codex page 53 wrote: The Spear of Twilight: Yriel is eternally bound to the Spear of Twilight, Cursed Blade of the House of Ulthanash; a weapon that is said to contain the baleful energies of a dying sun. It is a singing spear that ignores armour saves (see page 27).

Seriously, where are you getting this rerolls to wound? I would think you were confusing something with the Farseer power Doomed, but you actually quoted the right page for the Spear description...

@ zubb and buzzsaw and everyone else: Sorry, You are all right about the Spear of Twilight. Don't know where the reroll to wound came from other than I was tired when I typed/edited the 1st message.

My apologies to all who may have been misinformed by that slip.

Have rechecked everything else and that all appears to be accurate. I still can't believe I transposed no saves with rerolls, I must be getting old

1 handed or 2 handed of the staff is irellevant, due to the number of special weapons eldrad wields he would be unable to gain a bonus attack for having multiple 1 handed weapons at any time.

Drunkspleen wrote:1 handed or 2 handed of the staff is irellevant, due to the number of special weapons eldrad wields he would be unable to gain a bonus attack for having multiple 1 handed weapons at any time.

Huh? He carries a witchblade, a pistol and the staff at issue; at the very least he can use the pistol with the witchblade and gain +1A for using a pistol.

@Buzzsaw, Thank you for catching my mistake and letting me know. All I can give you is a bunch of

Buzzsaw wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:1 handed or 2 handed of the staff is irellevant, due to the number of special weapons eldrad wields he would be unable to gain a bonus attack for having multiple 1 handed weapons at any time.

Huh? He carries a witchblade, a pistol and the staff at issue; at the very least he can use the pistol with the witchblade and gain +1A for using a pistol.

That's somewhat debateable under the RAW. There's an argument that goes (and I'm not saying I support it, but it is somewhat sustainable) that simply having two different special weapons prevents a model from getting a bonus attack for using two weapons.

Centurian99 wrote:

Buzzsaw wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:1 handed or 2 handed of the staff is irellevant, due to the number of special weapons eldrad wields he would be unable to gain a bonus attack for having multiple 1 handed weapons at any time.

Huh? He carries a witchblade, a pistol and the staff at issue; at the very least he can use the pistol with the witchblade and gain +1A for using a pistol.

That's somewhat debateable under the RAW. There's an argument that goes (and I'm not saying I support it, but it is somewhat sustainable) that simply having two different special weapons prevents a model from getting a bonus attack for using two weapons.

Hmm, good catch: I presume you're referring to the statement on page 42 under the sub-heading "Two Different Special Weapons ("they never get the bonus attack for using two weapons")? The problem with applying said section to the instance at hand is that the quoted section is explicitly a sub-section within "Fighting with two Single-handed weapons", and by RAW the section does not apply to models with non-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 possible combinations.")

Like a Mobius strip, we once again find ourselves back at the question of what the Staff counts as... Like the sands of an hourglass, these are the days of Dakka... oi, time for sleep.

Man, if only this was as simple as Grey Knights and Siren Demon Princes...

nostromo wrote:You seem to dispute the rather straightforward way to determine 1h or 2h: "if it ain't specified it's 1H, if it's defined as 2H it's 2H".
How would you go about to determine if something is 1H or 2H then?

How about supporting your 'straightforward way' with actual rules. I'll repeat it one last time. The rules do NOT have a default for when they fail to tell you how many hands it takes to use a weapon. If they did, then why don't you quote it for us then.

nostromo wrote:Example? I'm dying to hear of your twohander that is definately 2H by RAW but somehow fails to reference this crucial fact in it's own rules, in references made within those rules, errata's or FAQ's

So how are you going to prove that every single weapon that's two-handed specifically says so? I see nothing in the rules to back up your claims that it must be specifically mentined in it's rules to be two-handed.

Back up your claims with the actual rules, instead of simply saying 'This is how it is baecause I say so'. Perhaps then you won't make arguments that you can't support.

Centurian99 wrote:That's somewhat debateable under the RAW. There's an argument that goes (and I'm not saying I support it, but it is somewhat sustainable) that simply having two different special weapons prevents a model from getting a bonus attack for using two weapons.

From page 42 of the Warhammer 40,000 5th edition rulebook:

FIGHTING WITH TWO SINGLE-HANDED WEAPONS

Two different special weapons
When it is their turn to attack, these models must choose which weapon to use that turn, but they never get the bonus attack for using two weapons (such is the penalty for wielding too many complex weapons!).

I don't see how this can be read as losing the bonus for simply having two different special weapons as long as you're not fighting with both of them.

I didn't say I actually agreed with it. Just that its a somewhat sustainable argument, since the rules don't actually address a situation where a model has three or more close combat weapons...

The point I'm trying to make is that the rules don't care what weapons you have, it's what weapons that you're using. Hence the 'fighting' with two single-handed weapons and not getting the bonus attack for 'using' two different special close combat weapons. 'Fighting' and 'using', not 'having'.

focusedfire wrote:

ungulateman wrote:EDIT: It says it's a singing spear with re-rolls to wound.

Thats Prince Yriel of Iyandens Twilight Spear not the Staff of Ulthramar carried by Eldrad.

Though neither weapon grant re-rolls to wound.

focusedfire wrote:[On Lances no extra attack, second weapon is mounted to jetbike. Jetbike is nowhere listed as cc weapon and guns on jetbike are 2 handed(waste of time to argue about).

Eldrad carries Pistol and witchblade, in addition to the Staff, so he gets extra attacks from them. As it stands there is no reason to use the staff in HtH because the witchblade is superior. Honestly, IMHO, the weapon description looks half written. If you forego a ranged pistol attack for a "third" psychic attack in a turn, you'd be considered to be armed with the witchblade and staff which means No extra attack because of different CC weapons with different profiles. Which means no extra attack and only one of the charge in attacks would be able to hurt a tank.

When GW does this its to keep a character from being over powered,i.e.... You get an extra psychic attack you lose a close combat attack. Its a yin/yang balancing act that they do.

So I feel this is pretty much a waste of time to argue, also. I leave you gentelmen to your debate.

And @Marius: Already straightened out thanks to buzzsaw. I transposed rerolls from a second book that was open instead of no armour saves. Thank you though. That kind of slip makes me wonder if age is getting to me.

Your right. I had looked at both pages on this Thread earlier.. then came back later and forgotten it had been corrected, and indeed 2 pages long.

Not the only one suffering from age, it seems.

Hate to dredge up an ancient thread, my only defense is that I wasnt on Dakka back when this was current, heh.


On the question as to whether or not Eldrad's staff is 1h or 2h since it isnt listed as either. We have no data in the rules to answer this question, and there is some debate as to what to consider the default type of unlisted weapons.
However, for the staff we DO have one other source of information, that while not an actual listing in the rules or FAQ is indicative of the staff's type.

Back in WD 266 there was a battle report which had Eldrad face off against Abadon(sp). On turn 5 eldrad and the seer council charged Abadon, and the report mentioned eldrad scored two wounds in his attacks. This was on the charge of course. However, the report continued and in the next round of combat Eldrad scored ANOTHER two hits. The only way that this could happen would be if the staff counted as 1h and added another attack with his pistol. The report also mentions that Abadon could only take his invulnerable save vs these wounds. So it was the staff and it was being used as a 1h weapon.

Since the eldar were being run by Phil Kelley I would take this to mean that the staff is in fact a 1h weapon, at least as far as GW is concerned.

Again sorry for raising this old of a thread, but this seemed like an important point that hadnt been considered.

Sliggoth

Ok, first of all thread necromancy.

Second. He has two CCW's, his pistol and his witchblade. So he would have 2 attacks per round, 3 on the charge.

I did apologize twice for the old thread, but since the popup noted that new information would probably be appreciated I decided to go ahead and add to this thread rather than bring up a new one...which would be lacking some of the background discussion from this thread. A brand new thread might have been better, except that it would have been lacking some of the other points raised earlier in this thread.

Your point on the witchblade and pistol doesnt cover the battle report results, since the battle report specifically mentioned that Abadon could only take his invulnerable save vs these wounds. A witchblade wounds on a 2+ but regular armor saves can be taken against its wounds. So in order for the invulnerable saves to be needed, it had to be the staff plus the pistol doing the wounds. The staff wounds on a 2+ and ignores regular armor saves.

This isnt anything that can be pointed to as a rule or even an answer to a faq, but it did seem to be a clue as to how GW considers the staff.


Sliggoth

-Bleh, nevermind-

I did look at the rules, and balancing rule 2 and 3 is what ended up leading to making the post on the old thread. Some forums Ive been on vastly prefer to keep the number of threads down, and it seems as if rule 3 wants us to not keep endlessly expanding the number of threads if we have a tie in to a previous thread. Rule 2 does seem to want any older thread to stay dead. Since I had read a few threads that mentioned not starting new threads to rehash old topics I didnt want to go there either.
From the quick response Im guessing that dakka prefers to always start a new thread on an older topic, no matter what? Or are there times it is ok to add new information to an older ongoing thread?



Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:Back in WD 266 there was a battle report...

And I can show you a battle report where a model fired a heavy weapon after disembarking from a transport. Battle reports have been known to be rife with errors and are not reliable enough to back up an argument.

This is an example of thread necromancy that is acceptable.

He had information that was pertinent to the discussion that hadn't been brought up before and it really would have been silly to start a new thread just to post it, so this is a situation where its okay to post to an old thread, especially as he mentions he's doing that in his post so anyone jumping into the thread will likely figure out that most of it is old.

Of course, as has been pointed out, Battle Reports can't really be used for rules arguments however I personally do think they can be useful for devising house rules when you have a situation that has absolutely no clear answer in the rules (as with this one).

In such a case you're basically just picking an option from your gut and going with it because the rules are of no help, so why not play the way somebody in a WD battle report did? It's as good a random selector as anything other method.

Normally I wouldnt want to lean very heavily on a battle report either, but this thread very completely lays out that looking at the RAW we do not have any hard info on whether of not the staff is a 1h weapon. So a battle report gives us at least some useful input, and this particular battle report perhaps gives us something more than most:


1) The eldar in the battle are played by Phil Kelley, the writer of the current eldar codex.

2) The battle report is largely written by Phil, going in depth into what he is planning and what he hopes his units to achieve.

3) The actual cc between Eldrad and Abadon is the climax of the entire report, and is brought out in fine detail. The fine points of the combat are mentioned, how Abadon has to take invulnerable saves for his wounds, and even down to how Abadon allocates his attacks against the seer council and Eldrad. This was one of the old detailed reports, not the current overview type.

4) At the very least, the report should be taken as how Phil himself intended for the eldar units to operate in the game.


We do not have anything in the raw that we can definitely point to about the staff, but this article does indicate how the author of the Eldar codex seems to think the staff works. Shouldnt that be given at least SOME consideration since we seem to have absolutely no other hard data?.


If we had something else on which to determine this question I wouldnt have brought it up, but it seemed to be an important indicator that hadnt been mentioned.


Sliggoth

Which again goes back to all of the errors in past battle reports. I'm sure those players don't seem to think that's the way those rules work, yet that's how it was played and it even made it into print. There's no proof that this one instance is how he thinks it works. It could have easily been a mistake on his part in this one game as it is proof that it's how it should work, after all I'm sure that some rules get changed back and forth numerous times during development.

Kallbrand wrote:Are there any 2 handed weapons that dont have it specified?

I don't think there is any *other* method to determine if a weapon is treated as 2hander in CC. Either it says it is or it doesn't.
Absence of the word 'single handed' doesn't mean it's 'twohanded'.
Come think of it, 5th edition list explicitely which weapons give the additional attack, they dumped the 'single handed' concept.

The way it works in 5th, two of any non-two handed weapons will give a bonus attack (unless its a Power fist etc) or it has a special rule saying otherwise. The two handed rule is there to accommodate older codex's that had that rule (the most noticable example is the Big Choppa), the newer codex's have no such things as 2 handed weapons anymore