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.

Aduro wrote:So what if I gave a character a weapon that gives him frenzy, and put him in a unit with a banner that gives them frenzy. He's getting frenzy from two different sources.

He is getting frenzy from two different sources, but you cant be SUPAR FRENZIED

He gets the frenzy from the weapon, ok he is frenzied. The banner gives him frenzy, oh he is already frenzied, so it doesnt do anything.

lixulana wrote:just like having stupidity and getting it again doesnt make you more stupid. WoC :-)

I do know real people who seem to have this problem.

Brotherjanus gets what I'm suggesting.

You can't have two interpretations of the same rule.

Khorne warriors with additional hand weapons and the banner of rage get +1 or +3 attacks.

Daba wrote:Brotherjanus gets what I'm suggesting.

You can't have two interpretations of the same rule.

Khorne warriors with additional hand weapons and the banner of rage get +1 or +3 attacks.

They get +2 attacks

1 for the AHW, one for the frenzy.

giving them MoK and the banner of rage is redundant, you cant take frenzy twice.

ShivanAngel wrote:They get +2 attacks

1 for the AHW, one for the frenzy.

giving them MoK and the banner of rage is redundant, you cant take frenzy twice.

If you can't take frenzy twice you can't take extra attack twice. If you can take extra attack twice you can take frenzy twice. There's nothing in the rules indicating you treat these special rules differently.

If an infantry model is armed with an additional hand weapon or a brace of pistols, these grant an extra attack. pg 89

Frenzy: ...Frenzied troops have the Extra Attack and Immune to Psychology special rules. pg 70

Extra Attack: A model with this special rule (or who is attacking with a weapon that bestows this special rule) increase his Attacks value by 1. pg 69

Sword of Bloodshed: The wielder has +3 Attacks. pg 501

"extra attack", "Extra Attack" and "+3 Attacks" appear to be three different things and not in conflict.

If there was an effect which provided the "Extra Attack" special rule, then it and Frenzy would not stack because the two effects are providing the same special rule.






Automatically Appended Next Post:
Page 91 contains a different version of the additional hand weapon. The text lists "Extra Attack" under Special Rules.

Which then makes the question: can a figure have the Extra Attack special ability more than once?

Apparently people are able to stack the stupidity rule multiple times, as I clearly explained it before. Frenzy is a SOURCE of extra attack. It is different from the extra attack special rule, which is caused by additional hand weapons, and frenzy does not stack. If I have a beserker sword, it gives me more attacks, not extra attack.
TL;DR
Frenzy and additional hand weapon do stack, multiples of each do not.
And if you REALLY want to be a cheesy person and try and use this anyways, you really don't deserve it. There is no point in ruining a fun game by trying to bend rules.

I'm suprised this is being debated. It's pretty clear- if you're "frenzied" you get +1 attack. Multiple things can cause you to be frenzied, but that doesn't really matter- you are still "frenzied" and get +1 attack.

I have a unit of dryads that cause fear. If I put them in a special forest that makes the unit in them cause fear, they still only cause one fear check... not two from having two things putting them in a state of causing fear.

It doesn't matter how many items put you in a state of frenzy. If you are "frenzied" you get +1 attack.

This really isn't up for debate in any game or circle of gamers I've ever encountered!

Most of the stuff i see trying to be pulled on YMDC has never come up in my gaming circles either.

A new edition came out so people are trying to pick apart rules and figure out ways to break certain things until they get errata'd.

All it really makes you is a TFG that no one will want to play with.

Im with Ritides on this one.
The rules tend to show it pretty well, not sure how one could come to the conclusion that frenzy + frenzy = a new type of frenzy with no rules written for it.

If something like frenzy could stack, then it would have a name change once you got it the 2nd time.

Special rules wise, you can only gain the advantage from it once.
Where as items may add in another attack due to it being a direct effect, or counting as an AHW.

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:Im with Ritides on this one.
The rules tend to show it pretty well, not sure how one could come to the conclusion that frenzy + frenzy = a new type of frenzy with no rules written for it.

If something like frenzy could stack, then it would have a name change once you got it the 2nd time.

Special rules wise, you can only gain the advantage from it once.
Where as items may add in another attack due to it being a direct effect, or counting as an AHW.

I agree on the RAW of this, but you still seem to miss the point - the bolded section implies that multiple instances of Extra Attack don't stack.

Extra Attack is a special rule, just like Frenzy is. If having multiple instances of Frenzy, from different sources, don't stack... then why is it that multiple instances of Extra Attack, from different sources, do stack?

Items that give +1 Attack do not grant the Extra Attack special rule, so a model with the Sword of Battle and Frenzy would get +2 Attacks - one from the sword, one from Extra Attack (which is granted as a part of Frenzy).

In fact, there is only one reason I can think of to make Extra Attack a special rule - and that's to give Games Workshop the control to prevent certain types of +1 Attack stacking, because either a model does or does not have Extra Attack. Without checking the rulebook in fine detail, there's only one instance I can think of where this would make a difference (as so few things refer to Extra Attack) and that's a Frenzied character with the Fencer's Blades - as Paired Weapons grant the Extra Attack rule.

Ok, accusations of TFG aren't that useful. Maybe someone here is trying to be TFG, but I think there is a legit rules point here.

To start, I would never try to use double frenzy, even if I currently thought it worked this way.

But, you are slightly missing the argument.

Let me try, one more time.


Frenzy gives you three rules. That's essentially all it does. It doesn't "give you an extra attack." It gives you the additional rules "Extra Attack." It also gives you the rule "Immune to Psychology." (And it makes you have to test to restrain charges).

So your source of the extra attack is really from having the RULE "Extra Attack."

Similarly having an extra hand weapon, per the entry on pg. 91, gives you the Rule "Extra Attack."

If a particular model had both, it would have these rules:
Extra Attack, Extra Attack, Immune to Psychology.

Luckily, the rulebook clearly states that special rules stack. This is explicit.

We all agree that a chaos warrior with mark of khorne and additional has +2 attacks. The reasoning has to be as laid out above.

(Let's also stop with the strawman about 50 extra hand weapons. It is clear that models can only use 1 extra hand weapon.)

Ok, the dispute is when you give this person frenzy again. From another source, like the banner.

If you did so, the person would now have the rules:
Extra Attack, Extra Attack, Extra Attack, Immune to Psychology, Immune to Psychology.

What Brotherjanus and Daba are trying to say, is that if you give them +2 attacks in the earlier example, you necessarily have to give them +3 in this example. The only way to deny that would be to deny that the rule "Extra Attacks" stacks at all. In which case, frenzy + ahw gives only +1 attack.

I don't care which way you play it, +1 or +3. But if the rule "Extra Attacks" stacks, then you get +3. If it doesn't, you get +1. There is no basis in the rules saying you only get the stacking from "multiple sources."

Ok since they let frenzy stack they have to let AHW stack, there is no rule that states you cant take 50 AHW. RaW!!!

Not true. You can only use two hands!

Killjoy00 wrote:Not true. You can only use two hands!

Thats RaI, just like the no double frenzy...

We are talking purely RaW in this thread apparently.

ShivanAngel wrote:

Killjoy00 wrote:Not true. You can only use two hands!

Thats RaI, just like the no double frenzy...

We are talking purely RaW in this thread apparently.

It's got nothing to do with Raw or RaI. We have a brand new edition & will not know the rules without reading the book.

Frenzy used to be a psychology. Now its a special rule. Without a reference to a previous edition, there is no indication that Frenzy shouldn't stack.
I started this thread thinking multiple frenzy was BS, but now I'm not so sure.

uhhhh this is absolutely turned into a RaW vs RaI thread.

you can take 50 hand weapons but only the first two work, see rules for additional hand weapon granting extra attack & two hands.

read the frenzy rule not the part you want to read.

"Frenzied troops have the extra attack and immune to psychology special rules (..)" note that is is "have" not "gain"

so if you have multiple frenzy rules you are still only frenzied once, because there is no rule to get frenzerd.

Right they have the Extra Attack special rule. And if they have Frenzy again, they have the Extra Attack special rule again. And if they have Frenzy again, they have the Extra Attack special rule again.

There is another reason against getting frenzy multiple times, which I haven't seen mentioned (admittedly, I read this quickly and might've missed it). You can "lose your frenzy" if you are beaten in combat. The rules would be broken if you could get multiple levels of frenzy. How many would you lose when losing combat? 1? All of them?

Frenzy is a state that models are in. The fact that it now operates by giving the special rule "Extra Attack" doesn't seem to really factor in this issue (to me). Just like the above poster stating "you only have 2 hands", so you cannot use a two-handed weapon with others, or 50 handweapons, so you can only be in one "state" of frenzy.

That's my take on it from a logic standpoint, and I don't see it being played otherwise anywhere, ever... however, it probably would be great for someone to actually break out the quotes from the rulebook and prove this. If that rulebook wasn't so dam heavy, I might do it now... . Come on, starter set!!!

You would lose them all. Each frenzy would have its condition satisfied and be lost. That really isn't an issue.

Looks like the new FAQ has ended this question.

Page 66 – Special Rules, What Special Rules Does It Have
Change “[...]the effects of multiple special rules[...]” to
“[...]the effects of different special rules[...]”Add “However,
unless otherwise stated, a model gains no additional benefit
from having the same special rule multiple times.” to the end of
the first paragraph.

Page 69 – Extra Attack
Add “Unlike most special rules, the effects of multiple Extra
Attack special rules are cumulative.”

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1330084a_FAQ_WarhammerRulebook_2010_v1.pdf

oh you cant gain SUPAR FRENZAY!!!!

So surprised....

Thank you GW.

Although Extra Attack is a pointless rule since everything that has it can just say +1A, but I suppose the FAQ writer isn't the same as the rulebook writer.

Right, but they had to change the rules to make it so you can't get double Frenzy.

This is the right result for the right reasons. Good job GW.

Hooray! Justice prevails

Must resist gloating...

Why would one gloat about being incorrect?

It shows they literally had to change the rules and wording to make it work as intended.

Now Extra Attack itself has an exception to be treated differently. It did not have this before which is what I was saying the entire time.

Gloating because people were taking RaW vs rules as common sense to literally...

People KNOW you cant hold 10 AHW for extra attacks, its common sense. However they will argue RaW they can do it till they are blue in the face.

You can't hold 10 AHW because army books don't give you an allowance to have them; also, you get the special rule for having an additional hand weapon and it is one of the special weapons listed in the weapon section. This means if you have 50 additional hand weapons, the special weapon rule says you only pick one (which you get the effects of) to use, so you would only be able to use 1 out of your 50 additional hand weapons.

Note that bit didn't change anyway. Extra attack specifically says it stacks now.

It's not common sense when the wording has to be changed to get it to work as intended. A complete new player who has no experience of any prior edition of Warhammer would not have got how this worked properly without this errata.