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.

Happyjew wrote:

BRB page 35 wrote: All unengaged models will fight in this turn's Assault phase with their full number of attacks and use any special close combat attack they have

(Emphasis mine)

That is funny, the word "Weapon" does not appear in that quote...

(Emphasis mine)

Right, Happyjew, but if the model is using a bolter to attack then the model does not have any special attacks to make. Even if the model is carrying a golf bag packed full of power weapons.

Hence my post about how you choose to interpret "equipped."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To be moderately ridiculous but illustrate the point:

The Sanguine Sword powered attack is clearly a "special attack." Is a BA Librarian forced to cast it because the model must make special attacks?

Actually that is not moderately ridiculous at all, it has pretty wide ranging implications. My Grey Knights could be compelled to activate their force weapons if this is the case.

The last time I looked, weapons did not have their own Attack characteristic. The only way that a special weapon could work is to change a model's close combat attacks into special close combat attacks. The alternative is that all special weapons do absolutely nothing.

Or a special attack is an attack that is special, like Gabriel Seth's "Whirlwind of Gore" on P.55 of the BA codex.

"Whirlwind of Gore: Instead of making his normal attacks..."

Whirlwind of Gore tho' does give a very clear choice

Yes, but it is still an example of a "Special Attack"

His other attack ability does not give you a choice.

"Ferocious Instincts: For every roll of a 1 to hit Seth in CC, enemy units Immediately suffer an automatic Str 4 Hit..."

Happyjew wrote: Fortunately the paragraph on page 37 that talks about getting an extra attack for two single close combat weapons, then goes onto say that 'Models with more than two weapons gain no additional benefit'.

Yeah? It means that a model with; say a power weapon, a pistol, and a close combat weapon will only recieve the +1 attack. It refers to having more than two singlehanded close combat weapons. Without having that part of the rule there would be no way to refute the idea of gaining an additional close combat attack for each singlehanded weapon after the first two. So my example would gain 2 attacks. This is clearly not the case.

A special attack would be like a power weapon. An attack that has specific other rules to it. Rending, Instant death, ect. are special attacks. They must be used.

Ignatius wrote:A special attack would be like a power weapon. An attack that has specific other rules to it. Rending, Instant death, ect. are special attacks. They must be used.

No those are normal attacks with special weapons.

A special attack is something like "Whirlwind of Gore" where it says "Instead of making his normal attacks..."

Also they refer to Gabriel Seth's normal attacks, but he has a weapon called Blood Reaver (Two-Handed Rending Chainsword that strikes at Str8).

According to you Gabriel Seth always makes "Special Attacks" because of "Blood Reaver" which is rending. which I have shown to not be the case at all.

DeathReaper wrote:

Ignatius wrote:A special attack would be like a power weapon. An attack that has specific other rules to it. Rending, Instant death, ect. are special attacks. They must be used.

No those are normal attacks with special weapons.

A special attack is something like "Whirlwind of Gore" where it says "Instead of making his normal attacks..."

Also they refer to Gabriel Seth's normal attacks, but he has a weapon called Blood Reaver (Two-Handed Rending Chainsword that strikes at Str8).

According to you Gabriel Seth always makes "Special Attacks" because of "Blood Reaver" which is rending. which I have shown to not be the case at all.

You have a point from a RAW perspective that the rule refers to "special attacks", rather than "special weapons". I believe the intent is clear, however, especially given that most or all of the (relatively uncommon) special attacks out there are specifically listed as optional. Whirlwind of Gore being a good example.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kmdl1066 wrote:All depends on how you define "equipped weapons." If you define it as "the model has it" then the model is forced to use it.

Most people who play any form of RPG will tend to define "equipped weapons" as the weapons the model actually has in hand at that point in time. By that definition the model could choose to have the bolter "equipped" and will then be using a two-handed close combat weapon in combat.

I've never heard of a pen and paper RPG which defines "equipped" as "in hand". Normally they use "in hand", or "wielded". In traditional tabletop RPGs "equipped" means you have it on your person. By "any form of RPG" I thinky you're really talking about computer/video games.

Mannahnin wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

kmdl1066 wrote:All depends on how you define "equipped weapons." If you define it as "the model has it" then the model is forced to use it.

Most people who play any form of RPG will tend to define "equipped weapons" as the weapons the model actually has in hand at that point in time. By that definition the model could choose to have the bolter "equipped" and will then be using a two-handed close combat weapon in combat.

I've never heard of a pen and paper RPG which defines "equipped" as "in hand". Normally they use "in hand", or "wielded". In traditional tabletop RPGs "equipped" means you have it on your person. By "any form of RPG" I thinky you're really talking about computer/video games.

You are correct that I intended CRPG in what I wrote. But even in pen and paper RPG, having a ring on your person was not the same as having a ring equipped and so on. But that's all besides the point. The point being that there are multiple valid interpretations of what "equipped" means and the definition you choose has a significant impact on the weapon page 42 is going to determine as the weapon you are making attacks with.

The "special attacks" on page 35 is likewise problematic because GW never defines what "special attacks" means. A reasonable interpretation is special attacks = attacks with a special weapon as this an interpretation that doesn't have crazy consequences.

I'm just pointing out that the definition you're using for "equipped" is (AFAICT) exclusive to computer games. GW's language derives from wargames and traditional tabletop RPGs, where equipped means carrying.

That's a very good observation. I can accept the argument that in the context of the way we know GW uses language "equipped" is going to mean "the model has." Which means that page 42 says that if the model has a special weapon, the model will make attacks with the special weapon.

Mannahnin wrote:You have a point from a RAW perspective that the rule refers to "special attacks", rather than "special weapons". I believe the intent is clear, however, especially given that most or all of the (relatively uncommon) special attacks out there are specifically listed as optional. Whirlwind of Gore being a good example.

and "Ferocious Instincts" is an example of a special attack as well. That one you Must use.

Furthermoreon P.34 under "Fighting a close combat" Second Graph, they say this: "Attacks in close combat work like shots in shooting - each attack that hits has a chance to wound."

This, along with P.6 under the Attacks characteristic, establish that a normal attack is something you need to roll a die for in order to hit with the attack, then you move on to "has a chance to wound." so once you have hit, you have made your normal attack, and the to wound is a process dependent on if the attack has hit or missed.

So Normal Attacks roll to hit. Special attacks may have to roll to hit, but they have a mechanic that usually changes the Normal Attack into something else.

How does a Power Sword make the attack (To Hit) special?

The attack is just the to hit, or the whole sequence?

A power sword is special because it denies armour saves.

A Special attack is different than an normal attack with a special weapon.

Take my Gabriel Seth Example:
A special attack is something like "Whirlwind of Gore" where it says "Instead of making his normal attacks..."

Also they refer to Gabriel Seth's normal attacks, but he has a weapon called Blood Reaver (Two-Handed Rending Chainsword that strikes at Str8, this is a special weapon).

According to you Gabriel Seth always makes "Special Attacks" because of "Blood Reaver" which is rending. which I have shown to not be the case at all, since "Instead of making his normal attacks..." he can make a special attack.

Or, you are yet again seeing a specific instance and applying it to a general ruling. Again.

U also have to remember the what you see is what you get rule so you have to have the specific weapons on the model, if I'm correct a Bolter is a rifle and rifles are two handed weapons.

1_ WYSIWYG as per the rule book only applies to characters
2) The usual application of WYSIWYG in tournaments applies to non- upgrade equipment.

So by DeathReaper's interpretation, Gabriel Seth would never be able to use Blood Reaver. So why would GW give him rules he could never use?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Or, you are yet again seeing a specific instance and applying it to a general ruling. Again.

Or a special attack, like whirlwind of gore, is actually different than a normal attack with a special weapon...

Again, the prevalence of Special Attacks which are optional seems to indicate that the rulebook is actually referring to attacks with Special Weapons. If using Special Attacks were always mandatory, why would every single Special Attack I can find in the SM, GK, BA, and DE codices be listed as optional?

Ferocious Instincts is not optional. it is a special attack.

"Ferocious Instincts: For every roll of a 1 to hit Seth in CC, enemy units Immediately suffer an automatic Str 4 Hit..."

Seth has a Special Attack that automatically inflicts Str 4 hits.

Drazhar has a similar one, and his is optional.

Seth's other attack is optional.
Sicarius' is optional.
As is Valeriya's.

Most of them seem to be optional. Which seems to be in conflict with the concept that special attacks are inherently mandatory.

So is activation of a force weapon a special attack or a special weapon?

Karn also has a mandatory special attack.

"The Betrayer"

Sure; obviously some are mandatory. But again, if special attacks are categorically mandatory, why are there any (let alone so many) which are clearly optional?

IMO it's because GW meant "attacks with a special weapon", in the main rulebook, and that "Special Attacks" such as Whirlwind of Gore or The Betrayer have always been intended to be self-contained and not referenced by the rule we're discussing.

"why are there any (let alone so many) which are clearly optional?"

The best answer I have is: The rules are full of exceptions to the norm.

But I can see where you are coming from Mannahnin, It says special attacks, they could have meant attacks with a special weapon.

I do not think that is what it means, because it does not say special weapons.

But I do understand your viewpoint on the matter.

Fury_00011 wrote:U also have to remember the what you see is what you get rule so you have to have the specific weapons on the model, if I'm correct a Bolter is a rifle and rifles are two handed weapons.

So again I ask, how do Chaos Marines get their extra CC attack when they are all armed with boltguns, pistols, and close combats weapons? Once assault phase begins, the only issue is whether the hooters was fired, negating the ability to assault...

DeathReaper wrote:"why are there any (let alone so many) which are clearly optional?"

The best answer I have is: The rules are full of exceptions to the norm.

But I can see where you are coming from Mannahnin, It says special attacks, they could have meant attacks with a special weapon.

I do not think that is what it means, because it does not say special weapons.

But I do understand your viewpoint on the matter.

Wouldn't a Special Weapon inherently make an attack special? Thus applying to both instances, I mean one way or another all special weapons I can think of change the attack in one way or another, although not the mechanics of it.