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.

Bottom line is:
We have one interpretation in which the rules do not work at all and then we have another interpretation that works just fine. As you can't play with the former why is it worth even arguing about?

No, you have one interpretation that entirely makes up rules - yours. You have no rules support for your position.

You then have one that doesnt make up rules, acknowledges that far from "not working at all" it works for a good 95% of the units out there, if not more, and for the 5% it doesnt work for taking the least powerful way to make it work, as ever, is the best solution.

So, based on the logic of "least powerful" interpretation, since a character has no permission to select a subset of weapons to use in close combat, he must take the worst of all applicable rules, correct?

Let's apply this to the case of Dok Grotsnik, who is equipped with a slugga (a pistol), an 'urty syringe (a poisoned CCW), and a power klaw (a power fist). The rules do not specify a case for fighting with three weapons, so we default to the "least powerful" case. Let's examine the outcome.

So the first dilemma occurs when Grotsnik goes to attack. When does he strike? If he could choose a subset of weapons, this could be either at his normal initiative with his pistol or poisoned CCW, or at initiative 1 with the power klaw. Since he is not allowed to choose, however, he must take the least advantageous case, which is striking last at initiative 1. OK, sorted, let's move on.

Next, we need to determine how many attacks the good Dok can make. Again, given a choice this could be his only his base attacks with the klaw, or he could claim the bonus for two weapons. But there is no choice in this case, so he must make do with only his base allotment. Great, next!

All right, now we need to determine at what strength the attacks are resolved at. If we accept that no advantageous choices can be made, Grotsnik cannot claim either the doubled strength bonus from the power klaw, nor can he choose to use his poisoned weapons. The attacks must be made at his base strength 4 only.

One last step to go, then. Assuming any wounds are generated by the above, we need to find out what kind of save the target is entitled to take. Since Grotsnik cannot elect to use his power klaw, we must allow the target to take his armor and feel no pain saves, if any.

Therefore, under the "least powerful" interpretation, Dok Grotsnik must always fight at initiative 1 and strength 4, with no power field or poisoned weapon rules in play, using only his base number of attacks.

Sorry, but I'm afraid that counts as "doesn't work." If the rules had intended that kind of outcome, why is the character listed with that statblock and that selection of wargear?

No, in the case of Dok Grotsnik (like Eldrad), you must choose which weapons you are using. Since you have to use a special weapon, and you must choose between 2 special ccw, you follow the rules for 2 different special close combat weapons.

Happyjew wrote:No, in the case of Dok Grotsnik (like Eldrad), you must choose which weapons you are using. Since you have to use a special weapon, and you must choose between 2 special ccw, you follow the rules for 2 different special close combat weapons.

Except this entire argument hinges on the lack of explicit permission to choose which weapons to use. If such a choice exists, then there is no conflict; simply pick two hand's worth of weapons, consult page 42, and apply the appropriate section for the weapon(s) selected.

You can't have it both ways, either a choice of weapons is allowed or it is not. One interpretation works within the RAW, the other renders impotent any model with more than two weapons, or else requires an illegal choice to be made simply to proceed with the game

So would Kharn then be immune to any grey knight in an army except the guy weilding a banner? Since he's immune to force weapons and all GK weapons are force weapons? They wouldn't be allowed to just punch him right?

Just curious

Is he immune to force weapons, or immune to the ID effect of force weapons?

If its the latter then they don't have to activate them. :-)

Of course they do. They have to make special attacks if they are able. p 35.

(See what insisting models with three weapons can't choose which ones to use gets you?)

The Gauntlets of Ultramar are two powerfists, so, he'd get the extra attack if he used them.

He wouldn't get an extra attack if he used the power sword, because he doesn't have two / a pistol. >.>

kmdl1066 wrote:Of course they do. They have to make special attacks if they are able. p 35.

(See what insisting models with three weapons can't choose which ones to use gets you?)

And if they hammerhand they aren't able.

Well played sir. But I trust you got the point of my rather facetious comment?

kmdl1066 wrote:Well played sir. But I trust you got the point of my rather facetious comment?

Not really. But whatever floats your boat.
I'm not in either camp really - my first post in the thread was responding to the query about kharn.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, you have one interpretation that entirely makes up rules - yours. You have no rules support for your position.

You then have one that doesnt make up rules, acknowledges that far from "not working at all" it works for a good 95% of the units out there, if not more, and for the 5% it doesnt work for taking the least powerful way to make it work, as ever, is the best solution.

No, you are given no allowance, NONE, to choose a set of two when equipped with 3 or more, so that character can not make any attacks...


That is not working at all.

For that character. For 95%+ of all units it does work. Meaning yiur unqualified statement is in error

Creeperman- firstly, well done on the wilful misunderstanding there. Least powerful is he nust choose which of thr two specials to use, denying the benefit of the bonus attack from ever applying

Orks is a 4th ed dex, so some of yiur argumebtun ad absurdum is voided- the 5th prohibitions didnt apply when he was releaased

It is pretty easy... the rules say there is a penalty for wielding two special CCWs which is no bonus attack ever. People think special characters with 2 SCCW should not get a bonus attack but somehow having a pocket knife allows them to get a bonus attack.

2 SCCW + 1 CCW is a subset of 2SCCW which is NO BONUS. Basically every model has:

*No SCCW
*1 SCCW
*2 or more SCCW

And we have rules for all 3 of those groups. Since you are forced to use SCCWs, the number of regular weapons has no impact as you can only ever get one bonus attack and you are forced to use the SCCWs.

It works just fine for people who are not trying to eek out a bonus attack when the rules clearly say models with two SCCW can never get a bonus attack.

To me it is quite clear that you can use any legal combination of wepons you want.

You can use a pistol and chainsword instead of a 2 handed power weppon, if so equiped. You are not forced to use the special weppon if you do not wish to. Just as with shooting you can choose to use any weppons you have paid the points for.

There is no logical reason why, say, you could take a plasma pistol and be able to use that but not use a bolt pistol.

Electro, you are forced to use a special weapon. The only time you can choose not to, is if you have a second special ccw, and you choose to use that one.

nosferatu1001 wrote:For that character. For 95%+ of all units it does work. Meaning yiur unqualified statement is in error

Creeperman- firstly, well done on the wilful misunderstanding there. Least powerful is he nust choose which of thr two specials to use, denying the benefit of the bonus attack from ever applying

Orks is a 4th ed dex, so some of yiur argumebtun ad absurdum is voided- the 5th prohibitions didnt apply when he was releaased

Aha! So there IS a legal choice to be made after all. Well then, no problem, just pick two weapons and consult page 42 for the appropriate combinations. If Grotsnik chose the slugga and 'urty syringe, he gets the bonus attack per a normal and a special weapon rules. The only absurdity in the argument would be claiming he's somehow forced to use the power klaw even when explicitly choosing not to use it, nor gaining the benefit of any of its properties.

Or, if you're hung up on the 4th edition part of the example, try this with Calgar (and no, the Gauntlets of Ultramar do not count as a single weapon, they're a matched set of power fists).

Creeperman wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:For that character. For 95%+ of all units it does work. Meaning yiur unqualified statement is in error

Creeperman- firstly, well done on the wilful misunderstanding there. Least powerful is he nust choose which of thr two specials to use, denying the benefit of the bonus attack from ever applying

Orks is a 4th ed dex, so some of yiur argumebtun ad absurdum is voided- the 5th prohibitions didnt apply when he was releaased

Aha! So there IS a legal choice to be made after all. Well then, no problem, just pick two weapons and consult page 42 for the appropriate combinations. If Grotsnik chose the slugga and 'urty syringe, he gets the bonus attack per a normal and a special weapon rules. The only absurdity in the argument would be claiming he's somehow forced to use the power klaw even when explicitly choosing not to use it, nor gaining the benefit of any of its properties.

Or, if you're hung up on the 4th edition part of the example, try this with Calgar (and no, the Gauntlets of Ultramar do not count as a single weapon, they're a matched set of power fists).

He has two special weapons and the rules say you never get a bonus as such is the penalty for wielding multiple special weapons. But somehow having a pocket knife makes wielding 3 weapons easier than two?

The rules work just fine for 3+ weapons without trying to exploit bonus attacks you shouldn't have. This thread has been fought thousands of times, actually with the exact same people posting in this thread who posted in those threads.

Neither side will budge without a GW FAQ which isn't gonna happen between now and 6th.

nkelsch wrote:
He has two special weapons and the rules say you never get a bonus as such is the penalty for wielding multiple special weapons. But somehow having a pocket knife makes wielding 3 weapons easier than two?

The rules work just fine for 3+ weapons without trying to exploit bonus attacks you shouldn't have. This thread has been fought thousands of times, actually with the exact same people posting in this thread who posted in those threads.

Neither side will budge without a GW FAQ which isn't gonna happen between now and 6th.

Makes a lot of sense, so if you have a third weapon you never get to use it, much more logic.

ToBeWilly wrote:You are correct. Oops. Two special weapons at the same time is when you never get the bonus attack. I retract my earlier post.

Two different special weapons..............................