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.

Kevin949 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

Happyjew wrote:So every single gun is a one-handed weapon, as they do not have the two-handed special rule?

By default yes. By introducing the "Two Handed" rule and applying to certain weapons you essentially define all others as single handed.

Please show me a ranged weapon with no melee profile that has the two handed rule...

not relevant to the discussion at hand

But, you're making it relevant by addressing the two handed rule. I was trying to show that the two handed rule only applies to melee weapons and has no bearing on ranged weapons which is why you can't classify ranged weapons as one or two handed when applying them to close combat. Unless they have a close combat profile as well.

No, I am not. What I am trying to say is that there is no such definition in the game, but since the game does define two-handed weapons it clearly implies that all others are one-handed as there is no other there possible option....except for 'Nids which I guess could have any number of handed weapons.

40k-noob wrote:
No, I am not. What I am trying to say is that there is no such definition in the game, but since the game does define two-handed weapons it clearly implies that all others are one-handed as there is no other there possible option....except for 'Nids which I guess could have any number of handed weapons.

I agree with this assessment, but it is only relevant to weapons that can be used in close combat (aka melee/pistol weapons).

ONLY CCWs COUNT FOR CC... that's why they're call (wait for it) CCWs.

Its like you guys have never played a game with rules before. They're not there to be selectively applied, they are there to be read and understood in their entirety (be that the entire sentence or the entire book).

yakface wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
No, I am not. What I am trying to say is that there is no such definition in the game, but since the game does define two-handed weapons it clearly implies that all others are one-handed as there is no other there possible option....except for 'Nids which I guess could have any number of handed weapons.

I agree with this assessment, but it is only relevant to weapons that can be used in close combat (aka melee/pistol weapons).

Fair enough. I can agree on that and combined with the shooting weapons can only be used in shooting phase it paints a pretty clear image.

40k-noob wrote:

Fair enough, I can agree to that.

So lets go back to pg 24. The rule says> +1 Two Weapons: Engaged models with two single-handed weapons get +1 attack.

Now the BRB specifically defines two handed weapons but not single-handed weapons, if as you say the rule set is permissive and specifically states what you CAN do then there is no such thing as a single handed weapon in the game correct?

Well, you're somewhat right. Single handed weapons aren't specifically stated but with the multitude of references to "single handed weapons, such as a melee weapon and a pistol" one can assume that all melee weapons are single handed unless specified with the two-handed rule. Again, it's a general "we didn't specify it but it's basically common sense to apply this" kind of logic that GW likes to use.

Lobukia wrote:ONLY CCWs COUNT FOR CC... that's why they're call (wait for it) CCWs.

Its like you guys have never played a game with rules before. They're not there to be selectively applied, they are there to be read and understood in their entirety (be that the entire sentence or the entire book).

A wise man once said. "Show me in the Rulebook where it says that."

I wasn't selectively applying anything. I have never played with Tac Marines getting +1A.
What I was trying to do was have a discussion to clarify a rule that seemed to me as missing something.

Forgive me but I was under the impression that this was what this forum was for.

40k-noob wrote:

Lobukia wrote:ONLY CCWs COUNT FOR CC... that's why they're call (wait for it) CCWs.

Its like you guys have never played a game with rules before. They're not there to be selectively applied, they are there to be read and understood in their entirety (be that the entire sentence or the entire book).

A wise man once said. "Show me in the Rulebook where it says that."

I wasn't selectively applying anything. I have never played with Tac Marines getting +1A.
What I was trying to do was have a discussion to clarify a rule that seemed to me as missing something.

Forgive me but I was under the impression that this was what this forum was for.

I agree with you, it's a bit ambiguous on the writing but again, coming full circle, if one applies the rule taking into account the section the rule is written in, one should conclude that the rule only specifies "melee" weapons and not "all" weapons.

Then you'd also have to listen to the actual replies 40k- noob The clear rules has been stated multiple times in this thread already.

A model without a CCW to begin with counts as having one. A Pistol counts as a CCW in close combat. So, if you have a pistol, you already count as having a ccw, thus you wouldnt be valid to count as having a "free" one.

A marine with ccw and bolter has a ccw, a marine with bolter and pistol has a ccw since the pistol counts as one, but a model with Bolter, CCW and PIstol has two, and thus gets +1 A

Kevin949 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

Lobukia wrote:ONLY CCWs COUNT FOR CC... that's why they're call (wait for it) CCWs.

Its like you guys have never played a game with rules before. They're not there to be selectively applied, they are there to be read and understood in their entirety (be that the entire sentence or the entire book).

A wise man once said. "Show me in the Rulebook where it says that."

I wasn't selectively applying anything. I have never played with Tac Marines getting +1A.
What I was trying to do was have a discussion to clarify a rule that seemed to me as missing something.

Forgive me but I was under the impression that this was what this forum was for.

I agree with you, it's a bit ambiguous on the writing but again, coming full circle, if one applies the rule taking into account the section the rule is written in, one should conclude that the rule only specifies "melee" weapons and not "all" weapons.

I just didnt want to assume it was one way or the other, hence this discussion. If you go one way it could be said, its an exploitation of the wording and cheating your opponent but if you go the other way you may be short changing yourself.

In any case, I am off work in 10 so I can now go play 40k game instead of posting about one. Have a good weekend folks.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, Posting at work? First it was posting at school, now this. What is this country coming to?

Lobukia wrote:ONLY CCWs COUNT FOR CC... that's why they're call (wait for it) CCWs.

Its like you guys have never played a game with rules before. They're not there to be selectively applied, they are there to be read and understood in their entirety (be that the entire sentence or the entire book).

Great. Cite the sentence that says what you're asserting in all caps please. Page and paragraph.

Tjolle79 wrote:Then you'd also have to listen to the actual replies 40k- noob The clear rules has been stated multiple times in this thread already.

A model without a CCW to begin with counts as having one. A Pistol counts as a CCW in close combat. So, if you have a pistol, you already count as having a ccw, thus you wouldnt be valid to count as having a "free" one.

A marine with ccw and bolter has a ccw, a marine with bolter and pistol has a ccw since the pistol counts as one, but a model with Bolter, CCW and PIstol has two, and thus gets +1 A

LOL i am going to leave this one alone.

rigeld2 wrote:

Lobukia wrote:ONLY CCWs COUNT FOR CC... that's why they're call (wait for it) CCWs.

Its like you guys have never played a game with rules before. They're not there to be selectively applied, they are there to be read and understood in their entirety (be that the entire sentence or the entire book).

Great. Cite the sentence that says what you're asserting in all caps please. Page and paragraph.

Well its in three spots. Page 50 under type (look at shooting and melee) the to page 51 under CCW. Right where you'd think it would be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I don't have book on me. So I can quote later for you if you can't find it.

I'd love for you to. My book isn't with me right now either (traveling) but I'm 99% sure it never spells out that only CC weapons can be used in combat.

There are lots of implications, and a statement that shooting weapons can only be used to shoot, but nothing that flat out says it like you said that it does.

40k-noob wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

Lobukia wrote:ONLY CCWs COUNT FOR CC... that's why they're call (wait for it) CCWs.

Its like you guys have never played a game with rules before. They're not there to be selectively applied, they are there to be read and understood in their entirety (be that the entire sentence or the entire book).

A wise man once said. "Show me in the Rulebook where it says that."

I wasn't selectively applying anything. I have never played with Tac Marines getting +1A.
What I was trying to do was have a discussion to clarify a rule that seemed to me as missing something.

Forgive me but I was under the impression that this was what this forum was for.

I agree with you, it's a bit ambiguous on the writing but again, coming full circle, if one applies the rule taking into account the section the rule is written in, one should conclude that the rule only specifies "melee" weapons and not "all" weapons.

I just didnt want to assume it was one way or the other, hence this discussion. If you go one way it could be said, its an exploitation of the wording and cheating your opponent but if you go the other way you may be short changing yourself.

In any case, I am off work in 10 so I can now go play 40k game instead of posting about one. Have a good weekend folks.

Ah on my ride home I suddenly remembered why pg 24 seemed off to me. Funny the things that come to mind when you take a break from something.
First off I am not trying to restart this whole discussion. This is purely academic at this point for me. It is just something that is at the back of my mind itching LOL

this is mainly directed to Rigid, Yakface and Kevin949 as I am most curious about their thoughts on this.

Pg 24 is THE rule that allows for a +1 attack and is specifically under the Heading "Number of Attacks." Pg 51 is not a rule, it is merely a notation reminding the reader of the rule on pg 24. No other page in the book matters, examples generally do not matter as they are examples and not rules.
So here is where i was coming from:
- The rule on pg 24 says you get +1 attack for having two single handed weapons.
- The rule on pg 24 doesn't say anything about the weapon having to be Melee type or CCW or anything other than "single-handed"
- The rulebook specifically defines two-handed weapons which leads to the conclusion that all other weapons are single-handed.

Because of the only stated requirement for a +1 A is having two single-handed weapons it seemed to me that many models would fall into that category.

Now I know that it has been pointed out, that Boltguns cannot be used in CC and I concede that, but the rulebook says that you can only ever use one weapon, so you can use the bolt pistol in CC but because a Tac Marine has two single-handed weapons(only using the pistol in CC) does it not get a +1 A?

Anyway I look forward to reading your thoughts on this. I am off to my game.

40k-noob wrote:- The rulebook specifically defines two-handed weapons which leads to the conclusion that all other weapons are single-handed.

This is a logical leap, but completely unsupported in the rules.

Again, people are applying logic to a GW rulebook >>

40k-noob wrote:
Ah on my ride home I suddenly remembered why pg 24 seemed off to me. Funny the things that come to mind when you take a break from something.
First off I am not trying to restart this whole discussion. This is purely academic at this point for me. It is just something that is at the back of my mind itching LOL

this is mainly directed to Rigid, Yakface and Kevin949 as I am most curious about their thoughts on this.

Pg 24 is THE rule that allows for a +1 attack and is specifically under the Heading "Number of Attacks." Pg 51 is not a rule, it is merely a notation reminding the reader of the rule on pg 24. No other page in the book matters, examples generally do not matter as they are examples and not rules.
So here is where i was coming from:
- The rule on pg 24 says you get +1 attack for having two single handed weapons.
- The rule on pg 24 doesn't say anything about the weapon having to be Melee type or CCW or anything other than "single-handed"
- The rulebook specifically defines two-handed weapons which leads to the conclusion that all other weapons are single-handed.

Because of the only stated requirement for a +1 A is having two single-handed weapons it seemed to me that many models would fall into that category.

Now I know that it has been pointed out, that Boltguns cannot be used in CC and I concede that, but the rulebook says that you can only ever use one weapon, so you can use the bolt pistol in CC but because a Tac Marine has two single-handed weapons(only using the pistol in CC) does it not get a +1 A?

Anyway I look forward to reading your thoughts on this. I am off to my game.

The first example given on page 24 (how many attacks marines get) shatters this idea and clearly reinforces that only weapons that can be used in CC contribute towards the +1A bonus.

Happyjew wrote:I'm just trying to understand your position here. Please forgive me.

A Space Marine Bolter is a one-handed weapon as it does not have the two-handed special rule. OK I'll bite.
Black Templar Bolters are listed under the Two-handed Weapons section of their Armoury. It also does not have the Two-handed special rule.
Is the Black Templar Bolter one-handed or two-handed, and if two-handed, why is it, and not any other SM variant?

It's really three handed, but they didnt point that out, because you know..cant let on about that mutation.

The second example(Slkugga-boy Orks) reinforces what Yak said.

There is no reading, along with the example(which Dakka Holds in deep regard), of this that cannot lead to "only Close combat weapons count for the number of Single handed weapons a model has for Bonus attacks(unless the weapon used has the "Specialist Weapon" rule)".

It actually says on Page 50 under Range that weapons with a range of - is, unless specified otherwise considered Melee type weapons. All other types are considered Shooting Weapons.

It then says that a Pistol can count as a Close Combat Weapon. Close combat Weapons is a "Melee" type weapon, hence the Pistol is a Melee weapon in this regard.

Then under "More than one weapon" on page 51.

"However, it's worth remembering that if ia model has two or more "Melee weapons" he gains +1 Attack in close combat"

I guess its one of those RAI vs RAW things

40k-noob wrote:I guess its one of those RAI vs RAW things

Except it's not. It reads the way they intended it. Now if you're like me and you missed some pivotal rules the first read through, you might misunderstand RAW, but it's all there.

 yakface wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
Ah on my ride home I suddenly remembered why pg 24 seemed off to me. Funny the things that come to mind when you take a break from something.
First off I am not trying to restart this whole discussion. This is purely academic at this point for me. It is just something that is at the back of my mind itching LOL

this is mainly directed to Rigid, Yakface and Kevin949 as I am most curious about their thoughts on this.

Pg 24 is THE rule that allows for a +1 attack and is specifically under the Heading "Number of Attacks." Pg 51 is not a rule, it is merely a notation reminding the reader of the rule on pg 24. No other page in the book matters, examples generally do not matter as they are examples and not rules.
So here is where i was coming from:
- The rule on pg 24 says you get +1 attack for having two single handed weapons.
- The rule on pg 24 doesn't say anything about the weapon having to be Melee type or CCW or anything other than "single-handed"
- The rulebook specifically defines two-handed weapons which leads to the conclusion that all other weapons are single-handed.

Because of the only stated requirement for a +1 A is having two single-handed weapons it seemed to me that many models would fall into that category.

Now I know that it has been pointed out, that Boltguns cannot be used in CC and I concede that, but the rulebook says that you can only ever use one weapon, so you can use the bolt pistol in CC but because a Tac Marine has two single-handed weapons(only using the pistol in CC) does it not get a +1 A?

Anyway I look forward to reading your thoughts on this. I am off to my game.

The first example given on page 24 (how many attacks marines get) shatters this idea and clearly reinforces that only weapons that can be used in CC contribute towards the +1A bonus.

Not all the examples in the Rulebook are exhaustive, however.

The example for charging through cover shows Eldar Guardians charging and describes how many dice they roll. It fails to take into account the fact that they can reroll the dice thanks to Fleet, which created some confusion in my gaming group.

 Alkasyn wrote:

Not all the examples in the Rulebook are exhaustive, however.

The example for charging through cover shows Eldar Guardians charging and describes how many dice they roll. It fails to take into account the fact that they can reroll the dice thanks to Fleet, which created some confusion in my gaming group.

Not mentioning that the Eldar unit *could* re-roll the dice if they wanted is not an omission, it is information unimportant to the example.

In the example I pointed out the whole point is to demonstrate how many attacks a model gets in close combat to illustrate how a model with two melee weapons gets +1A vs. models that don't (Marines with Bolters). The premise floated throughout this month-old thread is that somehow there is supposed to be a hidden bonus CC weapon that models can take advantage of if they have access to ANY other melee weapon in order to get the +1A bonus.

This is explicitly shown to be false in the example, by the very purpose and nature of the example.

Do examples sometimes omit irrelevant information? Of course, because they're just there to illustrate a specific point. But when an example clearly shows that regular Marines (ALL of which have bolt pistols) only get a single attack base, I think we can close the door on the fantasy that every model in the game automatically counts as having a free phantom CC weapon.