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.

RAW rough riders have to attack with the Chainsword to get the +1 attack, but my sleezy inner lawyer has enough moxie to say you can technically split 1 attacks into a 1 and a zero giving 1 to the lance and zero to the Chainsword, or split it 0.9 to 0.1 and achieve the desired effect. There is nothing in the rulebook about having to use whole numbers or positive numbers you just have to be able to apply the number to the rules so negative numbers would not work because there is no rules mechanism to apply negative attacks.

RAI= only whole positive numbers

 schadenfreude wrote:
RAW rough riders have to attack with the Chainsword to get the +1 attack

No, they don't. They never have in 8th edition.

"Each time the bearer fights, it can make 1 additional attack with this weapon." Not "Fights with the chainsword", simply "fights".

RaW doesn't mean "The way I think the rules work", it means "Rules as Written".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 schadenfreude wrote:
you can technically split 1 attacks into a 1 and a zero giving 1 to the lance and zero to the Chainsword,

There is nothing "technically" about it. The rules explicitly allow you to do this.

Page 183 BRB wrote:If a model has more than one melee weapon, choose which it will use before rolling the dice. If a model has more than one melee weapon and can make several close combat attacks, it can split its attacks between these weapons however you wish – declare how you will divide the attacks before any dice are rolled.

Hasn't this been FAQ'd yet?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Hasn't this been FAQ'd yet?

It doesn't need to be FAQed because the rules literally spell it out.

While I find Bacon insufferable and wrong about 95% of the time, he is correct in this matter.

Indeed. The condition is "the bearer fights". 8th Edition doesn't even have the restriction against using a Weapon's Special Rules if you aren't using the Weapon like 7th Edition had, which was the only way to properly counter it.

It is worth noting that almost every other weapon which has a similar rule is worded in the same fashion.

"When this model fights, it makes X additional attacks with this weapon".

Something like a Warpsmith with mechatendrils. The unit comes with a power axe as standard, and there's zero reason you'd want to use the far less effective mechatendrils, but their rules say "each time the bearer fights you may make two additional attacks with this weapon". The mechatendrils are garbage compared to the power axe - they're simply bonus attacks.

The chainsword is treated the same way.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Hasn't this been FAQ'd yet?

It doesn't need to be FAQed because the rules literally spell it out.

Which isn't what I asked now, is it?

Because if it had been, we can simply point peeps toward said FAQ.

It's not been FAQ'd, sadly. Otherwise I'd of posted the FAQ in the relevent thread, and not had this one up!

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
It's not been FAQ'd, sadly. Otherwise I'd of posted the FAQ in the relevent thread, and not had this one up!

What exactly needs clarification though?

A Rough Rider Sergeant has 2 attacks base, a Rough Rider has 1 attack base.
Both are equipped with a Laspistol, a Chainsword and a Lance. Their horses have hooves which can be used for an additional attack once the rider has attacked.

Rough Rider Sergeant
Has 2 base attacks which, if he charged this turn, can be allocate to either the chainsword or the lance. The lance is always a better weapon, so he picks the lance.
He is fighting, so he gets a bonus attack with his chainsword.
After he's done fighting, his horse lets him attack with it's hooves.

This means that in total, the Rough Rider Sergeant performs the following attacks with a WS of 4+:
2 Strength 5 AP-2 D3 Damage attacks
2 Strength 3 AP0 1 Damage attacks

Rough Rider
Basically the same as the Sergeant: 1 Base attack can be assigned to the lance on a charge, he also has a bonus chainsword attack as well as the horses hooves attack, resulting in the following attacks with a WS of 4+:
1 Strength 5 AP-2 D3 Damage attack
2 Strength 3 AP0 1 Damage attacks

Indeed.

And another +1 for "doesn't need an FAQ".

The only confusion comes from edition lag and assumption (assuming you need to allocate attacks to get the bonus attack). If you simple read and apply the rule it makes sense, works, and isn't debatable. Only bringing 7th ed baggage along makes it confusing or unclear. It's really simple and clearly written in this case if you just follow the words.

Given it’s literally a ‘frequently asked question’, FAQ is indeed needed, if only to clarify the obvious and put the question to bed.

You only have to look at past FAQ’s to see the nonsense some have tried to argue.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Given it’s literally a ‘frequently asked question’, FAQ is indeed needed, if only to clarify the obvious and put the question to bed.

You only have to look at past FAQ’s to see the nonsense some have tried to argue.

Fair dos! I guess you're right.

Anything for a nice, free flowing game not bogged down in rules arguments. Nothing runs my limited hobby time than an insistent opponent that can’t support their take with an FAQ. Even after the traditional roll-off has been won or lost.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Hasn't this been FAQ'd yet?

It doesn't need to be FAQed because the rules literally spell it out.

Is this not the epitome of a "Frequently Asked Question", though? "FAQ" doesn't just mean questions on rules that are inherently ambiguous, but ones interpreted to be so.

 Larks wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Hasn't this been FAQ'd yet?

It doesn't need to be FAQed because the rules literally spell it out.

Is this not the epitome of a "Frequently Asked Question", though? "FAQ" doesn't just mean questions on rules that are inherently ambiguous, but ones interpreted to be so.

Sad, but true.