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.

Hi, I am playing not very often and I am german.

I know this was a bad start for a post but anyway, I add this facts only to explain my bad riding or using of
wrong terms and my general lack of knowing the rules.

To come back to the topic I am a little let´s say confused about the use of DE-Splinterpistols in CC. Before i got the new codex my thoughts on this were clear = pistols are counting as second weapon in CC, granting + 1 attack and thats all.

But in the new codex there is a small text passage in the entry about the Lahmaean which makes me thinking.

You see (free translated because I have no english codex) "Mistress of toxins: All Toxic weapons (in ranged- and in close combat) wield by the Lhamaen and the Archon she is attached to are considered to be toxic weapons (2+)"

So you may ask whats his point ?

It´s crystal clear in the description !

But the problem here is the only melee weapon an Archon can wield is the venom blade which already wounds on 2+ !
[I looked 5 times trough the entire codex and found no melee toxic weapon which wound lets say on 3+ or 4+ exept for the weapons of the "Tortures" (don´t thik they are called so in english but it´s the correct translation of the german name) which are wounding on 4+ but can´t be wield by the Archon.]

So back to or little friend the splinterpistol which counts as weapon in CC and of course is a toxic weapon which wounds on 4+ !

Does this mean :

A)
The splinter pistol regardless who is wearing it wounds on 4+ in RC + CC ?

B)
The splinter pistol is only countig for an Archon with a Laemahn attached as wounding on 2+ in CC ?

C)
The splinter pistol does nothing of the above and counts as normal melee weapon so the text passage I meantioned earlier is totally pointless or a translation failure.

I mean I don´t know but when pistol speciallities are counting in CC than my Hagashin would wounding on 4+ also and that would be awesome !

Also whith this in mind:

What about shadowpistols ? Are they counting as energy weapons ?

Until now I never thought of that and I and treated every pistol equal in CC +1 attack and thats it.

Whats your opinion on this ?

Thanks for reading and answering

McMatzek

If I recall correctly the Splinter Pistol is only a close combat weapon while in a close combat. Being a ranged poison weapon it confers nothing when it is used in close combat. I know this is specified somewhere, likely the BRB, but I don't recall the exact passage unless its the one talking about Pistols in general.

Welcome to Dakka, McMatzek.

You are correct that pistols just count as an additional close combat weapon with no special abilities in an assault (p29).

I reviewed my DE codex and the Lhamaean rules' reference to close combat weapons appears to be an editorial error. As you've noted, the only poisoned CCWs Archons and Lhamaeans have access to are already 2+.

Maybe GW originally had a 4+ poisoned cc weapon available in the armory for Archons. Or maybe the rule was originally going to apply to the whole retinue, and Ur-Ghuls were going to have poisoned attacks. No way to be sure what they were thinking when they wrote it like that.

Mannahnin wrote:I reviewed my DE codex and the Lhamaean rules' reference to close combat weapons appears to be an editorial error. As you've noted, the only poisoned CCWs Archons and Lhamaeans have access to are already 2+.

Maybe GW originally had a 4+ poisoned cc weapon available in the armory for Archons. Or maybe the rule was originally going to apply to the whole retinue, and Ur-Ghuls were going to have poisoned attacks. No way to be sure what they were thinking when they wrote it like that.

Except Archons can take a power weapon or an agonizer, which both wound on a 4+.
The Mistress of Poisons spedial rule would make these weapons wound on 2+.
The Archon's splinter pistol would then also wound on a 2+ in the shooting phase.

Except Archons can take a power weapon or an agonizer, which both wound on a 4+.
The Mistress of Poisons spedial rule would make these weapons wound on 2+.

Wrong. These are not poisoned weapons so they are unchanged.

The only thing Mistress of Poisons does is allow the splinter pistols to wound on a 2+ at range. There is no effect in CC.

TW - these are NOT poisoned weapons, they jsut wound on a specific value.

nosferatu1001 wrote:TW - these are NOT poisoned weapons, they jsut wound on a specific value.

Power weapons also do not wound on a specific value at all.

I missed that - yes, the standard power weapons do not wound on a specified value.

nosferatu1001 wrote:TW - these are NOT poisoned weapons, they jsut wound on a specific value.

Woops! Thanks nosferatu! That's what I get for reading too quickly!

@Kommissar Kel, the Agonizer is a power weapon and it does wound on a specific value (4+).

You said power weapon OR an agoniser.

The normal power weapons do not wound on a specific value, the agoniser does, and neither are poisoned weapons.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You said power weapon OR an agoniser.

The normal power weapons do not wound on a specific value, the agoniser does, and neither are poisoned weapons.

Argh! Just re-read my post.
Never mind me, need to get another cup of coffee, brain not working at 100%!
Thanks for corrections.

No worries I've had the same day so I know what it's like...

Hi,

thanks you all for the fast answers even if they all negative

I have to admit that I had to knew that GW wrot complete rubish but no one mentioned it before so there was hope.

Thanks again

McMatzek

McMatzek wrote:Hi,

thanks you all for the fast answers even if they all negative

I have to admit that I had to knew that GW wrot complete rubish but no one mentioned it before so there was hope.

Thanks again

McMatzek

Yeah, they really didn't think this one through.