Does Eversor get a bonus attack?

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.

**KamikazeCanuck**

An Eversor has 4 base attacks but 2 close combat weapons so does he really have 5 attacks? The obvious answer would be yes but I just want to make sure because assassins can be weird.

**Valkyrie**

No, the Neural Gauntlet counts as a Lightning Claw, which you need two of to get +1A.

**KamikazeCanuck**

but he also has a pistol.

**kirsanth**

Which does not matter, as he has a Special weapon (that counts as a Lightning claw).

Editing to add:
Lightning claws require a second Lightning claw be used to get a +1 attack. Another weapon does not . . . cut it.

**Lightcavalier**

Read the section on special CCWs in the BRB. It you have a PF, LC, or TH you do not get a bonus attack for pistol/2 ccw.

**KamikazeCanuck**

Well, it's a good thing I asked.

**LightningGus**

Similar question so i'll post it here.

Does Eldrad get a pistol bonus attack when using his 2+ wound power spear in combat?

**nosferatu1001**

No, because he has 3 weaponbs including 2 special weapons. The ONLY place he gets to choose *which* special weapon to use is given in the 2 different special weapons rule, and you're told you can never gain the bonus attack

Of course some disagree, however they always gloss over that you have no rules letting you choose *what* special weapon to choose *unless* you read the 2 different special weapon rule, and THAT denies you from EVER getting the bonus attack.

**CrashCanuck**

That's the downside to a character having 3 CCW and 2 of them being special, Eldrad in this case counts as having normal weapon and special weapon A, normal weapon and special weapon B and two special weapons

They really should of just incorporated the wraithsword rules into his staff and made it ignore armor saves. Would of made things so much easier.

**Tri**

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, because he has 3 weaponbs including 2 special weapons. The ONLY place he gets to choose *which* special weapon to use is given in the 2 different special weapons rule, and you're told you can never gain the bonus attack

Of course some disagree, however they always gloss over that you have no rules letting you choose *what* special weapon to choose *unless* you read the 2 different special weapon rule, and THAT denies you from EVER getting the bonus attack.

and you team always glosses over the fact that two different special weapons is a sub rule of fighting with 2 single handed weapons so cannot be used without somehow selecting two weapons to be using and then looking on the list.

100% RAW models with three plus weapons can't do anything with them as there are no rules.

**Cheex**

Not this debate again

Though I find it hard to believe that Mary-Sue Calgar doesn't get +1 attack just because he decided to bring along a power weapon as well.

**nosferatu1001**

Yep, so when you have to make up rules to cover a situation, do you take the most or least advantageous interpretation of said rule?

There is only ONE way you can ever choose which special weapon to use, and that is under the "two special weapons" heading.

If people playing me want the extra attack - go ahead. However would I ever try to claim a bonus attack that has no justification in the rules and, in fact, goes against the rather heavy NEVER? No.

**Tri**

The least least advantageous interpretation? Then that would be they don't get any bonus. Now if we're talking about breaking the least rules then requiring a selection of weapons before fighting would, as it wouldn't break any. Where as jumping to "Two different special weapons" breaks its self as well as the main rule as you are not fighting with 2 weapons.

It also would seem massively odd giving these models a combination which could get a bonus attack.

**nosferatu1001**

How about "making the least amount of stuff up", then? Choosing 1 of 2 (or more) special weapons, and not getting the bonus, requires far less "making stuff up" than deciding you are allowed to pick a combination prior to that step, which is in fact making up an entirely new step in close combat

You know as well as I do that the rules are models-first, and Marny and Eldrad both masively predate the current rule edition. Attempting to claim intent there is pretty weak, no?

**Cheex**

nosferatu1001 wrote:How about "making the least amount of stuff up", then? Choosing 1 of 2 (or more) special weapons, and not getting the bonus, requires far less "making stuff up" than deciding you are allowed to pick a combination prior to that step, which is in fact making up an entirely new step in close combat

You know as well as I do that the rules are models-first, and Marny and Eldrad both masively predate the current rule edition. Attempting to claim intent there is pretty weak, no?

Not exactly; Marneus only gained that power weapon in the latest Marine codex, IIRC, which came out for 5th edition.

Though this could always be chalked up to "Ward did it"

Edit: I just realised you meant models. Still, the model for Marneus did have a power weapon before but I don't think he ever actually had it in his rules, at least since 3rd edition.

**nosferatu1001**

I did indeed mean that the models usually define the rules, and that marny has had that sword for a while now

Ward put it into the rules for the 5th ed C: SM book, but then never included rules on how to actually use it.

So you're left with: make the least amount of stuff up, and use the least advantageous interpretation possible. NEVER gaining the bonus attack handily meets BOTH those criteria, AND also meets the spirit of the rule (as indicated by ths "such is the penalty..." line)

**Tri**

Yakface wrote:The rules for fighting with two single-handed weapons on page 42 of the rulebook *ONLY* work if you assume that they refer to the combinations that the model is able to choose to utilize in that phase.

Why do I say that?

Because the list of combinations on page 42 of the rulebook is not exhaustive. For example, Marneus Calgar actually has THREE special weapons (two powerfists and a power weapon). Eldrad has two special weapons and one normal close combat weapon.

If you want to try to claim that these rules dictate how the model is forced to make his attacks, then the entire system breaks down because there are no rules for models with 3 special weapons or models with two special weapons and one normal weapon.

The only way the rules function as written is if you assume that the player controlling the model gets to choose which two weapons his model is going to use and then consult the rules for fighting with two single-handed weapons to see how those weapons work together.

So ultimately 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?

... quoted because he says it better then I do

**insaniak**

Cheexsta wrote: Still, the model for Marneus did have a power weapon before but I don't think he ever actually had it in his rules, at least since 3rd edition.

It wouldn't have mattered if it was included in his rules, since before the current edition he could have chosen which weapons to use in close combat, and having a power fist didn't disqualify him from bonus attacks.

**don_mondo**

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yep, so when you have to make up rules to cover a situation, do you take the most or least advantageous interpretation of said rule?

There is only ONE way you can ever choose which special weapon to use, and that is under the "two special weapons" heading.

If people playing me want the extra attack - go ahead. However would I ever try to claim a bonus attack that has no justification in the rules and, in fact, goes against the rather heavy NEVER? No.

YEp. Or when you have two rules that apply and one rule allows something and the second rule that disallows that same thing, which one wins? Disallowed. No +1 attack.

**Cheex**

insaniak wrote:
Cheexsta wrote: Still, the model for Marneus did have a power weapon before but I don't think he ever actually had it in his rules, at least since 3rd edition.

It wouldn't have mattered if it was included in his rules, since before the current edition he could have chosen which weapons to use in close combat, and having a power fist didn't disqualify him from bonus attacks.

What I'm saying is that it's therefore not a relic of previous editions that the designers forgot about/didn't care to change/thought we'd understand; he only gained that weapon combination in 5th edition. Which either implies that the combination intended for him to lose his attack, or the rules weren't intended to penalise models with three weapons.

**don_mondo**

Or they never thought of it................

**Cheex**

Which would be a subset of the second implication