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.

So the Fabricator claw is specified as a CC weapon, does adding it give you +1 attack?

Or, if you have a claw and a Particle Beamer (or cannon or whatever the nomenclature of the Spyders blast pew pew is) does that count?

Been wondering this because there has to be some reason they specified the Claw counts as a CC weap.

The Particle Beamer is not a pistol. If they were able to take the Particle Caster, then yes they would be able to get +1 attack.

Yeah that's kind of what I was thinking. I was thinking maybe because it is a monstrous creature it might work differently.

Is there a rule that specifically says it works differently?

There's your answer.

Well the fact that they bothered to say that a Claw was a CC weapon certainly implies something, but maybe it was just GW wasting inc. Also, the whole point of starting the thread is to check if I have missed something that would justify the specification.

Because you know, there's never anything ambiguous in a GW codex ever.

@ ShadarLogoth: Sorry, I'm on leave and don't have my Necron Codex on me. Even if the Spyder has more than 1 base attack, he can only gain the extra attack by having two CC weapons.Do they have any others listed in their Wargear?

Fafnir wrote:Is there a rule that specifically says it works differently?

There's your answer.

Is this some kind of exercise in Independence Training? Perhaps the not everyone has your encyclopedic knowledge of the 40K gaming universe, or 14+ years experience as a municipal DA to decipher the wording and precedence of this arbitrarily silly game. Why do you think people ask on an intranet forum in the first place?

ShadarLogoth wrote:Well the fact that they bothered to say that a Claw was a CC weapon certainly implies something, but maybe it was just GW wasting inc. Also, the whole point of starting the thread is to check if I have missed something that would justify the specification.

Because you know, there's never anything ambiguous in a GW codex ever.

It is called "open ended game design" and is a common practice in wargaming rules.. The intent beign to not have to go back and add in stuff to current material if you add somethign down the line that would make this important to know.

So for example designating the claw a cc weapon prevents having to go back and rule on it later or add in text saying it is a cc weapon if some new unit or option is added intot he game later that make knowing this important.

Say for example a new unit comes out that nullifies all enemy close combat wepaons making them unusable. If the claw did not state that it was a cc weapon it would be open to arguement if this new model nullified it, etc.

GW isn't one of the best at doing this consistantly, but this is an example.

This may have something to do with 6th Edition. As of right now, it doesn't do anything though.