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.

Everyone must also remember that GW has often (and still does) rule in favor of modeling. An example would be vehicles, where if you show a weapon is mounted either on a hull or on a turret (when the vehicle entry does not state either way of course) then, how it is mounted is how it is played.

The same *can* be said of this. The model for the weapon is a two-handed model.

Most importantly though, since rules are absent on determining one way or the other (at least to a point where the majority of readers are happy with) then this *should* be something that is decided on a store by store or and opponent by opponent basis.

Ghaz wrote:And yet again, there are other 'special close combat weapons' than power weapons. It still does not mean that every special close combat weapon is single-handed. All that means is that if the model is using a single-handed normal weapon and a single-handed special weapon then those rules apply. They in no way, shape or form mean that all special weapons default to being single-handed.

Yes, there are other 'special close combat weapons,' many of which are detailed on that very same page. Some of them - such as the power fist - have special rules (as detailed on p. 42 beneath "a normal and a special weapon") that prevent them from gaining an extra attack unless paired with another weapon of the same type. Other special weapons, not detailed on p. 42 can be found in their respective codex wargear sections. For example - the relic blade has special rules preventing it from gaining a bonus attack from being used in close combat with another CCW. As Gwar! pointed out - there is nothing in the rules about the relic blade being a two-handed weapon, only in the fluff.

So, no - every single "special close combat weapon" is not single handed, but every single special close combat weapon has its own set of rules. Some of those rules bar particular weapons from being used with another CCW for a bonus attack (ie: relic blade). "Power weapons" have no such exception and therefore could be used with another weapon for a bonus attack in close combat.

@QuietOrkmi

It's an interesting idea, although I don't know that having an extra power weapon attack would be worth sacrificing a KFF or SAG - it is cheaper. Hell, throw an attack squig on him and you'll get 6 PW attacks on the charge out of a 70 pt HQ (before any other upgrades like armor/bosspole.) Not too shabby.

Big Mek, Big Power....I Love It!!!!!!

This "so many handed weapon" rule could pose some big problems. I mean Jamsessionein's converted ork warboss could probably hold 2 burnas in each hand and yet there is nothing to state this is illegal in the rulebook.

I was playing 40k last night / early this morning and went on an army builder... I found out that the army builder counts the Burna as an extra CC weapon because it gave the mek and extra attack in the profile...

QuietOrkmi wrote:I was playing 40k last night / early this morning and went on an army builder... I found out that the army builder counts the Burna as an extra CC weapon because it gave the mek and extra attack in the profile...

yes we know.

While it is right (this time) Army Builder should be the last recourse for any sort of rules question, after consorting a The Mad Oracle of The Mountain and then divining the correct answer from Sheep Intestines.

After all, the Rules Trump Army builder

DebonaireToast wrote:So, no - every single "special close combat weapon" is not single handed, but every single special close combat weapon has its own set of rules. Some of those rules bar particular weapons from being used with another CCW for a bonus attack (ie: relic blade). "Power weapons" have no such exception and therefore could be used with another weapon for a bonus attack in close combat.

And again, just because it could be used with another weapon in close combat is not saying it's a single-handed weapon. It must meet both of the following requirements:

A) It has no rules that prevent it from being used in conjunction with a normal weapon to gain an extra +1 Attack.

B) It must be a single handed weapon.

Just because it meets the first requirement doesn't mean it will automatically meet the second. Just because a power weapon can be used with a normal close combat weapon to provide an extra +1 Attack in close combat has no bearing on how many hands it takes to use.

Ghaz wrote:

DebonaireToast wrote:So, no - every single "special close combat weapon" is not single handed, but every single special close combat weapon has its own set of rules. Some of those rules bar particular weapons from being used with another CCW for a bonus attack (ie: relic blade). "Power weapons" have no such exception and therefore could be used with another weapon for a bonus attack in close combat.

And again, just because it could be used with another weapon in close combat is not saying it's a single-handed weapon. It must meet both of the following requirements:

A) It has no rules that prevent it from being used in conjunction with a normal weapon to gain an extra +1 Attack.

B) It must be a single handed weapon.

Just because it meets the first requirement doesn't mean it will automatically meet the second. Just because a power weapon can be used with a normal close combat weapon to provide an extra +1 Attack in close combat has no bearing on how many hands it takes to use.

No, it doesn't have to be a single handed weapon at all. Please show me where it says "it MUST be a single handed weapon". No, really. I'm not trying to be rude, but I do think you are a little stuck in 4th edition land.

All a weapon has to be is not a two handed weapon (as defined by the rulebook, and only used in older codexes). In this case, you have the Burna. It is not a Two Handed Close Combat Weapon, but is actually used as a power weapon, which is clearly described as giving an addition attack.

Tell us why you're using the rules for fighting with two single-handed weapons if you're not fighting with two single-handed weapons?

So yes, it must be two single-handed weapons as that would be the only time you'd use those rules.

By your logic Assault marines armed with chainswords and boltpistols would not gain a bonus attack. Their bolt pistol is defined as a one handed weapon in the "pistol" weapon description of the 40k rulebook,but there is nothing that I have seen in the current codex or rulebook that directly says that chainswords are single-handed weapons just "normal close combat weapons."

Same goes for orks armed with sluggas and choppas, and so on and so forth. In fact, that interpretation of the rules would effect just about every army,except, older codices such as Demon hunters/Witch Hunters/Dark Eldar.

Of course it would be nice for armies which generally fare poorly in assault, such as Imperial Guard and Tau....


EDITS: Arrrrrrghhhhh! Typos.

yes the title may be "Fighting with 2 Single handed weapons" but nowehere in the ACTUAL RULE does it say it has to be specified as Single Handed.

If we were to use your logic, Pistols would never give an aditional attack, as they do not count as Single Handed Close combat weapons:

Page 29 wrote:In addition a pistol counts as a close combat weapon in the Assault phase.

Page 37 wrote:+1 Two weapons: Engaged models With two single handed weapons (typically close combat weapon and pistol in each hand) get an extra +1 attack.

So there you go, Pistols are not Single handed, and therefore do not follow the rules for Fighting with, and I quote, "Two normal close combat weapons". While the Rules on page 37 Seem to suggest it is, the actuall rules for pistols (I assume they take preference) do not say they are, and therefore, they are not.

Notice the wording there, "typically a close combat weapon and/or pistol in each hand". it doesn't specify Single Handed Weapon there either.

In Short, if you are going to assert something has to be explicitly single handed to count for extra attacks, try to do it when the rules support it.

Actually Gwar!, you are correct. In my post I said that pistols were classified as single-handed weapons in the "Pistol weapons" rules on p. 29, but re-reading that it is evident that the passage:

BRB p.29 wrote:Pistol weapons are light enough to be carried and fired one-handed

is part of the fluff rather than a rule. My mistake.

So really - pistols (and most CCWs) are not classified as single-handed weapons.

EDIT: Doh!

Edited... Never mind, already caught it...

DebonaireToast wrote:Actually Gwar!, you are correct. In my post I said that pistols were classified as single-handed weapons in the "Pistol weapons" rules on p. 29, but re-reading that it is evident that the passage.

BRB p.29 wrote:Pistol weapons are light enough to be carried and fired one-handed

is part of the fluff rather than a rule. My mistake.

So really - neither pistols or most CCWs are classified as single-handed.

Yup, that's why I didn't reference it, because it is just fluff. Even if it were rules, it only says "fired one handed" and mentions nothing regarding its close combat ability.

Also, Yay! for typos, they spice up life and make people look silly.

insaniak wrote:Edited... Never mind, already caught it...

Awww I didn't see it! What was it! We wanna make fun of you! (please note I am not attempting to be hostile, or would you rather I place <sarcasm> tags around my posts?

Yay for typos indeed.

Doh!

Gwar! wrote:Awww I didn't see it! What was it! We wanna make fun of you! (please note I am not attempting to be hostile, or would you rather I place <sarcasm> tags around my posts?

It was just a response to DebonaireToast's post about Pistols being classed as single-handed. Was already redundant by the time I posted it, so I edited it out to avoid needless repitition.

insaniak wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Awww I didn't see it! What was it! We wanna make fun of you! (please note I am not attempting to be hostile, or would you rather I place <sarcasm> tags around my posts?

It was just a response to DebonaireToast's post about Pistols being classed as single-handed. Was already redundant by the time I posted it, so I edited it out to avoid needless repitition.

Ah, understandable. At least it wasn't anything stupid

This is all incredibly confusing, and I blame GW for it.

Gwar! wrote:At least it wasn't anything stupid

Had late nights the last two, and was still on my first cup of coffee for the morning, so it quite possibly was...

Grunt_For_Christ wrote:This is all incredibly confusing, and I blame GW for it.

Yup. And the reason for it is Greed. Plain and Simple. If they actually gave a toss about the players, they would have made the codex's living documents on-line a Long time ago, or at least re written the older ones without the fluff for on-line download as a stopgap. But hey, timing the codex release (each more broken than the last) with their ever increasingly overpriced models, makes moe money!

insaniak wrote:Had late nights the last two, and was still on my first cup of coffee for the morning, so it quite possibly was...

oh you! Silly Ozzies and their timezones!

You're absolutely right about the greed. GW hasn't been about gaming for years. I remember the day they went public and I knew it was over... The second you go public you become a whore to stakeholders who don't give a damn about anything except their short term profitability. You're absolutely right and I bet you and I could make the whole system work in no time!

DebonaireToast wrote:By your logic Assault marines armed with chainswords and boltpistols would not gain a bonus attack. Their bolt pistol is defined as a one handed weapon in the "pistol" weapon description of the 40k rulebook,but there is nothing that I have seen in the current codex or rulebook that directly says that chainswords are single-handed weapons just "normal close combat weapons."

Same goes for orks armed with sluggas and choppas, and so on and so forth. In fact, that interpretation of the rules would effect just about every army,except, older codices such as Demon hunters/Witch Hunters/Dark Eldar.

Of course it would be nice for armies which generally fare poorly in assault, such as Imperial Guard and Tau....

It's not my 'logic', it's what the rules say. Just because you don't like the result or it renders the rules unusable does not invalidate that is indeed what the rules say.

Gwar! wrote:yes the title may be "Fighting with 2 Single handed weapons" but nowehere in the ACTUAL RULE does it say it has to be specified as Single Handed.

Read as "... I have no logical answer to your position, so I'll just claim that it's not a rule." So once again, why are you using a section clearly listed for fighting with two single-handed weapons if your not fighting with two single-handed weapons? Your claims that it's not a rule is jusr a poor attempt to avoid the question.

Ghaz wrote:

DebonaireToast wrote:By your logic Assault marines armed with chainswords and boltpistols would not gain a bonus attack. Their bolt pistol is defined as a one handed weapon in the "pistol" weapon description of the 40k rulebook,but there is nothing that I have seen in the current codex or rulebook that directly says that chainswords are single-handed weapons just "normal close combat weapons."

Same goes for orks armed with sluggas and choppas, and so on and so forth. In fact, that interpretation of the rules would effect just about every army,except, older codices such as Demon hunters/Witch Hunters/Dark Eldar.

Of course it would be nice for armies which generally fare poorly in assault, such as Imperial Guard and Tau....

It's not my 'logic', it's what the rules say. Just because you don't like the result or it renders the rules unusable does not invalidate that is indeed what the rules say.

Gwar! wrote:yes the title may be "Fighting with 2 Single handed weapons" but nowehere in the ACTUAL RULE does it say it has to be specified as Single Handed.

Read as "... I have no logical answer to your position, so I'll just claim that it's not a rule." So once again, why are you using a section clearly listed for fighting with two single-handed weapons if your not fighting with two single-handed weapons? Your claims that it's not a rule is just a poor attempt to avoid the question.

So, why are you avoiding the fact that pistols are not defined as One handed CCW's, and by your logic shouldn't give the extra attack? Or do you conveniently ignore your own arguments when it suits you?

Seriously, all you have done is resort to attacks aginst me and others rather than reading the rules. Please stop.

Ghaz wrote: it's what the rules say. Just because you don't like the result or it renders the rules unusable does not invalidate that is indeed what the rules say.

That makes sense.

Except your argument seems to rest entirely upon the header to a set of rules, the opposing argument rests upon the rules themselves.

The real problem is way in which the rules were written: that is one thing I think that we can all agree on.

But I have a feeling that this thread is going to be needing some rusty spoons soon...

-- Do you believe a pistol and a Close Combat weapon combo gives an extra attack? Why?
-- Do you believe a choppa / slugga combo gives an extra attack? Why?

Does a flamer count as an extra CCW for a SM?
Is there anywhere in the rules that says a bolter is not an extra CCW?

My point is that the burna is a flamer weapon, which does not yield an extra CCW bonus, and so would not benefit one in return.

The fact it counts as a power weapon during a turn it does not shoot does not take away the fact it is still a flamer weapon called a burna.

Everything else is just semantics.

I don't think the burna gets the +1 for the pistol because the character is using the burna itself as the power weapon.

Gwar: I'd disagree only because you state the when the Burna is used in CC that it becomes a power weapon. It does not change its form, it still is a burna. When used, it Counts As a power weapon, it is not actually a power weapon. A burna, (or any gun as a matter of fact) is two handed. A boy is armed with a Big Shoota. Does he get the extra attack for a pistol? no, because he is wielding a Big shoota. Even if it's not a two handed weapon, you must combine a Close Combat Weapon with the Pistol for the bonus, whilst a burna is not a close combat weapon

Cryonicleech wrote:I don't think the burna gets the +1 for the pistol because the character is using the burna itself as the power weapon.

Gwar: I'd disagree only because you state the when the Burna is used in CC that it becomes a power weapon. It does not change its form, it still is a burna. When used, it Counts As a power weapon, it is not actually a power weapon. A burna, (or any gun as a matter of fact) is two handed. A boy is armed with a Big Shoota. Does he get the extra attack for a pistol? no, because he is wielding a Big shoota. Even if it's not a two handed weapon, you must combine a Close Combat Weapon with the Pistol for the bonus, whilst a burna is not a close combat weapon

Well the thing is, what you think and what the rules say are 2 totally different things. The Burna, when used as a Power Weapon, IS a Close Combat Weapon. If you claim that you cannot use the burna as a Close Combat Weapon, then you wouldn't be able to ignore armour saves, since a Power Weapon obviously must be a Close Combat weapon, otherwise it wouldn't be able to be used in the close combat phase.

A Boy doesn't get an extra attack with a big shoota because the big shoota doesn't have any special rules (like the burna) to say it is a close combat weapons (special or not) in the assault phase. The burna does, and that's why it does give the extra attack, when used as a Power Weapon in conjunction with another Close Combat Weapon as per the rules on Page 42.

Cryonicleech wrote:I don't think the burna gets the +1 for the pistol because the character is using the burna itself as the power weapon.

Gwar: I'd disagree only because you state the when the Burna is used in CC that it becomes a power weapon. It does not change its form, it still is a burna. When used, it Counts As a power weapon, it is not actually a power weapon. A burna, (or any gun as a matter of fact) is two handed. A boy is armed with a Big Shoota. Does he get the extra attack for a pistol? no, because he is wielding a Big shoota. Even if it's not a two handed weapon, you must combine a Close Combat Weapon with the Pistol for the bonus, whilst a burna is not a close combat weapon

Ah yes, delicious Flawed Arguments.

Why are you mentioning the Flamer? Does the Flamer have a special rule to say it counts as a Close Combat Weapon in the Assault Phase? No.
Does the Burna? Yes.

Secondly, why mention the Big Shoota? Does the Big Shoota have any rules saying it counts as a Close Combat Weapon in the assault phase? No
Does the Burna? Why, yes!

Also, you bring fluff into the argument (a big no-no ) by saying "It does not change its form, it still is a burna.". Well that is all fine and dandy, however we concern ourselves with rules here, and the rules say if you do not fire it, it counts as a Power Weapon in the Assault phase. Not a Two handed Power Weapon, not a Single Handed Power Weapon, but just a Power Weapon.

Now regarding you odd accusation that "counts as" means you can aplly as little of the rule as you want. The Burna "Counts as" a Power Weapon. If, by your logic, we also claim it "is not a close combat weapon" then, pray tell, how do we use it at all in the Assault Phase? I mean, I know its a power weapon, but if it isnt a Close Combat Weapon, we cant use its special ability in assault. This is utter nonsence, since the very fact it is a Power Weapon makes it a close combat weapon. If something "Counts as" something, you have to use all the rules regarding what it "counts as", not just some of them.

In this case, it counts as a Power Weapon, which, so long as it is not two handed, confers an extra attack when paired up with a second (non two handed) Close Combat Weapon.

So yes, you may disagree with me, but do you disagree with what the rules actually say?

Gwar, no one is saying a burna is not a CCW, we/they are saying it does not count as an extra CCW and so therefore would not benefit from an extra CCW.

For example, rifle butts (found on page 42 RB)*are* CCWs, and they are not listed anywhere in any codex. However, rifle butts are found on every rifle. So, a bolter, shoota,etc... are all CCWs, just 2-handed CCWs( also found on page 42 RB), and so do not benefit from extra CCWs. Just like how a flamer/bolter armed SM does not benefit from the pistol he carries around.

The fact the burna counts as a power weapon does not take away the fact it is *also* a burna, and therefor a two-handed weapon.

We all can read, and RAW can be read playing the semantics game too.

We get burna can = power weapon, which can = benefit from extra CCW.

But, the flaw in that RAW flow is that the burna is not a transformer, and does not change shape in CC. It is still a burna even in CC whether used as a power weapon or not.

Because going by that logic, you come to the conclusion that a burna must be an extra CCW because you can not have it cease benefiting from an extra CCW just because you shot the darn thing before charging.

Remember a CCW =/= an extra CCW. There *is* a distinction made found on page 42 first paragraph under the heading "FIGHTING WITH TWO SINGLE-HANDED WEAPONS".

EDITED for clarification

Cryonicleech wrote:I don't think the burna gets the +1 for the pistol because the character is using the burna itself as the power weapon.

Gwar: I'd disagree only because you state the when the Burna is used in CC that it becomes a power weapon. It does not change its form, it still is a burna. When used, it Counts As a power weapon, it is not actually a power weapon. A burna, (or any gun as a matter of fact) is two handed. A boy is armed with a Big Shoota. Does he get the extra attack for a pistol? no, because he is wielding a Big shoota. Even if it's not a two handed weapon, you must combine a Close Combat Weapon with the Pistol for the bonus, whilst a burna is not a close combat weapon

Hmm.. Well if you decide to bring FLUFF into this then it's gonna blow up in your face. Did you ever assume that if the burna is used in the shooting phase it unleashes a TEMPLATE produced attack? If so then when used as a power weapon why don't we used the template? Answer, the shooting attack is a large blast requiring both hands while the PW attack is a small but deadly attack that targets one model at a time (to the amount of attacks the model gets) and since it's smaller but more accurate and deadly, then why can't we assume* that it only requires one hand??

What would be harder? firing a lascannon or a laspistol but had the power to be a PW?