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 now your deciding that a rule that you don't like is fluff? Grow up and admit that you're wrong. I'm done wasting my time here. I'm sure that the others can clearly see that all your doing is wasting their time as well.

Ghaz wrote:So now your deciding that a rule that you don't like is fluff? Grow up and admit that you're wrong. I'm done wasting my time here. I'm sure that the others can clearly see that all your doing is wasting their time as well.

And once again, when things don't go your way, you declare you are wasting your time.

Gwar! wrote:Show me where it says I cannot use two Combi Flamers as CCW in Close Combat.

You know better than that, Gwar.

'Doesn't say I can't' does not a rule make.


You don't get an attack bonus from combi flamers because there are no rules that say you do.

You do get an attack bonus from a pistol because the rules for pistols on page 29 say that you do.
You do get an attack bonus from a storm shield because the rule on page 37 says that you do.

Combi Flamers are not classed as single handed weapons. Nor are they classed as pistols, nor as normal close combat weapons, nor as any other type of close combat weapon. Nor do they have any other rules that would allow them to grant an attack bonus.

Show us, Little Troll, where it says a combi-flamer is a one-handed weapon, therefore fulfilling the requirements for the +1 A.

Besides, SM Sgts easily get +1 A from their BP/CCW with no need for combi-flamer shenanigans.

Tri wrote:GW can't right rules to save their lives.

anyone else see the irony here?

hmm the storm shield says it's not a weapon...It just takes up one hand since nothing else can be used by that hand... doesn't it need to be a weapon to give the + 1 attack?

Page 37 BRB

"+1 for two WEAPONS: Engaged models with two single handed weapons....."

Page 16 DHC
"although a storm sheild is not a weapon as such... it counts as a single handed weapon because nothing else can be used by the army holding the sheild"

I am pretty sure if I am reading this right... it IS not a weapon and can't be used to gain the benefit.

frgsinwntr wrote:Page 16 DHC
"although a storm sheild is not a weapon as such... it counts as a single handed weapon

There's the problem there.

Even though it's not a weapon, it counts as one.

The reason for the rule (ie: everything after the word 'because') is irrelevant so far as RAW is concerned. The rules say that it counts as a weapon, and so it counts as a weapon.



The reason being listed immediately after the rule does give a strong case for RAI... but that's really down to individual players, and how they choose to rule it.

Given how often it's likely to actually come up, I wouldn't really stress over it, personally.

However it goes on to say that it counts as a single-handed weapon "... because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield..." It's not irrelevant. It tells us why it counts as a weapon. Not because it can be used in close combat, but because the hand holding it can't be used for anything else, ie another weapon. Why bother saying that it's not a weapon if it is one?

Ghaz wrote:However it goes on to say that it counts as a single-handed weapon "... because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield..." It's not irrelevant. It tells us why it counts as a weapon.

The point is that why it counts as a weapon has no bearing on the rules. The rule on page 37 does not say that you get +1 attack for two single-handed weapons... except for those that only count as single-handed weapons for this reason... It simply grants the bonus for the weapon.

The storm shield counts as a single handed weapon. It therefore counts as a single handed weapon.

Why bother saying that it's not a weapon if it is one?

Because it's not a weapon. It's a shield.

If they didn't say that it counts as a weapon, people would be saying it doesn't grant a +1 because it's not a weapon...



Again, I've already said I personally wouldn't go with the +1 from it... just presenting the argument for it for the sake of completeness. There's enough evidence either way for it to be a grey area, so arguing that either side is clearly correct would be a mistake.

insaniak wrote:The point is that why it counts as a weapon has no bearing on the rules. The rule on page 37 does not say that you get +1 attack for two single-handed weapons... except for those that only count as single-handed weapons for this reason... It simply grants the bonus for the weapon.

However the rules for the Storm Shield do. It's rules say it only counts as a weapon so you can't use it with two single-handed weapons. Where does it say that it counts as a weapon so it can be used to provide the additional +1 Attack in close combat?

insaniak wrote:The storm shield counts as a single handed weapon. It therefore counts as a single handed weapon.

Except it only counts as a weapon for the reasons listed. where does it say that it counts as a single-handed weapon for any other reason?

insaniak wrote:Because it's not a weapon. It's a shield.

If they didn't say that it counts as a weapon, people would be saying it doesn't grant a +1 because it's not a weapon...

Then they would have said that it IS a weapon, not that it just 'counts as' a weapon for the specific reasons listed.

Ghaz wrote:However the rules for the Storm Shield do. It's rules say it only counts as a weapon so you can't use it with two single-handed weapons.

Not quite. They say it counts as a weapon because you can't hold anything else in the same hand. They do not say that it is the only reason.

But again, nothing in that statement over-rides the rule that grants +1 attack for having two single handed weapons.

Where does it say that it counts as a weapon so it can be used to provide the additional +1 Attack in close combat?

It doesn't need to. It counts as a single handed weapon... so it counts as a single handed weapon. And single handed weapons grant +1 attack.

Then they would have said that it IS a weapon,

No, they wouldn't. or at least shouldn't... since it would have been incorrect.

Again, it's not a weapon. It's a shield. It just counts as a weapon.


It doesn't count as a weapon for a specific reason. It counts as a weapon because of a specific condition. That condition being that nothing can be held in the same hand.

The fact that nothing else can be held in the same hand in no way precludes you from using it to whack someone if another rule allows you to do so.


But this argument is in grave danger of getting silly, particularly since I don't personally think (as I'm pretty sure I mentioned already) that this is the best way to play it. So I'm not going to waste more time arguing over a point that doesn't really matter and isn't likely to arise on the table anytime soon anyway.

Can you even equip anyone but a crusader with a storm shield?
It clearly says in witch hunters that the Storm Shield counts as an additional weapon that grants an attack.

insaniak wrote:
But this argument is in grave danger of getting silly, particularly since I don't personally think (as I'm pretty sure I mentioned already) that this is the best way to play it. So I'm not going to waste more time arguing over a point that doesn't really matter and isn't likely to arise on the table anytime soon anyway.

Yep cause the grand total of people that can benefit in the DH code are 4 inquisitors and up to 12 Acolyte. The Acolytes has to spend 10pts to gain +1 attack (with their las Pistol) and the inquisitors can do better.

And you know what If people want to use this glitch to give them an extra attack be my guest ... since you're wasting your time and points.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Can you even equip anyone but a crusader with a storm shield?
It clearly says in witch hunters that the Storm Shield counts as an additional weapon that grants an attack.

? where does it say that witch hunters can have a storm shield? They get the much worse Praesidium Protectiva that give one +4 inv save per turn in assault(yes it does also count as a weapon but still) Other then the Adepta Sororitas Heroine no one can make use of the extra attack ether because they already have 2 weapons (so can't take it) or because they have a 2 handed weapon. So out of the whole WH codex 2 models can get an extra attack.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nurgleboy77 wrote:Show us, Little Troll, where it says a combi-flamer is a one-handed weapon, therefore fulfilling the requirements for the +1 A.

Besides, SM Sgts easily get +1 A from their BP/CCW with no need for combi-flamer shenanigans.

Tri wrote:GW can't right rules to save their lives.

anyone else see the irony here?

Unless a weapon is listed as being one handed strictly by the rules you can't use a pair for an extra attack ... you're shown that Pistols are more then likely 1handed care to try that with Combat blades? ... but down this path lies madness if only GW could have mention the number of hands need ... Personally I'm going to RAI and if it looks like its meant to be a 1 handed CC it an get used that way (unless rules specifically say other wise)

@Tri: Have you seen the crusader in the Witch Hunter retinue. It gets a storm sheild which provides a 4+ invo save and counts as an additional close combat weapon.

Actually it's a "Suppression Shield" and, much like the Prasidium Protectiva, although it reeeeally sounds like a Storm Shiled, the different name (and slightly different rules) makes it almost useless in a RAW argument.

oh, ok. Sorry. Bit muddled here. I don't know anything about Storm Shields at all then. I don't think they count as an additional close combat weapon though (unless it expressly says so.)

Gwar is wrong.

Frank Fugger is right.

I'm a bit late, though.

You are always late.

G

A combi-flamer does not grant an extra attack in CCW because it is a Rapid Fire type weapon.

It tells you specifically in the wargear listing for combi-weapons that they are bolters with an extra bit on them. You use the regular bolter rules in addition to relevant rules for the type of combi-weapon you have chosen to have added to your bolter.

Kaaihn wrote:A combi-flamer does not grant an extra attack in CCW because it is a Rapid Fire type weapon.

It tells you specifically in the wargear listing for combi-weapons that they are bolters with an extra bit on them. You use the regular bolter rules in addition to relevant rules for the type of combi-weapon you have chosen to have added to your bolter.

... Codex SM doesn't call bolter 2 hand weapons ether .... so i combine the bolter butt and a pistol +1 A? No this is the trouble with GW leaving out the number of hands needed. Hell even power weapons aren't listed as being 1 handed ...

The Weapon Type Summary chart tells you that Pistols count as an additional weapon in close combat. Rapid Fire, Assault, and Heavy weapons do not have this entry, and therefore do not count as an additional weapon in close combat.

You are going with the assumption that every ranged weapon counts as an additional weapon in close combat unless specified not to. I believe the reverse is true, that no ranged weapon counts as an additional weapon in close combat unless it specifically tells you it does. The Weapon Type Summary chart confirms that, in my opinion.

I'd just like to add that in all likelihood if you have a storm shield the other weapon is a Thunder Hammer. You can only get bonus attacks with TH's if both CCW weapons are thunder hammers. I realize other combinations are possible, just chiming in.

I didn't realize one COULD carry 2 combi-flamers.....
Holy burning awesome.

We're going round in circles here; trust me, there is no RaW answer to this. The only reason DH models with Storm Shields don't get a bonus attack is because the intent is for SSes not to grant a model an extra attack. According to everything in the RaW, a DH model with a Storm Shield gets a bonus attack. There simply is no written rule that denies it; believe me, I know, I've been thumbing through everything for months on end trying to find one. If it was there to be had, I'd have it.

It just ain't.

Gwar! wrote:No, if Combi Flamers cannot be used in CC as they are not defined as CC Weapons, neither can Storm Shields, as they too are not defined as Close Combat Weapons. They are just Wargear that counts as a weapon for the purposes of how much wargear a model can hold.

Being a one handed weapon does not mean they are automatically close combat weapons. You are taking rules in a vacuum and trying to make it work.

Once again, pg.37 doesn't say that a model has to be equipped with two one-handed CCWs to benefit from the bonus attack, just that it has to have two one-handed weapons. Since Nemesis Force Weapons are one-handed, swapping a BroCap or GM's Stormbolter for a Storm Shield gives him the requisite of two one-handed weapons, ergo he gets a bonus attack.

Tri wrote:oh that all ... the answers easy ... grey knights can't use them because they're a Weapon and Grey knights can only use there stand weapons. Also they can only carry 2 weapons so couldn't take a third if they wanted

Grey Kights (i quote) in power armour can only choose items from the wargear list

That's fine for Justicars; what about Brother-Captains and Grand Masters? Or Inquisitors/ Lords and Acolytes? Or Veterans in IST squads?

Tri wrote:Acolyte can only take 15pts of war gear you want to spend 10pts of that to get an extra attack from the las-pistol? Cool be my guest

No, you spend it to give your Acolyte a 4++ save in CC, which gives your Inquisitor/ Lord another wound with a 4++ save. There really is no better way to kit out an Acolyte other than with survival gear, because their profile is so appallingly bad that anything else is just a complete waste of points (WS3 S3 power weapon? No. BS3 ranged weapon? Pfft).

Veteran Strom trooper has a hell gun (2 hand weapon) so couldn't get another CC attack

He has armoury access and thus can be given anything. You can give him up to 100pts of wargear in fact, so a PW/ SS Vet ain't out of the question. Hell, you could give him a Thunder Hammer too if you wanted to. It'd be stupid, but not impossible.

Gwar! wrote:Huh? How does "Normal Close Combat Weapons" have anything to do with it? It is not a Normal Close Combat Weapon at all. It is not a Close Combat Weapon PERIOD. It is no more a Close Combat Weapon than a Combi Flamer is. If you get a bonus attack for StormShield and Pistol, I get Bonus attacks for having 2 Combi Flamers on my Tactical Squad Sergeant.

Except you don't, because whereas the Storm Shield is stated to count as a single-handed weapon, and the rule only requires a model to be armed with two single-handed weapons to gain a bonus attack in CC, I get +1A and your Combi-Flamer man, whose Combi-Weapons aren't stated to count as single-handed weapons, doesn't.

The difference is that the NFW/ SS bloke has RaW on his side, in that he can point to segments of text that support his bs, whilst you don't.

Tri wrote:Combi flamer can be used as a CCW trouble is its a 2 handed riffle butt (alla Normal CCW)

No, there's nothing anywhere that says a Combi-Weapon counts as a one-handed or two-handed weapon, and as someone else has already pointed out just because it doesn't say you can't, doesn't mean you can. 40K RaW is written inclusively, not exclusively, and as such the absence of forbiddance isn't necessary to prevent something being possible. If it was, why can't I reroll any failed D6 rolls I make? Doesn't specifically say you can't, to the best of my knowledge, so why can't I do it?

DarkHound wrote:No, BRB simply says you don't. Thunder Hammers can't get the bonus if there isn't a Thunderhammer in his other hand. He can have a Thunder Hammer and a pistol and he wouldn't get the bonus.

I hadn't thought of this; no more 4 attack TH/ SS GKTs!

Deffgob wrote:Do I really have to say this again? The BRB doesn't say a model with 2 one-handed weapons gets a second attack. That's the title of the section, but what the rule says is "A model with 2 normal ccw's gets a bonus attack." Please, please don't bring up the "if it doesn't say 1handed, it's 2handed" argument, it makes me lose hope...

That's not what the BRB says at all. Read it, page 37, 4th paragraph down (it's the 2nd bulleted paragraph). You'll see why people try to pull this gak; and why, unfortunately, they can get away with it too.

Let's face facts here; for any army whose close combat attacks ran along normal lines this wouldn't even be an issue. Given the fact that pretty much every DH model that can take advantage of this garbage is toting either a) a WS5 S6 power weapon that strikes in Initiative order, b) a fething WS5 S6 I5 Force Weapon that kills outright and thus ignores Eternal Warrior, or c) a WS5 S3 I5 Force Weapon that can be master-crafted and does the same, plus gains a nice 4++ save in CC, and you've got the makings of a gakky day for any ICs or MCs. Vehicles, even; nobody wants S6 attacks pounding the rear armour of their vehicles, and extra ones just make things worse. The problem is, what can you do about it without referring to precedent (nobody else gets +1A from a Storm Shield) or intent (because you're not fething MEANT to get +1A from a Storm Shield)?


PS: If you think that's is bad, check this gak out; Grey Knights LRs/ LRCs, in addition to having fething broken Smoke Launchers (downgrade all Penetrating hits to Glancing whilst active; Codex creep strikes again), can also use their PotMS to fire a single weapon when they activate them.

DH Codex smoke launcher description says: "The vehicle may not fire any other weapons in the same turn as it uses the smoke launchers..."

DH FAQ PotMS says: "The vehicle may always fire one more weapon than would normally be allowed..."

Fun army, eh?

Page 16 DHC
although a storm sheild is not a weapon as such... it counts as a single handed weapon because nothing else can be used by the army holding the sheild

Now if the rule just said this:

"although a storm sheild is not a weapon as such... it counts as a single handed weapon."

You have RAW for having a +1 attack in all your shield bashing glory. It tells you to treat the shield as a single handed weapon without ANY conditions regarding it's use.

However the rule specifically has a condition attached to the above statement of why you treat it as a single handed weapon:

"because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield."

It gives you the exact reason why you count it as a single handed weapon. Since the 40k rule set is permissive, you have to read the RAW and not then assume that you get the +1 attack just because it doesn't say you don't. You are specifically given the reason for treating it as a one handed weapon and that reason does not include getting +1 attack.

Sorry Frank Fugger but there's no option in the codex to remove wargear so once a model has some thing they're stuck with it and since there's a 2 weapon limit only the inquisitors and acolytes can take and make use of them

Brother Ramses wrote:

Page 16 DHC
although a storm sheild is not a weapon as such... it counts as a single handed weapon because nothing else can be used by the army holding the sheild

Now if the rule just said this:

"although a storm sheild is not a weapon as such... it counts as a single handed weapon."

You have RAW for having a +1 attack in all your shield bashing glory. It tells you to treat the shield as a single handed weapon without ANY conditions regarding it's use.

However the rule specifically has a condition attached to the above statement of why you treat it as a single handed weapon:

"because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield."

It gives you the exact reason why you count it as a single handed weapon. Since the 40k rule set is permissive, you have to read the RAW and not then assume that you get the +1 attack just because it doesn't say you don't. You are specifically given the reason for treating it as a one handed weapon and that reason does not include getting +1 attack.

This is the way I approached it at first, because the RaW for gaining +1A sort of relies on ignoring that last sentence. Thing is, it apparently says somewhere (no BRB on me, but it's been shown to me by a +1A-scamming arsewipe) that an item which "counts as" something will "count as" that something for all purposes. That's why all the Storm Shield-having Dexes that came out after the DH one are at pains to specify that a model with an SS can't ever gain the +1 attack bonus for being equipped with two one-handed weapons; in fact I believe the current C: SM goes a step further and actually removes the reference to SSes being one-handed weapons, and you've got to figure that this bs is the reason they did so.

It also leads us onto another, slightly less defensible, argument used by +1A scammers; the WH Codex came out at the same time and contains the Praesidium Protectiva, which is for all intents and purposes a Storm Shield for the Sisters. The wargear description specifically states that a model doesn't get the +1A bonus, and the scumbags will ask you why, if one 3rd Edition Codex contains this proviso, another one (which was created later) doesn't... unless the intent was for DH SSes to grant +1 Attack. There's no RaW to back this up, it's all RaI speculation, but it's a point.

Tri wrote:Sorry Frank Fugger but there's no option in the codex to remove wargear so once a model has some thing they're stuck with it and since there's a 2 weapon limit only the inquisitors and acolytes can take and make use of them

There doesn't need to be an option to remove wargear; new wargear is simply placed on top of the old. In the case of weapon swaps, this forces you to remove a weapon in order to replace it with another one (since a model can only have 2 weapons total). There are weapon options that Grey Knights in Termie Armour (so, Brother-Captains and Grandmasters basically) can choose, such as the Anointed Weapon and Daemonhammer; wouldn't it be a bit pointless to make this distinction if you weren't allowed to replace wargear on GK Heroes?

no rules for weapons swaps ... you are making up a rule to explain GW's poor rule writing.

This is the way I approached it at first, because the RaW for gaining +1A sort of relies on ignoring that last sentence. Thing is, it apparently says somewhere (no BRB on me, but it's been shown to me by a +1A-scamming arsewipe) that an item which "counts as" something will "count as" that something for all purposes. That's why all the Storm Shield-having Dexes that came out after the DH one are at pains to specify that a model with an SS can't ever gain the +1 attack bonus for being equipped with two one-handed weapons; in fact I believe the current C: SM goes a step further and actually removes the reference to SSes being one-handed weapons, and you've got to figure that this bs is the reason they did so.

Of course it would "count as" for all intents and purposes if there wasn't a conditional statement. However the specific inclusion of the conditional statement clarifies exactly why and how it "counts as" as single handed weapon. The specific exclusion of any of the other bonuses associated with having it "count as" a single handed weapon for all intents and purposes furthermore reinforces that it does not give a +1 attack and also lands along the prevalent trend with the 40k permissive ruleset.

It also leads us onto another, slightly less defensible, argument used by +1A scammers; the WH Codex came out at the same time and contains the Praesidium Protectiva, which is for all intents and purposes a Storm Shield for the Sisters. The wargear description specifically states that a model doesn't get the +1A bonus, and the scumbags will ask you why, if one 3rd Edition Codex contains this proviso, another one (which was created later) doesn't... unless the intent was for DH SSes to grant +1 Attack. There's no RaW to back this up, it's all RaI speculation, but it's a point.

You cannot use the "since it doesn't say I can't, so I can" argument within the 40k permissive ruleset. It is much easier not only explaining but playing to have a permissive ruleset that tells you the few things you are allowed rather then the vast, vast amount of things you are NOT allowed to do.

In addition, WH are not DH which are not Orks which are not SM which are not Daemons which are not Nids, etc, etc, etc. The lack of or addition of wording within one codex has zero bearing or foundation of argument of another codex.

Brother Ramses wrote:Of course it would "count as" for all intents and purposes if there wasn't a conditional statement. However the specific inclusion of the conditional statement clarifies exactly why and how it "counts as" as single handed weapon. The specific exclusion of any of the other bonuses associated with having it "count as" a single handed weapon for all intents and purposes furthermore reinforces that it does not give a +1 attack and also lands along the prevalent trend with the 40k permissive ruleset.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner

Brother Ramses wrote:Of course it would "count as" for all intents and purposes if there wasn't a conditional statement. However the specific inclusion of the conditional statement clarifies exactly why and how it "counts as" as single handed weapon.

No it doesn't.

The 'because' in that sentence means that what follows after is a reason, not a limitation. It defines why the weapon is single handed. It doesn't define the conditions under which it is so. It defines the condition that causes it to be so.

If it said that the shield counted as a single handed weapon for the purposes of determining how many weapons the model is carrying then you would have a limitation.

The rule as written has no such limitation. All it tells us is that the shield counts as x because of y.


Besides which, even if we assume that the reason listed applies a limitation, it's a limitation that is meaningless. Being able to carry something else in the same hand is not listed anywhere in the assault rules as affecting whether or not a model gets an extra attack for a weapon.

So the fact that the model can't carry anything else in the same hand as the storm shield has no effect whatsoever on whether or not it grants an extra attack. Models generally can't carry anything else in the same hand as a chainsword either... but they still get an extra attack from having it.