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.

uuummm let me rephrase this so people can move on.....


DH WH AND OTHER CODEXS REFER TO THE STORMBOLTER AS 2 HANDED IN THE WARGEAR SECTION!!!


that is all

While that seems like a valid way to find RAI via precedent, RAI is really only applicable if there is ambiguity.

Storm bolters have nothing to do with CCW as they are not a pistol. Its as simple as that really.

Dracos wrote:While that seems like a valid way to find RAI via precedent, RAI is really only applicable if there is ambiguity.

Storm bolters have nothing to do with CCW as they are not a pistol. Its as simple as that really.

I agree that it doesnt have to be a pistol to count as a ccw, it just has to be a 1 handed weapon.......however we have seen that a Stormbolter is a 2 handed weapon, and the only thing that can change the ruling is a special rule like "True Grit"

DJ Illuminati wrote:however we have seen that a Stormbolter is a 2 handed weapon,

...in certain codexes.


Not that it matters. In the other codexes, it is not defined as single handed, nor as a pistol, nor as a CCW. So it doesn't confer the bonus attack.


I believe Ghaz's point isn't that the storm bolter should confer the bonus, but is rather a more generic point that the close combat weapon rules are a mess since most weapons aren't actually specifically defined as single-handed, and both page 37 and page 42 specify that they need to be single-handed weapons to confer the attack bonus.

So by RAW, whilst pistols confer the bonus attack (as they are defined as single-handed) most close combat weapons currently in the game don't (because they are not so defined).

Regardless, Storm Bolters most definitely don't confer the bonus.

insaniak wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:however we have seen that a Stormbolter is a 2 handed weapon,

...in certain codexes.


Not that it matters. In the other codexes, it is not defined as single handed, nor as a pistol, nor as a CCW. So it doesn't confer the bonus attack.


I believe Ghaz's point isn't that the storm bolter should confer the bonus, but is rather a more generic point that the close combat weapon rules are a mess since most weapons aren't actually specifically defined as single-handed, and both page 37 and page 42 specify that they need to be single-handed weapons to confer the attack bonus.

So by RAW, whilst pistols confer the bonus attack (as they are defined as single-handed) most close combat weapons currently in the game don't (because they are not so defined).

Regardless, Storm Bolters most definitely don't confer the bonus.

Agreed........

Ghaz wrote:

Pika_power wrote:Okay, two single-handed weapons will give you your attack bonus. However, we have a permissive rule set here. You must now prove that stormbolters are classed as single handed.

Prove to me that they're two-handed? Seems to me you can't prove your position any more than someone can prove otherwise. That's been my position all along. The rules don't tell us how many hands they take to use.

I do not have to prove that they are two handed, as the rule affects you if you are single handed, not if you are not two-handed.

Again, the rule set is permissive, so you cannot make the assumption that storm bolters are single handed. You need to find where it says in writing that storm bolters are single handed.

Everyone seems to believe that a weapon is either two handed or single handed, but I'd like to propose another explanation. Some weapons are light enough/designed to be used in one hand effortlessly. These are single handed. Others are bulky/complex and require two hands to operate. Everything not specified is neither light enough to be used effortlessly nor complex enough to warrant two hands all the time. It's just a fluff explanation pulled out of my rectum, but I'm just showing that you cannot assume that if it is not double handed it is single handed. They're specifications that can go on any weapon, like Heavy, Assault or Pistol.

funnily enough Pika_power's "fluff explanation pulled out of [his] rectum" is actually extremely accurate, you can't assume facts about weapons that aren't provided and as such, by RAW, a weapon which is neither stated to be one handed or two handed is neither, call it 1.5 handed, call it x handed, whatever you want.

The fact is, if it doesn't say it's 1 handed, you don't get the benefits a 1 handed weapon offers, if it doesn't say it's 2 handed, you don't suffer the restrictions of 2 handed weapons (although that doesn't necessarily mean you get any benefits for a 1 handed weapon).

I agree it's ridiculous, and I don't play like this and I am sure almost nobody does play like this, and to the best of my knowledge the common accepted practice is to either apply common sense with regards to what the weapon actually is, or say pistols and close combat weapons are all 1 handed and are the only 1 handed weapons unless something is said to the contrary in the weapon description.

DJ Illuminati wrote:The wargear section of the DH codex states that the Stormbolter is a 2 handed weapon.... cant get any more specific than that.....

Exactly - in the few imperial codexes that still specify handedness, the storm bolter is two handed. In the newer codexes there is no handedness. Either way, a storm bolter is definately not single handed.

Ghaz - are you really going to argue for single handed status based on the model? Because in that case, I can make all of my marines hold their bolters in one hand. I could even make a whole army using official models that have the bolter held in one hand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Drunkspleen wrote:
I agree it's ridiculous, and I don't play like this and I am sure almost nobody does play like this, and to the best of my knowledge the common accepted practice is to either apply common sense with regards to what the weapon actually is, or say pistols and close combat weapons are all 1 handed and are the only 1 handed weapons unless something is said to the contrary in the weapon description.

But, you don't need to assume anything. Pistols can be used as a CCW. Two CCWs gives you +1A. It works fine without handedness.

Handedness is irrelevant except for a couple of very esoteric weapons (like the calidus neural shredder)

I think everyone apart from Drunkspleen has missed what Ghaz is arguing (I think....) - that the "handedness" is undefined, and not that he is arguing one way or another.

If you are not defined as 1 or 2 handed you have no information as to ihow many hands you take. This means no advantages or disadvantages can be inferred.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I think everyone apart from Drunkspleen has missed what Ghaz is arguing (I think....) - that the "handedness" is undefined, and not that he is arguing one way or another.

If you are not defined as 1 or 2 handed you have no information as to ihow many hands you take. This means no advantages or disadvantages can be inferred.

I think you've hit the nail on the head here. I actually agree that Ghaz has a point in that the rules are incredibly ambiguous. Insaniak summed up well I think.
Yes, single-handed weapons qualify for the +1 attack bonus (excluding powerfist etc etc).
Yes, very few weapons are defined anywhere as being either single-handed or two-handed.
Yes, this is a pain for RAW.

However, I think Ghaz is so invested in being right that he's made a few howlers, like insisting that a 5th Edition FAQ which contains the same information as a 4th Edition FAQ must somehow be invalid. Unfortunately this means that there ends up being argument for the sake of argument.

If there's no information as to whether your weapon is single- or double-handed, you would certainly be incorrect to claim an advantage for it being in whatever class is most convenient to you. Especially so when there are specific parts of the rules such as the Pistol rule which do specify when such advantages are gained.

But plenty of other posters, including me, have agreed that two single-handed weapons can give a bonus.

But it makes no difference except for old codexes. New codexes have no definition of handedness so they can only get +1A from two CCWs/Pistols. Old codexes can get the bonus for odd bits of wargear like the calidus neural shredder.

Unless your codex has weapons identified as single or double handed then the bonus for 2x single handed weapons will never apply to your army.

It certainly has no bearing on terminators' storm bolters. There is no mention whatever in the marine codex of storm bolters being single handed weapon. In old codexes stormbolters are clearly marked as double handed weapons.

As for the termie model, termies have always been like that, even when storm bolters were defined as double handed weapons. Just because they can shoot it one handed doesn't mean that they can use in combat.

Scott-S6 wrote: Two CCWs gives you +1A. It works fine without handedness.

Or it would, if page 42 didn't specify that the bonus comes from weilding two single-handed CCWs, not just from having two CCWs.

insaniak wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote: Two CCWs gives you +1A. It works fine without handedness.

Or it would, if page 42 didn't specify that the bonus comes from weilding two single-handed CCWs, not just from having two CCWs.

The problem with that is that Normal CCW and Pistols and Power Weapons and even Power Fists are never defined as Single handed and that reading of the rules means Pistol+CCW does not result in +1 attack.

Exactly.

I know this is an opinion rather than a rule to finish this (apologies) but this thread is rediculous! StormBolters are two handed, always have been and have never confired a +1 attack.

Back in the day the description for terminator honours explained that due to the extra training etc they recieve to handle their weapons they recieve +1A. There you go. No current rule as written (that I know of) but for those who want to try arguing they should because the models are held one handed/use riffle butts etc, they do and already have that A in the form of termyinator honours.

Anything different will be stated in the army's codex.

Yeah, I'm agreeing that there are a lot of weapons out there that are not defined as either one-handed or two-handed, and after looking more closely at the rules it's going to be impossible to determine whether they can count as a single-handed weapon for the +1 attack.

I'm also thinking this is going to cause headaches for Eldar. As someone who has always argued that the Staff of Ulthamar is a single-handed weapon because it's not defined as two-handed, I'll now have a hard time explaining why space marines then can't also put a bolt pistol in one hand and a boltgun in the other hand and get +1 attack.

For a minute I was also thinking this would be a problem for witchblades--that would seriously nerf seer councils. But now I see on page 42 that a witchblade is classified as a "special close combat weapon" and there's a rule that clearly states that models with a normal weapon (shuriken pistol) and a special weapon (witchblade) gain one additional attack.

[edit]
So to summarize I think that by strict RAW it can't be determined whether weapons such as storm bolters that aren't defined as either one-handed or two-handed can be used one-handed to get +1 attack.

How I will play it personally is that I'll assume that only pistols, close combat weapons, and other weapons defined as giving +1 attack can give the bonus. So that means no more bonus attack for Eldrad using the Staff of Ulthamar.

IMO the rules need to tell you an item is single handed as they need that attribute to gain the +1 A. If an item does not have that attribute in its description, then it doesn't matter how many hands it uses or what it looks like on the model. In order to gain the second attack you need 2 single handed ccws, so anything not defined as such does not count.

Dracos wrote:IMO the rules need to tell you an item is single handed as they need that attribute to gain the +1 A. If an item does not have that attribute in its description, then it doesn't matter how many hands it uses or what it looks like on the model. In order to gain the second attack you need 2 single handed ccws, so anything not defined as such does not count.

So are you suggesting that Assault Marines never get the +1 to Attacks?

Flavius Infernus wrote:
How I will play it personally is that I'll assume that only pistols, close combat weapons, and other weapons defined as giving +1 attack can give the bonus. So that means no more bonus attack for Eldrad using the Staff of Ulthamar.

I thought you couldnt anyways as the codex describes the staff as a two handed weapon

DJ Illuminati wrote:I thought you couldnt anyways as the codex describes the staff as a two handed weapon

-Groans-
No, it doesn't.

Now, I am not being rude, but I have to ask, do you actually check the codexes before posting? I ask because you have made Multiple errors in the short time I have seen you around here.

The irritating thing is that Ghaz has a point, and he's won rather cleverly. He proposed storm bolters get the extra attack, got everyone to argue against it, then tell us that with our stance, next to no CCWs give an attack bonus unless we assume everything is single handed unless it's two handed.

Pika_power wrote:The irritating thing is that Ghaz has a point, and he's won rather cleverly. He proposed storm bolters get the extra attack, got everyone to argue against it, then tell us that with our stance, next to no CCWs give an attack bonus unless we assume everything is single handed unless it's two handed.

No, not really. He has been saying this for a long time. He seems to honestly think that Pistol + CCW or CCW + CCW does not give a bonus attack.

@Gwar!

I don't know how he could think that, since p.37 (the two-single-handed-weapons rule) specifically gives 2 of pistol and/or CCW as an example of something that gives you a bonus attack.

ajfirecracker wrote:@Gwar!

I don't know how he could think that, since p.37 (the two-single-handed-weapons rule) specifically gives 2 of pistol and/or CCW as an example of something that gives you a bonus attack.

He would argue it is obviously wrong because neither Pistols nor CCW are ONE HANDED weapons. -Shrug-

It's barmy I know, but what can ya do. IMO Something has to be defined as a Close Combat Weapon to be a CCW, and is only a Two Handed CCW if stated to be so (Like the ork Big Choppa)

Permissive rulesets don't really let you count the storm-bolter as a 1-handed weapon.

Chainswords are covered under "normal close combat weapons" on p. 42, and pistols are covered repeatedly.
I think that we just make no assumptions about what our weapons let us do, and we'll be fine. There's no need to specify between 1 and 2 handed, except where the codex/rulebook does so.

covenant84 wrote:I know this is an opinion rather than a rule to finish this (apologies) but this thread is rediculous! StormBolters are two handed, always have been and have never confired a +1 attack.

That was resolved some time ago. The thread's moved on to discussing CCWs and bonus attacks in general.

Flavius Infernus wrote:Yeah, I'm agreeing that there are a lot of weapons out there that are not defined as either one-handed or two-handed, and after looking more closely at the rules it's going to be impossible to determine whether they can count as a single-handed weapon for the +1 attack.

It's not really impossible at all. If they're defined in the rules as single-handed, then they confer the attack. If they're not, then they don't.

That's the rules basis. Unfortunately, that means we're all going to have to house rule it that any of those weapons that look like they should be single-handed (like chainswords, for example) actually are, since GW negliected to define them.

But now I see on page 42 that a witchblade is classified as a "special close combat weapon" and there's a rule that clearly states that models with a normal weapon (shuriken pistol) and a special weapon (witchblade) gain one additional attack.

Except that it's in a section entitled 'Fighting with two single handed weapons' that explains just before the weapon combinations are listed that it is refering to models fighting with various single handed weapons.

So, no, RAW Seer Councils are nerfed. The Witchblade would need to be classed as single handed to qualify for that rule.

How I will play it personally is that I'll assume that only pistols, close combat weapons, and other weapons defined as giving +1 attack can give the bonus. So that means no more bonus attack for Eldrad using the Staff of Ulthamar.

That's pretty much how I'll stick with it as well. If it looks like a single handed CCW, it'll count as one.

Gwar! wrote:He would argue it is obviously wrong because neither Pistols nor CCW are ONE HANDED weapons. -Shrug-

That's not the argument at all.

Pistols are single handed by default, as they are defined as such in their rulebook entry.
CCWs can be, if they are defined as such. The problem is simply that most CCWs currently in the game aren't so defined.

Gwar! wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:I thought you couldnt anyways as the codex describes the staff as a two handed weapon

-Groans-
No, it doesn't.

Now, I am not being rude, but I have to ask, do you actually check the codexes before posting? I ask because you have made Multiple errors in the short time I have seen you around here.

In this one case you have a valid point...... I will find where it states the staff as two handed........ I am used to Army Builder classing it as a 2 handed weapon (which it does), I was under the impression that I saw it in the codex as well.........

DJ Illuminati wrote:In this one case you have a valid point...... I will find where it states the staff as two handed........ I am used to Army Builder classing it as a 2 handed weapon (which it does), I was under the impression that I saw it in the codex as well.........

Well, first of all, Army Builder should NEVER be used instead of rules.

Secondly, you will find no such place in the current Eldar codex. In neither its full Unit Entry Description or the Army List does it state that the Staff is any sort of handed.

Pistol: All pistols are effectively assault 1 weapons with a range of 12" (unless differently specified in thier profile). In addition a pistol counts as a close combat weapon in the assault phase.

Number of attacks: (page 37 of the rule book)
*+1 Two weapons: Engaged models with 2 single handed weapons (typically a close combat weapon and/or a pistol in each hand) get an extra +1 attack.
............................................................

The storm bolter is neither a close combat weapon nor a pistol, it also has no rules stating it is actually used in 1 hand (fluff means nothing)
This leaves it as a basic weapon that confers no additional bonus in the assault phase.

Yeah, we've done that bit