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.

Special weapons make special attacks, as in attacks that alter how the assault phase works (for example - bypassing armour is DEFINITELY special)

So yes, yes you can.

Special weapons make normal attacks. I.E. Roll to hit,wound,armor/invuln saves,remove casualties.

Special weapon =/= Special attack.

Special attacks, if you look at P.55 of the Blood Angels codex, under Special rules is whirlwind of gore, an attack that auto-hits everyone in base contact. Lies outside the normal attacks of Seth, since this attack follows the 'special rules' listed on P.55 of the BA codex.

Please show rules support for this, in the BRB

I can show that, in English, something bypassing the normal steps in combat (bypassing armour) is, by definition, special.

Why are you arbitrarily limiting it to only to hit / to wound?

You cannot, and thus you are wrong.

As I said earlier, it is not defined in the BRB, so we have to look at the Blood angles Codex p.55 to get our answers.

Have a look at Gabriel Seth's Special Attack.

now look at his Special weapon called Blood Reaver.

He makes normal attacks with Blood Reaver, or he can make a special attack called whirlwind of gore.

Since Special attack is not defined in the BRB we have to look at the codex to understand what they mean, and the meaning of special attack is clear in this case.

Again, you have made an unfounded *assumption* that it ONLY means this particular type of special attack.

It doesnt.

Lets step back an edition... last edition it was spelt out that models could choose so there should be no mention of special close combat attacks ...

"and count the benefits of any special close combat attack forms they may have"

... what how so? Oh wait they're also had things like servo arms (not forgetting DH, crazy psychic blast)

nosferatu1001 wrote:So something whcih is demonstrably different to normal isnt special?

Ignoring armour isnt special?
Doubling strength isnt special?

Seriously

according to the BRB they are special, they are special bonuses, not attacks. as defined by PG. 42.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Please show rules support for this, in the BRB,

I can show that, in English, something bypassing the normal steps in combat (bypassing armour) is, by definition, special.

actually, bypassing armour (disallowing armour saves) is covered on pg. 39 under taking saves.

"

Model's usually get to save regardless of the attackers strength, but some especially monstrous creatures and powerful close combat weapons will punch straight through armour

I've shown you now where denying an armour save is covered in the rules, not as a special attack. Now show me where it states it just as plainly that special close combat weapons are special close combat attacks.

I can see both sides of the issue here. Unfortunately, with no clear answer, I can't say which way is correct. However, since there are no rules regarding 3 CCW, I would lean more towards a permissive ruleset than a restrictive one. I'd let my opponent pick which 2 they wanted to use.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Again, you have made an unfounded *assumption* that it ONLY means this particular type of special attack.

It doesnt.

I have made no assumptions, I reference rules.

Can you reference rules to support your position?

Special attacks are undefined in the brb, but the language in the codex is clear.

it lists special rules as whirlwind of gore

Special attack rules. Special weapons are not special attacks, two different things linguistically. I.E. if I attack with a chainsword or a power sword I still use one die per attack as per the normal rules for attacking. The only difference is the power sword has special bonuses as per P.42

I must have missed it. Why doesn't page 42 control, again?

p.42 wrote:A Normal and a special weapon
These models gain one additional attack. All of their attacks, including the bonus attack, use the special weapon's bonuses and penalties.

That passage seems to make clear that if a model has a special close combat weapon, they must use it.

Yes, the section is titled "Fighting with Two Single Handed Weapons", but I see no good reason why these rules can seriously be considered to be inapplicable to a model with three or more. The four possible combinations enumerated within that section all work fine.

Rephistorch wrote:I can see both sides of the issue here. Unfortunately, with no clear answer, I can't say which way is correct. However, since there are no rules regarding 3 CCW, I would lean more towards a permissive ruleset than a restrictive one. I'd let my opponent pick which 2 they wanted to use.

I agree that they'd be able to choose, with the caveat that if they possess any special weapons, they have to use at least one of them, as above.

Mannahnin wrote:I must have missed it. Why doesn't page 42 control, again?

p.42 wrote:A Normal and a special weapon
These models gain one additional attack. All of their attacks, including the bonus attack, use the special weapon's bonuses and penalties.

That passage seems to make clear that if a model has a special close combat weapon, they must use it.

Yes, the section is titled "Fighting with Two Single Handed Weapons", but I see no good reason why these rules can seriously be considered to be inapplicable to a model with three or more. The four possible combinations enumerated within that section all work fine.

They are applicable, but only if you are using the PK to attack with (as per P.37 below) because 'Fighting with Two Single Handed Weapons' means you are using those 2 weapons to attack with.

It falls within the realm of yarrick having PK, Bolt Pistol, and CCW.

So if he uses the BP and CCW he uses the 'Two normal close combat weapons' rules on P.42

Using the PK then you use 'A Normal and a special weapon'.

If you do not use a weapon to attack with you do not have any of the bonuses (or drawbacks) of that weapon. Since you can only use 2 CCW's this poses a slight problem with the rules, but P.37 says (Under number of attacks) '...models with more than two weapons gain no additional benefit-' This establishes that you can only use two CCW's, and any aditional that you are not attacking with are ignored. So you pick 2 weapons to attack with, look up the rules for them, and ignore the other weapons.

DR - you have shown that ONE category of special attacks are just that, special. You have not shown that ALL special attacks are not actually special. If you dont understand the difference (and I've mentioned this 3 or 4 times now) then not much more i can do.

The difference between a normal sword (CCW) and a power sword (special CCW) is the ability to Ignore armour. This is the SPECIAL bit of a power sword that makes it SPECIAL CCW.

Your attacks are now special as they are made by a special CCW.

It is that simple

And as far as 3+ special Close Combat Weapons - it's certainly true that these models also have 2 special CCWs.

While I personally would allow, say, the Eversor Assassin to gain the bonus attack for 2 CCWs if he's not weilding two specials he does have two specials... And I think it's a fair tradeoff in the end, losing one attack on that and preventing others maximising attacks on far more destructive models like newer ICs.

Wow.... judging from how many comments..... this was a legit question.... I've never imagined so many people looking through the rulebook in my life lol. I guess it changed off topic, so if you guys would still like to discuss this, make a new topic. You'll get more insight from others. Just an idea.

For those who answered my questions, asked more questions, then answered those, thank you for your help

nosferatu1001 wrote:DR - you have shown that ONE category of special attacks are just that, special. You have not shown that ALL special attacks are not actually special. If you dont understand the difference (and I've mentioned this 3 or 4 times now) then not much more i can do.

The difference between a normal sword (CCW) and a power sword (special CCW) is the ability to Ignore armour. This is the SPECIAL bit of a power sword that makes it SPECIAL CCW.

Your attacks are now special as they are made by a special CCW.

It is that simple

But if Yarric has a power fist, chainsword, and BP why does he have to have a special attack is where the thread keeps circling.

If I understand you correctly you're asserting that you don't pick the two close combat weapons you're using and then use pg. 42 to work out how many attacks of what type, correct? The idea being that the model is equipped with 3 (or more) CCW that the model can use in close combat and you look at pg 42 to see what restrictions apply using all three CCW as criteria. Do I understand correctly? If so, by that logic a Noise Marine armed with sonic blaster, BP, and CCW would never get an extra attack in close combat either. Because p42 clearly says that if a model is using a two handed close combat weapon (such as a rifle butt), it may not use it with another weapon. So if I have to take all the CCW a model is carrying into account and then look for the most restrictive option, that is what I'd get.

No, my assertion is:

- Power fists generate special attacks. (Attacks that ignore armour are, by definition, special - as this is the *only* element that differentiates a chainsword and power sword from each other, and one is a Normal CCW and the other is a Special CCW)

- Page 35 requires you to make all the special attacks you can

- Thus Yarrick MUST choose to use the Powerfist, otherwise he is not making all the special attacks he can

It doesnt interact with the 2 weapons requirement at all, making your Noise marine "example" incorrect as your suppositions are wrong.

There are no requirements on page 42 to pick a 2 handed "nomal" ccw over a single handed one, so Noise Marines are unaffected.

Agree with nosferatu.

If you strictly follow DeathReaper's logic considering "Whirlwind of Gore", a Warboss charging a tank would always have to use his stickbombs against it(special attack by his definition!) instead of his 6 STR10 Powerklaw (non-special) attacks which is not the way it is supposed to be played.

Also on the same logic DeathReaper calls powerfist attacks regular attacks, you could call "Whirlwind of Gore" a regular attack, that simply auto-hits mutiple models. It is just listed as "Special Rule" not as "Special Attack". A special rule does not make attacks special by that logic(obviously flawed).

Exactly my point.

If Whirlwind of Gore is the only kind of "special attack" then he must ALWAYS use it according to page 35 - there is never a choice. So facing a single MC? Sorry, you get to make one attack, not 3.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Exactly my point.

If Whirlwind of Gore is the only kind of "special attack" then he must ALWAYS use it according to page 35 - there is never a choice. So facing a single MC? Sorry, you get to make one attack, not 3.

He would have to always use it, except the rules for that special attack called whirlwind of gore say you get a choice to use it or not. (specific>General rules).

Jidmah wrote:Agree with nosferatu.

If you strictly follow DeathReaper's logic considering "Whirlwind of Gore", a Warboss charging a tank would always have to use his stickbombs against it(special attack by his definition!) instead of his 6 STR10 Powerklaw (non-special) attacks which is not the way it is supposed to be played.

Also on the same logic DeathReaper calls powerfist attacks regular attacks, you could call "Whirlwind of Gore" a regular attack, that simply auto-hits mutiple models. It is just listed as "Special Rule" not as "Special Attack". A special rule does not make attacks special by that logic(obviously flawed).

Right a special rule that is an attack = Special attack...

making a normal attack with a special weapon =/= making a special attack.

It is all laid out in the BA book.

Seth can make normal attacks with his special weapon, or he can make a special attack called Whirlwind of Gore, it is really not that tough to understand.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Exactly my point.

If Whirlwind of Gore is the only kind of "special attack" then he must ALWAYS use it according to page 35 - there is never a choice. So facing a single MC? Sorry, you get to make one attack, not 3.

Ok, but this seems to be in contention with your issue of my example before:

nosferatu1001 wrote:So you claim krak grenade is a special attack?

Great, means you can NEVER use your normal attacks against a vehicle (say, you're S5 vs AV10 when 4 attacks is better than 1) if you have krak grenades

No, a special attack is anything out of the ordinary. Ignoring armour is certainly a special attack, as it is not usual to ignore armour saves, same as ignoring to hit would be a special attack.

Replacing the number of attacks on your profile with 1 attack at 6+D6 AP *ISN'T* a special attack?

Saying that you can choose whether or not to use grenades against a vehicle, but you must use your all special weapons in other cases, is a direct contradiction of your own argument.

I will concede that, as I belive all of these types of attacks (grenades, whirlwind of gore, etc) say "May" when describing the attack, you don't have to use them and instead can use your standard profile, which is modified by wargear.

DR - and you have still not proven anything.

You do understand that you have only shown that one subset of attacks are special, yes?

Really, its not that tough to understand: have you done something special with your attacks? Yes? Then its a special attack.

Pedrowan wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Exactly my point.

If Whirlwind of Gore is the only kind of "special attack" then he must ALWAYS use it according to page 35 - there is never a choice. So facing a single MC? Sorry, you get to make one attack, not 3.

Ok, but this seems to be in contention with your issue of my example before:

nosferatu1001 wrote:So you claim krak grenade is a special attack?

Great, means you can NEVER use your normal attacks against a vehicle (say, you're S5 vs AV10 when 4 attacks is better than 1) if you have krak grenades

No, a special attack is anything out of the ordinary. Ignoring armour is certainly a special attack, as it is not usual to ignore armour saves, same as ignoring to hit would be a special attack.

Replacing the number of attacks on your profile with 1 attack at 6+D6 AP *ISN'T* a special attack?

Saying that you can choose whether or not to use grenades against a vehicle, but you must use your all special weapons in other cases, is a direct contradiction of your own argument.

I will concede that, as I belive all of these types of attacks (grenades, whirlwind of gore, etc) say "May" when describing the attack, you don't have to use them and instead can use your standard
profile, which is modified by wargear.

I saw this too and was going to make the same comment...I will point out that grenades do not say "may" anywhere. In fact it says:

"Grenades have to be clamped or placed so as to inflict enough damage so each model using them can only ever make one attack, regardless of the number of Attacks on their profile and any bonus attacks"

Grenades are certainly out of the ordinary, so by Nos's definition, you must use them. I think what the line in question is trying to make a point of (when taken in context with the section it is in, and especially the paragraph it's in) is engaged models may use close combat attacks, normal and otherwise, at that point, and unengaged models may not. I don't think they are trying to apply a frame work around the type of attacks used. I lean towards DR's version, meaning that special attacks are attacks that are defined in the codex and not covered anywhere in the BRB.

kmdl1066 wrote:I notice a distinct lack of RAW that allows you to choose which ranged weapon to fire when a non-vehicle, non-monstrous creature model is equipped with multiple ranged weapons. And yet that doesn't seem to be an issue!

You'd be wrong then. We're told how many weapons models are allowed to fire. We're also told that we can choose not to fire weapons. How much more RAW do you need?

The CCW section has none of that. Nothing tells us that two is the maximum number of CCWs we can use. Nothing tells us that we can choose not to use a CCW.

Scott-S6 wrote:

kmdl1066 wrote:I notice a distinct lack of RAW that allows you to choose which ranged weapon to fire when a non-vehicle, non-monstrous creature model is equipped with multiple ranged weapons. And yet that doesn't seem to be an issue!

You'd be wrong then. We're told how many weapons models are allowed to fire. We're also told that we can choose not to fire weapons. How much more RAW do you need?

The CCW section has none of that. Nothing tells us that two is the maximum number of CCWs we can use. Nothing tells us that we can choose not to use a CCW.

Being frank nothing tells us we can use a CCW

Scott-S6 wrote:The CCW section has none of that. Nothing tells us that two is the maximum number of CCWs we can use. Nothing tells us that we can choose not to use a CCW.

P.37 tells us how many CCW's we are allowed to use.

P.37 says (Under number of attacks) '...models with more than two weapons gain no additional benefit-' This establishes that you can only use two CCW's, and any aditional that you are not attacking with are ignored. So you pick 2 weapons to attack with, look up the rules for them, and ignore the other weapons.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, my assertion is:

- Power fists generate special attacks. (Attacks that ignore armour are, by definition, special - as this is the *only* element that differentiates a chainsword and power sword from each other, and one is a Normal CCW and the other is a Special CCW)

- Page 35 requires you to make all the special attacks you can

- Thus Yarrick MUST choose to use the Powerfist, otherwise he is not making all the special attacks he can

It doesnt interact with the 2 weapons requirement at all, making your Noise marine "example" incorrect as your suppositions are wrong.

There are no requirements on page 42 to pick a 2 handed "nomal" ccw over a single handed one, so Noise Marines are unaffected.

Okay, gotcha. I'm getting all the you can choose/you can't choose arguments merged and ascribing and someone else reasoning to you.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Scott-S6 wrote:

kmdl1066 wrote:I notice a distinct lack of RAW that allows you to choose which ranged weapon to fire when a non-vehicle, non-monstrous creature model is equipped with multiple ranged weapons. And yet that doesn't seem to be an issue!

You'd be wrong then. We're told how many weapons models are allowed to fire. We're also told that we can choose not to fire weapons. How much more RAW do you need?

pg. 27 "However, if a model does fire, it must do so at full effect and cannot reduce its weapon's firepower.."

So if a model has a bolter and a bolt pistol, firing the bolt pistol is hardly firing to the model's full effect.

Note that the "and" breaks the sentence into two clauses. The model must fire at full effect. Additionally, the model may not reduce its weapon's firepower.

DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Exactly my point.

If Whirlwind of Gore is the only kind of "special attack" then he must ALWAYS use it according to page 35 - there is never a choice. So facing a single MC? Sorry, you get to make one attack, not 3.

He would have to always use it, except the rules for that special attack called whirlwind of gore say you get a choice to use it or not. (specific>General rules).

Jidmah wrote:Agree with nosferatu.

If you strictly follow DeathReaper's logic considering "Whirlwind of Gore", a Warboss charging a tank would always have to use his stickbombs against it(special attack by his definition!) instead of his 6 STR10 Powerklaw (non-special) attacks which is not the way it is supposed to be played.

Also on the same logic DeathReaper calls powerfist attacks regular attacks, you could call "Whirlwind of Gore" a regular attack, that simply auto-hits mutiple models. It is just listed as "Special Rule" not as "Special Attack". A special rule does not make attacks special by that logic(obviously flawed).

Right a special rule that is an attack = Special attack...

making a normal attack with a special weapon =/= making a special attack.

It is all laid out in the BA book.

Seth can make normal attacks with his special weapon, or he can make a special attack called Whirlwind of Gore, it is really not that tough to understand.

"Instead of making his normal attacks Seth can instead choose to whirl Blood Reaver[his weapon] in a glittering gore-splattered arc.[...]"

I assume this is the sentence you base your entire argumentation on. "his normal attacks" could be meaning any of the following

1) Instead of making his non-special attacks you are doing with his special weapon Seth can...
2) Instead of any attacks he would normaly do Seth can...
3) Instead of his normal amount of attacks Seth can...

The only one of the three having any connection to existing rules is actually 3), as attacks is only defined as "number of dice you role for a model when fighting in close combat"(quote BRB) so the sentence actually says:

"Instead of making his normal number of dice roles for a model when fighting in close combat Seth can instead choose to whirl Blood Reaver[his weapon] in a glittering gore-splattered arc.[...]"

Actually "special attack" as a combination of words does not appear once in the entire BA codex (not even in the fluff parts), not even mentioning any kind of definition.

"All engaged models will fight in close combat with their full number of Attacks and use any special close combat attack they have."

So obviously there are non-normal attacks.
Is there a definition in the BRB? No.
In BA Codex? No, but it says Whirlwind of Gore is not a normal Attack.
Does say any special attacks have to be Special Rules? No, it does not.
Does create a precendence case for any other similar Special Rules that replace your attacks to most likely be special attacks? Yes, tough RaW people might still argue it.

Since you have nothing else to fall back on, use the simple definition of "special", as anything other than normal.
So, what is a normal attack?
"Attacks in close combat work like shots in shooting - each attack that hits has a chance to wound.The wounded model gets a chance to save,..."
Details to each on the following pages. In order for attacks to be normal, it has to:

- use the model's Attacks plus Bonus Attacks
- use the model's relative Weapon Skill to hit
- use the model's Strength relative its opponent's Toughness to wound
- is made at the model's initiative
- allow saves (you migh argue this, but saves in shooting and assault always note attacks ignoring armor are special cases)
- does nothing else

Sooo:
Is using a powerklaw a special attack? Yes, it doubles strength, ignores armor and strikes at initiative 1.
Is using a poison weapon a special attack? Yes, it does not use strength to wound.
Is using Blood Reaver in regular combat a special attack? Yes, it does not use Seth's strength to wound and rends.
Is using Whirlwind of Gore a special attack? Yes, it does not use the model's attacks, it does not use Seths strength, auto-hits and and divides attacks in a special way.

Galador wrote:actually, bypassing armour (disallowing armour saves) is covered on pg. 39 under taking saves.


Model's usually get to save regardless of the attackers strength, but some especially monstrous creatures and powerful close combat weapons will punch straight through armour

Note the word powerful not special. denying saves is not a special attack, it is covered under the regular rules for taking saves.

However, of even more important note, is the word WEAPONS, since it is not using the word attacks. Hence, denying armor is done by a WEAPON, not an attack.


Also, if we take your definition of special, does that make anything with an AP value of 6 or better a special weapon for shooting purposes??? I mean, If I normally get to take a save, but you deny me my armor save because of your AP, then that is a special weapon, right???

Shooting weapons dont care about being special or not.

If you attempt to claim that the defining feature of a Special CCW such as a power sword (denying armour) is, in fact, "normal", then you are directly contradicting the army book.

Inquisitor Cyotle wrote:For those who answered my questions, asked more questions, then answered those, thank you for your help

Actually the real simple answer to your question is on pg. 47 of the rule book. Under the topic Characters the little box at the bottom left, the " 'What You See Is What You Get' " rules. So far as I know and the hobby clubs I have played at is that while yes you could use all the equipment/gear on his/her profile in whatever combination you want according to the limits of the rules on pg. 42, but you may only get the +1 attack if it is represented on the model itself.

Hope this helps.