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 in 8th, Warp Talons' lightning claws rule state "each time the bearer fights, it can make one additional attack with this weapon." However, on the melee weapons page the abilities for lightning claws says "if a model is armed with two lightning claws, each time it fights it can make 1 additional attack with them."

So the question is, does the lack of stipulating that a model must be armed with two of them in the WT description have any effect on how many attacks it gets?

My reading is that since WTs come with two LCs, it gets two extra attacks. I can't find a basic rule disallowing weapon rules stacking, and since the rule doesn't say the bearer has to attack with the weapon in order to get the additional attack, it seems like this would be the case.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
So in 8th, Warp Talons' lightning claws rule state "each time the bearer fights, it can make one additional attack with this weapon." However, on the melee weapons page the abilities for lightning claws says "if a model is armed with two lightning claws, each time it fights it can make 1 additional attack with them."

So the question is, does the lack of stipulating that a model must be armed with two of them in the WT description have any effect on how many attacks it gets?

My reading is that since WTs come with two LCs, it gets two extra attacks. I can't find a basic rule disallowing weapon rules stacking, and since the rule doesn't say the bearer has to attack with the weapon in order to get the additional attack, it seems like this would be the case.

Its 1 not sure there is much of a debate here. Its probably written poorly in the profile.

I totally thought so too, but then I actually read the rule listed in the Warp Talon entry and started second guessing it. Why word the lightning claws rule differently there? Just because they have to be equipped with two? Even then, the regular claws wording would have been fine and made more sense.

One would think that the one on the datasheet would take precendent over what is listed elsewhere. It's not carrying 3-4 Lightning Claws, after all.

So then I guess the question is, does the bearer of a weapon need to actually attack with the weapon in order to get the weapon's effects in the description? Notice the wording says "fights" not "attacks"--they are different.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
So then I guess the question is, does the bearer of a weapon need to actually attack with the weapon in order to get the weapon's effects in the description? Notice the wording says "fights" not "attacks"--they are different.

But are they used in a different context? Can one generate Attacks with different Weapons in the same Fight Phase?

Yeah, a left one and a right one. I guess it will depend on how the ruling for the bonus attack on the chainsword pans out, which is still unclear as well.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
So then I guess the question is, does the bearer of a weapon need to actually attack with the weapon in order to get the weapon's effects in the description? Notice the wording says "fights" not "attacks"--they are different.

But are they used in a different context? Can one generate Attacks with different Weapons in the same Fight Phase?

Yes, we can - see Servo-arms limitations (you can only perform one attack with a specific servo-arm per fight phase). And at least Chainswords do not say that you have to attack with the weapon, you just gain a bonus attack (with just the chainsword) for having one.

So, at the end.. how many atacks does each warp talon have?

zamerion wrote:
So, at the end.. how many atacks does each warp talon have?

RAW it appears like basic troops get 3 attacks with the champs getting 4. RAI needs a FAQ as opinions legitimately differ because of the required loadout. I've added the question to the main FAQ questions discussion Yakface started.

Just looked up what you were talking about. Yeah its a typo/mistake, it should read like the other codex entrees for lightning claw(s). The datasheet will need an errata.

It's impossible to tell if it is a typo/mistake or intentional based on what is written. Honestly, it might be what they meant as it would put them close to, yet still behind berserkers as far as damage output. We shall see.

I mean four other armies have lightning claws and they all use the literal exact definition as in the back description of the index, the only odd wording is in the datasheet which effectively means the same thing but worded slightly differently. Its a safe bet its a typo/mistake or an older version of weapon description.

Which might suggest that Warp Talons are supposed to have different rules regarding this weapon. Keep in mind bespoke rules are a big deal this edition. Again, we can't really know until they address it themselves. Until then, the RAW is what it is.

I guess that is possibly but highly unlikely. Especially because its the weapon profile and not a warp talon ability. And the weapon profile in the back of the index is using the proper description. Just don't get your hopes up or expect anyone to let you get an additional extra attack when you play them.

I know if someone showed me a type for a laz gun which said rapid fire 3 but the description and weapon index in the book and all others showed the same weapon/ same name with the same description as the standard version/regular version, I'd tell them its a typo/misprint.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Which might suggest that Warp Talons are supposed to have different rules regarding this weapon. Keep in mind bespoke rules are a big deal this edition. Again, we can't really know until they address it themselves. Until then, the RAW is what it is.

Hmm. Sure. Can you show me your Warptalon Lightning Claw in the melee weapon section? You can't because the only lightning claw there is the lightning claw that shares the same rules with every other lightning claw. This isn't a bespoke rule, or at least it's not obviously a bespoke rule and offering up the phrase 'bespoke' isn't a panacea for doing anything you like. If the wargear had a different name, or indeed anything to suggest it followed different rules I;'d be right behind you.

I'm not saying that you're incorrect about the difference in wording mind you. Follwing the wording you'd get 2 attacks per WT (they only have one base attack to work with) and four with the champ.

 Fenris-77 wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Which might suggest that Warp Talons are supposed to have different rules regarding this weapon. Keep in mind bespoke rules are a big deal this edition. Again, we can't really know until they address it themselves. Until then, the RAW is what it is.

Hmm. Sure. Can you show me your Warptalon Lightning Claw in the melee weapon section? You can't because the only lightning claw there is the lightning claw that shares the same rules with every other lightning claw. This isn't a bespoke rule, or at least it's not obviously a bespoke rule and offering up the phrase 'bespoke' isn't a panacea for doing anything you like. If the wargear had a different name, or indeed anything to suggest it followed different rules I;'d be right behind you.

I'm not saying that you're incorrect about the difference in wording mind you. Follwing the wording you'd get 2 attacks per WT (they only have one base attack to work with) and four with the champ.

Following the wording you would get 3 attacks per wt. They have two claws. Each claw has the same wording. It would follow the same logic that most are applying to chainsword getting the extra attack even if they aren't used in melee. I'm just pointing out the RAW in the profile. I don't think it really is RAI, but that isn't what this forum is for. That is why we need it faqed by GW.

 Tsol wrote:
I mean four other armies have lightning claws and they all use the literal exact definition as in the back description of the index, the only odd wording is in the datasheet which effectively means the same thing but worded slightly differently. Its a safe bet its a typo/mistake or an older version of weapon description.

Say hello to the world of bespoken rules where it's quite possible to have same thing work differently based on bearer.

I call it dark angel syndrome in memory of dark angels who had 4++ rather than 3++ with stormshields for long time, smoke that gave auto glance rather than cover save etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fenris-77 wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Which might suggest that Warp Talons are supposed to have different rules regarding this weapon. Keep in mind bespoke rules are a big deal this edition. Again, we can't really know until they address it themselves. Until then, the RAW is what it is.

Hmm. Sure. Can you show me your Warptalon Lightning Claw in the melee weapon section?

Index chaos: Page 36.

And blamo. Twas corrected in the FAQ/Errata.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/07/02/warhammer-40000-faq-now-available-july2gw-homepage-post-1/

 Tsol wrote:
Just looked up what you were talking about. Yeah its a typo/mistake, it should read like the other codex entrees for lightning claw(s). The datasheet will need an errata.

Or intended bespoke style. Remember it's the age of bespoken rules. You don't need two entries be identical. That's the point of bespoken rules. Ability to alter rule per unit!

Unless GW says otherwise ignore other entrie and just play as entry says. We are again when you can have smoke launchers on marine faction A work differently to marine faction B.

tneva82 wrote:

 Tsol wrote:
Just looked up what you were talking about. Yeah its a typo/mistake, it should read like the other codex entrees for lightning claw(s). The datasheet will need an errata.

Or intended bespoke style. Remember it's the age of bespoken rules. You don't need two entries be identical. That's the point of bespoken rules. Ability to alter rule per unit!

Unless GW says otherwise ignore other entrie and just play as entry says. We are again when you can have smoke launchers on marine faction A work differently to marine faction B.

See my last post, they corrected it in FAQ