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.

The only unit that this may effect in the game that is useful is the GK Grand Master. For only 10pts, he can carry a Storm Shield opposite his Nemesis Force Blade and deal 6 S6 attacks with a force weapon on a charge.

And that's really the only guy that gaining an extra attack from a shield is even remotely game unbalancing ... that is until you consider all of the other units out there that out perform the Grand Master in close combat for less than 155pts.

SJ

He doesn't cost 155pts. The GKGM is, in my opinion, a bloody bargain; sure he's a BS5 3-wound Librarian with no option to upgrade his psychic potency, but he has a base S6 Force Weapon that insta-jibs with no regard to Eternal Warrior.

Even if it doesn't (say, because a TO decides he prefers RaI to RaW), all that means is more incentive to give your GM Holocaust, which is frighteningly sweet and allows him to gribble the face off any hordes that he (and his retinue - retinue meaning he can't ever be targetted in CC, unlike 99% of the models who "outperform" him) can't put down with S6 power weapon ninja skills. His retinue can take Holocaust too, and both can use it in a given turn; effectively meaning that anything your NFWs didn't kill will have to face down two S5 pie-plates at I1, which you can place wherever you like as long as it's touching the GM. GKGM retinues are also one of the very few things that MEQ armies get which can hang with a Greater Daemon in CC, because of the gnarly wargear. WS5 I4 Bloodthirster is lol.

But yeah, anyway. He ain't mega-awesome, but he's really not a bad buy at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:

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.

Or maybe not a winner... hehe Please stop giving scam-mongering scumbags more ammunition to claim their +1 Attack; it depresses me >_<

insaniak wrote:

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.

However it the rule tells you it isn't a weapon.

"although a storm shield is not a weapon as such...."

There is no question that it is or is not a weapon. The rule clearly states why it isn't a weapon and then later clarifies why and how it is to be counted as a single handed weapon. Individuals such as yourself then make the RAI assumption that it then confers an additional attack when the RAW does clearly not include it. Remember, permissive ruleset.

Unlike the storm shield, there is no question on whether a chainsword is a weapon or not. There is no qualifying or disqualifying condition in its description as a chainsword that limits or grants the +1 attack.

Brother Ramses wrote:Individuals such as yourself then make the RAI assumption that it then confers an additional attack when the RAW does clearly not include it.

'Individuals such as myself' make no such assumption. I've already pointed out several times that I don't think it's intended to have the extra attack.


As for the rest, again, unless you can find a rule that prohibits a weapon from granting the bonus attack if nothing else can be held in the same hand, the RAW does grant the bonus.

You should know better insaniak. The rules are permissive. You cannot argue "It doesn't say I CAN'T". The rules have to expressly tell you so.

Storm Shields grant a 3+Invo. That is it. Only pistols (or a double of whatever weapon they are carrying) grants you the additional attack for having a closecombat weapon. Storm Bolters do not do this, neither do flamers, only pistols.

You do not get the extra attack for having a storm shield.

Emperors Faithful wrote:You should know better insaniak. The rules are permissive. You cannot argue "It doesn't say I CAN'T". The rules have to expressly tell you so.

Storm Shields grant a 3+Invo. That is it. Only pistols (or a double of whatever weapon they are carrying) grants you the additional attack for having a closecombat weapon. Storm Bolters do not do this, neither do flamers, only pistols.

You do not get the extra attack for having a storm shield.

Try reading the right codex, THEN you can post.

...okay, so I made a mistake about witch hunters.
But don't storm shields give you a 3+ invo?
Where did I go wrong Gwar? WHEEERE!!!

Emperors Faithful wrote:...okay, so I made a mistake about witch hunters.
But don't storm shields give you a 3+ invo?
Where did I go wrong Gwar? WHEEERE!!!

DH Storm Shields give a 4+ Invulnerable save against one model in close combat only.

they are discussing storm shields from the DH codex, where are not the same as the space marine ones

Gwar beat me to it...

...oh, okay. Thanks for putting me back on track.

Anyway, does it SAY you get an additional attack?
If yes then you do.
If no (or it says nothing) you don't.

Rules are PERMISSIVE.

My gaming club plays it that Grey Knights get the extra attack.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:My gaming club plays it that Grey Knights get the extra attack.

And my Gaming Club worships the Flying Spaghetti Monster (May His Noodly Appendages keep us firmly down on the ground, RAmen) and engage in Holy War against the Forces of the Invisible Pink Unicorn who play Warhammer Fantasy across town.

In Short: No-one really cares what your club plays. RaW, it does not count as a Weapon, so does not give the bonus attack.

Actually it was a decision discussed in detail and then voted upon.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Actually it was a decision discussed in detail and then voted upon.

Again, no-one cares how your club plays it. If you have a point to make, then make it. "This is how I play it" is not an effective argument.

I am sure if you stopped by to play at the club we could sit down and discuss this with you. It's not really a big deal.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Anyway, does it SAY you get an additional attack?

Yes, it does.

The storm shield counts as a single handed weapon.
Having two single handed weapons grants you +1 attack (rulebook, page 37, as mentioned numerous times throughout the thread... )

insaniak wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Anyway, does it SAY you get an additional attack?

Yes, it does.

The storm shield counts as a single handed weapon.
Having two single handed weapons grants you +1 attack (rulebook, page 37, as mentioned numerous times throughout the thread... )

You are ignoring rules:

"a storm shield is not a weapon"

Yeah, that settles it. It counts as a Weapon for the Purposes of what the Model can Hold, no other Purpose.

Gwar! wrote:You are ignoring rules:

...says the guy quoting half of the sentence...

"a storm shield is not a weapon"

But counts as one.

Yeah, that settles it. It counts as a Weapon for the Purposes of what the Model can Hold, no other Purpose.

No, it counts as a weapon because of what the model can hold... not for the purposes of what the model can hold. That would require a completely differently worded sentence, without the 'because' in the middle of it.


Again, I agree that's what it's intended to say... but what it actually says is not the same. You're making a judgement based on what you think it should mean, instead of what's actually written on the page.

My club the majority of our members were in agreement with the interpretation presented by insaniak as it is the most true to RAW.

Please stop posting what your club thinks, because NO ONE CARES.

IMO My interpretation is the RaW. I suppose we can agree to disagree.

I can't agree with you.

I don't know how the rest of y'all feel but I would rather hear of a consensus brought about by common discussion of a group than half-quotes and "I'm right, so THERE!" type posts.

That's the definition of a "forum" everyone has a place to be heard.

My group has agreed that DHs specifically get +1 A with a Storm Shield as well. For the reasons Insaniak pointed out.

I don't know about the rest of you but my club plays how we see fit. It's not like GW is going to buy an airplane ticket for Gwar so he can fly across the Atlantic ocean, take a taxi to our home, kick down the door and shout at us that Jervis won't tolerate us not playing as Gwar sees fit.

By the RAW a storm shield is not a weapon:

"although a storm shield is not a weapon as such...."

By the RAW is counts as a single handed weapon:

"it counts as a single handed weapon.."

By the RAW why does it count as a single handed weapon:

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

Please show me where in the RAW that I have provided that it tells you to confer +1 attack for the storm shield as a single handed weapon.

The one and only reason why it tells you to count the storm shield as a single handed weapon is " because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield". Nothing more, nothing less. Just, "because nothing else can be used by the arm holding the shield".

I'm going to make sure that my mega armored Warboss is pinned to his bike really well.

Then he probably won't fall off a lot, and it's legal to use him.

:3

Brother Ramses wrote:Please show me where in the RAW that I have provided that it tells you to confer +1 attack for the storm shield as a single handed weapon.

Page 37. Still.

Single handed weapons grant +1 attack.

So something that counts as a single handed weapon also grants +1 attack.

The reason that the item counts as a single handed weapon is irrelevant, and has no effect on when that item counts as a single handed weapon. If I have a shirt that counts as a piece of daggy clothing because it has no sleeves, then it counts as a piece of daggy clothing all of the time. It's not just a piece of daggy clothing for the purposes of determining whether or not my clothing has sleeves. Nor does the fact that it is daggy have any effect on whether or not I'm wearing it.



What you're looking for is a restriction that over-rides the normal rules, not a reason for a given rule to exist.

And there is no such restriction in the rules.


It counts as a single handed weapon, because you can't hold anything else in the same hand.
Do the rules list any effect of not being able to hold anything else in the same hand as a given item?
No, they don't. Therefore the fact that nothing else can be held in the same hand is irrelevant. It's a piece of explanatory text with no bearing on the rules.

So far as the RAW is conicerned, it's a single handed weapon. And single handed weapons confer the attack bonus.

Pointing to what is in the BRB in regard to single handed weapons is a moot point. Codex overrules BRB and in this case, per RAW, a DH storm shield is labeled as:

A) not being a weapon
B) only counting as a single handed weapon because nothing else can be used on the arm with the shield.

The restrictions are right in the rule itself. You keep getting hung up on the "counts as" part without reading any other part of the rule which specifically tells you how to treat the DH shield in question.

Brother Ramses wrote:A) not being a weapon

...but counting as one.

B) only counting as a single handed weapon because nothing else can be used on the arm with the shield.

The word 'only' does not appear in the rule in question.

Not that it would matter if it did... because no matter how many times you insist otherwise, the reason for it counting as a single handed weapon has no bearing whatsoever on what a single handed weapon does.

If it's a single handed weapon because the model can't hold anything else in the same hand, then it's a single handed weapon.
If it's a single handed weapon because it replaces the model's hand, then it's a single handed weapon.
If it's a single handed weapon because it is painted blue, then it's a single handed weapon.
If it's a single handed weapon because some watery tart hands it to you from out of a lake, then it's a single handed weapon.

And single handed weapons grant the attack bonus.

The restrictions are right in the rule itself. You keep getting hung up on the "counts as" part without reading any other part of the rule which specifically tells you how to treat the DH shield in question.

I'm not getting 'hung up' on anything. I'm simply reading the part that explains why the weapon counts as a single handed weapon as being a reason for the weapon to count as a single handed weapon. As opposed to thinking that a reason for being somehow imposes a restriction on what a single handed weapon does.

I don't know why anyone even cares about this. Because of how the RAW for the Storm Shield is written in the Daemonhunter codex (that it only works against a single opponent in CC) it sucks so badly that anyone who wants to take it and get the +1 Attack bonus is fine by me.


And I agree with Insaniak, BTW.

If you have a law that says: "although a truck isn't technically a car as such, it counts as a car."

This means that any laws applying to cars also apply to trucks (because they count as being a car).

What else do we think "counts as" means except that item 'B' is treated, for all intents and purposes, as item 'A'.

Hang on, what DOES grant an additional attack?

I know pistols do, and duplicates of the same special weapon (aka, 2 power fists) but what else?
Just to recap.