Switch Theme:

stormbolters as an additional close combat weapon  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Horrific Hive Tyrant





London (work) / Pompey (live, from time to time)

What i was trying to get at insaniak is where is the argument?
Storm bolters have no additional rules to show they use them with a single hand.
The only thing which does show single hand usage of the Storm bolter is the actual model, which is by no means "rules"

I just cant see how it can be argued without any valid rules to back it up.
If Storm bolters can be used as a single handed weapon simply because the models show such, doesent that mean the SOB priest/preacher model holding a plasma gun in 1 hand gets an additional attack aswell?

Suffused with the dying memories of Sanguinus, the warriors of the Death Company seek only one thing: death in battle fighting against the enemies of the Emperor.  
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

JD21290 wrote:What i was trying to get at insaniak is where is the argument?


There isn't one. The Storm Bolter part of the discussion was resolved back on page 1.

The discussion now is about getting the bonus attack from close combat weapons, with the occasional person jumping in to insist that storm bolters still don't give the bonus

 
   
Made in us
Sneaky Kommando






Gwar! wrote:
willydstyle wrote:I'm going to model a daemon prince with 5 close combat weapons so it gets 4 extra attacks.
Well, not only is that Not permitted by the Daemon Prices rules, but also by Page 37 of the Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook, which states that "Models with more than two weapons gain no additional benefit - you only get one extra attack, even if you have more than two weapons."

@Broxus below: It was nearly 2am, and us Trolles need our Beauty sleep


Ah, that is true unless your a deff dread where you do get extra attacks for having more arms, but weez da orks and weez dont care about da rulz

Also why do people insist on using out dated rules? There is no such thing as a 1 handed, 2 handed, 8 handed weapon.

A CCW can be used in CC as long as its a CCW or you have a soon to be outdated special ability that lets you use certain weapons as CCW but even then you dont get a +1 for charging. Some weapons say you never get a bonus for having an additional CCW (uge choppa) but this does not mean they are "2 handed". Much like saying you are fleeting instead of running (which are two completly different things) saying 1 handed or 2 handed is like others have pointed out moot.

"For the emperor!" "E' aint listenin!" *squish* (my fav blood and thunder quote)

BUT NOBS are NO GOOD at CC "ork town grot"
-perhaps the single dumbest comment I have ever heard-

Boss Zagstruck and Her-ORKick intervention, anything you can do we can do better  
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

da gob smaka wrote:There is no such thing as a 1 handed, 2 handed, 8 handed weapon.


Page 37 and 42 of the rulebook would seem to disagree.



A CCW can be used in CC as long as its a CCW


Of course it can.

But being able to be used in close combat is not the same as confering the attack bonus for having two weapons. That requires the CCW to be a single handed weapon.


Some weapons say you never get a bonus for having an additional CCW (uge choppa) but this does not mean they are "2 handed".


There is no 'Uge Choppa any more... It's been replaced by the Big Choppa. The Big Choppa does not have a rule of its own saying that you don't get the bonus attack for two weapons. It is instead listed as a two-handed weapon, so is covered by the rule on page 42 of the rulebook for two handed weapons.

 
   
Made in us
Sneaky Striking Scorpion





Melbourne, FL

Gwar! wrote:
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.


You dont have to be nasty about it, but between Army builder listing it as a 2 handed weapon, the lack of any rule claiming it is a 1 handed weapon, or the fact that its a staff, I was firmly under the assumption that it was 2 handed......

I have already conceded to you that it is not in the codex........ doesn't change the fact that by all rules here it would be seen as a non-1-handed-weapon and thus 2 handed.

but the point is mute now...

7000+ Aliatoc Eldar
3000+ DeamonHunters
 
   
Made in gb
Hanging Out with Russ until Wolftime







DJ Illuminati wrote:You dont have to be nasty about it, but between Army builder listing it as a 2 handed weapon, the lack of any rule claiming it is a 1 handed weapon, or the fact that its a staff, I was firmly under the assumption that it was 2 handed......

I have already conceded to you that it is not in the codex........ doesn't change the fact that by all rules here it would be seen as a non-1-handed-weapon and thus 2 handed.

but the point is mute now...
I was not being nasty.
Just because a weapon is not 1 handed does not make it 2 handed.
It is spelt "Moot" (With apologies to kirsanth)

Got 40k Rules Question? Send an e-mail to Gwar! for your Confidential Rules Queries.
Please do not PM me unless really necessary. I much prefer e-mail.
Need it Answered RIGHT NOW!? Ring me on Skype: "gwar.the.trolle"
Looking to play some Vassal? Ring me for a game!
Download The Unofficial FAQs by Gwar! here! (Dark Eldar Draft FAQ v1.0 released 04/Nov/2010! Download it before the Pandas eat it all!)
 
   
Made in us
Newbie Black Templar Neophyte




georgia, usa

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.


Yeah, but I think that's Gwar!'s point. No weapons, except for in some old books, are defined as either single handed or 2 handed, therefore no bonus Att. Honestly, I think the "fighting with two single-handed weapons" is less important than what it says at the top of page 42 about ccws being grouped into one of two catagories "Normal or special", but the rules are clear on page 36. the bonus is given if using two single-handed weapons. The lack of consisency in describing what weapons actually get the bonus, makes me believe that they assumed that everyone would know that as far a ccw go, unless it states it is 2 handed, like an eviscerator, it is single handed.

HERE I STAND, AND HERE I SHALL FALL.

LEMAN RUSS at the BATTLE OF RISING FELL 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

Greetings,

I am going to use this thread as a test thread for modding of the tenet to see how they work in real life. After this point, please have posts abide by the tenets. Please report if threads violate such tenets to a reasonable person standard (aka be reasonable and don't deluge me)
As noted, if the OP desires that this not be a test thread I'll remove this.
***************************************************************
These are some of the basic tenets of You Make Da Call. Some of them clarify the Dakka Rules and some of them are guidelines to ensure relatively smooth rules discussions. If you find someone going against these tenets, feel free to refer them to this post. The Moderation Staff will also use these as moderation guidelines in this forum.

Tenets of You Make Da Call (YMDC):

1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give a basis for a statement; without this, there can be no debate.

1a. Don't say that someone is wrong, instead you explain why you think their opinion is wrong. Criticize the opinion, not the person.

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Askyourquestion@games-workshop.com are technically official, but they are easily spoofed and should not be relied on.

3. Never, ever bring real-world examples into a rules argument.
- The rules, while creating a very rough approximation of the real world, are an abstraction of a fantasy universe. Real world examples have no bearing on how the rules work. So quit it.

4. 4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.

5. Stick to discussing the rules, not the poster. Phrases like "Rules Lawyer", "Cheater" and "TFG" have no place in rules discussions. Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations. FRAZZLED NOTE: YOU CAN DISCUSS THE MERITS OF THE IMAPCT ON SPORTSMANSHIP, BUT PLEASE SEPARATE THE DISCUSSION SPECIFICALLY IN A NEW PARAGRAPH IN YOUR POST AND IDENTIFY AS SUCH.

6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

A Few Definitions
For those who haven't seen these terms before.

Rules As Written - This refers to playing by the strict letter of the rules, which can lead to odd or counterintuitive situations.

How You Would Play It - This refers to taking small liberties with the rules to smooth out the odd or counterintuitive situations listed above.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Pyromaniac Hellhound Pilot






This brings up a good point for the Imperial Guard. Now, RAI, I am going to say this is a no, but RAW.... The new Guardsmen is described as having a Lasgun and Close Combat Weapon. The humble Lasgun is not described as being a single or two-handed weapon anymore, and in the main rulebook, page 37, first column, fourth paragraph describes that two single-handed weapons give the +1 attack bonus. So is the Lasgun single handed?

Just because anyone agrees with anyone, doesn't mean they are correct. Beware the thin line between what is "Correct" and what is "Popular." 
   
Made in gb
Hanging Out with Russ until Wolftime







Skinnattittar wrote:This brings up a good point for the Imperial Guard. Now, RAI, I am going to say this is a no, but RAW.... The new Guardsmen is described as having a Lasgun and Close Combat Weapon. The humble Lasgun is not described as being a single or two-handed weapon anymore, and in the main rulebook, page 37, first column, fourth paragraph describes that two single-handed weapons give the +1 attack bonus. So is the Lasgun single handed?
The lasgun is not said to be a Close Combat weapon in any way.

Got 40k Rules Question? Send an e-mail to Gwar! for your Confidential Rules Queries.
Please do not PM me unless really necessary. I much prefer e-mail.
Need it Answered RIGHT NOW!? Ring me on Skype: "gwar.the.trolle"
Looking to play some Vassal? Ring me for a game!
Download The Unofficial FAQs by Gwar! here! (Dark Eldar Draft FAQ v1.0 released 04/Nov/2010! Download it before the Pandas eat it all!)
 
   
Made in us
Pyromaniac Hellhound Pilot






Gwar! wrote:
Skinnattittar wrote:This brings up a good point for the Imperial Guard. Now, RAI, I am going to say this is a no, but RAW.... The new Guardsmen is described as having a Lasgun and Close Combat Weapon. The humble Lasgun is not described as being a single or two-handed weapon anymore, and in the main rulebook, page 37, first column, fourth paragraph describes that two single-handed weapons give the +1 attack bonus. So is the Lasgun single handed?
The lasgun is not said to be a Close Combat weapon in any way.
True, not specifically. Page 42, first column, second paragraph "Normal Close Combat Weapons," somewhat vaguely makes examples of CCW. Listed there are 'rifle butts.' I think it is reasonable to assume that the Lasgun has a butt/stock.

Just because anyone agrees with anyone, doesn't mean they are correct. Beware the thin line between what is "Correct" and what is "Popular." 
   
Made in gb
Lord of the Fleet






Nor is it described anywhere as a single handed weapon.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/08/27 15:15:45


 
   
Made in gb
Hanging Out with Russ until Wolftime







Skinnattittar wrote:
Gwar! wrote:
Skinnattittar wrote:This brings up a good point for the Imperial Guard. Now, RAI, I am going to say this is a no, but RAW.... The new Guardsmen is described as having a Lasgun and Close Combat Weapon. The humble Lasgun is not described as being a single or two-handed weapon anymore, and in the main rulebook, page 37, first column, fourth paragraph describes that two single-handed weapons give the +1 attack bonus. So is the Lasgun single handed?
The lasgun is not said to be a Close Combat weapon in any way.
True, not specifically. Page 42, first column, second paragraph "Normal Close Combat Weapons," somewhat vaguely makes examples of CCW. Listed there are 'rifle butts.' I think it is reasonable to assume that the Lasgun has a butt/stock.
A lasgun is not a "Rifle", it is a Lasgun.

Got 40k Rules Question? Send an e-mail to Gwar! for your Confidential Rules Queries.
Please do not PM me unless really necessary. I much prefer e-mail.
Need it Answered RIGHT NOW!? Ring me on Skype: "gwar.the.trolle"
Looking to play some Vassal? Ring me for a game!
Download The Unofficial FAQs by Gwar! here! (Dark Eldar Draft FAQ v1.0 released 04/Nov/2010! Download it before the Pandas eat it all!)
 
   
Made in us
Pyromaniac Hellhound Pilot






Gwar! wrote:
Skinnattittar wrote:
Gwar! wrote:
Skinnattittar wrote:This brings up a good point for the Imperial Guard. Now, RAI, I am going to say this is a no, but RAW.... The new Guardsmen is described as having a Lasgun and Close Combat Weapon. The humble Lasgun is not described as being a single or two-handed weapon anymore, and in the main rulebook, page 37, first column, fourth paragraph describes that two single-handed weapons give the +1 attack bonus. So is the Lasgun single handed?
The lasgun is not said to be a Close Combat weapon in any way.
True, not specifically. Page 42, first column, second paragraph "Normal Close Combat Weapons," somewhat vaguely makes examples of CCW. Listed there are 'rifle butts.' I think it is reasonable to assume that the Lasgun has a butt/stock.
A lasgun is not a "Rifle", it is a Lasgun.
Now that, sir, is a semantic, and I would argue that a Lasgun falls into the category of 'rifle' and it is obvious that we will not be able to resolve such a dispute. Thus, it is advisable that we come to two conclusions since neither of us are official WH40k rules lawyers; one, that if a Lasgun is not a CCW because it is not a rifle, and therefor its stock/butt does not count. Two, that it is a rifle and the discussion should still be in play.

Just because anyone agrees with anyone, doesn't mean they are correct. Beware the thin line between what is "Correct" and what is "Popular." 
   
Made in au
Long-Range Ultramarine Land Speeder Pilot




Probably somewhere I shouldn't be

As an intellectual exercise only:

What would be the impact of considering all CCW's to be single handed, unless stated to be two handed? Do we then run into issues given the very broad definitions of what constitutes a CCW given in the BGB?

40k: WHFB: (I want a WE Icon, dammit!)
DR:80S+G+M(GD)B++I++Pw40k96+D+A+++/areWD206R+++T(M)DM+
Please stop by and check out my current P&M Blog: Space Wolves Wolf Lord 
   
Made in gb
Hanging Out with Russ until Wolftime







Skinnattittar wrote:
Gwar! wrote:
Skinnattittar wrote:
Gwar! wrote:
Skinnattittar wrote:This brings up a good point for the Imperial Guard. Now, RAI, I am going to say this is a no, but RAW.... The new Guardsmen is described as having a Lasgun and Close Combat Weapon. The humble Lasgun is not described as being a single or two-handed weapon anymore, and in the main rulebook, page 37, first column, fourth paragraph describes that two single-handed weapons give the +1 attack bonus. So is the Lasgun single handed?
The lasgun is not said to be a Close Combat weapon in any way.
True, not specifically. Page 42, first column, second paragraph "Normal Close Combat Weapons," somewhat vaguely makes examples of CCW. Listed there are 'rifle butts.' I think it is reasonable to assume that the Lasgun has a butt/stock.
A lasgun is not a "Rifle", it is a Lasgun.
Now that, sir, is a semantic, and I would argue that a Lasgun falls into the category of 'rifle' and it is obvious that we will not be able to resolve such a dispute. Thus, it is advisable that we come to two conclusions since neither of us are official WH40k rules lawyers; one, that if a Lasgun is not a CCW because it is not a rifle, and therefor its stock/butt does not count. Two, that it is a rifle and the discussion should still be in play.
I agree with your comprimise sir. However, if one would be so kind as to allow me to elaborate on why I feel that the Lasgun cannot count as a Close Combat Weapon. I feel it cannot be counted as a close combat weapon because it is not specificaly stated to be so. I am of the opinion that the passage you refer within the rulebook is designed to prevent confusion in newer players in regards to models who do not have any discernible de jure close combat weapons which one when first learning the game might assume means that it cannot partake in the assault phase of the turn structure. I am of the opinion that the rules directly following this are clear enough to infer that in order to gain the addition attack, one must be armed with two explicitly defined close combat weapons that are not designated as two handed, which I also believe to be there for the sole reason of "backwards compatibility", as it were, with weapons such as the Big Choppa, as any "two handed" weapons in newer codex's, such as the Relic Blade, are not by the rules two handed, but rather have a special rule denying the ability to claim the bonus attack.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/08/27 15:31:49


Got 40k Rules Question? Send an e-mail to Gwar! for your Confidential Rules Queries.
Please do not PM me unless really necessary. I much prefer e-mail.
Need it Answered RIGHT NOW!? Ring me on Skype: "gwar.the.trolle"
Looking to play some Vassal? Ring me for a game!
Download The Unofficial FAQs by Gwar! here! (Dark Eldar Draft FAQ v1.0 released 04/Nov/2010! Download it before the Pandas eat it all!)
 
   
Made in gb
Shrieking Guardian Jetbiker






Northern Ireland

Gwar! wrote:
Skinnattittar wrote:
Gwar! wrote:
Skinnattittar wrote:This brings up a good point for the Imperial Guard. Now, RAI, I am going to say this is a no, but RAW.... The new Guardsmen is described as having a Lasgun and Close Combat Weapon. The humble Lasgun is not described as being a single or two-handed weapon anymore, and in the main rulebook, page 37, first column, fourth paragraph describes that two single-handed weapons give the +1 attack bonus. So is the Lasgun single handed?
The lasgun is not said to be a Close Combat weapon in any way.
True, not specifically. Page 42, first column, second paragraph "Normal Close Combat Weapons," somewhat vaguely makes examples of CCW. Listed there are 'rifle butts.' I think it is reasonable to assume that the Lasgun has a butt/stock.
A lasgun is not a "Rifle", it is a Lasgun.


Exactly. In addition, if we assign it 'rifle' status, the line on page 42 "Of course, if a model is using a two-handed close combat weapon (such as a rifle's butt...)" excludes if from 1-handed status.

I consider the words "normal close combat weapons" under the heading "Fighting with two single handed weapons" on page 42 to be very clear indication that CCWs are, by default, single-handed. Page 42 defines all the CCWs that have no other classification as single-handed. Pistols are classified as normal CCWs, so are also single-handed. Nothing else that doesn't have a handedness, or a rule allowing use in CC (Staff of Ulthamar, Burna etc) CAN NEVER be used in CC, as it is neither single-handed, or, if it's a rifle butt, it's two-anded, and therefore NEVER confers an additional Attack.

Unless you're playing Daemonhunters, Witch Hunters, or Dark Eldar. Sigh.

Mind War, ftw! - Call that a Refused Flank?
mindwar_ftw@hotmail.com

Walking that Banning tightrope, one step at a time...
 
   
Made in us
Pyromaniac Hellhound Pilot






unistoo wrote:As an intellectual exercise only:

What would be the impact of considering all CCW's to be single handed, unless stated to be two handed? Do we then run into issues given the very broad definitions of what constitutes a CCW given in the BGB?
You sir earn a cookie and I commend you for writing what I failed to. This is really an intellectual exercise. Perhaps it should get its own thread, as I see this veering away from the original question and becoming more about Lasguns than 'what is two-handed and what is single-handed?'

Just because anyone agrees with anyone, doesn't mean they are correct. Beware the thin line between what is "Correct" and what is "Popular." 
   
Made in us
Sagitarius with a Big F'in Gun




Skinnattittar wrote:Now that, sir, is a semantic, and I would argue that a Lasgun falls into the category of 'rifle' and it is obvious that we will not be able to resolve such a dispute. Thus, it is advisable that we come to two conclusions since neither of us are official WH40k rules lawyers; one, that if a Lasgun is not a CCW because it is not a rifle, and therefor its stock/butt does not count. Two, that it is a rifle and the discussion should still be in play.


More to the point: A lasgun is not a rifle butt, it's an entire rifle. Perhaps GW is indicating that if your rifle is destroyed you may use the components as brute clubs. Without making some sort of assumptions about RaI, you can't use a lasgun as a 1-handed CCW. There's just no rule to support that view.

In general: To be a CCW something is generally described as such, and it's generally obvious when something gets the bonus (for example, being described as having a normal CCW and a pistol).
   
Made in us
Pyromaniac Hellhound Pilot






Gwar! wrote:
Skinnattittar wrote:
Gwar! wrote:
Skinnattittar wrote:
Gwar! wrote:
Skinnattittar wrote:This brings up a good point for the Imperial Guard. Now, RAI, I am going to say this is a no, but RAW.... The new Guardsmen is described as having a Lasgun and Close Combat Weapon. The humble Lasgun is not described as being a single or two-handed weapon anymore, and in the main rulebook, page 37, first column, fourth paragraph describes that two single-handed weapons give the +1 attack bonus. So is the Lasgun single handed?
The lasgun is not said to be a Close Combat weapon in any way.
True, not specifically. Page 42, first column, second paragraph "Normal Close Combat Weapons," somewhat vaguely makes examples of CCW. Listed there are 'rifle butts.' I think it is reasonable to assume that the Lasgun has a butt/stock.
A lasgun is not a "Rifle", it is a Lasgun.
Now that, sir, is a semantic, and I would argue that a Lasgun falls into the category of 'rifle' and it is obvious that we will not be able to resolve such a dispute. Thus, it is advisable that we come to two conclusions since neither of us are official WH40k rules lawyers; one, that if a Lasgun is not a CCW because it is not a rifle, and therefor its stock/butt does not count. Two, that it is a rifle and the discussion should still be in play.
I agree with your comprimise sir. However, if one would be so kind as to allow me to elaborate on why I feel that the Lasgun cannot count as a Close Combat Weapon. I feel it cannot be counted as a close combat weapon because it is not specificaly stated to be so. I am of the opinion that the passage you refer within the rulebook is designed to prevent confusion in newer players in regards to models who do not have any discernible de jure close combat weapons which one when first learning the game might assume means that it cannot partake in the assault phase of the turn structure. I am of the opinion that the rules directly following this are clear enough to infer that in order to gain the addition attack, one must be armed with two explicitly defined close combat weapons that are not designated as two handed, which I also believe to be there for the sole reason of "backwards compatibility", as it were, with weapons such as the Big Choppa, as any "two handed" weapons in newer codex's, such as the Relic Blade, are not by the rules two handed, but rather have a special rule denying the ability to claim the bonus attack.
While I do not agree with your logic, Elessar has deflated my argument by noting a passage inches away from my main source of evidence that refutes it. Good show, Mr. Elessar, good show. And silly man, Mr. Skinnattittar, silly man.

Lasgun + CCW = +1 Attack? Subject Defeated!

Just because anyone agrees with anyone, doesn't mean they are correct. Beware the thin line between what is "Correct" and what is "Popular." 
   
Made in gb
Shrieking Guardian Jetbiker






Northern Ireland

Skinnattittar wrote:
Gwar! wrote:
Skinnattittar wrote:
Gwar! wrote:
Skinnattittar wrote:
Gwar! wrote:
Skinnattittar wrote:This brings up a good point for the Imperial Guard. Now, RAI, I am going to say this is a no, but RAW.... The new Guardsmen is described as having a Lasgun and Close Combat Weapon. The humble Lasgun is not described as being a single or two-handed weapon anymore, and in the main rulebook, page 37, first column, fourth paragraph describes that two single-handed weapons give the +1 attack bonus. So is the Lasgun single handed?
The lasgun is not said to be a Close Combat weapon in any way.
True, not specifically. Page 42, first column, second paragraph "Normal Close Combat Weapons," somewhat vaguely makes examples of CCW. Listed there are 'rifle butts.' I think it is reasonable to assume that the Lasgun has a butt/stock.
A lasgun is not a "Rifle", it is a Lasgun.
Now that, sir, is a semantic, and I would argue that a Lasgun falls into the category of 'rifle' and it is obvious that we will not be able to resolve such a dispute. Thus, it is advisable that we come to two conclusions since neither of us are official WH40k rules lawyers; one, that if a Lasgun is not a CCW because it is not a rifle, and therefor its stock/butt does not count. Two, that it is a rifle and the discussion should still be in play.
I agree with your comprimise sir. However, if one would be so kind as to allow me to elaborate on why I feel that the Lasgun cannot count as a Close Combat Weapon. I feel it cannot be counted as a close combat weapon because it is not specificaly stated to be so. I am of the opinion that the passage you refer within the rulebook is designed to prevent confusion in newer players in regards to models who do not have any discernible de jure close combat weapons which one when first learning the game might assume means that it cannot partake in the assault phase of the turn structure. I am of the opinion that the rules directly following this are clear enough to infer that in order to gain the addition attack, one must be armed with two explicitly defined close combat weapons that are not designated as two handed, which I also believe to be there for the sole reason of "backwards compatibility", as it were, with weapons such as the Big Choppa, as any "two handed" weapons in newer codex's, such as the Relic Blade, are not by the rules two handed, but rather have a special rule denying the ability to claim the bonus attack.
While I do not agree with your logic, Elessar has deflated my argument by noting a passage inches away from my main source of evidence that refutes it. Good show, Mr. Elessar, good show. And silly man, Mr. Skinnattittar, silly man.

Lasgun + CCW = +1 Attack? Subject Defeated!


YUS AYE ARRR THE WIN!!!

And similar sentiments.

Mind War, ftw! - Call that a Refused Flank?
mindwar_ftw@hotmail.com

Walking that Banning tightrope, one step at a time...
 
   
Made in ca
Decrepit Dakkanaut





I think it's very important to note that the rules for bonus attacks are limited to close combat weapons.

The following is a diagram explaining the scope of the rules and references regarding bonuses from single handed weapons.

[The Assault Phase[Close Combat Weapons[Fighting with Two Single-Handed Weapons]]]

If a model has two close combat weapons listed in its Wargear list, and the combination of those weapons satisfies the requirements for bonus attacks given under Close Combat Weapons on p.42 of the rulebook, then the model gets the bonus. Otherwise it doesn't.

Stormbolters are not Pistols, which would make them Close Combat Weapons in addition to being Assault-typed ranged weapons, and they are not listed as being close combat weapons or a type of special close combat weapon in any wargear descriptions labeled "Stormbolters". Therefore a model will not normally get a bonus attack. 'Normally' meaning, of course, pending special rules that cite Stormbolters such as True Grit.
   
Made in gb
Shrieking Guardian Jetbiker






Northern Ireland

Wow. Way to reword my previous post, without adding anything.

While I'm all for the YMDC tenets, that post was unnecessary, as it's just regurgitating points not only made, but that have already received general acceptance. Essentially, it flogs a dead horse.

That's not personal, right? I'm criticising the content, not the poster.

Mind War, ftw! - Call that a Refused Flank?
mindwar_ftw@hotmail.com

Walking that Banning tightrope, one step at a time...
 
   
Made in ca
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Elessar:

No, you're criticizing me for posting, rather than addressing the content of the post, I'd like to explain, however, that I meant to post that rather a while ago, but I've been having connection problems. But now that it's posted, perhaps you'll excuse me when I say that I like my version better than yours.
   
Made in us
Pyromaniac Hellhound Pilot






I think it is completely fine for someone to post the same points worded differently. Not only does it show there are others who are in logical agreement, rather than the pointless and mindless 'QFT' posts, to something someone else said. And just because I conceded to the point, does not mean that I, as the original poster of that particular argument, am right.

Just because anyone agrees with anyone, doesn't mean they are correct. Beware the thin line between what is "Correct" and what is "Popular." 
   
Made in us
Sagitarius with a Big F'in Gun




Alright, it seems this thread has managed to struggle past the lasgun issue.

However, if multiple CCW's give +1A, and a model's codex entry clearly has multiple weapons, none of which are designated as being two-handed, none of which shoot or confer special powers (like enhanced strength or the ability to ignore armor), can we thereby assume that the model recieves +1A? What is the weapons listed, such as claws, can only be interpreted as being one-handed?

Beasts are generally listed as having "fangs and claws", Necron flayed ones are listed as having "claws" (which is plural), Necron wraiths are listed as having claws and a tail-based weapon.
I don't think a sportmanship-aware player would give the extra attack to any of these models, but RaW, how does it play?
   
Made in gb
Hanging Out with Russ until Wolftime







Claws etc are never defined as any sort of Close Combat Weapon so they never get +1 Attack for having 2 CCW.

Got 40k Rules Question? Send an e-mail to Gwar! for your Confidential Rules Queries.
Please do not PM me unless really necessary. I much prefer e-mail.
Need it Answered RIGHT NOW!? Ring me on Skype: "gwar.the.trolle"
Looking to play some Vassal? Ring me for a game!
Download The Unofficial FAQs by Gwar! here! (Dark Eldar Draft FAQ v1.0 released 04/Nov/2010! Download it before the Pandas eat it all!)
 
   
Made in ca
Decrepit Dakkanaut





According to the rules it should play as the model's A characteristic without bonuses from having extra close combat weapons, as mentioned on p.37 of the rulebook under Number of Attacks.

Basically a unit's entry will tell you whether a piece of wargear counts as having extra close combat weapons, and if it doesn't then you don't.

It's something to note that all the 5th edition compatible books do this, while the 3rd and 4th edition books all assumed that all models had a least one close combat weapon and hence could fight in close combat.
   
Made in us
Sagitarius with a Big F'in Gun




Claws are a weapon.
All weapons are either CCW or shooting weapons.
Claws are not a shooting weapon.
Therefore, claws are a CCW.

Also, p. 33 (in bold) describes (more or less) as a CCW. I'd personally consider this paragraph fluff, but equivalent paragraphs (such as that for the movement phase) are cited on YMDC as rules.

Edit: @Nurglitch, p. 37 does not address the issue of whether or not claws satisfy the two weapons requirement listed on that page.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/08/27 18:46:34


 
   
Made in gb
Hanging Out with Russ until Wolftime







ajfirecracker wrote:Claws are a weapon.
All weapons are either CCW or shooting weapons.
Claws are not a shooting weapon.
Therefore, claws are a CCW.
No, that is a fallacy. They are not CCW, they do not get Bonus Attacks. They never have and never will.

Got 40k Rules Question? Send an e-mail to Gwar! for your Confidential Rules Queries.
Please do not PM me unless really necessary. I much prefer e-mail.
Need it Answered RIGHT NOW!? Ring me on Skype: "gwar.the.trolle"
Looking to play some Vassal? Ring me for a game!
Download The Unofficial FAQs by Gwar! here! (Dark Eldar Draft FAQ v1.0 released 04/Nov/2010! Download it before the Pandas eat it all!)
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: