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.

I have to agree with DR. If you choose 2 "non-special" CCWs as the weapons you are using in a combat, then you have no special attacks, as the bonuses of those weapons are ignored, and thus are not required.

The requirement seems to be that if you actually choose/use a special ccw that you must use it's ability, not that you must use the weapon itself. For example, armed with a power weapon and a bolt pistol, you must use the power weapon and cannot just use the bolt pistol.

Jidmah wrote: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.

Check again P.55 BA codex Whirlwind of gore is a Special Attack Rule (it is a special rule that is an attack thus special attack rule.)

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

special close combat attacks and normal attacks made with special weapons are two different things.

Jidmah wrote:Does say any special attacks have to be Special Rules? No, it does not.

Permissive ruleset, it has to allow it otherwise it is not allowed. does not say it is a special attack? then it is not.

Jidmah wrote: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 Depending on the special weapon relative its opponent's Toughness to wound
- is made at the model's initiative Depending on the special weapon
- allow Armor or Invuln saves (you might argue this, but saves in shooting and assault always note attacks ignoring armor are special cases)
- does nothing else

Fixed that for you with the underlined parts.

Jidmah wrote:Sooo:
Is using a powerklaw a special attack? No, it is an attack with a special weapon, not a special attack.
Is using a poison weapon a special attack? No, it is an attack with a special weapon, not a special attack.
Is using Blood Reaver in regular combat a special attack? No, it is an attack with a special weapon, not a special attack.
Is using Whirlwind of Gore a special attack? Yes, it is a Special rule used to attack I.E. Special Attack Rule.

Fixed that for you with the underlined parts.

nosferatu1001 wrote: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.

Is a Power Fist a:

1) Special Weapon, or 2) a Special Attack?

I think, considering the rules list it as #1 Special Weapon then it is in fact a Special Weapon, and not a Special Attack.

Permissive ruleset and all, it does not say that is is a Special Attack, so it is not.

And the wall is back

A special weapon generates special attacks. Bearing in mind the phrase "special attacks" deos NOT appear in the BA codex your argument fails at that hurdle

You are *arbitrarily* restricting a really simple English phrase to mean something you have picked, based on no "RAW" at all

In other words: no, special attacks is NOT defined in the BRB codex. Nice attempt at conflating two terms and pretending otherwise, standard fare though....

P.55 BA codex Whirlwind of gore is a Special Rule that is an attack. Thus Special Attack Rule. Or special rule that allows him to attack either way it is a special attack.

If the BRB does not say that attacking with a special weapon is a special attack then it is not. Permissive ruleset and all.

Not arbitrarily restricting anything, without the rule that says attacking with a special weapon is a special attack then it simply can not be.

THe BRB does not say what "the" is either, so I assume you ignore the definition of that?

Your argument is THAT flawed.

It's not an inclusive ruleset. You haev NOT found a definition for "Special attack" in either a BRB or a codex, therefore you fall back on the English definition - and given that the ONLY difference between a Normal CCW Chainsword and a Special CCW Power Sword is that the power sword ignores armour, and is therefore "Special", and attacks made with a power sword are, BY DEFINITION, special

Your argument ignores that one *fact* and pretends it doesnt exist. Which is fairly usual, tbh.

In the end the entire argument boils down to both sides failing to concede to a single point.

On one hand we have nos taking the broad definition. The problem here is what he's already pointed out, there is nothing that defines special attacks. The problem with the stance is by saying there is no definition on special attacks is actually hurting your argument in my opinion. You're saying that special weapons = special attacks is something that you've decided by how you read it, but as many people have pointed out before RAI=/=RAW. There's nothing saying you're right or wrong in that stance. The one thing that I will point out about this stance, there haven't been any specific passages beyond if you have a special attack it must be used, that support this side of the argument.

On the other hand we have DR taking the side of several rules that have been pointed out showing that when talking about attacks, they say attacks with a weapon instead of special attacks. He has chosen to take a narrow view (which I have to admit they have supported this side in a couple of posts namely the post by Galador on page 2 about special weapon bonuses) where special weapons give special weapon bonuses instead of special attacks.

The problem is that it never specifically states that attacks with special weapons are considered special attacks. We know this is a permissive ruleset, where we have to be told we CAN do something as compared to being told we CAN'T do something. We have the book saying that special weapons give bonuses, not that special weapons are special attacks. We've had 3 pages of circular arguments where neither side is giving an inch, but it's been pointed out that nowhere in the book is a special attack described so this is all a moot point until GW decides to issue an FAQ telling what a special attack is, which as we all know won't be until someone lights a fire under them, or the next edition comes out in a few years.

@Nos.
So a Special rule that is an attack is not a Special attack rule?

the english language disagrees with you.

No flaw.

That is the way language works.

It is not the attack that is ignoring armor, it is the weapon.

Normal attack, Special weapon, there is a difference.

I would be interested in seeing what a poll result of the dakkanauts would be on this issue.

What is a normal attack?

nosferatu1001 wrote:THe BRB does not say what "the" is either, so I assume you ignore the definition of that?

Your argument is THAT flawed.

It's not an inclusive ruleset. You haev NOT found a definition for "Special attack" in either a BRB or a codex, therefore you fall back on the English definition - and given that the ONLY difference between a Normal CCW Chainsword and a Special CCW Power Sword is that the power sword ignores armour, and is therefore "Special", and attacks made with a power sword are, BY DEFINITION, special

Your argument ignores that one *fact* and pretends it doesnt exist. Which is fairly usual, tbh.

The problem with trying to go with the dictionary definition there is that almost every word in the english language can have double meanings. What it boils down to is what GW means by special attack. A power weapon by your definition can be a special attack. However DR has just as valid of a point, in that the attack itself is normal in that it hits and wounds normally, and the end result has a special "bonus" tacked on. Both of you interpret it in different ways, and both of the ways have a valid argument to them, but none of us here in this argument wrote the rulebook, so we can argue until we're blue in the face and it doesn't change the fact that it boils down to interpretation. Which means that both you and DR have a valid interpretation, not a solid rule which we can actually nail down.

It is an attack that is described in the brb. Starts on P.34 with Fighting a close combat, and ends with removing casualties on P.39

That section details the normal attack sequence.

Taking saves is a normal part of the attack sequence. Denying them an armour save is something special, as it deos not happen normally.

And back round again

DR - the phrase is "Special attacks" - have you found that exact phrase? No? Then your argument falls flat. Again.

Answer this: what makes a power sword special?

So you just took my entire post, randomly changed stuff without any rules backup and ignored the part where I contradicted your agrument.

Actually your "Depending on Weapon" fixes are wrong. They appear nowhere in any of the mentioned sections in the BRB. Actually what does appear is:

"Some close combat weapons give the attacker a strength bonus - this is later explained in Special Close Combat Attacks"


Sadly they do not explain, but this in RAW says a weapon which enhances strength, in fact, does Special Close Combat Attacks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, just to pull your leg:

attack with a special rule =/= special attack

Ha, take that!

Who'd have thought it - a weapon that does something special to your attacks means you now have special attacks!

It's mind blowing

nosferatu1001 wrote:Taking saves is a normal part of the attack sequence. Denying them an armour save is something special, as it deos not happen normally.

Notice the section says 'Taking saves' not Taking armor saves.

p.39 under taking saves "Remember that even if the rules for a weapon OR attack states that no armor save is allowed, an invulnerable save may still be made."

and of course they do not explain what a special attack is, this book of rules is stupidly unclear sometimes.

Not going to answer the question?

The ONE defining element whcih turns a normal CCW (Chainsword) into a Special CCW (power sword) is the ability to ignore armour

It makes the weapon special, it makes the attacks made by that weapon special.

The rules that state a power sword is a SPECIAL WEAPON make it so, nothing else.

Normal attacks with a special weapon =/= Special attack (not that the brb defines special attack)

Closest I can find is Seths Special attack (this does not explicitly say special attack, but it is a special rule that is an attack, and a special rule that is an attack would have to be a special attack.)

However you are still, arbitrarily, making it a narrower definition than English tells you.

If I make attacks with a special weapon, my attacks are special.

Seths special power is an EXAMPLE of a special attack, it is not the *whole*

Not arbitrary in the slightest.

All attacks with the special weapons follow the normal attack sequence (Find # of attacks, roll to hit, roll to wound, take saves, and remove casualties.) Therefore they are normal attacks with special weapons.

His special attack has a special rule to tell you it is a special attack, if it does not tell you it is a special attack then, permissive ruleset, it is not special.

Stop with the words permissive ruleset: you dont understand them in this context

In this context "special attacks" is NOT internally defined, no matter how often you attempt to pretend it is. As such you fall back on simple English usage

And simple English usage tells you an attack with a special weapon is a special attack.

Your argument is void.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Stop with the words permissive ruleset: you dont understand them in this context

In this context "special attacks" is NOT internally defined, no matter how often you attempt to pretend it is. As such you fall back on simple English usage

And simple English usage tells you an attack with a special weapon is a special attack.

Your argument is void.

Not really you can also read it as i do that ...

Normal attacks are the number of attacks that a model has on its profile: Special attack attacks are those that are not generated with the profile. Extra attacks/ war gear are stacked as bonuses, however special attacks are in addition to the models normal attacks; servo arm gives an attack at str8 I1 ignoring armour saves. It is special as it is not combined with the normal attacks.

The word special appears so many times in this thread that it has lost all meaning!

FWIW my local group plays it as 'attack with special weapon=special attack'

just my experience, YMMV

BSA

DeathReaper:

As you also ignore that BRB, pg 38, first paragraph says using a weapon, which increases strength, is a special close combat attack, in addition to ignoring any other agrument brought against you ever, I asume you are not going to change your flawed opinion, even if GW FAQ'ed it. As you also keep repeating the same weak argument for four pages, this is no longer a discussion.

Jidmah wrote:DeathReaper:

As you also ignore that BRB, pg 38, first paragraph says using a weapon, which increases strength, is a special close combat attack, in addition to ignoring any other agrument brought against you ever, I asume you are not going to change your flawed opinion, even if GW FAQ'ed it. As you also keep repeating the same weak argument for four pages, this is no longer a discussion.

.... this is explained later in special close combat attacks .... wonderful, shame my copy of the rule book miss out this section. I will admit it looks likely that GW does want you to have to use special close combat weapons ... they've just massively messed up when writing.

GW screwing up seems to be nothing new, when looking across YMDC

Even if it does not explain what special attacks are, it obviously states that attacks using scorpion claws, big choppas and power fist-variants are, indeed, special attacks. Attacking with energy weapons and other stuff which does not increase strength might (RaW) not be special attacks, but is unlikely.

Essentially you have a common usage and logic (special CCW generate special attacks) vs an arbitrarily narrow definition not based on any ingame rules.

Lone Dragoon wrote:In the end the entire argument boils down to both sides failing to concede to a single point. etc

Why didn't the thread end here? I thought this sums it all up nicely.

Quick question, if all of the attacks are considered "normal attacks" (even power weapons), why shouldn't you just group all of your normal attacks in with your "other normal attacks" and roll all of the dice at the same time?

If i charged 10 ork boys and a ork nob into combat being 11 models in total the boyz having sluuga and choppa (2 close combat weapons) and the nob with a slugga and a powerclaw( one special weapon) i would get 40 normall attacks for the boys 2 as standard +1 for a charge and +1 for 2 ccw. then i would get 4 powerclaw attacks (special attacks) 3 as standard and one for a charge. power sword and pistol counts as having 2 ccws and using the power swords abilities, if you have a special weapon that reduces your intiative to 1 generally you need 2 of said weapoin to gain an xtra cc attack, hope this helps

Just wanted to point out a couple things:

Special attacks from pg 35 is a legacy rule, its been around several editions. In fact its been around long enough to actually have been in place back when there WERE such things as special attacks such as the eldar striking scorpion bonus special mask attack. The tyranids also used to have an attack that was worded as a special attack...bioplasm was it back then?

A power weapon doesnt really make anything special until we get to the save portion of the rules, at which point we find that wounds caused by such weapons cant be saved. So its not the attacks that are special (particularly since if they miss there is absolutely nothing special about them) but it is the wounds caused by those attacks/ weapons that are different. The attacks are exactly the same.


Sliggoth