Switch Theme:

Death Guard Helbrute with two fists, how many attacks?  [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 us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon





 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
The point stands - your interpretation requires you to count the weapons more than once in order to invoke the fist's abilities twice, once per weapon. Please explain to me (as I am a new comer to this particular discussion that's been taking place for the past few months supposedly) why this works the way it does.
You count each weapon, each weapon has a special rule, and whenever the conditions for the special rule are met, the rule kicks in.

Each fist has a rule that provides +1A if the model has two fists. To meet that condition you have to:

1). Fight in melee.
2). Fight in melee using the fists.
3). Be equipped with two fists.

Each fist is a separate weapon. Therefore if you meet the conditions of one fist, you meet the conditions of both automatically. Therefore you gain +1A for each weapon.
Then would you say:

This unit contains 3 Raveners.. Each model is armed with two pairs of scything talons.
Scything Talon... You can re-roll hit rolls of 1 for this weapon. If the bearer has more than one pair of scything talons, it can make 1 additional attack with this weapon each time it fights.

Note, the unit description states the models are armed with two pairs of scything talons; however, there are no weapons entry for a PAIR of scything talons - just "scything talon". So, given the word "pair" shares definition with standard English, we will now assume the models are equipped with four scything talons.

So, Raveners equipped with two pairs of scything talon now hits for 8 times - 4 attacks base + (4) 1 extra attack per Scything Talon (not PAIR of Scything Talon) = 8 hits

Afterall, I fulfill the requirements for having more than 1 pair of scything talon at the moment of activation for attacking with, so I claim the bonus for EACH scything talon it has, just like how HBF works, right?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/30 20:07:47


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




You'd be correct, except there's a specific FAQ for Scything Talons that limits it to 1 extra attack. I'm fairly sure that's what they meant for HBF but it's not what the rules actually say. The rules are clear for HBF, but some people are adding their own interpretation to them, IMO.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Sk - I am listening. You've not added anything. You're making up restrictions that do. Not. Exist.

I look at every weapon I have to proc any rules. When fighting:
HBF 1 says - do you have two HBF? Why yes, yes I do. Oh great, you get an extra attacks

HBF 2 says the exact same thing. Why am I not processing this rule? Explain it, because according to the chainsword precedent, I must do so. And when I process this rule, I discover I STILL have two HBF , so I STILL get an extra attack.

It doesn't matter that I'm counting them twice, because the rule makes no such distinction or requirement
I meet the requirements twice, so I process the rules twice

Not to do so is breaking the rules

This thread is definitely done.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's the faq

Q: If a model has more than one pair of scything/monstrous scything/ massive scything talons, does it make 1 additional attack with one of those pairs, or 1 additional attack with each of those pairs?
A: 1 additional attack with one of those pairs.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/30 21:06:31


 
   
Made in us
Jovial Plaguebearer of Nurgle





Kansas, United States

nosferatu1001 wrote:
This thread is definitely done.


Because saying this totally makes it so.

My interpretation (and yes, there is room for interpretation, despite others suggesting otherwise) is that the RAW, which is what this forum is concerned about, says you get one additional attack with EACH fist, because they are each a separate weapon with the wording that, when you attack, you get one extra attack with this weapon.

HOWEVER, my interpretation is also that this is not RAI, and we will see a change or clarification (depending on your viewpoint) come through when the CSM/DG/TS FAQ hits.

Death Guard - "The Rotmongers"
Chaos Space Marines - "The Sin-Eaters"
Dark Angels - "Nemeses Errant"
Deathwatch 
   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

 Octopoid wrote:
HOWEVER, my interpretation is also that this is not RAI, and we will see a change or clarification (depending on your viewpoint) come through when the CSM/DG/TS FAQ hits.

We've already had the first FAQ for the Death Guard codex, and any changes in the Thousand Sons or Chaos Space Marines codex will not apply to the Death Guard codex. This most likely won't be looked at until the next FAQ update that is due in September

'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Octopod - why is it different to the chainsword?
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

You don’t add the weapon info to the model twice. You have the weapon twice. You look up the rule when using it. A Chainsword tells you you get an extra attack for having one. So having two gets +2. The Fist rules say you get an extra attack for having two. Not difficult to follow.

Outside of contorting plain English for internet points on Reddit/YMDC, it’s not a difficult rule to parse. This subforum just likes to have silly circle jerks.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 JohnnyHell wrote:
You don’t add the weapon info to the model twice.


Why not? Your weapons are 2 Helbrute Fists. You apply the rules for both weapons because you have both. Seems like a weird take. Do we get to use the melta rule only once if we have 2 Multimelta sponsons on a Leman Russ?

 JohnnyHell wrote:

You have the weapon twice. You look up the rule when using it. A Chainsword tells you you get an extra attack for having one. So having two gets +2. The Fist rules say you get an extra attack for having two. Not difficult to follow.

Outside of contorting plain English for internet points on Reddit/YMDC, it’s not a difficult rule to parse. This subforum just likes to have silly circle jerks.


I'm not sure why you're saying you get +2 attacks for two chainswords if you're also saying you don't have the weapon twice. How does that follow?
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 skchsan wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
Please re-read this breakdown and tell me why you think the logic is incorrect:
The bearer of the Hellbrute fists is selected to fight
At this point we see that the Hellbrute is equipped with a Hellbrute Fist (lets call this weapon #1), and a second Hellbrute Fist (lets call this weapon #2).
We make our 5 attacks with any given weapon (does not matter which).
Then we check our special rules

Weapon #1, the Hellbrute Fist, has a rule about extra attacks.
Emphasis mine.

Weapons are taken pre-deployment, during "muster army".
Sure, but why does that matter exactly? We have two weapons on the Hellbrute Dataslate... Not just one.
You need to know when your weapon's abilities are triggered/procced.
Yes, and the Hellbrute has a weapon that can use its abilities "Each time the bearer fights".

Each time the bearer fights, it gets to use the rule that says "Each time the bearer fights, if it is equipped with 2 Helbrute fists, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon." From Weapon #1, and also from Weapon #2. (If you do not think so, please prove otherwise).

The weapons' ability requires you to check at "when fighting", not "when attacking".
And your point? "Each time the bearer fights" you need to check your weapons to see if the fulfill the conditions for that extra attack. Weapon #1 100% fulfils the conditions. Weapon #2 also 100% fulfills the conditions for that extra attack

There are two different weapons that both have rules, why are you not allowing one of those weapons to use its rules???

Here is the crux of your false argument, because for some reason, you are not allowing the rules for both weapons to be used. Why?
Hence, it would be illegal to check for existence of HBF #2 when attacking with HBF #1, and vice versa.
What does this even mean?

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in us
Raging Ravener





Tyranid faqs to the rescue

Scything talons
You can re-roll hit rolls of 1 for this weapon. If the bearer has more than one pair of scything talons, it can make 1 additional attack with this weapon each time it fights


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If a model has more than one pair of scything/monstrous scything/massive scything talons, does it make 1 additional attack with one of those pairs, or 1 additional attack with each of those pairs?
A:
1 additional attack with one of those pairs.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/31 09:51:36


 
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

RAI it's definitely meant to be 1.
They just moved a rule that used to be part of the unit and put it on the specific weapon.

However, until they FAQ it, RAW its 2.
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

Slipspace wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
You don’t add the weapon info to the model twice.


Why not? Your weapons are 2 Helbrute Fists. You apply the rules for both weapons because you have both. Seems like a weird take. Do we get to use the melta rule only once if we have 2 Multimelta sponsons on a Leman Russ?

 JohnnyHell wrote:

You have the weapon twice. You look up the rule when using it. A Chainsword tells you you get an extra attack for having one. So having two gets +2. The Fist rules say you get an extra attack for having two. Not difficult to follow.

Outside of contorting plain English for internet points on Reddit/YMDC, it’s not a difficult rule to parse. This subforum just likes to have silly circle jerks.


I'm not sure why you're saying you get +2 attacks for two chainswords if you're also saying you don't have the weapon twice. How does that follow?


It’s hard to respond to something I didn’t say, so I won’t.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




You did say that though.

Why don't you have two,weapons with two stat lines and two rules? Prove it.
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




nosferatu1001 wrote:
You did say that though.

Why don't you have two,weapons with two stat lines and two rules? Prove it.
I think you've mis-understood Johnny's intent with his statement. It's not a RAW discussion. He's not wrong that a plain reading reveals the intent. And he's not wrong that people on this forum like to contort the plain reading for fun / points / etc.

To be honest, while everyone seems to agree on the RAW, I don't believe that anyone is genuinely advocating that it should be played as +2 attacks.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Nothing's being contorted.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




JakeSiren wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
You did say that though.

Why don't you have two,weapons with two stat lines and two rules? Prove it.
I think you've mis-understood Johnny's intent with his statement. It's not a RAW discussion. He's not wrong that a plain reading reveals the intent. And he's not wrong that people on this forum like to contort the plain reading for fun / points / etc.

To be honest, while everyone seems to agree on the RAW, I don't believe that anyone is genuinely advocating that it should be played as +2 attacks.

No contortion
Completely plain reading, completely backed up by the chainsword rule also function8g on a per chainsword basis. The only way to not arrive at +2 attacks would also mean that chainswords would not get an additional,attack per chainsword. As we know that to be false, the attempt to claim +1 attack only fails

Is it RAI? Well I've asked and it's not been faq, so that is one point FOR RAI.
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




So as I read the Helbrute rules, it literally reads "add 1 attack if this model has two melee weapons, under battering onslaught. Am I missing something?
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




Tacoma, WA, USA

They are talking about the Death Guard Helbrute, which has a different datasheet.
   
Made in us
Sneaky Sniper Drone




Les Etats Unis

I can't believe there's still debate over this. Let's try an analogy:

Say one day GW decides that they want to make another Daemon Engine, and come up with, say, a possessed Khornate Knight Armiger. This theoretical model has the option to either have a meltagun and a chain-cleaver, or two chain-cleavers. However, since this is a Khorne-aligned model, the rules guys want to give a bonus for going full melee, so they add a lore bit where if the model doesn't have any guns, some Daemon Prince blesses it by setting its chain-cleavers on fire, which obviously makes them more powerful. The stats for this model's chain-cleavers would then have the following rule:

"Each time the bearer fights with this weapon, if it is equipped with two chain-cleavers, the model it is fighting receives one mortal wound" (or something like that, I'm not too experienced with rules syntax).

Under the interpretation of Johnny Hell and skchsan, the target of this attack would only receive a mortal wound once. But that doesn't make logical sense! The mortal wounds inflicted here represent the chain-cleavers being on fire; are we to believe that if this model is granted its bonus, only one chain-cleaver is set alight?

The DG dreadnaught rule relies on the same logic, just a bit harder to understand. Each fist (there are two individual fists, just like there are two individual chain-cleavers on this hypothetical Armiger) says that if you only have fists, it gets two attacks. Otherwise, it gets one attack. That's two plus two attacks, which is four in total. Simple as.

As for the scything talons, the FAQ explicitly changed the way the weapon works. It's no different from increasing a points cost or removing a special rule.

Dudeface wrote:
 Eldarain wrote:
Is there another game where players consistently blame each other for the failings of the creator?

If you want to get existential, life for some.
 
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




Except for every editition of this unit in the past a pair of melee units has counted as a single weapon, ala 1 attack. Never before has two melee weapons counted as 2 extra attacks, that I am aware of. Has there ever been a precedent for a pair of weapons giving more than 1 attack? Ala Telemon Fists?
   
Made in us
Painlord Titan Princeps of Slaanesh




The past really doesn't enter into the conversation. This is a new edition of the rules and there may be new writers. These new writers are in no way beholden to what previous editions did or did not do.

The only thing that matters is what is written in the current BRB, any contemporaneous codices and, any errata/FAQ associated with them.
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




Ok, then I suggest as always you discuss it with the opponent before hand, and if not, have fun pissing off your opponents. I don't understand the intent behind these posts. It's always "Can I have permission to play a rule based purely on my semantic interpretation, for a in game advantage?"
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Ok, then I suggest as always you discuss it with the opponent before hand, and if not, have fun pissing off your opponents. I don't understand the intent behind these posts. It's always "Can I have permission to play a rule based purely on my semantic interpretation, for a in game advantage?"


The intent is to understand what the rules actually say. Armed with that knowledge you can then have a reasonable discussion about it before a game. Your last sentence completely ignores the possibility this is what the designers intended, essentially arguing not only RAI, but implying anyone who disagrees with you is some sort of rules-lawyering TFG, which I personally think is more questionable behaviour than suggesting a DG Helbrute might get +2 Attacks with double fists.

The problem with your position is there's a whole spectrum of possibilities and scenarios when it comes to determining intent. On the one hand, any reasonable person would accept the 8th Edition assault weapon rules should not be played RAW and the RAI was to allow you to fire after advancing. The RAW was clear but the RAI also very clear to literally everyone except (possibly) one single poster on this board. But there are lots of scenarios where it isn't as clear as that, including this one. I'm fairly sure the RAI is to allow only +1A but I'm not sure enough to tell my opponent they don't get +2A because the RAW is clear but the RAI is not.

The benefit of having these discussions here is to thrash out the actual arguments away from the table so when you do come across them at the table you're at least aware of the argument and what the rule says. I think a lot of these discussions degenerate because people insist on arguing RAI instead of RAW. It's perfectly OK to examine the RAW yet come down on the side of RAI, or suggest it's something to discuss with your opponent beforehand. What annoys me is people who will argue for an interpretation but won't back that up when challenged, yet continue to put forward that argument.
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




Except for one very overlooked obstacle:

Dakka is in no way EVER a citable source for rules confirmation. If I went to a tourney and said, "But the people on Dakka Dakka Dakka YMDC forums told me that I get an extra 2 attacks for double fists!" I'd be laughed out of the building. This entire forum is for semantic arguments that always devolve into a complete circle jerk about who is right and how they have correctly interpreted the "divine will of the writers". It's 20 individual prophets claiming to know the will of the emperor.
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Except for one very overlooked obstacle:

Dakka is in no way EVER a citable source for rules confirmation. If I went to a tourney and said, "But the people on Dakka Dakka Dakka YMDC forums told me that I get an extra 2 attacks for double fists!" I'd be laughed out of the building. This entire forum is for semantic arguments that always devolve into a complete circle jerk about who is right and how they have correctly interpreted the "divine will of the writers". It's 20 individual prophets claiming to know the will of the emperor.


Dakka does not need to be a citable source. It serves as a basis for a well formed position on what the rules actually say.

If you hash out what the RAW actually is, you can have a discussion with a TO about the rules from an informed position with citations already in your mind.

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




Explain to me how Dakka Dakka in any way helps formulate a coherent argument as to RAW with a TO? The first question out of ANY TO is always, some form of Cite your Source. IF your source is essentially I had a really good 5 page argument on the internet, prepare to have the TO deny your argument.
   
Made in gb
Brain-Dead Zombie of Nurgle





I see the debate is still ongoing, I do just assume that everyone is arguing with good intent and not just to be "that guy". The world's a nicer place that way.

I've fired an email off to GW's FAQ address, I'll update if they ever come back.

Thanks for everyone's contributions. Personally I'm more unsure about the rule than I was before but I just can't get over the similarity the chainsword and Prince's talons. I'll discuss this with my opponent should it come up on the table.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/02 17:02:52


   
Made in gb
Excited Doom Diver





FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Explain to me how Dakka Dakka in any way helps formulate a coherent argument as to RAW with a TO? The first question out of ANY TO is always, some form of Cite your Source. IF your source is essentially I had a really good 5 page argument on the internet, prepare to have the TO deny your argument.

FYI, a TO saying "Cite your source" is terrible judging, unless you count "Show me the rules" as the same thing. What matters (in the context of judging a rules query) is the rules, not things like unofficial rules blogs or promo posts like a Warhammer Community article.

And the idea is that the player should respond "Here's the rules - the Codex and FAQ - and here's the datasheet. The rule giving +1 attack is a weapon rule, it has two fists so each has the rule, both meet the conditions, so it gets +2 attacks total."

The point of this thread is to identify that that is what the rules say and to help people form a simple, cohesive, and accurate explanation in case anyone does challenge it.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




As above

As a to I'd never utter "cite your source", as that's an obnoxious way to ask to be shown the written rule in question, plus any applicable faq

Being shown the clear rule, written down with the conditions clearly met, ans showing these conditions do not materially alter the result over the chainsword faa where we KNOW you check the rule for each chainsword, and get a bonus each time? I'd be convinced.

That's the use of Dakka. No one has said to use it as a bloody source. But it does let you check your reasoning.
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




And that TO is fully within their right to say "No, that refers to a pair of weapons, not just a single one".

I would argue threads like this are a form of subtle asking a parent for permission to stick your hand in the cookie jar. As far as I have seen, (limited personal experience and not ever a TO) I have never seen anyone use this rule in this manner. Can anyone provide proof of this actually being allowed by a TO?

This forum is a way to test out interpretations of rules, before using them in game. You make the call, it's not called Help Me Understand the Rule. I was actually argue that is for tactics. This is specifically for people to argue rule interpretations.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: