Switch Theme:

Most Space Marines have two 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
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

majortwitch wrote:
 insaniak wrote:
majortwitch wrote:
Bolt pistols and boltguns have no special rule of two handed, so therefore both are able to used in a single hand.

You're making an illogical leap here that having a special rule detailing which weapons are two-handed somehow makes single-handed the default.

If I like cookies that have chocolate cream centres, or that have vanilla cream centres, and only one specific cookie in the supermarket has chocolate cream centres, that doesn't mean that every other cookie has vanilla cream. Some might not have cream at all.


Not sure how you find that to be illogical. Two-handed weapons are two-handed weapons, yes? Weapons without the two-handed special rule are not two-handed. So what does that leave pistols, boltguns, and lascannons as? Single-handed, three-handed the rules are simply unclear about the handiness of most weapons. But it would be the most logical to assume that they are in fact single-handed. Does three-handed make sense for boltgun, it cannot be two-handed as two-handed are clearly defined.

So by your logic a tormentor helm must be a single-handed weapon, even though it takes no hands to use?

'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 us
[ADMIN]
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Los Angeles, CA

 Ghaz wrote:

So by your logic a tormentor helm must be a single-handed weapon, even though it takes no hands to use?


Does the Tormentor helm even have a rules presence at all in the current codex (I can't seem to find it)?


The only thing modern 40k seems to specify anymore is when a weapon takes two-hands to use. That does make it reasonable to assume that when it doesn't specify one way or another, all other melee weapons are assumed to be single-handed.


I play (click on icons to see pics): DQ:70+S++G(FAQ)M++B-I++Pw40k92/f-D+++A+++/areWD104R+T(D)DM+++
yakface's 40K rule #1: Although the rules allow you to use modeling to your advantage, how badly do you need to win your toy soldier games?
yakface's 40K rule #2: Friends don't let friends start a MEQ army.
yakface's 40K rule #3: Codex does not ALWAYS trump the rulebook, so please don't say that!
Waaagh Dakka: click the banner to learn more! 
   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

No, the tormentor helm is not in the current codex but it does give a somewhat fluffy example of a weapon that is neither one- or two-handed.

'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 us
[ADMIN]
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Los Angeles, CA

 Ghaz wrote:
No, the tormentor helm is not in the current codex but it does give a somewhat fluffy example of a weapon that is neither one- or two-handed.


Well sure, and I think we could reasonably expect that if Tormentor Helms were in the current game they'd have special rules explaining how they worked exactly, much the way that Servo-arms, Tyranid tail attacks, etc, work.

But back in previous editions a weapon being single-handed was basically denoted in the codex's wargear page, something that isn't done anymore. So again, it seems reasonable to assume that the way they write current codexes is that if a melee weapon isn't specified as being two-handed (or some other form of bonus attack) then we kind of have to assume that it is single-handed, or else pretty much nobody ever is getting the +1A bonus for wielding two single-handed weapons.


I play (click on icons to see pics): DQ:70+S++G(FAQ)M++B-I++Pw40k92/f-D+++A+++/areWD104R+T(D)DM+++
yakface's 40K rule #1: Although the rules allow you to use modeling to your advantage, how badly do you need to win your toy soldier games?
yakface's 40K rule #2: Friends don't let friends start a MEQ army.
yakface's 40K rule #3: Codex does not ALWAYS trump the rulebook, so please don't say that!
Waaagh Dakka: click the banner to learn more! 
   
Made in ie
Stern Iron Priest with Thrall Bodyguard





Ireland

It may be a reasonable assumption that if it's not listed as a "two handed" weapon that it is a single handed weapon but since there is no "single handed" rule all we can actually say RAW is that those weapons are not "two handed".


BTW can the OP quit with the appeals to authority and nameless hordes of people that agree with him? It's pure logical fallacy. Me and the guys here in the design team office find it laughable. :p



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also to the OP did you every think the often in that crucial sentence was that the weapons are often in hands.... many models don't have hands in fact there is an entire codex of freaky limbed biomorphed things that don't have "hands".

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/07 07:18:32


It's not the size of the blade, it's how you use it.
2000+
1500+
2000+

For all YMDC arguements remember: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vbd3E6tK2U

My blog: http://dublin-spot-check.blogspot.ie/ 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

rigeld2 wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
pyre wrote:
you can't make the assumption that if it's not two handed, it HAS to be one-handed.

To be fair the rules make that assumption.

Citation required.

Page 24:

"Engaged models with two single-handed weapons (often a Melee weapon and/or pistol in each hand) get + 1 Attack."

Either everything is a single-handed weapon unless it has the Two-Handed rule and the rules work just fine,

Or nothing is a single-handed weapon as there is no defining rule that states that weapons are single-handed and you can never claim the +1 for attacking with two single-handed weapons...

Since #2 leads to a useless rule and #1 does not, I would lean towards the interpretation that does not make the rule useless.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/07 10:13:36


"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
The Hive Mind





It's not useless - it explains that Melee weapons and pistols (also Melee) fit that rule.

Your assertion is still incorrect - the rules did not make that assumption in the quote you provided.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

rigeld2 wrote:
It's not useless - it explains that Melee weapons and pistols (also Melee) fit that rule.

Your assertion is still incorrect - the rules did not make that assumption in the quote you provided.

The rules make the assumption.

Page 24:

"Engaged models with two single-handed weapons (often a Melee weapon and/or pistol in each hand) get + 1 Attack."

Melee weapons and/or pistols are often single-handed weapons, If it has the two handed rule, then clearly that is the exception to the Melee weapon and/or pistol being single-handed.

The rules assume that Melee weapons and/or pistols are all single-handed.

"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
The Hive Mind





Which is not the same thing as your original assertion, that all weapons are single handed if they are not two-handed.

Huge difference. Your recent statement is supported by rules. Your original one is not.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in im
Nasty Nob on Warbike with Klaw





Liverpool

majortwitch wrote:
If you are going to see rules as intended and not as written
Rules as Intended: Melee weapons only, that's painfully clear.
Rules as Written: There are no Single-Handed weapons. That bonus can never be claimed. But p51 has a rule allowing the bonus to be claimed by two melee weapons.

There is no scenario, written or intended, that allows a model to claim this bonus in the way you claim.
There are clear examples provided within the rules showing this interpretation is wrong.
Why is your assumption about Single-Handed weapons more valid than these examples provided in the rules?
   
Made in us
Martial Arts Fiday






Nashville, TN

Also, the specific example given in the OP is given in the BRB and the models only have a single attack.

Also also, the 2,000 people in my living room right now all see it my way and are dumbfounded at the ignorance they see in this thread.

"Holy Sh*&, you've opened my eyes and changed my mind about this topic, thanks Dakka OT!"

-Nobody Ever

Proverbs 18:2

"CHEESE!" is the battlecry of the ill-prepared.

 warboss wrote:

GW didn't mean to hit your wallet and I know they love you, baby. I'm sure they won't do it again so it's ok to purchase and make up.


Albatross wrote:I think SlaveToDorkness just became my new hero.

EmilCrane wrote:Finecast is the new Matt Ward.

Don't mess with the Blade and Bolter! 
   
Made in us
Lurking Gaunt




Has anyone pointed out that on pg 24 underneath the rules for # of attacks it says:

For example, a unit of five Space Marines with Bolters roll five dice for their attacks in close combat. If they were charging, however, they would roll ten dice (1 Attack on their profile +1 for charging= 2 each).

I don't think they would have used that example if this weren't the case.

My bad, I see that it has on page 2 of this thread, and right above this post (sorry Slave, I should learn to read). I would just like to point out also that under shooting weapons on page 50 under Type, last sentence it says: A shooting weapon can only be used to make shooting attacks.

The pistol is the exception to this rule because it specifically states it can be used in melee. The bolter does not, ergo it cannot be used in combat, so cannot contribute to bonus attacks while in combat.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/02/07 14:28:54


"El queso está viejo y pútrido. ¿Dónde está el sanitario?"

 
   
Made in pr
Longtime Dakkanaut




Minneapolis, MN

HiveGuard wrote:
Has anyone pointed out that on pg 24 underneath the rules for # of attacks it says:

For example, a unit of five Space Marines with Bolters roll five dice for their attacks in close combat. If they were charging, however, they would roll ten dice (1 Attack on their profile +1 for charging= 2 each).

I don't think they would have used that example if this weren't the case.


Ovion mentioned it on page 2, to which majortwitch replied:

majortwitch wrote:
That only an example and should not be treated as rule. But, it is listed as "a unit of five space marines" which are assumed to be from a tactical squad. However, it does not specify it being a standard unit of five space marines. Which leave room to conjure that those marines perhaps have a special rule that inhibits them from taking the +1. They are just noted to have boltguns, so do they even have power armour on?


...yeah

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/02/07 14:23:01


 
   
Made in us
Martial Arts Fiday






Nashville, TN

I actually did...in the post above yours.

@ Danielbeeaver: Dear God. had I read that level of argument in the first place I would've left this thread long ago. Wow, thanks for saving me some time in the future.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/07 14:23:40


"Holy Sh*&, you've opened my eyes and changed my mind about this topic, thanks Dakka OT!"

-Nobody Ever

Proverbs 18:2

"CHEESE!" is the battlecry of the ill-prepared.

 warboss wrote:

GW didn't mean to hit your wallet and I know they love you, baby. I'm sure they won't do it again so it's ok to purchase and make up.


Albatross wrote:I think SlaveToDorkness just became my new hero.

EmilCrane wrote:Finecast is the new Matt Ward.

Don't mess with the Blade and Bolter! 
   
Made in us
Lurking Gaunt




Also bottom of page 51: However it's worth remembering that if a model has two or more Melee weapons he gains +1 Attack in close combat (see page 24)

Regardless of the "often" listed in that rule I site again that shooting weapon can only be used to make shooting attacks.

The rule on pg 24 doesn't automatically give permission to non-Melee weapons to generate extra attacks.

"El queso está viejo y pútrido. ¿Dónde está el sanitario?"

 
   
Made in pr
Longtime Dakkanaut




Minneapolis, MN

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Dear God. had I read that level of argument in the first place I would've left this thread long ago. Wow, thanks for saving me some time in the future.

To be fair, the original question (whether space marines have 2 attacks) is valid, and we actually had a few people in our store confused about that. They usually played Tau and IG, and they initially interpreted it the way the OP did: that every unit has a CC weapon, and the SM's furthermore have an extra one in the form of the bolt pistol. The RAW are a little confusing, but the example in the BRB puts the confusion to rest - as I'm sure that example was meant to do.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/02/07 14:37:28


 
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




Vanished Completely

As for the two/one handed assumption thing:
I would like to point out that a las-cannon, a weapon larger then a man, doesn't state it is a 'two handed' weapon. This weapon system can be found on infantry models, often a weapon team consisting of one model with multiple 'people' on it. It is clear these weapons are not designed to be used by one person, let alone wielded in a single hand. Clearly the 'logic' that anything not labeled as two handed must therefore be one handed has to be incorrect because it creates situations where weapons normally found on vehicle are being carried around 'one handed.'

The only way we can confirm if a weapon is one handed is if the Rules tell us that weapon is one handed, and there is no Rule for that.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/02/07 20:02:22


8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.  
   
Made in gb
Mauleed



UK

How has this thread managed to reach three pages?

40K: CSM/DA/IG/Orks
FoW: LW Brits

Total Nephilim kills: 6 cultists 
   
Made in im
Nasty Nob on Warbike with Klaw





Liverpool

twj wrote:
How has this thread managed to reach three pages?
Well it had gone for 24hours without anyone posting in it.
It was destined to fall off the front page and forever be forgoten.
Until....

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/08 18:43:43


 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

rigeld2 wrote:
Which is not the same thing as your original assertion, that all weapons are single handed if they are not two-handed.

Huge difference. Your recent statement is supported by rules. Your original one is not.

The rules assume all weapons are one handed unless they have the two handed rule, it just does not make a difference for non melee weapons.

"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
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair






 yakface wrote:
 Ghaz wrote:
No, the tormentor helm is not in the current codex but it does give a somewhat fluffy example of a weapon that is neither one- or two-handed.


Well sure, and I think we could reasonably expect that if Tormentor Helms were in the current game they'd have special rules explaining how they worked exactly, much the way that Servo-arms, Tyranid tail attacks, etc, work.

But back in previous editions a weapon being single-handed was basically denoted in the codex's wargear page, something that isn't done anymore. So again, it seems reasonable to assume that the way they write current codexes is that if a melee weapon isn't specified as being two-handed (or some other form of bonus attack) then we kind of have to assume that it is single-handed, or else pretty much nobody ever is getting the +1A bonus for wielding two single-handed weapons.



The whole Question was fallacious for 2 reasons:

1) Tormentor Helms were Pistols, so while not taking any hands they granted +1A with a Single handed weapon.

2) Tormentor Helms specifically granted +1 Attack for being Pistols, with the addition that they even granted the attack to 2-handed weapon wielders(Like the Punisher they were so often paired with).

This is my Rulebook. There are many Like it, but this one is mine. Without me, my rulebook is useless. Without my rulebook, I am useless.
Stop looking for buzz words and start reading the whole sentences.



 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User





Just to go back to the OP for a bit.

On page 51 it states
"If a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with
the Melee Type"

This means that a pistol, which can be used as a CCW does not meat that requirment. It is not specifically stated as having the melee type, and isn't stated to "count as" a CCW either.

Am I reading that correctly?

If yes, how would Space Marines not get +1A for having a pistol (which can be used as a close combat weapon) and the close combat weapon they are treated as being armed with by not having a weapon specifically stated as having the melee type?

Curiosity compelled me to ask. And first post
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Pistols specifically have the melee type. This has been covered
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User





nosferatu1001 wrote:
Pistols specifically have the melee type. This has been covered


So according to the Rule on Page 50.

"Melee Type
Weapons withthe Melee type can only be used in close combat."

So a pistol can only be used in close combat if what you have said is true.

Also can you point out where a Pistol is stated to specifically have the melee type?
   
Made in im
Nasty Nob on Warbike with Klaw





Liverpool

Ansel Darach wrote:
Also can you point out where a Pistol is stated to specifically have the melee type?
It's in the rule for the Weapon Type: Pistol.

BRB Weapon Type: Pistol wrote:A Pistol also counts as a close combat weapon in the Assault phase.
A pistol counts as a close combat weapon.
A close combat weapon has the "melee" type.

So by having a Pistol, they have a Specified Melee Weapon, so can't claim the "free" one.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/02/09 03:04:09


 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

Pistols don't have the melee type. They count as a close combat weapon in the assault phase.

A close combat weapon does have the melee type. So in the assault phase, when you are counting how many weapons the model has, the pistol counts as having the melee type.

 
   
Made in im
Nasty Nob on Warbike with Klaw





Liverpool

Ansel Darach wrote:
Curiosity compelled me to ask. And first post
Welcome aboard! There's nothing wrong with asking, it's how we learn
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User





 grendel083 wrote:
Ansel Darach wrote:
Also can you point out where a Pistol is stated to specifically have the melee type?
It's in the rule for the Weapon Type: Pistol.


Ok.

No where does it state a pistol to be "specifically of the melee type" in that entry.

Pistol weapons are listed as "pistol", which is not "melee".

However it does say in that entry that a pistol "counts as a close combat weapon in the Assault Phase".

I guess the question now is, do you consider something that "Counts As" something else to Specifically be the thing it's counting as?

I say no, counting as something does not make it specifically the thing it's counting as.

Also, saying yes counting as something does make it specifically the thing it's counting as is another correct interpretation.

This would be a good question for the FAQ, as the wording of 'counts as" is ambiguous and in my opinion should never be used in a ruleset.
   
Made in im
Nasty Nob on Warbike with Klaw





Liverpool

If that were the case, any model with just a pistol could claim an unspecified melee weapon, and thus the x2 weapon bonus.
There are rule examples in the assault section showing that this isn't correct.
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User





Well, as it is written it can be read that way.

Like I said, it's something that should be FAQed for clarity, and then never used again.

MTG cut the"counts as" statement from it's ruleset entirely for instance.

Counts As (Obsolete)
Some older cards were printed with text stating that the card "counts as" something. Cards printed with this text have received errata in the Oracle card reference to state that the card actually is that thing.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: