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'd be extremely surprised if it wasn't English...

but that would explain everything

they use google translate or some poor guy to translation everthing to english

maybe they write everything in ork

 timetowaste85 wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I don't know how much clearer that Chaos Warrior scroll could be on the topic.

Oh, I know. But some people wouldn't admit there was a grizzly bear right in front of them, even if it swiped off their nose.

I think I am beginning to see why there are only four pages of rules if this is the amount of comment a clearly written war scroll can generate. I envision the next version to have one sentence of rules that goes along the lines of, "Do whatever the hell you feel like".

GW have never been any good at writing clearly.

I was only half way though the tread when I found a warscroll that might put the to rest so forgive me if its been said and didn't work.

The empire witch hunter has an option to dual wield pistols, and the bonus it gets for wielding 2 is getting 2 attacks, instead of the 1 on the weapon profile.

This says to me that it should be weapon profile once plus bonus. Otherwise the bonus for the witch hunter is essentially saying "you get 2 attacks instead of your 2 attacks"

 DarbNilbirts wrote:
I was only half way though the tread when I found a warscroll that might put the to rest so forgive me if its been said and didn't work.

The empire witch hunter has an option to dual wield pistols, and the bonus it gets for wielding 2 is getting 2 attacks, instead of the 1 on the weapon profile.

This says to me that it should be weapon profile once plus bonus. Otherwise the bonus for the witch hunter is essentially saying "you get 2 attacks instead of your 2 attacks"

There are a few more like that as well, such as the Doombull, and have been referenced.

Certain parties still argue that the number of Attacks will be referenced based on the carried Weapons first, and then special rules second. There is no complete basis for this, as the number of Attacks by a Weapon is a set number, even if you have two or more. It is the Abilities which then provide a use for multiple/paired Weapons or expand the number of Attacks.

Charistoph wrote:
There are a few more like that as well, such as the Doombull, and have been referenced.

Certain parties still argue that the number of Attacks will be referenced based on the carried Weapons first, and then special rules second. There is no complete basis for this, as the number of Attacks by a Weapon is a set number, even if you have two or more. It is the Abilities which then provide a use for multiple/paired Weapons or expand the number of Attacks.

That's your personal opinion. RAW does not say that and you still haven't provided any quote that supports your own stance - otherwise we wouldn't be here discussing it.

Vetril wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
There are a few more like that as well, such as the Doombull, and have been referenced.

Certain parties still argue that the number of Attacks will be referenced based on the carried Weapons first, and then special rules second. There is no complete basis for this, as the number of Attacks by a Weapon is a set number, even if you have two or more. It is the Abilities which then provide a use for multiple/paired Weapons or expand the number of Attacks.

That's your personal opinion. RAW does not say that and you still haven't provided any quote that supports your own stance - otherwise we wouldn't be here discussing it.

Actually, it DOES say that the number of Attacks by a Weapon is the from the profile. I will admit that the "even if you have two or more" is added on by myself, but the statement is not excluded, either. It is a matter of perspective, and one I've tried to get people to understand. It does not tell you to use that Attacks profile twice, so you do not have permission to do so.

I'm not going to be dragged into this discussion again. I think you are plain wrong. People can read the rules themselves and figure it out.

Charistoph wrote:

Vetril wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
There are a few more like that as well, such as the Doombull, and have been referenced.

Certain parties still argue that the number of Attacks will be referenced based on the carried Weapons first, and then special rules second. There is no complete basis for this, as the number of Attacks by a Weapon is a set number, even if you have two or more. It is the Abilities which then provide a use for multiple/paired Weapons or expand the number of Attacks.

That's your personal opinion. RAW does not say that and you still haven't provided any quote that supports your own stance - otherwise we wouldn't be here discussing it.

Actually, it DOES say that the number of Attacks by a Weapon is the from the profile. I will admit that the "even if you have two or more" is added on by myself, but the statement is not excluded, either. It is a matter of perspective, and one I've tried to get people to understand. It does not tell you to use that Attacks profile twice, so you do not have permission to do so.

And again, you aren't using the attacks profile twice for a single weapon. Nobody is saying that. You're using it once each for two different weapons.

Round and round we go.

"you get 2 attacks instead of your 2 attacks." people are not addressing this? Attack doubling camp?

Rule is blatantly clear. You don't double attacks. Any benefits of doubling weapons are in the special rules on the scroll. Boom. End thread now.

Maybe someone can go play the models in question at Warhammer World for a big event, ask for a rules judge, (and assuming they just don't say roll a 4+) maybe get an answer? Maybe also make some GW redshirts head explode. Good either way.

 Kriswall wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
Actually, it DOES say that the number of Attacks by a Weapon is the from the profile. I will admit that the "even if you have two or more" is added on by myself, but the statement is not excluded, either. It is a matter of perspective, and one I've tried to get people to understand. It does not tell you to use that Attacks profile twice, so you do not have permission to do so.

And again, you aren't using the attacks profile twice for a single weapon. Nobody is saying that. You're using it once each for two different weapons.

Round and round we go.

And again, that is NOT what I said.

I believe the comment about the warscroll that says you get two attacks instead of one when you have two of the same weapon is very important to this topic, is it not? There is no.reason for it to say that if it was already the norm. Kind of feel like that puts a stake through this ones heart. Double attacks is shown to be a no.

The witch hunter scroll is a great piece of evidence. It seems that the way it's intended to work is you use the scroll entry once. That said, we also know of models like the Skaven Warlord that have a particular option that's insanely weak compared to its other loadouts if you assume you can only attack once with the weapon and balanced with them if you assume it attacks once with each hand.

I might have asked this earlier, but are there any other models that have loadout options similar to the Skaven Warlord's? It can take:

a) Big two-handed weapon
b) One-handed weapon A + one-handed weapon B
c) One-handed weapon B times two

It's possible there's an axiom here that models that have the option of both b) and c) expect the model to attack twice with its weapon for c). I'm curious if there are any other models that fit into these categories that we could analyse in the same way as the Skaven Warlord back on page 6. The alternative is that the Skaven Warlord is a unique oversight.

I can tell you categorically that if you were playing at a GW event, they would inform you that you do not get double attacks, just the special rule.

So if you use weapon A + weapon B, more attacks. Two weapon C, no extra attacks.

Makes sense (not).

Vetril wrote:
So if you use weapon A + weapon B, more attacks. Two weapon C, no extra attacks.

Makes sense (not).

you get extra attacks if there is a special rule that says so, like the orc or the witch hutner or a doombull
or you just hit better like everyone else with 2 weapons c

PenPen wrote:

Vetril wrote:
So if you use weapon A + weapon B, more attacks. Two weapon C, no extra attacks.

Makes sense (not).

you get extra attacks if there is a special rule that says so, like the orc or the witch hutner or a doombull
or you just hit better like everyone else with 2 weapons c

He's making the point that if the Warlord has a Halberd and Blade, then it can make the full Attacks with both Weapons, which is correct, and that it is stupid, which is also correct in that this model is allowed this option in the first place.

Vetril wrote:
So if you use weapon A + weapon B, more attacks. Two weapon C, no extra attacks.

Makes sense (not).

Well, no. But that's not the choices. If you purposefully phrase things to not make sense, they don't

A+B = use both weapons
A+A = use one weapon plus special ability.

...It's exactly what I wrote?

 mikhaila wrote:

Vetril wrote:
So if you use weapon A + weapon B, more attacks. Two weapon C, no extra attacks.

Makes sense (not).

Well, no. But that's not the choices. If you purposefully phrase things to not make sense, they don't

A+B = use both weapons
A+A = use one weapon plus special ability.

I 100% agree this is the intent. It's how I'm playing it and it's how everyone I know is playing it. I think this is just another example of poor rules writing. The obvious intent is that A+A = use one weapon plus special ability. The actual rules seem to support A+A = use both weapons plus special ability. I think that's an oversight and an FAQ (not holding breath) would clear this up.

You guys might want to just give up. At this point you're arguing with a troll. He's never going to play it right, no matter what any of us tell him. He's going to stick fingers in his ears, ignore us all, and drive away any opponents who want to play correctly. Let him piss off all players he encounters, we should all just keep playing correctly, and ignore cheaters like this.

 Kriswall wrote:
The actual rules seem to support A+A = use both weapons plus special ability.

To be fair, it only works that way if you choose to look at it that way.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
You guys might want to just give up. At this point you're arguing with a troll. He's never going to play it right, no matter what any of us tell him. He's going to stick fingers in his ears, ignore us all, and drive away any opponents who want to play correctly. Let him piss off all players he encounters, we should all just keep playing correctly, and ignore cheaters like this.

I hope you're not talking about me. I've said over and over that I would play it one weapon plus ability even though I think RaW supports both weapons. My feeling is that this is poor rules writing that needs an errata to be more clear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Charistoph wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
The actual rules seem to support A+A = use both weapons plus special ability.

To be fair, it only works that way if you choose to look at it that way.

That's generally how interpretation works.

We can probably all dial it down a notch or two yes ?

thank you !

 Kriswall wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
You guys might want to just give up. At this point you're arguing with a troll. He's never going to play it right, no matter what any of us tell him. He's going to stick fingers in his ears, ignore us all, and drive away any opponents who want to play correctly. Let him piss off all players he encounters, we should all just keep playing correctly, and ignore cheaters like this.

I hope you're not talking about me. I've said over and over that I would play it one weapon plus ability even though I think RaW supports both weapons. My feeling is that this is poor rules writing that needs an errata to be more clear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Charistoph wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
The actual rules seem to support A+A = use both weapons plus special ability.

To be fair, it only works that way if you choose to look at it that way.

That's generally how interpretation works.

I'm not talking about you. I play it the same way as you. 1 weapon plus the bonus awarded for taking a second. As does everyone I've talked to in real life.

The problem with GW rules is that you have people who purposefully misconstrue their intent and look for anything they can turn into a loophole. Guess how many YMDC issues I had in 6th when we didn't have wide range access to Internet and people to pick apart every written letter in a book and share with the world. That's right, the answer is "none". Flash forward to today, and you get readers who are deliberately obtuse about it, and even with evidence and a majority rule will say "nope, no evidence; two identical weapons give you double attacks and a bonus". Despite rules on the cards telling you EXACTLY what happens when you get duplicate weapons in the bonus rule section. And despite someone on here saying a quick call to GW sorted it out (but the poster in question agreed to that ruling for enough time to post an agreement, then went right back to his old ways).

People looking to cheat in this way, and in ways similar to the Screaming Bell/Kairos thing (which doesn't/can't work at all) are what makes the wargaming hobby less enjoyable. Well, ok, the Kairos thing could be fun. Because GW literally gave permission on the SB card to brand somebody who cheats in this method. Time to bring a brand that says "cheat" and a blow torch to every game. Let's see somebody try it...

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I'm not talking about you. I play it the same way as you. 1 weapon plus the bonus awarded for taking a second. As does everyone I've talked to in real life.

The problem with GW rules is that you have people who purposefully misconstrue their intent and look for anything they can turn into a loophole. Guess how many YMDC issues I had in 6th when we didn't have wide range access to Internet and people to pick apart every written letter in a book and share with the world. That's right, the answer is "none". Flash forward to today, and you get readers who are deliberately obtuse about it, and even with evidence and a majority rule will say "nope, no evidence; two identical weapons give you double attacks and a bonus". Despite rules on the cards telling you EXACTLY what happens when you get duplicate weapons in the bonus rule section. And despite someone on here saying a quick call to GW sorted it out (but the poster in question agreed to that ruling for enough time to post an agreement, then went right back to his old ways).

People looking to cheat in this way, and in ways similar to the Screaming Bell/Kairos thing (which doesn't/can't work at all) are what makes the wargaming hobby less enjoyable. Well, ok, the Kairos thing could be fun. Because GW literally gave permission on the SB card to brand somebody who cheats in this method. Time to bring a brand that says "cheat" and a blow torch to every game. Let's see somebody try it...

I think this is where you're being unfair and ignoring an entire class of player. I'm a perfect example as I don't fit into your above statements.

I would play one weapon plus ability as I think that's the likely intent. HOWEVER, I do read RaW to allow both weapons plus ability. I'm not "purposefully misconstruing" anything. I'm not looking 'for anything I can turn into a loophole'. I'm not being 'deliberately obtuse'. I'm not "looking to cheat". I also don't care what the majority opinion is. The mob is not always right. The mob is just generally louder. What I'm looking to do is get an accurate picture of what the rules ACTUALLY say, compare that to what GW PROBABLY MEANT and then ask for an FAQ or Errata to clear things up if necessary.

We effectively have two rules in play paraphrased below.

Rule #1 - If a model is equipped with more than one weapon, that model can make attacks with each weapon in turn. To make an attack, roll a number of to hit dice equal to the weapon's attack characteristic.

Rule #2 - This varies per model, but is generally written as 'If a model is equipped with two of the same weapon, add this additional benefit'.

I have yet to see a rule #2 that says something like "If a model is equipped with two of the same weapon, INSTEAD OF MAKING ATTACKS WITH THE SECOND WEAPON, add this additional benefit."

That's my issue. I think GW forgot wording telling us not to make the second set of attacks. There is no 'instead' telling us to replace the attacks with a special benefit. In the absence of an 'instead', I assume it's an ADDED benefit on top of the normal attacks that I would get for attacking with both weapons.

I have yet to see anyone explain where the extra attacks go if we're never told NOT to make them or to INSTEAD do something else. We're effectively told to do A and B and there seems to be an implied understanding that being told to do B overrides A. I'm just looking for some wording to back up NOT making the attacks.

If you treat it like twin-linked (you know, like a twin weapon ), it works in an IDENTICAL fashion. Hit with what you hit with, and reroll the misses.

Again: someone has called GW. And has gotten a response. With how much GW is pushing their staff to know so much about AoS to train everyone, I'm hopeful their phone people got a bit of info on the matter as well.