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.

Mezmorki wrote:
Logically, it would seem to me that in order to benefit from the extra attack of a chain sword, the model would need to use at least one of its basic attacks with the chainsword in order to get the benefit of using said chainsword.

In the OP's example, if I have a power axe and a chainsword and make 4 attacks all with the power axe, I haven't used the chainsword - it's sitting in the scabbard for all intents and purposes.

The weapon entry says: "Each time the bearer fights, it can make 1 additional attack with this weapon."

The question is: does the model count as "bearing" the weapon if it doesn't allocate any attacks to it?

If we are willing to look at the last 7th Edition FAQ as a precedence (since it is the same group providing the answers), then yes, just "bearing" a weapon is sufficient. It would require "fighting"/"attacking" with a weapon as a condition to require the active use of the Weapon to gain the benefit.

Mezmorki wrote:
Secondly, it says one ADDITIONAL attack with THIS weapon ... implying to me that for their to be an "additional attack" there would have already needed to be a "previous attack with THIS weapon."

I think that it is saying that the model gains an additional attack, and it is with this Weapon the Attack is resolved with. The "additional attack" is not addressed to the Weapon, but the model.

The "it" is referring to the "the bearer", so it can be rewritten as "Each time the bearer fights, the bearer can make 1 additional attack with this weapon."

The "Additional" is in reference to number of attacks in general, not specific to attacks with the weapon(that comes after with which weapon the additional attack is to be made with).

As you can see from this thread it is a jumbled mess of when an ability applies with use if the profile, and when it allways applies.

The closest that we can figure out is that single-profile weapons have their abilities apply regardless of use(and many of those do specify that they only do their thing when using the weapon in question); and multiple-profile abilities only apply when the specific profile is being used.

 Charistoph wrote:

The "it" is referring to the "the bearer", so it can be rewritten as "Each time the bearer fights, the bearer can make 1 additional attack with this weapon."

Yes, agreed. BUT - it still doesn't rectify the "1 additional attack with THIS weapon" weapon. It's not one additional attack period, it;s one additional attack with THIS weapon, implying (again) that there would've needed to be a prior attack with THIS weapon first. If they truely meant it to work as a bonus attack, it should've said "Each time the bearer fights, the bearer can make 1 extra bonus attack with this weapon." Like a chainsword on a servo-arm. But that's not what it says.

Mezmorki wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

The "it" is referring to the "the bearer", so it can be rewritten as "Each time the bearer fights, the bearer can make 1 additional attack with this weapon."

Yes, agreed. BUT - it still doesn't rectify the "1 additional attack with THIS weapon" weapon. It's not one additional attack period, it;s one additional attack with THIS weapon, implying (again) that there would've needed to be a prior attack with THIS weapon first. If they truely meant it to work as a bonus attack, it should've said "Each time the bearer fights, the bearer can make 1 extra bonus attack with this weapon." Like a chainsword on a servo-arm. But that's not what it says.

It does not imply that at all. It can be parsed like that, but it's not essential to be parsed like that.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
The "Additional" is in reference to number of attacks in general, not specific to attacks with the weapon(that comes after with which weapon the additional attack is to be made with).

That's why GW needs to issue a FAQ on this. It is unclear whether the "Additional" is in general or specific to that weapon - and as this thread has certainly demonstrated the lack of consistency in this point.

Which is why I tend to default towards logic to clear up the confusion. You can't very well benefit from the extra attack provided by a weapon if your using all of your attacks to wield a different a weapon.

Despite me arguing here - I agree that the simplest interpretation is what you all are saying. But it's definitely not clear and could easily (and logically) be interpreted the other way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It does not imply that at all. It can be parsed like that, but it's not essential to be parsed like that.

And it can also be parsed the other way around, but it's not essential to be parsed like that either

Now I'm just being difficult

Mezmorki wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It does not imply that at all. It can be parsed like that, but it's not essential to be parsed like that.

And it can also be parsed the other way around, but it's not essential to be parsed like that either

Now I'm just being difficult

No, I agree. But the former makes a lot more sense when you factor in things like common sense and previous editions. If anything CCW bonus attacks got nerfed considerably since they are almost always "basic" attacks now.

Mezmorki wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

The "it" is referring to the "the bearer", so it can be rewritten as "Each time the bearer fights, the bearer can make 1 additional attack with this weapon."

Yes, agreed. BUT - it still doesn't rectify the "1 additional attack with THIS weapon" weapon. It's not one additional attack period, it;s one additional attack with THIS weapon, implying (again) that there would've needed to be a prior attack with THIS weapon first. If they truely meant it to work as a bonus attack, it should've said "Each time the bearer fights, the bearer can make 1 extra bonus attack with this weapon." Like a chainsword on a servo-arm. But that's not what it says.

Why did you exclude the previous paragraph?

You are choosing to parse the "1 additional attack" to be attributed to the "this weapon". When you exclude the "with this Weapon", the sentence reads, "Each time the bearer fights, the bearer can make 1 additional attack." That establishes who gets the additional attack between Bearer and Weapon. The "with this weapon" just limits how that additional attack may be used.

It all comes down to one of my favorite(or at least most common) things to scream at other posters on this board: Context.

You have the ability that can demonstrably be parsed in different ways. So now we look at the context of the sentence to find which parsing is the most accurate:

The what it does that is in question: grants an additional attack with the weapon.

The when does it do this: wheb the bearer fights.

So now we go to the fight phase and see what it says about the number of attacks: number is based purely on the A characteristic of the bearer. Next we see that when making those attacks the bearer is able to freely choose which weapons to use.

So the "additional attack with this weapon" must be an attack not accounted for in the profile, and required to use the weapon that grants the ability for the bonus attack.

Weapon abilities that are absolutely dependent on use of the weapon have a very different phrasing: "when attacking with this weapon".

My sarge has two attacks, and he is armed with a powersword and a chainsword. He attacks twice with the powersword, and once with the chainsword. He fights, and that grants him an additional attack with the chainsword. The chainsword rule does not say that the bearer must fight with the chainsword.

p5freak wrote:
He attacks twice with the powersword, and once with the chainsword.

How are you doing this with only 2 attacks?

Chainsword rule says : "Each time the bearer fights, it can make 1 additional attack with this weapon." Once again, poorly written by GW. The word it should be he, or the bearer. My sarge fights with the powersword, which gives him one additional attack with the chainsword. The chainsword rule doesnt say that the bearer has to fight with the chainsword. He has to fight, thats all.

p5freak wrote:
Chainsword rule says : "Each time the bearer fights, it can make 1 additional attack with this weapon." Once again, poorly written by GW. The word it should be he, or the bearer. My sarge fights with the powersword, which gives him one additional attack with the chainsword. The chainsword rule doesnt say that the bearer has to fight with the chainsword. He has to fight, thats all.

You're saying you get 2 attacks with the chainsword, which isn't true.

He didn't say that?

-Shrug- I guess I misread. Whatever. I'm not going to push the issue.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
-Shrug- I guess I misread. Whatever. I'm not going to push the issue.

Don't worry I got where you were coming from.

As presented with "sarge has 2 attacks, attacks twice with powersword and once with chainsword" then explaining about the chainsword bonus skips the chainsword explanation in listing the attacks and makes it seem like an expectation of a further, second, chainsword attack.

Anyway; I am pretty sure we have been done with this thread, there isn't even anymore confusion or argument on the attacks.

To me I think its very clear and I've seen everyone just have it give one extra attack with that weapon regardless of if you attacked with it previously or not. So in my mind If you have say a power sword and a chainsword you can make all your attacks with the power sword then get one extra attack using the chainsword. Personally I think people are looking way too into it.

Fluff wise, the chainsword is such an easy weapon to attack with, you can do your normal attacks with your powerfist, then swing with the chainsword one extra time. Its not adjusting your attacks stat, its just giving you one free chainsword attack.

I could go either way. My initial thought was that since you have to choose the weapon your using it seemed intuitive that if you didn't use the chainsword you didn't get it's ability.

MarkNorfolk wrote:
I could go either way. My initial thought was that since you have to choose the weapon your using it seemed intuitive that if you didn't use the chainsword you didn't get it's ability.

Well considering that is completely wrong, since the rule says "when the bearer fights" not "when the bearer fights with the chainsword".

This is why I still want a GW FAQ on this. As I said, I agree that the wording as it is would provide the extra attack regardless of whether the weapon was "used" or not. But is that what GW really intended? It's vague as is and could be interpreted language and logic-wise the other way. The note in the weapon profile is one of the longer ones, and I could easily see it getting truncated to fit on a line of text better - but in the process loosing a key point of clarification.

Hey, it's just an interpretation. The ability is listed under chainsword, which wasn't used. I have been involved in similar debate already and come round. Besides, it's a more reasonable reading of the rules than :-
1. Using 'move in any direction' phrase to basically fly
2. Using grenades in melee, because you say you're using a pistol and then swap out for a grenade at the last second.

MarkNorfolk wrote:
Hey, it's just an interpretation. The ability is listed under chainsword, which wasn't used.

Yeah, we've had that type of discussion before in 7th Edition. Unlike 7th, 8th doesn't have a rule against ignoring the abilities of a Weapon just because you didn't use them. Furthermore, there is probably little difference between the FAQ teams from last year to now who said that Weapon abilities which addressed the equivalent of "the bearer" were always available even when the Weapon is not used.