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.

In the eldar codex and the BGB, I couldn't find if the Farseer's witchblade is one-handed, or two.  With two attacks in cc, he might fight off the random thing or two.  With only one, it's a much bigger imperative to keep him seperate.

IIRC, every two handed weapon in the game is described as such. If it is not described as a two handed weapon, then it requires only one hand which is where the Witchblade falls into.

Actually, unless something is stated as being one-handed, then you can assume it's two handed.

Unless Assault Cannons give an additional attack in close combat...

assault cannons wouldn't give an additional attack even if they are one handed.  they clearly don't fall under the BGB definition or examples of a close combat weapon (p. 46)

where you get the idea that unless a weapon is stated as one handed that it's assumed to be two handed, i really don't know.  show me rules that state anything like that.

All two handed weapons are listed as such, either in the BBB or in the codex. In neither is the Witch Blade listed as a two handed weapon. It is a indeed a single handed weapon.

As mentioned above, all close combat weapons are single handed unless state other wise.

If you use two, one handed weapons, you get an additional attack in close combat. So if you assume, unless stated, that everything is a one-handed weapon unless stated, Assault Cannons do indeed grant you an additional attack in close combat.

You can't just assume that something is one handed. You have to be told that something is one handed in the rules in order to use it as/with an additional one-handed weapon in HtH.

Posted By skyth on 12/10/2006 10:42 AM
If you use two, one handed weapons, you get an additional attack in close combat. So if you assume, unless stated, that everything is a one-handed weapon unless stated, Assault Cannons do indeed grant you an additional attack in close combat.

You can't just assume that something is one handed. You have to be told that something is one handed in the rules in order to use it as/with an additional one-handed weapon in HtH.

Wrong........  Two handed are specifically noted eg Executioner and Biting Blade etc. So once again unless specified c/c weapons are single handed.

The Witch Blade is single handed.

Can you supply a rules quote that says that everything is one handed unless otherwise specified, or is your argument simply that the rules don't say that it's not one handed?

Again, skyth, please provide support for your side. It's not adding up with your assault cannon reference. Every two handed weapon that I can find in any book is indicated specifically that it is two handed. Witchblades do not indicate anywhere that I can find that they are a two handed weapon, thus they fall under a one handed weapon (by default if you will). You would get the bonus attack by having a second close combat weapon or pistol wielded by a Farseer or Warlock.

That seems somewhat circular. You say that every two handed weapon says that it's a two handed weapon, but you could only know this if you already knew that nothing that didn't specify its handedness was a two handed weapon.

The thing is...I'm not the one that wants to gain an in-game benefit by arbitrarily declaring it to be one handed because the rules don't say it's not two-handed.

This is a permissive ruleset. Unless the rules specifically say something is one-handed, then you can't assume that it is.

If your argument held water, I could just as well say that my Psycannons gain 4 shots and are now rending because assault cannons (Which previously had the same strength, AP, and fire rate as Psycannons) gained that in the new codex.

Fortunately, 'the rules don't say it isn't' is not a valid rules argument, which is essentially all that you are making.

Posted By Sarigar on 12/10/2006 1:28 PM Every two handed weapon that I can find in any book is indicated specifically that it is two handed.

And this is definitely false.  Unless Missile launchers, Assault cannons, Lascannons, and sniper rifles are one handed weapons.

Pretty major flaw in the Eldar dex that they don't say if it's a one or two-hander.

As far as assuming every weapon is two-handed if not specified is just that, an assumption. No rule says this is the case. And for the most part it doesn't need to be said.

For example, Termies don't get an additional cc attack from an asscan because no where in the rules does it state that an asscan will give you an additional attack. For the things that do, there are rules that allow it.

The thing is, all a weapon needs to be is single handed for it to give you an additional attack in hth.

Posted By skyth on 12/10/2006 2:18 PM
The thing is, all a weapon needs to be is single handed for it to give you an additional attack in hth.

Skyth: I have come to the conclusion that no matter what is said you believe that all C/C weapons are two handed.

This arguement of yours does however raise a very inportant question, which you will not be able to answer."If all C/C weapons are 2 handed, why are only some weapons specifically noted as being two handed and the rest are not???"

In other words if all C/C weapons are two handed why on earth would GW even bother noting that some weapons are two handed???.

 

 

No, not all CC weapons are two-handed...Eldar codex isn't the best example...Layout could be ALOT better...But in any other codex, in the wargear section, is a listing of which weapons are one handed and some that are two handed.

The Eldar codex Doesn't say which is and which isn't for the most part. The Autarach entry does specify certain weapons as one-handed or two handed.



In actual play, I wouldn't have a problem with an opponent using a witchblade as a one handed weapon. It just seems 'right' to me that it is. However, I can't prove it by the rules. I'd like to be able to. And YMDC is all about what you can prove, not how you play the game. I'll look at the witchblade entry to see if I can

I just have a problem with an argument saying that any non-specified weapon is automatically one-handed, which can't be proven. It would allow Assault cannons and Lascannons to be used in combat to gain +1 Attack for an additional one handed weapon.

It also doesn't say whether a diresword is one or two handed. Or chainsabres.

I agree with the belief that if a weapon is two handed, it will say so. As for assault cannons, lascannons, sniper rifles, there is no ruling that I can find in the current rules set, but I believe somewhere it did once say all heavy weapons were two handed weapons. Perhaps it did not make it to the new rules, since it is one of those obvious things.

 

We COULD always just go with the fact that the models are wielding them one handed...

Posted By Warpedpavilion on 12/10/2006 5:44 PM
We COULD always just go with the fact that the models are wielding them one handed...

would that mean that Terminators would get a bonus attack for their storm bolters since the models are wielding them in one hand?...

Good point Ghaz.

While I agree, the WB "feels" right as a 1 handed weapon, a quick clarification by GW would be nice...don't hold your breath...

Too bad we can't utilize the 3rd edition wargear section.

We've been waiting on a clarification on this since 4th edition was released. The most notable unit that needs clarification is the Callidus Assassin with a Neural Shredder and a C'Tan Phase Sword. Does she get the bonus attack for two single handed weapons or not? We'll never have a definitive answer until GW clarifies this.

Posted By Ghaz on 12/10/2006 9:08 PM
We've been waiting on a clarification on this since 4th edition was released. The most notable unit that needs clarification is the Callidus Assassin with a Neural Shredder and a C'Tan Phase Sword. Does she get the bonus attack for two single handed weapons or not? We'll never have a definitive answer until GW clarifies this.

Onw would assum that if the Callidus Assassin has 2 single handed weapons then it would get the bonus attack. That one should be obvious.

Assault Cannons, Shuriken Cannons dont get the bonus for having 2 C/C weapons cos neither are C/C weapons.... again I thought that was rather obvious.

Posted By Galderon on 12/10/2006 11:23 PM
Onw would assum that if the Callidus Assassin has 2 single handed weapons then it would get the bonus attack. That one should be obvious.

Yes, that would be obvious... if it was actually stated anywhere that the Callidus' weapons are both single handed... which unfortunately is not the case.

Posted By Galderon on 12/10/2006 11:23 PM
Assault Cannons, Shuriken Cannons dont get the bonus for having 2 C/C weapons cos neither are C/C weapons.... again I thought that was rather obvious.

The rulebook doesn't require them to be close combat weapons. The +1, as listed on page 40 of the rulebook, is for having two single-handed weapons, NOT for having two close combat weapons.

It's simple, really.

If a weapon is explicitly defined as being one-handed then it can be applied toward the +1 attack bonus. If it is not, then it can't.

Everything else is immaterial.

Fluff != Rules.

Which would leave us at a loss on the Witchblade, since it doesn?t explicitly say that it?s one-handed.

The Singing Spear is defined explicitly as being two-handed, however, which is the tradeoff it pays for being able to be thrown. The Singing Spear rules read in context with the Witchblade rules seem to indicate fairly clearly to me that the WB is one handed.

In my experience with the 40k rules, close combat weapons seem to all be one handed by default, with two-handed weapons being explicitly labeled as such (Singing Spear, Executioner, Eviscerator, ?Uge Choppa).

The interpretation (or changed phrasing) in 4th edition allowing any one-handed weapon to give the attack bonus seems to have confused matters, because shooting weapons do not follow anywhere near as clear a pattern.

Posted By blue loki on 12/11/2006 7:00 AM
It's simple, really.

If a weapon is explicitly defined as being one-handed then it can be applied toward the +1 attack bonus. If it is not, then it can't.

Everything else is immaterial.

Fluff != Rules.

Can you provided evidence of that in the Warhammer 40,000 4th edition rulebook?  I thought not...

Posted By Ghaz on 12/11/2006 10:14 AM

Posted By blue loki on 12/11/2006 7:00 AM
It's simple, really.

If a weapon is explicitly defined as being one-handed then it can be applied toward the +1 attack bonus. If it is not, then it can't.

Everything else is immaterial.

Fluff != Rules.

Can you provided evidence of that in the Warhammer 40,000 4th edition rulebook?  I thought not...

How about the +1 attack rule that states that if a model is equipped with two single handed weapons he gets the +1 attack (in the assault section, I believe).

So when evaluating if you get the bonus or not, the only question to ask yourself is, "does the model have two weapons defined as being single handed?" If the answer is not a clear and definite yes, then no bonus. 

Assuming that a weapon is single handed because the rules don't say it is two-handed is a logical fallacy. This falls under the "The rules don't say I can't so I can!" mindset.

40k is a permissive ruleset, meaning that at some point the weapon in question would have to receive the explicit label of one-handed in order to get the bonus. Anything else becomes an unsupportable assumption.

You know all of this Ghaz, why the argument?

I think the Terminator with Assault Cannon situation is a good example to bear in mind. Nowhere does it say that the Assault Cannon is a two-handed weapon. Do we presume that the Assault Cannon Terminators thus get +1A in close combat?

It seems to me that 40K has a concept of weapons that require an unspecified number of hands. This seems a bad policy to me, but it also seems to be how it is.

After a look at what's out there that's unspecified, the 'safe' assumption seems to be that, if it is not specified as one or two handed:
- If it has a ranged attack, it is two-handed
- if it is a close combat weapon, it is one-handed


That allows Librarians and Chaplains an attack from their specialist weapons, but doesn't assign any extra rules to ranged weapons that they shouldn't necessarily have.

Actually, only weapons classified as pistols grant an extra attack in CC, not all one handed shooting weapons. True Grit expands this to include bolters (and Storm Bolters on powered armor GKs) on certain models, with a loss of the charge bonus attack. Rule as written, Witch Blades are one handed by default, similar to how all Daemon Weapons, Honor Guard Power Axes, and so forth are one handed unless otherwise specified. Its just that the half assed nature of the new codex (namely, a lack of a standardized wargear section) means their is not the chart that exists in other codexes (including the prior eldar one).

But if you really need to be convinced that it is not two handed, ask yourself if a 12" assault Las Cannon is really only worth three extra points, because if WBs are two handed (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary) then that is what you are getting for three points when you buy a Singing Spear.