Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

[40k] - RULES QUESTION - Assault

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 4:42:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Ok....

I arm a sergeant with Powerfist and boltpistol............

he gets 2 attacks, but are BOTH at Init 1 or is it just the Powerfist attack
thats I1 and the boltpistol swipe/shot at his base initiative ??


thanks
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 5:12:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Snarfgargle the 43rd The Condottiere" <snargargle@thepalace.com> wrote in
message news:MK%Sd.205496$K7.93365@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Ok....
>
> I arm a sergeant with Powerfist and boltpistol............
>
> he gets 2 attacks, but are BOTH at Init 1 or is it just the Powerfist
> attack thats I1 and the boltpistol swipe/shot at his base initiative ??

You can have 2 attacks at S4 (pistol strength is not used in cc) at normal
I, 1 S4 at I and 1 fist at I1, or 2 fist at I1.

Dan
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 6:10:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Snarfgargle the 43rd The Condottiere" <snargargle@thepalace.com> wrote in
message news:MK%Sd.205496$K7.93365@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Ok....
>
> I arm a sergeant with Powerfist and boltpistol............
>
> he gets 2 attacks, but are BOTH at Init 1 or is it just the Powerfist
> attack thats I1 and the boltpistol swipe/shot at his base initiative ??

he gets 2 attacks. you can choose to use the powerfist or not, but you
can't choose to make some attacks with it and some without. so he either
gets 2 Attacks at I1 / S8, or 2 Attacks at I4 / S4. you need to decide
which before he rolls to hit.
Related resources
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 6:29:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Ok

well 2 S8 at I1 it is



heheheheh




"Doctor Rock" <malafex@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:t11Td.127005$68.67757@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Snarfgargle the 43rd The Condottiere" <snargargle@thepalace.com> wrote in
> message news:MK%Sd.205496$K7.93365@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Ok....
>>
>> I arm a sergeant with Powerfist and boltpistol............
>>
>> he gets 2 attacks, but are BOTH at Init 1 or is it just the Powerfist
>> attack thats I1 and the boltpistol swipe/shot at his base initiative ??
>
> he gets 2 attacks. you can choose to use the powerfist or not, but you
> can't choose to make some attacks with it and some without. so he either
> gets 2 Attacks at I1 / S8, or 2 Attacks at I4 / S4. you need to decide
> which before he rolls to hit.
>
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 9:25:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:10:17 +0000, Doctor Rock wrote:
> "Snarfgargle the 43rd The Condottiere" <snargargle@thepalace.com> wrote in
>> Ok....
>>
>> I arm a sergeant with Powerfist and boltpistol............
>>
>> he gets 2 attacks, but are BOTH at Init 1 or is it just the Powerfist
>> attack thats I1 and the boltpistol swipe/shot at his base initiative ??
>
> he gets 2 attacks. you can choose to use the powerfist or not, but you
> can't choose to make some attacks with it and some without.

*don't have the book on hand*
Does it actually say one way or the other about whether you can split
attacks between two different weapons. I suppose there might be times
when this would be useful. I've never seen anyone try it, but i can't
recall anything tht forbids it (or anything that allows it for that matter).


--
"I can't find my pants" - me (after a bit too much to drink)
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 12:46:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Doctor Rock wrote:
> "Snarfgargle the 43rd The Condottiere" <snargargle@thepalace.com>...

>>I arm a sergeant with Powerfist and boltpistol............
>>
>>he gets 2 attacks, but are BOTH at Init 1 or is it just the Powerfist
>>attack thats I1 and the boltpistol swipe/shot at his base initiative ??
>
> he gets 2 attacks. you can choose to use the powerfist or not, but you
> can't choose to make some attacks with it and some without. so he either
> gets 2 Attacks at I1 / S8, or 2 Attacks at I4 / S4. you need to decide
> which before he rolls to hit.

Correct. See the first paragraph on p.46 for clarification. It is very
clear that one weapon sets the rules, and the other is simply the
"additional weapon" that grants +1A.

--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 5:08:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"disgruntled pawn" <see@sig.invalid> wrote in message
news:p an.2005.02.24.00.25.04.834953@sig.invalid...
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:10:17 +0000, Doctor Rock wrote:
>> "Snarfgargle the 43rd The Condottiere" <snargargle@thepalace.com> wrote
>> in
>>> Ok....
>>>
>>> I arm a sergeant with Powerfist and boltpistol............
>>>
>>> he gets 2 attacks, but are BOTH at Init 1 or is it just the Powerfist
>>> attack thats I1 and the boltpistol swipe/shot at his base initiative ??
>>
>> he gets 2 attacks. you can choose to use the powerfist or not, but you
>> can't choose to make some attacks with it and some without.
>
> *don't have the book on hand*
> Does it actually say one way or the other about whether you can split
> attacks between two different weapons.

um. well, it says you can choose whether or not to use special close combat
weapons in any given turn. it doesn't specifically state in the same
paragraph that you can't split attacks between different weapons, but the
precedent in every other area of the rules is that you can only use one set
of rules / effects at any one time.

I mean, people can (and do) play the "it doesn't say I CAN'T" game forever,
but I think it would be wilfully misinterpreting the intent of the rules in
this case.
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 10:03:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
news:3857i3F5gc7jnU2@individual.net...
> Doctor Rock wrote:
>> "Snarfgargle the 43rd The Condottiere" <snargargle@thepalace.com>...
>
>>>I arm a sergeant with Powerfist and boltpistol............
>>>
>>>he gets 2 attacks, but are BOTH at Init 1 or is it just the Powerfist
>>>attack thats I1 and the boltpistol swipe/shot at his base initiative ??
>>
>> he gets 2 attacks. you can choose to use the powerfist or not, but you
>> can't choose to make some attacks with it and some without. so he either
>> gets 2 Attacks at I1 / S8, or 2 Attacks at I4 / S4. you need to decide
>> which before he rolls to hit.
>
> Correct. See the first paragraph on p.46 for clarification. It is very
> clear that one weapon sets the rules, and the other is simply the
> "additional weapon" that grants +1A.

That paragraph clearly states it's how to treat special attacks when the
model has 2 special close combat weapons (and shows the example of a model
having a powerfist and a power weapon), not 1 special cc weapon and 1 normal
cc weapon.

Dan
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 4:46:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Spack" <news@worldofspack.co.uk> wrote in message
news:385cdlF5ikha7U1@individual.net...
> "John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
> news:3857i3F5gc7jnU2@individual.net...
>> Doctor Rock wrote:
>>> "Snarfgargle the 43rd The Condottiere" <snargargle@thepalace.com>...
>>
>>>>I arm a sergeant with Powerfist and boltpistol............
>>>>
>>>>he gets 2 attacks, but are BOTH at Init 1 or is it just the Powerfist
>>>>attack thats I1 and the boltpistol swipe/shot at his base initiative ??
>>>
>>> he gets 2 attacks. you can choose to use the powerfist or not, but you
>>> can't choose to make some attacks with it and some without. so he
>>> either gets 2 Attacks at I1 / S8, or 2 Attacks at I4 / S4. you need to
>>> decide which before he rolls to hit.
>>
>> Correct. See the first paragraph on p.46 for clarification. It is very
>> clear that one weapon sets the rules, and the other is simply the
>> "additional weapon" that grants +1A.
>
> That paragraph clearly states it's how to treat special attacks when the
> model has 2 special close combat weapons (and shows the example of a model
> having a powerfist and a power weapon), not 1 special cc weapon and 1
> normal cc weapon.

.... and call me lazy, but that seems like a good enough clarification to me.
the implication throughout the rules is that you can only use one weapon's
special effects at any one time - there's nothing to indicate that you can
switch attacks between weapons in the same phase. it's a pity that it
ultimately comes down to degrees of implication, but it's not like we're not
used to that by now.
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 5:06:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Doctor Rock" <malafex@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:HUkTd.212931$K7.71192@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Spack" <news@worldofspack.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:385cdlF5ikha7U1@individual.net...
>> "John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
>> news:3857i3F5gc7jnU2@individual.net...
>>> Doctor Rock wrote:
>>>> "Snarfgargle the 43rd The Condottiere" <snargargle@thepalace.com>...
>>>
>>>>>I arm a sergeant with Powerfist and boltpistol............
>>>>>
>>>>>he gets 2 attacks, but are BOTH at Init 1 or is it just the Powerfist
>>>>>attack thats I1 and the boltpistol swipe/shot at his base initiative ??
>>>>
>>>> he gets 2 attacks. you can choose to use the powerfist or not, but you
>>>> can't choose to make some attacks with it and some without. so he
>>>> either gets 2 Attacks at I1 / S8, or 2 Attacks at I4 / S4. you need to
>>>> decide which before he rolls to hit.
>>>
>>> Correct. See the first paragraph on p.46 for clarification. It is very
>>> clear that one weapon sets the rules, and the other is simply the
>>> "additional weapon" that grants +1A.
>>
>> That paragraph clearly states it's how to treat special attacks when the
>> model has 2 special close combat weapons (and shows the example of a
>> model having a powerfist and a power weapon), not 1 special cc weapon and
>> 1 normal cc weapon.
>
> ... and call me lazy, but that seems like a good enough clarification to
> me. the implication throughout the rules is that you can only use one
> weapon's special effects at any one time - there's nothing to indicate
> that you can switch attacks between weapons in the same phase. it's a
> pity that it ultimately comes down to degrees of implication, but it's not
> like we're not used to that by now.

But a chainsword/pistol/etc doesn't have a "special effect", and hence that
paragraph does not apply to them.

Dan
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 5:06:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Spack wrote:
> "Doctor Rock" <malafex@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>>... and call me lazy, but that seems like a good enough clarification to
>>me. the implication throughout the rules is that you can only use one
>>weapon's special effects at any one time - there's nothing to indicate
>>that you can switch attacks between weapons in the same phase. it's a
>>pity that it ultimately comes down to degrees of implication, but it's not
>>like we're not used to that by now.
>
>
> But a chainsword/pistol/etc doesn't have a "special effect", and hence that
> paragraph does not apply to them.
>
> Dan

It does have a "special effect": one attack at the models base strength.
Do you have anything at all that lets you think that you can split them,
besides wishful thinking?
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 6:50:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Spack" <news@worldofspack.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3865b5F5ia2o3U1@individual.net...
> "Doctor Rock" <malafex@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:HUkTd.212931$K7.71192@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>> "Spack" <news@worldofspack.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:385cdlF5ikha7U1@individual.net...
>>> "John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
>>> news:3857i3F5gc7jnU2@individual.net...
>>>> Doctor Rock wrote:
>>>>> "Snarfgargle the 43rd The Condottiere" <snargargle@thepalace.com>...
>>>>
>>>>>>I arm a sergeant with Powerfist and boltpistol............
>>>>>>
>>>>>>he gets 2 attacks, but are BOTH at Init 1 or is it just the Powerfist
>>>>>>attack thats I1 and the boltpistol swipe/shot at his base initiative
>>>>>>??
>>>>>
>>>>> he gets 2 attacks. you can choose to use the powerfist or not, but
>>>>> you can't choose to make some attacks with it and some without. so he
>>>>> either gets 2 Attacks at I1 / S8, or 2 Attacks at I4 / S4. you need
>>>>> to decide which before he rolls to hit.
>>>>
>>>> Correct. See the first paragraph on p.46 for clarification. It is
>>>> very clear that one weapon sets the rules, and the other is simply the
>>>> "additional weapon" that grants +1A.
>>>
>>> That paragraph clearly states it's how to treat special attacks when the
>>> model has 2 special close combat weapons (and shows the example of a
>>> model having a powerfist and a power weapon), not 1 special cc weapon
>>> and 1 normal cc weapon.
>>
>> ... and call me lazy, but that seems like a good enough clarification to
>> me. the implication throughout the rules is that you can only use one
>> weapon's special effects at any one time - there's nothing to indicate
>> that you can switch attacks between weapons in the same phase. it's a
>> pity that it ultimately comes down to degrees of implication, but it's
>> not like we're not used to that by now.
>
> But a chainsword/pistol/etc doesn't have a "special effect", and hence
> that paragraph does not apply to them.

.... and neither does any other paragraph, if you want to play that game. it
doesn't say anywhere in the rulebook that a non-vehicle model can't use more
than one ranged weapon per shooting phase either, but we know they can't
because of the way the rules are structured - the intention of the rule is
clear enough even though it's not specifically printed anywhere. ultimately
you can play the game however you want to, but if you need every friggin
potentiality clarified in print before you can go any further, you might
find it's gonna be more hassle than it's worth.
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 6:58:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Doctor Rock" <malafex@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:WImTd.139440$68.111993@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Spack" <news@worldofspack.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3865b5F5ia2o3U1@individual.net...
>> "Doctor Rock" <malafex@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:HUkTd.212931$K7.71192@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>
>>> "Spack" <news@worldofspack.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:385cdlF5ikha7U1@individual.net...
>>>> "John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:3857i3F5gc7jnU2@individual.net...
>>>>> Doctor Rock wrote:
>>>>>> "Snarfgargle the 43rd The Condottiere" <snargargle@thepalace.com>...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I arm a sergeant with Powerfist and boltpistol............
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>he gets 2 attacks, but are BOTH at Init 1 or is it just the Powerfist
>>>>>>>attack thats I1 and the boltpistol swipe/shot at his base initiative
>>>>>>>??
>>>>>>
>>>>>> he gets 2 attacks. you can choose to use the powerfist or not, but
>>>>>> you can't choose to make some attacks with it and some without. so
>>>>>> he either gets 2 Attacks at I1 / S8, or 2 Attacks at I4 / S4. you
>>>>>> need to decide which before he rolls to hit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Correct. See the first paragraph on p.46 for clarification. It is
>>>>> very clear that one weapon sets the rules, and the other is simply the
>>>>> "additional weapon" that grants +1A.
>>>>
>>>> That paragraph clearly states it's how to treat special attacks when
>>>> the model has 2 special close combat weapons (and shows the example of
>>>> a model having a powerfist and a power weapon), not 1 special cc weapon
>>>> and 1 normal cc weapon.
>>>
>>> ... and call me lazy, but that seems like a good enough clarification to
>>> me. the implication throughout the rules is that you can only use one
>>> weapon's special effects at any one time - there's nothing to indicate
>>> that you can switch attacks between weapons in the same phase. it's a
>>> pity that it ultimately comes down to degrees of implication, but it's
>>> not like we're not used to that by now.
>>
>> But a chainsword/pistol/etc doesn't have a "special effect", and hence
>> that paragraph does not apply to them.
>
> ... and neither does any other paragraph, if you want to play that game.
> it doesn't say anywhere in the rulebook that a non-vehicle model can't use
> more than one ranged weapon per shooting phase either, but we know they
> can't

Yes it does. Page 18, first paragraph. "infantry can fire with just one
weapon each". Have you actually read the rulebook?

> because of the way the rules are structured - the intention of the rule is
> clear enough even though it's not specifically printed anywhere.
> ultimately you can play the game however you want to, but if you need
> every friggin potentiality clarified in print before you can go any
> further, you might find it's gonna be more hassle than it's worth.

So just because you think that's how the game should be played, you're
right? Nobody else's interpretation is correct? Must be a small circle of
friends you play with to be so narrow minded.

Dan
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 7:03:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Spack" <news@worldofspack.co.uk> wrote in message
news:386bs9F5lqutaU1@individual.net...
> "Doctor Rock" <malafex@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:WImTd.139440$68.111993@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

>> because of the way the rules are structured - the intention of the rule
>> is clear enough even though it's not specifically printed anywhere.
>> ultimately you can play the game however you want to, but if you need
>> every friggin potentiality clarified in print before you can go any
>> further, you might find it's gonna be more hassle than it's worth.
>
> So just because you think that's how the game should be played, you're
> right? Nobody else's interpretation is correct? Must be a small circle of
> friends you play with to be so narrow minded.

Oh, and before the "you hypocrite" style responses, I never said I was right
either, but I felt that the quoted section not covering the circumstance
that was being discussed was worth pointing out.

Dan
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 9:59:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Brion K. Lienhart" <brionl@lienhart.name> wrote in message
news:Md-dnWaZI6LhjoPfRVn-og@comcast.com...
> Spack wrote:
>> "Doctor Rock" <malafex@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>
>>>... and call me lazy, but that seems like a good enough clarification to
>>>me. the implication throughout the rules is that you can only use one
>>>weapon's special effects at any one time - there's nothing to indicate
>>>that you can switch attacks between weapons in the same phase. it's a
>>>pity that it ultimately comes down to degrees of implication, but it's
>>>not like we're not used to that by now.
>>
>>
>> But a chainsword/pistol/etc doesn't have a "special effect", and hence
>> that paragraph does not apply to them.
>>
>> Dan
>
> It does have a "special effect": one attack at the models base strength.
> Do you have anything at all that lets you think that you can split them,
> besides wishful thinking?

OK, I've got home, and re-read the box yet again. I made my statements based
on memory, and obviously I was wrong, as I didn't remember close combat
weapons Special Close Combat Attacks section. In the case of say a Powerfist
and a Chainsword, you're right, you can't split them, it's one or the other.

If Doctor Rock had pointed out that Chainswords/Pistols/etc are listed in
Special Close Combat Attacks rather than just mentioning implication (it's
not implication if it's clearly stated, is it?) then I'd have held off
replying again until I'd had chance to recheck the ruleook. However, it's my
fault for making assumptions.

Apologies to all. I hope everyone realises I'm only human and prone to
making mistakes.

Dan
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 11:25:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Spack wrote:
> "John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote ...

>>See the first paragraph on p.46 for clarification. It is very
>>clear that one weapon sets the rules, and the other is simply the
>>"additional weapon" that grants +1A.
>
> That paragraph clearly states it's how to treat special attacks when the
> model has 2 special close combat weapons (and shows the example of a model
> having a powerfist and a power weapon), not 1 special cc weapon and 1 normal
> cc weapon.

I'm not going to waste a lot of time here, nor will I repeat myself.

You can choose to have the normal weapon set the rules, and have the
special ccw count as the 2nd CCW that grants +1A.

And that's it. The "specialness" is only to distinguish the two
weapons. Don't read too much into the examples.

AFAIC, the rules are crystal clear to any but the most obtuse reading.

--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 11:29:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Spack wrote:
> "Brion K. Lienhart" <brionl@lienhart.name> wrote ...

>>>But a chainsword/pistol/etc doesn't have a "special effect", and hence
>>>that paragraph does not apply to them.

>>It does have a "special effect": one attack at the models base strength.
>>Do you have anything at all that lets you think that you can split them,
>>besides wishful thinking?
>
> OK, I've got home, and re-read the box yet again. I made my statements based
> on memory, and obviously I was wrong, as I didn't remember close combat
> weapons Special Close Combat Attacks section. In the case of say a Powerfist
> and a Chainsword, you're right, you can't split them, it's one or the other.
>
> If Doctor Rock had pointed out that Chainswords/Pistols/etc are listed in
> Special Close Combat Attacks rather than just mentioning implication (it's
> not implication if it's clearly stated, is it?) then I'd have held off
> replying again until I'd had chance to recheck the ruleook. However, it's my
> fault for making assumptions.
>
> Apologies to all. I hope everyone realises I'm only human and prone to
> making mistakes.

It's OK. I replied before I read your note here.


--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 9:08:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

In article <MK%Sd.205496$K7.93365@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Snarfgargle the 43rd The Condottiere, snargargle@thepalace.com Varfed
out the following in Timo speak...
> Ok....
>
> I arm a sergeant with Powerfist and boltpistol............
>
> he gets 2 attacks, but are BOTH at Init 1 or is it just the Powerfist attack
> thats I1 and the boltpistol swipe/shot at his base initiative ??


So, if I'm following this thread correctly, then it's safe to
say...

That if a model is armed with 2 weapons with *different attack profiles*
like a bolt pistol and power weapon/force weapon/power fist/etc (rather
than say chain sword and bolt pistol which both use the model's basic
profile) - then the owning player must choose one (1) attack profile and
use that for ALL HTH attacks with that model in a given HTH phase.

It used to be that an IC that had say 5 attacks and was armed with a
bolt pistol and power fist could divid them between the pistol (model's
basic profile) and the power fist. Thus 2 attacks might go at the
models base I while 3 attacks would go at I one for the power fist.

I don't have a problem with the 'new' method if the first pharagraph is
correct, as it would save a lot time and potential headaches during
play. I just want to make sure I'm correctly reading the 4th Ed rules.

Thanks,

Myrmidon


--
....unless of course you are a total cheese stick and want to
exploit the wording of rules to do something stupid and turn
your gaming experience into counting the number of frowny
faces looking at you, as opposed to enjoying a good ol sci fi
wargame.

GW games. Common sense not included.

--SupAmaN

RGMW FAQ: http://www.rgmw.org

Or...

http://www.sheppard.demon.co.uk/rgmw_faq/rgmw_faq.htm
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 9:22:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

In article <386mbnF5kfeveU1@individual.net>, Spack,
news@worldofspack.co.uk Varfed out the following in Timo speak...
> "Brion K. Lienhart" <brionl@lienhart.name> wrote in message
> news:Md-dnWaZI6LhjoPfRVn-og@comcast.com...
> > Spack wrote:
> >> "Doctor Rock" <malafex@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>>
> >>>... and call me lazy, but that seems like a good enough clarification to
> >>>me. the implication throughout the rules is that you can only use one
> >>>weapon's special effects at any one time - there's nothing to indicate
> >>>that you can switch attacks between weapons in the same phase. it's a
> >>>pity that it ultimately comes down to degrees of implication, but it's
> >>>not like we're not used to that by now.
> >>
> >>
> >> But a chainsword/pistol/etc doesn't have a "special effect", and hence
> >> that paragraph does not apply to them.
> >>
> >> Dan
> >
> > It does have a "special effect": one attack at the models base strength.
> > Do you have anything at all that lets you think that you can split them,
> > besides wishful thinking?
>
> OK, I've got home, and re-read the box yet again. I made my statements based
> on memory, and obviously I was wrong, as I didn't remember close combat
> weapons Special Close Combat Attacks section. In the case of say a Powerfist
> and a Chainsword, you're right, you can't split them, it's one or the other.
>
> If Doctor Rock had pointed out that Chainswords/Pistols/etc are listed in
> Special Close Combat Attacks rather than just mentioning implication (it's
> not implication if it's clearly stated, is it?) then I'd have held off
> replying again until I'd had chance to recheck the ruleook. However, it's my
> fault for making assumptions.
>
> Apologies to all. I hope everyone realises I'm only human and prone to
> making mistakes.
>
> Dan

No! No! NOOOO! Damnit Dan! You're not supposed to go and apologize.
You're supposed to do what 'Howd Ryde' would do and come up with a long
illiterate and incoherent rant with gems like "jou should all be kiked
of a cliff." while at the same time asking for help from the people
you're insulting. Obviously, it's the only reasonable thing to do. But
no! It's thanks to the efforts of people like you that RGMW has become
a *virtual cesspool* of on topic posts. Random posters and newbies are
actually saying things like 'I'm glad I asked here' and 'Thank you!' -
it's disgusting! If it weren't for the *HEROIC* efforts of Mike Hunt,
the NG would be at an all time record high for signal to noise ratio.
Ohhh the humanity!

Myr ;) 


--
Thank you again for your time and attention; back to
your regularly scheduled homobestiBAZirotica.

-- RTM

RGMW FAQ: http://www.rgmw.org

Or...

http://www.sheppard.demon.co.uk/rgmw_faq/rgmw_faq.htm
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 10:04:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Myrmidon" <ImNot@home.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c89387c7d8eeaed98a4a3@news-server.woh.rr.com...
> it's disgusting! If it weren't for the *HEROIC* efforts of Mike Hunt,
> the NG would be at an all time record high for signal to noise ratio.

I'm doing my best to get it higher, but he just won't stop posting.

Dan
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 10:15:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Myrmidon" <ImNot@home.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c8936a4398a1c1d98a4a2@news-server.woh.rr.com...
> So, if I'm following this thread correctly, then it's safe to
> say...
>
> That if a model is armed with 2 weapons with *different attack profiles*
> like a bolt pistol and power weapon/force weapon/power fist/etc (rather
> than say chain sword and bolt pistol which both use the model's basic
> profile) - then the owning player must choose one (1) attack profile and
> use that for ALL HTH attacks with that model in a given HTH phase.

Yes, we're all agreed on that now. I blame GW for naming the box Special
Close Combat Attacks, implying that the contents are somehow not related to
"normal" close combat attacks (which is why my aged brain thought it worked
like 3rd ed, with attacks able to be split). After re-reading a few times
due to this thread it's now obvious that the first paragraph with a the
title Close Combat Weapons (Chainswords/Axes/Pistols, etc) is ALL basic
attacks. My mind skipped this many times as the box is Special Close Combat
Attacks. Why couldn't they call it Universal Close Combat Weapon Rules? Oh,
I know why, because otherwise it'd be too clear and nobody would need to
discuss the intentions of GW. Yeah, that's it.

Dan
!