Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
Okay so I've been playing for years now, and my interpretations on the rules are generally correct, if not understandable incorrect, but now after a discussion the other day, I find myself questioning a certain rule.
If a model is armed with 2 close combat weapons, that model gains an extra attack. I thought this applied to the base attacks of a model, i.e. a basic guardsman has 1 attack, but if he has a laspistol and chainsword he has 2, giving him 3 on the charge. But my local club was totally against me on that, saying that the 2 CC weapon bonus applies only on the charge for some reason. Granted, a few of the vets weren't there, and the four who said I was playing wrong were new to the game.
Still, I don't think I'm completely crazy here, but if I'm interpreting the rules wrong please let me know. I appreciate it.
I think you need to spend more time on your floor.
2500 Black Templars
Wow, never heard that before
Personally I, and everyone I play with do this:
Guardsman, base attack : 1
Laspistol + chainsword : +1 attack
Charge : +1 attack
So if the guardsman is charging he has = 3 attacks
every round after the first he has = 2 attacks
if he is charged he has = 2 attacks
thats the way I see it.
Now for the rules as written.
page 42 "Fighting with two single handed weapons"
First entry : "Two normal close combat weapons" : These models gain one bonus attack see page 37.
Page 37 : "number of attacks" : the model strikes with the number of attacks on its characteristics profile, PLUS the following bonus attacks : +1 assault bonus (thats one) , +1 two weapons (thats two) +x (other bonuses).
So according to page 37, my guardsman example is sound, and by the rules.
In rare cases, the profile can be already including the multi CC weapon, it will state this though. (ie pg 38 & 41 of the Tyranid Codex ) 2+1 and 1+1 including the base model having scything talons.
The claim of only getting the extra attack for the extra CCW only on the charge is completely incorrect.
Last edited by Xpyre35; January 8th, 2009 at 21:21.
I'm no expert but I play Guard and most people seem to want to run into my lines and chop my guys to bits for some reason. So assault and being assaulted have always been areas of keen interest for me. We have always played it
Guardsman with a base of 1 attack 1
The Sergent with his trusty Laspistol + CCW got 2 attacks
and if ever I assaulted they got the Charge Bonus for 3 attacks.
if on the receiving end of an assault or in close combat 2 attacks.
I have had a bit of fun with using Guard for Assault - most enemies don't expect it. Still Guard are not overly good at it so I tend to swapout the pistol and CCW for a Lasgun - playing to the strengths (shooting) as it were.
In that case its base of 1 attack
No CCW gives no bonus so still 1 attack
Assaulting (if he did) Charge bonus for 2 attacks.
if on the receiving end of an assault or in close combat 1 attack.
Everyone I have played with has used this interpretation and it would support your views on the topic.
Imperial Guard: 2500pts 10/0/1, Space Marines: 2000pts 22/0/3
CSM: 1750pts 5/0/0, DE: 1850pts 19/0/1, ORKs: 2500pts 11/1/0,
No, that's straight up incorrect.
HW+Pistol = +1A always.
OK, if your club states that this is the case for ‘some reason’ so get them to show you this ‘reason’ in print.
The print actually says you need to have two single handed weapons in order to qualify for the extra attack and you have qualified for this without exception.
The ‘Assault Bonus’ is an entirely different bullet point from page 37 and is accumulative not exclusive to the other bullet points and this is where they are going wrong here.
Two different points from the same page have been taken out of context.
The number of attacks is additive throughout that ruling.
In a controversy the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves.