PDA

View Full Version : What's the advantage of using 2 CCWs?



Orwin
17-11-2007, 17:00
Hi,


If one CCW gives you one extra attack and you can gain another one using any kind of pistol or maybe bolter if you have true grit, wouldn't it be fair for the CCW oriented armies to give a better bonus to the model if he had 2 CCWs instead of one? Sure, both attacks made when you have a CCW and pistol are done with the CCW and all, but i think that there's just no advantage on taking all the ranged attacks from a model in the current ruleset.

MoopMoop
17-11-2007, 17:04
Hi,


If one CCW gives you one extra attack

No it doesn't? :confused: As far as I know you get one extra CC attack for having two one-handed weapons, not one extra attack for each CCW you have. But then again I'm badly out of the loop, did they change it since 3rd ed?

==Me==
17-11-2007, 17:07
2 ccw has no advantage over ccw pistol, and I see no need to change it tbh. I don't know of many units that has 2 ccw instead of ccw/pistol, so it never seemed like much of an issue.

Cry of the Wind
17-11-2007, 17:07
Well the pistol also shoots in close combat. Just be happy that they no longer use their own rules when used in close combat (otherwise I don't think you'd see a bolt pistol anywhere because everyone would have plasma pistols.). I don't think the rules need any other bonus than they already give. Shooting you with a pistol point blank and then stabbing you with a sword is probalbly equally effective if not more so than stabbing you with 2 swords.

Orwin
17-11-2007, 17:07
Actually, it gives you one extra attack on your profile. Not one extra attack for each CCW, which would be more consistent, since you would have 2 extra attacks on the profile if you had 2 on the model.

The_Outsider
17-11-2007, 17:08
Its the +1 attack, a single CCW doesn't do anything.

It may seem it does due to a pistol's nature to "count as" an extra CCW when in close combat.
1 CCW = pointless
2 single handed CCW (of any flavour) = +1 attack.

Galatan
17-11-2007, 17:10
Well actually the pistol counts as a CC weapon in combat, so essentially the model is already fighting with 2 CCW. Also this means that some close combat oriented will get even more attacks. Example: 15 BT with 2 close combat weapons in a land raider crusader. That would mean 4 attacks on charge. It would be pretty devastating and can seriously bring up some balance issue's (also old characters with power fist attacks). Anyway in the end it doesn't really matter since you have just as many chances to kill an enemy, example: 4 attacks on charge with 2 CCW or 3 attacks on charge and a shooting attack with a CCW and a bolt pistol).

Orwin
17-11-2007, 17:10
No sir, the point is not if they had or hadn't rules for shooting in CC, the fact is that there is no advantage if i take the hability of one of my models to shoot in the shooting phase so i may give them 2 CCWs. And concerning plasma pistols, everybody adds as much of them as they can, since you can shoot plasma in the shooting phase =/

Cry of the Wind
17-11-2007, 17:24
Right there is no advantage of taking away your guys pistol and giving him a second sword instead. So basically don't do it unless you have a fluff reason for doing so. My point is that a pistol being shot a point blank range is going to be as effective if not more so than having an extra sword. This is why there is no extra bonus on top of the same +1 attack you get for having 2 CCWs vs 1 CCW + Pistol.

toxic_wisdom
17-11-2007, 17:26
Its the second weapon only that gives the +1 attack. The weapon ( pistol - knife - whatever ) counts as a second hand weapon.

Considering the newer codexes are specific about what models are equipped with as standard ( or options ) there isn't much room for two actual close combat weapons ( ie - axe and sword ).

The reason why most standard packages include ccw+pistol is because the models have an option to fire a weapon in the shooting phase ( and then still use it for close combat purposes ).

Grimtuff
17-11-2007, 17:31
Anyway in the end it doesn't really matter since you have just as many chances to kill an enemy, example: 4 attacks on charge with 2 CCW or 3 attacks on charge and a shooting attack with a CCW and a bolt pistol).

Wrong. 2 CCW give no extra bonus over 1 Single Handed Weapon and CCW

Galatan
17-11-2007, 17:47
Wrong. 2 CCW give no extra bonus over 1 Single Handed Weapon and CCW
I didn't say that. The issue of the discussion is that 2CCW for example gives you 2 bonus attacks instead of 1 so that units using 2 CCW have a advantage over CCW and bolt pistol units. In which I said that in the end it doesn't matter at all since you will have just as many chances to kill the enemy. Maybe I didn't explain it correctly, srry about that.

Example:
If 2 CCW gives another bonus attack (so 2 bonus attacks) it would mean: 1(basic)+2 (2 CCW)+1(charge)=4 attacks on charge.

If you keep to the normal current rules: 1(basic)+1 (pistol and CCW)+1 (charge)=3 attacks on charge PLUS a shooting attack in the shooting fase before the unit charges, which in the end means 4 attacks (1 shooting, 3 CC) in which you try to kill the enemy.

toxic_wisdom
17-11-2007, 17:49
"...If you keep to the normal current rules: 1(basic)+1 (pistol and CCW)+1 (charge)=3 attacks on charge PLUS a shooting attack in the shooting fase before the unit charges, which in the end means 4 attacks (1 shooting, 3 CC) in which you try to kill the enemy..."

And the normal rules work just fine. If someone wants additional cc attacks then field something like Striking Scorpions.

The_Outsider
17-11-2007, 18:27
And the normal rules work just fine. If someone wants additional cc attacks then field something like Striking Scorpions.

Indeed, not to mention things like sacred standards/combat drugs/etc.

2_heads_talking
17-11-2007, 18:35
I'm not sure if I'm really getting this.

I don't see why you feel there should be any difference between someone shooting you with a pistol when up close, then attacking you with a sword/axe/knife, as opposed to someone going at you with two swords?

Many films, books, etc. show people struggling with pistols in what we would describe as "close combat", while other war films will show people fighting up close who will also shoot opponents who are charging them rather than face them with hand weapons.

After all, the whole definition of close combat is meant to be a swirling melee; just because your opponent's model is is base contact with your own does not mean that they are just standing in front of each other hacking; I always thought it was supposed to have been men charging each other, gunfire at close range and so on.

So, I don't see why the rules as they stand do not accurately define this. :confused:

The_Outsider
17-11-2007, 18:42
I'm not sure if I'm really getting this.

I don't see why you feel there should be any difference between someone shooting you with a pistol when up close, then attacking you with a sword/axe/knife, as opposed to someone going at you with two swords?

Many films, books, etc. show people struggling with pistols in what we would describe as "close combat", while other war films will show people fighting up close who will also shoot opponents who are charging them rather than face them with hand weapons.

After all, the whole definition of close combat is meant to be a swirling melee; just because your opponent's model is is base contact with your own does not mean that they are just standing in front of each other hacking; I always thought it was supposed to have been men charging each other, gunfire at close range and so on.

So, I don't see why the rules as they stand do not accurately define this. :confused:

Problem with CC is 40k is it encompasses more than the actual "punching someone in the face" part.

Common gripe is why aren't grenades throw in the shooting phase? its because they are counted as the move when closing to CC.

Then why can't I fire my plasma pistol with its loving AP2 fire?

Thing is a lot of people look at the rules and think logically and it does not work.

If you watch the news and see riots thats the closest the average person is going to get to what 40k CC *might* look like.

Short answer: people are guessing at what CC should be like and claiming it as the way it is in an absolute sense.

Galatan
17-11-2007, 20:04
Also it would make power swords completely useless, since for the same price you can buy a plasma pistol which can shoot and then also use it's AP2 in close combat and thus be essentially a power weapon (not to mention the fact that if pistols could be fired in CC that the plasma pistol would also be S7)

sigur
17-11-2007, 20:18
That's not only a problem of the retarded AP system. I would actually like to see something like rules for using pistols in CC. Up to one attack/phase could be used to firing the pistol, the rest of the attacks have to be made with close combat gear. It would make pistols a little more worthwile than that one shot you get off before getting into close combat.

The_Outsider
17-11-2007, 20:27
That's not only a problem of the retarded AP system. I would actually like to see something like rules for using pistols in CC. Up to one attack/phase could be used to firing the pistol, the rest of the attacks have to be made with close combat gear. It would make pistols a little more worthwile than that one shot you get off before getting into close combat.

Yes lets do that.

Then we'd have things like splinter pistols/las pistols/sluggas to be even less worth it than they are now.

Making it like that gives thsoe armies with access to plasma pistols soooo much better.