PDA

View Full Version : 7th Ed. Pistol Rules



Ganymede
27-08-2006, 14:00
In the hand to hand section of the weapons rules, the pistol is listed.

It states very clearly that if you are armed with one pistol, that the pistol counts as a hand weapon in close combat. it also says that if you have two pistols, they count as two weapons in close combat.

The two hand weapon rules above and to the left state that if a warrior is armed with two hand weapons, he may add an extra attack to his profile.

Now the pistol rules very clearly delineate when they count as one hand weapon or as two hand weapon, but is this all for naught? Since most models come with a hand weapon anyways, isn't it pointless to mention such when you can always combine the pistol with your standard issue hand weapon to get your extra attack?

Am I missing something?

Atrahasis
27-08-2006, 14:11
Perhaps every model DOESN'T come with a hand weapon in 7th edition :D

Gorbad Ironclaw
27-08-2006, 14:47
Am I missing something?


Yeah ;) The pistol rules says that you don't count as having an additional hand weapon unless you have a brace of pistols. So no combining your default hand weapon with the pistol for an additional attack.

DeathlessDraich
27-08-2006, 14:55
In the 6th - the pistol counts as S4, armour piercing in the 1st turn only except for Long Drong.

Both options of '1 Pistol and 1 HW' OR 2 Pistols (if possible) are mentioned.
A HW and pistol as 2 Hand Weapons would be 1 S3 hit (for Empire) and 1 S4 hit, in the 1st turn.
2 Pistols would be 2 S4 if 2 Pistols are used, in the 1st turn.
There are also possibilities of Pistol alone, HW alone or HW and shield.
The explanation in 6th, I feel, is necessary because of the 5 possible permutations of weapons and the uniqueness of the 1st turn.

Has the first turn of pistol combat been changed in the 7th to make the explanation redundant?

Gorbad Ironclaw
27-08-2006, 15:47
Yes. Pistols are now simply hand weapons in close combat.

Ganymede
27-08-2006, 15:53
Perhaps every model DOESN'T come with a hand weapon in 7th edition

Well... the 7th ed hand weapon rules on the same page state that most models, unless stated otherwise, always come equipped with a hand weapon. Its virtually a copy and paste of the rules from the 6th ed book.

Hmm... are the pistol rules meant to be read in the same way as the current throwing axes? that the pistol is not another hand weapon to go along with his basic hand weapon, but that the pistol IS his hand weapon?

DeathlessDraich
27-08-2006, 17:35
Yes. Pistols are now simply hand weapons in close combat.

Exactly the same as other 2 HW - i.e. not S4, -1 armour save but at the normal strength of the wielder?

Mephistofeles
27-08-2006, 17:54
Exactly the same thing as another hand weapon yes.

Gorbad Ironclaw
27-08-2006, 19:17
Hmm... are the pistol rules meant to be read in the same way as the current throwing axes? that the pistol is not another hand weapon to go along with his basic hand weapon, but that the pistol IS his hand weapon?


You could say it like that. The pistol rules should include a paragraph saying that if you have a brace of pistols it count as an additional handweapon. So a single pistol obviously isn't.

Atrahasis
27-08-2006, 19:23
You could say it like that. The pistol rules should include a paragraph saying that if you have a brace of pistols it count as an additional handweapon. So a single pistol obviously isn't.

There is no such thing as an "additional hand weapon" in 6th edition, and I hope there isn't in 7th either.

Ganymede
27-08-2006, 19:35
You could say it like that. The pistol rules should include a paragraph saying that if you have a brace of pistols it count as an additional handweapon. So a single pistol obviously isn't.

The relevent rules in the new book have two sentences.

One states that a pistol is a hand weapon in comabt, and the other states that two pistols is two hand weapons. On the exact same page is the rules for two weapons, and they are virtually the same as the current rules.

god octo
27-08-2006, 21:42
There is no such thing as an "additional hand weapon" in 6th edition, and I hope there isn't in 7th either.

yes there is, its just another weapon with no particular strengths, that gives the wielder another attack. it could be anything from another sword, to a spear to a pistol used to club someone to death.

Atrahasis
27-08-2006, 21:47
yes there is, its just another weapon with no particular strengths, that gives the wielder another attack. it could be anything from another sword, to a spear to a pistol used to club someone to death.

No there isn't. Really.

If you can find ONE place in the rulebook that talks about an "additional hand weapon" I'll give you my firstborn.

Ganymede
27-08-2006, 21:49
Don't do it! he's just looking for a babysitter!

In either case, what are you referring to Atrahasis? and how come you don't want to see it in the new rules?

god octo
27-08-2006, 21:52
eeerrr, what about the paragraph on page 88 of the brb, titled "fighting with a weapon in each hand". Also, in every army book, additional hand weapon is a choice for nearly all fighting characters.

Atrahasis
27-08-2006, 21:57
"Additional hand weapon" is not a piece of equipment.

"Hand weapon" is. You can have more than one hand weapon, but there is no piece of equipment called an "additional hand weapon".

Allowing oneself think that there is leads to a lot of confusion when it comes to discussing what grants an additional attack and what does not.

People are so used to seeing "may purchase an additional hand weapon" in army books that they assume that the name of the piece of equipment is "additional hand weapon", and that any other, ordinary, hand weapon is not fit for the purpose.

Ganymede
27-08-2006, 22:01
but how come you don't want to see the terminoligy in the new edition?

To me, having the "additional hand weapon" as an actual unique type of equipment would be so much clearer.

god octo
27-08-2006, 22:05
snap ganymede, i find it much easier than " the character may use a second weapon for +x points". for ease of use its referred to as an "additional hand weapon" so you know it grants +1 attacks and no other benefits, instead of just having another weapon of no particular type, which would lead to people giving characters great weapons as another weapon to be used.

eldrak
27-08-2006, 22:08
I think he means it's called "fighting with a weapon in each hand" and handles rules for being equipped with two hand weapons.

Books with troops that has it mandatory has it listed as "two hand weapons" (at least the DE one) while characters have the option for "additional hand weapon" (same book). It's not really described anywhere what this is but not much common sense need to be applied to get what they're meaning...

edit: looking in books took some time so Atrahasis explained what he meant already...

Atrahasis
27-08-2006, 22:21
but how come you don't want to see the terminoligy in the new edition

Its not that I don't want them to use the phrase "additional hand weapon", I just don't want there to be a piece of equipement called an "additional hand weapon".

As long as "additional hand weapon" continues to mean "a hand weapon in addition to the default hand weapon" then everything is fine.

Ganymede
28-08-2006, 00:38
How about this? Let's call the thing an "Off-Hand weapon", and only by having one of these are you able to recieve the extra attack.

Atrahasis
28-08-2006, 01:03
Why?

Is there something special about the weapon, or some flaw in the standard hand weapon that means it cannot be used left-handed?

The "Weapon in two hands" rule works as it is, why do you want to change it?

NakedFisherman
28-08-2006, 05:06
I knew this would come up.

It's Ogre Clubs all over again...

Atrahasis
28-08-2006, 09:02
Leadbelcher Cannons is more interesting than Ogre Clubs :)

god octo
28-08-2006, 09:11
As long as "additional hand weapon" continues to mean "a hand weapon in addition to the default hand weapon" then everything is fine.


I really dont care, as its much eaiser to refer to it as an additional hand weapon, or even second hand weapon, instead of a "hand weapon in addition to the default hand weapon" or a "hand weapon carried in the other hand as well as the original"

gortexgunnerson
28-08-2006, 11:21
Why?

Is there something special about the weapon, or some flaw in the standard hand weapon that means it cannot be used left-handed?

The "Weapon in two hands" rule works as it is, why do you want to change it?

I think it should be reffered and differentiated as an additional hand weapon or else you could have all sort of arguements like a bowman has a bow and all models come with a free hand weapon so could it be argued that the bowman has 2 handweapons. His free one and his bow.

Better example is pistols but didnt use because of controvocy over rules.

Not sayiung that I agree with the above I just think that additional hand weapon is a good classification of a weapon which gives +1 attack as opposed to a unit carrying more then one weapon which could be classed as a handweapon

Atrahasis
28-08-2006, 12:09
I think it should be reffered and differentiated as an additional hand weapon or else you could have all sort of arguements like a bowman has a bow and all models come with a free hand weapon so could it be argued that the bowman has 2 handweapons. His free one and his bow

So instead of being forced to point out that a bow is not a hand weapon you'd rather be forced to point out that a second hand weapon is not an "additional hand weapon"?

You're replacing one non-confusing situation with a more complicated one.

The mind boggles.

DeathlessDraich
28-08-2006, 12:18
What about these 2 possible solutions, Atrahasis:

1) The section on HW rules could state "only one HW can be used in combat unless otherwise stated"

OR

2) Redefine the 2 HW rules as 2 combat weapons at wielder's strength

Atrahasis
28-08-2006, 12:26
What about these 2 possible solutions, Atrahasis:

1) The section on HW rules could state "only one HW can be used in combat unless otherwise stated"

OR

2) Redefine the 2 HW rules as 2 combat weapons at wielder's strength

Neither are necessary.

The rules for fighting with two hand weapons are fine as they are. I don't know how pointing out that "Additional Hand Weapon" is not the name of a piece of equipment has turned into a debate about a possible fix for a problem that doesn't exist.

DeathlessDraich
28-08-2006, 12:36
:D :D Smile you're on candid camera!

Ganymede
28-08-2006, 14:18
Why?

Is there something special about the weapon, or some flaw in the standard hand weapon that means it cannot be used left-handed?

The "Weapon in two hands" rule works as it is, why do you want to change it?


Sure, the off hand weapon is specially balanced to be used in someone's non dominant hand. It is lighter and smaller, even if only by a little bit.

I could further rationalise it, but there's little point, as with enough effort anything can be rationalised. I guess I just still have nightmares of people who tried to pair their throwing axes with their basic hand weapons to get an extra attack.

Atrahasis
28-08-2006, 14:24
I guess I just still have nightmares of people who tried to pair their throwing axes with their basic hand weapons to get an extra attack.

Why have nightmares? With GW's new policy of giving RAW rulings, that would be the case.

BeardyGit
15-05-2007, 11:49
So now pistols just count as hand weapons. Can a Pistolier with a brace fo pistols still get +1 A for using 2 hand weaposn since he is now mounted?

Looks like Pistoliers might hvae been toned down in HTH. No more S4 and only 1 Attack?

Also, since a pistol is a hand weapon, cna i use it with a shield to get the extra +1 save?

Bloodknight
15-05-2007, 12:34
Pistoliers cannot use two hand weapons. As you pointed out already, theyīre mounted and donīt have the fusillade rule anymore.
As for HW/S: yes.

Atrahasis
15-05-2007, 13:34
I thought I'd been posting drunk because I couldn't remember posting this stuff. then I noticed the thread died off 9 months ago.

Thread necromancy is bad, OK?

Bloodknight
15-05-2007, 13:36
I didnīt notice I was answering to such an old thread because we had a similar discussion a week or a fortnight ago. After all he didnīt create a new thread just for this simple question which is not too bad.

Atrahasis
15-05-2007, 13:38
I didnīt notice I was answering to such an old thread because we had a similar discussion a week or a fortnight ago.That's what confused me too :)


After all he didnīt create a new thread just for this simple question which is not too bad.However, had he found those newer threads this question has been asked and answered in every one.