PDA

View Full Version : Pistols in 7th Ed.



Pacman
09-11-2006, 13:30
So if a pistol is now classed as a hand weapon when used in HTH, does that mean it gains a bonus +1 to your save when used with a shield?

Thoughts?

T10
09-11-2006, 13:32
Yes. Simple, isn't it?

-T10

Griefbringer
09-11-2006, 18:44
Yes, but since almost all models come with hand weapons nowadays (orcs no longer being an exception), I do not see many cases where this would be influential.

T10
10-11-2006, 07:31
Mmm! Orcs with GUNS!

-T10

Morentez
10-11-2006, 08:19
its porbably in just as some people might not want to issue a hand weapon to a model where those points could be spent somewhere else... after all, it only takes a few points between a unit having sheilds and no sheilds... personally if you want a non mage character to have some range potential and also armour peircing then go for the pistol, if not then conserve your points and keep with the hand weapon as per norm...


(My 2c)

Griefbringer
10-11-2006, 15:42
its porbably in just as some people might not want to issue a hand weapon to a model

I am not aware of any case where a model would need to pay for a basic hand weapon (additional hand weapon is a different thing), almost all models come with a hand weapon as standard for no additional cost.

Festus
10-11-2006, 15:51
Hi

... a basic hand weapon (additional hand weapon is a different thing) ...
Now I am waiting for the fist one to come along and claim that pistol armed troops (Slayer Pirates excepted) may then generally fight with an additional handweapon, as they have a basic handweapon and an additional one...

...waits ...

...eats :cheese: ...

...waits ....

:D
Festus

Griefbringer
10-11-2006, 16:25
I have to admit that I had not noticed the disappearance of the "pistol is additional hand weapon" rule from the 6th edition to 7th edition, until Festus mentioned it now.

So, the vagueness of whether throwing axes are additional hand weapons was fixed with 7th edition, but now we get to the same problem with single pistols.

Mephistofeles
10-11-2006, 19:39
Well, I think Festus is right. You should get another attack, really, right? It states that they "count as Hand Weapons" in HtH. That would give them all the rules for hand weapons right? And then everyone with a pistol has two...Genius...

Ganymede
12-11-2006, 15:34
Well the quandry comes from looking at the pistol section as a whole. When armed with a single pistol, you count as having a hand weapon. When armed with two pistols, you count as having two hand weapons.

Why add this into the rules if the "fighting with an aditional hand weapon" section essentially makes it redundant and useless? Did they mean to say that the one pistol they are armed with IS their one hand weapon?

metro_gnome
12-11-2006, 15:54
having 2 hand weapons does not mean you have "additional hand weapon"...

DeathlessDraich
12-11-2006, 16:30
?? I don't see a problem with the rules for pistols in combat.

WLBjork
12-11-2006, 17:06
metro_gnome there is no "additional hand weapon" in WHFB.

The rule is "Fighting with two hand weapons", and the only requirement is... two hand weapons!

Axel
12-11-2006, 17:20
The negative side is that pistols now count as handweapons, ie. they no longer yield S4 hits in cc. Fine, as far as I am concerned. The rules are more streamlined now.

metro_gnome
12-11-2006, 17:47
my mistake...

Templar_Victorious
24-04-2007, 23:53
but at least U always have the option to Stand & Shoot with pistols. which make pistolers evil now. First volley and when the close enemy directs their wrath at the same pistolers, they give them another (St&Sh )volley, though at -1 to hit off course.

Sanjuro
25-04-2007, 05:48
Hi

Now I am waiting for the fist one to come along and claim that pistol armed troops (Slayer Pirates excepted) may then generally fight with an additional handweapon, as they have a basic handweapon and an additional one...

...waits ...

...eats :cheese: ...

...waits ....

:D
Festus


They may not?

T10
25-04-2007, 08:12
I find Great Eagles would be a lot more effective if we allow the to fight with claws (count as hand weapons) and the extra hand weapon that all models come with.

:rolleyes:

-T10

Sanjuro
25-04-2007, 10:40
I find Great Eagles would be a lot more effective if we allow the to fight with claws (count as hand weapons) and the extra hand weapon that all models come with.

:rolleyes:

-T10

All right, forgive me for asking then.

So am I enterpreting your sarcasm correctly here: pistols do not give an extra attack in close combat in 7th? Sorry if I am being obtuse here. :(

Atrahasis
25-04-2007, 10:51
All right, forgive me for asking then.

So am I enterpreting your sarcasm correctly here: pistols do not give an extra attack in close combat in 7th? Sorry if I am being obtuse here. :(

If he is saying that then he is wrong.

Pistols are hand weapons in close combat. ANY combination of 2 hand weapons will grant +1 attack.

Sanjuro
25-04-2007, 10:56
If he is saying that then he is wrong.

Pistols are hand weapons in close combat. ANY combination of 2 hand weapons will grant +1 attack.

That's what I figured, but then a member of the rules forum triumvirate made fun of me, and now I just don't know what to think any more. ;)

Baragash
25-04-2007, 18:09
Rulebook specifically says under pistols a brace = having 2 weapons

lparigi34
25-04-2007, 18:40
Yes, but it does not rule the opposite. Having a Brace of Pistols count as fighting with two Hand Weapons, but also does having one Pistol and a Hand Weapon. The clarification for the Brace is just in case you just have it but no hand wepons at all (Long Drong's Slayer Pirates).

Sanjuro
25-04-2007, 22:27
The clarification for the Brace is just in case you just have it but no hand wepons at all (Long Drong's Slayer Pirates).

Actually, by the rules Long Drong's Pirates count as having "Loads of pistols!" If we are to enterpret this as a brace or something else, I leave to your respective imaginations. :)

Templar_Victorious
25-04-2007, 23:18
Just don't forget that being mounted doesn't give the +1a advantage of two hand weapons, like pistoliers, Empire Captains on mounts (Which can buy an additional hand weapon) and the likes.

Ganymede
26-04-2007, 04:25
The question remains though. Why would GW note that a brace of pistols counts as two hand weapons and a single pistol counts as a single hand weapon? Didn't they realise that such a description was essentially redundant in the sense that a model already has a hand weapon? Hell, having a brace of pistols essentially means you have three hand weapons... a lot of good that'll do ya.

lparigi34
26-04-2007, 05:16
The question remains though. Why would GW note that a brace of pistols counts as two hand weapons and a single pistol counts as a single hand weapon? Didn't they realise that such a description was essentially redundant in the sense that a model already has a hand weapon? Hell, having a brace of pistols essentially means you have three hand weapons... a lot of good that'll do ya.

But is true, you can have 3 or more hand weapons at the same time... Like Long Drong's Slayers, you just can not use more than two at the same time, unless you have some kind of chaos mutation.


...Didn't they realise that such a description was essentially redundant...

And why in the world would they break with the long tradition of writing less than clear rules, like overemphasizing sometimes to a point of confusion, like this case, or totally oversee other important matters... :p

Jester007
26-04-2007, 07:22
Having a brace of pistols means you get to have 2 shots though. So there's one major difference between the single pistol with one hand weapon and a brace.

Got Squig?

DeathlessDraich
26-04-2007, 09:12
The question remains though. Why would GW note that a brace of pistols counts as two hand weapons and a single pistol counts as a single hand weapon? Didn't they realise that such a description was essentially redundant in the sense that a model already has a hand weapon? Hell, having a brace of pistols essentially means you have three hand weapons... a lot of good that'll do ya.

Yes, indeed. Fortunately Saurus, who use more than just hands in fighting, cannot be armed with pistols :p

The rules for pistols in combat explains how the pistol functions as a single hand weapon and *also how it pistols may be used as 2 hand weapons*.

1) The rules for using Pistols as 2 hand weapons refers only to 2 pistols.
They do not state that Pistol plus other handweapon counts as two hand weapons.

2) The important question for those who believe that a single pistol benefits from 2 HW is: Doesn't arming a model with a single named hand weapon [pistol, Choppa] *replaces* the hand weapon all models are assumed to have? The word 'additional handweapon' is used in rules elsewhere to indicate an extra handweapon.

3) Every unit in army books, as far as I can see that benefits from 2 hand weapons have either "two hand weapons" or "additional hand weapon option" written in their description.
An exception is being created with the 2HW pistol interpretation.
Empire players, I know, who have Outrider Champions do not insist on 2 attacks because of the pistol.

4) If simply arming a model with another hand weapon gives it 2 hand weapons, then this could easily be applied to some other units to give them 2 hand weapons.
I can think of a few units which would have +1A when players clearly would agree that they should not.

Final word: The problem really is the word used in the rules - "Carry" and "carrying" which is quite absurd in Warhammer. [and also wrongly used in shields rules].

"all models are assumed to be carrying a hand weapon". Certainly not 'all models'.

This could have been "all models are assumed to be equipped with a single attack weapon for free which will be termed 'hand weapon' ".

The next rule:
"Some warriors carry two hand weapons etc"

could have been written as

"An 'additional hand weapon' and having 'two hand weapons' benefit from +1A. A model equipped with a different or special hand weapon replaces/does not replace the original hand weapon and counts/does not count as having two hand weapons."

T10
26-04-2007, 09:26
The question remains though. Why would GW note that a brace of pistols counts as two hand weapons and a single pistol counts as a single hand weapon? Didn't they realise that such a description was essentially redundant in the sense that a model already has a hand weapon? Hell, having a brace of pistols essentially means you have three hand weapons... a lot of good that'll do ya.

All models are assumed to be armed with a hand weapon. A pistol counts as a hand weapon.

In the extended context of the brace of pistols, it seems to be indicated that the single pistol is the hand weapon.

Occam's Razor supports Athrahasis' simpler interpretation: that the pistol is an additional hand weapon.

-T10

Masque
26-04-2007, 09:38
3) Every unit in army books, as far as I can see that benefits from 2 hand weapons have either "two hand weapons" or "additional hand weapon option" written in their description.
An exception is being created with the 2HW pistol interpretation.
Empire players, I know, who have Outrider Champions do not insist on 2 attacks because of the pistol.

Of course they don't insist on that. You only get the extra attack on foot.


4) If simply arming a model with another hand weapon gives it 2 hand weapons, then this could easily be applied to some other units to give them 2 hand weapons.
I can think of a few units which would have +1A when players clearly would agree that they should not.

I don't know what exactly you are implying is the problem here. Can you give us an example or two?

DeathlessDraich
26-04-2007, 09:57
Yes, of course. 2 HW does not apply to cavalry.
Consider Orcs and the rule "all models are assumed to be carrying a hand weapon".

T10: Occam's Razor?

Atrahasis
26-04-2007, 09:59
Yes, of course. 2 HW does not apply to cavalry.
Consider Orcs and the rule "all models are assumed to be carrying a hand weapon".Orcs are an explicit exception. That means nothing.

T10
26-04-2007, 10:35
T10: Occam's Razor?

A principle that suggests the best explanation is achieved by making the fewest assumptions.

-T10

DeathlessDraich
26-04-2007, 12:16
I don't know what exactly you are implying is the problem here. Can you give us an example or two?

Choppa.
Another example.
Consider Warp Blades.

Orc and Skaven players interpret the rule fairly as:
'a handweapon replacing the one that a model already has'
instead of
'a handweapon that counts as additional to the handweapon a model always has'.

And there's more but I've had enough of reiteration and will retire from this debate with this parting shot ... from a pistol. :D

Atrahasis
26-04-2007, 12:34
Choppa. I don't have teh current O&G book with me, but does it not also say in the book that Orcs never have hand weapons?


Another example.
Consider Warp Blades.Warp blades aren't hand weapons and so are irrelevant.

Zilverug
26-04-2007, 14:16
Sometimes I get the impression everyone actually knows how the rules are intended, but make it a sport to confuse as much (people) as possible...

Sigh...

Avian
26-04-2007, 15:21
I don't have teh current O&G book with me, but does it not also say in the book that Orcs never have hand weapons?
Orcs have hand weapons: the choppas.

Atrahasis
26-04-2007, 15:26
It depends upon the wording in the book; if Choppas are hand weapons then the Orcs don't get the "assumed" hand weapon in addition. If they "count as hand weapons in combat" then they do.

I'm assuming the former is the case.

Avian
26-04-2007, 15:32
Choppas are hand weapons, but in any case, differentiating between *is* and *counts as* is effectively interpreting *counts as* as *does not count as*. Example:

"Hi, Tim!"
"Hi, Tom!"
"Ready for the big battle?"
"Sure is, Tom! But I was wondering about something."
"Go right ahead, Tim."
"I was wondering about the effectiveness of a Great Shaman on a Wyvern. Would you mind if I counted this Warboss on a Wyvern as a Great Shaman on a Wyvern for this battle?"
"No problem, Tim!"
"Thanks. I'll just roll up his spells."
"Wait a minute, Tim. You can't do that!"
"Can't do what, Tom?"
"Well, the guy may count as a Great Shaman, but that doesn't mean he is one. No spells for him."
"Tom, you anal ******, you!"

Atrahasis
26-04-2007, 15:35
No, not like that at all.

Just because something is used in the same manner as something in one phase does not make it that thing.

For example, the Staff of Darkoth is a braystaff in combat. Does that mean it does not occupy any magic item allowance or provide knowledge of a spell? No, it doesn't.

"Counts as" and "is" are effectively the same, I agree. However "counts as in specific situation X" does not affect the nature of the item anywhere but in situation X.

Avian
26-04-2007, 15:42
Let's say that choppas are explicitly listed as counting as hand weapons and that the unit entries just say "Choppa and light armour". Every model comes with a hand weapon unless explicitly stated otherwise, right?
Let's count how many hand weapons the basic Orc is listed as having.

First, the choppa, which is counted as a hand weapon. Are you with me? Right, we count. ONE
Secondly, the light armour, which is nowhere specified as counting as a hand weapon. We do not count that one.


"Y counts as X" literally mean that when you count Xs, all Ys are also counted. Having abilities, cost, allowances and whatnot is not the issue, "counts as" literally applies only to counting.

Revlid
26-04-2007, 15:58
"Y counts as X" literally mean that when you count Xs, all Ys are also counted. Having abilities, cost, allowances and whatnot is not the issue, "counts as" literally applies only to counting.

Apply also to Ogre Clubs.

Atrahasis
26-04-2007, 16:07
"counts as" literally applies only to counting.In that case using a pistol and shield cannot grant the hand weapon and shield bonus. Nor can a Choppa, if indeed the rules simply say that they "count as" hand weapons.

You're wrong Avian. "Counts as" means "is equivalent to" in English.

Crazy Harborc
26-04-2007, 19:00
Mmm! Orcs with GUNS!

-T10

LoL through the rest of the posts on this thread. T10 you have an evil mind.......I like that.:evilgrin:

Orcs with pistols.....no snotlings would be safe;)

Oh,,,, and on to "counts as". Well, well the British English speaking blokes who wrote the rulebook and the armybook say they get the plus one...so THERE:p THAT is my two cents worth.

Avian
27-04-2007, 11:26
"Counts as" means "is equivalent to" in English.
Counting means counting. That is RAW. :evilgrin:

eldrak
27-04-2007, 14:06
Is Atrahasis saying that there's no need for orcs to buy an additional hand weapon then as they have their choppa and all models have a hand weapon for free.

:eyebrows:

Brother Siccarius
27-04-2007, 14:14
If he is saying that then he is wrong.

Pistols are hand weapons in close combat. ANY combination of 2 hand weapons will grant +1 attack.

Unless the pistol IS the hand weapon all characters or units come with come with. Perhaps the rule is just for characters or units stated as not having hand weapons, but is replaced with the special rule for any hand weapon they might have.

This is why I hate un-clarified snippets like this, they lead to the worse debates about nothingness that you'll ever see.

Now I just have to wait for people to realize that it doesn't specify how many hand weapons all units and characters are assumed to have, and that in the section it says they're all assumed to have "Hand Weapons".

The simple fact that units have to pay points for additional hand weapons in their army lists when they might already have another handweapon or weapon that counts as a hand weapon (Choppa, pistol, ect.) seems to move the Occum's razor argument over towards the fact that anything that counts as a hand-weapon, when given to units, takes up the space of the assumed handweapon, and that the rule was just written in for the purposes of units that aren't specified as having a hand-weapon. Which is as ridiculous as the people stating that the "Additional hand-weapon" costs are just in there to make new players pay more points for their units, as they havn't discovered the "easter egg" of interpretive reading. As has been stated before and even siglined on these forums, there are no easter eggs in the rules, any interpretive reading is simply wishful thinking of the reader.


Actually, by the rules Long Drong's Pirates count as having "Loads of pistols!" If we are to enterpret this as a brace or something else, I leave to your respective imaginations. :)

Hehehe, that's until you realize that the Long Drong Pirates have the old version of pistols written into their rules (http://stormofchaos.us.games-workshop.com/book/assets/SoC_slayerarmy.pdf) for the "Loads of pistols", meaning that those are the ones they use. All of their attacks are done at strength 4 armor piercing with an additional attack for a pistol in each hand.

Atrahasis
27-04-2007, 14:27
Is Atrahasis saying that there's no need for orcs to buy an additional hand weapon then as they have their choppa and all models have a hand weapon for free.No, I haven't said that at all. Since no-one is willing to quote the rules from the O&G book regarding choppas I haven't given an opinion either way.


Now I just have to wait for people to realize that it doesn't specify how many hand weapons all units and characters are assumed to have, and that in the section it says they're all assumed to have "Hand Weapons"Except that it does specify how many they are assumed to carry.

Bloodknight
27-04-2007, 14:35
"Choppas are Hand weapons in all respects. They also confer a +1 Strength bonus to models on foot in the first round of each combat."

Orc boyz come with Choppas and light armour as basic equipment and may buy additional choppas.
O&G characters come with either Choppas (Orks and BO) or Handweapons (Goblins of all kind).

Now I have a question: Letīs say I have a unit called duellists, who have handweapons in their unit entry and may buy pistols as well as additional handweapons (the pistol being a lot more expensive). Do I get 2 attacks because of the handweapon and the pistol? I should think so.

Brother Siccarius
27-04-2007, 14:36
No, I haven't said that at all. Since no-one is willing to quote the rules from the O&G book regarding choppas I haven't given an opinion either way.



Because that rule doesn't exist, there's nothing limiting orcs to using just choppas, not using hand-weapons, or any combination there-of. They can use hand-weapons just like anyone else, the only difference is that they come with a choppa. The same way that people carry pistols come with pistols.


"Choppas are Hand weapons in all respects. They also confer a +1 Strength bonus to models on foot in the first round of each combat."

Orcs come with Choppas as basic equipment and may buy additional choppas.

Now I have a question: Letīs say I have a unit called duellists, who have Hand weapons in their unit entry and may buy pistols as well as additional handweapons (the pistol being a lot more expensive). Do I get 2 attacks because of the handweapon and the pistol? I should think so.
Yes he does, because with the pistol counting as a hand-weapon in close combat regardless, it gains the benefit of the hand weapon already in the profile and the pistol.

On to assumed hand-weapons:
If you had to buy the pistol, then yes, I would assume that the model still has the hand-weapon it's assumed to have had, by that annoying snippet of text, at the start, but if it came with the pistol I would assume that the model cannot be assumed to have a hand weapon as he's already got one! The pistol is his assumed hand-weapon.

Atrahasis
27-04-2007, 14:46
Because that rule doesn't exist, there's nothing limiting orcs to using just choppas, not using hand-weapons, or any combination there-of. They can use hand-weapons just like anyone else, the only difference is that they come with a choppa. The same way that people carry pistols come with pistols.There are no special rules for choppas in the O&G book? News to me (and I should imagine all teh O&G players out there).


If you had to buy the pistol, then yes, I would assume that the model still has the hand-weapon it's assumed to have had, by that annoying snippet of text, at the start, but if it came with the pistol I would assume that the model cannot be assumed to have a hand weapon as he's already got one! The pistol is his assumed hand-weapon.He does not already have a hand weapon. He has a pistol, which functions as a hand weapon in close combat. All models are assumed to have a hand weapon, not a weapon that functions like a hand weapon.

Masque
27-04-2007, 15:05
Except that it does specify how many they are assumed to carry.

I'm not sure where exactly you are getting this from.

lparigi34
27-04-2007, 15:16
I'm not sure where exactly you are getting this from.

In the entry of each unit.... sorry to jump in, but it does, in each unit entry. Else, Orcs would be considered to having a Choppa and a HW, and they dont. Also see the Pistoliers entry, they have a Brace of Pistols, but no Hand Weapon.

Atrahasis
27-04-2007, 18:51
I'm not sure where exactly you are getting this from.

"all models are assumed to be carrying a hand weapon"
BRB pp56.


In the entry of each unit.... sorry to jump in, but it does, in each unit entry. Else, Orcs would be considered to having a Choppa and a HW, and they dont. Also see the Pistoliers entry, they have a Brace of Pistols, but no Hand Weapon.No. The fact that a unit entry does not state "hand weapon" does not mean that that unit does not have hand weapons. If it did, this entire argument would be moot. Every unit which does not specifically state that they do not have hand weapons has them.

Tutore
28-04-2007, 05:48
Choppas count as hand weapons, orcs get +1 armour save if equipped with shield and +1 strength in first round of combat. No one may contest this. As for pistol generating an additional attack in HTH, Iīm not that sure. Rules arenīt clear (the rule that assumes that every unit is equipped with hand weapon is not a definitive proof), Iīm quite sure many players/judges in tournament wonīt give this possibility, unless a unit (there are many) is equipped with two pistols and has, in the rules, the wording "count as having two hand weapons".

Festus
28-04-2007, 08:06
Hi

I've hadn't had so many laughs out of a thread in the rules forum for ages... you guys cannot be serious, really!

Unfortunately I cannot supply a quote for Choppas, as I only have the German book, where it most obviously is clear that *all* handweapons used by Orcs are actually Choppas, and Orcs do not use other Handweapons.

But is there someone who really would allow the Orcs to use Choppa/Handweapon combination, when they are explicitly allowed to take the option of a second Choppa within their Army List Entry? :rolleyes:

Man, I am really ROFLMAO here... :D

Festus

Tutore
28-04-2007, 08:15
Hi

I've hadn't had so many laughs out of a thread in the rules forum for ages... you guys cannot be serious, really!

Unfortunately I cannot supply a quote for Choppas, as I only have the German book, where it most obviously is clear that *all* handweapons used by Orcs are actually Choppas, and Orcs do not use other Handweapons.

But is there someone who really would allow the Orcs to use Choppa/Handweapon combination, when they are explicitly allowed to take the option of a second Choppa within their Army List Entry? :rolleyes:

Man, I am really ROFLMAO here... :D

Festus

100% agree.

Sanjuro
28-04-2007, 08:45
Hi

Man, I am really ROFLMAO here... :D

Festus

In other words, a single pistol cannot be used as an additional hand weapon in close combat?

I am just trying to get a straight answer here, I am not trying to find any hidden easter eggs and I am certainly not trying to bend any rules.

I agree there is a lot of iffy rules-lawyering in this thread that would certainly be laughable if it was actually used in real life, face to face. But I am not sure if it is really all that helpful to just ROFLMAO and then move on. :)

Concrete example: A duellist is armed with a hand weapon (it says so in his profile). He may buy a pistol for +4 pts. If he does buy the pistol, may he use it together with his hand weapon (the pistol does not replace his hand weapon, according to his unit entry) to gain +1 A?

I hope I am not making a fool out of myself for asking this, but I am really past the point of caring now. :o Oh well, at least I can be the source of some amusement among those that know the rules better than I.

Tutore
28-04-2007, 09:05
In other words, a single pistol cannot be used as an additional hand weapon in close combat?

I am just trying to get a straight answer here, I am not trying to find any hidden easter eggs and I am certainly not trying to bend any rules.

I agree there is a lot of iffy rules-lawyering in this thread that would certainly be laughable if it was actually used in real life, face to face. But I am not sure if it is really all that helpful to just ROFLMAO and then move on. :)

Concrete example: A duellist is armed with a hand weapon (it says so in his profile). He may buy a pistol for +4 pts. If he does buy the pistol, may he use it together with his hand weapon (the pistol does not replace his hand weapon, according to his unit entry) to gain +1 A?

I hope I am not making a fool out of myself for asking this, but I am really past the point of caring now. :o Oh well, at least I can be the source of some amusement among those that know the rules better than I.

You are not making a fool out of yourself, since this is one of the related problems. Iīm inclined to say no, you cannot use it as additional hand weapon thus having +1 attack, but many here, more experienced ones, say yes. I would be more cautious to say that, since the option for an additional hand weapon is always explicited and when involving pistols it says ītwo pistols, count as having two hand weaponsī. However, I am not the rule lawyer here.

Festus
28-04-2007, 09:18
Hi

I am in the camp that you may use a Pistol as a Handwepon, as given in its rules, and you can use it as an *additional* Handweapon Option to be able to fight with a weapon in both hands.

Take the Empire Captain for example, who can buy both, an *additional* Handweaopn and/or a Pistol for 2 points difference.

I really feel that this is again an oversight and badly worded rules-problem akin to the one with throwing weapons in 6th - which funnily enough, they managed to resolve with the new edition, only to include another one with pistols...

I can hardly find it overpowering if you use a Pistol as a Handweapon in combat and fight with two weapons: This can only apply to a few champions, Duellists, and the odd Hero - who will gain little as he cannot gain S, or use a Magic Weapon. So why anyone would do that with a character is beyond me - but go ahead...

Festus

WLBjork
28-04-2007, 11:29
For Dwarf characters (except Slayers) taking a Pistol is the only way they can get a second Hand Weapon to allow them to fight with a weapon in each hand - and as you say, giving up the magic item seems a fair enough trade off.

Avian
28-04-2007, 11:35
In other words, a single pistol cannot be used as an additional hand weapon in close combat?
Course it can, unless you replaced your original hand weapon with a pistol when you bought the pistol.

EvC
28-04-2007, 11:54
I agree with the apparent consensus that pistols can be used as second hand weapons. I think of it like with the Empire Free Company, where any pistols are indeed the same as second hand weapons (But then so is every other weapon in the unit :D )...

Atrahasis
28-04-2007, 11:55
Can you quote any army books that use the word "replaced" for the pistol option? I can think of a few where other equipment is replaced by options, but never a hand weapon by a pistol.

Avian, your (flawed) interpretation leads us to the point where


Fictional Unit 5 pts/model
Unit size 10+
M WS BS S T W I A Ld
4 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 7
Equipment : Hand Weapon

Options : May purchase pistols at 3 pts/model can take pistols and gain +1 attack but


Fictional Unit 5 pts/model
Unit size 10+
M WS BS S T W I A Ld
4 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 7

Options : May purchase pistols at 3 pts/model cannot, despite the units being identical under the rules. Both units have a hand weapon prior to buying the pistol, but only one replaces it, despite their being no indication of replacement in the rules.

lparigi34
28-04-2007, 15:21
You are almost right, except for the fact that I've never seen a unit with no Equipment description... In fact, if you read the new empire rulebook you can see that Spearmen have both Spears and Hand Weapons, opening a debate if you can choose to fight with either one in C.C.

EvC
28-04-2007, 15:39
Well of course they can choose to fight with hand weapons (and shields) in close combat, and a shrewd general often may do so.

Festus
28-04-2007, 15:47
Hi

You are almost right, except for the fact that I've never seen a unit with no Equipment description... In fact, if you read the new empire rulebook you can see that Spearmen have both Spears and Hand Weapons, opening a debate if you can choose to fight with either one in C.C.
No debate possible at all: The unit may always choose whether to fight with Spear/Shield or Handweapon/Shield at the start of each close combat.

Festus

Masque
28-04-2007, 15:49
There are quite a few (mostly non-humanoid) units that say 'Weapons & Armor: None'. I assume these models would be exceptions to the 'Unless noted otherwise, all models are assumed to be carrying a hand weapon...' rule, correct?

Festus
28-04-2007, 15:57
Not necessarily: But often it gives some kind of Information which is purely fluff-ical, like the DE Harpies' Equipment. They wield *vicious claws and temperament* :eyebrows:

I can only advise you to apply common sense to the topic: All troops come with an implement that works exactly like a handweapon in game terms. Sometimes this has a few other rules applying to it (Ogre Clubs, Orc Choppas, Wight Blades, etc.) As animals and such cannot use shields, this point is usually moot. If they have two Handweapons, this is usually given - although often not too well (see DE Harpies ;) )

Festus

Masque
28-04-2007, 16:09
So, to be an exception you think it needs to say something like 'Weapons & Armor: Nothing at all, not even a hand weapon'?

Avian
28-04-2007, 16:20
only one replaces it, despite their being no indication of replacement in the rules.
I don't know where you get these strange ideas... :rolleyes:

lparigi34
28-04-2007, 16:40
:eek: Right guys... no debate possible here...

Sanjuro
28-04-2007, 18:06
Course it can, unless you replaced your original hand weapon with a pistol when you bought the pistol.

Well, that was my thought too, but then Festus sashayed in and LMAO'ed at the thread in its entirety, so I figured that maybe the whole issue was absurd and I was wrong in my assumption. One tends to misenterpret the bouts of LMAOs from the triumvirate of the Rules forum. He cleared that up in a later post though.

Point being, I realize my own limitations when it comes to enterpreting the letter of the rules and consequentally, I put great stock in what the illustrious gents of this sub-forum have to say about rules issues. This is probably the first place I come to when I am in need of consensus on a rule and cannot find a satisfying answer in the official publications. And here, in the rules forum of Warseer, there are a few posters who seem to have a greater than average understanding of the rules and are vocal enough to be able to give that consensus. Hence my reference to a triumvirate (though actually, I would call it four people), and hence why a LMAO from one of the ruling class is not to be taken lightly. :)


I can hardly find it overpowering if you use a Pistol as a Handweapon in combat and fight with two weapons:

Oh no, definitly not overpowering! However, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't underpowered and cheating at the same time! It just so happens to apply to one of my armies in two instances (DoW) - duellists and my general, who often eschews magic and other equipment (due to the crappy gear available to him) and goes into battle armed with nothing but a pistol (and, of course, his trusty hand weapon. Oh, and temperament ;)).

Atrahasis
28-04-2007, 20:14
I don't know where you get these strange ideas... :rolleyes:

Well if you'd care to argue the point rather than interjecting with sarcastic pulp that adds nothing to the debate I might explain.

NakedFisherman
28-04-2007, 20:48
Well if you'd care to argue the point rather than interjecting with sarcastic pulp that adds nothing to the debate I might explain.

Please do. Don't make me wait for the riddle answers like in the newspaper, either. :p

Brother Siccarius
28-04-2007, 23:26
I used to love the rule back in 6th edition Warhammer where orc choppas couldn't get the HW+shield bonus in combat, couldn't get the +1 strength bonus if used with another weapon in comabt, and essentially could only use the choppa as a choppa if it was on foot and using nothing but the choppa in one hand.

Now, it's just a pain.
And only in Warhammer could an assumption end up killing your enemies.

But to continue the silliness I'll point out three facts:

1. The snippet of quoted text stating that all units are assumed to have "hand weapons" doesn't specify how many "hand weapons" they're assumed to have.

2. There's no specified limit to how many times you can gain the bonus of "fighting with two hand weapons".

3. There are models with multiple pairs of hands.

lparigi34
28-04-2007, 23:43
...But to continue the silliness I'll point out three facts:

1. The snippet of quoted text stating that all units are assumed to have "hand weapons" doesn't specify how many "hand weapons" they're assumed to have.

2. There's no specified limit to how many times you can gain the bonus of "fighting with two hand weapons".

3. There are models with multiple pairs of hands.

Silly indeed!!! (nothing personal) ;)

1.- Amazingly true, but I belive that as much as we mock the game designers for the way they do certain things, they are having a good time seeing how far we have been capable to take this. :eek:

2.- False, though it may be possible, but buying the extra HW only adds +1At and no unit/character have the option to have more than 1 extra HW.

3.- Irrelevant, the extra HW only adds +1At total, not per hand, not per extra HW paid, so even if your model has 3 hands and 3 attacks in its profile, the extra HW adds only one more.

And I think we must stop this thread right now... (Festus, how was that name you called me a while ago "threadcionist" :D)

WLBjork
28-04-2007, 23:48
1. The snippet of quoted text stating that all units are assumed to have "hand weapons" doesn't specify how many "hand weapons" they're assumed to have.

You mean apart from the wording
...assumed to be carrying a hand weapon of some kind.?

Seems pretty clear that models carry a single Hand Weapon unless otherwise noted.

lparigi34
29-04-2007, 00:08
All the wording of this is still irrelevant, Attacks rule in page 4 says that you only have the number of attacks in your profile.

This can be enhanced either by magical spells, magical items (i.e. Sword of Battle) or by choosing options that allow it, like paying for another Hand Weapon, or IMO paying for anything that counts as it, as the Pistol does...

DeathlessDraich
29-04-2007, 16:17
Too many speculative posts here with no real backing from the rules but I'll use these two below as a basis for another final comment :D , since they understand the primary difficulty that any interpretation of the pistols rules requires consistency when applied to all other hand weapons rules.


There are quite a few (mostly non-humanoid) units that say 'Weapons & Armor: None'.


Not necessarily: But often it gives some kind of Information which is purely fluff-ical, like the DE Harpies' Equipment. They wield *vicious claws and temperament* :eyebrows:

I can only advise you to apply common sense to the topic:
Festus

Apologies for the bold and capitals which are to assist reading.

RULE 1: What is a hand weapon and do all models have them?
pg 56 "The term hand weapon is used to describe any weapon held in one hand and is not otherwise covered in the rules"

The phrase 'not otherwise covered in the rules' - does this mean rules where handweapons are specifically mentioned? - but I'll ignore this as it is another debate.

RULE 2:"Hand weapon can be used with...another hand weapon as described below"
"If a warrior ...fights with a hand weapon in each hand, he receives +1extra attack"

and now the rule that confuses everything

RULE 3:"Unless noted otherwise, all models are assumed to be carrying a hand weapon of some kind"

Impossible!
Eagles and Carrion cannot carry anything in their hands because they have not got any hands.
Scorpion - Weapons: Stinging Tail and Claws

Q1. Does this mean that the words "hand" and "carry" should not be taken too literally?

Dire Wolves and Bat Swarms;
"Weapons and Armour: None!! Where did the 5 Bat Swarm attacks come from? - assumption needed.

It can only be assumed that the hand weapons that Scorpions, Carrion and Eagles are equipped with, have been replaced even though the word replaced is absent.
This of course does not mean that Talons etc are Hand weapons but only because they are not "held in one hand". However the rules do not explicitly state this; and in the case below, it seems that claws ARE hand weapons?!

RULE 3 DE Harpies pg 30 "Weapons: Vicious claws and temperament (counts as two hand weapons)"

This rule is an indication that the 2 Hand weapon rule should be used if the rules say so either by the phrase counts as two hand weapons or additional hand weapon
Not doing so would create chaos as all claws could be interpreted as being hand weapons.
Pistols' rules only mentions 2 hand weapons when two or more pistols are used - rule 5 below.

RULE 4 Skaven Warp Blades: "come in the shape of large blades ... implanted directly into the Warlock's arms"

Warp Blades are obviously 'held' or 'carried' (RULE 1) because they are part of the Warlock's arms and surely must be qualify as a handweapon.

This is a very similar example to equipping a character with a pistol.

If equipping a single pistol qualifies for 2 hand weapons, then the same reasoning must lead to Warp Blades qualifying as 2 hand weapons.

Unacceptable surely?

RULE 5 Pistol: "If a model carries two or more pistols, it counts as being armed with two hand weapons"

It does not say that a model with one pistol counts as 2 hand weapons.
If RULE 2 is applied - "as described below", then it is clear that the pistols section of the rules will cover all the requirements for pistols in combat and pistols as 2 hand weapons. No other statements can be added or assumed.

Brother Siccarius
29-04-2007, 17:20
You mean apart from the wording ?

Seems pretty clear that models carry a single Hand Weapon unless otherwise noted.

Except that that's not the quote.
this is the section as quoted from page 54 in the mini-rulebook.

All troops and characters are assumed to carry hand weapons, such as swords, axes, clubs, maces and comparable weaponry.

Masque
29-04-2007, 17:25
Turn the page. Look at page 56.

'Unless noted otherwise, all models are assumed to be carrying a hand weapon of some kind.'

lparigi34
29-04-2007, 18:41
and IMO "noted otehrwise" are the units that in the description of it equipment does not say Hand Weapons or have it replaced by any of the availabe options.

Anyway I still don't get this discussion pretty well as always (my emphasis here) in the unit description it says what kind of weapon each unit is carrying. It seems that the book wording was in case somebody would have forgotten to specify it when writing any of the armybooks, which I've never seen!!!

If a unit says it carries Hand Wepons, it does, if it says it carries anything else, it does.

If for any reason the model carries a Hand Weapon and you can buy an "additional" Pistol (i.e. not replacing the Hand Wepon), the Pistol can be used also as a Hand Weapon in the Close Combat pahse and therefore the model has two things that can be used as Hand Wepons in CC and the rules specify also what to do in this case (add +1At if you choose to fight with both HW in that Cose Combat)

Atrahasis
29-04-2007, 19:38
Impossible!
Eagles and Carrion cannot carry anything in their hands because they have not got any hands.
Scorpion - Weapons: Stinging Tail and ClawsIt makes no difference. Either they get one and it doesn't affect their attacks or they don't and it doesn't affect their attacks.


Dire Wolves and Bat Swarms;
"Weapons and Armour: None!! Where did the 5 Bat Swarm attacks come from? - assumption needed.There's nothing that says models need a weapon to attack.


and in the case below, it seems that claws ARE hand weapons?!

RULE 3 DE Harpies pg 30 "Weapons: Vicious claws and temperament (counts as two hand weapons)"

This rule is an indication that the 2 Hand weapon rule should be used if the rules say so either by the phrase counts as two hand weapons or additional hand weapon
Not doing so would create chaos as all claws could be interpreted as being hand weapons.No. The only claws covered by this are harpy claws. No other unit in the game has "Vicious claws and temperament" and so the rule cannot be assumed to apply anywhere else.


RULE 4 Skaven Warp Blades: "come in the shape of large blades ... implanted directly into the Warlock's arms"

Warp Blades are obviously 'held' or 'carried' (RULE 1) because they are part of the Warlock's arms and surely must be qualify as a handweapon.No. Warp blades are "otherwise covered by the rules" and so cannot be hand weapons.


It does not say that a model with one pistol counts as 2 hand weapons.It doesn't need to. The rest of the rules already say it.

Ganymede
29-04-2007, 23:42
And yet, a question remains. If we are to assume that a model with a single pistol may attack as if he held a handweapon in each hand, why would the authors point out that a brace of pistols counts as a pair of hand weapons? Was it for completeness sake? Did they state such in the off chance that a unit capable of using three hand weapons at once was introduced in the future?

Atrahasis
30-04-2007, 00:07
And yet, a question remains. If we are to assume that a model with a single pistol may attack as if he held a handweapon in each hand, why would the authors point out that a brace of pistols counts as a pair of hand weapons? Was it for completeness sake? Did they state such in the off chance that a unit capable of using three hand weapons at once was introduced in the future?

The reason for it is irrelevant as far as how a single pistol operates.

Ganymede
30-04-2007, 02:36
See, that's totally weird. I see the question as utterly relevant. If we make the assumption that a single pistol allows someone to fight with a weapon in each hand, then we are presented with a mind-bender of a connundrum. I feel the answer to my question has a very direct impact on how a single pistol is used in melee combat.

Why the hell did they mention that a pair of pistols counts as a pair of hand weapons if such a mentioning was completely redundant? Is there some other way to look at the situation in which this question doesn't come up?

lparigi34
30-04-2007, 04:57
...Why the hell did they mention that a pair of pistols counts as a pair of hand weapons if such a mentioning was completely redundant? Is there some other way to look at the situation in which this question doesn't come up?

Actualy, it is redundant, but why should this be a problem? read a possible argument:

.......................
PlayerA: Ok, so my 5 wide Long Drong unit makes 8 attacks + Long Drong Attack :)

Player B: Why?

Player A: because the carry two pistols! :confused:

Player B: How comes, the rule only applies if you carry one hand weapon and one pistol! Nowhere in the rules it says that two pistols count as two hand weapons :mad:
.............................

So, IMO it was aiming to make things clearer, but somehow it failed to!

Brother Siccarius
30-04-2007, 05:12
Actualy, it is redundant, but why should this be a problem? read a possible argument:

.......................
PlayerA: Ok, so my 5 wide Long Drong unit makes 8 attacks + Long Drong Attack :)

Player B: Why?

Player A: because the carry two pistols! :confused:

Player B: How comes, the rule only applies if you carry one hand weapon and one pistol! Nowhere in the rules it says that two pistols count as two hand weapons :mad:
.............................

So, IMO it was aiming to make things clearer, but somehow it failed to!

Actually, as the Long Drong Slayer Pirates are stated as gaining an extra attack from two hand weapons and making all their attacks at strength 4 and armor piercing, all within their special rule, it's a moot point as they still use those rules as opposed to the new rules for pistols.

DeathlessDraich
30-04-2007, 08:44
And yet, a question remains. If we are to assume that a model with a single pistol may attack as if he held a handweapon in each hand, why would the authors point out that a brace of pistols counts as a pair of hand weapons? Was it for completeness sake? Did they state such in the off chance that a unit capable of using three hand weapons at once was introduced in the future?

I think there is an easy answer to this which is:

The 7th Ed rules intended that only 2 Pistols will count as 2 Hand weapons whilst a single pistol will not.

Reason: The rules from 6th to 7th were changed and the single pistol plus handweapon option has been dropped.

Compare the rules:

6th Ed: "In close combat, a pistol can be used in one hand whilst the other hand holds either a hand weapon or another pistol ... +1 additional attack"

This statement has been dropped in 7th ed rules. Dropped completely, leaving:

7th Ed "...two or more pistols counts as being armed with 2 hand weapons"

Is it possible that players who assume that a single pistol counts as 2 hand weapons have not recovered from 6th ed intoxication? :D

Atrahasis
30-04-2007, 09:50
You know me better than that DD, I don't (usually) suffer from rules-hangover.

The fact is that the rules, regardless of intent, allow the use of a hand weapon and pistol to gain +1 attack.

Templar_Victorious
30-04-2007, 12:08
Just a quick aber, Deathless... On your list of hand weapons and such... is the "edit: questions about the rules covering the old army-books compared to 7th ed rulebook or are U referring to the old/current Armybooks and rulebook(those from the 6th Ed). I'm not sure which army-books that have been released for 7th Ed beyond O&G and Empire... Not sure of the wording in the older books either, as I don't own them. Basically,w hat I am trying to say is, if the armybooks for some armies haven't been released, shouldn't U wait and see what wordings they have?

DeathlessDraich
30-04-2007, 13:22
LOL! Atrahasis. I think our arguments are counterarguments are stuck in an endless loop - What's the programmers term these days?

Templar Victorious: Yes, maybe we should wait for the new army books which might or might not have more accurate phraseology. This is no guarantee though, as Empire is new but offered little help in resolving quite a few rules ambiguities.

T10
01-05-2007, 16:07
LOL! Atrahasis. I think our arguments are counterarguments are stuck in an endless loop - What's the programmers term these days?


"Infinite loop".

-T10

ZomboCom
01-05-2007, 21:08
Obvious intention of the rule: A single pistol does not give the extra attack, but having two pistols does.

RAW: As long as the unit has hand weapon too then a single pistol will grant the extra attack.

Atrahasis
01-05-2007, 21:13
Obvious intentionI don't wish to pick a fight, but "Obvious intention" here means "what I think should happen".

Sanjuro
01-05-2007, 21:17
Yes, it's not that obvious. Consider, if you will, 6th ed. A pistol could be used as a hand weapon there too. I cannot see any reason to why the laws of physics should have been so altered between editions, can you? So therefore, when talking about the intent of the rules, I think we had best tread lightly.

Templar_Victorious
03-05-2007, 23:34
The only difference in 6th ed was that the pistol did a S4 attack with AP on the first round of combat, and then reverted to an attack with the basic strength value. Not really reverted, rather, became...

MehuZ
04-05-2007, 11:18
What I have read so far people are saying here that empire spearmen could use spears and instead of the shield they could use their hand weapon in the other hand, thus granting the front line second attack. Sounds nice.

Also when I buy a magical weapon for my hero I can use the orignal hand weapon as extra hand weapon for +1 At. Superb!

DeathlessDraich
04-05-2007, 11:46
I don't wish to pick a fight, but "Obvious intention" here means "what I think should happen".

Are you going to use 2 pistols or hand weapon and pistol for this fight?:D

WLBjork
04-05-2007, 12:19
What I have read so far people are saying here that empire spearmen could use spears and instead of the shield they could use their hand weapon in the other hand, thus granting the front line second attack. Sounds nice.

Also when I buy a magical weapon for my hero I can use the orignal hand weapon as extra hand weapon for +1 At. Superb!

Not in this case, as Spears are not Hand Weapons.

As for the Magic Weapons, in CC you cannot use any other weapon if you have a Magic Weapon.

(Apologies if you were being sarcastic, but without [sarcasm] tags it's hard to be sure:D)

The focus of the argument is the following:
In close combat, the heavy butt of a pistol can be used as a club, counting exactly like a hand weapon.

If a model carries two (a `brace') or more pistols, it counts as being armed with two hand weapons in close combat.

Now, as far as I read it, when something counts "exactly like" something, it is for all intents and purposes the second something.