PDA

View Full Version : Knights of Chaos attacks



kruzkal
13-02-2007, 19:36
Got the Hordes of Chaos army book the other day. Is the equipment section which says "hand weapons" contrary to "hand weapon" for all other units intended?

I.e. do basic Knights get an additional attack for two hand weapons?

Sherlocko
13-02-2007, 19:50
Nope, it just refers to the whole group. Even if they meant additional hand weapons one can´t use it while mounted anyway.

kruzkal
13-02-2007, 19:57
"Equipment: Hand weapons, heavy armour, shield & barbed Chaos Steed."

If that refers to the whole group. I don't suppose they all squeeze into one heavy armour, use one shield and rides on the same poor Chaos Steed? :D

"Hand weapons" was the only plural used. Other units also reference the equipment of each model and not as a group. I.e. no plural.

See where I am coming from now?

But you are right. No mention of additional hand weapon for mounted models. Just read up rulebook.

superknijn
13-02-2007, 20:20
Well, in English, there is no plural for 'armour', IIRC.

It's worded a bit vague, but as you don't get any benefit from 2 hw's, and you can also use the shield, it's a bit of a moot point.

kruzkal
13-02-2007, 21:08
I was thinking more like use hand weapon and shield out of combat and two hand weapons in combat. Basically what the Warriors can do with additional hand weapon AND shield.

Aliarzathanil
14-02-2007, 00:02
Yes, but you can't use two weapons on a horse, so it doesn't matter.

kruzkal
14-02-2007, 06:50
You CAN use two weapons on a horse. Just that there are no special rules about it, as the heading of the rule is "Fighting with two hand weapons (infantry)". Does that mean cavalries do not get +1 armour save for using a hand weapon and shield in combat neither, as the heading of the rule is "Fighing with hand weapon and shield (infantry)" (Rulebook p.56).

Wings of Doom
14-02-2007, 07:16
Cavalry do not get the bonus' for additional handweapon or handweapon and shield. The specific rules relate only to infantry models.

You can take two handweapons on a horse, but it is completely worthless as it does nothing.

Gorbad Ironclaw
14-02-2007, 07:24
Generally, if you do have the option of using an additional hand weapon, it will be clearly listed under the unit. You don't have to try and be clever and use the plural form of hand weapon.

Festus
14-02-2007, 08:28
Hi

You CAN use two weapons on a horse. Just that there are no special rules about it, as the heading of the rule is "Fighting with two hand weapons (infantry)". Does that mean cavalries do not get +1 armour save for using a hand weapon and shield in combat neither, as the heading of the rule is "Fighing with hand weapon and shield (infantry)" (Rulebook p.56).
Wow! What does the word *INFANTY* mean? Surely it is a warrior on foot, as opposed to *CAVALRY*, denoting mounted warriors. No?

Mounted models can neither use two handweapons simultaneously, nor will they benefit from the additional +1 to saves for fighting with handweapon and shield.

You performance concerning the knowledge of rules is slipping, to say the least, here as well as in other threads...
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1298072&postcount=37
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1297686&postcount=2

Festus

kruzkal
14-02-2007, 10:33
I am not trying to be clever. Nor is there any sarcasm. And yes I really have no clue. I haven't played in over 6 years. Last I checked it was legal to have a monster unit of 5 Manticores with a BSB of Khorne plus the banner (can't remember name but Frenzy) to make a flying unit of 40 S7 attacks for a 3200 points Chaos army. Yes I really am ancient.

Maybe a bit pedantic on the wordings but I only asked because I was unsure.

T10
14-02-2007, 10:38
kruzkal:

It is generally held that the benefit of additional hand weapons is clearly stated in the unit's entry alnog the lines of: "Two hand weapons" or "May be armed with adtditional hand weapons".

Even with the somewhat ambiguous wording of the unit entry, there is no reason to get excited. Cavalry cannot gain additional attacks for being armed with additional hand weapons. It's the same kind of limitation that limits the Strength bonus of for Great Weapons for cavalry to +1 and that denies them the benefit of improved armour save by fighting with the "hand weapon and shield" combination.

-T10


I am not trying to be clever. Nor is there any sarcasm. And yes I really have no clue. I haven't played in over 6 years. Last I checked it was legal to have a monster unit of 5 Manticores with a BSB of Khorne plus the banner (can't remember name but Frenzy) to make a flying unit of 40 S7 attacks for a 3200 points Chaos army. Yes I really am ancient.

Maybe a bit pedantic on the wordings but I only asked because I was unsure.

WTF? Last time I checked my 5th edition books, monsters were purchased individually and did not form units.

-T10

Festus
14-02-2007, 11:30
Hi

WTF? Last time I checked my 5th edition books, monsters were purchased individually and did not form units.
This also applied in 4th AFAIK, even with the Banner of Rage (which is the one kruzkal mentioned, if I may hazard a guess).

In 3rd, however ...

Festus

T10
14-02-2007, 12:45
3rd ed. was more than six years ago.

-T10

EvC
14-02-2007, 18:09
I don't understand why this question gets asked so much (Well, we've had it a few times). Even a cursory reading of the rulebook will be enough to let someone know that it doesn't matter if the Knights have two hand weapons each, since they can't use them.

That's not a dig at kruzkal or anyone else who has asked this, it's just that I can't see why this rule query with such a perfectly clear answer keeps coming up...

Festus
14-02-2007, 18:12
Hi

...it's just that I can't see why this rule query with such a perfectly clear answer keeps coming up...hmmm... let me think, what do you need to answer this question, and what does the majority not do?

Ah, I know:

Even a cursory reading of the rulebook will be enough ...
:evilgrin:

Festus

Atrahasis
14-02-2007, 18:19
To understand why it comes up you have to understand the twisted logic which is employed in a gamer's head.

If the Designer's gave them 2 hand weapons, they must be able to use them surely?

Krankenstein
14-02-2007, 18:22
I don't understand why this question gets asked so much (Well, we've had it a few times).

Think how cool it would be to get that extra attack? Wishful thinking is the cornerstone of many a player’s reading of the rules. Heck it is the cornerstone of many peoples’ worldview period.

It’s still important to allow dumb questions, though.

kruzkal
14-02-2007, 22:51
I don't understand why this question gets asked so much (Well, we've had it a few times). Even a cursory reading of the rulebook will be enough to let someone know that it doesn't matter if the Knights have two hand weapons each, since they can't use them.

That's not a dig at kruzkal or anyone else who has asked this, it's just that I can't see why this rule query with such a perfectly clear answer keeps coming up...

Because there is a typo in the HoC army book. As stated before I haven't played in over 6 years. I am just trying to get back into the game after a very long break. Had a skimp read through the Rulebook but didn't pick it out. When I was reading the HoC army book I had no idea mounted units no longer gain the same bonuses for additional hand weapons, great weapons and shields in combat, and had no reason to believe otherwise. The intended purpose of the question was to establish whether "hand weapons" was a typo or not.

Festus, your condescending remarks are counter-productive to the community. In fact, you asked a very similar question (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65987) yourself not so long ago. People ask questions on a forum because they believe the collective wisdom of the community can provide the answer. Not because they feel the need to be patronized in order to pander the ego of others.

Festus
15-02-2007, 06:28
Hi

Festus, your condescending remarks are counter-productive to the community. In fact, you asked a very similar question (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65987) yourself not so long ago.
You see, there are certain important differences between your thread and mine: Most notably -

Trolls are INFANTRY.

So instead of asking about additional hand-weapons for a cavalry unit (which even a cursory read of the BRB shows that they cannot use them, as EvC pointed out), I asked for something which can be applied within the rules.

Secondly, it was not a rules-question, but rather a collection of people's opinions as I 1st know the rules quite well myself and I 2nd stated so in my question...

Please, GO ahead and ask questions about rules, but be sure you have read the relevant passages of the rulebook ot least once first. If all did that, most of the more stupid questions would not come up so often...


BTW, it is not a typo in the HoC book, as the Knights really have Handweapons

Festus

loveless
15-02-2007, 06:38
despite the fact that this question is, indeed, easily answered by the Warhammer Rulebook, I find that there are far too many people that are just plain rude when pointing that fact out.

Glad to know that someone feels superior for knowing the rulebook.
Unfortunately, the forums exists to ask for and give assistance - not proclaim one's own superiority or belittle those around them.

If you can't say anything nicely, there's no need in saying anything at all. Sounds like a certain poster's quote...which makes pointing this out rather ironic.

T10
15-02-2007, 07:42
Good point. I, for one, would like to apologize for any rude ehavior on my part.

I guess the reason everybody gets so riled up is because chaos knights are already damn good, and trying to weasel out more power from them just smacks of plain greed.

-T10

kruzkal
15-02-2007, 12:13
You see, there are certain important differences between your thread and mine: Most notably -

Trolls are INFANTRY.

So instead of asking about additional hand-weapons for a cavalry unit (which even a cursory read of the BRB shows that they cannot use them, as EvC pointed out), I asked for something which can be applied within the rules.

I am gad you grasped the word "similar".

Like I said...


As stated before I haven't played in over 6 years. I am just trying to get back into the game after a very long break. Had a skimp read through the Rulebook but didn't pick it out. When I was reading the HoC army book I had no idea mounted units no longer gain the same bonuses for additional hand weapons, great weapons and shields in combat, and had no reason to believe otherwise.

Therefore, whether the subject in question was a cavalry or an infantry was not a factor considered. If instead Marauders of Chaos (see last section) has "hand weapons" under its equipment list, I would have asked the same question.


Secondly, it was not a rules-question, but rather a collection of people's opinions as I 1st know the rules quite well myself and I 2nd stated so in my question...

It was not a rules question. Therefore, you posted it in the Fantasy Rules forum?

It is more acceptable to ask a question if you already knew the answer to it?

MMMMWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAHAAAAA!!!


Please, GO ahead and ask questions about rules, but be sure you have read the relevant passages of the rulebook ot least once first. If all did that, most of the more stupid questions would not come up so often...

The answer to questions which is obvious to some, may not necessarily be as transparent to others. It is also possible for players to misread, misinterpret, or quite simply miss things. Your impudent attitude only acts to deter people away from the community. Imagine what new players, returning players (like myself) or even those who are just curious would feel if every genuine question they inquire about the game are shot down by a ton of bricks by the likes of your good self. Give yourself a pat on the shoulder. Go on.


BTW, it is not a typo in the HoC book, as the Knights really have Handweapons

I was not asking about Knights. I was asking about (each) Knight. It would've been apparent to you only if you weren't too busy conjuring up obnoxious comments.

Knights of Chaos
Equipment: Hand weapons, heavy armour, shield & barded Chaos Steed.

contrary to...

Warriors of Chaos
Equipment: Hand weapon & heavy armour.

Marauders of Chaos
Equipment: Hand weapon

Marauder Horsemen
Equipment: Hand weapon

A bit more apparent now?

Anyway, let it rest. I have the answers I wanted.

A thank you to all those who have replied :)

TheWarSmith
15-02-2007, 13:15
I don't think this thread needs to remain open. the question was answered and now it's just chatter.

T10
15-02-2007, 13:19
Just let them vent.

It's kinda fun, like watching people arguing after a collision.

-T10

kruzkal
15-02-2007, 13:39
Hey, I took took his first dig on the chin. He just had to keep coming. You can't dish the dirt without expecting to get a bit of splash back ey!

You think this is fun, you should see me debate with religious fundamentalists.

pcgamer72
15-02-2007, 14:53
The only problem with convos like these on forums is that they seem to never end. At least IRL, people have to leave or just get tired of talking. But online... you can go to work, sleep, or school and come back refreshed and ready to continue bickering.

Wings of Doom
15-02-2007, 14:55
Didn't you lose?

The answer to the question is very clear: The models in the unit have handweapons. It gives no number of handweapons, and as such it is logical to agree that they have one as every other unit in the game which has more than one hand weapon has it listed as 'two hand weapons'.
The knights have handweapons.
The knight has a handweapon.

Next you'll be arguing that theres only one hand weapon in the entire unit of chaos warriors...

kruzkal
15-02-2007, 15:38
Didn't you lose?

The answer to the question is very clear: The models in the unit have handweapons. It gives no number of handweapons, and as such it is logical to agree that they have one as every other unit in the game which has more than one hand weapon has it listed as 'two hand weapons'.
The knights have handweapons.
The knight has a handweapon.

Next you'll be arguing that theres only one hand weapon in the entire unit of chaos warriors...

Can't you read?

The opening post was a question. Not an argument. We already established that cavalry models do not gain +1 A for two hand weapons by third post. And I DO in fact agree with you. Knights should have a hand weapon. Which is why I stated on my last post on p.1 that "hand weapons" is a typo. i.e. this:

Knights of Chaos
Equipment: Hand weapons, heavy armour, shield & barded Chaos Steed.

contrary to...

Warriors of Chaos
Equipment: Hand weapon & heavy armour.

Marauders of Chaos
Equipment: Hand weapon

Marauder Horsemen
Equipment: Hand weapon


It was Festus who claimed otherwise:


BTW, it is not a typo in the HoC book, as the Knights really have Handweapons

Please, don't try to argue with someone who agrees with you again...

Wings of Doom
15-02-2007, 17:02
No, I can't read, and I'm very insulted you brought up such a sensitive topic for no particular reason.

Your second to last post added nothing to the conversation, and simply seemed to be you boasting about your arguing prowess, implying that you thought this was an argument (or debate, however you want it put) and your manner suggested you were a victor.

If you can read, as I'm sure you can, you probably read my second sentence, which started with 'The answer to the question', rather explicitly showing I knew there was a question in here somewhere.

Festus was absolutely correct in his sentence. The knights do have handweapons- if you see in that quotation of yours he has put the last letter of 'knights' and 'handweapons' in bold, showing the suffix denoting them as a plural. His logic (as I am interperating it, do please correct me if I'm wrong) is that to make that proper English sentence he must add the suffix at the end of 'handweapon' to correspond with knights (plural) and have (refering to the knights in plural). Otherwise, the sentence would read 'the knights have a hand weapon' which would make no sense in game terms as every model counts as having a handweapon regardless of what is written on their profile (BrB, page 56 under Hand Weapons).
So,


Knights
Equipment: Handweapons...

is not a typo as it makes complete grammatical sense.
Just because it's different to the surrounding statements does not mean anything, as it does not define anything different.

And, also:

I really have no clue.

Festus
15-02-2007, 17:14
Hi

LOL

(and yes, I am a language teacher - who just now have had a drink too many ... :) )

Festus

kruzkal
15-02-2007, 17:47
Wings of Doom,

I was referring to your ability read i.e to examine and grasp the meaning of and not the physical health of your sight. Don't use that as an excuse.

T10 comment that this is "fun". I reply simply explained what caused to to respond in such a manner as well as stating that I've had more "fun" threads in debating with fundamentalists elsewhere. There is no suggestion that this specific thread is a debate.

Also, I was referring to the typo part in Festus' quote. Your suggestion that the equipment list "makes complete grammatical sense" cannot be further from the truth. Even ignoring consistency with the whole army book, in order for the equipment list for the Knights to stand alone it must either refer to either the whole unit OR each knight. Therefore, either each knight has OR all knights share:

Hand weapons, heavy armour, shield & barded Chaos Steed.

If hand weapons refer to the Knights and everything else refer to a Knight then this sentence is ambiguous and obviously make no grammatical sense.

Wings of Doom
15-02-2007, 17:59
Kruzkal,

I am glad you meant no offence as to my optical abilities.


I reply simply explained what caused to to respond in such a manner

Please reassess this statement so that it makes sense.

There was no 'typo part' in Feastus' quote. It made complete sense.

The multiple of 'handweapon' in the equipment list does make complete grammatical sense- it doesn't have to be consistent with the rest of the army book to do so.

It doesn't actually have to be consistent with the rest of the equipment list to do so, either; one can assume that for whatever reason they chose, the person who wrote the armybook decided in this special case to refer to handweapons in relevance to the whole unit instead of each individual model, where as for the rest of this list they referred to the individual knights that make part of the unit. There is no forthcoming reason whatsoever to do so, but it does make grammatical sense, if not the more general kind.

Anyway, your original question has been answered. Whether there was or was not a typo in the equipment list or there was is of little consequence, as the 's' on the end of 'handweapons' has absolutely no impact game wise. So why don't we leave this enlightening (and, indeed, thoroughly enjoyable) little thread to rest, eh?

kruzkal
15-02-2007, 18:13
The equipment list is a single sentence. What you are describing where one noun of the sentence refers to Knights and another refers to a Knight is ambiguous i.e. which noun corresponds to which is open to interpretations. And thus, makes no grammatical sense at all.

Wings of Doom
15-02-2007, 18:49
Ah, but it is not a proper scentence. It has no verb. It is a list, though, so to make proper grammatical sense in context would be structured (to make it a proper scentence):

"The knights have handweapons, and each knight has a shield, barded chaos steed (etc.)." Which makes complete sense, unless you want to interpret it differantly (I'm not really sure how you would, but please, go ahead)..?

But Games Workshop have lazy writers and it is easier for the gamer to read as a list of single nouns.
I'm not confused by the meaning of the list in referance to the plural of handweapons, I'm certain your not, and I doubt anyone on the forum who has bothered to read this thread through is.

Now we are reduced to pointless bickering over the sensebility of an improper scentence. The main problem is solved, and we can continue arguing our points from here to eternity, with what I doubt would be any change in our respective arguments, (as this has, I am almost positive, turned into an argument), and neither getting the upper hand with no decisive evidence for either argument forthcoming.

So: it was either a typo or it was not, its open to interpretation and doesn't actually really matter. You have freedom of belief; believe what you want.

Makarion
15-02-2007, 18:57
Why are people arguing grammar with an average of 1+ spelling error per sentence? This discussion is getting smelly...

Caern
15-02-2007, 19:31
Why does this thread keep going on? I get the impression that if GW had said 'shields' wishful thinkers would start figuring that meant they got two shields per model.

TheWarSmith
15-02-2007, 19:50
2 shields and no attacks. SWEET!!!

CLOSE THIS THREAD!!!!

Belerophon709
15-02-2007, 19:54
LOL



/agree
/wait2seconds
/yawn

Negativemoney
15-02-2007, 20:07
Despite the fact that the rule book states "Hand Weapons" in the equipment section of the Knights Rules means nothing more than they have a large quantity of hand weapons at thier disposal. The fact means nothing when it comes to the rules for mounted models. Those rules state that only infantry gains the bonus for having more than 1 hand weapons.

From a WYSIWYG point of view I can say that yes they are armed with more than one hand weapon, due to the way that they are modeled. This however is over shadowed by the fact that they are only allowed to use one of them while mounted.

t-tauri
15-02-2007, 20:26
There's a lot of needless negativity here which is in danger of crossing the line into trolling and flaming. This is not acceptable posting on Warseer. Please stop it.

This thread is closed.

t-tauri

The Warseer Inquisition