Can't find the FAQ for daemons on the site.

Do you get an extra attack with Torment blade or not?

Greetz Oinky ;)
------------------------------------------
MODERATOR EDIT GJNORONH

Seeing as this question comes up regularly I'm going to pin this thread.

Apologies Oinky for using your post

-Gjnoronh
---------------------------

yes you do!

Thanks! :P

Great for only 5 points!

ya but you can't fill the other 20 with anything so you could argue that it fills the slot of a 25pnt item. But still sometimes that 20 pnts can go somewhere else.

Later
mark

No you don't get an extra attack.

You are crazy if you think that a 5pt weapon gives an additional bonus AND an extra attack. Needs to specifically state in the magic item section that it is used as an 'additional hand weapon'.

This was a follow up question to the horrible DOC FAQ that was released.

Time of Madness

According to Direwolf, it was indeed a follow up question, but was answered exactly opposite of what you just said:

That ruling/interpretation defys logic. I normally agree with the majority of what direwolf does, however I would hardly call them "official".

All other magic items in all the other books specify if they count as "additional hand weapon" or "two-handed weapons". The rest are all assumed to count as hand weapons.

Play it how you like, but I won't be playing it as an additional hand weapon unless GW says otherwise.
Time of Madness

I'm with Time of Madness on this one!

No, it defies points cost.

Logic says that 1 hand weapon (claws) + another hand weapon (torment blade) = 2 hand weapons = fighting with two hand weapons.

I'm with Time of Madness to on this one too.Claming that your Daemon gets an extra attack and the ability of the weapon for 5pts is a total rape of the rules IMO

I agree it makes no sense, but unfortunately the DW FAQ is the only one I have. We've already been trough this discussion some time ago. Although I don't agree with it, I now follow the DW FAQ because it isn't worth another 4 pages of pointless discussion to me.

Personally, I would not take the extra attack if I was using it, but I would not fight the issue if my opponent was using it. Some things aren't worth ruining my "play time" with.

There was a lot of discussion prior to and after the direwolf FAQ on the issue of how to handle the two daemonic gifts that have the hand weapon special rule.

Digging through the forum you can find long discussions here. There are some very strong opinions on both sides of the discussion

However the short answer in my opinion.
1) Why delineate two gifts as specifically having the hand weapon property but not all the others - unless the intent was they count as hand weapons - that's the Rules as Intended argument (RAI)

2) The rules for fighting with a second hand weapon are not specific to having special weapon type 'additional hand weapon' but rather possessing two hand weapons

Otherwise black orcs using the 'armed to da teef' rule would be out of luck as they specifically can choose to use 'two choppas' but have no option to use an 'additional hand weapon/chopa' Same thing for DE beastmasters with 'beastmasters scourge' it's rules state hand weapon not 'additional hand weapon' - that's the Rules as Written argument

3) Other magic items that are listed as having special property 'spear' 'shield' 'lance' 'great weapon' etc., function as one of those items under the rules - why wouldn't these two - that's the Rules as Written / Rules as Established argument


But that's my opinion. Go with how you'd prefer to play

The direwolf FAQ is specifically only binding in places where a tourney organizer or gaming group chooses to make it. (The same is true of the GW FAQ/rulebooks by the way.)

The direwolf FAQ specifically says
"we do not mean to imply that every ruling in these documents must be taken as gospel by all players. Quite the contrary is true. Warhammer should always be played in the way that gives you and your local players group the most pleasure."

What you and your opponent agree on is always better that rules from somewhere else.

Gary

Direwolf FAQ Daemon rep

What gjnoronh said,

cheers

Thanks for the replies :)

I've read the discussion about 'Torment blade' a few months ago,but there was no final answer.I hoped it was added in the FAQ about now,but I can't find it on the warhammersite.

It seems logic to me that for only 5 points there is no extra attack.You must pay 50 points for many armed monstrosity,to get 2 extra attacks,so I doubt it. But it would be fun :evil:

Greetz Oinky ;)

gjnoronh is correct. The RAW for this indicates to me that it does in fact provide an extra attack. As for those that say its only a 5 point weapon, that is not entirely true. If you look at the costs for the other gifts you will quickly realize that even at 5 points it still takes up 25 points of gifts as nothing else can be taken for the 20 points that you could have left over. I think this is an important thing to note.

Only if you're not using those 20 pts elsewhere in your list.
But yes, your point is valid. It stops the Keeper from using the full 100pts.

RAW and in the faq, torment blade = +1A.

I've just been going over my rulebooks and I've possible bad news.

Yes, the Torment Blade counts as a hand weapon.
Yes, the claws also count as a hand weapon.
But the Fighting with two hand weapons rule only applies to infantry (pg 56 BRB).

So it definitely doesn't work for the Keeper.
Whether or not it works for the Herald depends on whether it counts as infantry. I haven't been able to work out that part. Maybe someone else can confirm it or not.

Check the ruling for the bonegiant, shaggoth and so on, they are also no infantry but get the bonus for fighting with two handweapons,

cheers

Isn't it that as long as something is not mounted it count as infantry?

Yeah the unit classifications are pretty bunk.

Things can be:
Monster and character
character and infantry
character and cavalry
character and chariot
monster and infantry
monster and cavalry
character and monster and infantry
character and monster and cavalry


They aren't exclusive.

Correct though I can't think of a character and monster and cavalry example.

The rest all have well defined examples in the game.


GN

Argh we are still talking about this.

Magic weapons/gifts/powers etc only count as "extra hand weapons" if they specifically state it in the entry.

Just my two cents (you'll never catch me playing with the torment blade as an extra attack).
Time of Madness

well i use it as an extra attck as thats what the faq says

Same here! There's no reason not to!

JJ

hmmm from what i can read it looks like it does give an extra attack.... although i doubt it was intential. I think i will not use the +1 though as really its abit mean to other players.

A bit mean...? Like all of the nastiness that other armies have you mean? :P Like "Eye of the Gods" nasty? Or how about Van Horstmann's Speculum nasty? :)

JJ

Isn't that a contradiction?

Anyway, if the FAQ says so, I don't see no point to give up the extra attack. Except if you have something better to take. Eh eh :ph43r:

Anyone can provide the link to the FAQ?

So people are saying having an additional "Hand Weapon" does not grant an extra attack but an "Additional Hand Weapon" does?

No it is not a contradiction. I realize the FAQ is out there, but it does not establish an answer to the question. Until GW comes out and says "Yes the torment blade gives +1 attack" I won't play it that way.

Yes for a weapon to give +1 attack it needs to specifically state "counts as an extra hand weapon". Look at all the other books that spell it out in their magic weapon sections. IE dagger of hotek, Rageth's wildfire blades, axes of Khorgor etc etc

Time of Madness

But that's not how it is with troops having two handweapons in there entry.
E.g. the empire militia, they have two handweapons not one handweapon and another one that counts as a an extra handweapon. Remember gifts are no magic items and do not follow any of the rules for them.

However why should GW include the rule handweapon into only two gift descriptions if it'd make no difference? :wacko:

cheers

Maybe because its Gw, and they are not thinking clearly. At some point they just lost it, the grip of reality. What they need to do is step down from ivory tower and start listening real people again.

Well then you should publish your own tabletop, but aslong as you play a GW tabletop you should listen to whatever goes on in their ivory tower... :lol:

cheers

@ToM Orc choppas my friend . . .

Not sure I understand Gary...

Choppa's count as a hand weapon in all respects other then giving +1S....You can then buy an additional choppa for +2 points.

Here's the last thing I'll say on this....I believe I said something similar on the first page of this thread.

You are CRAZY if you think a 5pt gift/magic weapon/power etc etc gives you +1 attack and a extra advantage. This was not how the item was intended to be played.
Time of Madness

ToM, Intent is not something you can argue here as there is more evidence to indicate that they did intend this to stack. The inclusion of "Hand Weapon" is proof that the intent of this gift is different from the intent of gifts like Eatherblade and Axe of Khorne. The Torment Blade while costing 5 points still takes the spot of other 25 point gifts.

Furthermore from playing with this gift as the rules say I should play it, I can tell you that the overall impact of of +A is significantly minor to that of its other ability.

The BRB says a model with 2 hand weapons gets and additional attack. Torment Blade + Claws = 2 Hand Weapons thus the Keeper or a Herald on foot will gain an additional attack.

You can't argue with clear rules. There is no ambiguity here what so ever.

Here's another thread from the Warhammer boards (now you have me researching).

http://warhammer.org.uk/PhP/viewtopic.php?...ghlight=torment

Time of Madness

The arguments used against the additional attack are not supported by direct rules quotes. As well as this statement "It says both infantry and models fighting on foot- thus only if a model fulfills both being an infantry model and is fighting on foot does it get the benefit." Last I checked an infantry model cannot be mounted thus it would be redundant to say it must meet both qualifications. The rules are quite clear and for once Solar Hammer is correct in analysis

@ToM

Black orcs have the option for being armed with 'two choppas' they do NOT have the option for choppa with an 'additional choppa'

While choppas 'count as hand weapons' the BOrcs have two weapons that 'count as hand weapons' not a hand weapon(choppa) and an 'additional hand weapon/choppa'

Sounds like ridiculous splitting of hairs? It's the same thing as saying a model with two hand weapons doesn't have 'an additional hand weapon' - that's the RAW argument for +1 attack.

I do think as Frank is pointing out RAI in particular (as well as RAW) seem to argue these were meant to count as additional hand weapons - why else give those two gifts that specific description - much like items whose description open with Lance. or Spear. are meant to count as items of that type. It's fairly unusual for GW to include that descriptor at a start of an item/gift why else do it? That's the RAI argument and i think it's even clearer than the RAW.

I don't argue about whether this is appropriately or innapropriately costed - lets face it there are plenty of things in the DoC book you look at and say 'really this costs this little?' (or 'wow that much!' in some cases like daemon princes.) There are plenty of rules (masque/banner of -2LD/0+save str7 khorne heralds) where I think we all look at DoC and say "Really what were they doing here?"

I will say we aren't seeing those slaanesh/tzeentch heralds/greater daemons combat prowess at all being the source of complaints in DoC - the extra attack doesn't break the model in any way as some of the other unpleasant combos that the book has more than it's fair share of. Does anyone think +1 attack makes a Keeper/LoC broken - I think cheap value for a little extra combat prowess makes them somewhat more interesting/viable choices compared to the far more common thirster/GUO we see.

Re the TWF thread well - as we've pointed out already if monstrous models can't benefit from two hand weapons who knows what the poor shaggoths spending those points on additional hand weapons are doing.

PS though I realize this is all a bit repetitive. . . so my apologies it's not really new arguments just the same old stuff. In all honesty I think the big tripping point for the 'no' camp is 'dude it's 5 points that's ridiculously low for an additional attack' - that's a different argument than RAW or RAI and I think that's why the two sides aren't coming to congruence on this - not talking about the same issues.