Exactly. All models have a hand weapon, I don't see how you could possibly read something and think it means anything other than ALL MODELS HAVE HAND WEAPONS. By the way, teeth, claws etc are hand weapons.

_________________
"I am the Flying Spagetti Monster. Thou shall have no other monsters before me"
-FSM.

i understand
but since we are looking at wording of the rules
"counts as" is not same as a hand weapon



i am not trying to infuriate you. all my posts are civil.
your response is your prerogative. and now excused.

i do not argue because i am wrong, or think i am wrong. thus to be infuriating.

I presents an argument with logical analysis that comes to a difference conclusion and interpretation from yours.

_________________
warmancer

read again:

not

_________________
warmancer

It pretty much is the same.. just the wording, still acts the same as a hand weapon tho. Lol i bet this is going to end up like that Woodland terrain thread lolz.

only unarmed models are the ones specified as unarmed, otherwise they have a weapon.
if a weapon is listed, these are the weapons available for use.

why is it so hard? sigh

_________________
warmancer

You'll notice that the Warg, a ery old model says counts as, whilst the Spiders, more recent say that their mandables ARE hand weapons. It does actually seem that you could be a troll who is arguaing against logic, but I will assume you are not.

I will quote hithero: "All models do have hand weapons in addition to the listed wargear, unless it says otherwise". Unless GW see sense, all models have a hand weapon, despite the ludicrosity of say Beserkers having a dagger concealed in the only possible place on the model, its loincloth. I don;t think that I, or hithero or anyone else is making an interpretation of the wording, we are reading it, and understanding it. Many people before you have questioned this, but that doesn't mean you are right, it is right to question as GW are well..., but the rules are crystal clear in this aspect.

Khandish Warrior are not listed as being unarmed, so that means they have a hand weapon.

You are still wrong, the presence of a two-handed weapon does not mean they don't also have a hand weapn. Will you please read clearly.

_________________
"I am the Flying Spagetti Monster. Thou shall have no other monsters before me"
-FSM.

He also ignores anything other than his interpretation of the rules too :/ Clansman example, care to comment? Why did they write, "but is otherwise unarmed" after listing their 2 handed weapons?

one last thing

the FAQ has "unarmed" emboldened.
the answer was clearly in response to the emboldened "unarmed" part, that if no weapon is listed they do indeed have a weapon and are not unarmed, unless specifically stated as being unarmed. the FAQ answer was not to give all models a hand weapon.
we must take the answer within context of the question.

as for Clansman of Lamedon

no more, no less
there is nothing about "but is otherwise unarmed"

_________________
warmancer

In Gondor in Flames, the rules read: Clansman of Lamedon Wargear: Armour and two-handed weapon. A Clansmen is otherwisde unarmed.

I just read one of your old posts eferring to charging out of terrain in which you also arguaed against all reason and refused to accept that you were wrong, thus I think that no matter what, you will refuse to listen to us and continue to argue, as a troll would, against the wording of the rules.

The rules and faq state that all models have a hand-weapon unless specifically stated that they are otherwise unarmed, even if says they have no equipment or also have a two-handed weapon. Khandish Warriors do have hand weapons. The sentence just before this one is an unrefutable fact, that to contradict implies you cannot understand clear English. I'm sorry to say in such a way, but will you please listen and read properly.

EDIT: I am going to bed now, I hope to wake up to ind you have seen sense. Good night

_________________
"I am the Flying Spagetti Monster. Thou shall have no other monsters before me"
-FSM.

my old argument for charging out of terrain for WotR was supported by GW rule interpretation if you had bothered to read the thread. Despite the overwhelming resistance here to my argument.
Evidently attitudes here remain rigid as minds here are more prone to continue what is believed true despite evidence to the contrary.

again the FAQ v1.1 available here


yes it would have been simpler to answer with
A. "the only unarmed model are the ones specified as unarmed, otherwise if no weapon stated, counts as having a hand weapon."
yes, it would also have been simpler to answer
B. "all models have a hand weapon"
but neither of these were the answer given. instead we got a more vague
C. "All models have a hand weapon unless they’re specifically described as being “unarmed”."

interpretation of this requires understanding that an answer is to a question and the question only, and cannot be taken out of context.
that a word is emboldened for significance, and if in the question, represents the thrust of the question for which the response is directed
and thus it is about being unarmed
that is why i do not believe that when a model's wargear has a weapon listed and nothing about being unarmed, the model also has a hand weapon. And if a weapon is given, that model is therefor armed with that weapon, and thus no longer unarmed to be given a hand weapon as well.


using the latest published rules

_________________
warmancer

1. Eejit is slang, not real English.
2. If you take an bow with an Elven Blade, you still can't use the blade as a 2handed weapon.
3. Gothmog, your spelling and grammar are atrocious.

_________________
"Leave Sauron to me."
If you're in the Raleigh, NC area, let me know.

All models have a hand weapon. This is regardless of any other equipment.
But there is an exception: unless they’re specifically described as being “unarmed”. There are only a few models that fit this criteria in the old profiles, one is the Clansman profile. Compare that with the Berzerker. Both have a 2H weapon. Only for the Clansman does it specifically state they are otherwise unarmed. Ergo, a Berzerker has a choice of weapon, a Clansman doesn't. Otherwise, what would be the point of stating it for the Clansman, but not the Berzerker?

The FAQ hasn't changed on this matter since the release of the new profiles. Ergo 2: Khandish warriors have a choice.



People who have been involved in this game since the early play tests of these rules have been answering you. I'm not sure we're the ones being rigid.

I can see that this question is going to come back to haunt the hobby once the movie "The Hobbit" comes out and the new blood asks the same question.

I can see the confusion. You see weapon "X" under Wargear followed by a ".". Reading it the way you have shared with us, one can see the issue.

FIRST: In all the new sourcebooks that I have it states in the first paragragh/second sentence: "The main rules manual for The Lord of the Rings Strategy Battle Game contains the rules you will need to fight the battles....". The book The Lord of the Rings strategy Battle Game is fondly called...Original Rule Book or ORB.

The fact of the matter is that the FAQ in question is answering a warriors profile listing in the ORB that was later reworded in the sourcebook "Fall Of The Necromancer (FotN)."

The ORB stated that "...(Wood) Elf Warriors does not include any equipment...[ORB109]" BUT later in the FotN sourcebook that was later reworded to state: "The Wood Elf represented by this profile carries a dagger(hand weapon).[FotN41]" To head you off at the pass..."Where there is variation between the profiles included in the book [meaning the FotN] and the ones printed in the main rules manual, this volume takes precedence.[FotN3]"

Also in the ORB on pg 42 under WARGEAR: Swords And Other Hand Weapons; it clearly states "All (bolden by me) warriors carry a sword, axe, club or similar weapon in one hand - these are collectively called 'hand weapons' for that reason."
((don't go arguing that a warrior can't carry a hand weapon in ONE HAND and a 2hd weapon or a bow in the other hand!! common sense here, its sheathed somewhere on the model even if the sheathed weapon is not seen...and don't go saying your common sense is different than mine...I'm looking at the whole community and not just my kitchen table and 1-2 friends.))

The profiles in the newer sourcebooks, mainly, shows only equipment that stands out for those particular troop type and nothing else. Look at Gimili: states heavy armour, 2hd axe and throwing axes. Though down in his special abilities it states he can use his "[hand] axes in each hand"....but is shows no [hand] axes on his Wargear, are we to assume that he can make his heroic 3 attacks with the 2hd axe...but wait it says "axes"...so does he have two 2hd axes, but again it says 2hd singularly...whaaat?? OR look at the Fellowship Hobbits, none have weapons listed but are we to think they're fighting with tooth and nails and Frodo is attacking with The Ring? Or better yet; the Dwarven Warriors show NO hand weapons in their Wargear...none....soooo...are they unarmed, but it does not state as such??? Again, the rules in the ORB take precedent first till written otherwise. Meaning that if the profile does not clearly state that the warrior ONLY carries "X" weapon or is UNARMED, then the warrior type in questions has a hand weapon in addition to all other Wargear that is written for that warrior type.

Later, on that same page(ORB.p42): Unarmed Models; "Occasionally a model may carry no weapons at all, and when this is the case it will be clearly specified in its entry." (again bolden my me). Being UNARMED has a negative penalty, a penalty to the roll to who wins the fight.

There are profiles that state they are unarmed, some even have special provision: Cirdan is unarmed with NO options to choose otherwise. Then there is Celeborn, stated as being unarmed in the Wargear section BUT able to purchase a weapon. Fredegar..hobbit..is unarmed but was once stated that he carried varies kitchen implements which was still stated/classified as being unarmed. Then of course their is Smeagol who only "has strong strangling fingers, and is never considered unarmed.[FPpg47]".

As for animals/beast...again in the ORB it is covered. Again, under Wargear and subcat. Unarmed Models it explains animals: :...are not penalised just because they have no visible weaponry. They have claws, teeth, and whatever else nature has endowed them with."

Yes we all know GW has handled their end of the gaming system, to some degree, kinda haphazardly. It would be nice to see them merge the sourcebooks into a more manageable number with consistency across them all, and to have all the revised rules in a single book but till that day....

You, fracas, would like it clearly worded in the Wargear section to show all that the model comes with...but...remember the ORB still Rules Them All.

-Scar

_________________
Free speech carries with it some freedom to listen. -B.M.

I see Fracas's point but the majority are right on this one, p42 under the heading 'SWORDS AND OTHER HAND WEAPONS' it states

"All warriors carry a sword, axe, club or similar weapon in one hand - these are collectively called 'hand weapons' for that reason"

Under the heading 'UNARMED MODELS' it states

"Occasionally a model may carry no weapon at all, and when this is the case it will be clearly specified in its entry"

Also to reinforce the point about animals (bats, spiders, wargs...) see the third paragraph down.

I don't own the new Warband books yet but I take it the rules haven't changed (judging from that FAQ doc), have any profiles changed?

_________________
The Southern Fiefdoms: http://www.one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=21928

What on EARTH happened to my topic??!!? I asked about Khand, not a silly argument!!

_________________
I'm the good and the bad; you must be the ugly
I'd mess up your face but your momma did it for me!

i understand how the majority interpret the rules to give all models a hand weapons.
but doing so would negate any differences to having an elven blade.
In the Khand section, heroes are given chieftain axes (functions as elven blade) while warriors are given two handed axes. why this distinction if the warrior can choose to use their two handed axe two handed, or the "hand weapon" they are supposed to have?

another place where a problem with all models with hand weapons are models with pikes. the phalanx rules permit easterlings to use both pikes and shields. should isengard uruks be allowed to switch to hand weapons to wield with shields, and next fight switch to pike again?

i originally agreed with the majority reading of the FAQ, but further reading of the question, its emboldened word, and the answer has changed my mind.
as the FAQ was in relation to being unarmed, thus
1. All models have a weapon unless specified as being unarmed
2. When no weapon is specified, then the model is armed with a hand weapon


my apologies to MeatBoy1994 for the hijack of his thread.
i still believe a shade to support your warriors would be beneficial.

_________________
warmancer

fracas, you are wrong. ScarpeIron has spelled it out as well as humanly possible. It dose not say when wargear is specified they are armed with a hand weapon, it says that ALL models have a hand weapon unless it explicitly states otherwise. I honestly cannot comprehend how you can possibly not understand this. Forget the elven Blades, GW made a stupid mistake with this, but the rule stands. To all intents and purposes, there is no difference between a two-handed weapon and an elven blade, except also being able to also take a bow etc. For Khand, the difference between Chieftains and Warriors is that Warrior must exchange their two-handed weapon for a bow whilst Chieftains may take both. If the Warriors had no hand weapons as you mistakenly believ, then their archers would be unarmed unless the bow magically grows a hand weapon. Since they have a single profile, if archers have hand weapons then so do the axemen. In the case of Uruk-hai, no becaus a shield is not a hand weapon, if a pikemen is engaged in combat, he must use his hand weapon as the pike is too unweildy, the reason Easterlings can have both is because Easterlings actually have spears, but have been renamed pikes for simplification, Easterlings can hold their spears in one hand and a shield in the other, they don't actually have pikes, the 'pike' rule represents the fact that they fight in tight spiked defensive formations, as it says in Shadow in the East. Again, te rules do not say "When no weapon is specified, then the model is armed with a hand weapon" they say "All models have a hand weapon unless specified as being unarmed"

_________________
"I am the Flying Spagetti Monster. Thou shall have no other monsters before me"
-FSM.

fracas, have you looked at the Clansman profile in the Gondor in Flames sourcebook? If not, it will explain why you're not understanding what we are saying.

Though the warriors cannot carry both bows and 2-handed weapons at the same time, the chieftains are allowed to do this because of the Chieftain's Axe rule. "Models armed with two-handed weapons cannot carry pikes, spears, shields, bows, or crossbows as they need both hands to carry their weapons." ORB p. 43. "If the warrior also carries a shield or a spear then he cannot use his elven blade as a two-handed weapon, but models carrying bows can carry Elven blades and use them as two-handed weapons as normal." ORB p. 44. So a chieftain can use a bow and a 2-handed weapon, while a warrior can only use one or the other, which is why there is a distinction between a normal 2-handed axe and the chieftain's axe. This is the only advantage of an elven blade over a 2-handed weapon.

"Models armed with pikes cannot carry bows, crossbows, or shields as they need both hands to carry their weapons." ORB 43. This shows that no, a pike model cannot switch to a shield as they are not permitted to carry a shield at all, while Easterlings have an exception because of their Phalanx special rule.

The FAQ answer clearly states that ALL (it seems that the word ALL is difficult for you to understand so I am emphasizing that it really says ALL) models count as carrying hand weapons UNLESS they are clearly stated as being UNARMED. In the Khandish warrior profile, can you see where it says that they are unarmed? No. It is because they are not unarmed. It says nothing about an exception for models that already have other wargear listed, nor does it say that it only applies to the elven warrior in question, it says ALL models. Therefore, a Khandish warrior can fight with just a hand weapon if he wishes to. You can keep arguing as much as you want, but you will still be wrong. If English is not your native language, I understand your confusion, but if it is, then you are either a complete idiot or a troll.

Also, a shade might be useful, yes, as you still have the option of fighting 2-handed, but is 100 points worth it to just give your guys +1 to wound? Even if you had 50 warriors with 2-handed weapons, that would be 2 points per model, which is still a bit pricey, although in large games might be very useful.

Thanks!

Maermaethor.

_________________
(insert awesome signature here)

As stated several times already, an elven blade allows models to also take a bow, very important for elves and Khand captains, the profile does not allow for Khand warriors to take both axe and bow - there is the difference

I think its time to leave Fracas to play by his own rules nobody can get through to him, yet again we have an I am right everybody else is wrong mentality. Next time I play Adam Troke, I'll let him know that he has been playing his dwarves wrong and his Khazad do not have a hand weapon back up :p