N18 Dual pistols and melee

I meant unbalanced as what with happened with Mordheim and wielding two weapons in combat, that it was so advantageous that everybody and their dog were using that option, and unbalanced in the sense that a close combat beast like a Goliath ganger could easily be downed by something puny like a Juve; but I guess that's the reality of gang warfare! :p I mean, it's meant to be grisly and brutal after all.
 
You are right about it being brutal, sure, but I've not seen much discussion saying it is unbalanced. What is usually discussed for 'efficient' (cheesy? unbalanced?) takedowns, for example using a juve as you say, are typical stiletto/toxin juve rockets. This could be an escher juve with stiletto knife, able to take an Orlock Leader with 3 Wounds OoA with a single stab attack. Another discussion I've seen is the web gauntlet, which seems to be the go-to weapon for most efficient take-down in close combat. Another contender for the most efficient close combat damage output is the bonesword, but that is relative to its low cost.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Silly Vasili
Maybe if you can come up with some persuasive examples? What about dual wielding Xenarch Death-arc (Rapid Fire 2). Could deal a potential 12 damage? But still highly unlikely. A juve or average fighter would hit on half the attacks (or less), so that brings it down to 6 damage. And with average strength against average toughness, you can halve that again, down to 3. Then apply a mesh armour save (pretty common) and it's reduced to 2 damage.

2 damage for dual wielding rapid fire (2) melee weapon? The Orlock Leader still has 1 wound left. Not impressed!
 
On average, RF(1) is only a 1.7 hit multiplier. And each hit then has to individually wound, pierce the armour and injure the target. It's good, but hardly terrifying compared to the aforementioned armour-ignoring, auto-killing Web gauntlet.

I do agree that a weapon doesn't have to be broken to be unbalanced though. The Boning sword, for instance, invalidates pretty much every other CC weapon in its price range (except maybe the Flail). It won't decimate whole gangs on its own, but it's clearly either overpowered or underpriced.
More to the point, I'd get a Reclaimed autopistol over pretty much any other comparable option, especially now that Manstopper rounds are readily available for everyone (and assuming you don't need a genuine Autopistol to use them).

Those are bad design because they make quite a few other weapons non-options (outside of rule of cool / WYSIWYG considerations) and actually reduce the choices available to the players.
 
I think it is better to use N17 version.
So, according to N17 a correct interpretation would be:

Fighter A and B have 1A in base profile.
1). Fighter A charges with 2 pistols, he can do 1 attack with each (with FP dice for each), followed by 1 unarmed attack.
2). Fighter B charges with 1 pistol, he can do 1 attack with first followed by 1 unarmed attack.

I don't understand why you'd consider that fighter A would get 3 attacks ? He would just attack once with each pistol, or once with either one and once unarmed, but not both.
 
I don't understand why you'd consider that fighter A would get 3 attacks ?
Assuming the fighter has 1 Attack on their profile, they get an extra attack dice for using two weapons and another extra attack dice for charging for a total of 3 attack dice (of which you must allocate 1 to each pistol, and the last one uses the Unarmed profile).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aulenback
Assuming the fighter has 1 Attack on their profile, they get an extra attack dice for using two weapons and another extra attack dice for charging for a total of 3 attack dice (of which you must allocate 1 to each pistol, and the last one uses the Unarmed profile).
Sorry ! I forgot the charging part. You're right of course.
 
"If the fighter is attacking with more than one weapon, the attack dice must be split as evenly as possible between the two weapons"
This is just before the pistols at close quarters rule. Sounds like a clear case for using 2 pistols in cc to me.
Yes we also need to apply the PACC rule and limit each pistol to 1 attack. But PACC sounds like a modification of how many attacks should be allocated to what not a complete replacement. And so we should still be applying the principle of giving an attack dice to all weapons involved. Or my way of looking at it. After 3 rulebooks and 2years and 2 or 3 FAQs you would of thought GW could answer this question as it does pop up all over the internet with alarming frequency.
 
"If the fighter is attacking with more than one weapon, the attack dice must be split as evenly as possible between the two weapons"
This is just before the pistols at close quarters rule. Sounds like a clear case for using 2 pistols in cc to me.
Yes we also need to apply the PACC rule and limit each pistol to 1 attack. But PACC sounds like a modification of how many attacks should be allocated to what not a complete replacement. And so we should still be applying the principle of giving an attack dice to all weapons involved. Or my way of looking at it. After 3 rulebooks and 2years and 2 or 3 FAQs you would of thought GW could answer this question as it does pop up all over the internet with alarming frequency.

Except that pistols specifically contradict this rule whether you think you can use one or two of them in close combat.

It is right up there for frequently disagreed on rules interpretations. Maybe not enough people actually asked the FAQ email for them to include it.
 
"If the fighter is attacking with more than one weapon, the attack dice must be split as evenly as possible between the two weapons"
This is just before the pistols at close quarters rule. Sounds like a clear case for using 2 pistols in cc to me.

Am I missing something? I don't see what that's got to do with two pistols.
 
As for unambiguous there is a rule with the heading Pistols at Close Quarters written in the rulebook book that takes a whole paragraph to explain how they can be used that is blatantly being ignored in favour of a single sentence rule designed to allow you to dual wield close combat weapons.
This rule does not say you can only use one Sidearm weapn. All it says is that attack dice that haven't been assigned to a Sidearm weapon must be assigned to a Melee weapon (if you have one) or use the Unarmed profile (if you don't). You saying this rule is being ignored just after I spent a post breaking it down is disingenuous.

Let's say that you have 3 attacks. You split them as even as possible between two pistols. But since each pistol can't have more than 1 attack assigned to it, third attack gets lost.
It's not completely lost, it's made with the Unarmed profile.
 
@Thorgor

Your breakdown of the pistols at close quarters rule simply ignored two out of three sentences because you you claimed it was impossible to follow the rules if you used two sidearms and so should be ignored.

If two thirds of the rule specifically written to explain how to use side arms in close combat is impossible to use with two sidearms it would seem to be a pretty reasonable assumption that you shouldn’t use two sidearms in close combat.
 
Do you think this one is FAQ worthy and we should send it to support mail?
It's a question that has been asked frequently so I'd say it qualifies. Not sure sending it the the faq email address would do any good though, but I guess it cannot hurt.
It's not one I really need an official answer to though. The RAI is clear.
 
If two thirds of the rule specifically written to explain how to use side arms in close combat is impossible to use with two sidearms it would seem to be a pretty reasonable assumption that you shouldn’t use two sidearms in close combat.
Two thirds?
Again, the PICC rule does two things:
  1. Restrict the number of attack dice that can be assigned to a Sidearm to 1
  2. Explain what to do with the remaining attack dice (assign to Melee weapon if one is used, or Unarmed otherwise)
I've ignored nothing.
By your logic, since you can never end up having to assign attack dice to both a Melee weapon and the Unarmed profile, then one third of the rule is 'ignored' no matter what. So does it mean one can never ever use Sidearms in CC?

Also, your objection kinda falls flat if the fighter is equipped with nothing but Sidearms. There is no Melee weapon at all in this scenario, so how does it work? Does it retroactively make this loadout illegal just like it apparently retroactively makes selecting two Sidearms for CC illegal? Using only one Sidearm wouldn't change anything in this scenario, one way or another, I'll need to assign attack dice to a Melee weapon that doesn't exist.

Finally, your interpretation implies that the designer don't want a fighter to be able to use two Sidearms in CC, and chose to convey that fact in the most convoluted way possible. I know they're not the sharpest, but it would have been very easy to make it clearer (You can select up to two weapons. One of them can have the Sidearm trait. The others must have the Melee trait). And, more importantly, why would they want to do that in the first place?
 
Pick weapons at stage 2 is clear multiple weapons with sidearm can be used.
Stage 3 then has us assign attacks split evenly between weapons. Therefore each weapon will have an attack assigned to it before you are able to assign a second attack to it.
PACC will only kick in when you start to try putting a second or more attack dice on a weapon with the sidearm trait.
If you have one sidearm and one melee weapon you assign the extra attacks to the melee weapon. When you have two sidearms you can't assign the extra attacks to the the other sidearm because by this point it would of already had an attack assigned to it. Hence why these attacks can only be assigned to melee or unarmed.

PACC is only the second half of stage 3 declare attack dice. Apply both sections and you get two pistols in combat. Ignore the first half and only apply the second half gets you one. I see nothing suggesting we ignore the first half.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aulenback
Did this actually change from N17 to N18? What are your thoughts between RAW, RAI and what we as a community would prefer?
 
Did this actually change from N17 to N18? What are your thoughts between RAW, RAI and what we as a community would prefer?
The wording did change but it had the same conundrum in there. RAW and RAI is one of those situation things. We can all argue some very different intent from the same text it seems.
In this situation both RAW/RAI say the same thing to me, two pistols. But clearly different folks are getting the opposite from the text and claim RAw/RAI to be in their favour. Another one of those wind up your overworked arbitrator with yet more questions situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aulenback