The notion of winding up arbitrators is alien to me, but that's a topic for another discussion (here: https://yaktribe.games/community/threads/the-arbitrator-a-discussion-with-poll.9821/#post-218442).
N18 Dual pistols and melee
- Thread starter JawRippa
- Start date
Actually just reread the N17 version and I think it definitely rules in favour of 2 pistols.
" If a fighter is using more than one weapon, their Attack dice are split as evenly as possible between them (if there is an odd number of Attack dice, the controlling player chooses which weapon makes the odd attack). The only exception to this are pistols; a pistol can only have one Attack dice allocated to it. Any other Attack dice that would of been allocated to it are allocated to the other weapon instead, or, if the attacker does not have another weapon (or if the other weapon is a pistol), they are made as unarmed attacks."
The important line being "any other Attack dice that would have been allocated to it" is what gets allocated to a melee or unarmed attack. Not all other Attack dice.
The bit I'd highlight is:
However, we still have the issue that the rule has changed from N17 to N18.
One possibility is that there was no real reason for this - the writer's intentions are assumed to be the same, so we can use N17 to show what they are. In this case, two pistols are allowed.
But the alternative possibility is that the change in wording was deliberate and ought to mean something different. In this case, two pistols were allowed in N17 but not in N18.
So, knowing what N17 says doesn't help a great deal...
However, we still have the issue that the rule has changed from N17 to N18.
One possibility is that there was no real reason for this - the writer's intentions are assumed to be the same, so we can use N17 to show what they are. In this case, two pistols are allowed.
But the alternative possibility is that the change in wording was deliberate and ought to mean something different. In this case, two pistols were allowed in N17 but not in N18.
So, knowing what N17 says doesn't help a great deal...
If you obey the beginning of the rule and evenly distribute attack dice between weapons. You can only be be adding more than one attack dice to a weapon after the other weapons already have an attack dice allocated to them. So of course you can't allocate these additional dice your other weapon if it's a pistol because it has to already of had an attack allocated. Seems to be the case in both rule sets.
It look's like the rule was written differently in N18 beyond the change of pistol sidearm traits. Was to put the rules that affect pistols in one place as the rule about no accuracy modifier was a couple of paragraphs down.
So I think it was an attempt at writing the rule in a clear way that failed as opposed to a rules rewrite.
Although trying to guess the intent of the developers is like trying to predict the future with tea leaves.
It look's like the rule was written differently in N18 beyond the change of pistol sidearm traits. Was to put the rules that affect pistols in one place as the rule about no accuracy modifier was a couple of paragraphs down.
So I think it was an attempt at writing the rule in a clear way that failed as opposed to a rules rewrite.
Although trying to guess the intent of the developers is like trying to predict the future with tea leaves.
At Page 68 of the rulebook, in the close combat section, there Is a paragraph very clear and simple:
"2.Pick weapons:
the controlling player declares wich weapon the fighter will use. A fighter can use up to Two weapon with the melee OR the sidearm trait,but only one if It also as the unwieldy trait. Alternatively the fighter may make unarmed attacks."
It means that you can first choose the weapon you want to use of you are armed with more than one, second that you may use up to two pistols in melee.
"2.Pick weapons:
the controlling player declares wich weapon the fighter will use. A fighter can use up to Two weapon with the melee OR the sidearm trait,but only one if It also as the unwieldy trait. Alternatively the fighter may make unarmed attacks."
It means that you can first choose the weapon you want to use of you are armed with more than one, second that you may use up to two pistols in melee.
The rule was written long time before the release of the GSC. This Is an evidence that the devs don't think about rules interaction.
The rule could easily be update to interact whith the third arm rule:
2.Pick weapons:
the controlling player declares wich weapon the fighter will use. A fighter can use up to Two weapon with the melee OR the sidearm trait (Three if the fighter as a third arm),but only one if It also as the unwieldy trait. Alternatively the fighter may make unarmed attacks."
Much better if such additions to the base rules are included within the rule for ”third arm”. That way the base rule(s) will not need another update if/when there comes a character with four (or more) arms...
Problem is, the rules for third arm (and only the ones for the Alpha, as the other versions don't have a third prehensile hand) only tell you that you can use a third weapon.
They don't tell you that using 1 Unwieldy weapon alongside another weapon is ok.
They don't tell you how attack dice are allocated if you use 1 Sidearm and 2 Melee weapons (logically, you allocate 1 attack dice to the Sidearm and the rest is divided as evenly as possible between the Melee weapons, but that's not RAW).
They don't tell you whether using three weapons give you 2 extra attack dice or only 1
That's what happens when the writers don't know how to future-proof their rules.
Want rules for combat that can manage any number of arms? It's easy:
They don't tell you that using 1 Unwieldy weapon alongside another weapon is ok.
They don't tell you how attack dice are allocated if you use 1 Sidearm and 2 Melee weapons (logically, you allocate 1 attack dice to the Sidearm and the rest is divided as evenly as possible between the Melee weapons, but that's not RAW).
They don't tell you whether using three weapons give you 2 extra attack dice or only 1
That's what happens when the writers don't know how to future-proof their rules.
Want rules for combat that can manage any number of arms? It's easy:
- Select up to 2 weapons with the Melee or Sidearm trait (some effect may allow you to select more than 2 weapons).Weapons with the Unwieldy trait count as two weapons for this purpose
- Calculate the number of attack dice: it's equal to the fighter's Attacks characteristic plus the following bonuses:
- +1 if the attack is part of a Charge action
- +1 for each weapon selected beyond the first
- Assign attack dice to the selected weapons using the following rules:
- Assign 1 attack dice to each selected Sidearm
- If at least 1 Melee weapon has been selected, divide the remaining attack dice among the selected Melee weapons
- Otherwise, the remaining attack dice are resolved using the Unarmed profile
Good - but even these (obviously vastly improved) rules fail if the fighter has less than two arms/hands that can hold a weapon...
To include as many hands as you want, you may replace this phrase with "Select as many weapons with the Melee or Sidearm trait as the fighter has prehensile hands" (and keep everything else).
Which is great if I need rules for Lord Garmadon.
Since the third arm is the exception. Any change to main rules should be listed under third arm rule. No future proofing needed though would have helped.
We can guess at RAI or SHR ( Should have read) but RAW doesn't allow a third weapon in combat but does allow a fourth to be carried, but only if not using an unwieldy weapon.
As written its clear it can negate unwieldy akin to a suspensor OR grant 4th weapon and +1 A. ( OR condition repeated with use of Otherwise.)
Its often these dual benefits that muddy waters, as if the rules writers aren't quite sure themselves how they want it to work. Which if true makes explains the difficulty of RAI.
Since the third arm is the exception. Any change to main rules should be listed under third arm rule. No future proofing needed though would have helped.
We can guess at RAI or SHR ( Should have read) but RAW doesn't allow a third weapon in combat but does allow a fourth to be carried, but only if not using an unwieldy weapon.
As written its clear it can negate unwieldy akin to a suspensor OR grant 4th weapon and +1 A. ( OR condition repeated with use of Otherwise.)
Its often these dual benefits that muddy waters, as if the rules writers aren't quite sure themselves how they want it to work. Which if true makes explains the difficulty of RAI.
Nothing really breaks if another effect says the fighter can only use one weapon. I went the extra length to state that some effects can allow more than 2, but it doesn't mean no effect can restrict it to 1 or 0.
The Alpha Third Arm explicitly allows for the use of a third weapon in combat (see TBoR p43: "may attack with three weapons with the Sidearm and/or Melee traits rather than the usual two"). What it doesn't tell you is how it works.
lol, I thought they were cut and pasted.
extra arm on pg 44 & 45 (which I was reading) are identical but don't have the line "and may attack with a three weapons with the sidearm and melee trait" you quoted on page 43! so go figure..
The FAQ clarified that they are different on purpose. They Alpha's version got an errata so that it now reads "Additionally, a Cult Alpha with an Extra Arm may carry a fourth weapon, and may attack with three weapons..." instead of ""Additionally, any fighter with an Extra Arm may carry a fourth weapon, and may attack with three weapons..."
I'm really not sure having two versions of Extra arm is worth the trouble, but that's how they decided to roll.
Last edited:
So a cult Alpha can use third arm for a third weapon but other users of third arm can't? thats horrible.
At work we always try to ensure things are only defined once and refer back.
Back to original point - Personally I believe RAI is one die per sidearm weapon (be it 2 or 3). with any excess attacks being unarmed if no melee weapon is being used we've always read and played it that way without any query.
I could argue that is RAW as they say dice not die, but I suspect its just bad grammar...
At work we always try to ensure things are only defined once and refer back.
Back to original point - Personally I believe RAI is one die per sidearm weapon (be it 2 or 3). with any excess attacks being unarmed if no melee weapon is being used we've always read and played it that way without any query.
I could argue that is RAW as they say dice not die, but I suspect its just bad grammar...
It is horrible. They probably wanted an unique extra arm for that 3 gun cowboy model they made, and 8magined that model should be the leader alpha. If they can't bother to distinguish them with unique names (or put the correct rule in the book), I can't bother to keep the difference in my rules. This level of sloppy detail is worthless to me, I don't care what their intention is.
There may be a difference in the kind of claw/hand that the arm comes equipped with. The alpha may have a fully formed hand and the others some kind of claw. But nonetheless, the writing of the rules is incredibly bad. It is pretty amazing that they succeeded in making the book-edition rules for the GSC worse than the free pdf rules. I'm almost glad the new books weren't translated in my language.
Also,
Also,
I first read "that's how they decided to troll". It made perfect sense.
