According to the DH errate vs 3.0 that was put out there are NO differences between swift attack and lightning attack...OOPS on company part. The following are direct excerpts from the errata file.

Lightning Attack on page 117 should include the
additions: “If you have the Two-Weapon Wielder talent
and are wielding two melee weapons, you get the advantage of
Lightning Attack with only one of the weapons, and a single attack
with the other. If you have the Two-Weapon Wielder talent and are
wielding a melee weapon in one hand and a pistol in the other, you
get the advantage of Lightning Attack with the melee weapon and
a single attack with the pistol.

Swift Attack on page 122 should include the addition “If you
have the Two-Weapon Wielder talent and are wielding two melee
weapons, you get the advantage of Swift Attack with only one
of the weapons, and a single attack with the other. If you have
the Two-Weapon Wielder talent and are wielding a melee weapon
in one hand and a pistol in the other, you get the advantage of
Swift Attack with the melee weapon and a single attack with the
pistol."

That is just lazy on someones part....they copied pasted and just changed the words ( swift attack / lightning attack) for eachother with no actual difference between them. Tsk Tsk

House rules for the games I run are simple fixes for this...

Swift attack - same as listed ( 2 attacks with first weapon and one with second if dual weilding w/appropriate talent )

Lightning attack-( since its SUPPOSED to be better than swift it is)-It gives 2 attacks with BOTH weapons ( if dual weilding w/appropriate talent)

Also note that in the same Errata document that they slightly change their own definition of lightning attacks abilities later in the document..

If you have Swift Attack and Two Weapon Wielder (Melee), you get the second attack with only one of your melee weapons,
so you will get two attacks with one weapon and a single
attack with the other. This is a Full Action.

If you have Swift Attack and Two Weapon Wielder (Ballistic and
Melee), and are armed with a pistol and a melee weapon, you can,
as a Full Action, make a single attack with the pistol and two
attacks with the melee weapon.

The Lightning Attack talent allows you to make three melee attacks
with the same weapon as a Full Action.

If you have Lightning Attack and Two Weapon Wielder (Melee),
you get the second and third attacks only with one melee weapon,
so you will get three attacks with one weapon and a single attack
with the other.

If you have Lightning Attack and Two Weapon Wielder (Ballistic
and Melee), and are armed with a pistol and a melee weapon, you
can, as a Full Action, make a single attack with the pistol and three
attacks with the melee weapon.

Gotta love how they cant seem to make up their minds. ( though i do admit i kinda like their last definition of the ability )

I'm a little confused by your post, since there is an obvious difference between the two talents. Could you have overlooked the fact that lightning attack gives you three attacks, while swift attack gives you two?

I'm with the Boy, you're a touch confused. Read up on Lighting Attack and Swift Attack in the core book, then reread the errata and it will make a lot more sense to you as well as the reasons for the wording they chose. I'd also recommend reading things a bit closer before posting, both in the threads you post to and the ones you start, to help avoid confusion in the future ;-)

Since im not one to offhandedly ignore something that anyone posts ( especially when they are polite and appear to be trying to assist) i did indeed recheck the corebook and errata file and saw what you meant. The point i was trying to make however was that the errata info is meant to replace / fix incorrect or omitted info from the corebook. and the intial posting had the discrepancies i was trying to give....the errata file said clearly ( in the first entry) that the swift attack and lightning attack were both identical in wording ( which was incorrect and misleading) but in the second entry i gave the second listing the same errata file gave...My point being there should only be one entry with whatever necessary correction done to it to avoid confusion on things. As well both talents are based only on melee according to their wording and only work with them. For the times you use a blade ( melee weapon ) and a pistol ( Ballistic) i can see 2 or 3 strikes with the blade and one shot with gun...easily so...But for weilding dual blades(2 weapon melee weilding and ambidextrous talents ) seeing you get 3 strikes with one blade and only one with the second one....is unbalanced from things...both blades should get dual strike especially if you can swing them both simultaneously. ( granted to balance things a bit further ) i would require a certain higher AG in addition to a higher WS as well as Ambidexterity ( in short i would require all relevant skills in order to avoid overbalancing things at any early stages since im well aware of how powerful triple strikes can get with sufficient WS skill and a lathe blade ( or powerblade) equipped assassin could become. As for the exact wording of things...when it comes to not using swift of lightning attack in conjunction with dual shot for ranged strikes...i disagree..expecially for the gunslinger types who are by definition supposed to be better than your avg joe with it and given enough time and xp should easily be able to ( if they have swift or lightning attack ) dual shot each time if they so chose ( you can afterall always impose the penalty for multi shot / targets in same round afterall in an attempt to balance.

I do however thank you for bringing my attention to the initial differences for that. My fault for not making my initial point clearly and for that i do appologize to everyone who reads it for any confusion it causes ( oops )

Sorry... but the errata seemed pretty obvious to me.

Swift Attack + TWW (M) = 2 attacks w/1 weapon, 1 attack w/other weapon.
Lightning Attack + TWW (M) = 3 attacks w/1 weapon, 1 attack w/other weapon.

Where's the confusion?

BYE

Cobramax76 said:

OK, I thought you were a bit confused about Lighting and Swift Attack and number of attacks they gave. Sorry. However, I'm still a bit confused about where you're coming from about the errata being misleading. I just don't see it. If you're referring to the wording for the first entries for Lighting and Swift attacks, the quotes from your first post, then that's not misleading at all. Each clearly states that the given talent (lighting attack or swift attack) functions like it is described on the given page number with the fallowing addition, and then it lists that addition. You pointed out that the two descriptions for the additions were the same except for talent receiving the additional information but that doesn't in any way make them the same or insinuate that they are. If that were so then babies are the same as cake.

I like eating cake.

I like eating babies.

The two above sentences are exactly alike except for one word. However, that one word makes all the difference in the world. Eating babies is not the same as eating cake. Both have very different components and different repercussions. I don't think anyone would confuse one for the other or think that they are the same due to similar wording.

In the errata, different wording on the addendum for Swift attack and Lighting attack was unnecessary because the addendum to each was the same. However, bot had to be listed to avoid confusion about which talent received the addendum and to what degree. By the wording, both receive the addendum and the effects of the addendum are clearly stated... I guess I'm just a touch confused about confusion now...

Either way, about your proposed house rule, I'd caution against it. Granted, it is your game to do with as you see fit, there might be some complications that you might not have considered.

Upping the number of attacks that a combatant can get from Two Weapon Wielder and Lighting Attack will make it the default talent to get no matter what. As things currently stand, it almost outshines the berserker melee talents, but not quite. However, if another two attacks were granted, then the combination would out preform them hands down. Rules-wise, there'd be no reason for a melee fighter not to get that combination ever. Second, that combination would be incredibly deadly, especially at the mid rank and higher games. Consider a melee fighter who bought their WS up to 50. At mid rank and higher, it's not too difficult for a melee fighter to get a +20 to their attacks while using Lighting Attack (say from a BQ melee weapon and getting on higher ground like that table over there). By the RAW such a character who is focused on chopping things up Ginsu style would have 5 attempts (blade master) with a 70% chance of success per attempt of landing the blow. The most reactions a defender can get to defend against those more then likely 4 hits is 3 reactions (from Step Aside and Wall of Steel) meaning that, chances are good that he'll get hit at least once per round. That's the RAW. Now, by your suggested change, the same character would have 7 attempts to land 6 attacks with a 70% chance of each attack succeeding against someone who, at most, can defend against three of those attacks. In that situation, chances are very good that the defender would be very dead (even in power armour) within the first round. The second thing to consider about your change is much further down the road: Ascension.

In Ascension, one (or more) of the Paragon Talents up the anti with Two Weapon Wielder and the multiple attack talents adding the bonus of the attacker with such a Paragon Talent being able to chose how to divide up their 4 attacks. With the appropriate Paragon Talent, the attacker can chose to attack once with their right hand and three times with their left, once with their left and three times with their right, twice with their left and twice with their right, duel strike and attack once with each hand, duel strike and attack twice with their left hand, duel strike and attack twice with their right hand, or duel strike twice. If you chose for each arm and hand to operate independently in any way the player sees fit, then you'll have to think of something even better for the higher up bad-asses to pull out of their hat.

Finally, on duel shot, you simply can't use it in conjunction with Lighting Attack. While pistols can be used while engaged in melee combat, firing a pistol is not a melee attack. So, barring some major extenuating circumstances, if you have a pistol in each hand, you'll have nothing to make a melee attack with (unless you're pistol-whipping the enemy) in order to utilize your Lighting Attack Talent (which clearly states it allows mutiple melee attacks, not ranged attacks). Pistols and guns on the whole really don't need too many more bonuses else melee fighting will become a bit obsolete. While, if that's what you want, great, but the setting it self thrives on a good strong foundation in hitting things with chainsaws -players need a reason to still persue this line of combat. As for duel strike in combination with Lighting Attack, as I pointed out above, per the RAW, that is something reserved for the true and scary high-up melee monsters of the Imperium and beyond.

You have been warned ;-)

Nothing to add here.

I have always had an issue with all the various rules for multiple attacks in the game. I think the game is just extra attack talent heavy. I would have much rather had a single talent entry entitled Multi Attack or something simply followed by a number (1, 2, 3 whatever) that notes the number of additional attacks you have.

Peacekeeper_b said:

I agree with you if only because FFG is going to have a hard time naming their next talent that gives a bonus attack. Maybe something like speedynumberonesupersaiyangokubomb attack

Cobramax76 said:

Let me preface this with a simple point. This thread should be in the RULES QUESTIONS sub-forum. As to your confusion, Cobramax, I don't see what's got you confused. You said it yourself.

Swift Attack + TWW; 2 attacks with primary melee weapon, and a single attack with off-hand.
Lightning Attack + TWW: 3 attacks with primary melee weapon, and a single attack with off-hand.

Your house rule is somewhat interesting, though... And I can see the reason you would want to change it the way you have it listed above. Two dual-strikes could be much better than one followed by more individual attacks in some combat situations; except for the fact that use of Dual Strike is itself a full action, not half, and therefore culd not be combined with Lightning Attack.

Graver said:

Graver,

What I'm getting from what Cobramax's posts isn't that a character with the talents would be getting anymore attacks, so much as have the option to go from 3 and 1 attacks in pure melee combat to 2 and 2. It seems to be an effort to improve a character's odds of standing up against the bigger critters which Dual Strike is helpful against. Unfortunately, this won't work in the RAW; as the Dual Strike, Swift Attack and Lightning Attack talents are each Full-Actions and cannot be combined. So, we either get our 2/3+1 Attacks with Swift/Lightning + TWW, or one potentially big damage hit with Dual Strike. It's not a terrible idea though, but not possible as things stand.

-=Brother Praetus=-

Brother Praetus said:

Er... the professed confusion made me confused and, confusingly enough, my confusion continued confusing me in other matters confusing them in my confused mind leading to a confused response. That's my defense and I'm sticking to it! ;-)

Graver said:

Okay, I'll allow it. But let's try to not make a habit of it, shall we?

I did realize there is an exception with Ascension . The Death Cult Assassin 's ascended trait Preternatural Speed allows the use of Swift and Lightning Attack as half-actions. In this case, I think I might allow for the doubling up on a Dual Strike for those hard to injure critters. But that's about the only way I could reasonably see allowing for it; and even then, I feel it's pushing the bounds of intent.

-=Brother Praetus=-

I agree with what Peacekeeper_b said about making it plain out simple for getting extra attacks ( dont divide between melee and ballistic attacks just say attacks period ) and give a number with the supposed boost/or total number of attacks given. But for balance sake make it THE most expensive talent to get based on your class. Id say 1000xp per single attack level increase AND that 1000xp does NOT count towards your PCs rank increasement on the total xp spent...in other words that 1000xp is BURNED getting the extra attack. OK done like that maybe 500xp burned instead..lol.. But either way it would seriously simplify the attacks issue and relegate the other talents currently associated with it to a increase in initiative scores instead. Keeping game balance by limiting how fast PCs could get the boost in attacks to begin with and how often they would be willing to sacrifice the xp to get the next boost ( aka not too bloody often ). I do see what your saying as well though Graver and thank you for pointing out that difference. As i said i appreciate constructive criticism and other points of view i might/might not have considered. Were all players and GMs here and we all enjoy the games overall or we wouldnt play, But, the rules are also rather flexible for the each GMs preferences . And no i didnt forget you Brother Praetus i liked your input as well and thanks for the vote of interest/confidence in the potential house rule. My bottom line with things is easy...KISS for all of you who know that military accronym...i keep it as simple as possible to streamline gameplaying. As for the Ascension info given...i havent played with that new material yet or even had the chance to review it nor have any of my players but from what you mentioned of it i am interested in checking it out to be certain now. Doing so could give me a better overview of the entire progression intended so i could see better how some of the oddball entries can make better sense in a bigger picture than i currently have access to and thusly...more inclined to leave them as is instead of modifying material to suit. I dont like modifying the rules if possible because it simply takes up more of my time...but i will to streamline things for my group and before i do so i discuss it with them to ensure everyone is on the same sheet of music and they have their chance to give their input as well.