Marneus Calgar and 2 powerfists.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Tri**

Dracos wrote:
Tri wrote:Gwar this is my last word on this since you seem to have it stuck in you head that all weapons cumulate together. The very top of the heading says

Fighting with Two single-handed weapons
Some models are equipped with two single handed weapons they can use in close combat, with the rules below for the different possible combinations...

So what do we get from that?
1)We can only fight with 2 single hand weapons max
2)We are using the weapons
3)We pick the rule for the Weapons combination we're using

Okay no where there does it say you are limited to 2 single hand weapons. It says some models are equipped with two single hand weapons. How are you reading a limit where there is none in the text? You are just making stuff up. The wording, and clearly the intention is that you can either choose to make S8I1 +1A attacks or S4I5 attacks. This whole debate is silly.

I'm not there are rules limiting the number of weapons you have. There is however only rules for using 2 weapons. What Gwar is ignoring is that his 'Two different special weapons' is a sub section of 'Fighting with Two single-handed weapons' If you have more then 2 CC weapon pick which you are using and see which of the rules fit.

**Gwar!**

Apart from the fact you are still wielding the weapon you are not using at that time, so you can't get the Bonus attack...

**VictorVonTzeentch**

Just ask the person you are playing against their opinion, or talk to a red shirt. Or just choose one of the two sides in this debate.

**Saldiven**

Gwar! wrote:

Saldiven wrote: If you had your wallet in your pocket, and someone asked you if you had it, would you say, "Yes, I am currently wielding my wallet even as we speak?"
It's a little strange but perfectly Acceptable.
JD21290 wrote:

(As an aside, the 2007 OED is the 150th printing, having first appeared in 1857, so saying that it has been around for "hundreds of years" shows your first mistaken assumption. The American Webster's Dictionary started in 1890. Funk & Wagnall's started in 1894. That's hardly an amazing difference in age and recording history. So, no, there is nothing special about the OED that makes it some sort of de facto authority that overrides any other dictionary.)

No, sir, it is completely NOT acceptable.

I'll try very hard not to be too verbose in this, but we're touching on the subject upon which I gained my degree: English Literature with a concentration on Medieval English Lit and English Linguistics. Proper use of the English language, at least where writing is concerned, is very important to me. I usually don't comment, except when someone comes along and presents as correct a totally errant argument.

Firstly, we need to accept that words exist and are used long before they ever gain admittance to any dictionary. All dictionaries attempt to do is codify how the word is used in speech and writing. Often times, a single word can be used in many different ways depending upon context. Using the word incorrectly in a given context would cause a native speaker to look askance at the person using it in that fashion; it is a matter of experience for a speaker of the language to internalize these rules for how a given word is used in different contextual situations. The difficulty that arises for someone writing entries for a dictionary is to properly convey the information needed for his reader to understand the proper contextual usages for a given possible meaning of a word.

If you read the introduction to the dictionary, you will see how each entry is arranged. For now, we'll just ignore the section on pronunciation, phonetics, etymology, stressing, etc., as they are moot to this discussion. Instead, we will move to the section that discusses how to interpret each potential meaning for the word. Usually, each potential meaning is separated by bullets or numbers, though some dictionaries only separate by semi-colons. Regardless of how the separation is made, if there is any potential ambiguity to how a given definition might be contextually used, there will be the inclusion of a parenthetical, italicized, or a sentence example of the contextual clues that show the proper use of the given word with that given definition.

Here is a simple example:

ball1 /bɔl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [bawl] Show IPA
–noun

1. a spherical or approximately spherical body or shape; sphere: He rolled the piece of paper into a ball.

This example gives a sentence that shows how the word is used when attempting to use this meaning.

3. a game played with a ball, esp. baseball: The boys are out playing ball.

This gives another sentence example to show another usage. Note how different the meanings are and how important the context is. If you didn't know that "ball" could refer to any game played with a "ball" (see definition 1), then you'd probably be confused by the sentence.

Now, that being said, we now understand that dictionaries will include contextual information that will tell us in what kind of context a word will need to appear in order to apply that given definition. So, we will look at the direct quotes from five different dictionaries (including the OED that was only partially quoted above). Luckily, I work for the Emory University in Atlanta, so I have access to a truly disgusting amount of reference material in their main library. (All definitions are numbers 1 & 2 for "wield" and are direct quotes from the respective dictionary. I invite anyone who wishes to pull a copy of the referenced book and check for yourself for verification.)

Oxford English Dictionary, 2005 publishing
1. to hold and use (weapon or tool)
2. to have and be able to use (power or influence) [This is the part left out on a previous quote; a full quote would have sunk the argument.]

Webster's New College Dictionary, 1995 publishing
1. to handle (eg a weapon or tool)
2. to exercise or exert (power or influence)

Penguin English Dictionary, 2003 publishing
1. to handle (tool or weapon) effectively
2. to exert or exercise (power or influence)

Random House Unabridged, 2001 publishing
1. To exercise (power, authority, influence, etc.) as in ruling or dominating
2. To use (a weapon, instrument, etc.) effectively, handle or employ actively

Cambridge International Dictionary of English, 1995 publishing
1. To have and/or use (power, authority, influence, etc.)
2. To hold and use (a weapon)

Do we see a trend here with these definitions? I would hope a reader would.

The conclusion we have to make from this is that the only time that "wield" can be used to mean "to have" is when referring to such concepts as "power, authority, influence, etc." When used in context with a weapon, it always means to "hold and use," "handle effectively," or "handle or employ actively."

If we believe that "wield" can mean "to have" in any situation, consider the following [absurd] sentences:

"Mommy, I wield a cold."
"Darn, I wield to go to work now."
"Thanks for coming to my party, I hope you are wielding a good time."
"I'm glad my inoculations were up to date or I would wield wielded to wield a shot."

I hope I have made my point. I believe that it is painfully clear if you both read the introduction to the dictionary as well as the dictionary entries how these definitions should be used. If this is insufficient, I have a challenge. Find me one verifiable example of a published work in the last 200 years where the word "wield" was used to refer to a sword worn at a character's hip rather than being used in his hand. This is the test, because dictionaries only tell us how the word is used; they're not a mystical font of meaning for the language.

**Sliggoth**

The only way Calgar could strike earlier than Init 1 would be if he was not using his gauntlets and only used his power weapon. There would seem to be no rule interpretation that would allow him to do this however, so he should always be at init 1.

There is a school of thought that suggest a model with 3+ weapons can choose which 2 cc weapons to use/ wield. This would allow Calgar to choose to use his gauntlets and get a bonus attack. He could not gain a bonus attack or an increase to his init by choosing his power weapon and "a" gauntlet (partially because the rules on his gauntlets state that it counts as a pair!) because there is no provision in the rules for turning off a power fist. If the choice model is taken to the point where the model could choose to be only using one of his 3+ weapons then Calgar could indeed fight at his innate init.

There is a school of thought that the words use or wields means all weapons that the model may be carrying. This would be a case then where the model is wielding/ using 3+ weapons so the rules on pg 42 for fighting with two weapons do not apply, since the model is not fighting with two weapons. This also would mean that the limits imposed by the two weapon rule do not apply, which could lead to a model having bonuses for multiple special weapons.
Since the rules on pg 42 do not apply under this line of reasoning, then we are left with the rules on pg 37 which seem to give the model a bonus attack. The rule on pg 37 says that a model with two single handed weapons gains an extra +1 attack (not applicable to our 3+ model) but then goes on to state that models with more than two weapons gain no additinal benefit, only gain one extra attack even if you have more than two weapons. This would seem to be a clear enough ruling that models with 3+ weapons do indeed gain a bonus attack.

So under either line that has been argued in this hthread, Calgar does gain a bonus attack, either for having a pair of gauntlets or for having 3+ weapons. Only if he could choose to use only his power weapon would he not gain an attack.

Sliggoth

**Gwar!**

Odd, last I checked Dictionaries DID tell us the meaning of the language, and have done since the time of Shakespeare (you know, the guy who invented half the freaking language).

**Saldiven**

Wow, Gwar, are you deliberately trying to be difficult?

Language exists before dictionaries. Words come into being and are used long before they are codified into any dictionary. All dictionaries seek to do is to codify how they are used in speech and writing.

The meanings of words change through time, through processes like amelioration and pejoration. That is why dictionaries change their entries over time. The study of these changes is one of the foundations of the study of linguistics.

But you still haven't addressed any of my arguments. Every dictionary entry you are possibly going to find that has "wield" meaning "to have" is going to link that denotation specifically with concepts such as "power, authority, influence, etc."

Considering this, how do you justify extending that meaning to cover objects?

Also, as an aside, while the first English dictionary did occur during the time of Shakespeare, and several other attempts at dictionaries were made over the next century or so, none of them were considered either exhaustive or particularly accurate. The first decent English dictionary wasn't written until the mid 18th century.

**Gwar!**

Just because its on his belt at a particular moment in time, does not mean he has stopped using it. Wield = Use. It's that simple.

I'm not being difficult, I'm just pointing out Proper English, not Mangled up American.

**Saldiven**

Dude, I have cited two different English dictionaries, OED and Cambridge, that state SPECIFICALLY that the weapon must be held and used to be wielded. Also, both SPECIFICALLY state that wield only means "to have" when applied to "power, authority, influence, etc."

Are you saying that your British dictionaries are incorrect?

As for your silly comment about "mangled up American," it is rapidly coming to my attention that THIS American, at least, has a much more firm understanding of English than yourself. I'd be happy to take any British standardized test on the subject to prove my point, if you wish.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:Just because its on his belt at a particular moment in time, does not mean he has stopped using it. Wield = Use. It's that simple.

I'm not being difficult, I'm just pointing out Proper English, not Mangled up American.

Also, explain to me how you're using your sword when it's belted at your waist. As a counterweight for your canteen maybe?

Seriously, if you are anywhere near a college or university, call their English department to speak to a professor. Merely ask him or her the following question: "If I have a sword belted at my waist, am I wielding it?"

Let me know what they tell you.

**yakface**

There is no need to consult a dictionary on this issue, as there is no need to decide what "wield" means in this case.

The rules for fighting with two single-handed weapons on page 42 of the rulebook *ONLY* work if you assume that they refer to the combinations that the model is able to choose to utilize in that phase.

Why do I say that?

Because the list of combinations on page 42 of the rulebook is not exhaustive. For example, Marneus Calgar actually has THREE special weapons (two powerfists and a power weapon). Eldrad has two special weapons and one normal close combat weapon.

If you want to try to claim that these rules dictate how the model is forced to make his attacks, then the entire system breaks down because there are no rules for models with 3 special weapons or models with two special weapons and one normal weapon.

The only way the rules function as written is if you assume that the player controlling the model gets to choose which two weapons his model is going to use and then consult the rules for fighting with two single-handed weapons to see how those weapons work together.

So ultimately we have one interpretation in which the rules do not work at all and then we have another interpretation that works just fine. As you can't play with the former why is it worth even arguing about?

**Gwar!**

Saldiven wrote:Seriously, if you are anywhere near a college or university, call their English department to speak to a professor. Merely ask him or her the following question: "If I have a sword belted at my waist, am I wielding it?"

Let me know what they tell you.

OK, He said that it's an odd usage but technically correct. I can even give you his phone number if you like.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

yakface wrote:Complicated Stuff

I'm stoopids :( Are you saying he does or does not get the attack?

**Saldiven**

Here's the text of an e-mail I have sent to Sally Shuttleworth, head of the Humanities Department at Oxford University. I'll post her reply.

Gwar, I don't believe you.

Dear Mrs. Shuttleworth,

I apologize for the unsolicited e-mail message, but I have what I hope is a very simple question about the English Language from across the pond in Atlanta, GA, USA.

I am currently debating an Englishman about the proper meaning of a very simple word. The debate covers the word “wield.” I do not wish at all to bore you with the details, but this trivial debate is over the rules of a table-top based wargame (you have my permission to chuckle and pass around this e-mail for general hilarity amongst your staff, should you wish).

Consider the OED (2005) definition:

To hold and use (a weapon or tool); to have and to be able to use (power or influence).

And the Cambridge International English Dictionary (1995)

1. to have and/or use (power, authority, influence, etc.)
2. to hold and use (a weapon)

Would it be appropriate to say that a person wearing a sword at his hip would be “wielding” that weapon?

Your assistance in this matter would go a long way to settle a trivial debate that has gone on entirely too long, and, frankly, makes me feel somewhat dull for even continuing it.

Sincerely,

(edited out my name)

**Reaper6**

yakface wrote:The only way the rules function as written is if you assume that the player controlling the model gets to choose which two weapons his model is going to use and then consult the rules for fighting with two single-handed weapons to see how those weapons work together.

Thank-you, yakface, precisely what I tried to explain earlier.

yakface wrote:So ultimately we have one interpretation in which the rules do not work at all and then we have another interpretation that works just fine. As you can't play with the former why is it worth even arguing about?

I'm afraid you'd have to ask Gwar, he seems determined to defend his position in the face of mounting opposition and a growing group agreed on how the original question is answered by the rules themselves. Still, such is his right as an individual I suppose.

**Gwar!**

Saldiven wrote:Gwar, I don't believe you.

So... Why did you bother to ask me in the first place?

Ok then, I don't believe you sent an email then!

**dietrich**

I don't believe this 'debate' has stretched on for 4 pages. Even for dakka, this seems excessive. Here's another one for yins (it's Pittsburghese), emphasis mine:

Pedant
1obsolete : a male schoolteacher
2 a: one who makes a show of knowledge b: one who is unimaginative or who unduly emphasizes minutiae in the presentation or use of knowledge c: a formalist or precisionist in teaching

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedant

**KaloranSLC**

Semantics are so much fun!

**Gwar!**

dietrich wrote:I don't believe this 'debate' has stretched on for 4 pages. Even for dakka, this seems excessive. Here's another one for yins (it's Pittsburghese), emphasis mine:

Pedant
1obsolete : a male schoolteacher
2 a: one who makes a show of knowledge b: one who is unimaginative or who unduly emphasizes minutiae in the presentation or use of knowledge c: a formalist or precisionist in teaching

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedant

I reject your Source as a Inaccurate indication of the English language my good sir!

**Tri**

**dietrich**

Tri - Best. Post. Ever.

**imweasel**

Mike Leon wrote:As much as I hate to agree with Gwar (and I hate agreeing with Gwar), I think he might be right.

While the rules on p42 are headed "Fighting with Two Single-Handed Weapons" the particular line in question says "When it is their turn to attack, these models must choose which weapon to use that turn, but they NEVER get the bonus attack for using two weapons."

It says never. Never is pretty hardcore.

Maybe you could argue that Marneus has THREE weapons not TWO weapons, and so this rule doesn't apply to him. That's about the best I can come up with.

I remember seeing this same argument over chaplains with bolt pistol, powerfist + crozious last year. I don't remember how it turned out. Maybe somebody could look for it.

This is under the part of Two different special weapons.

This rule is to simply clarify that if a model is using two special weapons that you must be using two identical special weapons to get the +1A bonus.

**Rangerrob**

Tri wins the Internet!

So the only figs in the game that are effected by this rule are Eldrad and....?

**Lordhat**

YOU THINK ENGLISH IS EASY?

The bandage was wound around the wound.
The farm was used to produce produce.
The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse.
We must polish the Polish furniture.
He could lead if he would get the lead out.
The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert.
Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time to present the present.
A bass was painted on the head of the bass drum.
When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes.
I did not object to the object.
The insurance was invalid for the invalid.
There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row.
They were too close to the door to close it.
The buck does funny things when the does are present.
A seamstress and a sewer fell down into a sewer line.
To help with planting, the farmer taught his sow to sow.
The wind was too strong to wind the sail.
Upon seeing the tear in the painting I shed a tear.
I had to subject the subject to a series of tests.
How can I intimate this to my most intimate friend?

Let's face it - English is a crazy language. There is no egg in eggplant, nor ham in hamburger, neither apple nor pine in pineapple. English muffins weren't invented in England or French fries in France . Sweetmeats are candies while sweetbreads, which aren't sweet, are meat. We take English for granted. But if we explore its paradoxes, we find that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square, and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig.

And why is it that writers write but fingers don't fing, grocers don't groce, and hammers don't ham? If the plural of tooth is teeth, why isn't the plural of booth, beeth? One goose, 2 geese. So one moose, 2 meese? One index, 2 indices? Doesn't it seem crazy that you can make amends but not one amend? If you have a bunch of odds and ends and get rid of all but one of them, what do you call it?

If teachers taught, why didn't preachers praught? If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat? In what language do people recite at a play and play at a recital? Ship by truck and send cargo by ship? Have noses that run and feet that smell?

How can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same, while a wise man and a wise guy are opposites? You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language in which your house can burn up as it burns down, in which you fill in a form by filling it out and in which, an alarm goes off by going on.

English was invented by people, not computers, and it reflects the creativity of the human race, which, of course, is not a race at all. That is why, when the stars are out, they are visible, but when the lights are out, they are invisible.

**Gwar!**

Tri wrote:

See, proof Calgar can Wield 3 Weapons and Must therefore Choose which ones to use, therefore negating his Bonus attack.

Thank you tri for proving me correct

**padixon**

LOL, you've got to love these threads...I love watching people discuss meanings to words with dictionaries...dissembling the rulebook for exact phrases that undoubtedly proves a point....

This book was written by gamers with no more degrees or titles than anyone in this entire forum. You (thats the collective you) are just as qualified to write these rules as they are...And one thing I can promise you, is that none of us could of done any better, baring the few no kidding contract lawyers.

It's just funny to see everyone disassemble these books like they hide some hidden meaning or universe answering paradox. These guys do not have all the answers and they don't pretend to (the not so up-to-date FAQs are proof enough for all of us).

Other than that, this is one of the silliest and funniest topics I have read to date, good show.

**KaloranSLC**

Lordhat wrote:
WORDS!

You forgot parking in a driveway (when the car is actually on top of it, to boot), and driving on a parkway.

**Gwar!**

My Favorate word is Set, because it is officialy the word with the most meanings/uses.

For Example, I turned on the Television Set while my Jelly Set in the Fridge and I picked up my Tool Set from the Shed while my Brother had Just won the Final Set in his Tennis Match.

**Imriel**

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo

**Neconilis**

I just realized this thread was started by 'Mr.Tangent'. All I can say is good job sir, good job indeed.

**Rangerrob**

The more I think about it...The Two weapons rule should be renamed the Eldrad rule.

Last years discussion about the PF chappies was dropped cause the PF chappie only had one PF...which trumps the two weapons rule cause the pf is not paired.

Calagar is uneffected by it, casue of the 3 weapons he has, he can choose two specials that are a pair giving him his extra attack.

So really the rule only effects those taking two special weapons which neither one is a PF....so which characters can take two special weapons neither of which are PF's...

* Eldrad
* Inquisitor Lords who waste points and buy a Power weapon and a Force Weapon..although this could be argued as two of the same special weapon seeing how the force weapon counts as a power weapon.
* Dark Eldar Lord that takes a Power weapon and Agonizer
* Marine Commanders, Cappies, and Sgts that can buy from a list and get funky...like a power weapon and a lightning claw. (why you would do that...who knows...but yah can)

others?...

**Tri**

Rangerrob wrote:The more I think about it...The Two weapons rule should be renamed the Eldrad rule.

Last years discussion about the PF chappies was dropped cause the PF chappie only had one PF...which trumps the two weapons rule cause the pf is not paired.

Calagar is uneffected by it, casue of the 3 weapons he has, he can choose two specials that are a pair giving him his extra attack.

So really the rule only effects those taking two special weapons which neither one is a PF....so which characters can take two special weapons neither of which are PF's...

* Eldrad
* Inquisitor Lords who waste points and buy a Power weapon and a Force Weapon..although this could be argued as two of the same special weapon seeing how the force weapon counts as a power weapon.
* Dark Eldar Lord that takes a Power weapon and Agonizer
* Marine Commanders, Cappies, and Sgts that can buy from a list and get funky...like a power weapon and a lightning claw. (why you would do that...who knows...but yah can)

others?...

Eldrad also has a pistol. So long as you're not in Gwar's camp he too can pick that as one of his CC weapons and gain an extra attack.