11772
Post by: Mr.Tangent
My roomate plays SM and just picked up Mr.Calgar and had a valid question. If Mr.Calgar is equipt with "Gauntlets of Ultramar"(his only option) which is 2 powerfists with built in bolters, does he strike at Inititive 1(powerfists always strike last) Or does he strike at his regular Inititive 5??
thx , Tangent.
6872
Post by: sourclams
1
13329
Post by: zombie78
1 But he also is equiped with a power weapon also but you dont recieve bonus attack for it though
11894
Post by: Waaaaaaagh!
Yup, you can choose to strike at S8 I1 or at S4 I5 but you will never have a bonus attack for having 2 CCW however.
12027
Post by: KaloranSLC
Waaaaaaagh! wrote:Yup, you can choose to strike at S8 I1 or at S4 I5 but you will never have a bonus attack for having 2 CCW however.
Except when using the 2 powerfists, right?
11894
Post by: Waaaaaaagh!
No, because its Only 1 Weapon (the Gauntlets of Ultramar). It "counts as" two powerfists, but it is only one weapon, and since you cant get the bonus attack if you have more than one different special CCW weapon...
6769
Post by: Tri
Not this again. He can only use 2 weapons at a time. So if the 2 weapons, picked are power fists then that gives a bonus +1 attack. If he uses the sword then he doesn't get an extra attack.
Edit and next you'll be telling every one a pair of lightning claws is one weapon not 2
12027
Post by: KaloranSLC
Waaaaaaagh! wrote:No, because its Only 1 Weapon (the Gauntlets of Ultramar). It "counts as" two powerfists, but it is only one weapon, and since you cant get the bonus attack if you have more than one different special CCW weapon...
Counts as two power fists = two power fists... no?
11894
Post by: Waaaaaaagh!
Tri wrote:Not this again. He can only use 2 weapons at a time. So if the 2 weapons, picked are power fists then that gives a bonus +1 attack. If he uses the sword then he doesn't get an extra attack.
Edit and next you'll be telling every one a pair of lightning claws is one weapon not 2
No, I am not saying a Pair of Lighting Claws is one weapon, but please, tell me where it says "Caldar is armed with 2 powerfists". Oh Snap, he isnt, he is Armed with two Weapons, the Gauntlets of Ultramar (which is one weapon) and a Power Weapon (Which is another Weapon). In Any Case, he is subject to the rules that say if you have more than one special CCW you dont get the bonus attack.
6872
Post by: sourclams
Waaaaaaagh! wrote:No, I am not saying a Pair of Lighting Claws is one weapon, but please, tell me where it says "Caldar is armed with 2 powerfists". Oh Snap, he isnt, he is Armed with two Weapons, the Gauntlets of Ultramar (which is one weapon) and a Power Weapon (Which is another Weapon). In Any Case, I expect my opponent to leap over the table and smash my testicles with a hammer if I actually try playing this way.
Fixed.
11967
Post by: iamthecougar
If anything "counts as" anything else, it uses the rules for whatever it counts as because thats what "counts as" means. A power klaw counts as a power fist so you use the rules for power fists, the gauntlets of ultramar count as 2 power fists so you use the rules for 2 power fists. The result being you get the extra attack because it "counts as" 2 fists and when you have two fists you get an extra attack.
8842
Post by: dashrendar
Waaaaaaagh! wrote:Tri wrote:Not this again. He can only use 2 weapons at a time. So if the 2 weapons, picked are power fists then that gives a bonus +1 attack. If he uses the sword then he doesn't get an extra attack.
Edit and next you'll be telling every one a pair of lightning claws is one weapon not 2
No, I am not saying a Pair of Lighting Claws is one weapon, but please, tell me where it says "Caldar is armed with 2 powerfists". Oh Snap, he isnt, he is Armed with two Weapons, the Gauntlets of Ultramar (which is one weapon) and a Power Weapon (Which is another Weapon). In Any Case, he is subject to the rules that say if you have more than one special CCW you dont get the bonus attack.
actually, it says on page 84 of the SM codex:
Gauntlets of Ultramar: These are a matched pair of powerfists.
so it does say he has 2 powerfists.
6769
Post by: Tri
sourclams wrote:Waaaaaaagh! wrote:No, I am not saying a Pair of Lighting Claws is one weapon, but please, tell me where it says "Caldar is armed with 2 powerfists". Oh Snap, he isnt, he is Armed with two Weapons, the Gauntlets of Ultramar (which is one weapon) and a Power Weapon (Which is another Weapon). In Any Case, I expect my opponent to leap over the table and smash my testicles with a hammer if I actually try playing this way.
Fixed.
Ha don't think I'd go that far maybe a gentle squeeze
Waaaaaaagh! wrote: In Any Case, he is subject to the rules that say if you have more than one special CCW you dont get the bonus attack.
Thats when you use 2 different weapons together. You may only use a Maximum of 2 single hand weapons, If you have more then 2 weapons you pick which 2 you will be using.
12027
Post by: KaloranSLC
Tri wrote:Waaaaaaagh! wrote: In Any Case, he is subject to the rules that say if you have more than one special CCW you dont get the bonus attack.
Thats when you use 2 different weapons together. You may only use a Maximum of 2 single hand weapons, If you have more then 2 weapons you pick which 2 you will be using.
Not to mention that power fists have a rule that states that they do not grant an additional attack unless there are two of them, which is what the Gauntlets count as.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Well, I am of the opinion that having Two Power Fists and a Power Weapon qualifies as "wielding more than one special Weapon", but anywho...
And In All honesty, even I, the Mighty Anal Gwar!, would not make a fuss over a single attack. If anything it just means you wipe me out faster and I can Direct all my shooting at you 
6769
Post by: Tri
wield • verb
1 hold and use (a weapon or tool).
2 have and be able to use (power or influence).
-ing • suffix
1 denoting a verbal action, activity, or result: building.
2 denoting material used for or associated with a process: piping.
3 forming the gerund of verbs (such as painting as in I love painting).
So put the two together and you must be using the weapons. Since you can only Wield 2 weapons at once you must pick which weapons you'll be wielding.
13790
Post by: Sliggoth
This is where the meaning of the words comes into play. Wields = using. Wields does not mean carrying around. Wielding does not mean equipped with. Wielding means how many weapons are being used at a given moment, ie what weapons are being used in one particular round of combat.
The section of the rules on pg 42 that discusses all the various combinations is titled: Fighting with two single-handed weapons. This should give us a clue that they are talking about wielding/ using two weapons. They are not at all interested on how many weapons the model may be toting around, they only are listing what happens when a model is using various pairs of weapons.
Sliggoth
2886
Post by: Hymirl
Waaaaaaagh! wrote:No, I am not saying a Pair of Lighting Claws is one weapon, but please, tell me where it says "Caldar is armed with 2 powerfists". Oh Snap, he isnt..
Yeah, one weapon that counts as two meaning surprise surprise it counts as two. As you pointed out earlier. Looks like you're done.
In Any Case, he is subject to the rules that say if you have more than one special CCW you dont get the bonus attack.
Have a look at that page again, specificly note the fact that the rule is titled 'Fighting with two weapons' meaning its talking about fighting with two weapons, not about the total number of weapons owned by the model. Stop wasting people's time with made up rubbish please, it only wastes your time and ours.
1309
Post by: Lordhat
Tri wrote:wield • verb
1 hold and use (a weapon or tool).
2 have and be able to use (power or influence).
-ing • suffix
1 denoting a verbal action, activity, or result: building.
2 denoting material used for or associated with a process: piping.
3 forming the gerund of verbs (such as painting as in I love painting).
So put the two together and you must be using the weapons. Since you can only Wield 2 weapons at once you must pick which weapons you'll be wielding.
Or you could look at the Synonyms:
wield
1 brandish, employ, flourish, handle, manage, manipulate, ply, swing, use
2 apply, be possessed of, command, control, exercise, exert, have, have at one's disposal, hold, maintain, make use of, manage, possess, put to use, utilize
Main Entry:
syn·o·nym
Pronunciation:
\ˈsi-nə-ˌnim\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English sinonyme, from Latin synonymum, from Greek synōnymon, from neuter of synōnymos synonymous, from syn- + onyma name — more at name
Date:
15th century
1: one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses
2 a: a word or phrase that by association is held to embody something (as a concept or quality) b: metonym
3: one of two or more scientific names used to designate the same taxonomic group — compare homonym
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Lordhat wrote:Tri wrote:wield • verb
1 hold and use (a weapon or tool).
2 have and be able to use (power or influence).
-ing • suffix
1 denoting a verbal action, activity, or result: building.
2 denoting material used for or associated with a process: piping.
3 forming the gerund of verbs (such as painting as in I love painting).
So put the two together and you must be using the weapons. Since you can only Wield 2 weapons at once you must pick which weapons you'll be wielding.
Or you could look at the Synonyms: wield 1 brandish, employ, flourish, handle, manage, manipulate, ply, swing, use 2 apply, be possessed of, command, control, exercise, exert, have, have at one's disposal, hold, maintain, make use of, manage, possess, put to use, utilize Main Entry: syn·o·nym Pronunciation: \ˈsi-nə-ˌnim\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English sinonyme, from Latin synonymum, from Greek synōnymon, from neuter of synōnymos synonymous, from syn- + onyma name — more at name Date: 15th century 1: one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses 2 a: a word or phrase that by association is held to embody something (as a concept or quality) b: metonym
3: one of two or more scientific names used to designate the same taxonomic group — compare homonym
Tri, go get the dishes cause you just got served!  I mean that in the friendliest way possible of course
11988
Post by: Dracos
KaloranSLC wrote:Waaaaaaagh! wrote:No, because its Only 1 Weapon (the Gauntlets of Ultramar). It "counts as" two powerfists, but it is only one weapon, and since you cant get the bonus attack if you have more than one different special CCW weapon...
Counts as two power fists = two power fists... no?
Wow I don't even understand how this can be confused...
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Dracos wrote:KaloranSLC wrote:Waaaaaaagh! wrote:No, because its Only 1 Weapon (the Gauntlets of Ultramar). It "counts as" two powerfists, but it is only one weapon, and since you cant get the bonus attack if you have more than one different special CCW weapon...
Counts as two power fists = two power fists... no?
Wow I don't even understand how this can be confused...
Because "Counts as" Two Powerfists does not mean the same as "Is two Powerfists" I suppose.
6769
Post by: Tri
Lordhat wrote:Tri wrote:wield • verb
1 hold and use (a weapon or tool).
2 have and be able to use (power or influence).
-ing • suffix
1 denoting a verbal action, activity, or result: building.
2 denoting material used for or associated with a process: piping.
3 forming the gerund of verbs (such as painting as in I love painting).
So put the two together and you must be using the weapons. Since you can only Wield 2 weapons at once you must pick which weapons you'll be wielding.
Or you could look at the Synonyms:
wield
1 brandish, employ, flourish, handle, manage, manipulate, ply, swing, use
2 apply, be possessed of, command, control, exercise, exert, have, have at one's disposal, hold, maintain, make use of, manage, possess, put to use, utilize
Main Entry:
syn·o·nym
Pronunciation:
\ˈsi-nə-ˌnim\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English sinonyme, from Latin synonymum, from Greek synōnymon, from neuter of synōnymos synonymous, from syn- + onyma name — more at name
Date:
15th century
1: one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses
2 a: a word or phrase that by association is held to embody something (as a concept or quality) b: metonym
3: one of two or more scientific names used to designate the same taxonomic group — compare homonym
ah that's the great thing about English one word can mean many things but wielding implies an action that is because all most every single word that gets an -ing add becomes an action. Wield can be to have great power but if you're wielding great power you're using it. He wields a great weapon could be he's holding a great weapon, add an ing and he's using a great weapon .
13790
Post by: Sliggoth
Before one gets too happy about counting coup, understand that there is a great deal of difference between a definition of a word and a synonym.
A definition gives a precise meaning. The preferred/ exact usage is the first line in the dictionary, as you wander down the entries it gives less common/ exact usages.
A synonym by its very nature gives another word with a similar or related meaning, not an exact match. Using synonyms is what gives those people who translate product instructions into 6 languages so much fun. (translating hot as cool in english, or alternatively as on fire ... when actually wanting to talk about the possibility of an engine overheating)
When we read rules we need to go with the true meaning of the words, not what has been done to muddy the language the last few years. Because when plasma weapons get hot, we arent talking about their popularity.
Sliggoth
8021
Post by: JD21290
I would have thought this is fairly simple.
It "counts as" 2 powerfists.
so in which case you then have a model using 2 power fists with a different name.
They are special CCW's, but he does have 2 the same, so yes, it would grant an extra attack.
8375
Post by: Reaper6
When using the Gauntlets of Ultramar, Marneus gains the attack bonus, but is subject to the Initiative rule.
The description clearly defines the Gaunlets as "a matched pair of powerfists". Further, the name itself holds a clue, Gauntlets, not Gauntlet !
If you use the Gauntlets as a pair in a round of combat, you will gain the attack bonus, but be subject to the Initiatve penalty.
If you opt to use the powersword with ONE of the Gauntlets, you lose the attack bonus and are also subject to the Initiative penalty.
Using the sword for ALL of your attacks sarcifices the attack bonus, but is not subject to the Initiative penalty because the powerfists are not being used.
How much more simple does it need to be ?
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Reaper6 wrote:When using the Gauntlets of Ultramar, Marneus gains the attack bonus, but is subject to the Initiative rule.
The description clearly defines the Gaunlets as "a matched pair of powerfists". Further, the name itself holds a clue, Gauntlets, not Gauntlet !
If you use the Gauntlets as a pair in a round of combat, you will gain the attack bonus, but be subject to the Initiatve penalty.
If you opt to use the powersword with ONE of the Gauntlets, you lose the attack bonus and are also subject to the Initiative penalty.
Using the sword for ALL of your attacks sarcifices the attack bonus, but is not subject to the Initiative penalty because the powerfists are not being used.
How much more simple does it need to be ?
Utterly wrong. You Can Choose to either use Both Power Fists or a Power Fist and the Power Sword. Using the Two Powerfists Gramts you S8 I1 and no Bonus attack because you are weilding more than 1 Special Weapon (2 Power Fists and a Power Sword) Using the Power Fist and the Power Sword Lets you Choose to make all your attacks at Either S8 I1 or S4 I5, again with no bonus attack because you are weilding more than 1 Special Weapon (2 Power Fists and a Power Sword) How much more simple does it need to be ?</Sarcasm>
8021
Post by: JD21290
How much more simple does it need to be ?</Sarcasm>
or a Power Fist and the Power Seord.
It would be alot easier is some fether didnt keep adding new weapons into it 
11444
Post by: Keyasa
Hmm surely "wielding" something means actually holding the damn thing in your hands. If you are using the Two Powerfists, this grants you S8 I1 and a Bonus attack because you are not wielding more than 1 Special Weapon (Power Sword is not being wielded at that time, its sheathed)
6769
Post by: Tri
Gwar! wrote:Utterly wrong.
You Can Choose to either use Both Power Fists or a Power Fist and the Power Seord.
Using the Two Powerfists Gramts you S8 I1 and no Bonus attack because you are weilding more than 1 Special Weapon (2 Power Fists and a Power Sword)
Using the Power Fist and the Power Sword Lets you Choose to make all your attacks at Either S8 I1 or S4 I5, again with no bonus attack because you are weilding more than 1 Special Weapon (2 Power Fists and a Power Sword)
How much more simple does it need to be ?</Sarcasm>
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
8375
Post by: Reaper6
Gwar! wrote:Using the Two Powerfists Gramts you S8 I1 and no Bonus attack because you are weilding more than 1 Special Weapon (2 Power Fists and a Power Sword)
OK, Make both your hands into fists (to simulate using the Gauntlets) then try picking up a pencil without opening either hand( to simulate wielding a sword with the Gauntlets active )
Unless you're a mutant, you cannot wield 3 weapons with only 2 hands ! So, you need to choose, 2 gauntlets, 1 gauntlet and a sword, or just the sword.
If you're using both gauntlets, your sword will be in it's scabbard, hence NOT being wielded.
How simple does it need to be ? Look at the limits of your anatomy ! (Sarcasm optional !)
10906
Post by: VictorVonTzeentch
I fail to see what any of this has to do with the original question. Which was, what initiative does Calgar strike at one or five.
I've always seen it played that he gets the extra attack when using the power fists, because you choose whether or not to use the power fists together or just the power sword. At least thats what I have seen at GW.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Tri wrote:Gwar! wrote:Utterly wrong.
You Can Choose to either use Both Power Fists or a Power Fist and the Power Seord.
Using the Two Powerfists Gramts you S8 I1 and no Bonus attack because you are weilding more than 1 Special Weapon (2 Power Fists and a Power Sword)
Using the Power Fist and the Power Sword Lets you Choose to make all your attacks at Either S8 I1 or S4 I5, again with no bonus attack because you are weilding more than 1 Special Weapon (2 Power Fists and a Power Sword)
How much more simple does it need to be ?</Sarcasm>
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
Can you prove Weild does not mean any and all weapons they own? No you can't. It's Ambiguous and GW has to Erreta it. Until then it's legal to play it either way.
Of Course you can just Instead Emoragequit from the thread. Can't stop you I Guess. -Shrug-
15241
Post by: extermikator
Irrespective of all the rules for two weapons, he fights with 1 initative. he does get the two attacks though
8375
Post by: Reaper6
BrotherStynier wrote:I fail to see what any of this has to do with the original question. Which was, what initiative does Calgar strike at one or five.
I've always seen it played that he gets the extra attack when using the power fists, because you choose whether or not to use the power fists together or just the power sword. At least thats what I have seen at GW.
Thank you, BrotherStynier, Your post helps further explain that you must CHOOSE the combination of weapons you wish to use, not assume you can wave everything on your list around like a lunatic octopus.
Further, it helps define that Calgar's Initiatve will be dependant on your choice of weaponry for the assault.
Any combination that utilises a Gauntlet will be subject to the Initiative penalty, whilst using the sword alone will not.
Gwar : Calgar's a hard-nut, but not even HE would wave a powersword around with his teeth just to be able to use every weapon he could ! In a combative context, wield can be supplanted by use(actively, as opposed to just hanging from your belt)
10906
Post by: VictorVonTzeentch
You're quite welcome old bean.
1523
Post by: Saldiven
Waaaaaaagh! wrote:No, because its Only 1 Weapon (the Gauntlets of Ultramar). It "counts as" two powerfists, but it is only one weapon, and since you cant get the bonus attack if you have more than one different special CCW weapon...
I know that you cannot use rules from different codices, but sometimes they can at least create a precedent.
In the DE codex, the weapon "scissorhands" has the same effect as a pair of poisoned blades and do, in fact, provide a bonus attack.
From a logical standpoint, what is the purpose of counting as a pair of powerfists if they do not grant the extra attack? Seriously, if there is no bonus attack gained, there is absolutely no point to the statement "counts as a pair of powerfists."
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Saldiven wrote:Waaaaaaagh! wrote:No, because its Only 1 Weapon (the Gauntlets of Ultramar). It "counts as" two powerfists, but it is only one weapon, and since you cant get the bonus attack if you have more than one different special CCW weapon...
I know that you cannot use rules from different codices, but sometimes they can at least create a precedent.
Actually, they can't.
As for why bother, GW have done that Loads, Like Giving Abbadon a Bolt Pistol, or Elrad a Pistol, when they have NO use in CC and both have such awesome Psychic Shooting Attacks you will never ever Fire the Pistol. And even recently, Yarrick got a Useless Bolt Pistol too (he Has a Bolt Pistol, Hot Shot Las Pistol, CCW and Power Fist...).
The Main Reason for GW saying that is because the current Model has 2 Power Fists. It's to allow the old model to be used, same reason for Abbadon, Elrad and Yarrick coincidently...
1523
Post by: Saldiven
Gwar! wrote:Can you prove Weild does not mean any and all weapons they own? No you can't. It's Ambiguous and GW has to Erreta it. Until then it's legal to play it either way.
Of Course you can just Instead Emoragequit from the thread. Can't stop you I Guess. -Shrug-
How 'bout the definition of "wield?"
wield
/wild/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [weeld] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)
1. to exercise (power, authority, influence, etc.), as in ruling or dominating.
2. to use (a weapon, instrument, etc.) effectively; handle or employ actively.
Assuming a person with two hands, I cannot see how one could "handle or employ actively" three weapons that require a hand simultaneously.
You're not wielding a weapon that's in a scabbard. You are not wielding a weapon you are carrying casually down the road. You're not wielding a weapon that happens to be in a pocket or a backpack.
To be wielded, it must be employed "actively."
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Saldiven wrote:Gwar! wrote:Can you prove Weild does not mean any and all weapons they own? No you can't. It's Ambiguous and GW has to Erreta it. Until then it's legal to play it either way.
Of Course you can just Instead Emoragequit from the thread. Can't stop you I Guess. -Shrug-
How 'bout the definition of "wield?"
wield
/wild/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [weeld] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)
1. to exercise (power, authority, influence, etc.), as in ruling or dominating.
2. to use (a weapon, instrument, etc.) effectively; handle or employ actively.
Assuming a person with two hands, I cannot see how one could "handle or employ actively" three weapons that require a hand simultaneously.
And, yeah, had you bothered to read the thread you would see we have shown that Wield can also mean to "apply, be possessed of, command, control, exercise, exert, have, have at one's disposal, hold, maintain, make use of, manage, possess, put to use, utilize"
1523
Post by: Saldiven
Gwar! wrote:Saldiven wrote:Gwar! wrote:Can you prove Weild does not mean any and all weapons they own? No you can't. It's Ambiguous and GW has to Erreta it. Until then it's legal to play it either way.
Of Course you can just Instead Emoragequit from the thread. Can't stop you I Guess. -Shrug-
How 'bout the definition of "wield?"
wield
/wild/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [weeld] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)
1. to exercise (power, authority, influence, etc.), as in ruling or dominating.
2. to use (a weapon, instrument, etc.) effectively; handle or employ actively.
Assuming a person with two hands, I cannot see how one could "handle or employ actively" three weapons that require a hand simultaneously.
And, yeah, had you bothered to read the thread you would see we have shown that Wield can also mean to "apply, be possessed of, command, control, exercise, exert, have, have at one's disposal, hold, maintain, make use of, manage, possess, put to use, utilize"
But not when specificially applied to "a weapon, instrument, etc." That definition applies to wielding things like authority. You need to read the contextual example that comes after the definition to understand that usage:
1. To govern; to rule; to keep, or have in charge; also, to possess. [Obs.]
When a strong armed man keepeth his house, all things that he wieldeth ben in peace. --Wyclif (Luke xi. 21).
Wile [ne will] ye wield gold neither silver ne money in your girdles. --Wyclif (Matt. x. 9.)
2. To direct or regulate by influence or authority; to manage; to control; to sway.
The famous orators . . . whose resistless eloquence Wielded at will that fierce democraty. --Milton.
Her newborn power was wielded from the first by unprincipled and ambitions men. -- De Quincey.
You cannot use a word from one contextual meaning in the same place as another contextual meaning with impunity.
Does a man wield his authority the same way that he wields a sword? Of course not.
Wielding a weapon has a specific meaning, and trying to find any other meaning is a stretch of amazing lengths, assuming English is your first language.
Also, note that both of those uses of the word "wield" are of relatively archaic usage. The quotes cited to demonstrate those usages are of Rennaissance era writers.
Oh gosh, I just finished reading the whole thread, and the last sentence of your quoted post did not include definitions of wield. It was a list of synonyms. Synonyms are not definitions, they are merely a list of words that have similar meaning, not identical meaning. You can't quote a synonym and cite that as a definition. A thesaurus is not a dictionary.
8021
Post by: JD21290
Gwar, just give it up for once, your just simply TFG.
Seems you go against odds as often as you can to try and annoy people.
It does not need to be written again, its clear enough as it is.
If it counts as 2 power fists then it would act as such.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
JD21290 wrote:Gwar, just give it up for once, your just simply TFG.
Seems you go against odds as often as you can to try and annoy people.
It does not need to be written again, its clear enough as it is.
If it counts as 2 power fists then it would act as such.
It does act as two power fists. I never said it didn't. I am saying that the Rule for Multiple COmplex Weapons also Kicks in and Denies the Bonus attack.
Also, I am TFG because I support an Equally valid reading of the rules? Oh, I suppose I am TFG because I want people to Play by the rules then. Am I TFG if I say "Yes, you can Fire 5 Plasma Guns from a Chimera Hatch"? Am I TFG if I say "No, you can't use the new Machine Spirit Rules from Codex Ultramarines because you are playing with Codex Black Templars"?
Frankly, I find your attacks against my character rather than my argument contrary to DakkaDakka Posting rules and would appriciate an Appology before this has to go any further.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
JD - he;s not arguing against them not counting as 2 PF, just saying that as the model has 3 (special) CCW the rules for "fighting with 2 CCW" states you dont get the bonus
It's all down to whether "wield" means "using in this fight" or "has access to " | "owns" etc. That is the point of argument
6838
Post by: 1hadhq
Gwar! wrote:
Frankly, I find your attacks against my questionable character rather than my pointless argument contrary to DakkaDakka Posting rules and would appriciate an Appology before this has to go any further.
Go edit your post to incorporate valid rules then.
@ JD : calm down. No need to call names.
11696
Post by: TehCheator
Gwar! wrote:And, yeah, had you bothered to read the thread you would see we have shown that Wield can also mean to "apply, be possessed of, command, control, exercise, exert, have, have at one's disposal, hold, maintain, make use of, manage, possess, put to use, utilize"
Uh, no it can't mean that ever Gwar. Those are synonyms; words with similar but not necessarily identical meanings. This means that you can't say "since possess is a synonym of wield, then wield = possess." It means that the two words have close meanings and in some (but not all) cases can be substituted for each other.
In this case the definition quoted is crystal clear: wielding a weapon is to actively use it.
12027
Post by: KaloranSLC
Just for fun, since posting definitions seems to be the "in" thing:
syn·o·nym
n.
1. A word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or other words in a language.
2. A word or an expression that serves as a figurative or symbolic substitute for another.
Noun 1. synonym - two words that can be interchanged in a context are said to be synonymous relative to that context
12265
Post by: Gwar!
TehCheator wrote:Gwar! wrote:And, yeah, had you bothered to read the thread you would see we have shown that Wield can also mean to "apply, be possessed of, command, control, exercise, exert, have, have at one's disposal, hold, maintain, make use of, manage, possess, put to use, utilize"
Uh, no it can't mean that ever Gwar. Those are synonyms; words with similar but not necessarily identical meanings. This means that you can't say "since possess is a synonym of wield, then wield = possess." It means that the two words have close meanings and in some (but not all) cases can be substituted for each other. In this case the definition quoted is crystal clear: wielding a weapon is to actively use it.
Wow, you are right. I am so sorry. It is so Crystal Clear. No wait, it's not. That's why there is this thread and a whole bunch of Discussion. No offence, but when you look up Wield in the Oxford English Dictionary (you know, the one that actually Deals with Proper English, the language the Rulebooks are Written in), you will find that Wield is defined as: • verb 1) hold and use (a weapon or tool). 2) have and be able to use. So see, my Definition is just as valid (in fact moreso) than yours. Like I said, It isn't clear and needs official GW Clarification IMO.
6872
Post by: sourclams
Actually there's really not very much discussion. There's two or three individuals attempting to tout a ridiculous interpretation through equally ridiculous circumlocution while the rest of the thread rolls its collective eyes.
12027
Post by: KaloranSLC
sourclams wrote:Actually there's really not very much discussion. There's two or three individuals attempting to tout a ridiculous interpretation through equally ridiculous circumlocution while the rest of the thread rolls its collective eyes.
"Entrance of the Gladiators" comes to mind.
11696
Post by: TehCheator
Okay, fair enough, you have an actual definition that support your position. My contention was that you were being extremely condescending while saying that the definition of "wield" can be read as "[insert list of synonyms here]," which is blatantly wrong.
Also, I said that the definition quoted (which is different from the one you quoted) was crystal clear, which it was.
As for the actual issue, as you say, there's no clear RAW interpretation, so it's something you have to clarify with your opponent beforehand. And in doing so, if someone is so worried about Calgar that they are going to interpret it to mean he can never get an extra attack ever and hold so steadfastly to that simply because they interpret the rules that way (even though it's ambiguous and no answer is "right"), then that person isn't going to have a lot of friends to play plastic war-men with
6872
Post by: sourclams
There's only "no clear RAW interpretatoin" if you allow inclusion of synonyms of the word 'wield' as a credible argument.
Seriously, logic that requires three Dictionary.com entries should be throwing up big red flags to anyone looking for a "correct" interpretation.
14334
Post by: juppy
haha interesting thread really....
but really calgar gets the attack bonus, a lot other players I have played with also said for simplicity purposes by wielding an extra CCW wether it be the same one or a different will always confer an extra attack as long as it is a 1 handed weapon like pistols, swords, fists, calgar has 2 fists and a pwer sword so by rules he has 3 CCW weapons, but according to the rules you get ever only 1 bonus attack even if you had a hundred CCW since you can only use 2 (page 37 rulebook)... the only question here is at what initiative do you strike? right? if you chose to use the power sword in HTH and forego the PW then you strike at I 5 and no attack bonus since you used the sword.. if you strike using both the sword and the fist then you strike at I 1 due to the usage of a powerfist but still get the bonus attack, if you strike with both fists then you still count as having an extra CCW, unlike shooting wherein the same type of gun instead grants you the twinlinked rule. why try to bog down the rules if it can easily be interpreted in a much cleaner non hassle manner? This is a fun game and I really hate it when people mix in RAW and RAI together in a blender and makes things harder. Sometime common sense is needed (and they call it "common" sense)
Chill!
2700
Post by: dietrich
sourclams wrote:Actually there's really not very much discussion. There's two or three individuals attempting to tout a ridiculous interpretation through equally ridiculous circumlocution while the rest of the thread rolls its collective eyes.
You need to save that line, because you could probably use it about 3 times a day.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
sourclams wrote:There's only "no clear RAW interpretatoin" if you allow inclusion of synonyms of the word 'wield' as a credible argument.
Seriously, logic that requires three Dictionary.com entries should be throwing up big red flags to anyone looking for a "correct" interpretation.
Oddly enough I Provided one Definition (Not synonyms, a Definition), that is the actual correct one (being from the Oxford English Dictionary). dietrich wrote:sourclams wrote:Actually there's really not very much discussion. There's two or three individuals attempting to tout a ridiculous interpretation through equally ridiculous circumlocution while the rest of the thread rolls its collective eyes.
You need to save that line, because you could probably use it about 3 times a day.
Glad to see you agree with me 
4670
Post by: Wehrkind
Good thing GW never uses the word "cleave" in a rule... we wouldn't know if it cut something apart or stuck to it!
411
Post by: whitedragon
How many attacks does Eldrad get? *Ducks for cover*
12265
Post by: Gwar!
That one is easier, because he has 2 Different Special Weapons and a Pistol, which isn't a Special Weapon.
As you MUST use all your special Weapons, Elrad Will always use his Staff and his Witchblade, choosing which one to use each turn. As he is Using More than 1 Different Special Weapons (and would have More than 1 Different Special Weapon anyway) He cannot get the Bonus Attack.
12821
Post by: RustyKnight
I'm going to go ahead and assume that Gwar! means "the version of English that GW uses...I think" rather than resorting to attacking someone's version of a version of a version of a version of grunting noises.
As to the question of whether or not Calgar gets the extra attack, the issue cannot be resolved via RaW. The thread may as well be locked. I do believe that RaI is in support of him getting the bonus attack.
1523
Post by: Saldiven
Gwar! wrote:TehCheator wrote:Gwar! wrote:And, yeah, had you bothered to read the thread you would see we have shown that Wield can also mean to "apply, be possessed of, command, control, exercise, exert, have, have at one's disposal, hold, maintain, make use of, manage, possess, put to use, utilize"
Uh, no it can't mean that ever Gwar. Those are synonyms; words with similar but not necessarily identical meanings. This means that you can't say "since possess is a synonym of wield, then wield = possess." It means that the two words have close meanings and in some (but not all) cases can be substituted for each other.
In this case the definition quoted is crystal clear: wielding a weapon is to actively use it.
Wow, you are right. I am so sorry. It is so Crystal Clear.
No wait, it's not. That's why there is this thread and a whole bunch of Discussion.
No offence, but when you look up Wield in the Oxford English Dictionary (you know, the one that actually Deals with Proper English, the language the Rulebooks are Written in), you will find that Wield is defined as:
• verb
1) hold and use (a weapon or tool). 2) have and be able to use.
So see, my Definition is just as valid (in fact moreso) than yours. Like I said, It isn't clear and needs official GW Clarification IMO.
Um...notice how your first definitions specifies "A weapon or tool." I'm curious to see if you omitted a parenthetical example from the second definition that says something like "power or authority" because just about every dictionary online that I have looked at includes that clarification.
The OED is no more the definitive, be-all-end-all, comprehensive, better than anybody else dictionary than the New American, the Funk & Wagnall's, or any other "complete and unabridged" dictionary. It merely happens to be a dictionary published by Oxford University Press.
You still are getting caught up with denotation while completely tossing out connotation. Yes, those are both very important. The difference between the two is why non-native English speakers often make seemingly poor choices in word choice when trying to speak English. I have a friend from Bulgaria who is always asking my advice on correct word choice where two synonyms might seem to work in a sentence, but one just doesn't sound right to a native speaker. She is always trying to clarify use between get and have, should/could/would, on/above/on top of, and many others.
We native speakers know what sounds correct.
You still haven't answered any of my previous post.
Do you wield power in the same manner as you wield a sword? 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?" The manner in which a weapon is wielded is not the same as which a non-weapon is wielded. There is a completely inarguable quality to the word wield as applied to a weapon, which is why the dictionaries specify that definition that applies to weapons. If wielding always merely meant "to have," then there would never be the additional entry to show:
wield (wēld)
tr.v. wield·ed, wield·ing, wields
1. To handle ( a weapon or tool) with skill and ease.
8021
Post by: JD21290
Frankly, I find your attacks against my character rather than my argument contrary to DakkaDakka Posting rules and would appriciate an Appology before this has to go any further.
Not an all out attack on your character, its just that you seem to fins the slightest part of wording and try and twist it and pry it apart.
so he does have special weapons.
Using just the gauntlets: I-1 +1 attack
Sword: I- normal +0 attack
The gauntlets are counted as 2 powerfists, now, that cannot be used with another weapon.
For example, you couldnt equip a standard model (if you could) with 2 fists and a sword and use them all, i dont see how this would differ.
and you want an apology or you will take it further? sorry, hell is still boiling so not a chance 
Just remember that all past words mods have had with you get taken into account when you say something
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Saldiven wrote:The OED is no more the definitive, be-all-end-all, comprehensive, better than anybody else dictionary than the New American, the Funk & Wagnall's, or any other "complete and unabridged" dictionary. It merely happens to be a dictionary published by Oxford University Press.
Apart from the fact they have been defining what is english for Hundreds of years? Yeah, Lets ignore that and listen to some American Dictionary Company who cant even Spell Colour Correctly. Saldiven wrote:We native speakers know what sounds correct.
Last I Checked, I was a native Speaker (You know, being born, and growing up in England!), whereas you are someone who happens to speak my Language (and a Horrendously Bastardised version when compared to real English, no offence intended, just point out fact). Saldiven wrote:Do you wield power in the same manner as you wield a sword?
Damn Right you do. 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:Just remember that all past words mods have had with you get taken into account when you say something
So you are saying because I have offended one or two people in the Past I am no longer protected by DakkaDakka's rules?
6769
Post by: Tri
Gwar! wrote:Tri wrote:Gwar! wrote:Utterly wrong.
You Can Choose to either use Both Power Fists or a Power Fist and the Power Seord.
Using the Two Powerfists Gramts you S8 I1 and no Bonus attack because you are weilding more than 1 Special Weapon (2 Power Fists and a Power Sword)
Using the Power Fist and the Power Sword Lets you Choose to make all your attacks at Either S8 I1 or S4 I5, again with no bonus attack because you are weilding more than 1 Special Weapon (2 Power Fists and a Power Sword)
How much more simple does it need to be ?</Sarcasm>
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
Can you prove Weild does not mean any and all weapons they own? No you can't. It's Ambiguous and GW has to Erreta it. Until then it's legal to play it either way.
Of Course you can just Instead Emoragequit from the thread. Can't stop you I Guess. -Shrug-
Said i wasn't going to come back but thats just too wrong to ignore.
READ THE HEADING FOR THE RULE! YOU ARE FIGHTING WITH TWO SINGLE HAND WEAPONS! NOT THREE, FOUR OR FIVE, JUST TWO. ONE IN EACH HAND THESE ARE THE WEAPONS YOU ARE WIELDING BECAUSE IT IS A DOING WORD. THAT MEANS THEY'RE BEING USED. THE END.
and relax
8021
Post by: JD21290
So you are saying because I have offended one or two people in the Past I am no longer protected by DakkaDakka's rules?
No, im just amused that you are willing to alert the MOD's if i dont apologise for doing something you have done numerous times.
Kinda like the pot calling the kettle black
I think Tri summed it up pretty well
15211
Post by: Mars.Techpriest
At risk of ignighting this farther, I'd have to agree that:
He may attack with both powerfists, giving +1 attack, I1 str8, ignoring armor
OR
He may attack with the powersword, attacking at I5, Str4, ignoring armor
OR
He may attack with no weapons, attacking at I5, Str4, not ignoring armor
Just because you have a weapon doesn't mean you have to use it. A model just equiped with a powerfist may chose to 'not use' the powerfist, and go at Iniutive with basic strength and not ignore armor.
11084
Post by: Mike Leon
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.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Tri wrote:Said i wasn't going to come back but thats just too wrong to ignore.
READ THE HEADING FOR THE RULE! YOU ARE FIGHTING WITH TWO SINGLE HAND WEAPONS! NOT THREE, FOUR OR FIVE, JUST TWO. ONE IN EACH HAND THESE ARE THE WEAPONS YOU ARE WIELDING BECAUSE IT IS A DOING WORD. THAT MEANS THEY'RE BEING USED. THE END.
and relax
 Yes, it says fighting with two handed weapons, I never said you ever use more than Two in a Round, Please pay attention, or does my lack of CAPSLOCK make my posts unreadable? What I am saying is that the rule that 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." Nowhere does it say that if you happen to have Three weapons you somehow Ignore this Rule. The Fact is, Calgar has 3 Weapons, Two Power Fists and a Power Sword. because he must Choose what one to use (as per the Multiple Special Weapons Rule) he may NEVER get the Bonus Attack.
11084
Post by: Mike Leon
Mars Techpriest, models equipped with a special weapon are actually required to use it. There is no option to attack "normally". There was a whole other discussion on that issue last week. Turns out the rulebook is actually pretty clear about it.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Mars.Techpriest wrote:At risk of ignighting this farther, I'd have to agree that:
He may attack with both powerfists, giving +1 attack, I1 str8, ignoring armor
OR
He may attack with the powersword, attacking at I5, Str4, ignoring armor
OR
He may attack with no weapons, attacking at I5, Str4, not ignoring armor
Just because you have a weapon doesn't mean you have to use it. A model just equiped with a powerfist may chose to 'not use' the powerfist, and go at Iniutive with basic strength and not ignore armor.
Incorrect In 5th edition, you cannot choose to not use a Special Weapon, you must always use one if you have it. I.e. you cannot "turn off" your Weapons like you could in 4th.
8021
Post by: JD21290
Gwar, dont sort people into groups due to post count, otherwise you should be on your fething knees looking up to me
You could have simply pointed out that you cant turn off special weapons
Edit: Gwar, dont change your bloody post now
12265
Post by: Gwar!
JD21290 wrote:you should be on your fething knees looking up to me
I already am -Wink Wink- P.s. you had about 10 months head start on me
8021
Post by: JD21290
Ok, make sure your atleast 20 feet away though
i can still smell a hint of troll in the air.
Stop eating fething goats and take a bath
PS: i spent a fair few months out in iraq and away from here
hence why i usually get my "we are missing you" PM's from the machine spirit lol
12821
Post by: RustyKnight
I think maybe this thread should be locked before we all turn red with rage...red is a color.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
RustyKnight wrote:I think maybe this thread should be locked before we all turn red with rage...red is a colour.
Fix'd for you
8021
Post by: JD21290
Sorry, just seems fitting
PS: Frazz, if you steal this pic i will hunt you down :K
PPS: Who is turning red with rage?
me and gwar allways talk this nicely to eachother
12265
Post by: Gwar!
JD21290 wrote:
Sorry, just seems fitting
PS: Frazz, if you steal this pic i will hunt you down :K
PPS: Who is turning red with rage?
me and gwar allways talk this nicely to eachother
Gwar! aged 2!
8021
Post by: JD21290
Must be before the diet kicked in im guessing?
looking at your age 7 pic you dropped some weight
15211
Post by: Mars.Techpriest
That's what I get for trying to answer when I don't have the book with me. I apologize for my incorrectness.
12821
Post by: RustyKnight
Bad, sneaky u.
Off topic- I've actually started accidently using the British spellings of some words (like armour and colour). Not that I have any problem with Brits, but it's annoying to get those words underlined with a red question mark next to them.
8021
Post by: JD21290
Meh, after using alot of american sites i tend to miss out alot of "U's" from time to time
Same language, different spellings, why? lol
13756
Post by: Mad Rabbit
Tri wrote:Gwar! wrote:Utterly wrong.
You Can Choose to either use Both Power Fists or a Power Fist and the Power Seord.
Using the Two Powerfists Gramts you S8 I1 and no Bonus attack because you are weilding more than 1 Special Weapon (2 Power Fists and a Power Sword)
Using the Power Fist and the Power Sword Lets you Choose to make all your attacks at Either S8 I1 or S4 I5, again with no bonus attack because you are weilding more than 1 Special Weapon (2 Power Fists and a Power Sword)
How much more simple does it need to be ?</Sarcasm>
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
I have to assume that Gwar is kidding here. I found it slightly funny.
Anyway, there's no need to worry about how many attacks he gets. Ultrasmurfs all die the same.
8021
Post by: JD21290
Ultrasmurfs all die the same.
but they never die quick enough :(
and calgar is a pain in the ass to kill unless you throw ghaz at him while on his waaagh! move
(7 S10 klaw attacks and a 2+ inv save )
Edit: Bollocks! didnt see it was 2:10am lol, need to be up and get working on the garden again tomorrow -_-
so much for my "time off"
later people and trollthingymabobGwar!
13790
Post by: Sliggoth
Actually then, if we are going by a strict RAW readin then we dont apply the whole series of rules under the heading *Fighting with two single-handed weapons* to Calgar.
If we do indeed take the words equipped and wielding to mean the weapons that the figure has in toto, then we have to come to the conclusion that Calgar has 3 weapons so this whole area of the rules doesnt apply to him at all. It only applies to those characters armed with two and only two weapons. Not one weapon, not 3 or more weapons.
As long as we are going by the RAW that is.
Sliggoth
12265
Post by: Gwar!
So calgar Can never get any attacks?
Yay!
13790
Post by: Sliggoth
Well, no. There would be no way to read the rules so that Calgar gets no attacks. He would simply not be able to use any of the rules for attacking with two weapons. So he would have his base listed attacks only.
Therefore if we do indeed take the view that any model with more than two weapons is always wielding/ equipped with them, then all of the rules listed under fighting with two single-handed weapons do not apply. So no model with 3+ weapons ever gets a bonus attack under any of the cc rules (unless of course the codex has some special rule). This interpretation would have the unfortunate effect of allowing models with multiple special weapons to get the bonuses for all of their special weapons however. Since the only limit on stacking of special weapon abilities is under the fighting with two weapons section then it would be possible for a model to have MANY special abilites under this version of the rules.
This all hinges on the reading of the rules to mean that a model with 3+ weapons is wielding all of his weapons tho, instead of the model chosing which two weapons to wield.
The RAW hangs together quite well if we use the precise definition of the word wielding to mean using tho. A model with 3+ weapons has to wield 1-2 of them in a cc round. This is simple, clear, and RAW. If we use a loose definition of wielding, then we venture into areas where we could see some strange combinations of effects.
Sliggoth
1309
Post by: Lordhat
All I have to say is this:
If, during a game, you try to tell me that Calgar doesn't get an additional attack from the Gauntlets while NOT using his sword, I will immediately strap a sword to my belt, and some boxing gloves to my hands and we'll proceed to count how many times I can punch you (or your little sister, whoever looks easier to take) while running and yelling. (Personally I bet it's 0, cause we'd all be laughing too hard)
10906
Post by: VictorVonTzeentch
Mr.Tangent wrote:My roomate plays SM and just picked up Mr.Calgar and had a valid question. If Mr.Calgar is equipt with "Gauntlets of Ultramar"(his only option) which is 2 powerfists with built in bolters, does he strike at Inititive 1(powerfists always strike last) Or does he strike at his regular Inititive 5??
thx , Tangent.
Here is the OP's question just to remind you all.
sourclams wrote:1
Every post, or just about every post after sourclams' post is off topic.
8611
Post by: Drudge Dreadnought
Shouldn't we be assuming that given any particular word, the correct interpretation of the rules is the simplest, most common definition of that word, and if that works within the context of the rules we use that and if it doesn't we move to the next most used interpretation of the word.
In other words, we have a rule with 2 possible interpretations but one is signifcantly simpler than the other and so we should be assuming that this is the correct interpretation.
11988
Post by: Dracos
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.
6769
Post by: 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.
12265
Post by: 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...
10906
Post by: 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.
1523
Post by: 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.
13790
Post by: 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
12265
Post by: 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).
1523
Post by: 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.
12265
Post by: 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.
1523
Post by: 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.
60
Post by: 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?
12265
Post by: 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? 
1523
Post by: 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)
8375
Post by: 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.
12265
Post by: 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!
2700
Post by: 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
12027
Post by: KaloranSLC
Semantics are so much fun!
12265
Post by: 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!
2700
Post by: dietrich
Tri - Best. Post. Ever.
8248
Post by: 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.
9133
Post by: Rangerrob
Tri wins the Internet!
So the only figs in the game that are effected by this rule are Eldrad and....?
1309
Post by: 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.
12265
Post by: 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
8489
Post by: 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.
12027
Post by: 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.
12265
Post by: 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.
10086
Post by: Neconilis
I just realized this thread was started by 'Mr.Tangent'. All I can say is good job sir, good job indeed.
9133
Post by: 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?...
6769
Post by: 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.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Tri wrote: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.
Errrm, no he cant? This is not "Gwars Camp" its called the rules. Page 42: A normal and a special weapon These models gain one additional attack. All of their attacks, including the bonus attack, benefit from the special weapon's bonuses. Therefore, if you have a Special And a Normal Weapon, you may not choose to use the normal weapon, you MUST use the special. As Elrad has a Witchblade, Staff thingy and Pistol, He must use both his Staff and Witchblade (as you can wield more than two weapons, but can only use 2 in any given round), choosing which one to use each turn.
10086
Post by: Neconilis
FFS, will you please stop.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
I will when Tri decides to play by the rules
6838
Post by: 1hadhq
Gwar! wrote:I will when Tri decides to play by the rules
Tri already did.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
1hadhq wrote:Gwar! wrote:I will when Tri decides to play by the rules
Tri already did.
No he didn't, I just showed he didn't.
123
Post by: Alpharius
Well, this thread seems to have run it's course.
Locking.
|
|
