I just playtested guardsman Sly Marbo and realized that he has four close combat attacks...as a basis.

My short question is now: Does he get an additional attack due to his Ripper pistol and his envenomed blade? The Ripper is a declared pistol and the blade is definitely not a PF, LC or TH. Therefore...does this guy really get SIX attacks on the charge, wounding everything on 2+?

While the text seems quite clear to me I thought I would ask because this is...this is like the movie marines somehow. Six attacks. I think Thraka has six on the charge, has he? But who else?

No. The ripper blade is not listed as a CCW, it merely makes Marbo's attacks poisoned (p. 61).

Iron_Chaos_Brute wrote:No. The ripper blade is not listed as a CCW, it merely makes Marbo's attacks poisoned (p. 61).

Correct, it does not list it as a CCW, but rather a Weapon that has the special rule that makes his attacks poisoned. So no, marbo does not get the bonus attack.

A large envenomed Catachan knife that isn't a CCW? Silly RAW ahoy!

edit: I'll negotiate the matter if I ever meet someone playing Marbo.

Spetulhu wrote:A large envenomed Catachan knife that isn't a CCW? Silly RAW ahoy!

edit: I'll negotiate the matter if I ever meet someone playing Marbo.

And RAW I wouldn't let them have it. The whole character concept is trash, and way OTT.

Nothing to negotiate. The rule is clear and it does not appear to be an oversight.

Thanks for your quick answers. Now that I read the passages closely again, I agree on your RAW statement. Well, five attacks are good anyway, I won't complain.
However, as Spetulhu stated, it's a bit strange regarding some fluff-facts (basically he fights with the knife every catachan guardsman owns as his CCW, he has got the more deadly toxins on it, though) that it is, officially, not a CCW.

Intended by GW? Overlooked? I don't know and if you ask me we don't need to start a discussion about it. Five attacks, still as good as a rampaging ork nob. And more deadly.

Spetulhu wrote:A large envenomed Catachan knife that isn't a CCW? Silly RAW ahoy!

edit: I'll negotiate the matter if I ever meet someone playing Marbo.

+1 on the Silly . Looks like one more small point that escaped the new FAQ. Spetulhu: If we ever happen to face on the field of battle I´ll grant those 6 attacks. And if we both would happen to have Marbo on the field, it would have to be resolved mano a mano! The image is just too cool. The sweat. The blood dripping from wounds. The unfliching stares ( tune in Sergio Leone tunes ) .

Why is Catachan not an SM recruiting world?

Good question. Maybe fleet-based chapters like to go there sometimes and we don't know about it.

However, maybe Marbo looked disapprovingly at the Astartes as they tried to put power armour on a sneaky jungle fighter and since then, all Marine fleets try not to get nearer than a few dozen lightyears near catachan....

Witzkatz wrote:Good question. Maybe fleet-based chapters like to go there sometimes and we don't know about it.

However, maybe Marbo looked disapprovingly at the Astartes as they tried to put power armour on a sneaky jungle fighter and since then, all Marine fleets try not to get nearer than a few dozen lightyears near catachan....

This immediately made me think of

Thorheim wrote:

So, I have a stupid question then. Why does Marbo's envenomed blade not give a +1 attack while a power weapon does? Is it simply that the rule says his attacks are poisoned without stating that it is a poisoned weapon? By that reasoning, would Marbo not get the re-roll to wounds when attacking something T3, as that's a rule for Poisoned weapons? After all, his rule simply says it wounds on a 2+.

I would grant the extra attack in both Tournament play and Casual, it kind of makes sense IMO.

Everyone knows he's just a Demo Charge jockey anyways.

Polonius wrote:So, I have a stupid question then. Why does Marbo's envenomed blade not give a +1 attack while a power weapon does? Is it simply that the rule says his attacks are poisoned without stating that it is a poisoned weapon? By that reasoning, would Marbo not get the re-roll to wounds when attacking something T3, as that's a rule for Poisoned weapons? After all, his rule simply says it wounds on a 2+.

Errrm... First of All, the rules for power weapons state they are close combat weapons.
Secondly, the rules for Poison state that he gets the reroll (and wounds on a fixed number).

Thinking more about it and reading more about it, I think it might be possible to get at least an implicit affirmation that Marbo has a special CCW. Granted, it's easier with ICs like Al'Rahem, where the Claw of the Desert Tigers is described as a "power weapon". Problem solved. Marbo's envenomed blade states that all his attacks are poisoned. Maybe one could make the connection to poisoned weapons on p.42 of the rulebook here, because the description of the "Envenomed blade" fits 100% on a poisoned weapon, a special CCW - which would, in combination with his pistol, would grant him +1 attack. This is a slight bit away from purest RAW, but seems reasonable to argue about, I think.

So can we just all agree now that RaW he does not get an attack but most people will give two fingers to the rules and play him however they like?

@Gwar!: Just reading the page...the part about power weapons does not state specifically that they are CCWs. It is written under the paragraph of "special close combat weapons" (retranslated), where we can find the poisoned weapons, too. Therefore, the RAW for getting +1 attack is not weaker for poisoned weapons than for power weapons. However, the question is if the description of "Envenomed Blade" is enough and clear enough to say it is a poisoned weapon by RAW.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Everyone knows he's just a Demo Charge jockey anyways.

Only if the enemy fails to kill him after the Demo attack. Killa-B ( my converted Marbo ) has so far killed an Eldar Exarch, half a dozen Tyranid Warriors, a Deamon Prince, an IG Company Command Squad and assorted grunts in close combats. If the enemy fails to make sure that he is dead, I will make them pay in blood .

Gwar! wrote:So can we just all agree now that RaW he does not get an attack but most people will give two fingers to the rules and play him however they like?

No.
Depending on where they are from, it's one finger.

His meltabombs have actually come in handy for me. I blew up an entire squad of veterans with the demo charge before blowing up a Demolisher on the next turn.

Witzkatz wrote:@Gwar!: Just reading the page...the part about power weapons does not state specifically that they are CCWs. It is written under the paragraph of "special close combat weapons" (retranslated), where we can find the poisoned weapons, too. Therefore, the RAW for getting +1 attack is not weaker for poisoned weapons than for power weapons. However, the question is if the description of "Envenomed Blade" is enough and clear enough to say it is a poisoned weapon by RAW.

Ok, I admit that it is shaky and it could swing either way depending on how it is read.

So, I revise my answer:
The RaW is both

Glad that we come to a rather harmonic and quick conclusion here.

Since the IG FAQ was just released, this won't be cleard up too soon. I guess it's a clear case for discussing it with your opponent and hear what he thinks about it.

Gwar! wrote:
So, I revise my answer:
The RaW is both

YAY!

Witzkatz wrote:@Gwar!: Just reading the page...the part about power weapons does not state specifically that they are CCWs. It is written under the paragraph of "special close combat weapons" (retranslated), where we can find the poisoned weapons, too. Therefore, the RAW for getting +1 attack is not weaker for poisoned weapons than for power weapons. However, the question is if the description of "Envenomed Blade" is enough and clear enough to say it is a poisoned weapon by RAW.

This was closer to my question.

It's the difference between him having Poisoned attacks (which by RAW don't really exists except as defined in that rules text) and a Poisoned Weapon, which does exist but would give +1 attack.

As a side note, does roll #6 on the Possessed table make it's single CCW a power weapon, add a power weapon to the model, or do nothing?

To read Marbo's rules literally, his attacks are Poisoned(2+), which doesn't mean anything. You have to read that it's a Poisoned Weapon (2+) to get anywhere, and that would confer a +1 attack bonus as Poisoned weapons are CCWs by definition.

Polonius wrote:To read Marbo's rules literally, his attacks are Poisoned(2+), which doesn't mean anything. You have to read that it's a Poisoned Weapon (2+) to get anywhere, and that would confer a +1 attack bonus as Poisoned weapons are CCWs by definition.

A very good point, and I can see the inherent logic in that. But alas, one can read it as doing nothing as well. That's GW for you :(

As for possessed, I am not too familiar with them but I remember discussions about them

Well, I like to chase RAW to the bone because it usually either reveals a good solution, or results in something dumb enough it's easy to justify ignoring it.

Not that Marbo needs the help, but it's hard to see the RAI as anything other than him having a poisoned weapon in this case.

Possessed do not give +1 attack for getting power weapons.

Daemonkin: "At the beginning of each game, after deployment, roll a dice on the table below. The Possessed unit will have the special rule or extra equipment indicated in the table for the entire game."

"6 - Power Weapon. A shimmering daemonic aura surrounds the weapons of the Possessed."

The argument that has been made for it giving +1 attack is that they are getting a power weapon as extra equipment, not as a special rule (since it says special rule or extra equipment. strangely enough there is no option on the table that grants extra equipment). But the option for 6 doesn't say they gain a powerweapon. They are gaining the special rule of powerweapon. The flavor text makes this very clear.

Also, Ghazghkull gets 7 attacks on the charge not 6 hes base 5 with +2A on the charge from adamantium forehead rule lol.

Drudge Dreadnought wrote:Possessed do not give +1 attack for getting power weapons.

Daemonkin: "At the beginning of each game, after deployment, roll a dice on the table below. The Possessed unit will have the special rule or extra equipment indicated in the table for the entire game."

"6 - Power Weapon. A shimmering daemonic aura surrounds the weapons of the Possessed."

The argument that has been made for it giving +1 attack is that they are getting a power weapon as extra equipment, not as a special rule (since it says special rule or extra equipment. strangely enough there is no option on the table that grants extra equipment). But the option for 6 doesn't say they gain a powerweapon. They are gaining the special rule of powerweapon. The flavor text makes this very clear.

The counter argument there is that first, there is no rule for power weapons, its just a kind of equipment. Secondly, the demonkin rule explicitly states that the unit gets the extra equipment indicated.

So, either they get a special rule that doesn't do anything, or they get a piece of equipment.

there is no rule for power weapons

Page 42: "A power weapon is sheathed in the lethal haze of a disruptive energy field blah blah blah Models wounded in close combat by the attacks of a power weapon are not allowed armour saves."

The CCW the possessed have becomes a power weapon. They don't have to be gaining one as a new piece of equipment. Again, the flavor text clarifies this.

Polonius wrote:Well, I like to chase RAW to the bone because it usually either reveals a good solution, or results in something dumb enough it's easy to justify ignoring it.

Not that Marbo needs the help, but it's hard to see the RAI as anything other than him having a poisoned weapon in this case.

Agreed. It seems kind of ridiculous to argue whether a big catachan knife is a CCW or not. Clearly it is, and if RAW is not completely congruent with this then it is obviously just an oversight. I know that if I were a writer for GW codex rules, I would be ripping my hair out over how literally some people take what is written.

I agree that it is clearly being described as a poisoned weapon, which is grouped under the "Special Close Combat Weapons" (pg. 42 of the AoBR rulebook). Meaning, he should get the extra attack for having a pistol (clearly listed in the Ripper Pistol's stat line) and a CCW.

Not to get overly literalist (because I agree that's probably the intent), but you have two choices according to the rules: either they get a special rule, or they get equipment. Power Weapon isn't a rule, it's a piece of equipment.


As a pedantic aside, the flavor text also says "weapons" of the possessed, which implies that each could have multiple weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FoxPhoenix135 wrote:

Polonius wrote:Well, I like to chase RAW to the bone because it usually either reveals a good solution, or results in something dumb enough it's easy to justify ignoring it.

Not that Marbo needs the help, but it's hard to see the RAI as anything other than him having a poisoned weapon in this case.

Agreed. It seems kind of ridiculous to argue whether a big catachan knife is a CCW or not. Clearly it is, and if RAW is not completely congruent with this then it is obviously just an oversight. I know that if I were a writer for GW codex rules, I would be ripping my hair out over how literally some people take what is written.

I agree that it is clearly being described as a poisoned weapon, which is grouped under the "Special Close Combat Weapons" (pg. 42 of the AoBR rulebook). Meaning, he should get the extra attack for having a pistol (clearly listed in the Ripper Pistol's stat line) and a CCW.

You do have to be careful, as not every "oversight" really is one. In this case, having two options, one of which is that the rule does nothing, does seem to make the RAI a lot clearer. But always pin the RAW down first before you dismiss it.

You have a point, Polonius. Maybe the designers thought of that, and included the extra attack in his base-statistics. No way to really know unless they append the FAQ or something.

Well, the bonus attack for two weapons isn't included in the base line stats unless specified, and that's usually in areas where the model has some odd wargear that acts like multiple ccws.

In addition, most of the time when a stat line is bumped due to wargear or special rule, rather than inherent, it's set off with parentheses.

Che-Vito wrote:
And RAW I wouldn't let them have it. The whole character concept is trash, and way OTT.

Dude... its 40k EVERYTHING is over the top. Calgar is so hardcore he killed a god, assasins are so g they do all kinds of crazy stuff, creed can hide a titan in a tool shed, elrad... dude elrad, and orks look at the entire ork army. And one guy who understands camoflouge and has a poisoned knife is "way OTT"?

iamthecougar wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:
And RAW I wouldn't let them have it. The whole character concept is trash, and way OTT.

Dude... its 40k EVERYTHING is over the top. Calgar is so hardcore he killed a god, assasins are so g they do all kinds of crazy stuff, creed can hide a titan in a tool shed, elrad... dude elrad, and orks look at the entire ork army. And one guy who understands camoflouge and has a poisoned knife is "way OTT"?

The thinly veiled Rambo comparison, and what can be done with Marbo...yes.
You wouldn't understand, you are from New Jersey after all

Polonius, in reguards to your question wether it is a rule or a weapon. I can answer with certainty that it is a weapon, and as such gives him the extra attack. This is found on page 95; Envenomed blade is listed as wargear not a Special Rule. In the description on page 61 it tells us this is a knife coated with toxins. Qualifing it as special CCW.

Datajax wrote:Polonius, in reguards to your question wether it is a rule or a weapon. I can answer with certainty that it is a weapon, and as such gives him the extra attack. This is found on page 95; Envenomed blade is listed as wargear not a Special Rule. In the description on page 61 it tells us this is a knife coated with toxins. Qualifing it as special CCW.

No, it doesn't. Nowhere in the Envenomed Blade Rules does it say it is a CCW. Frag grenades are listed as Wargear too, do they give Bonus Attacks now too?

So GWAR!'s position then is that a knife isn't a close combat weapon?

Because P. 61 of the guard codex says, "Marbo carries a large catachian KNIFE..."

Red_Lives wrote:So GWAR!'s position then is that a knife isn't a close combat weapon?

Because P. 61 of the guard codex says, "Marbo carries a large catachian KNIFE..."

Yeah, and Space Marines Carry Stim packs, Combat Blades and can punch through a tank bare handed. They don't get any bonuses from these do they. It says it is a Knife, but it does not say it counts as a CCW. Yes Polonius has pointed out that this means it does nothing, but RaW this seems to be the case.

Gwar! wrote:

Red_Lives wrote:So GWAR!'s position then is that a knife isn't a close combat weapon?

Because P. 61 of the guard codex says, "Marbo carries a large catachian KNIFE..."

Yeah, and Space Marines Carry Stim packs, Combat Blades and can punch through a tank bare handed. They don't get any bonuses from these do they. It says it is a Knife, but it does not say it counts as a CCW. Yes Polonius has pointed out that this means it does nothing, but RaW this seems to be the case.

What does that got to do with anything? Its on page 61 under the "envenomed blade" entry.

I suggest you read that, because i'm not talking about fluff here, the weapon description under the rules says its a knife.

And a Knife=A CCW unless otherwise noted.

That depends on how you read the rules for CCWs. Some argue that unless an item is listed as a CCW, it's not. The reasoning is pretty clear: you can use a boltgun in combat, but nobody is going to suggest you should get +1 attack for Bolter + Bolt Pistol.

Honestly, it's a bit of a mess when you start deciding who gets +1 attack for two CCWs. The argument seems to be, that unless you have two weapons that are listed as CCWs, or reference back to those rules, you can't get +1 attack.

That said, Marbo has a weapon that's described as a Knife that appears have been meant to be a poisoned weapon. Most people are going to spot you that one, but you should be careful not to confuse "thing that sounds like a one handed melee weapon" for "things the rules find to be CCWs"

If you look at Codex: Space Marines, it lists Chainswords and Combat Blades in the armory, and says they are CCWs. The IG codex also lists "Close Combat Weapon" under any model that has one.

The way to approach this isn't through the "knife = CCW" angle, but the "weapon that is poisoned = Poison Weapon" angle.

Red_Lives wrote:And a Knife=A CCW unless otherwise noted.

No, it isn't. It is a CCW if it says it is a CCW. Otherwise it is not.

the BGB lists knives as examples of close combat weapons.

Besides its a knife coated in venom, which makes it a Poisioned weapon, as clearly described in the BGB.

Not really. They mention combat knives, along with frag grenades, as things seasoned warriors take into battle for close combat.

The actual CCW rules are pretty short:

p42 wrote:Normal Close Combat Weapons
Weapons like chainswords, rifle butts, combat blades, bayonets, etc. do not confer any particular bonus to the model using them. Remember that, in close combat, pistols count as normal close combat weapons and so the Strength and AP of the Pistol are ignored.

These leaves two possibilities: either CCWs are defined elsewhere, or all weapons that don't confer a bonus in close combat are "Normal CCWs." As nearly every close combat weapon is defined, somewhere in it's rules, as such a CCW, it appears that they're simply saying that you don't get a bonus for having them. The new codices are doing a better job of giving every model such a "normal CCW" in their wargear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Red_Lives wrote:the BGB lists knives as examples of close combat weapons.

Besides its a knife coated in venom, which makes it a Poisioned weapon, as clearly described in the BGB.

To quote myself:

"To read Marbo's rules literally, his attacks are Poisoned(2+), which doesn't mean anything. You have to read that it's a Poisoned Weapon (2+) to get anywhere, and that would confer a +1 attack bonus as Poisoned weapons are CCWs by definition. "

With all due respect, try to follow the thread fully, and understand that in RAW discussions, odd results can occur.

Right so under the rules everything that can reasonably be a close combat weapon is a close combat weapon unless otherwise noted.

Red_Lives wrote:Right so under the rules everything that can reasonably be a close combat weapon is a close combat weapon unless otherwise noted.

My Missile Launcher is a Power Weapon. it is Reasonable to me.

Also, it mentions that under the "Envenomed blade" entry, describing that it is a knife coated in venom, then describes that it causes him to wound on a 2+. Which clearly makes it a "Posioned weapon"

Red_Lives wrote:Also, it mentions that under the "Envenomed blade" entry, describing that it is a knife coated in venom, then describes that it causes him to wound on a 2+. Which clearly makes it a "Posioned weapon"

No, it makes his Close Combat Attacks Poisoned. That is what the rule says. You are adding things.

Red_Lives wrote:Also, it mentions that under the "Envenomed blade" entry, describing that it is a knife coated in venom, then describes that it causes him to wound on a 2+. Which clearly makes it a "Posioned weapon"

there's a saying I learned in law school: "never use the terms 'clearly' or 'obviously' when arguing. If something were obvious, you wouldn't be arguing." It's probably not a bad rule of thumb for YMDC.

It's pretty reasonable that the author meant to make the envenomed blade a poisoned weapon. Alas, he didn't use that term, instead, they said that it's Poisoned, which has no exact analogue in the BGB. Now, I agree with you in that when a person tells you that they have a knife that's poisoned, it's a poisoned weapon, particularly since the other option is a null set; that it does nothing. It seems unlikely that GW would write rules that do nothing in a brand new book, so feel free to make a logical step.

In many ways this is like the LRBT in Hunters armies discussion: there is a difference between a literal reading of the rules that results in nonsense, and a contextual reading that tries to look at the core meaning. I think you should only do that in times like this, where the RAW is literally nothing and the core meaning is clear.

Gwar! wrote:

Red_Lives wrote:Also, it mentions that under the "Envenomed blade" entry, describing that it is a knife coated in venom, then describes that it causes him to wound on a 2+. Which clearly makes it a "Posioned weapon"

No, it makes his Close Combat Attacks Poisoned. That is what the rule says. You are adding things.

But it says it under the envenomed blade entry, therefor its wht causes him to wound on a 2+ i wasn't adding anything to the statement, just making connections that might not otherwise be apparent.

The human mind will generally add what is required to make a sentence parse, to make it make sense. That's what you're doing, because if you don't add words, the rule doesn't make any sense.

The problem is, the rule, as literally written, does not have any value. It says nothing. You can infer, you can make connections, you can take the reasonable train to common sense village, but you can't make the words literally say anything that makes sense.

So how does he make poison close combat attacks with no close combat weapon?

Does he punch you with a 2+ wound?

Does his pistol shoot a poison blade?

I could have swore that the model has a blade, and a pistol.... thus the 2 cc weapons.

Sanchez01 wrote:So how does he make poison close combat attacks with no close combat weapon?

Does he punch you with a 2+ wound?

Does his pistol shoot a poison blade?

I could have swore that the model has a blade, and a pistol.... thus the 2 cc weapons.

He doesn't.

Nowhere does it say he wounds on a 2+.

The pistol has it's own rules.

The model is also lacking a demo charge.

Let's break this down, old school style.

Axiom: There are no rules for poison, outside of the rules for poisoned Weapons.

This is true because nobody can find a counter example.

Thus, any rules for poison must refer to Poison Weapons, or be self sufficient.

If you look at the rules for the Chem Cannon on the Banewolf, it explains that the weapon always wounds on a 2+. Read marbo's entry: it doesn't.

Therefore, any reference to poison that does not include rules for wounding or a reference to Poisoned Weapons has no truth value.

Like it or not, Marbo's rules dont' include the words "close combat weapon," "poison weapon", or any mechanism for wounding.

To get anywhere else, you have to argue one of the following:

That "poisoned(2+)" really means "acts as a poisoned weapon that wounds on a 2+", or

that "poisoned(2+)" means "are a poisoned weapon(2+)", which immediately sets us down a new maze of mirrors about if the blade is itself a poisoned weapon, or if only his other attacks are poisoned weapons.

I think i may have a comparison that could be helpful, Zogwort, he has that nest of viper wargear that makes all of his attacks count as poisoned wounding on a 2+, but does it actually say that it is a poisoned weapon? If not then there is a precedent set for a model gaining the poisoned ruleset without actually having a poisoned ccw. Note: i do not have my codex or my rulebook i'm up in college so if somebody could check the codex for me and back that up or disprove it i think it might help settle this.

Envenomed Blade Marbo carries a large Catachan knife coated with deadly toxins. Guardsmen Marbo's close combat attacks are Poisoned (2+)

Page 61, Codex Imperial Guard

Poisoned Weapons Poisoned weapons range from blades coated in venom to hypodermic claws. They do not rely on a comparison of strength and toughness to wound - They always wound on a fixed number, generally shown in the brackets. Some venoms are so lethal that the merest drop can kill - these may wound on a 3+ or even a 2+ (as described in the appropriate codex) In addition, if the strength of the wielder is the same or higher than the Toughness of the victim, the wielder must re-roll failed rolls to wound in close combat. These weapons confer no advantage against vehicles.

Page 42, Rule Book.

Guardsmen Marbo has both a pistol (Ripper Pistol) and an Close Combat Weapon (Envenomed Blade)

The Blade is listed as a "Large Catachan Knife" now call me stupid, but isn't a knife a weapon... and a large knife as it is? So, he has a pistol and a knife... sounds like he gets a +1 Attack to me.

A weapon does not have to be a CCW to grant the extra attack. A model simply needs to have two one-handed weapons. Now, no where does it state that the Envenomed blade is either one handed or a CCW.

That being said, if anyone tried to argue that it isn't a CCW in a game they are a complete tool. Don't play them as they aren't worth it. If it comes up in a turnament I would bet the judge rules in your favor.

Sanchez01 wrote:

Envenomed Blade Marbo carries a large Catachan knife coated with deadly toxins. Guardsmen Marbo's close combat attacks are Poisoned (2+)

Page 61, Codex Imperial Guard

Poisoned Weapons Poisoned weapons range from blades coated in venom to hypodermic claws. They do not rely on a comparison of strength and toughness to wound - They always wound on a fixed number, generally shown in the brackets. Some venoms are so lethal that the merest drop can kill - these may wound on a 3+ or even a 2+ (as described in the appropriate codex) In addition, if the strength of the wielder is the same or higher than the Toughness of the victim, the wielder must re-roll failed rolls to wound in close combat. These weapons confer no advantage against vehicles.

Page 42, Rule Book.

Guardsmen Marbo has both a pistol (Ripper Pistol) and an Close Combat Weapon (Envenomed Blade)

The Blade is listed as a "Large Catachan Knife" now call me stupid, but isn't a knife a weapon... and a large knife as it is? So, he has a pistol and a knife... sounds like he gets a +1 Attack to me.

I think this is one of the problems of rules debates - it simply takes the fun out of the game (for some). Some people like to win at all costs. Therefore, they'll look for any rule they can to limit the power of something else. If people had their way, every convoluted rule would be turned on its ear because it didn't say "can" versus "may". Really? Now, I'm not judging anyone - some people love the rules debates - but to call an Envenomed Blade that is a large catachan knife not a close combat weapon - doesn't that break more logical rules than it being called a ccw? I mean, let's not forget the "Most Important Rule". If I played against someone playing Marbo, instead of trying to eek them out of one more attack, I'd say, sure, fire away with your 6 attacks. Why? Because if they said, "I have 6 attacks." And I said, "No you don't. The large catachan knife that is poisoned doesn't count as a close combat weapon." They'd probably say (being intelligent, reasoning adults/kids), "What?". According to some, the rulebook has no grounds for leeway and I think that pulls a lot of the fun out of games and rules debates in general.

Just my 2 pennies.

I just what to know on what planet is a knife not a weapon... if someone told me that knife he had does not count as a CCW, then i would either slap him across the face for being a douch/moron or just or just smile and pretend i did not hear a stupid remark.

I don't play marbo, but if my opponent did, i would say he gets 6 attacks...

but when someone tells me a knife... a large catachan knife, is not a close combat weapon... i am just dumbfounded.

the same page mentioned... 42 in the rule book, says knives are close combat weapons. right up in the top.

Ok, apparently two weeks of discussion about the nature of YMDC and what the purposes of these debates are haven't yielded any fruit.

This isn't a question of how it should be played. We all agree how it should be played. The quesion, and it's one that has merit, is "what do the rules actually say."

Now, I'm not a RAW literalist, and I think that RAI should be used when it's clear and RAW is either unclear or nonsensical. I think that there are people on this board that cling a little too tightly to RAW, and we don't get along so well sometimes. That's still no excuse to go half cocked against RAW: It is, after all, the rules.

Now, Rules debates in game suck the fun out of games. Rules debates outside of games enable you to prevent rules debates inside games, or at the lease, settle them before a game begins.

In this case, it means telling an opponent "look, accorind to the RAW the envenomed knife isn't actually a poisoned weapon, but I think it should still be played as one." Most reasonable people will agree, and those that don't, you at least know ahead of time how Marbo will treat you.

Now, as for the actually rules discussion, allow me to quote myself (in which I also quote myself, for recursive quoting!)

Polonius wrote:
Not really. They mention combat knives, along with frag grenades, as things seasoned warriors take into battle for close combat.

The actual CCW rules are pretty short:

p42 wrote:Normal Close Combat Weapons
Weapons like chainswords, rifle butts, combat blades, bayonets, etc. do not confer any particular bonus to the model using them. Remember that, in close combat, pistols count as normal close combat weapons and so the Strength and AP of the Pistol are ignored.



These leaves two possibilities: either CCWs are defined elsewhere, or all weapons that don't confer a bonus in close combat are "Normal CCWs." As nearly every close combat weapon is defined, somewhere in it's rules, as such a CCW, it appears that they're simply saying that you don't get a bonus for having them. The new codices are doing a better job of giving every model such a "normal CCW" in their wargear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Red_Lives wrote:the BGB lists knives as examples of close combat weapons.

Besides its a knife coated in venom, which makes it a Poisioned weapon, as clearly described in the BGB.



To quote myself:

"To read Marbo's rules literally, his attacks are Poisoned(2+), which doesn't mean anything. You have to read that it's a Poisoned Weapon (2+) to get anywhere, and that would confer a +1 attack bonus as Poisoned weapons are CCWs by definition. "

With all due respect, try to follow the thread fully, and understand that in RAW discussions, odd results can occur.

I'm guessing some of the more recent posters haven't read the whole thread, and while that's ok in most forums, your arguments aren't exactly fresh at this point.

Polonius wrote:

Now, I'm not a RAW literalist, and I think that RAI should be used when it's clear and RAW is either unclear or nonsensical. I think that there are people on this board that cling a little too tightly to RAW, and we don't get along so well sometimes. That's still no excuse to go half cocked against RAW: It is, after all, the rules.

I think this is what I was getting at.

puma713 wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Now, I'm not a RAW literalist, and I think that RAI should be used when it's clear and RAW is either unclear or nonsensical. I think that there are people on this board that cling a little too tightly to RAW, and we don't get along so well sometimes. That's still no excuse to go half cocked against RAW: It is, after all, the rules.

I think this is what I was getting at.

The thing to remember is that people very rarely support rules ideologies for game advantage. Maybe a person does that on a single ruling cause he's looking for an edge, but a person that's generally pro-RAW or pro-RAI usually takes the good with the bad.

I wrote up a thing on this issue http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253127.page that addresses some of why people do what they do. For the record, I play IG, I use Marbo, and I'm going to take both the poison and the extra attacks.

In short, its' very easy online to assume that people that disagree with you are doing so for malicious reasons, but that's usually not the case.

Polonius wrote:Ok, apparently two weeks of discussion about the nature of YMDC and what the purposes of these debates are haven't yielded any fruit.

This isn't a question of how it should be played. We all agree how it should be played. The quesion, and it's one that has merit, is "what do the rules actually say."

What the rules actually say might as well be "wibble wibble schplitt", as they're written by complete idiots. Arguing RAW matters in a game whose rules are as robust as a candyfloss umbrella is the pastime of the masochistic and the terminally imbecilic.

Wow, I'm off for a few hours to get my beauty sleep and you're on page three here.

Just a little thing: The people here who become slightly indignant about the RAW reading of the rules, because they think they're stupid - I can understand that. However, I just noticed that there are many "this is stupid", "this takes the fun out of the game", "I'd punch someone in the face if they try to tell me that blade is not a CCW" posts directed in the general direction of Polonius (and partially Gwar!), who advocate the RAW side here. However, in this thread, Polonius stated how he would play it first and then clearly went on to what the rules say. Hell, even Gwar! stated that the RAW could probably be read both ways. So, for the indignant people that dislike the RAW reading: No reason to be indignant! All that Polonius and Gwar! and other people supporting their view (like me) are trying to find out is what the rules really say. They're not trying to convince you that it should be played that Marbo gets no +1 attack, they are just providing you witht the conclusion that, by pure RAW, he does not get it.

So, no need for heated discussion between "how it should be played" and "this is RAW!", because these are different topics.

Finally, I agree with Polonius' final statements: The RAW seems to be too badly written to make his blade a poisoned CCW. However, with the tiny logical step from an envenomed blade that has poisoned(2+) attacks to a "poisoned weapon" - which is at most a slight deviaton from pure RAW reading - and some common sense, I think we can all agree that in this case it was really intended to be a poisoned weapon. Right?


(However, a short discussion with your opponent before the game is still in order, if not to show them how badly GW writes some rules.)

Polonius wrote:there's a saying I learned in law school: "never use the terms 'clearly' or 'obviously' when arguing. If something were obvious, you wouldn't be arguing." It's probably not a bad rule of thumb for YMDC.

To go utterly off topic, but I support this to be added to the YMTC rules

Witzkatz wrote:
Just a little thing: The people here who become slightly indignant about the RAW reading of the rules, because they think they're stupid - I can understand that. However, I just noticed that there are many "this is stupid", "this takes the fun out of the game", "I'd punch someone in the face if they try to tell me that blade is not a CCW" posts directed in the general direction of Polonius (and partially Gwar!), who advocate the RAW side here. However, in this thread, Polonius stated how he would play it first and then clearly went on to what the rules say. Hell, even Gwar! stated that the RAW could probably be read both ways. So, for the indignant people that dislike the RAW reading: No reason to be indignant! All that Polonius and Gwar! and other people supporting their view (like me) are trying to find out is what the rules really say. They're not trying to convince you that it should be played that Marbo gets no +1 attack, they are just providing you witht the conclusion that, by pure RAW, he does not get it.

That's very well put. I'd go one step further in that we've shown what the RAW strictly says, but we can also see the context of the overall rule as strong evidence that it's a Poisoned Weapon.

So, no need for heated discussion between "how it should be played" and "this is RAW!", because these are different topics.

Well, the reason I persued the RAW to it's extreme here was not to get people to follow it, but to justify ignoring it. By showing that not only did Marbo not get an extra attack, but by RAW his attacks weren't even poisoned, it enables me to argue more convincingly that the RAW should be read in context.

Finally, I agree with Polonius' final statements: The RAW seems to be too badly written to make his blade a poisoned CCW. However, with the tiny logical step from an envenomed blade that has poisoned(2+) attacks to a "poisoned weapon" - which is at most a slight deviaton from pure RAW reading - and some common sense, I think we can all agree that in this case it was really intended to be a poisoned weapon. Right?


(However, a short discussion with your opponent before the game is still in order, if not to show them how badly GW writes some rules.)

Well, a good YMDC outcome isn't always an answer, but a nicely boiled down issue with the key arguments for both sides. I think we've down that here.

So there are those that believe the this RAW creates a non-functional weapon/ability due to a minor miss-communication of wording?

So if the rules for his envenomed blade stated : this is a poisoned weapon that wounds on a 2+
there would be no issue?

However what his rules actually say describes a poisoned weapon to a tee almost exactly as described in the BGB.

Red_Lives wrote:So there are those that believe the this RAW creates a non-functional weapon/ability due to a minor miss-communication of wording?

Yes

So if the rules for his envenomed blade stated : this is a poisoned weapon that wounds on a 2+
there would be no issue?

Yes

However what his rules actually say describes a poisoned weapon to a tee almost exactly as described in the BGB.

Almost doesn't cut it.

Pretty much sums this thread up for those like myself who just made the mistake of reading the entire thing.

Witzkatz wrote:I just noticed that there are many "this is stupid", "this takes the fun out of the game", "I'd punch someone in the face if they try to tell me that blade is not a CCW" posts directed in the general direction of Polonius (and partially Gwar!), who advocate the RAW side here.

I can live with "What does a strict parsing of the words actually say". I even agree that the exercise can be useful. Dialog is always useful if the purpose is to share ideas and to try and understand what others think on a subject. In my opinion, any idea worth having should be strong enough to be discussed on it's merits.

What I don't think is useful is either overt name calling or insinuation. Someone who wants to play by the rules as best they understand them is not "stupid" or "TFG" and someone who wants the rules to actually make sense and thinks they are sometimes interpreted differently is not a "cheater" or "doesn't care" about the rules. What I find is usually someone who resorts to name calling is running out of idea so they have to create a diversion.

While it's not been the 100% stellar example of what a mature discussion should be I am encouraged by the general direction YMDC is taking as exhibited by this thread.

Oh, and FWIW while Marbro may not get the extra attack by RAW (I just haven't made enough synapses fire to form an opinion and this thread never answered the question) the way I would play it is to let him have them. It fits the theme and if I'm on the receiving end of things then I damn well deserve to have that extra attack put to me for letting Marbro get close enough to use it.

The Green Git wrote: I'm on the receiving end of things then I damn well deserve to have that extra attack put to me for letting Marbro get close enough to use it.

+1

I'm quite happy that this thread needed only three pages to come to the conclusion of

"RAW probably not 100% supportive of extra attack, but nevertheless a possible interpretation - discuss with your opponent before the game."

In other threads, you need seven pages of fighting with hard bandages before you get something like this.


(I'm a Marbo user, too. If my opponent insisted on him not getting the extra attack I would probably let it be played that way - his main usage is still the demo charge anyway. Today he blew up a 165 points predator on turn 3, relieving my armour of the threat. 65 points killing 165 points - what do you want more from an Elite unit? )

Ok, I talked to the GW store manager about this... Guardsmen Marbo does get 6 attacks on the charge... His envenomed blade is a special weapon and follows the rules on page 42 of the mini rule book under the section of A Normal and Special Weapon. So you do get the +1 attack for having both a pistol (Normal CCW) and envenomed blade (Special CCW).

Sanchez01 wrote:Ok, I talked to the GW store manager about this... Guardsmen Marbo does get 6 attacks on the charge... His envenomed blade is a special weapon and follows the rules on page 42 of the mini rule book under the section of A Normal and Special Weapon. So you do get the +1 attack for having both a pistol (Normal CCW) and envenomed blade (Special CCW).

And I talked to Robin Cruddace and he said Marbo gets 5 Attacks. </sarcasm>

What GW managers say means less than what a Coin Says. At least a Coin is right half the time.

Well a store manager has more credit then you Gwar.

The model has a knife... what else would he put venom... hell it even says he has a knife... and knives are a ccw. put 2 and 2 together. I don't know why you fight this... it is clear he gets his +1 for 2 ccw.

Sanchez01 wrote:Well a store manager has more credit then you Gwar.

The model has a knife... what else would he put venom... hell it even says he has a knife... and knives are a ccw. put 2 and 2 together. I don't know why you fight this... it is clear he gets his +1 for 2 ccw.

I have also heard a GW manager say that Hellfire Rounds can be fired out of a Storm Bolter. So no,they really don't have that much credit.

Sanchez01 wrote:Well a store manager has more credit then you Gwar.

Really? Can I ask why? What possible Qualifications does he have that make his opinion more valid than mine? Does he work at GW HQ Making the rules? Did he help in writing the Guard Codex? Is he The Emperor?

Eternal Newb wrote:I have also heard a GW manager say that Hellfire Rounds can be fired out of a Storm Bolter. So no,they really don't have that much credit.

See Point about Coins and why they are better than GW Managers.

Sanchez01 wrote:it is clear he gets his +1 for 2 ccw.

To quote Polonius (whom I am starting to grow to like I must admit ) 'there's a saying I learned in law school: "never use the terms 'clearly' or 'obviously' when arguing. If something were obvious, you wouldn't be arguing."'

Gwar just doesnt want to admit that he is wrong.

jp400 wrote:Gwar just doesnt want to admit that he is wrong.

Of course I don't, especially when I am not wrong. That would be very counter-productive wouldn't it!

It seems I just cannot please anyone anymore. When I go strict RaW, people call me a Evil Rules Lawyer Bastard, yet when I say "Ok, this is the RaW, but this is what I would play it", I get attacked.

I'd let my opponent have the extra attack. It just makes sense to me seeing it's a knife and hence a close combat weapon. It's not like he is going to shave wif it really now.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:I'd let my opponent have the extra attack. It just makes sense to me seeing it's a knife and hence a close combat weapon. It's not like he is going to shave wif it really now.

G

Aye, but you have to admit from a Rules standpoint he shouldn't really?

lol

Omg... mark this day........ I find myself agreeing with Green Blow fly on something!

Gwar! Dont get all 4th point of contact hurt, your not being attacked... unless you call people not bending over backwards to agree with you an attack.

jp400 wrote:lol

Omg... mark this day........ I find myself agreeing with Green Blow fly on something!

Gwar! Dont get all 4th point of contact hurt, your not being attacked... unless you call people not bending over backwards to agree with you an attack.

Yes, mark it twice because even I agree with him. It's the exact same situation as Calgar. They do not get the bonus attack, but if my opponent whined, I wouldn't get into an argument about it (Unless he was a major prick and/or a Scientologist.)

Green Blow Fly wrote:I'd let my opponent have the extra attack. It just makes sense to me seeing it's a knife and hence a close combat weapon. It's not like he is going to shave wif it really now.

G

Well I would give him the extra attack even though its not listed as a CCW or as being single handed. GW seems to be forgetting handedness more and more ... even though its a fairly crucial for gaining an extra attack in CC.

He lost the battle cause his Knife wasnt listed as a CCW in the Predator Codex.......

Gwar, if he has no knife, then he has no way of delivering the poison attacks... so he then just attacks with a pistol in cc...

it says he has a long knife... why are you arguing he does not... the codex says knife... and a knife is a CCW...

Sanchez01 wrote:Gwar, if he has no knife, then he has no way of delivering the poison attacks... so he then just attacks with a pistol in cc...

Actually, RaW, this is correct, as there are only rules for Poisoned Weapons, which the Codex does not say he has.

it says he has a long knife... why are you arguing he does not... the codex says knife... and a knife is a CCW...

Yes, the Codex Says Knife. So what? It doesn't say it is a CCW. If you are going to claim it is a CCW even though it has no rules saying it is a CCW, I want my Bolters to count as CCW so my Tactical Marines can get a Bonus Attack too.

In case you forgot to read the thread, this is a discussion on the RaW, not HWYPI. We have already established what the RaW is (he doesn't), and How most people would play it (he does).
If you would like to give an argument as to why you feel the rules are in your favour, I will be glad to hear it and reply.

I don't know why so many people have to make things up to pretend that the rules coincide with how they play the game. GW writes bad rules. If we all played 100% by the rules, we would hardly be able to play the game at all.

willydstyle wrote:I don't know why so many people have to make things up to pretend that the rules coincide with how they play the game. GW writes bad rules. If we all played 100% by the rules, we would hardly be able to play the game at all.

Exactly. However 95% of the game is perfectly playable, even if it doesn't "make sense" or "isn't supposed to work that way".

Envenomed Blade Marbo carries a large Catachan knife coated with deadly toxins. Guardsmen Marbo's close combat attacks are Poisoned (2+)

Page 61, Codex Imperial Guard

Poisoned Weapons Poisoned weapons range from blades coated in venom to hypodermic claws. They do not rely on a comparison of strength and toughness to wound - They always wound on a fixed number, generally shown in the brackets. Some venoms are so lethal that the merest drop can kill - these may wound on a 3+ or even a 2+ (as described in the appropriate codex) In addition, if the strength of the wielder is the same or higher than the Toughness of the victim, the wielder must re-roll failed rolls to wound in close combat. These weapons confer no advantage against vehicles.

Page 42, Rule Book.

Fighting with two single-handed weapons Some models are equipedj with two single-handed weapons they can use in close combat, with the riles given below for the different possible combinations. Of course, if a model is using a two-handed close combat weapon (such as a rifle's butt or a two-handed battle axe), it may not use it together with another weapon.

Page 42, Rule Book.

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.
Power fists, Thunder hammers, and lighting claws are an exception to this. Only a second power fist, thunder hammer or lighting claw can confer a bonus attack to a model equipped with one of these weapons.

Page 42, Rule Book.


Guardsmen Marbo is armed with a Ripper Pistol and an Envenomed Blade. According to the rules a knife is a Close Combat weapon, and a Pistol is one as well... One close-combat weapon and one pistol equals two close combat weapons when in close combat.

Envenomed blade takes a large Catachan Knife (A Close Combat Weapon) and turns it into a speacial weapon, giving it a 2+ ability to wound. Now whether it is a Poisoned Weapon or not, that is shaky, and I would not classify it as a Poison weapon. But it is a special weapon, and so it falls under the Special Weapon's rules of giving the +1 attack if there is a second weapon.

If a butt of a rifle is called a close Combat weapon (though two-handed) and a Bayonet is a Close-Combat weapon, then surly a Large Catachan Knife is one.

The rules state that it is a knife. And the rule book states that a knife is a Close Combat Weapon. What do you know, He has a close Combat weapon, as defined in the rule book... Now look, his knife does something special... it is now a special close combat weapon and now follows the rules as a special close combat weapon.

The real Argument here should be whether this is a Poisoned weapon or a special weapon. The pure thought of not calling a knife a weapon is stupid and dumbfounding.

Gwar! wrote:

willydstyle wrote:I don't know why so many people have to make things up to pretend that the rules coincide with how they play the game. GW writes bad rules. If we all played 100% by the rules, we would hardly be able to play the game at all.

Exactly. However 95% of the game is perfectly playable, even if it doesn't "make sense" or "isn't supposed to work that way".

any one up for finding a single weapon, in the last 4 codices, that listed as being single handed ....

Exactly my point, Tri.

GW says single handed weapons give a bonus.

Then does not say that any weapons are single handed.

In a (supposedly) permissive ruleset, no weapons give the plus one attack bonus, yet since the rule is in the rulebook, that's obviously not what's intended.

@Sanchez: the problem with your line of reasoning is that "envenomed blade" is written as a special rule, and not explicitly as a weapon. In a permissive ruleset, it must say "this is a weapon" for it to work as one. However, as has been pointed out in this thread, most players will infer that it is indeed a weapon, and play it as such.

It says it is a large knife... what don't they understand about that. And it is under wargear, not special rules

And wargear is not always a weapon.

Is an Iron Halo a weapon?

Is a Storm Shield a weapon?

The description implies that it is a weapon, but as I said earlier, permissive ruleset and everything....

Sanchez01 wrote:It says it is a large knife... what don't they understand about that. And it is under wargear, not special rules

So? Wargear != Weapon.

Also, for all your rules quoting, you still have not shown me where it says "Envenomed Blade: This is a Poisoned Close Combat Weapon"

Read what I said Gwar.

It is under wargear, not special rules.

It is a knife there for it is a weapon.

the debate should be about if it is a poisoned weapon or a special weapon...

Sanchez01 wrote:Read what I said Gwar.

It is under wargear, not special rules.

It is a knife there for it is a weapon.

the debate should be about if it is a poisoned weapon or a special weapon...

Bonding Knife ... So long as the bearer is alive, the bonded team may regroup even if bellow half strength

So knives does not always equal weapon

Sanchez01 wrote:Read what I said Gwar.

It is under wargear, not special rules.

It is a knife there for it is a weapon.

the debate should be about if it is a poisoned weapon or a special weapon...

Bonding Knives are Under Wargear. Are they also a weapon now?

Tri wrote:

Sanchez01 wrote:Read what I said Gwar.

It is under wargear, not special rules.

It is a knife there for it is a weapon.

the debate should be about if it is a poisoned weapon or a special weapon...

Bonding Knife ... So long as the bearer is alive, the bonded team may regroup even if bellow half strength

So knives does not always equal weapon

All I can say is:
MIVEHIND

Gah Double post

I'm starting to get complaints about this thread.

"Knife" in this case is a description, not a rule.

In real life, a shield can smash the crap out of someone; it's not hard to kill someone by bludgeoning them.

In the game, a storm shield does not act as a weapon.

In real life, a knife can stab the crap out of someone; it's not hard to kill someone by shanking them.

In the game, a knife is only a weapon if the rules explicitly state it is one.

That being said, almost everyone in this thread has said at one point or another that they are willing to play that knife=weapon, but that the rules, both in the codex and in the rulebook, are sloppy.

Nobody is criticizing the idea of people playing marbo as having an extra attack, if they agree with their opponent.

People are criticizing sloppy rules.

Sanchez01 wrote:Read what I said Gwar.

It is under wargear, not special rules.

It is a knife there for it is a weapon.

the debate should be about if it is a poisoned weapon or a special weapon...

In the last run of codices, since about Eldar (and really further back than that since Tau and Nids dont' really use the CCW rules), the dividing of weapons into "two handed" and "single handed" weapons has been replaced by a system by which all former single handed weapons are simply given the CCW rule. If you run down the codices, every pistol, power weapon, combat blade, etc. in the game now has the term "close combat weapon" somewhere in it's rules.

The problem with the rulebook definition of CCWs is that there isn't one. Read the rule again. It never says what "normal close combat weapons" are. It merely lists a group of weapons that give no save.

Now, note that the rules state that only single handed weapons can give a bonus attack, but there really is not rules anywhere saying that bolters, flamers, and lascannons aren't single handed weapons.

In addition, all units going back at least 3 years have either a pistol or a CCW listed, ending the need to worry, but it doesn't really answer the questions of "what is a weapon? Is it single handed?"

Yes, marbo is described as carrying a knife. That, alas, doesn't make what he carries immediatly a CCW by RAW, particularly since the rule doesn't even state that he is "Armed" with a knife, rather he simply "carries" it.

So, either RAW states that Marbo doesn't have a weapon aside from his pistol, or every Space Marine, guardsman, Blood angel, dark angle, etc all gain a bonus attack for having two weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

willydstyle wrote:"Knife" in this case is a description, not a rule.
-snip-

Nobody is criticizing the idea of people playing marbo as having an extra attack, if they agree with their opponent.

People are criticizing sloppy rules.

I admit I used to fall into this trap, but don't confuse poorly written and nonsensical rules with a moral imperative to show that they make sense. Sometimes the rules really are written that badly. That's when we all ignore the RAW and play the way they're meant to play.

Of course, I'd argue that if nearly everybody reads a passage and comes to the same conclusions, that while it says X it clearly meant Y, nobody is really breaking rules or ignoring RAW. They instead understand that written rules can contain content that's not restricted to an exacting rubric.

Is this something along the lines of Snikrot getting no attacks because he has no weapons, because his weapons are named ( morks teeth, ripping blades) like marbos knife and arent listed as CCW or anything else. Truthfully, I doubt anyone would cry foul and try to argue his knife isnt a CCW, aside form on dakka of course, just because it isnt listed as so.Much like Ive only ever seen the snikrot argument on dakka, everyone playes him with 5 attacks on the charge(snikrot). The best thing to do if you play him is to make a ruling at your store/home. If you use him in a tourney ask the judge before hand how to play him. Of course getting everyone elses opinion is cool too but ultimatley its up to you, no one here is official in any capacity despite what the voices in their heads say.

How would anyone say the envenomed blade isnt a poisoned weapon when it clearly says "poisoned 2+". Now the logical Dakka argument would be its a poisoned blade (because it says it is) but it dosent say its a CCW because knives are CCW and not blades. Does this sound utterly ridiculous to anyone other than me? And yes the debate really is wether or not a poisoned weapon is a special weapon or not, being as it has its own category, however RAW would put it inot both because it isnt a standard CCW therfore it is special.

da gob smaka wrote:Is this something along the lines of Snikrot geeting no attacks because he has no weapons, because his weapons are named ( morks gteeth, ripping blades) like marbos knife and arent listed as CCW or anything else. Truthfully, I doubt anyone would cry foul and try to argue his knife isnt a CCW, aside form on dakka of course, just because it isnt listed as so.Much like Ive only ever seen the snikrot argument on dakka, everywhere playes him with 5 attacks on the charge. The best thing to do if you play him is to make a ruling at your store/home. If you use him in a tourney ask the judge before hand how to play him. Of course getting everyone elses opinion is cool too but ultimatley its up to you, no one here is official in any capacity despite what the voices in their heads say.

How would anyone say the envenomed blade isnt a poisoned weapon when it clearly says "poisoned 2+". Now the logical Dakka argument would be its a poisoned blade (because it says it is) but it dosent say its a CCW because knives are CCW and not blades. Does this sound utterly ridiculous to anyone other than me?

Does the fact that you only see people noticing sloppy rules on Dakka not say something to the level of intelect of said Dakkaites?

No its the fact that most people are intlligent and dont try to "lawyer" every little paragraph read. Honestly, these things come up now and then but out of the hundreds of players Ive had the joy of playing with all across the country they all normally come to the same conclusion. A few make funny arguments like "the rule says you must ASK your opponent" so you must ask me and I can say no, which get laughs then they move on and play it like it was intended. Most players (99.99%) that play the game count poisoned weapons as special for CC purposes. As far as the level of intellect on dakka, I think the fact that people can read something and just post a simple querry and get a thought by another person who has had far too much time to disect every aspect of the wording is what leads to comments and thinking that go way too far for raltional thinking. But please by all means play everything RAW, I hope you have fun. But as stated before numerous times you wont have too many people willing to play with you. I cant tell you the number of stores Ive been in where people find arguments on threads like this one great entertainment.

Can I ask where you got that 99.99% Statistic from? I would be very interested to see your data. Is there any chance it could be verified by a 3rd party?

And BTW, I have plenty of people to play with. In fact ever since someone else took over the LFGS, I have been invited in to run the club and teach the newbies to play. So far i have not had one complaint, not from the 3 week young player, to the guy who has been Tabletop gaming longer than I have been alive.

GW rules 70% printed then add common sense. For example I could deploy my army by tipping them onto the board, I have for filled every thing asked of me. I may refuse to reroll my reroll on the damage chart for your Venerable dreadnought. So on...

...but i won't because I'm able to fill in the unwritten rules like every one else. When I play with the toy soldiers I want every one to have fun, Win, Lose or Draw.

da gob smaka wrote:No its the fact that most people are intlligent and dont try to "lawyer" every little paragraph read. Honestly, these things come up now and then but out of the hundreds of players Ive had the joy of playing with all across the country they all normally come to the same conclusion. A few make funny arguments like "the rule says you must ASK your opponent" so you must ask me and I can say no, which get laughs then they move on and play it like it was intended. Most players (99.99%) that play the game count poisoned weapons as special for CC purposes. As far as the level of intellect on dakka, I think the fact that people can read something and just post a simple querry and get a thought by another person who has had far too much time to disect every aspect of the wording is what leads to comments and thinking that go way too far for raltional thinking. But please by all means play everything RAW, I hope you have fun. But as stated before numerous times you wont have too many people willing to play with you. I cant tell you the number of stores Ive been in where people find arguments on threads like this one great entertainment.

1) Is there anything more mildly amusing than declarations of intelligence with misspelled words? I know it happens, but it's always good for a chuckle.

2) I don't get why you're so upset. Every single person in this thread has agreed with you on how to play this. Nobody disagrees with you. You are reacting to people that simply do not exist.

3) Yes, I have too much time on my hands. I graduated law school in may, I took the bar in late july, I wont' find out the results until the end of Oct, and this is the worst legal employment market in history. I'm unemployed and stressing about student loans, credit card debt, and paying rent. So yeah, I dissect a little RAW to keep my mind busy.

4) I can tell you that there are a number of stores that find the little comics of Calvin peeing on the logo of a car manufacturer funny; that doesn't horribly impress me.

Tri wrote:GW rules 70% printed then add common sense. For example I could deploy my army by tipping the onto the board, I have for filled every thing asked of me. I may refuse to reroll my roll on the damage chart for your Venerable dreadnought. So on...

...but i won't because I'm able to fill in the unwritten rules like every one else. When I play with the toy soldiers I want every one to have fun, Win, Lose or Draw.

Which is exactly what I want as well. The problem is the need to fill in these unwritten rules causes the game to be unfun most of the time.
Believe me when I say that when given the option of "Advantageous to me but takes twisitng of the rules" and "Disadvantageous but is common Sense", 100% of people will pick the former. It is human nature.

Gwar! wrote:

Tri wrote:GW rules 70% printed then add common sense. For example I could deploy my army by tipping the onto the board, I have for filled every thing asked of me. I may refuse to reroll my roll on the damage chart for your Venerable dreadnought. So on...

...but i won't because I'm able to fill in the unwritten rules like every one else. When I play with the toy soldiers I want every one to have fun, Win, Lose or Draw.

Which is exactly what I want as well. The problem is the need to fill in these unwritten rules causes the game to be unfun most of the time.
Believe me when I say that when given the option of "Advantageous to me but takes twisitng of the rules" and "Disadvantageous but is common Sense", 100% of people will pick the former. It is human nature.

Which is why i make dam sure that i'm not doing something wrong before taking the root of power. Back when i first realised that Stealth boosted every ones cover save, i spent a long while making sure I hadn't missed something. You only need to to look at the thread when I first mentioned it here in these forums. So many people just saying it doesn't work like that or its not conferred to the unit (which its not ... but the effect does)... Any way thats enough of that before we get too off topic.

More complaints...

I'm starting to believe that any thread that goes 4+ pages in this place is a lost cause...

Gwar! wrote:

Tri wrote:GW rules 70% printed then add common sense. For example I could deploy my army by tipping the onto the board, I have for filled every thing asked of me. I may refuse to reroll my roll on the damage chart for your Venerable dreadnought. So on...

...but i won't because I'm able to fill in the unwritten rules like every one else. When I play with the toy soldiers I want every one to have fun, Win, Lose or Draw.

Which is exactly what I want as well. The problem is the need to fill in these unwritten rules causes the game to be unfun most of the time.
Believe me when I say that when given the option of "Advantageous to me but takes twisitng of the rules" and "Disadvantageous but is common Sense", 100% of people will pick the former. It is human nature.

While I'll agree with you that most people do seem to be that way, you really think human beings are utterly incapable of using common sense and logic when it disadvantages them? Each and every person out there? If you really think that, I'm sorry, I really don't know what to say to that, but I'm sorry Gwar! I thought I had a low opinion of humanity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Alpharius wrote:More complaints...

I'm starting to believe that any thread that goes 4+ pages in this place is a lost cause...

As an overall rule you're likely right.

Mods I have a request can we PLEASE not see the Japanese catdude again...its disturbing.

THAT is more disturbing/morally reprehensible than anything said in this tread so far.

it's pretty clearly a catgirl

Its a dude...

Its a dude dressed as a catgirl...

Look again...

Red_Lives wrote:Its a dude...

Its a dude dressed as a catgirl...

Look again...

Is that an Adam's Apple?

Red_Lives wrote:Its a dude...

Its a dude dressed as a catgirl...

Look again...

LOL..somone needs glasses...that is definately a girl.

Alerian wrote:

Red_Lives wrote:Its a dude...

Its a dude dressed as a catgirl...

Look again...

LOL..somone needs glasses...that is definately a girl.

Look again... name 1 reason why its a girl not counting make-up, clothes, or hair. (as these are things that can look feminine on a man)

Now that said, look at the chin cheeks shoulders and chest (or lack there of)

LOL....nevermind.

If you can't see it's a girl by her features (not makeup), then whatever....

Any one who enjoys anime ...

...soon learns ...

...Its a normally a Trap (...Link possibly not suitable for dakka)

mod: This thread is over 4 pages long and completely off topic so this is a good time for it to be locked.