Simple question:

Is the Space Marine Relic Blade two handed

Here is the quote from Page 99 of the SM codex:

"Relic blades are two-handed swords or axes sheathed in an armor-sundering power field. most have their origins in the dark days of the Horus Heresy, although some have been crafted in the long centuries since, in commemoration of other momentous events. Only a Space Marine of long and faultless service can earn the right to wield a relic blade

A relic blade counts as a power weapon whose hits are resolved at Strength 6. Due to its size and weight, a model wielding a relic blade cannot get an extra attack for an additional close combat weapon."

well yes it is, but what does it matter? You can still wield it and another 2 handed weapon on a captain.

Yes, sí, نعم, да, ναί, 예, ja, ใช่, and हां.

Think of it as a power claymore

While it says it is you can still carry and Relic Blade and a Storm Shield

Swords and Axes are NOT close combat weapons. Therefore that first line, like ALL of that paragraph, is fluff

They are one handed because a) they are a power weapon, defined as one handed and b) it then states they do not gain the bonus due to their size and weight

All entirely superfluous if you just wrote that they were two handed.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Swords and Axes are NOT close combat weapons.

I'll just leave that here.

They are one handed because a) they are a power weapon, defined as one handed and b) it then states they do not gain the bonus due to their size and weight

And all power weapons are exactly the same, and there is no such thing as a two handed power weapon.

All entirely superfluous if you just wrote that they were two handed.

Because GW never writes redundant rules?

cmon nos - you're better than that.

In this case, you can imagine it as it NEEDING two hands wo wield.

Nowhere in the RAW states it is two-handed. The model is clearly capable of weilding something else in addition to the blade, and the rule specifically states you don't get the extra +1A for "additional close combat weapon", a line which would be irrelavent if it were two-handed.
QED.

Actually, the Howling Banshee Executioner is a 2-handed power weapon.

Wow. Games like this really bring out people's inner pedant, don't they? I understand the rules lawyering in the case of ambiguous rules that actually matter, but this distinction is completely redundant.

DeathReaper wrote:A relic blade counts as a power weapon whose hits are resolved at Strength 6. Due to its size and weight, a model wielding a relic blade cannot get an extra attack for an additional close combat weapon.

That last bit implies that the weapon is two-handed, because this is exactly how a two-handed weapon works. That, and the fluff describes it as being a two-handed weapon.

So, we have a choice between...

1) Two-handed weapon
2) One-handed weapon that is described as a two-handed weapon in the fluff and also works like a two-handed weapon.

At the end of the day, both give you the same result. I just know which one sounds more sensible to me. RAI FTW.

rigeld2 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Swords and Axes are NOT close combat weapons.

I'll just leave that here.

They are one handed because a) they are a power weapon, defined as one handed and b) it then states they do not gain the bonus due to their size and weight

And all power weapons are exactly the same, and there is no such thing as a two handed power weapon.

All entirely superfluous if you just wrote that they were two handed.

Because GW never writes redundant rules?

cmon nos - you're better than that.

I beg to differ:

Klaive (DE codex) - Klaives are two-handed power weapons that confer +1 str

It may not be an actual two-handed weapon, but for all intents and purposes, it functions like one. Can someone think of a situation where the distinction would actually matter?

additional cc weapon for a regular power weapon.

If it's one handed you can still get the +1 atk

If the relic blade specifically states you don't get the additional attack, it's probably because you don't have a hand free, but GW is expecting easter egg hunters...

Ascalam wrote:additional cc weapon

If it's one handed you can still get the +1 atk

I know... I probably should have specified what I meant, but hoped I wouldn't have to. I mean, is there any actual difference between "one handed weapon that doesn't allow you to gain bonus attacks for 2 weapons" and "two handed weapon"?

edited my post for clarity above.

Ascalam wrote:If the relic blade specifically states you don't get the additional attack, it's probably because you don't have a hand free, but GW is expecting easter egg hunters...

To be fair, +2S and a 3++ save is an amazing combo that I wish my Wolf Lord could take...

Yes there is.

You can use two single-handed weapons in close combat.

You can only use one two-handed weapon in close combat.

So the question arises:

What happens when a SM honor guard squad model buys a Relic blade?

The model will now have a Power Weapon, Bolt Pistol, and Relic Blade.

How do we determine what weapons he uses in CC?

DeathReaper wrote:Yes there is.

You can use two single-handed weapons in close combat.

You can only use one two-handed weapon in close combat.

So the question arises:

What happens when a SM honor guard squad model buys a Relic blade?

The model will now have a Power Weapon, Bolt Pistol, and Relic Blade.

How do we determine what weapons he uses in CC?

He can choose between the power weapon, gaining +1 attack from the bolt pistol, or the relic blade, gaining no additional attack.

You have 2 choices: Relic Blade or Power Weapon and Bolt Pistol, However due to the fact you have 2 SCCW you would never get a bonus attack for 2 CCW

"a model wielding a relic blade cannot get an extra attack for an additional close combat weapon."

a model wielding, you have to be wielding the relic blade for it to deny the attack.

But this is already being discussed here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/393443.page

Sorry DR

For some reason I always thought it was two handed... I thought I read it somewhere either in the codex or a FAQ or something.

*runs off to look up codex and FAQs*

From the FAQ:
The rules for both the relic blade and the storm shield simply state that a model with one of these pieces of wargear cannot have +1 Attack for an additional close combat weapon. Is it therefore possible to equip a model with both a storm shield and a relic blade? (p99, 101)
The rules for two-handed weapons in the rulebook and the rules for storm shields and relic blades are not in contradiction. So you can have both a storm shield and a relic blade, which I think makes for rather cool models!

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Also, as pointed out earlier - the GK FAQ has told us that Fluff CAN = rules, when determining what counts as plasma you ar told to look in the fluff. This means that "melta" isnt needed in the rules for it to count, sadly

This amused me - it's from the Melta Bombs vs Stormraven thread. So if the "Two-handed" is fluff, and fluff can equal rules...

RB and SS is still a valid combination - The only restriction on a 2 handed weapon is that you cannot wield 2 CCWs. The SS isn't a CCW.

Really?

Really?

This is the debate we're having?

We're arguing about a rule that has absolutely no effect on the game.

Grakmar wrote:Really?

Really?

This is the debate we're having?

We're arguing about a rule that has absolutely no effect on the game.

Thank you!

I find it interesting that Nos argues that fluff can = rules and is now saying fluff does not equal rules. As it is, I don't think it matters if the weapon is 2-handed or not. If you use it you don't get the attack for 2 CCW. It's part of the rules. Why does it matter if it's 2-Handed?

I think the question is can he use a SS in addition. Per the rules I would say yes. However per the rules he cannot use two relic blades to gain +1 A.

If he is wielding a Relic Blade he does not get +1 A for CCW (whether or not it's 2-handed has no bearing on this as it's in the rules for the weapon). Per the FAQ, you can wield both a SS and Relic Blade. I have posted the question and answer in its entirety above.

In the army builder it allows you to have the relic blade and another weapon such as a storm shield or a pistol...

So i would assume no...

Army Builder is absolutely not something to base rules off of.

Happyjew - stop misrepresenting what I said

I said ACCORDING TO GW fluff can now = rules, at least in one case.

Happyjew wrote:The rules for both the relic blade and the storm shield simply state that a model with one of these pieces of wargear cannot have +1 Attack for an additional close combat weapon. Is it therefore possible to equip a model with both a storm shield and a relic blade? (p99, 101)
The rules for two-handed weapons in the rulebook and the rules for storm shields and relic blades are not in contradiction. So you can have both a storm shield and a relic blade, which I think makes for rather cool models!

Although, technically, it appears that this FAQ is from page 4 of Warhammer Armies: Vampire Counts.

Regarding the OP, yes, a Relic Blade is two-handed. It says so right in the description. I'm not sure how this is debatable.

The question and answer are straight from the SM FAQ. Personally I don't see why it matters if it is a two handed weapon or not. Hence the reason I'm not voting. If there was a third option (I.E "Doesn't matter, rules says you don't get bonus attack") then I would vote, but...

Happyjew wrote:The question and answer are straight from the SM FAQ.

See the footer on Page 4.

Happyjew wrote:Personally I don't see why it matters if it is a two handed weapon or not. Hence the reason I'm not voting. If there was a third option (I.E "Doesn't matter, rules says you don't get bonus attack") then I would vote, but...

Agreed.

IMO it's 2H because the rules say it's 2H. If my opponent wants to argue that it's really a 1H weapon and there's no rules distinction between it being 1H and 2H, I'd bow to his interpretation.

Crap, I voted wrong.

It is not a two-handed weapon, but that hardly ever matters given its actual rules.

Huh, never noticed that. Gotta love GW sometimes...

What the hell is this insanity? Of course it is two-handed, can't people read?

Two handed weapons may matter in 6th edition, but we aren't playing 6th right now are we?

As it stands, confirmed from the FAQ, the relic blade is a two handed weapon. Not that it matters right now.

Fluff wise it is two handed. Nothing in the rules says it is two handed though so I would assume it is treated as a one handed weapon (as it is a power weapon) that you mearly can't get the extra attack for having a pistol or other single handed weapon.

I'm confused, where is it stated that power weapons are 1 handed weapons? I can think of 2 different 2-handed power weapons. Aren't all CCW assumed to be 1-handed unless otherwise stated, anyway?

Actually the FAQ doesnt say that. It just mentions that the rules for 2 handed weapons in the rulebook dont contradict the SS and Relic blade. There is an implication

Also: no, swords and axes are NOT CCW, RAW. Note the definition of "normal" close combat weapons has "etc", and never lists swords or axes. As such you need to find something stating it is a CCW. For example marines have combat blades - however they arent CCW, only chainswords are. Its why Tacs dont get additional attacks.

This is a highly technical discussion which shows the difference between rules and fluff. In this case IN FLUFF it is 2 handed, in RULES it is a single handed power weapon that denies the bonus attack due to size and weight.

And I'm still confused as to why it matters whether or not the relic blade is 2-handed.

Happyjew wrote:And I'm still confused as to why it matters whether or not the relic blade is 2-handed.

It doesn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Akroma06 wrote:Fluff wise it is two handed. Nothing in the rules says it is two handed though so I would assume it is treated as a one handed weapon (as it is a power weapon) that you mearly can't get the extra attack for having a pistol or other single handed weapon.

It says clearly it is two-handed in the description. What makes you assume that it doesn't count?

Happyjew wrote:And I'm still confused as to why it matters whether or not the relic blade is 2-handed.

It matters because when a Space Marine honor guard squad model has one, the model will now have a Power Weapon, Bolt Pistol, and Relic Blade.

The relic blade being two handed affects close combat.

How do we determine what weapons he uses in CC?

How does the relic blade being two handed affect combat? 2-handed weapons don't get bonus attack for 2 CCW. The relic blade says you never get a bonus attack for 2 CCW. As you said earlier DR, the whole thing about choosing CCW is in debate in another thread.

DeathReaper wrote:
It matters because when a Space Marine honor guard squad model has one, the model will now have a Power Weapon, Bolt Pistol, and Relic Blade.

The relic blade being two handed affects close combat.

How do we determine what weapons he uses in CC?

Like we normally determine when the model have several different close combat weapons: the player chooses which one to use. In this case the model gets either +2 to str or +1 attack. Where's the problem, and how does it matter whether or not the Relic Blade is two-handed?

I would argue on part of that Crimson but DR already yelled at me once.

Crimson wrote:

Akroma06 wrote:Fluff wise it is two handed. Nothing in the rules says it is two handed though so I would assume it is treated as a one handed weapon (as it is a power weapon) that you mearly can't get the extra attack for having a pistol or other single handed weapon.

It says clearly it is two-handed in the description. What makes you assume that it doesn't count?

It says it in the fluff. Without an FAQ saying that it IS a two handed weapon for game purposes that fluff is not rules.

Akroma06 wrote:
It says it in the fluff. Without an FAQ saying that it IS a two handed weapon for game purposes that fluff is not rules.

And as we are firmly in the territory of rules lawyering, then perhaps you can point me towards the rule that says that all rules material is located in the second paragraph of the weapon's description?

Find me a rule that a Sword is a Normal Close Combat Weapon. If you cannot, then the fact that a relic blade is a 2=handed non-CCW IS important.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Find me a rule that a Sword is a Normal Close Combat Weapon. If you cannot, then the fact that a relic blade is a 2=handed non-CCW IS important.

It says it is two-handed, it says it is a power weapon. Normal close combat weapons have nothing to do with it.

It says it is a 2 handed SWORD.

So it is a 2-handed NOTHING. Because a sword is never defined as a CCW. Making that part of the paragraph have nothing to do with actual rules.

Simple, really. You just need to actually read a sentence, not pick out key words

Happyjew wrote:I find it interesting that Nos argues that fluff can = rules and is now saying fluff does not equal rules. As it is, I don't think it matters if the weapon is 2-handed or not. If you use it you don't get the attack for 2 CCW. It's part of the rules. Why does it matter if it's 2-Handed?

Actually I think he was showing that fluff CAN be rules. Granted it still needs an FAQ to be RAW, but that whole to hit with plasma weapons thing, and what is a deamon for GK was rather vague.

nosferatu1001 wrote:It says it is a 2 handed SWORD.

So it is a 2-handed NOTHING. Because a sword is never defined as a CCW. Making that part of the paragraph have nothing to do with actual rules.

Simple, really. You just need to actually read a sentence, not pick out key words

"CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS
On the battlefields of the 41st Millennium, close combat remains commonplace - seasoned warriors often bear a deadly array of combat knives and frag grenades, while specialised assault troops take pistols, swords and deadly power weapons into battle."

There.

Also, I'd claim that the rules are written with the assumption that the reader is a human being with at least a moderate grasp of the meanings and implications of common English words, instead of an automated robot. So that we can assume that swords and axes are indeed weapons.

So youre using fluff to justify fluff?

LOL

But are they Normal Close Combat Weapons, which are a defined type under the heading Normal Close Combat Weapons?

Did you miss the "extremely technical" part of my post? I guess you did. Try again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, just noticed - frag grenades are CCW now?

Interesting. Or, not.

Fluff is not rules, using fluff to justify other fluff as being rules doesnt work.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So youre using fluff to justify fluff?

LOL

But are they Normal Close Combat Weapons, which are a defined type under the heading Normal Close Combat Weapons?

Did you miss the "extremely technical" part of my post? I guess you did. Try again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, just noticed - frag grenades are CCW now?

Interesting. Or, not.

Fluff is not rules, using fluff to justify other fluff as being rules doesnt work.

Do you realise that you arbitrarily adjudge some parts on the text to be fluff and some rules? You cannot do that. This is in rules section of the book. It is all rules, albeit scattered with flavour.

And no, frag grenades are not normal close combat weapons. They are weapons, as are swords.

Rules for normal close combat weapons have absolutely nothing to do with the Relic Blade.

Relic blade is:
1) A power weapon
2) Two-handed sword

Sword is a weapon

Ergo:
Relic Blade is a two handed weapon, and a power weapon.


BTW, do you accept that Nemesis Force Halberd is a two-handed weapon? How about Glaive Encarmine?

Crimson wrote:What the hell is this insanity? Of course it is two-handed, can't people read?

Mod: No need to bite people's heads off.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Crimson wrote:What the hell is this insanity? Of course it is two-handed, can't people read?

Mod: No need to bite people's heads off.

Sorry. Understood.

Can I even nibble a little bit?

Crimson wrote:Can I even nibble a little bit?

nomnomnomnom

DeathReaper wrote:
It matters because when a Space Marine honor guard squad model has one, the model will now have a Power Weapon, Bolt Pistol, and Relic Blade.

The relic blade being two handed affects close combat.

No it doesn't. Why do you think it would?

Crimson - yes, you can adjudge parts to be fluff. Its easy - does it have an actual rule in it?

The question I asked you was: prove a sword is a Close Combat weapon, of either Normal or Special type. Those are the only types allowed

There is NO problem with 2 handed power weapons existing. Absolutely none. The point is that it is defined as a 2 handed sword OR axe, NEITHER of which is a CCW or either normal or special - as they are NEVER defined as such. Read the rulebook on p42.

So you have fluff - it is defined as a 2 handed <thing which does not exist in game rules>, meaning you cannot just chop off (lol) the 2 handed part and surgically reattach it to the power weapon part. The rules dont work that way. So you have a 2 handed <non existant in rules item> making the whole thing a <non existant in rules item>

You then get to the real rules, which define it as a power weapon (A special CCW -> CCW -> single handed, see BRB) which then has a special addition which means you never gain the bonus attack.

And of course you can nibble, nibbling is good

So you are really claiming that an item described as two-handed power weapon, is a two-handed weapon, but item being described as two-handed sword and a power weapon isn't?

It is a good thing that in this case it does not matter one bit in one way or to the other, as I just have to disagree with that interpretation. As I said earlier, I assume the rules are written for human beings, not for robots that do not understand meanings of the words. Two-handed sword or axe is a two-handed weapon. In fact, the bit about fighting with two-weapons uses two-handed battle axe as n example.

Crimson wrote:So you are really claiming that an item described as two-handed power weapon, is a two-handed weapon, but item being described as two-handed sword and a power weapon isn't?

No he is saying a TWO-HANDED POWER WEAPON in the RULES are a two handed weapon, while a weapon DESCRIBED as a two-handed weapon then in the RULES said to be a power weapon is a single handed weapon. Like the rules book says power weapon are.

Noir wrote:
No he is saying a TWO-HANDED POWER WEAPON in the RULES are a two handed weapon, while a weapon DESCRIBED as a two-handed weapon then in the RULES said to be a power weapon is a single handed weapon. Like the rules book says power weapon are.

There is no separate rules text and description. They are happily mixed.

'Two-handed weapon' is a rules term, just like 'power weapon' is. And I claim that when that term 'two-handed' is applied to an item that we know to be a weapon, that in fact makes that item 'a two-handed weapon.' Assuming anything else is just silly.

Is there a heading over the part that says "a variety of close-combat weapons such as ... swords" that says FLUFF?

Or how do you know?

For the variance of "two-handed Sword" Vs rules portion telling us it is a Power weapon, and how in this case Fluff and rules are separated; I present to you:

The Big Choppa: "A big choppa is a two-handed close combat weapon. A model using a Big choppa adds +2 to it's Strength."

This is in the Orks codex, it is also the codex Written before the SM codex.

Now for the coupe de gras; the hellglaive: "A hellglaive is a two-handed weapon that grants both an additional attack and +1 strength"

Also, the Klaive: "Klaives are two-handed power weapons that confer +1 strength"

These are both in the Dark Eldar Codex, which came after the SM codex

Then we have the Glaive Encarmine: "A Glaive Encarmine is a two-handed master crafted power weapon."

Now we go back to the relic blade, where we have a separation between the Statement: "Relic blades are two-handed swords or axes that are sheathed in an Armour-sundering power field" and "A relic Blade counts as a Power weapon whose hits are resolved at Strength 6."

For both of these to be rules, we have a rules conflict. Power weapons are defined in the BRB(page 42) as single-handed Special ccws. The same part that declares the Relic blade a single-handed Special ccw also gives it the S6. Then we have the fluff bit that calls them 2-handed swords or Axes; this time they are not power weapons, as the description for the 2 fields("Armour-sundering power field" vs "disruptive energy field") is different, and again it does not contain the Strength increasing ability(which belongs to the single-handed weapon rules).

So we have a Choice:
Yes the Relic blade is a 2-handed normal weapon that does nothing for the modl using it other than to prevent a bonus attack.

Or

No, the relic Blade is not a 2-handed weapon, but it is a power weapon that increases the users strength to 6.

Personally I voted "No" since I like Strength 6 Power weapon attacks when I am paying 15 or 30 points.

Can you guys arguing about fluff vs rules come back to reality and comment why your arguments are even relevant?

It doesn't matter how many hands a relic blade is given the rules it actually has. It could be a six or zero handed weapon for all it matters.

Threat is TLR.

Bottom line: relic blade may be wielded with any other legal weapon (e.g bolt pistol) but may never gain an extra attack (from a bolt pistol, for instance)

Stop living in 4th.

DarknessEternal wrote:Can you guys arguing about fluff vs rules come back to reality and comment why your arguments are even relevant?

It doesn't matter how many hands a relic blade is given the rules it actually has. It could be a six or zero handed weapon for all it matters.

The reason it matters is for Honour guard with Pistol, Power sword, and Relic Blade.

If it is 1-handed then the Honour guard never gain a bonus attack as the 2 different Special single-handed CCWs equipped rules say so.

If it is 2-handed then the honour guard could choose to use his single-handed weapons in tandem(as he only has 2 single handed weapons equipped) and gain a bonus attack, or use the Relic Blade for S6 with no bonus.

Seriously - it's depicted as a two handed weapon (extra long hilt), a sword is a weapon, and while CCW is defined in the rules, I don't think weapon is.

You are allowed to use common sense and the english language to interpret rules. This is one of those cases.

And Komissar Kel - you're arguing for consistency in GW rules. That's against the norm - just look at the Tyranid FAQ rulings. Or are you going to assert that Librarian Hoods don't work while embarked?

Kommissar Kel wrote:

The reason it matters is for Honour guard with Pistol, Power sword, and Relic Blade.

If it is 1-handed then the Honour guard never gain a bonus attack as the 2 different Special single-handed CCWs equipped rules say so.

If it is 2-handed then the honour guard could choose to use his single-handed weapons in tandem(as he only has 2 single handed weapons equipped) and gain a bonus attack, or use the Relic Blade for S6 with no bonus.

And the relic blade section in the codex states it's a two handed weapon that never gains a bonus attack from having two CCW's equipped. Why must this thread exist?

I was merely showing that this 1 Inconsistency, is also inconsistent with itself.

the Relic Blade can either be a 2-handed Special Close combat weapon that does nothing(as we have no fluff-analog to draw); or it is a Single-handed power weapon, that grants Strength 6 and can never be used in conjunction with another weapon for bonus attacks(Due to its "size and weight").

juraigamer wrote:And the relic blade section in the codex states it's a two handed weapon that never gains a bonus attack from having two CCW's equipped. Why must this thread exist?

No the Relic blade section says 2 completely different things, at the same time; both are above.

Or, it could be a two handed power weapon. Which, you know, is how the section for it reads.

rigeld2 wrote:Or, it could be a two handed power weapon. Which, you know, is how the section for it reads.

Where exactly is the sentence: a relic blade is a two-handed power weapon?

Because I see: "Relic blades are two-handed swords or axes that are sheathed in an Armour-sundering power field"

and: "A relic Blade counts as a Power weapon whose hits are resolved at Strength 6."

Which are contradictory.

And before you say it; while Fluff does now = rules, "Armour-sundering power field" is not the same as "disruptive energy field", so the fluff for the Relic blade as a "two-handed Power weapon" argument does not pass muster since the relic blade is sheathed in a different type of Field(or can I start getting 4++ saves on my Company commander because his refactor Field is a Field and the rosarius is a field so they must be the same thing by fluff?)

So we can go by the exact, known rules: "A relic Blade counts as a Power weapon whose hits are resolved at Strength 6." instead of determining what an "Armour-sundering power field" is.

Or are you also trying to say that Power weapons are now all two-handed, because the BRB FAQ would like to have a few words with you if that is your argument

Kommissar Kel wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Or, it could be a two handed power weapon. Which, you know, is how the section for it reads.

Or are you also trying to say that Power weapons are now all two-handed, because the BRB FAQ would like to have a few words with you if that is your argument

Yeah... I wasn't wandering even close to saying that. Thanks though.

It is a 2 handed sword. We know that a sword is a weapon. So it's a two handed weapon. It's later clarified to be a power weapon. So it's a two handed power weapon.

Crimson wrote:Also, I'd claim that the rules are written with the assumption that the reader is a human being with at least a moderate grasp of the meanings and implications of common English words, instead of an automated robot. So that we can assume that swords and axes are indeed weapons.

This thread has left me so traumatised that, from now on, I'm going to insist on only playing against people who are at least this sane. Otherwise, I'd fear not only for my enjoyment of the game, but for my very sanity, as well.

After getting some questions answered (and having read through the posts) in this topic, and the topic regarding multiple SCCW, I have to vote no. Every 2-handed weapon I've seen has a sentence that says (e.g.) this is a 2-handed power weapon that grants +2 Strength. It's also almost always the last line in the description. Additionally, I've never seen a 2-handed weapon that also says you don't get a bonus attack for using it.

Happyjew wrote:After getting some questions answered (and having read through the posts) in this topic, and the topic regarding multiple SCCW, I have to vote no. Every 2-handed weapon I've seen has a sentence that says (e.g.) this is a 2-handed power weapon that grants +2 Strength. It's also almost always the last line in the description. Additionally, I've never seen a 2-handed weapon that also says you don't get a bonus attack for using it.

This has a sentence which says it too. And the reason for that last part is because 2 handed weapons mean nothing in 5th, so they had to specify.

rigeld2 wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Or, it could be a two handed power weapon. Which, you know, is how the section for it reads.

Or are you also trying to say that Power weapons are now all two-handed, because the BRB FAQ would like to have a few words with you if that is your argument

Yeah... I wasn't wandering even close to saying that. Thanks though.

It is a 2 handed sword. We know that a sword is a weapon. So it's a two handed weapon. It's later clarified to be a power weapon. So it's a two handed power weapon.

Then by that logic: Both the Bolt pistol and the Heavy bolter can opt to fire with the Boltgun profile(Bolt pistol as a "smaller version of the Boltgun", and heavy Bolter as an "enormous version of the boltgun")

So either we use the clear rules: "A relic Blade counts as a Power weapon whose hits are resolved at Strength 6." and due to its size and weight, a model weilding a relic blade cannot gain an extra attack for an additional close combat weapon"

Or the heavy bolter & Bolt pistol can both use the boltgun profile anytime they want.

Unit1126PLL: two-handed weapons do have specific rules(and as such "mean something" in 5th edition); BRB Page 42, last sentence of "Fighting with two single-handed weapons": "Of course, if a model is using a two-handed close combat weapon(some examples are given), it may not use it together with another weapon."

Kommissar Kel wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Or, it could be a two handed power weapon. Which, you know, is how the section for it reads.

Or are you also trying to say that Power weapons are now all two-handed, because the BRB FAQ would like to have a few words with you if that is your argument

Yeah... I wasn't wandering even close to saying that. Thanks though.

It is a 2 handed sword. We know that a sword is a weapon. So it's a two handed weapon. It's later clarified to be a power weapon. So it's a two handed power weapon.

Then by that logic: Both the Bolt pistol and the Heavy bolter can opt to fire with the Boltgun profile(Bolt pistol as a "smaller version of the Boltgun", and heavy Bolter as an "enormous version of the boltgun")

False. Bolt pistols and Heavy Bolters have specific statlines. Find me the statline of a power weapon. Not a generic power weapon - the statline that describes every power weapon. Yet there is a statline that describes every bolt pistol. And one that describes every Heavy Bolter. (Things like Psyammo either replace or modify that base statline)

You can't because there isn't one. It is a Bolt pistol. It's later clarified to be a Bolt pistol. It's a bolt pistol, not a bolter.

Kommissar Kel wrote:
The reason it matters is for Honour guard with Pistol, Power sword, and Relic Blade.

If it is 1-handed then the Honour guard never gain a bonus attack as the 2 different Special single-handed CCWs equipped rules say so.

If it is 2-handed then the honour guard could choose to use his single-handed weapons in tandem(as he only has 2 single handed weapons equipped) and gain a bonus attack, or use the Relic Blade for S6 with no bonus.

No, this doesn't matter either.

He can use a Relic Blade, or he can use his other two weapons. Whether or not a relic blade is 2 handed never matters.

nosferatu1001 wrote:This is a highly technical discussion

No. This is semantics, definition of.

With the desire to make a 3 page thread on minutiae like this, no wonder we don't get updated FAQs like we should. They're too busy laughing at us.

There should be a third poll option, labelled "Does it f'n matter?"

It does not matter if other two-handed power weapons are described slightly differently. You cannot declare rules-specific term like 'two-handed' to be fluff.

I think that the writer of the rules for the Relic Blade thought he made them super clear to avoid confusion. First he say it is two handed, but in the end he summarises the effects of being two-handed for your convenience.

The only possible way it would even matter, is the odd case of having one two-handed and one-handed special weapon, as well as third close combat weapon. And that is only if Kommissar Kei's interpretation of rules regarding that situation is correct, and I am not convinced it is.

No, you can declare "2 handed <thing that isnt a defined item within 40k>" to be fluff, as it literally does nothing for the model. WE've been through this, and you keep ignoring it - contrary to the tenets of this forum, you cannot back up your position in actual rules.

Darkness - yes, it DOES MATTER. If it is 2 handed then you gain an additional attack if you have a BP+Power weapon, as in the case of honour guard. This is because you are then NOT fighting with 2 different single-handed special CCW, and are thus not denied the additional attack.

Kels interpretation of this is exactly correct, unsurprisingly enough.

Word 'two-handed', referring to a weapon, makes it 'two-handed weapon', just as referring vehicle as 'open-topped' makes it an 'open topped vehicle.' How this is even controversial, I will never understand.

Crimson - because, as you keep on ignoring, a Sword or Axe is neither a special or normal CCW. So it is a 2 handed -something-, that is handily contradicted by being a power weapon in the actual rules bit below it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Crimson - because, as you keep on ignoring, a Sword or Axe is neither a special or normal CCW. So it is a 2 handed -something-, that is handily contradicted by being a power weapon in the actual rules bit below it.

We already know it is a weapon. It is in the weapon section of the book. Also, the Codex: Space Marines describes Power Weapons as 'Swords or Axes.'

No, you know it is a sword or axe. You dont know it is a special or normal CCW, because a sword or axe is neither

Fallacy in logic there - not all power weapons are swords or axes, and not all swords or axes are power weapons, which are special CCW. A-> B /= B-> and all that.

So, are swords or axes defined as Special or Normal CCW? Rules citation needed

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, you know it is a sword or axe. You dont know it is a special or normal CCW, because a sword or axe is neither

Fallacy in logic there - not all power weapons are swords or axes, and not all swords or axes are power weapons, which are special CCW. A-> B /= B-> and all that.

So, are swords or axes defined as Special or Normal CCW? Rules citation needed

I do not understand why you think this even matters.


We know that the relic Blade is:
1) A power weapon
2 Two-handed (whatever)

Thus it is a a two-handed power weapon.

Failure to mention word 'weapon' in conjunction with 'two-handed' does not matter. We already know it is a weapon.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Swords and Axes are NOT close combat weapons. Therefore that first line, like ALL of that paragraph, is fluff

Wrong. BRB pg. 42, first paragraph explicitly names swords as Close Combat Weapons. The second paragraph says anything remotely resembling a weapon is a close combat weapon, inticated by "etc.". This includes axes.

They are one handed because a) they are a power weapon, defined as one handed

Wrong. Powerweapons are never defined as one-handed. See BRB pg. 42 "Power weapons" and

Q: What weapons count as single-handed weapons for
the purposes of gaining additional attacks in close
combat? (p37)
A: All pistols, close combat weapons and any weapons
that are specifically stated as single-handed weapons in
their rules.

If you want to go all out on stupid RAW, they are defined as two-handed, because it'S not specifically stated that they are one-handed.

and b) it then states they do not gain the bonus due to their size and weight

All entirely superfluous if you just wrote that they were two handed.

You know, the entire ork codex would stop working (and I bet a lot of other codices, too), if you purposely ignore any line remotely containing fluff. This proves that your attempt at interpretation is wrong.

Power Weapons are Special Close Combat WEapons by definition. "STupid RAW" is that they are SINGLE HANDED because it states that ALL CCW are single handed unless stated otherwise.

Also, dont misrepresent what I said. I did NOT say ignore the line because it contains fluff, I said ignore the "2 handed <not a special or normal CCW, the only two types of CCW allowed>" part, because it isnt something that exists in the game. You cannot surgically remove "2 handed" and apply it to "power weapon" to get "2 handed power weapon", because what is described in the first paragraph has no bearing in the game - read Kels much better explanation of it. This proves your failure to read others arguments....

You also quoted but never addressed anything in that second part. Do you not agree that "size and weight" has nothing to do with 2 - handedness? I dont see the word "2 handed" there, do you? I see "2 handed <not an item in the game>", but not "2 handed power weapon"

Crimson - no, that is incorrect, as I have shown. It is a 2-handed <thing that doesnt exist in th game>, and is also a single handed (by definition, unless explicitly stated otherwise which it isnt) power weapon that strikes at S6.

rigeld2 wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Or, it could be a two handed power weapon. Which, you know, is how the section for it reads.

Or are you also trying to say that Power weapons are now all two-handed, because the BRB FAQ would like to have a few words with you if that is your argument

Yeah... I wasn't wandering even close to saying that. Thanks though.

It is a 2 handed sword. We know that a sword is a weapon. So it's a two handed weapon. It's later clarified to be a power weapon. So it's a two handed power weapon.

Then by that logic: Both the Bolt pistol and the Heavy bolter can opt to fire with the Boltgun profile(Bolt pistol as a "smaller version of the Boltgun", and heavy Bolter as an "enormous version of the boltgun")

False. Bolt pistols and Heavy Bolters have specific statlines. Find me the statline of a power weapon. Not a generic power weapon - the statline that describes every power weapon. Yet there is a statline that describes every bolt pistol. And one that describes every Heavy Bolter. (Things like Psyammo either replace or modify that base statline)

You can't because there isn't one. It is a Bolt pistol. It's later clarified to be a Bolt pistol. It's a bolt pistol, not a bolter.

I do not need to find you the statline of a Power weapon, I can find you the rules for a Power weapon, and the FAQ stating that all CCWs that do not specify themselves as 2-handed are single handed.

The "Logic that the Relic Blade fluff says it is a 2-handed weapon with undefined rules, and the later rules that it is a "power weapon(not defined as 2-handed) that grants Strength 6", makes it a "2-handed power weapon"; would mean that since the heavy bolter is an "enormous Botler" with a given statline would also still make it a bolter(which also has a specific statline), and therefore you can use either statline to fire.

Note that the bolt pistol and Heavy bolters do not state that they always fire with the statline, instead you have the exact same situation: Fluff telling you it is a Bolter of a different size, then a simple statement of rules(the statline).

Combining the fluff that calls a relic blade a two-handed weapon that does nothing with its simple statement of rules as a Power weapon(defined as a CCW, which then is defined by FAQ to be single-handed, unless specifically stated to be a "two-handed power weapon"; which the relic blade is not) that grants Strength 6 and can never gain the bonus attack for 2 CCWS to make the relic blade into a "Two-handed power weapon that grants Strength 6 and can never gain the bonus attack for 2 CCWS" is the exact same as combining the Heavy bolter's "enormous Boltgun" with it's statline to mean it is both a Boltgun and a Heavy Bolter in statline(so either 24" S4 AP5 Rapid fire, or 36" S5 AP4 heavy 3).

If you want your Bolt pistol and heavy bolter to only fire with their own statline; then you must throw out the fluff with undefined rules.

If you throw out the bolt pistol and heavy bolter's fluff with undefined rules; then you must do the same for the Relic Blade.

Therefore Heavy bolters can only ever be fired as Heavy bolters, Bolt pistols can only ever be fired as bolt pistols and Relic Blades are only single handed Power weapons that Grant Strength 6 and the wielder cannot gain a bonus attack from a second single-handed weapon.

Jidmah wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Swords and Axes are NOT close combat weapons. Therefore that first line, like ALL of that paragraph, is fluff

Wrong. BRB pg. 42, first paragraph explicitly names swords as Close Combat Weapons. The second paragraph says anything remotely resembling a weapon is a close combat weapon, inticated by "etc.". This includes axes.

They are one handed because a) they are a power weapon, defined as one handed

Wrong. Powerweapons are never defined as one-handed. See BRB pg. 42 "Power weapons" and

Q: What weapons count as single-handed weapons for
the purposes of gaining additional attacks in close
combat? (p37)
A: All pistols, close combat weapons and any weapons
that are specifically stated as single-handed weapons in
their rules.

If you want to go all out on stupid RAW, they are defined as two-handed, because it'S not specifically stated that they are one-handed.

and b) it then states they do not gain the bonus due to their size and weight

All entirely superfluous if you just wrote that they were two handed.

You know, the entire ork codex would stop working (and I bet a lot of other codices, too), if you purposely ignore any line remotely containing fluff. This proves that your attempt at interpretation is wrong.

Actually nos is right. Just because it says sword does not mean CCW unless we are told so.

Page 129-133 – Power Sword.
Change all references to “Power Sword” to “Power
Weapon”

Otherwise why would this errata be neccessary? (From the C:SM FAQ pg 1 right coloumn 4th one down)
Simple because they say power sword it doesn't mean anything until the word "weapon" is used. Typically as gamers we assume a power sword to be a power weapon but true RAW it isn't until we are told so.

No codex stops working just because you ignore fluff. How does the ork codex stop working? Yeah it may be more boring of a codex but it combined with the BRB still give you all the rules you need.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Power Weapons are Special Close Combat WEapons by definition. "STupid RAW" is that they are SINGLE HANDED because it states that ALL CCW are single handed unless stated otherwise.

So, how "it is a two-handed close combat weapon" not stating otherwise?

Also, dont misrepresent what I said. I did NOT say ignore the line because it contains fluff, I said ignore the "2 handed <not a special or normal CCW, the only two types of CCW allowed>" part, because it isnt something that exists in the game.

Actually you do exactly that a few lines below the quoted one. Size and weight thingy. Anyways:
"...while specialized assault troops take pistols, swords or deadly power weapons into battle. In terms of rules, they are all grouped into either of the following categories:"(BRB pg. 42)
"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."(BRB pg. 42)
So, apparently swords and axes are close combat weapons, axes even defined as two-handed. Who would have thought.

You cannot surgically remove "2 handed" and apply it to "power weapon" to get "2 handed power weapon", because what is described in the first paragraph has no bearing in the game - read Kels much better explanation of it. This proves your failure to read others arguments....

I read that argument, and it's just as wrong as yours, for the same reasons. Just because rules are mixed with some fluff, does not make the rules go away. That's like saying rules have no effect if they contain a spelling error. As of what I've seen lately you would probably do that.

You also quoted but never addressed anything in that second part. Do you not agree that "size and weight" has nothing to do with 2 - handedness? I dont see the word "2 handed" there, do you? I see "2 handed <not an item in the game>", but not "2 handed power weapon"

Have a look at page 42. It explicitly names swords and axes as being close combat weapons. In a 95 page long Chapter called "The Rules". Now please prove how swords and axes are "an item not in the game" if they are both explicitly named in the sub-chapter of the rules named "close combat weapons".

Crimson - no, that is incorrect, as I have shown. It is a 2-handed <thing that doesnt exist in th game>, and is also a single handed (by definition, unless explicitly stated otherwise which it isnt) power weapon that strikes at S6.

A two-handed sword or axe (which I have shown to be something that exists in the game) would still be two-handed if it becomes a power weapon, because both special and normal close combat weapons can be two-handed. Even if it were a one-handed two-handed Axe/Sword, that would still make it two-handed and cause the restriction on page 42 to apply. So you may not use another weapon in addition to it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The "Logic that the Relic Blade fluff says it is a 2-handed weapon with undefined rules, and the later rules that it is a "power weapon(not defined as 2-handed) that grants Strength 6", makes it a "2-handed power weapon"; would mean that since the heavy bolter is an "enormous Botler" with a given statline would also still make it a bolter(which also has a specific statline), and therefore you can use either statline to fire.

There is no weapon called "bolter". Bolt pistol, boltgun, storm bolter and heavy bolter are all well-defined weapons. Also a defined term containing a space is still the term. A Flamer is as much a heavy flamer as a "Space Marine Daemon Prince" is a Space Marine. However a twin-linked multi-melta is still a multi-melta, due to twin-linked being an attribute, just like two-handed, not a term.

Kommissar Kel wrote:Where exactly is the sentence: a relic blade is a two-handed power weapon?

Because I see: "Relic blades are two-handed swords or axes that are sheathed in an Armour-sundering power field"

and: "A relic Blade counts as a Power weapon whose hits are resolved at Strength 6."

Which are contradictory.

Those sentences aren't exactly contradictory.

It says that a Relic Blade is X (the "fluff" part). However, it counts as Y (the "rules" part). *note that I think the first sentence isn't fluff, especially given the "counts as" language in the second quoted section.

So we know that a relic blade is a two-handed weapon. However, we don't know if it counts as (for purposes of the rules) a 2-handed weapon.

I would suggest that it should count as a two-handed weapon because it is a two-handed weapon. But I suppose you could come down on the other side, particularly if power weapons are defined as one-handed.

Combining the fluff that calls a relic blade a two-handed weapon that does nothing with its simple statement of rules as a Power weapon(defined as a CCW, which then is defined by FAQ to be single-handed, unless specifically stated to be a "two-handed power weapon"; which the relic blade is not) that grants Strength 6 and can never gain the bonus attack for 2 CCWS to make the relic blade into a "Two-handed power weapon that grants Strength 6 and can never gain the bonus attack for 2 CCWS" is the exact same as combining the Heavy bolter's "enormous Boltgun" with it's statline to mean it is both a Boltgun and a Heavy Bolter in statline(so either 24" S4 AP5 Rapid fire, or 36" S5 AP4 heavy 3).

None of the weapons types are always defined either one- or two-handed per definition. Otherwise no weapon could ever be two-handed.

Jidmah - attacking the person? You're better than that.

RAW if a rule doesnt refer to antyhing in game it is a useless rule. So yes, technically "Scout" does nothing, because it is not the USR "Scouts". Who'd have thought - the proper noun defining an in game term is exactly that! Would I actually make a deal of it in game?

No.

Which is the problem with your "argument" there - youre making an emotional appeal to something which I've already acknowledged is a highly technical discussion. Is this a game? No. Are we having a discussion about the rules in a civilised manner? Well I'm attempting to - you're obviously not.

So, to desconstruct your argument a bit more:

1) I'll bold the relevant part for you: "two handed battle axe" You see the "two handed" part? That means an Axe isnt always 2 handed.

Also - frag grenades are defined, in that same sentence, as being close combat weapons. If you believe a fluff description to actually be rules. Which I dont. Howveer in YOUR world this means a model can use Frag Grenades as a close combat weapon!

2) No, you cannot remove 2 words from one rule, that apply to a non-existant weapon - there is no such thing as a sword with an armour sundering power field - it has no game function. If you disagree, please find some rules.

Or are you saying you are allowed to remove part of the descriptive text, and call it rules? So, if you are allowed to remove 2-handed from fluff text, I am allowed to remove "Heavy" from "Heavy Bolter" and decide it is fluff, leaving me with "Bolter", yes? After all, if you are allowed to arbitrarily break down a single object into constituent words, other people are allowed to as well, right? It's only fair!

Give it a try. Start randomly breaking away rules from non-existant items that have no in game effect, and see where it gets you.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Darkness - yes, it DOES MATTER. If it is 2 handed then you gain an additional attack if you have a BP+Power weapon, as in the case of honour guard. This is because you are then NOT fighting with 2 different single-handed special CCW, and are thus not denied the additional attack.

No, still doesn't matter.

He can fight with a relic blade, and get his base number of attacks (plus other potential bonuses like charging).

Or he can fight with his power weapon and bolt pistol and get an additional attack (plus other potential bonuses like charging).

There's no way to get an additional attack for more weapons while wielding a relic blade. How many hands a relic blade takes is irrelevant.

relic blade wrote:
"a model wielding a relic blade cannot get an extra attack for an additional close combat weapon."

As we all know, "wielding" doesn't mean "equipped with".

Darkness - no, wrong. Read the entire thread on how the ruels for multiple different SCCW work. If he has 2 different single handed CCW he NEVER EVER gets the +1 attack

See how things matter now?

Wow! Really?

This seems crazy clear to me

If a model has a relic blade, a power weapon, and a pistol

It can either wield the PW and the pistol (gaining +1 attack)

or

It can wield the Relic Blade, gaining +2 Str, but not the +1 attack)

RAW, RAI, makes sense... so what's the debate?

Again nos, you are insisting that if you have " 2 different single handed CCW" when you seen to know the rules tell us that USING " 2 different single handed CCW" is what matters.

"Some models are equipped with two single handed weapons they can use in cc"

you have to be equipped with and using the two weapons to look at the rules for such.

That is why the relic blade debate is so crucial, though it seems pretty clear that more than 70% of the people who voted think they are two-handed (Which I know has nothing to do with RaW, but it serves as a basis of RaI) and if GW ever got around to putting out an FaQ they would say that they are two handed.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Darkness - no, wrong. Read the entire thread on how the ruels for multiple different SCCW work. If he has 2 different single handed CCW he NEVER EVER gets the +1 attack

See how things matter now?

Ok, let's pretend you can get 2 random people to even agree that's how the rules work (which you will never do, since that argument has been raging for years).

How does that matter to whether or not a relic blade is 2 handed?

DR - whcih is the point. You are equipped with 3, so none of those rules apply.

You have to make up rules for ANY model that can attack with 3 or more equipped CCW, otherwise they dont get to attack. So you either decide that they get to choose a subset of 2, to then choose 1 to actually use, thus circumventing the REALLY strong hint that you NEVER get the bonus attack in a truly Easter Egg fashion, or you decide that 2 different Special CCW applies in any instance where you have two or more different special CCW, and you never gain the bonus attack.

Darkness - if you have 1 single handed SCCW and 1 2 handed, you can still gain the bonus attack for using a speical and a normal CCW, as you dont have 2 different special 1 handed CCW.

So it does matter - if it is 2 handed (it isnt, RAW) then you get a bonus attack with the power sword on an Honour Guard.

You do not have to make up rules.

The rules tell us we can fight with two single-handed close combat weapons.

we can not fight with more than two single-handed close combat weapons. because the rules restrict us to fighting with two single-handed close combat weapons.

if we have more than that we can not use more, thus we have to pick two to fight with.

So, find me the rule saying you can choose.

I'll wait. I've been asking for it in every single thread so far, and you have yet to provide it.

Whenever youre ready.

DR, here's an example of a legal unit that fights with more than 2 CCW: Tyranid Warrior with Bonesword, Lash Whip, and Scything Talons. There you are a model with 3 different CCW. Now granted 'Nids don't get any bonus attacks for CCW, however they do get the benefits from all 3 weapons.

It seems non-intuitive that you accept a model armed with two one-handed close combat weapons and a two-handed close combat weapon can allow a bonus attack but do not accept that a model with three one-handed close combat weapons can.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So, find me the rule saying you can choose.

I'll wait. I've been asking for it in every single thread so far, and you have yet to provide it.

Whenever youre ready.

so if I have a Bolter, bolt pistol, and CCW... you think I'm not allowed to choose (kinda screws GHunters and CMs)?

nosferatu1001 wrote:So you either decide that they get to choose a subset of 2, to then choose 1 to actually use, thus circumventing the REALLY strong hint that you NEVER get the bonus attack in a truly Easter Egg fashion

When 5th Ed was released Alessio specifically mentions Calgar as one of the limited number of models that still gets +1 attack for two SCCWs.

I'll take his opinion over you making an appeal having criticised other users for fallacy approaches.

Some models are equipped with two single-handed weapons they can use in close combat, with the rules given below for different possible combinations. Of course, if a model is using (emphasis mine) a two-handed close combat weapon, it may not use it together with another weapon.
2 Normal CCW: 1 bonus attack
2 same SCCW: one additional attack
1 Normal CCW, 1 SCCW: one additional attack (with 3 listed exceptions)
2 different SCCW: choose which weapon to use, but never get bonus attack for 2 weapons.

Happyjew - actually no, Nids dont have CCW. Lashwhips and Boneswords are NOT Close Combat weapons. Page 32, from memory.

Darkness - not counter intuitive, just following the rules. For example it may be counter intuitive that a skimmer can receive both a 4+ cover save and be hit automatically in close combat - doesnt make it any less true.

Lobukla - find where "bolter" is a) a CCW at all and b) specifically a ONE HANDED CCW, then you may have a point. Oh wait, theyre not, so your "point" is irrelevant.

Baragash - citation needed, otherwise your fallacious argument can be ignored.

Additionally: I am making an appeal that, when you have to make rules up, as you DO in this situation, you at least dont try to circumvent the MASSIVE hint in the NEVER vein while doing so. Fairly unsafe and unfair way to play, no?

Because using a Relic Blade as a two-handed power sword is so game breaking...

Happyjew wrote:Some models are equipped with two single-handed weapons they can use in close combat, with the rules given below for different possible combinations. Of course, if a model is using (emphasis mine) a two-handed close combat weapon, it may not use it together with another weapon.
2 Normal CCW: 1 bonus attack
2 same SCCW: one additional attack
1 Normal CCW, 1 SCCW: one additional attack (with 3 listed exceptions)
2 different SCCW: choose which weapon to use, but never get bonus attack for Using 2 weapons.

Fixed that for you with the orange, you left out a very important part.

you never get bonus attack for Using 2 weapons. This is listed under the section that is talking about 2SCCW's

you never get the attack for using 2SCCW's.

if you are using something else you use the rules for what you are using.

This is where the relic blade being two handed comes in, since we would have to choose the relic blade, or the Power weapon and bolt pistol.

@Nos: The rule says we fight with two weapons. If we have more than two we still can only fight with two weapons. looking at those rules we are forces to pick two weapons to fight with, since we can only fight with two single-handed weapons.

They do not wield CCW as such (pg 32). As near as I can tell this is to explain why they don't get bonuses for having multiple CCW. However, all 3 of the weapons listed can be found on page 83 under the heading Close Combat Weapons.

Additionally, only 'Claws and Teeth' are listed as being a Normal CCW, every unit (except the Tervigon) has either 1 normal CCW, 1 Special CCW, or 2 SCCW (whose bonuses stack). The Tervigon has claws and teeth (normal) and can take crushing claws or scything talons (special), but still do not get the bonus to attack.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Jidmah - attacking the person? You're better than that.

No, I'm attacking the idiocy that GWAR used to call RAW. Just like Ghazzy's Waagh! is supposedly be able to called after his death because "his Warcry" is not rules, even though every single rule and all the fluff points towards that he himself calls the Waaagh! and can't do this when he is a read smear unter some land-raider's tracks. While Fluff should not influence rules, ignoring blatantly obvious statements because of technical issues, is not RAW, it's failure of reading comprehension. Even most modern code compilers are able to "overlook" minor errors and keep on interpreting. It's the exact same here. Those marine are wielding two-handed swords and axes. No amount of rules or deliberate blindness can ever justify swords explicitly described as two-handed not being two-handed.

RAW if a rule doesnt refer to antyhing in game it is a useless rule. So yes, technically "Scout" does nothing, because it is not the USR "Scouts". Who'd have thought - the proper noun defining an in game term is exactly that! Would I actually make a deal of it in game?

No.

RAW is not ignoring obvious links. A rule named Scout is obviously the same as scout. Just like a two-handed sword is a two-handed close combat weapon. A rokkit-pack is obviously a jump pack. Ignoring this fact has nothing to do with RAW.

Which is the problem with your "argument" there - youre making an emotional appeal to something which I've already acknowledged is a highly technical discussion. Is this a game? No. Are we having a discussion about the rules in a civilised manner? Well I'm attempting to - you're obviously not.

Hardly highly technical, a game of mind at most. What you are doing is coloring something entirely made of grey in black and white. There simply is no need to break down something into technical details if it is perfectly clear what to do without breaking it down. If you break down the ork codex, you will find that there is no definition for ork. Thus breaking the entire codex.

So, to desconstruct your argument a bit more:

1) I'll bold the relevant part for you: "two handed battle axe" You see the "two handed" part? That means an Axe isnt always 2 handed.

Sure, does it matter for the sake of argument? No. An axe is still a close combat weapon and not "<ERROR: unknown word 'axe'>".

Also - frag grenades are defined, in that same sentence, as being close combat weapons. If you believe a fluff description to actually be rules. Which I dont. Howveer in YOUR world this means a model can use Frag Grenades as a close combat weapon!

Actually, Frag Grenades are close combat weapons. Special close combat weapons even. Check BRB pg. 63 on how to use them.

2) No, you cannot remove 2 words from one rule, that apply to a non-existant weapon - there is no such thing as a sword with an armour sundering power field - it has no game function. If you disagree, please find some rules.

"Sword with an armor sundering power field"(if that's the exact quote) would be a close combat weapon:
"These include more complex and powerful weapons that enhance the wielder's combat skills and confer bonuses, and sometimes penalties, to models using them." (BRB pg. 42)
More complex than a chain sword and obviously enhances the wielders combat skills (armor sundering). Per definition a special close combat weapon.

Or are you saying you are allowed to remove part of the descriptive text, and call it rules? So, if you are allowed to remove 2-handed from fluff text, I am allowed to remove "Heavy" from "Heavy Bolter" and decide it is fluff, leaving me with "Bolter", yes? After all, if you are allowed to arbitrarily break down a single object into constituent words, other people are allowed to as well, right? It's only fair!

Yeah, mourning at me for ignoring you argument and ignoring mine in turn. An eye for an eye, I guess.

"Heavy bolter" a defined term. A space does not make it two terms. If you break up heavy bolter, that's just like breaking up killkannon into kill and kannon. One term, well-defined, no questions. On the other hand, "twin-linked" just like "two-handed" are attributes added to an already existing term. Twin-linked multi-meltas are still multi-meltas, twin-linked heavy bolters with psy-ammo are still heavy bolters, and two-handed closes combat weapons are still close combat weapons.

By the way: "bolter" is not a defined term. The thing you are referring to is defined as "Boltgun".

Give it a try. Start randomly breaking away rules from non-existant items that have no in game effect, and see where it gets you.

I should be greatful for you to be looking down to me from above the coulds, I guess. You should give even the slightest hint of common sense a try. Accepting a sword as a close combat weapon would be the first step, but I guess that's too random fo a "highly technical discussion".

Sorry for sarcasm, but "a sword is something undefined" is simply not a conclusion a semi-intelligent person should ever reach.

DR - so, you still dont have a rule then?

If you could admit you need to make up a rule, that would actually help your argument. We could have a reasoned discourse, with less "nah nah nah"
Before you respond: I understand perfectly what you are saying. Do not bother to restate the same thing over and over and over, as it is a waste of everyones time.

Just, for this time, provide a rule. An actual RULE, in the book, which allows you to pick 2 close combat weapons from 3+before you get tot he "fighting with..." part. Just a real rule, with an actual page number, nothing more is needed.

If you cannot provide one, then you are breaking the tenets of this forum, and I would ask you to stop and retract.


Happy - no, they do not use CCW. That heading is erroneous, as they do not have CCW, they never ever receive the bonus AND they never "fight with" CCW. Boneswords are not Close Combat Weapons, neither are scything talons, etc. Do a search on this, as it is OT here.

Edit:

Jidmah - yes, you ARE attacking the person. As in "from what I;ve seen of YOU". You cant really get much more personal than that, when youve just quoted the person. Try again.

Yes, Ghazzguls WAAAGh in RULES can be called when he is dead, or even if he isnt on the board, because it is the army rules. You say "every" rule, yet in that thread you could not provide a single one that actually suffered any sort of analysis. You failed utterly then, and bringing it up now means you are failing again here.

Stay On topic or dont post.

The marines are wielding "two handed swords or axes sheathed in an armour sundering field" - as a whole, not a part. Those dont exist in the game, at all. You are failing reading comprehension if you insist otherwise, as there is no such item with those characteristics listed in any rulebook as an actual weapon.

Re Scouts vs Scout. You notice the difference there, as you changed it in your post? One letter makes all the difference when dealing with proper nouns. To give your "modern code compiler" fallacy a shot here, if you had a variable named "Scouts" but called $Scout, the compiler would not translate this into a working program.

Re breaking it down: Actually we have shown a reason for it, which is the reason behind this thread. A 2 handed weapon is treated differently to a single handed one.
If you dont see the need in this thread, then feel free not to post.

Re Two-handed Axe: It matters when you break down an object and declare it to exist, when it doesnt. I ngame terms there is NO SUCH THING as the fluff part of the Relic Blade text. ALL of the ACTUAL rules are contained in the second paragraph, where it defines it as a single handed weapon.

Re Bolter not being a defined term: before spouting off about rules I would suggest you do some research. 30 seconds would have found you p97, codex SM, first line. "The Boltgun, or bolter"

Try again.

Also - I didnt say a sword is something undefined. I said the whole line is not defined, because it isnt. Try again

I will concede that the second part of my post was OT here.

The rule is right ther on Page 42, it tells you that you can fight with two (Notice how it does not say more than two) close combat weapons.

The rule is listed under the section 'fighting with two single-handed close combat weapons.'

"Some models are equipped with two single-handed weapons they can use in close combat" P.42

There is your rules quote that tells us that we need to pick two weapons. It permits us to fight with two weapons, if we have three we can not use three, so we have to only use two.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The marines are wielding "two handed swords or axes sheathed in an armour sundering field" - as a whole, not a part. Those dont exist in the game, at all.

Actually they do, they are called Relic Blades. (A close combat weapon)

Oh god, you've just repeated everything again.

No, that does not constitute permission to select 2 weapons from 3+. It really doesnt.

Just find something saying "if you have more than 2, please select two you want to use" - something like that.

"Some models are equipped with two single-handed weapons they can use in close combat" - what about models that are equipped with 3? 4? 5? They arent "models ... equipped with 2 single handed weapons" then, are they? theyre models equipped with 3, or 4, or more.

"Fighting with 2 close combat weapons" requires you to only have 2 CCW, as it doesnt even consider more.

Youre making rules up, and you dont even realise it.

Nice doge nos, nice doge.

There really is no point in arguing with someone ignoring any counter-argument and being condescending while doing so _every_single_time someone does not share your opinion. You win. As a sign of your victory, a two-handed sword out of solid gold will arrive at your home soon. However, as you don't know what a two-handed sword out of gold is, you might mistake it for the newspaper. You know, because it's a two-handed sword out of gold, rather than a two-handed sword.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Oh god, you've just repeated everything again.

No, that does not constitute permission to select 2 weapons from 3+. It really doesnt.

Just find something saying "if you have more than 2, please select two you want to use" - something like that.

"Some models are equipped with two single-handed weapons they can use in close combat" - what about models that are equipped with 3? 4? 5? They arent "models ... equipped with 2 single handed weapons" then, are they? theyre models equipped with 3, or 4, or more.

"Fighting with 2 close combat weapons" requires you to only have 2 CCW, as it doesnt even consider more.

Youre making rules up, and you dont even realise it.

So models with 3 or more can not attack, that is a great solution...

What you fail to realize is that we are allowed to fight with only two weapons.

Having 3 or more is fine, because we are told we can only fight with two.

Since we can only fight with two, out of our three or more, we have to make a choice.

you are not going to find the definition of "inches" or "fails" either there are some things we have to examine and determine for ourselves.

you would not say that a Move of 6 inches is illegal because the book does not say what "Inches" means would you?

Why are you trying to say that here?

I know this whole thing got complicated, but it's really not. Relic blade counts as a power weapon. If it was a two-handed weapon, it would say "counts as a two-handed power weapon". That's RAW.

RAI: a Space Marine Captain may replace his bolt pistol AND/OR chainsword with: .......other stuff...... -relic blade....more stuff...... end of entry. If a relic blade was a two-handed weapon it wouldn't say AND/OR, it would just be OR. Because it would be replacing the weapon in both hands. But it doesn't!

Case in point, Vulcan has a relic blade, which in his case is a spear. Spears can be used with one hand if you're holding a shield.

I'd like to point out that there are not really any rules for "two-handed weapons".

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Just find something saying "if you have more than 2, please select two you want to use" - something like that.

Find a rule that says I can choose which shooting weapon I can use, if I have more than one.

Jidmah wrote:Even most modern code compilers are able to "overlook" minor errors and keep on interpreting.

I'm pretty sure that isn't correct. At least, I can't think of a single modern compiler that does this. Are you mistaking a web browser's rendering engine for a compiler? Because some browsers will still do their best to render malformed HTML, but that's a very different thing (and has unpredictable and poor results).

That said, I'm not sure what the issue is here. Nos is arguing from a "highly technical" standpoint, and you are arguing from a "logical" standpoint. Your standpoint, by necessity, requires you to add extra information in to make your arguments make sense. People naturally do that all the time; we pull meaning from context when the syntax is "vague". Nos is simply arguing from a more purely syntax driven standpoint.

Most people, when asked if they thought a sword was a close combat weapon, would say "yes, of course" (they might even think you were foolish). However, within the context of the RAW, if a sword is not defined as a close combat weapon, then it is NOT a close combat weapon. Arguing that it is, while making logical sense, is also "making up rules" (from a highly technical standpoint). The same principle applies to the "fighting with two single-handed close combat weapons when you have 3 or more CCW" discussion. From a logical standpoint, you would naturally assume that you pick two. But that is a logical leap you are making, and one that isn't specified in the rules. The rules simply don't directly address this situation, and so we are left with either making that logical leap (which I think is fully justified), or potentially not attacking as we aren't given rules covering that situation.

So there's no need to get heated and make personal attacks here. You just both need to understand what standpoint the other is arguing from, and then try to get on the same page. If you can't do that, you'll both end getting frustrated with the other, and not doing anything productive.

I do have a question though, you can use both a Relic Blade and a Storm Shield at the same time yes? And presumably, this is because a Storm Shield is NOT a CCW, so could be used at the same time (even if the Relic Blade were a two-handed CCW)?

beigeknight wrote:I know this whole thing got complicated, but it's really not. Relic blade counts as a power weapon. If it was a two-handed weapon, it would say "counts as a two-handed power weapon". That's RAW.

RAI: a Space Marine Captain may replace his bolt pistol AND/OR chainsword with: .......other stuff...... -relic blade....more stuff...... end of entry. If a relic blade was a two-handed weapon it wouldn't say AND/OR, it would just be OR. Because it would be replacing the weapon in both hands. But it doesn't!

Case in point, Vulcan has a relic blade, which in his case is a spear. Spears can be used with one hand if you're holding a shield.

I'd like to point out that there are not really any rules for "two-handed weapons".

You are utterly wrong. There are rules for two-handed weapons: you cannot use one together with another weapon for +1 attack.
That's it. It does not prevent you having more weapons, nor does it prevent using a shield.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

IcyCool wrote:
I do have a question though, you can use both a Relic Blade and a Storm Shield at the same time yes? And presumably, this is because a Storm Shield is NOT a CCW, so could be used at the same time (even if the Relic Blade were a two-handed CCW)?

Correct. Two-handed weapons do not prevent shield use.

beigeknight wrote:I'd like to point out that there are not really any rules for "two-handed weapons".

There actually are rules for two handed weapons, look at p.42 last sentence under the 'Fighting with two single-handed weapons' section.

Crimson wrote:

beigeknight wrote:I know this whole thing got complicated, but it's really not. Relic blade counts as a power weapon. If it was a two-handed weapon, it would say "counts as a two-handed power weapon". That's RAW.

RAI: a Space Marine Captain may replace his bolt pistol AND/OR chainsword with: .......other stuff...... -relic blade....more stuff...... end of entry. If a relic blade was a two-handed weapon it wouldn't say AND/OR, it would just be OR. Because it would be replacing the weapon in both hands. But it doesn't!

Case in point, Vulcan has a relic blade, which in his case is a spear. Spears can be used with one hand if you're holding a shield.

I'd like to point out that there are not really any rules for "two-handed weapons".

You are utterly wrong. There are rules for two-handed weapons: you cannot use one together with another weapon for +1 attack.
That's it. It does not prevent you having more weapons, nor does it prevent using a shield.

Ok, I'll concede that. Doesn't make me "utterly wrong" just partially wrong. I think that my point stands that, RAW, a power weapon that never gets +1 attack from having an additional CCW does not equal a two-handed weapon. A relic blade counts as a power weapon, not a two-handed power weapon.

Jidmah - so, still attacking the poster, not the rules argument. Nice.

DR - "Since we can only fight with two, out of our three or more, we have to make a choice. "

So, you dont actually have a rule allowing you to make that choice? Excellent. Just say so.

Also, you know the part where you repeat what I've already said? About models with 3 CCW not being able to fight, TECHNICALLY? That's what I've been saying, repeatedly. I've ALREADY pointed out that, in order to drop down to 2 CCW, as required by the rules, you need a rule to be made up for you. I've said this about half a dozen times, you just apparently missed them.

It's just when making rules up, making them up so they dont Easter Egg an additional attack, against the ridiculously clear NEVER in the rules, would be the slightly more solid way to do it.

Crimson - shooting does not place a limit on how many you can be equipped with, unlike "fighting with 2 close combat weapons" where you are restricted to two.

There does not need to be a rule specifically allowing you to make that choice, the wording of 'Fighting with two single-handed weapons' covers it.

the clear never rules are only for USING 2 SCCW's, not any of the other possible combinations.

Its expensive but a Relic Blade and Storm Shield is very sick

Where, nos, does it say you can only be equipped with 2 CC weapons?

Lobukla - erm, I NEVER said that. Just tht the rules only covers models equipped with 2 CCW, no more. Try again.

DR - no, no, no. Really, NO. You are NOT GIVEN PERMISSION to MAKE THE CHOICE, therefore you CANNOT MAKE A CHOICE.

"Some models are equipped with 2 CCW...." - where is the choice allowed in that? It explicitly only allows you to be equipped with 2 CCW. This does not say "if you have more than 2 CCW please, MAKE A CHOICE over which 2 you will pick before reading further" or anything similar.

So, I say again: put up or shut up. Under the tenets of YMDC you must provide rules backing, the EXPLICIT rules backing, that allows you to make the choice. No, implicit is not good enough, especially as there IS no implicit permission.

The rulebook does NOT allow for a situation where a model has more than 2 CCW, and consequently there is NO permission in any of the rules allowing you to make a CHOICE.

Permissive ruleset. Find the rule or concede you are as required to make up rules as I am.

nosferatu1001 wrote:It's just when making rules up, making them up so they dont Easter Egg an additional attack, against the ridiculously clear NEVER in the rules, would be the slightly more solid way to do it.

No. Use logic. Does RAI mean nothing in this board? If in doubt, always aim for the most sensible and logical sounding solution. Do you honestly think GW would expect your characters to be fighting like this guy?



WH40K is supposed to be an approximation of an actual battle, so whenever you're given leeway in rules interpretations, try to come to solutions that actually make sense. After all, removing an attack from your opponent is as much "Easter egging" as them awarding themselves that attack.

Plus, look for actual precedents in other areas of the rules. Some characters can carry more than one gun, including ones that clearly require two hands to use properly (e.g. a Space Marine Captain taking both a storm bolter and a combi-melta), yet they are never penalised for this and may fire either one in each shooting phase. I'm assuming the other gun is either holstered or slung over their back, because that is a pretty sensible thing for somebody with two large guns to be doing. It makes sense that they would do that if they had more CCW than arms, too.

Pumpkin - have a read of the tenets. Done that? Now see that this is a RULES DISCUSSION forum. RAI are not rules. Mainly because RAI almost never exists in any definable form.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Pumpkin - have a read of the tenets. Done that? Now see that this is a RULES DISCUSSION forum. RAI are not rules. Mainly because RAI almost never exists in any definable form.

You admitted yourself that the ruling is completely ambiguous either way, thus necessitating the use of logical interpretation, which is where RAI comes in. Plus, as I've pointed out, both interpretations lead to either you or your opponent getting an "Easter egg", once again leading us to a 50/50 situation, once again leaving us with no option but to argue RAI.

No, I did not state that. Actually I said tht there are no rules covering this situation, and that whatever you want to do you must make rules up.

Making rules up that easter egg in a benefit, ignoring the VERY CLEAR directive of NEVER, is unsafe.

RAI? "Such is the penalty for wielding too many complex weapons" - so how does adding MORE complex weapons help you? Your argument boils down to: 2 complex weapons means no bonus attack, adding a THIRD complex weapon and I can attack better!

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, I did not state that. Actually I said tht there are no rules covering this situation, and that whatever you want to do you must make rules up.

Making rules up that easter egg in a benefit, ignoring the VERY CLEAR directive of NEVER, is unsafe.

RAI? "Such is the penalty for wielding too many complex weapons" - so how does adding MORE complex weapons help you? Your argument boils down to: 2 complex weapons means no bonus attack, adding a THIRD complex weapon and I can attack better!

Making up rules that Easter egg in a detriment, ignoring the very clear fact that we're speaking of a situation that isn't covered in the rules, is unsafe.

A holstered weapon is not a wielded weapon. If you're not using it, you're not wielding it. If you're not wielding it, you're not using it. And don't point out that there's no rules for "holstering" weapons. I'm just using that term to illustrate what is presumably happening with the weapon when it is not being used, as you can only ever use two weapons at a time.

Pumpkin wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:It's just when making rules up, making them up so they dont Easter Egg an additional attack, against the ridiculously clear NEVER in the rules, would be the slightly more solid way to do it.

No. Use logic. Does RAI mean nothing in this board? If in doubt, always aim for the most sensible and logical sounding solution. Do you honestly think GW would expect your characters to be fighting like this guy?



WH40K is supposed to be an approximation of an actual battle, so whenever you're given leeway in rules interpretations, try to come to solutions that actually make sense. After all, removing an attack from your opponent is as much "Easter egging" as them awarding themselves that attack.

Plus, look for actual precedents in other areas of the rules. Some characters can carry more than one gun, including ones that clearly require two hands to use properly (e.g. a Space Marine Captain taking both a storm bolter and a combi-melta), yet they are never penalised for this and may fire either one in each shooting phase. I'm assuming the other gun is either holstered or slung over their back, because that is a pretty sensible thing for somebody with two large guns to be doing. It makes sense that they would do that if they had more CCW than arms, too.

Aparently you havn't seen the Calgar Pic that pops up weekly...

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:Aparently you havn't seen the Calgar Pic that pops up weekly...

Link, please? It sounds wonderful.

If I had artistic skillz, I'd draw Calgar standing on a snowy battlefield, sipping a hot mug of cocoa cupped in his hands, with his gauntlets dangling down from his wrists, pinned to his armour with little bolts like gigantic metal mittens. I'm going to make that my mission in life.

Pumpkin wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:Aparently you havn't seen the Calgar Pic that pops up weekly...

Link, please? It sounds wonderful.

If I had artistic skillz, I'd draw Calgar standing on a snowy battlefield, sipping a hot mug of cocoa cupped in his hands, with his gauntlets dangling down from his wrists, pinned to his armour with little bolts like gigantic metal mittens. I'm going to make that my mission in life.

There ya go

Now I secretly hope this thread gets locked.

beigeknight wrote:There ya go

Now I secretly hope this thread gets locked.

Oh! I have seen that one before! How the heck could I forget a picture that magnificent? Haha, I must be more tired than I realise. Maybe I should have a little nap later...

Thanks for the repost!

EDIT: Re: My Calgar + cocoa idea... I just noticed that the "fists" would have to be dangling from the elbow joint. Still, that's mitten-y enough for me.

nosferatu1001 wrote:DR - no, no, no. Really, NO. You are NOT GIVEN PERMISSION to MAKE THE CHOICE, therefore you CANNOT MAKE A CHOICE.

"Some models are equipped with 2 CCW...." - where is the choice allowed in that? It explicitly only allows you to be equipped with 2 CCW. This does not say "if you have more than 2 CCW please, MAKE A CHOICE over which 2 you will pick before reading further" or anything similar.

So, I say again: put up or shut up. Under the tenets of YMDC you must provide rules backing, the EXPLICIT rules backing, that allows you to make the choice. No, implicit is not good enough, especially as there IS no implicit permission.

The rulebook does NOT allow for a situation where a model has more than 2 CCW, and consequently there is NO permission in any of the rules allowing you to make a CHOICE.

Permissive ruleset. Find the rule or concede you are as required to make up rules as I am.

I found the rules that allow a choice, the fact that you are ignoring them, that I can not help.

DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:DR - no, no, no. Really, NO. You are NOT GIVEN PERMISSION to MAKE THE CHOICE, therefore you CANNOT MAKE A CHOICE.

"Some models are equipped with 2 CCW...." - where is the choice allowed in that? It explicitly only allows you to be equipped with 2 CCW. This does not say "if you have more than 2 CCW please, MAKE A CHOICE over which 2 you will pick before reading further" or anything similar.

So, I say again: put up or shut up. Under the tenets of YMDC you must provide rules backing, the EXPLICIT rules backing, that allows you to make the choice. No, implicit is not good enough, especially as there IS no implicit permission.

The rulebook does NOT allow for a situation where a model has more than 2 CCW, and consequently there is NO permission in any of the rules allowing you to make a CHOICE.

Permissive ruleset. Find the rule or concede you are as required to make up rules as I am.

I found the rules that allow a choice, the fact that you are ignoring them, that I can not help.

No you haven't; and you also ignore the actual rule that you are claiming grants you the choice.

All of the rules are taken into account when you have multiple Single-handed CCWs; you just find the combination of weapons that are most specific and apply that usage since the rules are for models equipped with 2 CCWS that they can use(and they can use every CCW they are equipped with), and that they can use those CCWs in the combinations that follow. Only 1 Combination of equipped weapons allow for a choice of weapon to use, that 1 Combination is 2 different Specials.

You cannot ever Use 2 different Specials; you can make a choice of which special to use when you are equipped with more than 1 Special.

Kei, please tell us what allows you to choose if you have a one two-handed and one single-handed SCCW.

Staying out of this thread but I hope to have a cocoa drinking Calgar soon.

Tri wrote:Staying out of this thread but I hope to have a cocoa drinking Calgar soon.

Expect it within about a decade. I reckon I'll be able to draw well enough by then.

Alternatively, we could always get somebody who already knows how to draw to do it for us...

DR - no, no you didnt.

Please explain how "some models are equipped with 2 CCW they can use" allows you to reduce 3+ CCW down to 2.

In actual English it doesnt, but in DR land it might. So, please - explain. Bear in mind you're not allowed to throw the "implicit" card out there, because a) thats not how rules work and b) there isnt even implicit allowance in there.

So, good going on that one.

Page 42, under 'Fighting With Two Single-Handed Weapons'
Some models are equipped with two single-handed weapons...if a model is using a two-handed close combat wapon...

Wait, wait, wait.


Wait.......


Was there really 5 pages of responses about a definition that has no game effect, what so ever?

Sir_Prometheus wrote:Wait, wait, wait.


Wait.......


Was there really 5 pages of responses about a definition that has no game effect, what so ever?

It is on page 6.

You get used to it.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:Wait, wait, wait.


Wait.......


Was there really 5 pages of responses about a definition that has no game effect, what so ever?

I pointed this out in my first post. And look what happened to me. Look what I became. The madness grips you. It's insidious, it's infectious. You come here make your point, and then you get sucked in. Don't let our fate become yours. Run while you still have the chance. RUN.

the rules restrict us to using 2 ccw's whilst fighting in cc.

The rules do not allow us to use more than two, so if we have more than two, we need to determine which weapons to use, then consult the chart.

That is where the Relic blade comes in.

A SM has a power sword, bolt pistol, and relic blade, the only way to determine what he uses ic CC is to pick between the relic blade or the bolt pistol/power sword to use in cc.

It is two handed. I don't get how this has taken up 6 pages.

OK, six pages in and I don't get the issue: it is a special weapon that says you can't get +1A and you can't use two different special weapons at the same time. What precisely is the model supposed to do with his other hand anyway?

Homer

It's really not. It "counts as a power weapon", not "counts as a two-handed power weapon".

A green apple "counts as" an apple. It does not "count as" a lime.

edit: and there is no issue really. It's just a one handed weapon that can't benefit from another CCW. Just as if it was a two-handed weapon. But it counts as a power weapon, which is one-handed unless it said "counts as a two-handed power weapon". Which it doesn't. If you had a relic blade, power weapon, and bolt pistol you could use the relic blade or you could use the power weapon and bolt pistol when fighting in CC.

This whole thread is getting too heated. Step away from the keyboard, take a deep breath, and go for a walk or something.

There are far more polite ways to disagree, and people here don't seem to be interested in them.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:Wait, wait, wait.


Wait.......


Was there really 5 pages of responses about a definition that has no game effect, what so ever?

Oh, the irony, it is lost on them.

I refuse to debate whether it is two handed or not.

But my question for you, all of you, or any of you is:

Why. Does. It. Matter?

Sir_Prometheus wrote:Oh, the irony, it is lost on them.

I refuse to debate whether it is two handed or not.

But my question for you, all of you, or any of you is:

Why. Does. It. Matter?

It matters for people equipped with a Relic blade, a power weapon, and a bolt pistol.

Since you can not use a two-handed weapon with any single-handed weapons, the question is:

how does one determine if you use the Relic blade or the Bolt Pistol/Power Weapon?

It was to illustrate the point that you have to choose between the Relic blade or the Bolt Pistol/Power Weapon to make your close combat attacks.

DeathReaper wrote:
It matters for people equipped with a Relic blade, a power weapon, and a bolt pistol.

Since you can not use a two-handed weapon with any single-handed weapons, the question is:

how does one determine if you use the Relic blade or the Bolt Pistol/Power Weapon?

It was to illustrate the point that you have to choose between the Relic blade or the Bolt Pistol/Power Weapon to make your close combat attacks.

Yes, but that only matters if you use Kei's convoluted interpretation of equipping multiple weapons. I'm not going to.

DeathReaper wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:Oh, the irony, it is lost on them.

I refuse to debate whether it is two handed or not.

But my question for you, all of you, or any of you is:

Why. Does. It. Matter?

It matters for people equipped with a Relic blade, a power weapon, and a bolt pistol.

Since you can not use a two-handed weapon with any single-handed weapons, the question is:

how does one determine if you use the Relic blade or the Bolt Pistol/Power Weapon?

It was to illustrate the point that you have to choose between the Relic blade or the Bolt Pistol/Power Weapon to make your close combat attacks.

The funny thing is, that while I disagree with the relic Blade being two handed; the reason you want it to be is perfectly valid.

A few pages ago i was still in this discussion; then I spent the day out with my wife and newborn, returning to almost a full page that I really just couldn't care enough to read through and respond to.

I did, however, notice biccat's response since it was near my last post; and it has to do with what I am about to state.

I can buy into the fluff of the relic blade making it 2-handed; GW has declared in the last few Codices that Fluff = Rules.

However;

The rules later declare the relic blade to "count as" a power weapon(with several other rules). This is what biccat had to say about that:

biccat wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:Where exactly is the sentence: a relic blade is a two-handed power weapon?

Because I see: "Relic blades are two-handed swords or axes that are sheathed in an Armour-sundering power field"

and: "A relic Blade counts as a Power weapon whose hits are resolved at Strength 6."

Which are contradictory.

Those sentences aren't exactly contradictory.

It says that a Relic Blade is X (the "fluff" part). However, it counts as Y (the "rules" part). *note that I think the first sentence isn't fluff, especially given the "counts as" language in the second quoted section.

So we know that a relic blade is a two-handed weapon. However, we don't know if it counts as (for purposes of the rules) a 2-handed weapon.

I would suggest that it should count as a two-handed weapon because it is a two-handed weapon. But I suppose you could come down on the other side, particularly if power weapons are defined as one-handed.

The relic blade "being" 2-handed, but then "counting-as" a power weapon is contradictory; you cannot both be X and count as Y; the whole point of the count-as rules is that the item x that counts as y ceases to be x and is considered y in all cases. For example I have a Space marine Sgt model with a power-fist(only power fist on the table), I inform my opponent that I have not paid for the power fist in my list build and that it will "Count-as" a normal CCW in this game(and this is truly how I set my list up); I canot in tha asault phase decide to use that power fist as a power fist instead of the normal CCW that it counts as; because while it is a power fist, it counts as a normal CCW, meaning it ceases to be a power fist.

DeathReaper wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:Oh, the irony, it is lost on them.

I refuse to debate whether it is two handed or not.

But my question for you, all of you, or any of you is:

Why. Does. It. Matter?

It matters for people equipped with a Relic blade, a power weapon, and a bolt pistol.

Since you can not use a two-handed weapon with any single-handed weapons, the question is:

how does one determine if you use the Relic blade or the Bolt Pistol/Power Weapon?

It was to illustrate the point that you have to choose between the Relic blade or the Bolt Pistol/Power Weapon to make your close combat attacks.

Huh? You get to pick one "special" weapon to use any particular turn. One is a power weapon, which may be combined with an extra CCW, for which a pistol also counts. One is a relic blade, which may, or may not, be two-handed, but regardless cannot benefit from the +1A.

This is really, really explicit in the main book. Whether the Relic blade is actually two-handed or not affects that not at all. You people have been arguing for 6 pages about nothing.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:Oh, the irony, it is lost on them.

I refuse to debate whether it is two handed or not.

But my question for you, all of you, or any of you is:

Why. Does. It. Matter?

It matters for people equipped with a Relic blade, a power weapon, and a bolt pistol.

Since you can not use a two-handed weapon with any single-handed weapons, the question is:

how does one determine if you use the Relic blade or the Bolt Pistol/Power Weapon?

It was to illustrate the point that you have to choose between the Relic blade or the Bolt Pistol/Power Weapon to make your close combat attacks.

Huh? You get to pick one "special" weapon to use any particular turn. One is a power weapon, which may be combined with an extra CCW, for which a pistol also counts. One is a relic blade, which may, or may not, be two-handed, but regardless cannot benefit from the +1A.

This is really, really explicit in the main book. Whether the Relic blade is actually two-handed or not affects that not at all. You people have been arguing for 6 pages about nothing.

If the Relic blade were 2-handed then it sits outside the rules for 2 Single-handed weapons.

The rule you are referencing is for 2 different single-handed Special weapons.

DR is quite astute in why this matters, if an honour-guard member has purchased a relic Blade, and the relic blade is 2-handed, then he would have 1 2-handed CCW, and 2 Single-handed CCWs; only 1 of which is special. If that is the case, and we extrapolate from the only reference to 2-handed weapons on page 42(that "if a model is using a 2-handed weapon it never gains a bonus attack from a second single-handed weapon") to mean that being armed with a 2-handed weapon and any number of single handed weapon grants us a choice of whether to use the single handed or 2-handed weapons; then the honour-guard member could strike either twice with the relic blade at S6, or 3x with the Power weapon and Bolt pistol at S4(when not charging)

Kommissar Kel wrote:The relic blade "being" 2-handed, but then "counting-as" a power weapon is contradictory; you cannot both be X and count as Y; the whole point of the count-as rules is that the item x that counts as y ceases to be x and is considered y in all cases. For example I have a Space marine Sgt model with a power-fist(only power fist on the table), I inform my opponent that I have not paid for the power fist in my list build and that it will "Count-as" a normal CCW in this game(and this is truly how I set my list up); I canot in tha asault phase decide to use that power fist as a power fist instead of the normal CCW that it counts as; because while it is a power fist, it counts as a normal CCW, meaning it ceases to be a power fist.

But that is not quite right, It is not contradictory. Something can be two handed AND count as a power weapon, Just like something can be a bolt pistol and count as a twin linked weapon when fired.

Being a power fist and counting as a normal close combat weapon is not a good comparison.

Being a two handed weapon and counting as a power weapon is not in contradiction with each other.

The thing that makes it a contradiction is that the fluff states it to be a two-handed weapon(with undefined properties). It then goes on to discuss other things.

Then in a whole new paragraph it tells us that a relic blade counts as a power weapon(with additional defined rules).

Had it all been in the same paragraph i would be right there with you; had the declaration of the relic blade being 2-handed been the last sentence of the first paragraph; I would be right there with you.
How is being 1 weapon and counting as another weapon not the same thing as the relic blade; I am pretty sure that is exactly what I am saying.

Counting-as having a weapon characteristic is not the same thing though(such as the twin-linked example you gave).

2-handed power weapons, are not the same thing as regular power weapons, which are not the same things as 2-handed weapons "Sheathed in an armour-sundering power field".

It can only either be a 2-handed weapon "Sheathed in an armour-sundering power field"(which only has rules for the two-handed weapon part); or a Power weapon(defined as single-handed by the FAQ) that grants S6, and cannot gain a bonus attack for a second CCW(which would be covered by it being 2-handed).

Two-handed and Power weapon can both apply to the same weapon. For Example, a Glaive Encarmine is a two-handed master-crafted power weapon.(P.50 BA codex)

The relic blade counts as a power weapon, and by the first line it denotes it as a two-handed weapon. (It says two-handed sword or axe, but we know swords and axes are weapons)

I do not get where you are getting the "the two handed is fluff" since it clearly defines the Relic blade as a two handed weapon that counts as a power weapon.

Alright I've had enough of this.

Relic blades are really big swords that space marines can use one handed, even though they are two handed weapons, because space marines are boss. However, space marines cannot use their other hand to hold another weapon at the same time, so they simply make lewd gestures at the opponents they are chopping to giblets.

DeathReaper wrote:Two-handed and Power weapon can both apply to the same weapon. For Example, a Glaive Encarmine is a two-handed master-crafted power weapon.(P.50 BA codex)

The relic blade counts as a power weapon, and by the first line it denotes it as a two-handed weapon. (It says two-handed sword or axe, but we know swords and axes are weapons)

I do not get where you are getting the "the two handed is fluff" since it clearly defines the Relic blade as a two handed weapon that counts as a power weapon.

Yes, a weapon can be a two-handed power weapon.

Yes, a weapon ca count as a two-handed power weapon.

No, a two-handed power weapon and a Power weapon are not the same thing.

No, two-handed is not a sub-type, nor additional rule; it is a weapon type(analogous to Rapid fire, heavy, or assault)

The first line also denotes it to be "Sheathed in an armour-sundering power field"; mind quoting the rules for this, I cannot seem to find them?

The very minute you find me the rules for "Sheathed in an armour-sundering power field", is the very minute the two-handed stops being fluff(but, of course it still counts as a single-handed weapon; so will still be a moot point).

Kommissar Kel wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:Oh, the irony, it is lost on them.

I refuse to debate whether it is two handed or not.

But my question for you, all of you, or any of you is:

Why. Does. It. Matter?

It matters for people equipped with a Relic blade, a power weapon, and a bolt pistol.

Since you can not use a two-handed weapon with any single-handed weapons, the question is:

how does one determine if you use the Relic blade or the Bolt Pistol/Power Weapon?

It was to illustrate the point that you have to choose between the Relic blade or the Bolt Pistol/Power Weapon to make your close combat attacks.

Huh? You get to pick one "special" weapon to use any particular turn. One is a power weapon, which may be combined with an extra CCW, for which a pistol also counts. One is a relic blade, which may, or may not, be two-handed, but regardless cannot benefit from the +1A.

This is really, really explicit in the main book. Whether the Relic blade is actually two-handed or not affects that not at all. You people have been arguing for 6 pages about nothing.

If the Relic blade were 2-handed then it sits outside the rules for 2 Single-handed weapons.

The rule you are referencing is for 2 different single-handed Special weapons.

DR is quite astute in why this matters, if an honour-guard member has purchased a relic Blade, and the relic blade is 2-handed, then he would have 1 2-handed CCW, and 2 Single-handed CCWs; only 1 of which is special. If that is the case, and we extrapolate from the only reference to 2-handed weapons on page 42(that "if a model is using a 2-handed weapon it never gains a bonus attack from a second single-handed weapon") to mean that being armed with a 2-handed weapon and any number of single handed weapon grants us a choice of whether to use the single handed or 2-handed weapons; then the honour-guard member could strike either twice with the relic blade at S6, or 3x with the Power weapon and Bolt pistol at S4(when not charging)

Yes. I know. What I am saying is that situation, where you have a choice between 2 attacks at str 6 or 3 at str 4, is true whether or not the relic blade is two handed.

I am well aware of everything you are saying, I am telling you it all leads to the same result. You are arguing about nothing.

Edit: Oh, and that's not "astute", it's "sophomoric".

@Sir_Prometheus. It is and is not moot. There are 2 groups of people. 1 group says that since the model is equipped with 2 special 1-handed CCW and a normal 1-handed CCW, they never get the bonus attack. The other group says that you can choose which two weapons you fight with and possibly can have a bonus attack. For the members of group 1, if it is a single-handed CCW, then you would never get a bonus attack. If it's 2-handed then you could choose to use your other weapons and get a bonus attack. For members of group 2, however, whether or not it is 2-handed is a moot point.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:
Yes. I know. What I am saying is that situation, where you have a choice between 2 attacks at str 6 or 3 at str 4, is true whether or not the relic blade is two handed.

I am well aware of everything you are saying, I am telling you it all leads to the same result. You are arguing about nothing.

Edit: Oh, and that's not "astute", it's "sophomoric".

Actually sophomoric is not the correct term, please do not use derogatory terms.

DeathReaper wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:
Yes. I know. What I am saying is that situation, where you have a choice between 2 attacks at str 6 or 3 at str 4, is true whether or not the relic blade is two handed.

I am well aware of everything you are saying, I am telling you it all leads to the same result. You are arguing about nothing.

Edit: Oh, and that's not "astute", it's "sophomoric".

Actually sophomoric is not the correct term, please do not use derogatory terms.

The point, sir, of a derogatory term, is to deride. I had due cause to do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Happyjew wrote:@Sir_Prometheus. It is and is not moot. There are 2 groups of people. 1 group says that since the model is equipped with 2 special 1-handed CCW and a normal 1-handed CCW, they never get the bonus attack. The other group says that you can choose which two weapons you fight with and possibly can have a bonus attack. For the members of group 1, if it is a single-handed CCW, then you would never get a bonus attack. If it's 2-handed then you could choose to use your other weapons and get a bonus attack. For members of group 2, however, whether or not it is 2-handed is a moot point.

OK. Group 1 is wrong. You can have many weapons on the model, and you can use 2 one handed or 1 2 handed weapon each assault phase, as you choose. Everything else works out the same.

Kommissar Kel wrote:I can buy into the fluff of the relic blade making it 2-handed; GW has declared in the last few Codices that Fluff = Rules.

No they haven't.

All gw did was use fluff to explain/faq a rule.

You are basing this assumption erroneously that gw sets and uses precedent.

They do not. That's the only 'precedent' that gw has set and uses.

I now return you to your regular programming...

Plasma siphon only works as GW says it does when the fluff for weapons is viewed as rules(even though their is a box-out of "Plasma Weapons" in the Armoury).

The list of what are daemons has clearly taken fluff into account(and in at least 1 case even that doesn't answer why the unit is considered daemons)

Tyranids special Character rules only function if the fluff that they are their respective base Nid-types is viewed as rules.

Necron "Lord of Fire" specifically tells you that Fluff is rules for what it effects.

Last several books all have at least 1 instance of Fluff = Rules; be that written in to the rules or via FAQ(since the rules would not necessarily function otherwise).

This has nothing to do with precedent; it has to do with trend: they are trending towards Fluff=Rules as a hard stance.

I had due cause to do so.

No you didn't.

Please don't.

Thanks.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:OK. Group 1 is wrong. You can have many weapons on the model, and you can use 2 one handed or 1 2 handed weapon each assault phase, as you choose. Everything else works out the same.

There's a rule allowing you to pick what weapons you want to use? What page number is that on?
edit: Also - can you point me out to the rules that allow models with 3 weapons to participate in combat?

Don't you get to pick if you have 2 special weapons rigeld? Or did I miss the point...

A dude has a TH and a PW somehow, he can pick which one he uses each turn, no?

motyak wrote:Don't you get to pick if you have 2 special weapons rigeld? Or did I miss the point...

A dude has a TH and a PW somehow, he can pick which one he uses each turn, no?

Sure. Now throw in, say, a bolt pistol. Or power weapon. Or chainsword.

Oh right you were asking if there is a rule for choosing between three weapons? My bad. Yeah I got no clue

And as soon as you pick one of your special weapons, you never get the bonus attack.

rigeld2 wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:OK. Group 1 is wrong. You can have many weapons on the model, and you can use 2 one handed or 1 2 handed weapon each assault phase, as you choose. Everything else works out the same.

There's a rule allowing you to pick what weapons you want to use? What page number is that on?
edit: Also - can you point me out to the rules that allow models with 3 weapons to participate in combat?

Quite explicitly -- Page 42, bottomr right hand side.

"Some models are equipped with two one-handed weapons..........with the rules given below for different combinations."

"If a model is using a two-handed weapon.......it may not use it [the weapon] in combination with another weapon."

It then goes on to say that a normal and a special combat weapon may be used, which leads to +1 A.

So, if the relic blades is two handed, then you may use the pistol and powerweapon in combinations, yielding +1 A, or the relic blade by itself.

If the relic blade is a one-handed weapon that cannot benefit from a secodn weapon to get a second attack, then you may use the pistol and powerweapon in combo as above, OR you may use the relic blade in combo with either, but for not added benefit.

IN either case, you have a choice betwee + 1A or +2 str. You people have really been arguing about nothing.

Or, and this is the point you insist you are right on but arent, the very act of choosing means you NEVER gain the bonus attack.

Also, notice how "some models are equipped with two one handed...." is there?

Please show a quote allowing a model with 3 to attack. We'll wait.

Specific allowances, or rules detailing how to handle 2 equipped weapons; does not mean that you can only use 2 weapons.

In fact if you read all of the entries they are for Equipped with those combinations of 2 and you will only ever be using 1 of the weapons(doesn't matter at all which for any pairs of like weapons, 2 normal, or 2 of the same special).

Look again at the normal and Special; you are equipped with a normal and a special, you must use the Special, and you might gain a bonus attack depending on what the Special is, ad if you have a third weapon that is a second copy of the special(which is the same as 2 of the same special anyways).

As the only rule that ever allows you to make a choice in which weapon you attack with is the 2 different, and all possible combinations are based on what the model is equipped with, and as I already said going through all the different possible combinations on your model will enevitiably lead to the most specific rule: if a relic Blade is 1 handed, you never gain a bonus attack with the PW, or the Relic Blade(the pistol simply does not matter); if the relic blade is 2-handed, then you do have a choice granted for using 2-handed weapons instead of the default 1-handed, and the PW and Pistol comes into play to grant a bonus attack.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Or, and this is the point you insist you are right on but arent, the very act of choosing means you NEVER gain the bonus attack.

There is absolutely NO reason to think that. You're just making rules up out of thin air, and then you're asking me to justify myself?

Nm, I just realized, Sir_Prometheus, was quoting Nos (without the quote box).

Sir_Prometheus wrote:There is absolutely NO reason to think that. You're just making rules up out of thin air, and then you're asking me to justify myself?

Also, notice how "some models are equipped with two one handed...." is there?

Please show a quote allowing a model with 3 to attack. We'll wait.

Kommissar Kel wrote:
now lets go back to your earlier half quote on the basic Fighting with 2 single handed weapons rules:
"Some models are equipped with two one-handed weapons they can use in close combat, with the rules given below for different possible combinations."

Leaving out that they can use the equipped weapons or that the Combinations are those possible changes quite a bit of the rule. If a model is equipped with more than 2 weapons it still has to abide by the rules for all the different possible combinations of equipped weapons; once you have figured out which combinations of weapons the model has equipped you then need to figure out which rules to use; this is not a choice of use; it is the rule that exist for the model in question. Since these rules are contadictory we must then determine which of the rules is most specific.

Since the Normal and Special rules state that "all attacks are made with the Special weapon's bonuses and penalties" that means it will always use the Special weapon(and only the special weapon); but in a case where you are equipped with 2 different specials and a normal you have 2 sets of a special and a Normal(one with each special), the rules tell you all attacks are made with the Special; but which special? For a choice in which special you must go to the 2 different Specials rule, it grants a choice and specifies that you never gain a bonus attack.

The underlined has no basis in the actual rules. all the rules are as specific as each other because it depends on what two weapons that are equipped and they are using, or Fighting with, as per the title of the section.

To claim that the section detailing how to fight with two single-handed weapons means only to use one weapon is contradictory to the whole fighting with two single handed weapons section.

The section details how to fight with two single-handed weapons. It details what weapons a model can use in close combat. it even mentions "If a model is using a two handed weapon... it may not use it together with another weapon"

This establishes a few things.

If you have a two handed weapon and a one handed weapon, you can choose one to use. It also established we need to be using the combination of weapons to fight with. If we are fighting with a weapon, we are using these two weapons.

"all attacks are made with the Special weapon's bonuses and penalties" Says you use the bonuses and penalties of the special weapon. when using a normal weapon in your off hand you gain a bonus attack, so you have to use them both to gain the attack.

Nothing in any of the combinations says or even eludes to only using one of the two weapons, and not using the other one.

The only one that even remotely says you use only one weapon goes on to say they never get the bonus attack for using two different special weapons. that established that you have to be using two different special weapons to fight with, so you are in fact using both, but you have to pick one to apply the bonuses and penalties to that round of attacks.

The "but they never get the bonus attack for using two weapons." language is explicitly clear in that they are in fact using two different special weapons.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:OK. Group 1 is wrong. You can have many weapons on the model, and you can use 2 one handed or 1 2 handed weapon each assault phase, as you choose. Everything else works out the same.

There's a rule allowing you to pick what weapons you want to use? What page number is that on?
edit: Also - can you point me out to the rules that allow models with 3 weapons to participate in combat?

Quite explicitly -- Page 42, bottomr right hand side.

"Some models are equipped with two one-handed weapons..........with the rules given below for different combinations."

"If a model is using a two-handed weapon.......it may not use it [the weapon] in combination with another weapon."

It then goes on to say that a normal and a special combat weapon may be used, which leads to +1 A.

So, if the relic blades is two handed, then you may use the pistol and powerweapon in combinations, yielding +1 A, or the relic blade by itself.

If the relic blade is a one-handed weapon that cannot benefit from a secodn weapon to get a second attack, then you may use the pistol and powerweapon in combo as above, OR you may use the relic blade in combo with either, but for not added benefit.

IN either case, you have a choice betwee + 1A or +2 str. You people have really been arguing about nothing.

Can you cite the rules that let you choose among 3 weapons? We've been looking for them for 8 pages in multiple threads.

Oh, they don't exist? Okay, that's what I thought - you're relegated to making up rules. Which is fine - because that's the only way it's playable.

I'm not sure. I know that a BA Glaive Encarmine is a 2 handed weapon, but I don't know the rules for a Relic Blade.

BlapBlapBlap wrote:I'm not sure. I know that a BA Glaive Encarmine is a 2 handed weapon, but I don't know the rules for a Relic Blade.

Read my OP, I quote the SM codex Page 99 that will tell you what it says in the codex.

Kommissar Kel wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:There is absolutely NO reason to think that. You're just making rules up out of thin air, and then you're asking me to justify myself?

Also, notice how "some models are equipped with two one handed...." is there?

Please show a quote allowing a model with 3 to attack. We'll wait.

So.....your theory is.....because the main rule book only mentions models equipped with 2 weapons, models equipped with more don't exist? Or maybe that the act of giving a model more than 2 weapons somehow causes it to collapse into a singularity, the wargaming equivalent of diving by zero?

Or that you can have such a model, but it is simply unable to attack, futility trying to swing 3 weapons with 2 hands, and unwilling to put one back in the sheath?

I'm inclined to think you're just being facetious, that a person could not actually think the fact the book mentions two weapons has an effect in a game where characters can clearly have more.

You also, sir, are just constructing rules out of nonsense.

Why don't you try reading the rules for the combinations of 2 weapons?

They each tell you 2 things.

1) whether or not a bonus attack is gained.

2) Which single weapon is used.

For the "No reason to think that" in regards to the 2 different special weapons; yeah, there is 1 really good reason to think that: the plain black and white text that says exactly that.

Allow me to quote them once more(for the 100th time in this thread); BRB page 42, Fighting with 2 single-handed weapons, 2 different Special weapons: "When it is there turn to attack, these models must choose which weapon to use that turn, but they never get the bonus attack for using two weapons."

I would say that "NEVER" in there is pretty clear indication that the 1 rule that allows a choice in single handed weapons used, also spicifes that they never gain the bonus attack.

now lets go back to your earlier half quote on the basic Fighting with 2 single handed weapons rules:
"Some models are equipped with two one-handed weapons they can use in close combat, with the rules given below for different possible combinations."

Leaving out that they can use the equipped weapons or that the Combinations are those possible changes quite a bit of the rule. If a model is equipped with more than 2 weapons it still has to abide by the rules for all the different possible combinations of equipped weapons; once you have figured out which combinations of weapons the model has equipped you then need to figure out which rules to use; this is not a choice of use; it is the rule that exist for the model in question. Since these rules are contadictory we must then determine which of the rules is most specific.

Since the Normal and Special rules state that "all attacks are made with the Special weapon's bonuses and penalties" that means it will always use the Special weapon(and only the special weapon); but in a case where you are equipped with 2 different specials and a normal you have 2 sets of a special and a Normal(one with each special), the rules tell you all attacks are made with the Special; but which special? For a choice in which special you must go to the 2 different Specials rule, it grants a choice and specifies that you never gain a bonus attack.

You're going to great lengths to misread the plain English in order misconstruct a set of rules that is unplayable. If you just read what was plainly there, and used common sense everything would be fine.

As has been point out, GW does NOT use a key-word based system. The highly technical interpretation you want to use in order to make the rules gibberish simply doesn't apply.

It's also very convoluted and silly. Please stop.

I never said anything about a keyword system.

There is no rules for 3 weapons; so either you need to determine what weapon you attack with from the possible combinations of 2; or a model with 3 weapons never uses any of them(even if it is just 2 normals and a special).

Please; enlighten me of the plain English, because the text reads as I state: the model uses 2 weapons it is equipped with with the rules in the combinations; each rule only ever uses 1 weapon; and the only rule that ever allows a choice in weapon used also specifies that it never gains a bonus attack.

You have continuously made claims that the idea I laid out is unintelligible, and convoluted; yet you have also claimed that the 2 different Special weapon rule does not state that the model making the choice of weapon to use never gains a bonus attack.

If you cannot find the other half of a sentence allowing a choice of weapon, it is no wonder you find looking a rule specificity to be "convoluted", "unintelligible", and "unplayable"

You must find relentless to be Convoluted as well, since the basic rules state that models cannot move and fire heavy weapons, but Relentless says you can; right?

How about Invulnerable saves?

Or any of the other more specific rules that take precedent over the basic rules.

Please stop.

Now DR: the title of the section is fighting with 2 single-handed weapons; that really means very little to the basic rules that the models are equipped with the weapons they intend to use with the different combinations.

And yes the different Combinations are each more specific then the last, but I have already pointed that out and detailed how they are each more specific then the last 2 pages ago.

Normal and a Special does not ever say you are fighting with(using) both weapons, the entire section is based on what weapons the model is equipped with.

Please cite the text that says you are using both the normal and the special and that the normal is being used to gain the bonus.

Normal and normal only tells us to gain the bonus attack; there is nothing about using either weapon.

Two of the same special states that all of the attacks, including the bonus attack, use the special Weapon's(note the singular-possessive usage here; plural possessive would be Weapons') bonuses and and penalties.

A normal and a special is very specific, in that the Special weapon ifs the only one used(you never ever use the normal weapon), and is dependent on what special weapon is being used as to whether they get the onus attack or not.

2 different Specials also specify that only 1 weapon is used(and once again that the model never gains the bonus attack).

All 4 only use 1 weapon(or none in the case of 2N); therefore models never use 2 weapons.

Again you cannot use 2 weapons to then have to choose to use 1(and 2 different also specifies you only use 1 weapon, not 1 weapon's bonuses and penalties; nor 1 weapons effects; you are totally only using 1 weapon); as you are then once more not using 2 weapons.

The rules are based on equipped.

Kommissar Kel wrote:<Snip>Please; enlighten me of the plain English, because the text reads as I state: the model uses 2 weapons it is equipped with with the rules in the combinations; each rule only ever uses 1 weapon; and the only rule that ever allows a choice in weapon used also specifies that it never gains a bonus attack.

This is incorrect, the text states that they are equipped with two weapons they can use...

Kommissar Kel wrote:Now DR: the title of the section is fighting with 2 single-handed weapons; that really means very little to the basic rules that the models are equipped with the weapons they intend to use with the different combinations.

And yes the different Combinations are each more specific then the last, but I have already pointed that out and detailed how they are each more specific then the last 2 pages ago.

They are each more specific than the last by your reading, by my reading they are as specific as all the others, since they detail how to use two weapons.

Kommissar Kel wrote:Normal and a Special does not ever say you are fighting with(using) both weapons, the entire section is based on what weapons the model is equipped with.

Actually it says you are using two different special weapons, thus the line that says "never get the bonus attack for using two weapons" so if you are not using them why include that line of text?

Kommissar Kel wrote:Please cite the text that says you are using both the normal and the special and that the normal is being used to gain the bonus.

Fighting with two single-handed weapons. Page 42 this tells us we are fighting with two single-handed weapons, AKA USING two single-handed weapons.

Kommissar Kel wrote:Two of the same special states that all of the attacks, including the bonus attack, use the special Weapon's(note the singular-possessive usage here; plural possessive would be Weapons') bonuses and and penalties.

Also not how it says "never get the bonus attack for using two weapons" so that tells us we are Using/Wielding two SCCW's and we must pick one to use the bonuses from.

Kommissar Kel wrote:A normal and a special is very specific, in that the Special weapon ifs the only one used(you never ever use the normal weapon), and is dependent on what special weapon is being used as to whether they get the onus attack or not.

This has no backing of the actual rules. The section titled "Fighting with two single-handed weapons" tells us that we are, in fact, using two weapons we are equipped with.

Kommissar Kel wrote:2 different Specials also specify that only 1 weapon is used(and once again that the model never gains the bonus attack).

only one weapons bonuses and penalties are used, this is backed by the "never get the bonus attack for using two weapons" this tells us we are using two weapons, but do not gain the bonus attack for having a second CCW.

Kommissar Kel wrote:All 4 only use 1 weapon(or none in the case of 2N); therefore models never use 2 weapons.

Utterly untrue. The rules for one weapon are detailed on P.37, the rules for using 2 weapons are detailed on P.42.

Kommissar Kel wrote:Again you cannot use 2 weapons to then have to choose to use 1(and 2 different also specifies you only use 1 weapon, not 1 weapon's bonuses and penalties; nor 1 weapons effects; you are totally only using 1 weapon); as you are then once more not using 2 weapons.
The rules are based on equipped.

See above about using two ccw's

The rules are base on equipped and using, this is the concept you are not understanding.

"equipped with that they can use"

Notice how it says they have to be equipped with weapons they can USE in CC. This tells us they are using/fighting with two single-handed weapons

You are making up rules deathreaper.

Not at all, the section details how to Fight with two single-handed weapons.

In the english language this means you are using two single-handed weapons to attack with.

they say equipped with that they can use, that tells us they are using two single-handed weapons in CC

DeathReaper wrote:Not at all, the section details how to Fight with two single-handed weapons.

In the english language this means you are using two single-handed weapons to attack with.

they say equipped with that they can use, that tells us they are using two single-handed weapons in CC

nope. It never says that and never gives you the ability to choose two before applying results. You are making up rules which are implied.

2 weapons is a subset of 3+ weapons and works fine. You may only choose you have 2sccw. Choosing two weapons then applying a different result is made up and has no basis in the rules.

It boils down to this, The model needs to be able to choose the combination they are going to use, otherwise the rules DO NOT WORK and the game breaks.

Yakface has it almost spot on.

Thank you for the discussion.

Yakface wrote: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?

So you must be able to make up rules in order for the game not to break? Because the rules do NOT allow you to choose.
I have repeatedly asked you for the EXACT allowance to choose, and you have NEVER found it. You have repeated the same inane line that does NOT provide permission, EVEN implicit permission

You are required to make up rules in order to let the game funciton with 3+ CCW guys, so why are you making up rules SPECIFICALLY that allows an additional attack that the rules strongly hint should NEVER be gained?

nosferatu1001 wrote:So you must be able to make up rules in order for the game not to break? Because the rules do NOT allow you to choose.
I have repeatedly asked you for the EXACT allowance to choose, and you have NEVER found it. You have repeated the same inane line that does NOT provide permission, EVEN implicit permission

You are required to make up rules in order to let the game funciton with 3+ CCW guys, so why are you making up rules SPECIFICALLY that allows an additional attack that the rules strongly hint should NEVER be gained?

1) I have shown where you are allowed to choose. its called P.42 and Fighting with 2 CCW's. This details how you can only ever Fight with 2 CCW's, so if we have 3, we must pick 2 to fight with before we move on, it is simple logic that brings us to this step.

2) The "an additional attack that the rules strongly hint should NEVER be gained" is only for models fighting with two SCCW's please do not pretend that this section does not detail how to Fight/Use/Wield 2 CCW's.

Lets go with the majority of voters in this thread for just a second here and ask one question:

An honor guard model, that has purchased a relic blade now has a Relic Blade(2 Handed CCW), Bolt Pistol(1 Handed CCW), and Power weapon(1 Handed CCW).

How do we determine what weapon(s) a honor guard model, that has purchased a relic blade, fights with?

If you are planning on getting a SS, you can never claim an extra attack for two CCWs
Also, how is that model legal?

Relic blade is not a two handed weapon. Since he has two sccw as part of his 3 weapons, you apply the more specific rules of 2sccw.

Which is choose one and never get a bonus. Works fine without trying to gain personal advantage out of a black hole in the rules.

DR: the section of the rules can be titled: "Fluffy bunny slippers" for all that matters, the rules in that section are clear; you quoted 1/2 of the in the last post you quoted them:

DeathReaper wrote:This is incorrect, the text states that they are equipped with two weapons they can use...

Of course, you conveiniently snipped the rule to make it seem like they are useing the 2 weapons they are equipped with.


Fact is, that with the rest of the sentence you see that thy are equipped with 2 weapons; they can then use the weapons with the rules for the combinations. The combinations are all about equipped with; since they all only use 1 weapon.


No the 2 different special weapons does not say you are using 2 different Specials, it never says you use the 2 different; it says you choose 1 and never gain a bonus for using a second weapon(meaning when you have the choice in special weapon, and you have a normal, and you choose to use a normal that can be claimed for bonus with Normal and Special; you cannot ever claim the bonus for the normal in your possession).

Why did you quote that I stated you never use both the normal and special; then start talking about 2 different like it was relevant to the quote?

Again; finish the sentence. If you stop at the word use; your reading is true, when you finish the sentence you see that they are not using the 2 equipped weapons they are using the rules for the combinations of weapons.

Kommissar Kel wrote:Fact is, that with the rest of the sentence you see that thy are equipped with 2 weapons; they can then use the weapons with the rules for the combinations. The combinations are all about equipped with; since they all only use 1 weapon.

Until you actually read the section on 2 Sccw's which says they never get the bonus for using 2 Sccw's (Such is the penalty for wielding too many complex weapons.)

It is made clear in that section that they are using 2 Sccw's.

and Nke, you did not answer my question, mind going along with the 75% of the voters that say the relic blade is two handed, and actually answer the question?

DeathReaper wrote:
Until you actually read the section on 2 Sccw's which says they never get the bonus for using 2 Sccw's (Such is the penalty for wielding too many complex weapons.)

No, it says they never get a bonus for using 2 weapons. Special Weapons are never mentioned in that paragraph except in the title.

Happyjew wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
Until you actually read the section on 2 Sccw's which says they never get the bonus for using 2 Sccw's (Such is the penalty for wielding too many complex weapons.)

No, it says they never get a bonus for using 2 weapons. Special Weapons are never mentioned in that paragraph except in the title.

and none of this matters as you must be using two weapons to get that. Till you pick two weapons you can never be using two different special

And in order to use 2 weapons, you MUST choose a special weapon to use, and since you've chosen a special weapon, you do not get a bonus for using 2 weapons.

Happyjew wrote:And in order to use 2 weapons, you MUST choose a special weapon to use, and since you've chosen a special weapon, you do not get a bonus for using 2 weapons.

... and in order to use the choice in two different special weapons you must also be only using two weapons.

Happyjew wrote:No, it says they never get a bonus for using 2 weapons. Special Weapons are never mentioned in that paragraph except in the title.

The title details how a model fights with two Special close combat weapons, that is why Special Weapons are never mentioned, because the title of the section does that, it would be redundant to say special close combat weapon, when the intro says here are the rules for two different special close combat weapons.

They never get the bonus for using two weapons, that section is talking about special close combat weapons, so in that sentence two weapons is synonymous with two special close combat weapons.

This is not debatable.

Tri wrote:

Happyjew wrote:And in order to use 2 weapons, you MUST choose a special weapon to use, and since you've chosen a special weapon, you do not get a bonus for using 2 weapons.

... and in order to use the choice in two different special weapons you must also be only using two weapons.

Which means, if a model is equipped with 3 1-handed CCW, and only 1 is normal, then you MUST make up a rule in order to attack in close combat.

Happyjew wrote:

Tri wrote:

Happyjew wrote:And in order to use 2 weapons, you MUST choose a special weapon to use, and since you've chosen a special weapon, you do not get a bonus for using 2 weapons.

... and in order to use the choice in two different special weapons you must also be only using two weapons.

Which means, if a model is equipped with 3 1-handed CCW, and only 1 is normal, then you MUST make up a rule in order to attack in close combat.

or just like with shooting weapons you pick what you want and see what happens. My interpretation, is if you can only use X and you have more then X you must pick X number from the total; then you may look at the rest of the rules.

Regardless, I think this thread has gone off topic. And the discussion of multiple 1-handed SCCW should be continued somewhere else.

It's a 2 handed weapon.

DR - so, you cant find a rule? Brilliant - just admt youre using "implied" rules that let you pick 2 from a subset of 3+ CCW.

"Fighting with 2 CCW" does not state you can pick 2 CCW from a subset of 3+ - no matter how many times you lie and say it does you will not ever, ever, ever change reality.

So, when making a rule up making one up that doesnt give you an unwarranted, by fluff, advantage is safest.

Do not repeat your lack-of-argument again, it is pointless stating something that isnt actually true. If you truly believe that "Fighting with 2 CCW" means "Fighting with 2CCW. If you have more, dont worry! You can CHOOSE 2 of them, and dont worry that I dont actually SAY "choose" anywhere, its "implied"!" then your understanding of English is very different to mine.