49495
Post by: Joe Mama
With regards to power weapons, rulebook says, if the weapon has no further special rules, look at the model to see which type of power weapon it is, and use the weapon stats for that type. Therefore, if the weapon has other special rules, we are not directed to look at the model to see which type of power weapon.
Question is what does GW mean by special rules? I would hope something obvious like the 'Universal Special Rules' plus codex specific rules. Ignoring the whole bit about "unique" weapons that comes later, can we nail down at least what a special rule for a weapon is?
28444
Post by: DarknessEternal
Any rules aside from those given by "power weapon".
All the rules debates are easily solved when you look at it in it's most simple form.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
I would say that "special rules" in this case are any additional rules not covered by USRs.
So a two-handed power weapon is not special. A mastercrafted power sword - again not special. A two-handed power weapon that adds +2 Str: Special.
At least, that is how i see it.
49495
Post by: Joe Mama
Uh oh, two replies, two opposing views alread.
Happyjew wrote:I would say that "special rules" in this case are any additional rules not covered by USRs.
To me that would be odd since the 'S' and the 'R' in USR stands for Special Rules. But GW does odd stuff sometimes. 
46128
Post by: Happyjew
And that is why I quoted special rules. To distinguish between special rules that are unique to a given weapon, and special rules that are universal.
28444
Post by: DarknessEternal
Joe Mama wrote:Uh oh, two replies, two opposing views alread.
And in my view, there's utterly no room for quibbling about what power weapons are special power weapons, which makes it the more elegant rule.
21110
Post by: Lone Dragoon
I have to agree with Happyjew on this one. If the weapon has a special rule that is identical to what is in the BBB, then it is not a special weapon. Master crafted, Two handed, Specialist Weapon, Unwieldy, etc are all rules that have a BBB equivalent, and thus do not fall under the Unusual power weapon rule. However something like Logan's Axe Morkai, Astorath's Executioner's Axe, Burnas, or even a Relic blade have rules that exceed those given in the BBB. For example, the ability to strike as a power fist and/or as a frost blade cannot be duplicated, nor is the +2 strength bonus, or being able to use it as a flamer or power weapon. When the rule cannot be duplicated, then it falls under the Unusual Power weapon rule.
49495
Post by: Joe Mama
Happyjew wrote:And that is why I quoted special rules. To distinguish between special rules that are unique to a given weapon, and special rules that are universal.
Wait, what? Doesn't the language say something like 'no further special rules'? Which would imply that something like 'power weapon' is a special rule, as special rule is defined in that sentence. Which means your USR distinction doesn't make much sense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lone Dragoon wrote:I have to agree with Happyjew on this one. If the weapon has a special rule that is identical to what is in the BBB, then it is not a special weapon.
The text discusses further special rules, we don't know what they mean by special rules. You're saying the rulebook's chapter on special rules are not considered special rules, as far as power weapons are concerned?
Master crafted, Two handed, Specialist Weapon, Unwieldy, etc are all rules that have a BBB equivalent, and thus do not fall under the Unusual power weapon rule.
ATTENTION EVERYONE. This thread isn't about the Unusual power weapon rule. This thread is about what the codex means by 'special rules' when discussing regular power weapons. If it has no further special rules, we look to the model to see the type of weapon. When does a model not have further special rules?
45407
Post by: Kiredor
The problem Joe Mama is pointing out is that the only time we have permission to decide what type of weapon it is, (Sword, Axe, Maul, Lance) is when it has no special rules.
However to be Unusual, it requires Unique rules.
Do we ignore the line about special rules for things like Glaive Encarmine and the Axe Mortalis and other weapons with universal special rules, or do we consider USRs unique and then make them all unusual?
There is a gap here.
49495
Post by: Joe Mama
Kiredor wrote:There is a gap here.
Indeed. But I'd even get more basic than that. Some people think "mastecrafted" or other Universal Special Rules, don't count as a Special Rule in the context of power weapons. It's going to be very hard to even get to unusual weapons if we first can't figure out what they ( GW) mean by 'special rules'
21110
Post by: Lone Dragoon
Joe Mama wrote:ATTENTION EVERYONE. This thread isn't about the Unusual power weapon rule. This thread is about what the codex means by 'special rules' when discussing regular power weapons. If it has no further special rules, we look to the model to see the type of weapon. When does a model not have further special rules?
The problem with saying that is that rule is the determining factor whether or not we figure out a power weapon's properties under the power weapons rules, or if we use a different set of rules for them. By taking the unusual power weapons rule out of the equation by elimination due to the rules of the weapon currently up for discussion (I'm just using the currently up for discussion phrase to mean when playing the game), we are then free to determine the actual rules we use for the weapons.
We essentially have to determine, is the rule of the weapon able to be duplicated by rules from the rule book? If the answer is yes, then it is a power weapon with special rules. If the answer is no, then it is an unusual power weapon and follows its own rules.
49495
Post by: Joe Mama
Lone Dragoon wrote:We essentially have to determine, is the rule of the weapon able to be duplicated by rules from the rule book? If the answer is yes, then it is a power weapon with special rules. If the answer is no, then it is an unusual power weapon and follows its own rules.
Question begging.  The rulebook doesn't say anything about duplication of rules, it says does it have further special rules. If not, look at the model.
28444
Post by: DarknessEternal
Joe Mama wrote:Lone Dragoon wrote:We essentially have to determine, is the rule of the weapon able to be duplicated by rules from the rule book? If the answer is yes, then it is a power weapon with special rules. If the answer is no, then it is an unusual power weapon and follows its own rules.
Question begging.
Holy crap, an accurate usage of Begging the Question.
Lone Dragon states "is the rule of the weapon able to be duplicated by rules from the rule book? If the answer is yes, then it is a power weapon with special rules. If the answer is no, then it is an unusual power weapon and follows its own rules." which assumes the answer to "what is a special rule?" is already defined by his definition. His definition is the premise of his argument, not the result. It can't be used as proof.
21110
Post by: Lone Dragoon
Yes, it says look at the model if it's a basic power weapon upgrade. What you're missing though, power weapons can be given additional special rules. There is nothing preventing the addition of special rules. As an example, a weapon may receive the master-crafted upgrade should the points be paid for it, if it is a possible upgrade. Say a codex allows a weapon to be master crafted. We look at the weapon it is a sword, now we apply the additional special rule. It now has the following statline;
Str AP Special Rules
Power Sword User 3 Melee, Master-crafted
We have a special rule that is added to the statline. If said weapon was an axe it would look like this;
Str AP Special Rules
Power Axe +1 2 Melee, Master-crafted, Unwieldy
I take it to mean by "no further special rules" to mean whether or not the weapon falls under the unusual power weapon heading. It's the least amount of headache, and the easiest way to figure it out. We can debate endlessly about whether a master-crafted power weapon should look at the model to determine type, but which is going to be an easier route for everyone and still make a modicum of sense out of the badly worded rules?
45407
Post by: Kiredor
The problem is that the only time we get to decide the weapon is if it has no special rules.
There is no player choice in what kind of power weapon it is, except in modelling it.
If you buy a power weapon, you don't pick one when you pay the points, you look at the model when you go to find the rules.
But you only do that if there are no special rules.
Personally, I would agree with RAI as being how Lone Dragoon looks at it, but RAW, if you have a special rule, but not a unique rule, you cannot determine the type of weapon it is.
Which is an issue, really.
28444
Post by: DarknessEternal
Master Crafted is a Special Rule. It's defined as specifically as a Special Rule. Once you Master Craft a power weapon, it becomes a power weapon with a Special Rule.
49495
Post by: Joe Mama
DarknessEternal wrote:Joe Mama wrote:Lone Dragoon wrote:We essentially have to determine, is the rule of the weapon able to be duplicated by rules from the rule book? If the answer is yes, then it is a power weapon with special rules. If the answer is no, then it is an unusual power weapon and follows its own rules.
Question begging.
Holy crap, an accurate usage of Begging the Question.
Lone Dragon states "is the rule of the weapon able to be duplicated by rules from the rule book? If the answer is yes, then it is a power weapon with special rules. If the answer is no, then it is an unusual power weapon and follows its own rules." which assumes the answer to "what is a special rule?" is already defined by his definition. His definition is the premise of his argument, not the result. It can't be used as proof.
LOL. Thanks? No really, thank you for spelling out what I meant, because I went the lazy way with just naming the catch phrase / logical fallacy.
21110
Post by: Lone Dragoon
DarknessEternal wrote:Master Crafted is a Special Rule. It's defined as specifically as a Special Rule. Once you Master Craft a power weapon, it becomes a power weapon with a Special Rule.
However my question though, if it's a power weapon with a special rule, what stats line are you going to give it? If you can't look at the weapon to determine it, and it doesn't fall under the "unique" rule of the unusual power weapon, we end up with a headache.
54671
Post by: Crazyterran
DarknessEternal wrote:Master Crafted is a Special Rule. It's defined as specifically as a Special Rule. Once you Master Craft a power weapon, it becomes a power weapon with a Special Rule.
Marneus Calgar has a pair of Master Crafted Power Fists.
Would you argue that they are unusual power weapons instead? And that they don't give an extra attack? lawl.
45407
Post by: Kiredor
That's basically the problem, there is no rule for it.
If they FAQ'd the codex to replace any instance of Power Weapon with Power Axe, Lance, Maul or Sword, then we wouldn't have a problem.
But you don't have the ability to purchase a specific type of weapon, so your model never has a Master Crafted Power Axe, unless specifically stated in the Codex, because we don't determine that till we have a model, and at that point, due to it having a special rule, we don't use the model to determine it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also Crazy Terran, powerfists are not power weapons.
49495
Post by: Joe Mama
Lone Dragoon wrote:However my question though, if it's a power weapon with a special rule, what stats line are you going to give it? If you can't look at the weapon to determine it, and it doesn't fall under the "unique" rule of the unusual power weapon, we end up with a headache.
Yes, that's the next question in the analysis. But since there seems to be massive disagreement about the first question, how can we even deal with this second one?
21110
Post by: Lone Dragoon
Joe Mama wrote:Lone Dragoon wrote:However my question though, if it's a power weapon with a special rule, what stats line are you going to give it? If you can't look at the weapon to determine it, and it doesn't fall under the "unique" rule of the unusual power weapon, we end up with a headache.
Yes, that's the next question in the analysis. But since there seems to be massive disagreement about the first question, how can we even deal with this second one?
The easy way, we know that special rules can be given to weapons. If it's a power weapon, it's either an unusual pw, a regular pw, or a pw with rules added to it. We are told on page 32 that the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative, which means that we can add special rules found on pages 32-43, if we are given permission to. What this means is that the special rules found on page 32-43 do not restrict the power weapons working as intended. If we agree that the addition (with permission) of special rules from those pages may be added (again, we can have extra special rules that are cumulative), then the only other definition that makes sense is if the weapon has a rule the only way that it would count as ineligible to determine the type of weapon, would be a unique rule that qualifies it for the unusual power weapons rule.
45407
Post by: Kiredor
The sentence in full is
'If a model's wargear says it has a power weapon which has no further special rules'
Does this mean that if it has no rules further than those listed in the entry? or no rules other than 'power weapon'?
14701
Post by: Brother Ramses
Does a power weapon allow a single reroll to hit when used in melee?
No.
Guess one that does must be special among power weapons.
45407
Post by: Kiredor
So how do we determine its abilities?
46128
Post by: Happyjew
So a Master-crafted power weapon would not be based on what it looks like but instead always Strength, (User) AP (3?
49495
Post by: Joe Mama
Kiredor wrote:So how do we determine its abilities?
Yes, if we agree on the first question, how indeed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Happyjew wrote:So a Master-crafted power weapon would not be based on what it looks like but instead always Strength, (User) AP (3?
Unclear.
1) Does the power weapon have other "special rules" whatever that means? If No, look at model, figure out weapon type, use the chart. If Yes, if it has special rules, go to next step.
2) Is the weapon "unique" whatever that means? If yes, it is AP3 with those extra rules, if no.... uh..... umm..... er.... 
45407
Post by: Kiredor
Happyjew,
The problem is that to be Unusual it requires Unique rules.
So the master crafted power weapon, has special rules, meaning we cant look at the model to figure out what it is.
But as it doesnt have unique rules, its not unusual.
Therefore what is it? From RAW, its S(U) AP -,
What I would like to know is which makes more sense to other people, changing special to unique in the first section of the rules, or changing unique to special in the unusual rules, just to clear up the issue?
49495
Post by: Joe Mama
Kiredor wrote:What I would like to know is which makes more sense to other people, changing special to unique in the first section of the rules, or changing unique to special in the unusual rules, just to clear up the issue?
If we are just talking about preferences and not what the rules say now, I would change unique to special, with a broad definition of what special is (a broad, but well defined definition listed in the codex). That way there is no gap for weapons to fall between. Otherwise if we went the other way (only unique rules make a weapon unusual), I am sure there would be some poor ICs who have axes with USRs added, who would have to strike at Iniative 1 instead of their normal quick speed....
34439
Post by: Formosa
so from the locked thread..
my master of the ravenwing has a MC power weapon, its described in the fluff as the Raven SWORD, now can i change it to a Lance (mainly due to rule of cool) or would i have to stick to use it as an "unsual" power weapon (due to being MC) ?
49272
Post by: Testify
Does it really matter? Anything definted as a power weapon is now AP3, plus whatever else it was. So a power weapon that always wounded on 3+, now wounds on 3+ and is AP3. A Power Weapon that gives you +2 initiative now gives you +2 initiative and is AP3.
45407
Post by: Kiredor
Joe Mama, im leaning towards the opposite, but with the addendum that named weapons are all unusual unless specified otherwise.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Testify, no,
There is no longer an ap value for power weapons
only swords, axes, mauls, lances and unusual weapons.
49495
Post by: Joe Mama
Formosa wrote:so from the locked thread..
my master of the ravenwing has a MC power weapon, its described in the fluff as the Raven SWORD, now can i change it to a Lance (mainly due to rule of cool) or would i have to stick to use it as an "unsual" power weapon (due to being MC) ?
From the rules right now, fluff doesn't matter, and if the codex says 'power weapon' and not 'power sword', and it also gives it the MC special rule, then the stats for the weapon isn't based on the "look at the model and see" rule. It wouldn't be "unusual" because it doesn't seem to have a "unique" rule, unless "unique" is supposed to be synonymous with "special." So my answer is - Rules as Written I have no clue.  However if this gets cleared up by GW and this type of weapon is ruled unusual, I reckon you'd be able to model it however you wanted to, so long as your opponent is informed it is AP3 with whatever special rules it has.
49272
Post by: Testify
Kiredor wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Testify, no,
There is no longer an ap value for power weapons
only swords, axes, mauls, lances and unusual weapons.
You know what I mean.
49495
Post by: Joe Mama
Testify wrote:Does it really matter? Anything definted as a power weapon is now AP3, plus whatever else it was. So a power weapon that always wounded on 3+, now wounds on 3+ and is AP3. A Power Weapon that gives you +2 initiative now gives you +2 initiative and is AP3.
This ain't right. Power weapons can be AP2, AP3, or AP4 depending on what they are. Yes, unusual ones are all AP3, but what does that include? Everything that has a special rule (once we all agree on what that means)? Or only some? If it is only some, how do we classify non-unusual pw which have special rules? Automatically Appended Next Post: Kiredor wrote:Joe Mama, im leaning towards the opposite, but with the addendum that named weapons are all unusual unless specified otherwise.
Hmm, that way could work too. Whatever ruins less ICs would probably be my choice. 
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
Joe Mama wrote:Testify wrote:Does it really matter? Anything definted as a power weapon is now AP3, plus whatever else it was. So a power weapon that always wounded on 3+, now wounds on 3+ and is AP3. A Power Weapon that gives you +2 initiative now gives you +2 initiative and is AP3.
This ain't right. Power weapons can be AP2, AP3, or AP4 depending on what they are. Yes, unusual ones are all AP3, but what does that include? Everything that has a special rule (once we all agree on what that means)? Or only some? If it is only some, how do we classify non-unusual pw which have special rules? Automatically Appended Next Post: Kiredor wrote:Joe Mama, im leaning towards the opposite, but with the addendum that named weapons are all unusual unless specified otherwise.
Hmm, that way could work too. Whatever ruins less ICs would probably be my choice.
I would go with a Power Weapon that has a USR upgrade (like Master Crafted) can be a Master Crafted Power Axe, Maul, or Sword rather than being unusual. Otherwise, we end up with the conundrum mentioned above and a headache for fluff players, i.e. there is no such thing as a master-crafted power axe or power maul in the entire galaxy.
45407
Post by: Kiredor
Except Lemartes!
He has a master-crafted Power Maul!
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
Kiredor wrote:Except Lemartes!
He has a master-crafted Power Maul!
Well, that imploded the argument that master-crafting a weapon made it unusual...
...either that or GW ignored their own rules (which isn't out of the question).
45407
Post by: Kiredor
It had to be FAQ'd specifically for him.
I believe that there is the intent in the game for USRs to be applicable to non-unusual power weapons.
I mean, technically both Power Mauls and Power Axes have USRs (concussive and unwieldy).
60550
Post by: Captain Antivas
Happyjew wrote:And that is why I quoted special rules. To distinguish between special rules that are unique to a given weapon, and special rules that are universal.
Capitalizing in 40k is important. Special Rules refers to USR, special rules refers to codex specific or out of the ordinary rules.
49704
Post by: sfshilo
Kiredor wrote:It had to be FAQ'd specifically for him.
I believe that there is the intent in the game for USRs to be applicable to non-unusual power weapons.
I mean, technically both Power Mauls and Power Axes have USRs (concussive and unwieldy).
This a million times over.
If they had meant USR's, the rule would have stated USR, not special.
Special by that definition is anything outside the bounds of power weapons, AKA Codex unique items...
Had they only said unique instead of special, this crap would have been much easier and fun.
7662
Post by: Camarodragon
DarknessEternal wrote:Any rules aside from those given by "power weapon".
All the rules debates are easily solved when you look at it in it's most simple form.
+1
"that was easy"
45407
Post by: Kiredor
Camarodragon wrote:DarknessEternal wrote:Any rules aside from those given by "power weapon".
All the rules debates are easily solved when you look at it in it's most simple form.
+1
"that was easy"
Ok, so a Master Crafted Power Weapon has no AP value? It would just be a regular CCW?
19472
Post by: Gunzhard
sfshilo wrote:Kiredor wrote:It had to be FAQ'd specifically for him.
I believe that there is the intent in the game for USRs to be applicable to non-unusual power weapons.
I mean, technically both Power Mauls and Power Axes have USRs (concussive and unwieldy).
This a million times over.
If they had meant USR's, the rule would have stated USR, not special.
Special by that definition is anything outside the bounds of power weapons, AKA Codex unique items...
Had they only said unique instead of special, this crap would have been much easier and fun.
While this makes the most sense to me... you guys are also forgetting the lack of consistency among codex. In some codex, some weapons are "Special" simply because 'that one time' they chose not to just say it's that USR with the same rules etc... I truly believe this cannot be solved with the information we currently have... what makes sense to me is still a potential fight against your non- BA opponent elsewhere. GW has to address this period.
14701
Post by: Brother Ramses
I am going to play this whole special and uniquw/unusual issue as anything beyond, "power weapon" makes it ap3, user str/initiative.
Every argument against that stance in the myriad of threads about it since 6th dropped has been based soley on opinion of what constitutes special/unique/unusual. As someone mentioned, the simplest interpretation, blah, blah.
So when I am facing the Axe of Mortalis, it will be ap3, user str/initiative. Same with sang guard glaive encarmines.
60550
Post by: Captain Antivas
Brother Ramses wrote:I am going to play this whole special and uniquw/unusual issue as anything beyond, "power weapon" makes it ap3, user str/initiative.
Every argument against that stance in the myriad of threads about it since 6th dropped has been based soley on opinion of what constitutes special/unique/unusual. As someone mentioned, the simplest interpretation, blah, blah.
So when I am facing the Axe of Mortalis, it will be ap3, user str/initiative. Same with sang guard glaive encarmines.
You can't just ignore a rule because it is inconvenient to you or you don't like it and blame it on "someone else's opinion". There have been plenty of arguments that have been based on facts and definitions and you choose to ignore them for whatever reason.
The bottom line is this: basic rules are defined as applying to all models. Any model that has a MC weapon has the same rule, so MC is a basic rule that applies to Dante's Axe.
58605
Post by: Lichkitten
Ouch my brain hurts. As i see it the standard leader of a unit that upgrades to a power weapon will go off the represented weapon on the model, a master-crafted version should act the same, while codex specific (glave, relic, klaves, boneswords, blakc swords & warsyths) are unusual. Yes i am aware that GW have not changed the boneswords that will still ignore armour and warsyths are AP1, but they are codex specific so i used them in theory to try to explain my opinion.
14701
Post by: Brother Ramses
Captain Antivas wrote:Brother Ramses wrote:I am going to play this whole special and uniquw/unusual issue as anything beyond, "power weapon" makes it ap3, user str/initiative.
Every argument against that stance in the myriad of threads about it since 6th dropped has been based soley on opinion of what constitutes special/unique/unusual. As someone mentioned, the simplest interpretation, blah, blah.
So when I am facing the Axe of Mortalis, it will be ap3, user str/initiative. Same with sang guard glaive encarmines.
You can't just ignore a rule because it is inconvenient to you or you don't like it and blame it on "someone else's opinion". My arguments have been based on facts and definitions and you choose to ignore them for whatever reason.
I am not ignoring a rule because I don't like it, I am ignoring people like you that are considering the Axe of Mortalis not special/unique/unusual enough because it is only mastercrafted. It isn't fact that you THINK the Axe of Mortalis is not special/unique/unusual enough because it is only mastercrafted, that is your opinion and only your opinion.
Now it is my opinion that mastercrafted is special/unique/unusual enough to be ap3, user str/initiative, but then I also point out that power weapons are by default not mastercrafted. That is something "extra" beyond a default power weapon, kinda like an extra chromosome makes you special. I point out that by default, power weapons do not reroll one missed hit in melee when used. That is something special that is not on a default power weapon.
60550
Post by: Captain Antivas
Brother Ramses wrote:Captain Antivas wrote:Brother Ramses wrote:I am going to play this whole special and uniquw/unusual issue as anything beyond, "power weapon" makes it ap3, user str/initiative.
Every argument against that stance in the myriad of threads about it since 6th dropped has been based soley on opinion of what constitutes special/unique/unusual. As someone mentioned, the simplest interpretation, blah, blah.
So when I am facing the Axe of Mortalis, it will be ap3, user str/initiative. Same with sang guard glaive encarmines.
You can't just ignore a rule because it is inconvenient to you or you don't like it and blame it on "someone else's opinion". My arguments have been based on facts and definitions and you choose to ignore them for whatever reason.
I am not ignoring a rule because I don't like it, I am ignoring people like you that are considering the Axe of Mortalis not special/unique/unusual enough because it is only mastercrafted. It isn't fact that you THINK the Axe of Mortalis is not special/unique/unusual enough because it is only mastercrafted, that is your opinion and only your opinion.
Now it is my opinion that mastercrafted is special/unique/unusual enough to be ap3, user str/initiative, but then I also point out that power weapons are by default not mastercrafted. That is something "extra" beyond a default power weapon, kinda like an extra chromosome makes you special. I point out that by default, power weapons do not reroll one missed hit in melee when used. That is something special that is not on a default power weapon.
All Master-crafted axes do the same thing. It is hardly unique.
7662
Post by: Camarodragon
Kiredor wrote:Camarodragon wrote:DarknessEternal wrote:Any rules aside from those given by "power weapon".
All the rules debates are easily solved when you look at it in it's most simple form.
+1
"that was easy"
Ok, so a Master Crafted Power Weapon has no AP value? It would just be a regular CCW?
No. Its AP3 Automatically Appended Next Post: Brother Ramses wrote:
So when I am facing the Axe of Mortalis, it will be ap3, user str/initiative. Same with sang guard glaive encarmines.
What he said..
45407
Post by: Kiredor
Camarodragon,
There are no rules for a 'Power Weapon' if it is not definable as one of the four types, or unusual.
By RAW, a Master Crafted Power Weapon does not fall into any of those categories, for reasons I have explained in this thread.
Just because it has a special rule, doesn't mean it is Unusual.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Brother Rameses
I agree, a master crafted power weapon has a special rule.
It is not, however, unique.
Therefore it falls outside of the only categories for Power Weapons we have in the rules, and therein lies the problem
39309
Post by: Jidmah
This is one of the rare occasions I agree with Brother Ramses.
If a weapon has an rule besides "this is a powerweapon", be it USR or any other rule, it is an AP3 weapon.
Obviously some of the universal special rules like Master-Crafted or Two-Handed were not intended to work this way, but that doesn't change the rules. There are worse rule hick-ups all over the edition.
60550
Post by: Captain Antivas
Jidmah wrote:This is one of the rare occasions I agree with Brother Ramses.
If a weapon has an rule besides "this is a powerweapon", be it USR or any other rule, it is an AP3 weapon.
Obviously some of the universal special rules like Master-Crafted or Two-Handed were not intended to work this way, but that doesn't change the rules. There are worse rule hick-ups all over the edition.
No it doesn't change the rules. Please explain to me how a rule that acts the same across all codexes, a universal rule we will say, is unique. Every master crafted power axe has exactly the same rule and is treated exactly the same be it in the hands of an ork, an Imperial Guardsman, or a Space Marine Chapter Master, but that is a unique rule. You are really expecting me to accept that a universal rule is unique?
45407
Post by: Kiredor
Also, Brother Rameses and Jidmah,
The Rules for Unusual Power Weapons do not EVER use the word Special. It does not occur ONCE in the entry for Unusual Power Weapons.
You are arguing that anything that has a special rule is an Unusual Power Weapon. The rules do not back this up, as they do not refer to special rules, only unique ones.
This does not mean that you may not have the intent of the rule correct. I wouldn't be surprised if it is FAQ'd that way, but the rules as they stand do not work the way you are saying.
Unusual Power Weapons are NOT just weapons with special rules, because that is not what defines a Unusual Weapon.
39309
Post by: Jidmah
Captain Antivas wrote:Jidmah wrote:This is one of the rare occasions I agree with Brother Ramses.
If a weapon has an rule besides "this is a powerweapon", be it USR or any other rule, it is an AP3 weapon.
Obviously some of the universal special rules like Master-Crafted or Two-Handed were not intended to work this way, but that doesn't change the rules. There are worse rule hick-ups all over the edition.
No it doesn't change the rules. Please explain to me how a rule that acts the same across all codexes, a universal rule we will say, is unique. Every master crafted power axe has exactly the same rule and is treated exactly the same be it in the hands of an ork, an Imperial Guardsman, or a Space Marine Chapter Master, but that is a unique rule. You are really expecting me to accept that a universal rule is unique?
So power weapons which confer +1 strength would not be unique, since power weapons conferring +1 strength would be the same in the hands of an ork, an Imperial Guardsman, or a Space Marine Chapter Master. Even a burna or a nemesis force halberd would work the same on an ork, an Imperial Guardsman, or a Space Marine Chapter Master. If you word it that way, no power weapon would ever be unique, except those which are found on unique models.
Is that your stance?
28444
Post by: DarknessEternal
This rule is perfectly clear and unarguable if you read it in it's most simple form.
Does the weapon have additional rules besides being a power weapon? Yes, then it's AP 3 and doesn't matter what it looks like.
Stop making mountains out of molehills.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
I prefer to make Monoliths out of molehills, but ymmv.
21110
Post by: Lone Dragoon
Jidmah wrote:So power weapons which confer +1 strength would not be unique, since power weapons conferring +1 strength would be the same in the hands of an ork, an Imperial Guardsman, or a Space Marine Chapter Master. Even a burna or a nemesis force halberd would work the same on an ork, an Imperial Guardsman, or a Space Marine Chapter Master. If you word it that way, no power weapon would ever be unique, except those which are found on unique models.
Is that your stance?
Careful with the strawman arguments there. The problem with your assertion in this post Jidmah, you're comparing apples to oranges. Your comparing rules that affect everything and everyone to weapons from individual codices.
DarknessEternal, the problem is you're over simplifying it. Assume we're all intelligent people and can handle a little difficulty in our rules, we're reading GWs rules after all. The problem with oversimplifying the problem, is that in the end we need to make things a bit more complex for some of the rules to even make sense. You're using a power axe that's master-crafted. Why would you strike at your initiative, AP3, and with no bonus to strength? You're still using a power axe, just one with a special rule. Master crafting does not make a weapon unique. It's said that every craftsman makes one masterpiece in his or her lifetime. So with all those untold billions in the future, master-crafted weapons aren't all that uncommon. The other problem with oversimplifying it, so power weapons that have no special rules use the models to see. Suddenly the weapon has a special rule and because it does so, it's an unusual power weapon because it's no longer "just a power weapon."
Sometimes we need to set aside the rules, and use common sense. Are we playing by the letter of the rules? Sure, it can be seen that way, but that's not always the right course of action. If I have fun being an ass to someone, and the rules tell me to have fun, then I should have fun being an ass to my opponent since the rules tell me I can be, right?
19472
Post by: Gunzhard
DarknessEternal wrote:This rule is perfectly clear and unarguable if you read it in it's most simple form.
Does the weapon have additional rules besides being a power weapon? Yes, then it's AP 3 and doesn't matter what it looks like.
Stop making mountains out of molehills.
Is that what it says in the rulebook or your interpretation? It's not the former.
No matter how strong each of you are in your convictions, it IS debatable, period. I agree with Bro Ramses' interpretation, but I don't believe his answer is indisputable, because its not.
49495
Post by: Joe Mama
Kiredor wrote:Also, Brother Rameses and Jidmah,
The Rules for Unusual Power Weapons do not EVER use the word Special. It does not occur ONCE in the entry for Unusual Power Weapons.
You are arguing that anything that has a special rule is an Unusual Power Weapon. The rules do not back this up, as they do not refer to special rules, only unique ones.
This does not mean that you may not have the intent of the rule correct. I wouldn't be surprised if it is FAQ'd that way, but the rules as they stand do not work the way you are saying.
This is literally correct. I have no idea what GW's intention is, my guess would be that anything with special rules is unusual and AP3, but the rules as written do not say that.
And I still see we have some disagreement over what is a further special rule. For simplicity's sake, I'd hope Universal Special Rules are considered Special Rules, along with other rules from codexes. We'll see whenever GW decides to put out a FAQ. Curious how tournies like NOVA are going to rule on this too.... Automatically Appended Next Post: Lone Dragoon wrote:Suddenly the weapon has a special rule and because it does so, it's an unusual power weapon because it's no longer "just a power weapon."
If this is the way the rules go, I don't see this as a huge problem. Swords are AP3, unusual swords are AP3. Most fancy weapons are swords. How often is a unit going to have a confusing mix of usual and unusual weapons? Not often I imagine. If an IC has a power weapon, I am going to ask my opponent what the heck it does, because usually there are special abilities of some sort there.
25086
Post by: Tactica
Joe Mama wrote:With regards to power weapons, rulebook says, if the weapon has no further special rules, look at the model to see which type of power weapon it is, and use the weapon stats for that type. Therefore, if the weapon has other special rules, we are not directed to look at the model to see which type of power weapon.
Section Title - "Special Rules", ( pg. 32-43)
- Master Crafted
- Concussive
- Force
- 2-handed
- Unwieldy
- etc...
+ + +
Right Column, ( pg. 32) A Compendium of Special Rules
"Some of the special rules you'll encounter in this section have already been mentioned in earlier passages of this book, others you've yet to encounter at all. We've presented them all in a single section to make your life easier when trying to track down the effect of a particular special rule.
We're talking about special reules so early becasue many of the other rules in this tome (particularly those for weapons and troop types) are tied into the special rules given here...."
+ + +
In short, if your Codex says you have a master crafted power weapon, you have a Master Crafted AP3 weapon.... then you have a power weapon with a special rule.
Before you ask, unique rules are those found in the codex which are not special rules found in the aforementioned section of the BRB.
Elegant... seems pretty straight forward...
Cheers,
46128
Post by: Happyjew
If a power weapon has any other special rules then it you do not look to see what the model has?
Therefore a power axe (which has a strength bonus and the 'Unwieldy' special rule) would go off the unique power weapons and be AP 3. Thus all power weapons are User Strength, AP 3 with special rules.
This way leads to madness. Tzeentch leads to madness. This way is Tzeentch.
50453
Post by: hellbore
The way I see it, it should be any rule that's not a USR makes a power weapon unusual, like Nemesis weapons upping Init. That's not covered by a USR so it's an Unusual Power Weapon.
28444
Post by: DarknessEternal
Happyjew wrote:If a power weapon has any other special rules then it you do not look to see what the model has?
Therefore a power axe (which has a strength bonus and the 'Unwieldy' special rule) would go off the unique power weapons and be AP 3. Thus all power weapons are User Strength, AP 3 with special rules.
There's no logic in that. Power Axes are defined already within the rules.
36222
Post by: Shikahake7
If a model's wargear says it has a power weapon which has no further special rules, look at the model to tell which type of power weapon it has: if it's a sword or dagger, it's a power sword; if it's an axe or halberd, it's a power axe; if it's a blunt weapon like a mace or staff, it's a power maul; if it's a spear or lance, it's a power lance.
The important mix-up being made in this thread is equating the USR with "special rules". The term used in the above quoted section of the BRB (Page 61, Power Weapons, Paragraph 3) does not mention in any respect the USR. It says if the model's wargear says it has a power weapon with no further "special rules". "special rules" is not, in fact, a game defined term. USR are, but just because they both use the words "Special" and "Rules" in their make up does not make USR any less of a proper noun referring to a very specific section of rules and regulations that can be added or taken away from anything in the game. This then means that "further special rules" literally means any rules that are special, and beyond the scope of the USR. A Mastercrafted Power Axe then would have the Power Axe profile, as well as having the Mastercrafted USR. You could have a Power Axe with Skyfire (regardless of it's impossible functionality) and it would still use the Power Axe profile considering the fact that it only has USR attached to it, and no "further special rules". We then speak on the subject of "Unusual Power Weapons" which are described as having one or more unique rules. This means any rule that is "unique" to it. An example of this would be a DE Agoniser. It doesn't just have the USR Poison (4+), it's a power weapon that also has the unique rule (In wording if not functionality) that it always wounds on a 4+. I can see no other way to interpret these two rulings. USR is a proper noun referring to something specific. Any argument made from the point of view that "special rules" is synonymous with USR would be entirely founded simply on the elimination of "Universal" from the proper noun USR, which cannot be as then the USR wouldn't be USR anymore, they'd just be Special Rules. They could have called the USR "Dildo Fun Time Regulations" and later used the phrase "no further dildo regulations" and at no point would "dildo regulations" be synonymous with "Dildo Fun Time Regulations". To make it even simpler... Premise 1: Universal Special Rules is a proper noun referring to a specific set of common rules in the BRB. Premise 2: The phrase "special rules" can not refer to Universal Special Rules because, despite their naming, they are not in any way "special". Premise 3 (From 1 and 2): The term "no further special rules" is not inclusive of the Universal Special Rules, as the Universal Special Rules cannot be quantified as "special rules".
14701
Post by: Brother Ramses
Shikahake7 wrote:If a model's wargear says it has a power weapon which has no further special rules, look at the model to tell which type of power weapon it has: if it's a sword or dagger, it's a power sword; if it's an axe or halberd, it's a power axe; if it's a blunt weapon like a mace or staff, it's a power maul; if it's a spear or lance, it's a power lance.
The important mix-up being made in this thread is equating the USR with "special rules". The term used in the above quoted section of the BRB (Page 61, Power Weapons, Paragraph 3) does not mention in any respect the USR. It says if the model's wargear says it has a power weapon with no further "special rules". "special rules" is not, in fact, a game defined term. USR are, but just because they both use the words "Special" and "Rules" in their make up does not make USR any less of a proper noun referring to a very specific section of rules and regulations that can be added or taken away from anything in the game. This then means that "further special rules" literally means any rules that are special, and beyond the scope of the USR. A Mastercrafted Power Axe then would have the Power Axe profile, as well as having the Mastercrafted USR. You could have a Power Axe with Skyfire (regardless of it's impossible functionality) and it would still use the Power Axe profile considering the fact that it only has USR attached to it, and no "further special rules".
We then speak on the subject of "Unusual Power Weapons" which are described as having one or more unique rules. This means any rule that is "unique" to it. An example of this would be a DE Agoniser. It doesn't just have the USR Poison (4+), it's a power weapon that also has the unique rule (In wording if not functionality) that it always wounds on a 4+.
I can see no other way to interpret these two rulings. USR is a proper noun referring to something specific. Any argument made from the point of view that "special rules" is synonymous with USR would be entirely founded simply on the elimination of "Universal" from the proper noun USR, which cannot be as then the USR wouldn't be USR anymore, they'd just be Special Rules. They could have called the USR "Dildo Fun Time Regulations" and later used the phrase "no further dildo regulations" and at no point would "dildo regulations" be synonymous with "Dildo Fun Time Regulations".
To make it even simpler...
Premise 1: Universal Special Rules is a proper noun referring to a specific set of common rules in the BRB.
Premise 2: The phrase "special rules" can not refer to Universal Special Rules because, despite their naming, they are not in any way "special".
Premise 3 (From 1 and 2): The term "no further special rules" is not inclusive of the Universal Special Rules, as the Universal Special Rules cannot be quantified as "special rules".
Interesting post and premises that have zero rules support. Just another person whose opinion on USR is that they are not special enough. That is a RAI argument. At least point to something with rules backing. I put up my opinion then supported it with the evidence that a default power weapon does not come with the ability to reroll a missed hit in melee when used. You an your ilk have only put for semantics based arguments with your opinion on what is and isn't special as your evidence.
Put forth a RAW argument or stop posting in YMDC.
49495
Post by: Joe Mama
Shikahake7 wrote:This then means that "further special rules" literally means any rules that are special, and beyond the scope of the USR.
Please don't try to pawn off your interpretation as fact. Gheesh. GW could mean "special rules" equals USR (since it has Special Rules in its name) along with additional rules beyond the scope of the USR. OR GW could mean anything beyond the USR. You're making a judgment call when you come down on one side or the other.
To make it even simpler...
That made your claim simpler and easy to read, but it could be 100% wrong. Mostly because Premise 2 is a complete assumption on your part:
Premise 2: The phrase "special rules" can not refer to Universal Special Rules because, despite their naming, they are not in any way "special".
It's poor form to put your conclusion into one of your premises.
Edited - Ninja'd.
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
Wait, so power axes and power mauls are Str. User AP 3, because they have special rules such as Concussive or Unwieldy?
That's in direct contradiction to the rulebook. So either:
You follow the power maul/power axe rules, and a weapon can be a power maul/power axe while having a USR;
OR
You assume that having a USR makes a weapon "unusual" and therefore all power axes and all power mauls become unusual.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
Which was exactly my point.
25086
Post by: Tactica
DarknessEternal wrote:Happyjew wrote:If a power weapon has any other special rules then it you do not look to see what the model has?
Therefore a power axe (which has a strength bonus and the 'Unwieldy' special rule) would go off the unique power weapons and be AP 3. Thus all power weapons are User Strength, AP 3 with special rules.
There's no logic in that. Power Axes are defined already within the rules.
^^ QFT
Power Axes are Defined.
USR is a 5th edition term. I recomend to stop using it for 6th ed rules interpretations.
Please read all of pg 32, including the compendium of special rules box... it really does help guys.
NOTE: The index does not have a mention of "Universal Special Rules" in 6th ed... on the other hand, the BRB does have an index for "Special Rules pg 32."
Cheers,
49495
Post by: Joe Mama
Tactica wrote:+ + +
Right Column, (pg. 32) A Compendium of Special Rules
"Some of the special rules you'll encounter in this section have already been mentioned in earlier passages of this book, others you've yet to encounter at all. We've presented them all in a single section to make your life easier when trying to track down the effect of a particular special rule.
We're talking about special reules so early becasue many of the other rules in this tome (particularly those for weapons and troop types) are tied into the special rules given here...."
+ + +
Ah, good catch. If I only I had the sense to read that a couple of days ago. This tidbit, along with GW specifically FAQing a weapon to be a Power Maul (which they wouldn't have had to do if MCed power weapons retained their type) seems to most strongly support the "anything with any special rule, including a USR, is an unusual weapon" argument.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
Hen my point stands. All power weapons (except power swords) in the rulebook have special rules associated with them. This makes them no longer generic power weapons but unique power weapons as they have a special rule. So either all power weapons are AP3, or when they say "special rules" they are referring to unique rules for the given weapon which is only found in the specific codex.
49495
Post by: Joe Mama
Unit1126PLL wrote:Wait, so power axes and power mauls are Str. User AP 3, because they have special rules such as Concussive or Unwieldy?
That's in direct contradiction to the rulebook. So either:
No no. Go one step at a time. What does your codex say? Power weapon. Does it say anything else? Does it have any further special rules in the codex entry? Does your power weapon shoot rainbows? Does it Instant Kill Cadian Imperial Guard? No? Then look at the model to see what type of power weapon. Now that you have the type, consult the chart for the stats. You're done.
Up there you went out of order. The chart is the absolute last step.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Happyjew wrote:Hen my point stands. All power weapons (except power swords) in the rulebook have special rules associated with them. This makes them no longer generic power weapons but unique power weapons as they have a special rule. So either all power weapons are AP3, or when they say "special rules" they are referring to unique rules for the given weapon which is only found in the specific codex.
See above. You didn't follow the directions.
14701
Post by: Brother Ramses
Tactica wrote:Joe Mama wrote:With regards to power weapons, rulebook says, if the weapon has no further special rules, look at the model to see which type of power weapon it is, and use the weapon stats for that type. Therefore, if the weapon has other special rules, we are not directed to look at the model to see which type of power weapon.
Section Title - "Special Rules", ( pg. 32-43)
- Master Crafted
- Concussive
- Force
- 2-handed
- Unwieldy
- etc...
+ + +
Right Column, ( pg. 32) A Compendium of Special Rules
"Some of the special rules you'll encounter in this section have already been mentioned in earlier passages of this book, others you've yet to encounter at all. We've presented them all in a single section to make your life easier when trying to track down the effect of a particular special rule.
We're talking about special reules so early becasue many of the other rules in this tome (particularly those for weapons and troop types) are tied into the special rules given here...."
+ + +
In short, if your Codex says you have a master crafted power weapon, you have a Master Crafted AP3 weapon.... then you have a power weapon with a special rule.
Before you ask, unique rules are those found in the codex which are not special rules found in the aforementioned section of the BRB.
Elegant... seems pretty straight forward...
Cheers,
Tactica wrote:DarknessEternal wrote:Happyjew wrote:If a power weapon has any other special rules then it you do not look to see what the model has?
Therefore a power axe (which has a strength bonus and the 'Unwieldy' special rule) would go off the unique power weapons and be AP 3. Thus all power weapons are User Strength, AP 3 with special rules.
There's no logic in that. Power Axes are defined already within the rules.
^^ QFT
Power Axes are Defined.
USR is a 5th edition term. I recomend to stop using it for 6th ed rules interpretations.
Please read all of pg 32, including the compendium of special rules box... it really does help guys.
NOTE: The index does not have a mention of "Universal Special Rules" in 6th ed... on the other hand, the BRB does have an index for "Special Rules pg 32."
Cheers,
I am quoting up your stuff Tactica as it is the RAW that people are overlooking in favor of personal opinion.
21312
Post by: BeRzErKeR
Joe Mama wrote:
No no. Go one step at a time. What does your codex say? Power weapon. Does it say anything else? Does it have any further special rules in the codex entry? Does your power weapon shoot rainbows? Does it Instant Kill Cadian Imperial Guard? No? Then look at the model to see what tyoe. Now that you have the type, consult the chart for the stats.
Up there you went out of order. The chart is the absolute last step.
Ok, now wait.
Where does it say "any further special rules"? Because unless I'm missing something, the rulebook refers to UNIQUE rules, not SPECIAL rules.
Master-Crafting is certainly not unique. Now, a power weapon that inflicted Instant Death on Cadians, yes, that would be unique. But a Master-Crafted weapon would not be.
49495
Post by: Joe Mama
BeRzErKeR wrote:Ok, now wait.
Where does it say "any further special rules"? Because unless I'm missing something, the rulebook refers to UNIQUE rules, not SPECIAL rules.
Can you please read that half page in the rule book? It refers to both unique and special depending on which paragraph you are looking at. The post of mine you just responded to however, had NOTHING to do with the unique section. I was only referring to the regular, no further special rules power weapons.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Brother Ramses wrote:I am quoting up your stuff Tactica as it is the RAW that people are overlooking in favor of personal opinion.
Yeah that's partially my fault. Tactica, BR, I should have looked at the book more closely.
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
Joe Mama wrote:Unit1126PLL wrote:Wait, so power axes and power mauls are Str. User AP 3, because they have special rules such as Concussive or Unwieldy?
That's in direct contradiction to the rulebook. So either:
No no. Go one step at a time. What does your codex say? Power weapon. Does it say anything else? Does it have any further special rules in the codex entry? Does your power weapon shoot rainbows? Does it Instant Kill Cadian Imperial Guard? No? Then look at the model to see what type of power weapon. Now that you have the type, consult the chart for the stats. You're done.
Up there you went out of order. The chart is the absolute last step.
You didn't follow the directions; you're not looking for special rules, you're looking for unique ones. Otherwise they fall into the GAP OF NO RETURN in which they are not a power weapon on the chart NOR are they a unique power weapon.
49495
Post by: Joe Mama
Unit1126PLL wrote:Joe Mama wrote:Unit1126PLL wrote:Wait, so power axes and power mauls are Str. User AP 3, because they have special rules such as Concussive or Unwieldy?
That's in direct contradiction to the rulebook. So either:
No no. Go one step at a time. What does your codex say? Power weapon. Does it say anything else? Does it have any further special rules in the codex entry? Does your power weapon shoot rainbows? Does it Instant Kill Cadian Imperial Guard? No? Then look at the model to see what type of power weapon. Now that you have the type, consult the chart for the stats. You're done.
Up there you went out of order. The chart is the absolute last step.
You didn't follow the directions; you're not looking for special rules, you're looking for unique ones. Otherwise they fall into the GAP OF NO RETURN in which they are not a power weapon on the chart NOR are they a unique power weapon.
Tell me how you get to that power weapon chart? The ONLY way you get to it is how I described above. There is NO WAY for Power Axes or Power Mauls to be AP3. Because the only time you have a Power Axe or a Power Maul is when you get to that chart. It is literally the only way (besides a FAQ changing the rule). If you disagree, tell me, using the rules, how one could have an AP3 Power Axe. Do it step by step for me.
21312
Post by: BeRzErKeR
Joe Mama wrote:
Can you please read that half page in the rule book? It refers to both unique and special depending on which paragraph you are looking at. The post of mine you just responded to however, had NOTHING to do with the unique section. I was only referring to the regular, no further special rules power weapons.
Fair enough; I may have chosen the wrong post to quote. I'm just wondering why people are making the mental leap to connect "has a special rule" with "is a unique weapon", because I don't see anything to support that.
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
Joe Mama wrote:Unit1126PLL wrote:Joe Mama wrote:Unit1126PLL wrote:Wait, so power axes and power mauls are Str. User AP 3, because they have special rules such as Concussive or Unwieldy?
That's in direct contradiction to the rulebook. So either:
No no. Go one step at a time. What does your codex say? Power weapon. Does it say anything else? Does it have any further special rules in the codex entry? Does your power weapon shoot rainbows? Does it Instant Kill Cadian Imperial Guard? No? Then look at the model to see what type of power weapon. Now that you have the type, consult the chart for the stats. You're done.
Up there you went out of order. The chart is the absolute last step.
You didn't follow the directions; you're not looking for special rules, you're looking for unique ones. Otherwise they fall into the GAP OF NO RETURN in which they are not a power weapon on the chart NOR are they a unique power weapon.
Tell me how you get to that power weapon chart? The ONLY way you get to it is how I described above. There is NO WAY for Power Axes or Power Mauls to be AP3. Because the only time you have a Power Axe or a Power Maul is when you get to that chart. It is literally the only way (besides a FAQ changing the rule). If you disagree, tell me, using the rules, how one could have an AP3 Power Axe. Do it step by step for me.
You missed the point: my point is a weapon with special rules (i.e. master-crafted) is neither able to look on the chart nor able to be counted as unique. So what is it?
49495
Post by: Joe Mama
BeRzErKeR wrote:Fair enough; I may have chosen the wrong post to quote. I'm just wondering why people are making the mental leap to connect "has a special rule" with "is a unique weapon", because I don't see anything to support that.
There isn't anything to support that. Some people are thinking GW didn't want a giant gap in their power weapon rules and based on that are assuming things.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
I think I have this figured out. There are three 'classes' of Power Weapons-
1) Generic Power Weapons
2) Power Weapons with special rules (such as Masterwork or Two-handed)
3) Power Weapons with Unique rules.
Generic power weapons rely on what the model is physically modeled to have.
Power Weapons with Unique rules fall under the heading of Unusual Power Weapons and have their own set of rules.
Power Weapons with special rules fall in neither category and therefore would not do anything.
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
Joe Mama wrote:BeRzErKeR wrote:Fair enough; I may have chosen the wrong post to quote. I'm just wondering why people are making the mental leap to connect "has a special rule" with "is a unique weapon", because I don't see anything to support that.
There isn't anything to support that. Some people are thinking GW didn't want a giant gap in their power weapon rules and based on that are assuming things.
So your answer is "they aren't anything?" Awesome, so if you have a Master-Crafted Power Weapon (say, Dante's Axe Mortalis) then you get to fight with your fists. AWESOME. I'm glad I don't play Jump BA.
21312
Post by: BeRzErKeR
Joe Mama wrote:BeRzErKeR wrote:Fair enough; I may have chosen the wrong post to quote. I'm just wondering why people are making the mental leap to connect "has a special rule" with "is a unique weapon", because I don't see anything to support that.
There isn't anything to support that. Some people are thinking GW didn't want a giant gap in their power weapon rules and based on that are assuming things.
Three cheers for Games Workshop!
Yeah, that's a pretty noticeable hole in the rules. Don't see any RAW way to fix it, though. I think I'll keep on playing it the way I have - power weapons with special rules are still power weapons, and still use the chart - but I suppose it's just as viable to play it the other way.
25086
Post by: Tactica
( pg 61) "Many models have unusual power weapons that have one or more unique rules. If a power weapon has its own unique close combat rules, treat it as an AP3 Melee weapon with additional rules and characteristics presented in its entry."
+ + +
Therefore, my simple mind says there is really only two types of power weapons, A) generic as found in BRB with no special rules, and B) Unusualy that have unique rules outlined in your codex. With that in mind, I suggest the following methodology to determine what you have...
1. See your codex 6th FAQ
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=1&aId=3400019&start=2&_requestid=1866634
Examples: BA FAQ says that all entries of power sword in the Blood Angels codex have been amended to say "power weapon". Chaplain's Crozius is now a Power Maul, Lemartes is now a Master Crafted Power Maul, etc...
2. Generic power weapon with NO special rules (no master craft, no 2-handed, no unwieldy, etc) = see model, it's one of four types in BRB, feel free to model accordingly.
3. Unusual Power weapons are power weapons with unique rules in the codex. These could be a power weapon with BRB special rules, rules that only exist in your codex, or a combination there of... in all cases, it's an "Unusual Power Weapon".
Cheers,
49495
Post by: Joe Mama
Unit1126PLL wrote:You missed the point: my point is a weapon with special rules (i.e. master-crafted) is neither able to look on the chart nor able to be counted as unique. So what is it?
That's a good point but, no, that wasn't your point before. You said this:
Wait, so power axes and power mauls are Str. User AP 3, because they have special rules such as Concussive or Unwieldy?...
You follow the power maul/power axe rules, and a weapon can be a power maul/power axe while having a USR;
OR
You assume that having a USR makes a weapon "unusual" and therefore all power axes and all power mauls become unusual.
This comment of yours shows a large error in your understanding of the rules. The fact that a type of power weapon on the chart has a Special Rule is a non-issue. The time to check for "further special rules" is when you are reading your codex. If a weapon has no further special rules, you look at the model, get the weapon type, and look on the chart, you are done. That's the only way you get to the chart, that's literally the only way you get to 'typed' power weapons. If you don't get to the chart, you don't have a 'power sword' or 'power axe' or 'power maul' or 'power lance.' There is NO SUCH THING as an 'unusual power axe'. Unusual power weapons don't have a type.
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
Tactica wrote:( pg 61) "Many models have unusual power weapons that have one or more unique rules. If a power weapon has its own unique close combat rules, treat it as an AP3 Melee weapon with additional rules and characteristics presented in its entry." + + + Therefore, my simple mind says there is really only two types of power weapons, A) generic as found in BRB with no special rules, and B) Unusualy that have unique rules outlined in your codex. With that in mind, I suggest the following methodology to determine what you have... 1. See your codex 6th FAQ http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=1&aId=3400019&start=2&_requestid=1866634 Examples: BA FAQ says that all entries of power sword in the Blood Angels codex have been amended to say "power weapon". Chaplain's Crozius is now a Power Maul, Lemartes is now a Master Crafted Power Maul, etc... 2. Generic power weapon with NO special rules (no master craft, no 2-handed, no unwieldy, etc) = see model, it's one of four types in BRB, feel free to model accordingly. 3. Unusual Power weapons are power weapons with unique rules in the codex. These could be a power weapon with BRB special rules, rules that only exist in your codex, or a combination there of... in all cases, it's an "Unusual Power Weapon". Cheers,
What about power weapons with special rules that are not unique to your codex and aren't in the FAQ? EDIT: such as Dante's axe? Automatically Appended Next Post: Joe Mama wrote:Unit1126PLL wrote:You missed the point: my point is a weapon with special rules (i.e. master-crafted) is neither able to look on the chart nor able to be counted as unique. So what is it?
That's a good point but, no, that wasn't your point before. You said this:
Wait, so power axes and power mauls are Str. User AP 3, because they have special rules such as Concussive or Unwieldy?...
You follow the power maul/power axe rules, and a weapon can be a power maul/power axe while having a USR;
OR
You assume that having a USR makes a weapon "unusual" and therefore all power axes and all power mauls become unusual.
This comment of yours shows a large error in your understanding of the rules. The fact that a type of power weapon on the chart has a Special Rule is a non-issue. The time to check for "further special rules" is when you are reading your codex. If a weapon has no further special rules, you look at the model, get the weapon type, and look on the chart, you are done. That's the only way you get to the chart, that's literally the only way you get to 'typed' power weapons. If you don't get to the chart, you don't have a 'power sword' or 'power axe' or 'power maul' or 'power lance.' There is NO SUCH THING as an 'unusual power axe'. Unusual power weapons don't have a type.
Dante has an Axe Morkai and it is a Master-Crafted Power Weapon. What is it?
49495
Post by: Joe Mama
Unit1126PLL wrote:Joe Mama wrote:BeRzErKeR wrote:Fair enough; I may have chosen the wrong post to quote. I'm just wondering why people are making the mental leap to connect "has a special rule" with "is a unique weapon", because I don't see anything to support that.
There isn't anything to support that. Some people are thinking GW didn't want a giant gap in their power weapon rules and based on that are assuming things.
So your answer is "they aren't anything?"
Awesome, so if you have a Master-Crafted Power Weapon (say, Dante's Axe Mortalis) then you get to fight with your fists. AWESOME.
I'm glad I don't play Jump BA.
LOL. Yes it is a bit of a mess isn't it. My answer under RAW is there is a gap in the rules, probably due to a typo (there is no way in hell I am going to try to claim that 'special' and 'unique' are identical in meaning). RAI I am with what Tactica is saying.
25086
Post by: Tactica
Dante = Unusual.
RAW.
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
Tactica wrote:Dante = Unusual.
RAW.
Show your process, because that's not what the rulebook says.
EDIT: Here's the RAW process for Dante:
"If a model's wargear says it has a power weapon with no further special rules, look at the model to tell which type of power weapon it is." BRB 61
Dante's power axe has further special rules, I.E. Master Crafted, so we read on:
"Many models have unusual power weapons that have one or more unique rules. If a power weapon has its own unique close combat rules, treat it as an AP3 Melee weapon with the additional rules and characteristics presented in its entry." BRB 61
Dante's power axe has no unique rules at all (Master-Crafted is not unique). So it doesn't use this either.
The BRB does not discuss this further.
So what is it?
49495
Post by: Joe Mama
Tactica wrote:Dante = Unusual.
RAW.
Technically that would be RAI, until the 6th edition rulebook FAQ comes out.
Unit1126PLL wrote:Show your process, because that's not what the rulebook says.
Heh.
Step 1 - Look in codex. Oh look, Dante has a power weapon.
Step 2 - Does the weapon have any further special rules? Yes, it's MCed. That means we cannot look at the model to determine weapon type.
Step 3 - Uh... hmm. Only if "special" has an identical meaning to "unique" can we claim that Dante's weapon is an unusual power weapon.
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
Joe Mama wrote:Unit1126PLL wrote:Tactica wrote:Dante = Unusual.
RAW.
Show your process, because that's not what the rulebook says.
Heh.
Step 1 - Look in codex. Oh look, Dante has a power weapon.
Step 2 - Does the weapon have any further special rules? Yes, it's MCed. That means we cannot look at the model to determine weapon type.
Step 3 - Uh... hmm. Only if "special" has an identical meaning to "unique" can we claim that Dante's weapon is an unusual power weapon.
Yeah that's basically what I said. Unfortunately we cannot equate special with unique, because that way lies madness (not to mention some pretty major breaches of basic logic).
25086
Post by: Tactica
Dante,
Is it in BA FAQ = No
Is it a Power Weapon of any Type = Yes
How many "Power Weapon" types are there in BRB (pg 61) = 2, generic and unusual
Does it have any special rules (pg 32-43) as defined in BRB = Yes, then not generic
BRB: Unusual Power weapons = anything in codex with its own unique rules beyond basic "power weapon"
+ + +
Thus, it's an unusal Axe... it doesn't strike last, it is AP 3, and it's Master Crafted... i.e. Unusual Power Weapon.
Cheers,
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
Tactica wrote:Dante,
Is it in BA FAQ = No
Is it a Power Weapon of any Type = Yes
How many "Power Weapon" types are there in BRB (pg 61) = 2, generic and unusual
Does it have any special rules (pg 32-43) as defined in BRB = Yes, then not generic
BRB: Unusual Power weapons = anything in codex with its own unique rules beyond basic "power weapon"
Cheers,
You skipped part of RAW when you assumed that MASTER CRAFTED is a "unique" rule and therefore would fit under an unusual power weapon. Show me that Master Crafted is Unique and I will believe you.
49495
Post by: Joe Mama
Tactica wrote:Dante,
Is it in BA FAQ = No
Is it a Power Weapon of any Type = Yes
How many "Power Weapon" types are there in BRB (pg 61) = 2, generic and unusual
Does it have any special rules (pg 32-43) as defined in BRB = Yes, then not generic
BRB: Unusual Power weapons = anything in codex with its own unique rules beyond basic "power weapon"
Cheers,
That's what the RAW should be, where it probably will be eventually, but right now there's a rather large hole that weapons can fall into where they aren't classified (those which have special rules but aren't "unique"). I would hope this would be discussed before a game and these doughnut hole rules won't be used.
14701
Post by: Brother Ramses
Unit1126PLL wrote:Tactica wrote:Dante = Unusual.
RAW.
Show your process, because that's not what the rulebook says.
EDIT: Here's the RAW process for Dante:
"If a model's wargear says it has a power weapon with no further special rules, look at the model to tell which type of power weapon it is." BRB 61
Dante's power axe has further special rules, I.E. Master Crafted, so we read on:
"Many models have unusual power weapons that have one or more unique rules. If a power weapon has its own unique close combat rules, treat it as an AP3 Melee weapon with the additional rules and characteristics presented in its entry." BRB 61
Dante's power axe has no unique rules at all (Master-Crafted is not unique). So it doesn't use this either.
The BRB does not discuss this further.
So what is it?
This is YOUR opinion and your opinion ONLY! Your way breaks the game because you create a gap based on your opinion on mastercrafting. However if you accept that a mastercrafted power weapon is unique/special/whatever, then you have the Axe of Mortalis being a unique power weapon, thus ap3, user str/initiative.
25086
Post by: Tactica
I am not getting hung up on the word 'unique' in the Unusual Power Weapon description... my read is, a power weapon is either generic, or it is Unusual.
Unusual is anything that has its own unique set of rules as compared to the generic rules from the BRB...
The word unique as it relates to weapons is a generic term, it is not a defined term (unless you are talking about special characters, as those really are one of a kind and are defined and Unique in that regard is listed in the index, but I digress)
I'm not reading anything more into it than that.
Cheers,
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
Brother Ramses wrote:Unit1126PLL wrote:Tactica wrote:Dante = Unusual.
RAW.
Show your process, because that's not what the rulebook says. EDIT: Here's the RAW process for Dante: "If a model's wargear says it has a power weapon with no further special rules, look at the model to tell which type of power weapon it is." BRB 61 Dante's power axe has further special rules, I.E. Master Crafted, so we read on: "Many models have unusual power weapons that have one or more unique rules. If a power weapon has its own unique close combat rules, treat it as an AP3 Melee weapon with the additional rules and characteristics presented in its entry." BRB 61 Dante's power axe has no unique rules at all (Master-Crafted is not unique). So it doesn't use this either. The BRB does not discuss this further. So what is it?
This is YOUR opinion and your opinion ONLY! Your way breaks the game because you create a gap based on your opinion on mastercrafting. However if you accept that a mastercrafted power weapon is unique/special/whatever, then you have the Axe of Mortalis being a unique power weapon, thus ap3, user str/initiative.
That isn't an opinion - the English definition of unique is out there for all to see. So I will ask you, then, to prove that Master-Crafted is a "unique" rule. EDIT: Tactica, Unique is a "defined" term because there is an english-language definition of it. Saying that merely having a special rule makes a power weapon "unique" is a major equivocation fallacy, as well as "changing the parameters of the argument to fit your conclusion" which is a HUGE breach of logic.
25086
Post by: Tactica
Unit1126PLL wrote:EDIT:
Tactica, Unique is a "defined" term because there is an english-language definition of it. Saying that merely having a special rule makes a power weapon "unique" is a major equivocation fallacy, as well as "changing the parameters of the argument to fit your conclusion" which is a HUGE breach of logic.
@ Unit1126PLL
The english language is a complicated beast. I negotiate and assist litigation in contracts for a living.
"unique", does not only mean one, it also means "unusual" (see definition three from www.webster.com)
3: unusual <we were fairly unique, the sixty of us, in that there wasn't one good mixer in the bunch — J. D. Salinger>
Thus my point of my read of the Power Weapon rules, they are generic or Unusual. If they are Unusual, it just means they have a unique or unusual that is to say, a non-generic set of rules as is detailed in their codex.
RAW.
Cheers,
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
Tactica wrote:Unit1126PLL wrote:EDIT:
Tactica, Unique is a "defined" term because there is an english-language definition of it. Saying that merely having a special rule makes a power weapon "unique" is a major equivocation fallacy, as well as "changing the parameters of the argument to fit your conclusion" which is a HUGE breach of logic.
@ Unit1126PLL
The english language is a complicated beast. I negotiate and assist litigation in contracts for a living.
"unique", does not only mean one, it also means "unusual" (see definition three from www.webster.com)
3: unusual <we were fairly unique, the sixty of us, in that there wasn't one good mixer in the bunch — J. D. Salinger>
Cheers,
Is Master-Crafted unusual, then?
54385
Post by: kaisshau
The BRB does make a mention of "unique" in the "Special Rules" section. Pg. 32, second-to-last paragraph:
"Most of the commonly used special rules in Warhammer 40,000 are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list. Many troops have their own unique abilities, which are laid out in their codex."
This suggests that "unique" rules are rules found in the codex of the army, and not in the special rules section. Meaning a Master-crafted Power weapon does not have a unique rule, while, a Daemon weapon (+D6 attacks) has a unique rule.
However, there is a rule gap. Pg. 61 talks about what to do with a power weapon that has no "further special rules". It does not say anything about what to do with power weapons that have further special rules, unless those special rules are "unique". Pg. 32 refers to the rules in the "Special Rules" repeatedly as "special rules". There is no distinction between a "special rule" in the BRB, and those in codices, except that codex based rules are "unique". So, a Master-crafted power weapon does have a "further special rule" and falls into the gap, as it's special rule is not "unique".
There are two ways to proceed now. Neither are based on RAW. You can assume that GW meant for any weapon that had "further special rules" to be considered "unusual", and thus any master-crafted PW is AP3 S(U). Or, you can assume that GW intended for them to be the Look-At-The-Model (LATM) type, and you then have, say, a master-crafted Power Maul. However, none of this is RAW. It's all RAI or HYWPI. By RAW, there is a gap. What will be interesting is to see how GW FAQs it, as they could go either way (or, most likely, a completely different way).
25086
Post by: Tactica
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Is Master-Crafted unusual, then?
If your codex says you have a Master Crafted Power Weapon, then yes, that would not be a generic Power Weapon which must have "no other special rules."
Therefore, your example equates to Unusual by my read.
Cheers,
14701
Post by: Brother Ramses
Unit1126PLL wrote:Brother Ramses wrote:Unit1126PLL wrote:Tactica wrote:Dante = Unusual.
RAW.
Show your process, because that's not what the rulebook says.
EDIT: Here's the RAW process for Dante:
"If a model's wargear says it has a power weapon with no further special rules, look at the model to tell which type of power weapon it is." BRB 61
Dante's power axe has further special rules, I.E. Master Crafted, so we read on:
"Many models have unusual power weapons that have one or more unique rules. If a power weapon has its own unique close combat rules, treat it as an AP3 Melee weapon with the additional rules and characteristics presented in its entry." BRB 61
Dante's power axe has no unique rules at all (Master-Crafted is not unique). So it doesn't use this either.
The BRB does not discuss this further.
So what is it?
This is YOUR opinion and your opinion ONLY! Your way breaks the game because you create a gap based on your opinion on mastercrafting. However if you accept that a mastercrafted power weapon is unique/special/whatever, then you have the Axe of Mortalis being a unique power weapon, thus ap3, user str/initiative.
That isn't an opinion - the English definition of unique is out there for all to see.
).
So I will ask you, then, to prove that Master-Crafted is a "unique" rule.
So "unique master-crafted power weapon" is defined in Webster's or Oxford? Oh yea, we are dealing within a vacuum known as the World of Warhammer 40k where we have to fall back on the set parameters of what can or cannot be unique. Here is a kicker for you,
Is a frost blade unique?
If you answer yes, then how can I have 4 Wolf Lords all equipped with one with all the exact same rules? Doesn't really make them a unique weapon now does it? At 2000pts, I can take another 4 wolf lords with another 4 frost blades. So eight weapons with all the same rule is unique? That is your basis of argument for a master-crafted weapon, that master-crafted weapons are prevalent in the World of Warhammer 40k so they must not be unique. However, if you look at frost blades among close combat weapons, +1 str and ap3 is unique among weapons just as re-rolling a missed hit in melee when used is unique among close combat weapons.
This whole argument that the universe is filled with master-crafted weapons and thus not unique is a crap argument when you then apply that same standard to other weapons with unique/special rules and how many can or can not be placed in an army.
49495
Post by: Joe Mama
kaisshau wrote:The BRB does make a mention of "unique" in the "Special Rules" section. Pg. 32, second-to-last paragraph:
"Most of the commonly used special rules in Warhammer 40,000 are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list. Many troops have their own unique abilities, which are laid out in their codex."
God dammit, I really should have done more than skim page 32. Unique and special are the same thing in the GW world. I don't see how else to read that statement.
PS - Thank you for pointing that out to us slow folks.
25086
Post by: Tactica
kaisshau wrote:The BRB does make a mention of "unique" in the "Special Rules" section. Pg. 32, second-to-last paragraph:
"Most of the commonly used special rules in Warhammer 40,000 are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list. Many troops have their own unique abilities, which are laid out in their codex."
A) the book lists most
B) it says its not exhaustive
C) there are many troops that have their own unique abilities
This mention of "unique abilites" is a generic term.
My read of this section is there are more special rules in codexes that may not all be listed here in the "Special Rules" section.
Cheers,
39309
Post by: Jidmah
Lone Dragoon wrote:Jidmah wrote:So power weapons which confer +1 strength would not be unique, since power weapons conferring +1 strength would be the same in the hands of an ork, an Imperial Guardsman, or a Space Marine Chapter Master. Even a burna or a nemesis force halberd would work the same on an ork, an Imperial Guardsman, or a Space Marine Chapter Master. If you word it that way, no power weapon would ever be unique, except those which are found on unique models.
Is that your stance?
Careful with the strawman arguments there. The problem with your assertion in this post Jidmah, you're comparing apples to oranges. Your comparing rules that affect everything and everyone to weapons from individual codices.
First of all, "Master Crafted" is pretty much limited to space marines of varying flavors, despite being in the main rulebook. I'm not aware of any master-crafted xenos weapons.
Second, +1 Strength is something that is defined in the main rulebook and works exactly the same for every codex. So any weapons applying flat stat bonuses would not be "unique" either.
Third, you may only ever count a power weapon as axe, sword, lance or maul if "has no further special rules" (exact quote). Master-crafted calls itself a special rule for weapons in its own definition ("Weapons with the Master-crafted special rule allow...").
So either a master-crafted weapon is unique, and has AP3, or it has no rules at all, and can not be used at all, since it's missing the "melee" special type. Anything else is a house rule or interpretation.
DarknessEternal, the problem is you're over simplifying it. Assume we're all intelligent people and can handle a little difficulty in our rules, we're reading GWs rules after all. The problem with oversimplifying the problem, is that in the end we need to make things a bit more complex for some of the rules to even make sense. You're using a power axe that's master-crafted. Why would you strike at your initiative, AP3, and with no bonus to strength? You're still using a power axe, just one with a special rule. Master crafting does not make a weapon unique. It's said that every craftsman makes one masterpiece in his or her lifetime. So with all those untold billions in the future, master-crafted weapons aren't all that uncommon. The other problem with oversimplifying it, so power weapons that have no special rules use the models to see. Suddenly the weapon has a special rule and because it does so, it's an unusual power weapon because it's no longer "just a power weapon."
Interpretation is just that, interpretation. You interpretation is not what the rules say. Common sense is not as common as you might think, and heavily biased by personal perception. Thus the only common ground is following the rules exactly as written. If all participants agree, you are free to change the rules for that game. But as the rules are written now, there is no way to make a master-crafted weapon count as axe, lance or maul without breaking a rule.
Sometimes we need to set aside the rules, and use common sense. Are we playing by the letter of the rules? Sure, it can be seen that way, but that's not always the right course of action. If I have fun being an ass to someone, and the rules tell me to have fun, then I should have fun being an ass to my opponent since the rules tell me I can be, right?
You might want to have a look at the tenets of you make da call, especially at the part about RAW vs "How I would play it". Automatically Appended Next Post: kaisshau wrote:The BRB does make a mention of "unique" in the "Special Rules" section. Pg. 32, second-to-last paragraph:
"Most of the commonly used special rules in Warhammer 40,000 are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list. Many troops have their own unique abilities, which are laid out in their codex."
This suggests that "unique" rules are rules found in the codex of the army, and not in the special rules section. Meaning a Master-crafted Power weapon does not have a unique rule, while, a Daemon weapon (+D6 attacks) has a unique rule.
However, there is a rule gap. Pg. 61 talks about what to do with a power weapon that has no "further special rules". It does not say anything about what to do with power weapons that have further special rules, unless those special rules are "unique". Pg. 32 refers to the rules in the "Special Rules" repeatedly as "special rules". There is no distinction between a "special rule" in the BRB, and those in codices, except that codex based rules are "unique". So, a Master-crafted power weapon does have a "further special rule" and falls into the gap, as it's special rule is not "unique".
There are two ways to proceed now. Neither are based on RAW. You can assume that GW meant for any weapon that had "further special rules" to be considered "unusual", and thus any master-crafted PW is AP3 S(U). Or, you can assume that GW intended for them to be the Look-At-The-Model (LATM) type, and you then have, say, a master-crafted Power Maul. However, none of this is RAW. It's all RAI or HYWPI. By RAW, there is a gap. What will be interesting is to see how GW FAQs it, as they could go either way (or, most likely, a completely different way).
I disagree. First of all just because other codices have their own unique abilities does not mean that the abilities in the BRB are not unique. In fact, all it means is that some special rules are unique to their codex. it does not define "unique" at all.
So, as master-crafted weapons do have special rules, they are in turn unique - just like a burna is still a unique weapon, even though you can field 47 of them in a single FOC.
8926
Post by: BladeWalker
Just something more to add to the discussion. At the top of the Wargear section in all the newer Codex we have the explanation of regular Wargear vs. unique Wargear like for example the top of page 56 in the Blood Angels Codex says "Weapons and equipment that can be used by more than one type of model or unit are detailed here, while equipment that is unique to a single model or unit (including wargear carried by named special characters) is often detailed in the appropriate entry in The Angelic Host section." Nothing decisive but more to chew on I suppose.
I just want to know what my Glaive Encarmines are now... 
14701
Post by: Brother Ramses
BladeWalker wrote:Just something more to add to the discussion. At the top of the Wargear section in all the newer Codex we have the explanation of regular Wargear vs. unique Wargear like for example the top of page 56 in the Blood Angels Codex says "Weapons and equipment that can be used by more than one type of model or unit are detailed here, while equipment that is unique to a single model or unit (including wargear carried by named special characters) is often detailed in the appropriate entry in The Angelic Host section." Nothing decisive but more to chew on I suppose.
I just want to know what my Glaive Encarmines are now...
Per the RAW, GE are ap3, user str/initiative.
8926
Post by: BladeWalker
Brother Ramses wrote:BladeWalker wrote:Just something more to add to the discussion. At the top of the Wargear section in all the newer Codex we have the explanation of regular Wargear vs. unique Wargear like for example the top of page 56 in the Blood Angels Codex says "Weapons and equipment that can be used by more than one type of model or unit are detailed here, while equipment that is unique to a single model or unit (including wargear carried by named special characters) is often detailed in the appropriate entry in The Angelic Host section." Nothing decisive but more to chew on I suppose.
I just want to know what my Glaive Encarmines are now...
Per the RAW, GE are ap3, user str/initiative.
Because they are not in the Wargear section of their Codex, they are in the Angelic Host section and specific to a certain unit. That makes them Unique, that makes them Unusual and AP3... right?
14701
Post by: Brother Ramses
BladeWalker wrote:Brother Ramses wrote:BladeWalker wrote:Just something more to add to the discussion. At the top of the Wargear section in all the newer Codex we have the explanation of regular Wargear vs. unique Wargear like for example the top of page 56 in the Blood Angels Codex says "Weapons and equipment that can be used by more than one type of model or unit are detailed here, while equipment that is unique to a single model or unit (including wargear carried by named special characters) is often detailed in the appropriate entry in The Angelic Host section." Nothing decisive but more to chew on I suppose.
I just want to know what my Glaive Encarmines are now...
Per the RAW, GE are ap3, user str/initiative.
Because they are not in the Wargear section of their Codex, they are in the Angelic Host section and specific to a certain unit. That makes them Unique, that makes them Unusual and AP3... right?
I come to that conclusion not by your means, but the fact that they are listed as being a two-handed master-crafted power weapon. Master-crafting being a special/unique rule and thus they are ap3, user str/initiative.
25086
Post by: Tactica
Don't have my codex with me, so *trying to remember* their codex rules... but those are Master-crafted, 2-handed Power Weapons in the BA codex right?
If so, then in 6th edition, the BRB says those are Power Weapons with special rules, and thus, would be Unusual Power Weapons by my read, and would be used as follows:
2-handed, Master-crafted, AP3, user Strength, user Initiative.
Cheers,
46128
Post by: Happyjew
I think we can agree, it's not so much as what counts as a special rule; it is what is a unique rule as required for unusual power weapons.
I am still firmly in the camp that if the rule does not fall under the list of special rules in the BRB, then it is a Unique rule, even if 5 different armies can take a power weapon that adds +1 Strength.
8926
Post by: BladeWalker
Brother Ramses wrote:BladeWalker wrote:Brother Ramses wrote:BladeWalker wrote:Just something more to add to the discussion. At the top of the Wargear section in all the newer Codex we have the explanation of regular Wargear vs. unique Wargear like for example the top of page 56 in the Blood Angels Codex says "Weapons and equipment that can be used by more than one type of model or unit are detailed here, while equipment that is unique to a single model or unit (including wargear carried by named special characters) is often detailed in the appropriate entry in The Angelic Host section." Nothing decisive but more to chew on I suppose.
I just want to know what my Glaive Encarmines are now...
Per the RAW, GE are ap3, user str/initiative.
Because they are not in the Wargear section of their Codex, they are in the Angelic Host section and specific to a certain unit. That makes them Unique, that makes them Unusual and AP3... right?
I come to that conclusion not by your means, but the fact that they are listed as being a two-handed master-crafted power weapon. Master-crafting being a special/unique rule and thus they are ap3, user str/initiative.
Thank you for your process on that. I modeled my Sanguinary Guard with Halberds 6 months ago and I think I'm going to have an aneurysm before I know their stat line for sure now...
39309
Post by: Jidmah
Happyjew wrote:I think we can agree, it's not so much as what counts as a special rule; it is what is a unique rule as required for unusual power weapons.
I am still firmly in the camp that if the rule does not fall under the list of special rules in the BRB, then it is a Unique rule, even if 5 different armies can take a power weapon that adds +1 Strength.
To be fair Powerklaws and ATSKNF are in the BRB, as well as dozens of other faction- or, in rare cases, model-specific rules. I wouldn't exactly use codices as an indicator of what "Unique" is.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
I blame Matt Ward (possibly Phil Kelly as well. I WANT MY NEW ELDAR DEX!!). Sorry.
14701
Post by: Brother Ramses
Happyjew wrote:I blame Matt Ward (possibly Phil Kelly as well. I WANT MY NEW ELDAR DEX!!). Sorry.
I can't wait to see a new Eldar dex just so I can start to play against more Eldar players that have shelved their armies. I feel the same way about all the new army codexes such as DE, GK, and Necrons. They all bring players back or new players into the game and make it fun to game again.
49495
Post by: Joe Mama
Happyjew wrote:I think we can agree, it's not so much as what counts as a special rule; it is what is a unique rule as required for unusual power weapons.
I am still firmly in the camp that if the rule does not fall under the list of special rules in the BRB, then it is a Unique rule, even if 5 different armies can take a power weapon that adds +1 Strength.
Reconcile your firm belief with this please, which almost certainly means special and unique mean the same thing in the rulebook:
kaisshau wrote:
The BRB does make a mention of "unique" in the "Special Rules" section. Pg. 32, second-to-last paragraph:
"Most of the commonly used special rules in Warhammer 40,000 are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list. Many troops have their own unique abilities, which are laid out in their codex."
If the "special rules" are in that chapter, but it is not a complete, exhaustive list of them, the only interpretation is that other special rules are in the codexes....
21312
Post by: BeRzErKeR
Joe Mama wrote:
kaisshau wrote:
The BRB does make a mention of "unique" in the "Special Rules" section. Pg. 32, second-to-last paragraph:
"Most of the commonly used special rules in Warhammer 40,000 are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list. Many troops have their own unique abilities, which are laid out in their codex."
If the "special rules" are in that chapter, but it is not a complete, exhaustive list of them, the only interpretation is that other special rules are in the codexes....
That means that unique rules are special. But it doesn't mean that all special rules are unique, unfortunately, so that doesn't close the hole.
7662
Post by: Camarodragon
Four Simple Catagories of power weapons: power axes, power mauls, power swords , power lances and no further special rules = use the chart.
Anything..... unusual, unique, special = AP3 + models stats and weapons abilities...
 
Thats the way I"m plaing it.
50012
Post by: Crimson
There is one reading of the rules that makes impossible for the master-crafted power axes to exist, and then there is a reading that doesn't do that. I know which one I'm going to use.
19472
Post by: Gunzhard
Crimson wrote:There is one reading of the rules that makes impossible for the master-crafted power axes to exist, and then there is a reading that doesn't do that. I know which one I'm going to use.
That's fine if you are playing with yourself. ...This and previous closed threads are proof enough that there is NO definitive answer at this time. I can see this being a dice roll, if not an argument, in many a games.
34439
Post by: Formosa
so can i take a Power Lance then? on sammael? it would look cool
I also plan on having power lances on all my sarges
49495
Post by: Joe Mama
Gunzhard wrote:Crimson wrote:There is one reading of the rules that makes impossible for the master-crafted power axes to exist, and then there is a reading that doesn't do that. I know which one I'm going to use.
That's fine if you are playing with yourself. ...This and previous closed threads are proof enough that there is NO definitive answer at this time. I can see this being a dice roll, if not an argument, in many a games.
There is no definitive answer about what exactly counts as an unusual weapon, but to claim the special rule "master crafted" in the BRB chapter discussing special rules, is not a a special rule, strikes me as more than a bit odd.
56645
Post by: Bean's Herald
I think this whole argument is rather silly, tbh.
I've read this thread in its entirety; every post; every quoted post; all of it.
You aren't arguing about special/unique or special vs. unique, or what makes something special and is that different form something that makes something unique...
You are really arguing about "master crafted."
I'm gonna say it again for emphasis
Master Crafted.
34339
Post by: STC_LogisEngine
First off: No Formosa. you Can't. Sammael is equipped with 'the Raven Sword' [MC Power Weapon] and it is in name, description and official model described/represented as a 'sword'. Hence user S, ap3.
So. ''If a power weapon has it's own Unique close combat rules,..'' Here's the key, ''unique'' and ''rules''. This means that the rules as written must be unique. Not the Effect, +1 stat is in no way unique. The whole rule text must be taken into account to determine it's type. So a ''Mastercrafted powerweapon'' is not unique, a huskblade, relic blade or warscythe is.
45407
Post by: Kiredor
The use of master crafted in the argument is as an example.
The argument is around whether "master crafted" is enough to class as Unique for the Unusual Power Weapon rule
And whether "Master Crafted" is a futher special rule for deciding the type of weapon.
Its an easily identifiable, common, example to further the points people are trying to make.
This doesn't mean its a bad thing.
49495
Post by: Joe Mama
Kiredor is right on the money.
The OP (original post, and original point) of this thread asked about what is a special rule. Now that I have re-read page 32, I find it absurd to argue that special rules found in the special rule chapter are not considered to be special rules. That argument does not hold up under any reasonable reading of the rulebook.
We still have a bit of an issue with 'unique' though. The rulebook, again on page 32, states that the 'special rule' chapter is definitely not a definitive, all-inclusive list of special rules (there could be more in the brb) and it even goes so far to say that codexes also contain special rules. The problem is, it is still unclear when a special rule is also a 'unique' one, which is the requirement for an unusual power weapon. It seems like GW is treating these terms as synonyms but we can't be sure.
Thus, anything with a special rule (meaning we can't use the weapon type chart), but which is not unique / unusual, falls into a no-man's land, a dead zone, where we don't know how to treat the weapon. To play without a huge gaping hole in the power weapon rules people are suggesting that 'special' equals 'unique'. Which I think makes sense, but can't really be called RAW.
What I am sure of now and which can safely be considered RAW, is that anything in the Special Rule chapter starting on pg 32 is a special rule and cannot use the weapon type chart.
39309
Post by: Jidmah
STC_LogisEngine wrote:First off: No Formosa. you Can't. Sammael is equipped with 'the Raven Sword' [MC Power Weapon] and it is in name, description and official model described/represented as a 'sword'. Hence user S, ap3.
So. ''If a power weapon has it's own Unique close combat rules,..'' Here's the key, ''unique'' and ''rules''. This means that the rules as written must be unique. Not the Effect, +1 stat is in no way unique. The whole rule text must be taken into account to determine it's type. So a ''Mastercrafted powerweapon'' is not unique, a huskblade, relic blade or warscythe is.
Please quote rules to back that up.
Both rules for determining which power weapon you are using have to be taken into account, not just the one you like.
(1) In order to get on of the four non-defaults you require a weapon with no special rules.
(2) In order to get the default, your weapon needs to have unique rules.
In addition, the rules for "Master Crafted" explicitly say that "Master Crafted" is a special rule. There is no way to get around that. If you are allowed to have a generic power weapon, and you master-craft it you can not have an Axe, Lance, Sword or Maul, because that's a violation of (1).
So, as unique is undefined, there's only two ways left to read the rule:
(A) Only weapons with truly unique rules are unique.
(B) All weapons which have any special rules are unique
(A), for whatever definition of "truly unique" you choose, would create a lot of weapons with no rules at all. This is a violation of the rule "Every weapon has a profile", found on the first page about weapons.
Thus, only B remains.
18009
Post by: rogueeyes
What order do you apply rules in? If I apply as I read them we get a completely different meaning aka
Dante's axe is a mc pw.
I first apply mc to his weapon which allows me a reroll to hit. Then I apply a power weapon to it. It is a power weapon with no additional special rules since all of the other rules came before power weapon. It is modelled as an axe so it becomes s+1 and ap2 i1.
Now if I look at astoraths axe I see that is is a power weapon that hits at s6. I first apply power weapon. Oh I see there are still other rules I must apply. I guess it is unusual.
By it saying no further special rules we should take this into the argument that there must be a stnadardized way of applying rules. If we apply them as we read them then it does not break the rules by stating further and giving mc to a pw.
For frost blades it would make them unusual pw but this was faq'd to state blades are s+1 and ap3 while frost axes are s+2 ap2 i1. Why would gw do that? Because reading the power weapon rules that state you have a power weapon that adds +1 s gives it additional rules and makes it an unusual pw no matter how it would be modelled.
Edit:
If it stated no special rules whatsoever then this argument would not work but since it states further we must view it as having a specific order for applying the rules. Since none is given we must apply them as we read them.
Raw dante
Mc means he gets to reroll one to hit
Power weapon
Has no additional rules
We look at the chart
Its an axe
He's +1 str and ap2
Its unweidly
We've already applied the power weapons rule and we are done. Having it have ectra rules now does not mean it is unusual because we cannot loop through and keep applying the same rule.
39309
Post by: Jidmah
rogueeyes wrote:What order do you apply rules in? If I apply as I read them we get a completely different meaning aka
Dante's axe is a mc pw.
I first apply mc to his weapon which allows me a reroll to hit. Then I apply a power weapon to it. It is a power weapon with no additional special rules since all of the other rules came before power weapon. It is modelled as an axe so it becomes s+1 and ap2 i1.
You don't apply them in any order at all. You look at the weapon as whole. Has special rule? Yup, so can't be axe.
Now if I look at astoraths axe I see that is is a power weapon that hits at s6. I first apply power weapon. Oh I see there are still other rules I must apply. I guess it is unusual.
So you look at it and find a special rule. Thus, it can't be an Axe, Lance, Sword or Maul.
For frost blades it would make them unusual pw but this was faq'd to state blades are s+1 and ap3 while frost axes are s+2 ap2 i1. Why would gw do that? Because reading the power weapon rules that state you have a power weapon that adds +1 s gives it additional rules and makes it an unusual pw no matter how it would be modelled.
The rules only prevent master-crafted powerweapons from being axes. Nothing prevents an power axe from being master-crafted - you only ever start looking for special rules if you don't know the types. Weapons explicitly described as power axes, swords, lances, mauls or pogo-sticks can have any amount of rules attached to them.
Unless GW tells us in some way to ignore master-crafted for deciding the stats of a power weapon, you can't have an AP2 for your master-crafted power weapon. Automatically Appended Next Post: rogueeyes wrote:
If it stated no special rules whatsoever then this argument would not work but since it states further we must view it as having a specific order for applying the rules. Since none is given we must apply them as we read them.
I know I have a German flag next to my name, but I'm damn sure that "further" does not describe an order in this case.
18009
Post by: rogueeyes
Jidmah wrote:rogueeyes wrote:What order do you apply rules in? If I apply as I read them we get a completely different meaning aka
Dante's axe is a mc pw.
I first apply mc to his weapon which allows me a reroll to hit. Then I apply a power weapon to it. It is a power weapon with no additional special rules since all of the other rules came before power weapon. It is modelled as an axe so it becomes s+1 and ap2 i1.
You don't apply them in any order at all. You look at the weapon as whole. Has special rule? Yup, so can't be axe.
Now if I look at astoraths axe I see that is is a power weapon that hits at s6. I first apply power weapon. Oh I see there are still other rules I must apply. I guess it is unusual.
So you look at it and find a special rule. Thus, it can't be an Axe, Lance, Sword or Maul.
For frost blades it would make them unusual pw but this was faq'd to state blades are s+1 and ap3 while frost axes are s+2 ap2 i1. Why would gw do that? Because reading the power weapon rules that state you have a power weapon that adds +1 s gives it additional rules and makes it an unusual pw no matter how it would be modelled.
The rules only prevent master-crafted powerweapons from being axes. Nothing prevents an power axe from being master-crafted - you only ever start looking for special rules if you don't know the types. Weapons explicitly described as power axes, swords, lances, mauls or pogo-sticks can have any amount of rules attached to them.
Unless GW tells us in some way to ignore master-crafted for deciding the stats of a power weapon, you can't have an AP2 for your master-crafted power weapon.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rogueeyes wrote:
If it stated no special rules whatsoever then this argument would not work but since it states further we must view it as having a specific order for applying the rules. Since none is given we must apply them as we read them.
I know I have a German flag next to my name, but I'm damn sure that "further" does not describe an order in this case.
The fact that it states further means that you CAN have some special rules. If you would remove further the argument would stand. The fact that you ignored the word means you logic is flawed and that it is impossible to have any special rules with power weapons ever. If this is the case why write further?
MY argument still stands based on further. If you apply the rules in the correct way which the word further states that there is actually an order and some special rules can be applied to the basic generic power weapons and still have them be the generic types of power weapons stated in the book.
According to your logic I can just pick and choose which order I want to apply my rules in. This however is incorrect in that it causes conflicts such as this and no longer becomes RAW.
49495
Post by: Joe Mama
Jidmah wrote:Nothing prevents an power axe from being master-crafted - you only ever start looking for special rules if you don't know the types. Weapons explicitly described as power axes, swords, lances, mauls or pogo-sticks can have any amount of rules attached to them.
Excellent point that I don't think was mentioned before. Not sure if that was GW's intention, or even it is correct by reading the rules (I am still half asleep), but it sounds ok to me right now.
34439
Post by: Formosa
STC_LogisEngine wrote:First off: No Formosa. you Can't. Sammael is equipped with 'the Raven Sword' [MC Power Weapon] and it is in name, description and official model described/represented as a 'sword'. Hence user S, ap3.
So. ''If a power weapon has it's own Unique close combat rules,..'' Here's the key, ''unique'' and ''rules''. This means that the rules as written must be unique. Not the Effect, +1 stat is in no way unique. The whole rule text must be taken into account to determine it's type. So a ''Mastercrafted powerweapon'' is not unique, a huskblade, relic blade or warscythe is.
well I know the first part is not right, fluff has no bearing on rules, it could be called the raven fish and it would not matter, its the actual rules that do matter.
The only thing that matters, does MC make it a "unique" weapon, either way im going to model it as a lance... cos it looks cool, the only thing that really matters is am I able to use is as a lance (there not that great to be fair, but... well its cool right?)
10279
Post by: focusedfire
Formosa wrote:STC_LogisEngine wrote:First off: No Formosa. you Can't. Sammael is equipped with 'the Raven Sword' [MC Power Weapon] and it is in name, description and official model described/represented as a 'sword'. Hence user S, ap3.
So. ''If a power weapon has it's own Unique close combat rules,..'' Here's the key, ''unique'' and ''rules''. This means that the rules as written must be unique. Not the Effect, +1 stat is in no way unique. The whole rule text must be taken into account to determine it's type. So a ''Mastercrafted powerweapon'' is not unique, a huskblade, relic blade or warscythe is.
well I know the first part is not right, fluff has no bearing on rules, it could be called the raven fish and it would not matter, its the actual rules that do matter.
Really, GW's ruling on the GK's Plasma Syphon say other-wise. > 
Now, seriously, The rule says that, "If a power weapon has its own unique close combat rules, treat it as an AP 3 mele weapon with the additional rules and characteristics presented in its entry.
The answer is right there.
Lets use the Eldar Executioner as an example. It is a power weapon with unique rules, so this makes it AP3. if you stop right there.
Thing is that you don't stop right there. there are additional rules and characteristics.
The additional characteristics describe it as a Glaive(A type of Halberd/axe) that gives +2 to the users Strength.
The Glaive wording makes it fall into the axe catagory, which makes the weapon AP2 that additionally adds +2 to the wielders strength..
Now, the four types of power weapon are not restricted to the "power weapons that have no further special rules" paragraph. They are mentioned seperately and before that paragraph.
The chart listing the different profiles is also seperate from that paragraph. This means that the chart is not restriced to "power weapons with no other special rules".
Rather, the "power weapons with no further special rules" paragraph is a shortcut, telling us to look at the model rather than trying to search for a rule as to what type it is, elsewhere, in your codex. It in no way restricts access to the chart that is below it.
Does anyone follow?
34439
Post by: Formosa
focusedfire wrote:Formosa wrote:STC_LogisEngine wrote:First off: No Formosa. you Can't. Sammael is equipped with 'the Raven Sword' [MC Power Weapon] and it is in name, description and official model described/represented as a 'sword'. Hence user S, ap3.
So. ''If a power weapon has it's own Unique close combat rules,..'' Here's the key, ''unique'' and ''rules''. This means that the rules as written must be unique. Not the Effect, +1 stat is in no way unique. The whole rule text must be taken into account to determine it's type. So a ''Mastercrafted powerweapon'' is not unique, a huskblade, relic blade or warscythe is.
well I know the first part is not right, fluff has no bearing on rules, it could be called the raven fish and it would not matter, its the actual rules that do matter.
Really, GW's ruling on the GK's Plasma Syphon say other-wise. >
Now, seriously, The rule says that, "If a power weapon has its own unique close combat rules, treat it as an AP 3 mele weapon with the additional rules and characteristics presented in its entry.
The answer is right there.
Lets use the Eldar Executioner as an example. It is a power weapon with unique rules, so this makes it AP3. if you stop right there.
Thing is that you don't stop right there. there are additional rules and characteristics.
The additional characteristics describe it as a Glaive(A type of Halberd/axe) that gives +2 to the users Strength.
The Glaive wording makes it fall into the axe catagory, which makes the weapon AP2 that additionally adds +2 to the wielders strength..
Now, the four types of power weapon are not restricted to the "power weapons that have no further special rules" paragraph. They are mentioned seperately and before that paragraph.
The chart listing the different profiles is also seperate from that paragraph. This means that the chart is not restriced to "power weapons with no other special rules".
Rather, the "power weapons with no further special rules" paragraph is a shortcut, telling us to look at the model rather than trying to search for a rule as to what type it is, elsewhere, in your codex. It in no way restricts access to the chart that is below it.
Does anyone follow?
yeah I follow, so your saying a PW with any other rules attached to it, is a special PW and thus cannot be swapped for an Axe etc. and is AP3, is that right?
To answer the plasma syphon, thats rules that tell you to use fluff, so it still comes under the "fluff has no bearing on rules" as PS is a rule and not fluff
10279
Post by: focusedfire
Formosa wrote:
yeah I follow, so your saying a PW with any other rules attached to it, is a special PW and thus cannot be swapped for an Axe etc. and is AP3, is that right?
To answer the plasma syphon, thats rules that tell you to use fluff, so it still comes under the "fluff has no bearing on rules" as PS is a rule and not fluff
Yes, the weapon can not be swapped if it has other special rules and will be AP 3, BUT if the weapon is described as a Glaive/Halberd/Axe then it would become AP 2 due to the wording of treat as Ap3 melee weapon with the additional rules and characteristics presented in its entry. So the Executioner is described as a Glaive in its rules and thus is both AP3 and AP2 by how the rule is worded.
The question would then be, "Is the Glaive description a modifier?".
As to the Plasma Syphon rule........ Or it could be viewed as a precedent, that affects all rules that follow.
34439
Post by: Formosa
focusedfire wrote:Formosa wrote:
yeah I follow, so your saying a PW with any other rules attached to it, is a special PW and thus cannot be swapped for an Axe etc. and is AP3, is that right?
To answer the plasma syphon, thats rules that tell you to use fluff, so it still comes under the "fluff has no bearing on rules" as PS is a rule and not fluff
Yes, the weapon can not be swapped if it has other special rules and will be AP 3, BUT if the weapon is described as a Glaive/Halberd/Axe then it would become AP 2 due to the wording of treat as Ap3 melee weapon with the additional rules and characteristics presented in its entry. So the Executioner is described as a Glaive in its rules and thus is both AP3 and AP2 by how the rule is worded.
The question would then be, "Is the Glaive description a modifier?".
As to the Plasma Syphon rule........ Or it could be viewed as a precedent, that affects all rules that follow.
so just to be clear, i can model is as lance, but it still fowllows the rules of a power sword... seems simple enough to me
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Focusedfire - being described as an axe is irrelevant, if it has special rules it is a unique power weapon and is AP3.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
nosferatu1001 wrote:Focusedfire - being described as an axe is irrelevant, if it has special rules it is a unique power weapon and is AP3.
So Gorechild is an AP3 Power Weapon that rolls an additional D6 for armour penetration, despite explicitly being described as a Power Axe in the FAQ?
39309
Post by: Jidmah
Gorechild is not a "power weapon" if it's described as a "power axe". You only ever care about special rules if you have a generic "power weapon". Besides, nos was talking about the description of a weapon in its fluff. rogueeyes wrote:The fact that it states further means that you CAN have some special rules. If you would remove further the argument would stand. The fact that you ignored the word means you logic is flawed and that it is impossible to have any special rules with power weapons ever. If this is the case why write further?
MY argument still stands based on further. If you apply the rules in the correct way which the word further states that there is actually an order and some special rules can be applied to the basic generic power weapons and still have them be the generic types of power weapons stated in the book.
According to your logic I can just pick and choose which order I want to apply my rules in. This however is incorrect in that it causes conflicts such as this and no longer becomes RAW.
You completely missed me by a landslide. "Further" is not an indication of any order of operation being present. I suggest that you look up the word "further" in a dictionary. Weapon 1 - power weapon - causes instant-death to gretchin Weapon 1 has further rules besides "power weapon". Weapon 2 - causes instant-death to gretchin - powerweapon Weapon 2 still has further rules besides "power weapon". The order of their listing is completely irrelevant. You are not allowed to apply rules in any order. That would be a violation of rules. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, you have to apply all rules at once.
18009
Post by: rogueeyes
focusedfire wrote:Formosa wrote:STC_LogisEngine wrote:First off: No Formosa. you Can't. Sammael is equipped with 'the Raven Sword' [MC Power Weapon] and it is in name, description and official model described/represented as a 'sword'. Hence user S, ap3.
So. ''If a power weapon has it's own Unique close combat rules,..'' Here's the key, ''unique'' and ''rules''. This means that the rules as written must be unique. Not the Effect, +1 stat is in no way unique. The whole rule text must be taken into account to determine it's type. So a ''Mastercrafted powerweapon'' is not unique, a huskblade, relic blade or warscythe is.
well I know the first part is not right, fluff has no bearing on rules, it could be called the raven fish and it would not matter, its the actual rules that do matter.
Really, GW's ruling on the GK's Plasma Syphon say other-wise. >
Now, seriously, The rule says that, "If a power weapon has its own unique close combat rules, treat it as an AP 3 mele weapon with the additional rules and characteristics presented in its entry.
The answer is right there.
Lets use the Eldar Executioner as an example. It is a power weapon with unique rules, so this makes it AP3. if you stop right there.
Thing is that you don't stop right there. there are additional rules and characteristics.
The additional characteristics describe it as a Glaive(A type of Halberd/axe) that gives +2 to the users Strength.
The Glaive wording makes it fall into the axe catagory, which makes the weapon AP2 that additionally adds +2 to the wielders strength..
Now, the four types of power weapon are not restricted to the "power weapons that have no further special rules" paragraph. They are mentioned seperately and before that paragraph.
The chart listing the different profiles is also seperate from that paragraph. This means that the chart is not restriced to "power weapons with no other special rules".
Rather, the "power weapons with no further special rules" paragraph is a shortcut, telling us to look at the model rather than trying to search for a rule as to what type it is, elsewhere, in your codex. It in no way restricts access to the chart that is below it.
Does anyone follow?
So if I have a Master Crafted Power Weapon then this does not apply because Master Crafted is not unique to close combat?
The power weapons in the chart can have other special rules based on the premise of further special rules stated in the Power weapon section. Thus Dante's Axe is a master crafted power weapon. We apply master crafted which allows him to reroll one to hit attack. Then we apply power weapon rules which state that we look at the model if there are "no further special rules". There are no further special rules. There are only the special rules that come before.
In order for all the premise that All power weapons that have special rules are AP3 (master crafted power weapons in the case) to strike at initiative and be AP3 the power weapon section must state a power weapon with any special rules at all would be considered an unusual power weapon and we would not look at the model in question but take it as what it is.
SAmuel would be the same case. "is a master crafted power weapon." We apply the rules for MAster Crafted then we apply the rules for Power Weapon. IF you model it as a lance it is then a power lance with the profile given in the book. A Halberd or axe would be a power axe. A Sword or dagger would be a power sword.
If we were to add a special rule to SAmuel's axe that states "is a master crafted power weapon" "that allows all failed to wound rolls to be rerolled" then we would have a unique power weapon since there are more special rules given after the power weapon rule.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
AlmightyWalrus wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:Focusedfire - being described as an axe is irrelevant, if it has special rules it is a unique power weapon and is AP3.
So Gorechild is an AP3 Power Weapon that rolls an additional D6 for armour penetration, despite explicitly being described as a Power Axe in the FAQ?
Gorechild is errataed to be an Axe, not a Power Weapon
When you have a Power *****weapon***** that has special rules, it is an AP3 power weapon with S:User and follow the special rules. If it is a power Sword / Axe / etc with special rules it is still a power sword etc with special rules.
Weapon /= Sword / Axe / etc
39309
Post by: Jidmah
@rogueeyes
So if I apply powerklaw first, and then my warboss' initiative I get to strike at I4 again?
Seriously, you have absolutely no reason to assume that rules with a permanent effect have any timing at all.
And IF they had a timing, there is a rule on page 9 handling that, which has absolutely no resemblance with the nonsense you are typing. That's cute house rule, no more.
18009
Post by: rogueeyes
Jidmah wrote:Gorechild is not a "power weapon" if it's described as a "power axe".
You only ever care about special rules if you have a generic "power weapon".
Besides, nos was talking about the description of a weapon in its fluff.
rogueeyes wrote:The fact that it states further means that you CAN have some special rules. If you would remove further the argument would stand. The fact that you ignored the word means you logic is flawed and that it is impossible to have any special rules with power weapons ever. If this is the case why write further?
MY argument still stands based on further. If you apply the rules in the correct way which the word further states that there is actually an order and some special rules can be applied to the basic generic power weapons and still have them be the generic types of power weapons stated in the book.
According to your logic I can just pick and choose which order I want to apply my rules in. This however is incorrect in that it causes conflicts such as this and no longer becomes RAW.
You completely missed me by a landslide. "Further" is not an indication of any order of operation being present. I suggest that you look up the word "further" in a dictionary.
Weapon 1
- power weapon
- causes instant-death to gretchin
Weapon 1 has further rules besides "power weapon".
/*8
Weapon 2
- causes instant-death to gretchin
- powerweapon
Weapon 2 still has further rules besides "power weapon".
The order of their listing is completely irrelevant. You are not allowed to apply rules in any order. That would be a violation of rules. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, you have to apply all rules at once.
The order of the listing is not irrelevant. If I state the order of the turn is Assault, Movement, Shooting then that is the turn phase. The turn phase is actually Movement Shooting Assault as stated in that order. By stating them in that order it creates an order of precedence that you do this then this then this. Further means in addition or to a greater degree or extent. IF you apply the rules in a specific order you see there are no more rules in addition to the rules that you already applied.
Give me a solid example that shows I should not apply rules in the order that they are written in the book. I apply master-crafted. Then I apply power weapon rule. There are no additional rules aka there are no further rules. Why is this? Because I already applied all the other rules as they were stated. Automatically Appended Next Post: Jidmah wrote:@rogueeyes
So if I apply powerklaw first, and then my warboss' initiative I get to strike at I4 again?
Seriously, you have absolutely no reason to assume that rules with a permanent effect have any timing at all.
And IF they had a timing, there is a rule on page 9 handling that, which has absolutely no resemblance with the nonsense you are typing. That's cute house rule, no more.
Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. I stated you apply rules in the order for a piece of wargear. Once you get to the unwieldy special rule for the weapon it states that you attack at I1. Nothing overrides that and in no way does it equate to anything I stated in my argument.
I apply rules in order for a specific piece of wargear I use. I attack with my warboss using his power klaw. It can only be used in melee because of melee. So I cant use it to shoot. It is a specialist weapon so I can't get an extra attack from another ccw. Oh it's unwieldy so I strike at I1.
Where oh where does it state that I get to strike at I4? Where does it state that I get to make attacks at any initiative except at 4? If he were on a Bike I could make an I10 HoW attack on the charge but that is it. Please try to understand my logic and don't give out irrelevant examples that do not help the argument for either side.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
rogueeyes wrote:
Give me a solid example that shows I should not apply rules in the order that they are written in the book. I apply master-crafted. Then I apply power weapon rule. There are no additional rules aka there are no further rules. Why is this? Because I already applied all the other rules as they were stated.
There are further rules: Master-crafted. "Further" does not have to mean that it's listed after whatever you're referring to.
60582
Post by: erick99
AlmightyWalrus wrote:rogueeyes wrote:
Give me a solid example that shows I should not apply rules in the order that they are written in the book. I apply master-crafted. Then I apply power weapon rule. There are no additional rules aka there are no further rules. Why is this? Because I already applied all the other rules as they were stated.
There are further rules: Master-crafted. "Further" does not have to mean that it's listed after whatever you're referring to.
Exactly. It does not matter if it says Master-crafted power weapon, or if it says a power weapon that is master crafted.
18009
Post by: rogueeyes
erick99 wrote:AlmightyWalrus wrote:rogueeyes wrote:
Give me a solid example that shows I should not apply rules in the order that they are written in the book. I apply master-crafted. Then I apply power weapon rule. There are no additional rules aka there are no further rules. Why is this? Because I already applied all the other rules as they were stated.
There are further rules: Master-crafted. "Further" does not have to mean that it's listed after whatever you're referring to.
Exactly. It does not matter if it says Master-crafted power weapon, or if it says a power weapon that is master crafted.
If it says it is a power weapon that was master crafted it would matter since you apply the rules in a different order.
Tell me how do you get to the rule for power weapon without first reading and applying the rule for master crafted?
Follow this statement:
This needs no further research.
Further means some research was already done.
I've not been further south than the Equator.
Further means I've been north of the equator but not south.
In your use of further it means that there cannot be ANY. If this were the case it would state that a power weapon with ANY special rules rather than FURTHER special rules. Automatically Appended Next Post: AlmightyWalrus wrote:rogueeyes wrote:
Give me a solid example that shows I should not apply rules in the order that they are written in the book. I apply master-crafted. Then I apply power weapon rule. There are no additional rules aka there are no further rules. Why is this? Because I already applied all the other rules as they were stated.
There are further rules: Master-crafted. "Further" does not have to mean that it's listed after whatever you're referring to.
I've already applied the master crafted rule therefore it is not a further rule. It is a special rule that has been applied and is not a further rule. You can also not get to the power weapon rule without first looking at the master crafted rule and it explaining what you do.
39309
Post by: Jidmah
rogueeyes wrote:The order of the listing is not irrelevant. If I state the order of the turn is Assault, Movement, Shooting then that is the turn phase. The turn phase is actually Movement Shooting Assault as stated in that order. By stating them in that order it creates an order of precedence that you do this then this then this.
How set up a battlefield comes after shooting. You must be playing funny games. I have just proven that the position of a rule in the BRB has absolutely no bearing on its timing.
Further means in addition or to a greater degree or extent. IF you apply the rules in a specific order you see there are no more rules in addition to the rules that you already applied.
You realize that addition is commutative? You just have refuted yourself. Hint, try looking up "commutative law".
Give me a solid example that shows I should not apply rules in the order that they are written in the book. I apply master-crafted. Then I apply power weapon rule. There are no additional rules aka there are no further rules. Why is this? Because I already applied all the other rules as they were stated.
Master-Crafted does not disapear, just because you "applied" the rule. If you look at Master-crafted, you have a further rule named "power weapon". if you look at power weapon, you have a further rule called "Master-Crafted".
Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. I stated you apply rules in the order for a piece of wargear.
Correct. YOU stated that. Without any rules backup. You are not an official source of rules as per the tenets of YMDC.
Once you get to the unwieldy special rule for the weapon it states that you attack at I1. Nothing overrides that and in no way does it equate to anything I stated in my argument.
So you mean that you may ignore a rule by inventing a timing, but I can't? I did exactly what you did.
Rule A prohibits you from using rule B. You claim that, by applying rule B first, you can get around rule A.
I apply rules in order for a specific piece of wargear I use. I attack with my warboss using his power klaw. It can only be used in melee because of melee. So I cant use it to shoot. It is a specialist weapon so I can't get an extra attack from another ccw. Oh it's unwieldy so I strike at I1.
Where oh where does it state that I get to strike at I4?
In the stat line. Ork warbosses have initiative 4. Page 24 tells me that my warboss must attack at his initiative. By applying that rule after "unwieldy" I override it and am no longer forced to attack at I1.
This is simply following your logic, as lined out above. Of course, this is nonsense.
Where does it state that I get to make attacks at any initiative except at 4? If he were on a Bike I could make an I10 HoW attack on the charge but that is it. Please try to understand my logic and don't give out irrelevant examples that do not help the argument for either side.
Oh, I understand your logic perfectly. But it's based on multiple wrong assumption (a timing for permanent effects), and has been proven wrong by both rules and counter-example. You simply fail to see your error. Automatically Appended Next Post: rogueeyes wrote:I've not been further south than the Equator.
Further means I've been north of the equator but not south.
In your use of further it means that there cannot be ANY. If this were the case it would state that a power weapon with ANY special rules rather than FURTHER special rules.
Seriously, please look up "further" in a dictionary.
"Any" would include the power weapon rule itself.
18009
Post by: rogueeyes
I looked up further in the dictionary. The issue here is that As I read a rule it is applied for a piece of wargear being used until another rule overrides the effects of that specific rule.
I stated the order of the phases in order to prove that the order something is stated in DOES matter.
If I apply a special rule before I apply a different rule then it has no further rules to apply. How is this wrong? How is this irrelevant?
Further is in fact being used as it is defined in any dictionary that can be found. I even GAVE the definition.
I apply a rule. I apply a second rule. IF there are more rules after the second rule then there are further rules that I must apply. If I remove further your argument actually works. The problem is that the english language requires you to read in order. The problem is that the commutative law does not WORK for logic.
A then B equates to C
B then A equate to C
These may be true but are not necessarily true in LOGIC.
By your logic I can apply Unwieldy then apply my model's Initiative. A+B = C correct? A is my initiative. B is I1. I'll apply B first so I can hit at my I by applying A.
Can you see the flaw in the argument that the commutative law applies to Logic? It does not because Logic and Math are not equivalent.
14701
Post by: Brother Ramses
Seriously, the new edition of Warhammer 40k has introduced a plethora of rules lawyers that just barely passed the rules bar exam.
Until anyone can show me Warhammer 40k defined proof that master-crafted is not a special/unique rule, any and all entries that state a power weapon is master-crafted will be ap3, str/initiative user.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
I agree BR - now that doesnt happen often...quick, JotWW!
power weapon, master crafted makes it a unique power weapon, so is AP3 and master crafted. No more difficult than that.
60582
Post by: erick99
rogueeyes wrote:I looked up further in the dictionary. The issue here is that As I read a rule it is applied for a piece of wargear being used until another rule overrides the effects of that specific rule.
I stated the order of the phases in order to prove that the order something is stated in DOES matter.
If I apply a special rule before I apply a different rule then it has no further rules to apply. How is this wrong? How is this irrelevant?
Further is in fact being used as it is defined in any dictionary that can be found. I even GAVE the definition.
I apply a rule. I apply a second rule. IF there are more rules after the second rule then there are further rules that I must apply. If I remove further your argument actually works. The problem is that the english language requires you to read in order. The problem is that the commutative law does not WORK for logic.
A then B equates to C
B then A equate to C
These may be true but are not necessarily true in LOGIC.
By your logic I can apply Unwieldy then apply my model's Initiative. A+B = C correct? A is my initiative. B is I1. I'll apply B first so I can hit at my I by applying A.
Can you see the flaw in the argument that the commutative law applies to Logic? It does not because Logic and Math are not equivalent.
So 5-4 =/= -4+5? You're saying order changes the outcome. Banshees are I10. Unwieldy strikes at I1. Order does not matter, if I am I10 before or after the striking limitation, I may still only strike at I1. Order has its place, but is irrelevant with regards to this. Math written in English is still Math.
Also, English does not need to be read in order. Order is placed on the English language to improve the likely hood a thought will be properly understood.
Based on the conventions of the English language, Master-Crafted describes power weapon, In the same way as Power describes weapon.
So it goes weapon type=power weapon. Power weapon type=master crafted. Master-Crafted power weapon=unusual power weapon. Therefore, the weapon type=unusual power weapon (master crafted).
10279
Post by: focusedfire
nosferatu1001 wrote:Focusedfire - being described as an axe is irrelevant, if it has special rules it is a unique power weapon and is AP3.
This is not what the rule says.
The rule states that if it is a PW with unique(/special rules..debatable but not important) then it is AP 3.
But then goes on to say that you also "apply" any "additional" rules and "characteristics" presented in its entry.
The description "Glaive" or "Axe" is now a Characteristic and thusly is to be applied. You look at the Table and find that Axe is AP 2. So the weapon goes from being AP3 to AP2 due to apllying the Charcterist after first making the weapon AP3.
The rule gives the order of how to do this and shows weapon types as a characteristic in the chart.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
No, Glaive fluff is not a characteristic of the weapon.
18009
Post by: rogueeyes
erick99 wrote:rogueeyes wrote:I looked up further in the dictionary. The issue here is that As I read a rule it is applied for a piece of wargear being used until another rule overrides the effects of that specific rule.
I stated the order of the phases in order to prove that the order something is stated in DOES matter.
If I apply a special rule before I apply a different rule then it has no further rules to apply. How is this wrong? How is this irrelevant?
Further is in fact being used as it is defined in any dictionary that can be found. I even GAVE the definition.
I apply a rule. I apply a second rule. IF there are more rules after the second rule then there are further rules that I must apply. If I remove further your argument actually works. The problem is that the english language requires you to read in order. The problem is that the commutative law does not WORK for logic.
A then B equates to C
B then A equate to C
These may be true but are not necessarily true in LOGIC.
By your logic I can apply Unwieldy then apply my model's Initiative. A+B = C correct? A is my initiative. B is I1. I'll apply B first so I can hit at my I by applying A.
Can you see the flaw in the argument that the commutative law applies to Logic? It does not because Logic and Math are not equivalent.
So 5-4 =/= -4+5? You're saying order changes the outcome. Banshees are I10. Unwieldy strikes at I1. Order does not matter, if I am I10 before or after the striking limitation, I may still only strike at I1. Order has its place, but is irrelevant with regards to this. Math written in English is still Math.
Also, English does not need to be read in order. Order is placed on the English language to improve the likely hood a thought will be properly understood.
Based on the conventions of the English language, Master-Crafted describes power weapon, In the same way as Power describes weapon.
So it goes weapon type=power weapon. Power weapon type=master crafted. Master-Crafted power weapon=unusual power weapon. Therefore, the weapon type=unusual power weapon (master crafted).
The problem is that you are using Addition. If I leave out rules in addition I can create any answer I so choose:
4+4 = 10.
This is correct if you are in Base 8 rather than base 10.
So -4+5 != 5+ -4 if both sides use different base terminology. If you know the base terminaology of both side then you must take that into account. This is why you cannot use the commutative law for ALL of logic.
The power weapon statement is more like
((Mastercrafted) X Power Weapon)
Which equates to
((1+1) X 4+5)
Your logic says I can do 4+5 and multiply by 1+1. This violates the rules of logic and mathematics. Additional rules would add something similar to this to the equation:
((1+1) X 4+5) + 1
According to your commutative mathematics rule as you applied it to the logical argument your have given you state that I can do any operation in any order I so choose.
+ X - or / or even % if I so choose. Which should I do first? The hell with the other rules that state I shodl do multiplication in order from left to right I'll jsut start with addition at the end and go from there to see what I get.
60582
Post by: erick99
rogueeyes wrote:
The problem is that you are using Addition. If I leave out rules in addition I can create any answer I so choose:
4+4 = 10.
This is correct if you are in Base 8 rather than base 10.
So -4+5 != 5+ -4 if both sides use different base terminology. If you know the base terminaology of both side then you must take that into account. This is why you cannot use the commutative law for ALL of logic.
The power weapon statement is more like
((Mastercrafted) X Power Weapon)
Which equates to
((1+1) X 4+5)
Your logic says I can do 4+5 and multiply by 1+1. This violates the rules of logic and mathematics. Additional rules would add something similar to this to the equation:
((1+1) X 4+5) + 1
According to your commutative mathematics rule as you applied it to the logical argument your have given you state that I can do any operation in any order I so choose.
+ X - or / or even % if I so choose. Which should I do first? The hell with the other rules that state I shodl do multiplication in order from left to right I'll jsut start with addition at the end and go from there to see what I get.
Math has its own laws (PEMDOS), logic has its own. They are not interchangeable, true, but are often similar. Actually, the Commutative law is vital for logic. Commutativity (Com) (p \/ q) :: (q \/ p) (p x q) :: (q x p)
Logic is very clear about that. So don't tell me Commutativity does not work with logic. Make your argument using logic, following all the rules of logic. I can't make heads or tails of what you mean. I agree, 4+4=10, but we are assuming 4=5. Your argument ought to be 4=5, so 4+4=10. Note that now 10=8. How you conclude 'master-crafted' is (1+1) and 'power weapon' is 4+5, I'm not sure. If you mean: A=Power weapon (True) B=Master crafted (True) Then you would be saying: "A+B=C, but B+A=/=C" Which makes no sense. Reality is: A+B=C (True), B+A=C (True), Therefore C-A=B. and C-B=A (Both True) If C= determining power weapon type (True) Type-power weapon=master-crafted. (True) Type-master crafted=power weapon. (True)
18009
Post by: rogueeyes
erick99 wrote:rogueeyes wrote:
The problem is that you are using Addition. If I leave out rules in addition I can create any answer I so choose:
4+4 = 10.
This is correct if you are in Base 8 rather than base 10.
So -4+5 != 5+ -4 if both sides use different base terminology. If you know the base terminaology of both side then you must take that into account. This is why you cannot use the commutative law for ALL of logic.
The power weapon statement is more like
((Mastercrafted) X Power Weapon)
Which equates to
((1+1) X 4+5)
Your logic says I can do 4+5 and multiply by 1+1. This violates the rules of logic and mathematics. Additional rules would add something similar to this to the equation:
((1+1) X 4+5) + 1
According to your commutative mathematics rule as you applied it to the logical argument your have given you state that I can do any operation in any order I so choose.
+ X - or / or even % if I so choose. Which should I do first? The hell with the other rules that state I shodl do multiplication in order from left to right I'll jsut start with addition at the end and go from there to see what I get.
Math has its own laws (PEMDOS), logic has its own. They are not interchangeable, true, but are often similar.
Actually, the Commutative law is vital for logic. Commutativity (Com) (p \/ q) :: (q \/ p) (p x q) :: (q x p)
Logic is very clear about that. So don't tell me Commutativity does not work with logic. Make your argument using logic, following all the rules of logic.
I can't make heads or tails of what you mean.
I agree, 4+4=10, but we are assuming 4=5. Your argument ought to be 4=5, so 4+4=10. Note that now 10=8.
How you conclude 'master-crafted' is (1+1) and 'power weapon' is 4+5, I'm not sure.
If you mean:
A=Power weapon (True)
B=Master crafted (True)
Then you would be saying: " AB=C, but BA=/=C"
Which makes no sense.
Commutative is true for logical comparisons of Mathematics (aka Discrete Mathematics). However we must also include time at which something is applied into the argument since there is an order of precedence that we must follow. Since no order of precedence is given we must apply the rules in order.
A = Master Crafted
B = Power Weapon
C = Generic Power Weapon
D = Unusual Power Weapon
The problem here is that the argument is being made that if and only if B then C. The problem is that if you add in "further" you have exemptions which also make B true if you have other things applied BEFORE B is applied.
If B and No additional conditions then C else D.
This equates to the same as if I did
A + B
A is applied.
B is applied
No additional rules so C is applied.
Now if I state
B is applied.
Additional conditions exist.
So D.
A is now applied.
Commutative does matter when you have to apply rules in a particular order. Timing does matter what order we state since it equates to two different conclusions in the argument.
49495
Post by: Joe Mama
LOL. What in the H-E-double hockey sticks is going on in here?
60582
Post by: erick99
A=Axe
B=Sword
C=Lance
D=Maul
E=Unusual
F=Power weapon
G=Unique rules
H=Special rules
I=What model has [WYSIWIG]
So...
A=F+I (True)
B=F+I (True)
C=F+I (True)
D=F+I (True)
E=F+G (True)
E=F+H (True, most likely)
J=Category of Power Weapon
So...
A=J (True)
B=J (True)
C=J (True)
D=J (True)
E=J (True)
Therefore, J=F+I
J=F+G (True)
J=F+H (True, mostly)
J=F+G+H (True)
So, if the model has a power weapon, with no special/unique rules, you look at the model for type. If it does have special/unique rules, it is an unusual Power Weapon.
Power Weapon does not count as a special rule for purposes of determining type, as J=A through E
Special is any rule the power weapon has, beyond Power Weapon, that may apply to other weapon types, such as master crafted.
Unique refers to rules only pertaining to the power weapon, Such as +2S, inflicts ID on to-wound rolls of 6, etc.
Unique also pertains to rules written longhand- 2D6 penetration against armor is not Armor Bane. If it was Armor Bane, it would say Armor Bane, etc.
There you have it, a logical formula for determining how special your power weapon is. The only part debatable is if special, generic rules excepting power weapon cause the power weapon to be unusual or not.
7662
Post by: Camarodragon
Math, Addition, Definitions from the dictionary. Soon it will be cats and dog sleeping together… Can somebody arguing this here please solve world hunger, figure out how we go about getting world peace, and if the Myans calculations are right that the earth is going to go “Poof!” this fall and how we can stop it!!!!!!
39309
Post by: Jidmah
Thanks erick99, you saved me a lot of time of typing exactly what you did *hands over brainboy badge*
34439
Post by: Formosa
Brother Ramses wrote:Seriously, the new edition of Warhammer 40k has introduced a plethora of rules lawyers that just barely passed the rules bar exam.
Until anyone can show me Warhammer 40k defined proof that master-crafted is not a special/unique rule, any and all entries that state a power weapon is master-crafted will be ap3, str/initiative user.
Well thats stupid eh, we know it is a special rule because its in the special rules part of the book lol (agreeing with you).
I was just asking if I was able to swap it out for something cooler (which I will still be doing..rule of cool wins all) like the power lance (found out its actually a spear lol), now due to its special rule I cant use it as a spear and it will always behave as a strx sp3 weapon, so this allows me to model it however the hell I like as its rules will always be the same.
yay
14701
Post by: Brother Ramses
Formosa wrote:Brother Ramses wrote:Seriously, the new edition of Warhammer 40k has introduced a plethora of rules lawyers that just barely passed the rules bar exam.
Until anyone can show me Warhammer 40k defined proof that master-crafted is not a special/unique rule, any and all entries that state a power weapon is master-crafted will be ap3, str/initiative user.
Well thats stupid eh, we know it is a special rule because its in the special rules part of the book lol (agreeing with you).
I was just asking if I was able to swap it out for something cooler (which I will still be doing..rule of cool wins all) like the power lance (found out its actually a spear lol), now due to its special rule I cant use it as a spear and it will always behave as a strx sp3 weapon, so this allows me to model it however the hell I like as its rules will always be the same.
yay
Of course.
In the case of special/unique weapons, the rule of determining what it is no longer applies and you can model it to whatever you please. The relevent special/unique rules are followed no matter what it looks like.
42808
Post by: Marthike
Please stop bring my university work into warhammer is making my head hurt,
I seen enough truth tables and logic graphs for this year.
22687
Post by: MajorTom11
Please refrain from reviving threads to add comments that are immaterial to the topic. Thank you -
|
|
