Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is Catachan not an SM recruiting world?

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

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

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

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

This immediately made me think of

Thorheim wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, I revise my answer:
The RaW is both

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

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

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

YAY!

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

This was closer to my question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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