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.

Oh god, you've just repeated everything again.

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

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

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

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

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

Nice doge nos, nice doge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are you trying to say that here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

Crimson wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pumpkin wrote:

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

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



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

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

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

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

Link, please? It sounds wonderful.

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

Pumpkin wrote:

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

Link, please? It sounds wonderful.

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

There ya go

Now I secretly hope this thread gets locked.

beigeknight wrote:There ya go

Now I secretly hope this thread gets locked.

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

Thanks for the repost!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DeathReaper wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DR - no, no you didnt.

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

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

So, good going on that one.

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