Blood Angels Power Weapons?

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.

**chewielight**

Master Crafted is its own unique rule for that weapon the fact that it is a USR just shows what the rule is for the weapon that way they don't have to write it out every time so instead they point to the USR's. It even says so in the BRB AND further states that they are not all covered by the USR class , for those other rules they will be written out. The reason you can't have it as an axe is because your not given permission to class the weapon as a regular power weapon if it has special rules attached. Anything that isn't a normal power weapon by RAW would be unusual whether purchased or not. It doesn't make sense that you are arguing over your interpretation of the word unique v special and flat out discounting everyone else's.

The fact is there isn't a difference in the two terms when it comes to RAW because if you don't include it into the unusual category then they wouldn't be power weapons at all because they don't fit into the regular power weapon category. You can't have it your way and just rewrite the BRB. There are only two classes of power weapons and they either fit in to one or they go in the other.

**rogueeyes**

What order do you apply the rules in? Master crafted or power weapon?

If you apply master crafted first then when you apply the power weapon rules there will be no further special rules. To apply thus making it identified by the power weapon types.

If you apply master crafted after then you would have an unusual power weapon being ap3 since you still need to apply master crafted to the weapon.

Since we read from right to left we should apply in the order we read the rules. For example a master crafted power weapon like dantes axe would be s+1 ap2 i1. Whereas astoraths axe woud be s6 ap3 because it still has special rules after power weapon is stated.

If it is a power weapon that is master crafted then we would apply power weapon and see that there is still extra rules to apply thus making it ap3 unusual weapon.

The wording there are no further special rules is key. Further specifies that there is the ability to have some special rules already applied. Otherwise it would state no special rules rather than no further special rules.

**AresX8**

Seems like I need to repeat myself:

Are you two seriously suggesting that The Axe Mortalis falls under the same rules that Relic Blades, Agonisers, Huskblades, Drach'nyen and Talon of Horus, and GK Force Halberds do? All of those weapons fall under unusual power weapons.

**Red Comet**

AresX8 wrote:Seems like I need to repeat myself:

Are you two seriously suggesting that The Axe Mortalis falls under the same rules that Relic Blades, Agonisers, Huskblades, Drach'nyen and Talon of Horus, and GK Force Halberds do? All of those weapons fall under unusual power weapons.

^ This.

chewielight wrote:Master Crafted is its own unique rule for that weapon the fact that it is a USR just shows what the rule is for the weapon that way they don't have to write it out every time so instead they point to the USR's. It even says so in the BRB AND further states that they are not all covered by the USR class , for those other rules they will be written out. The reason you can't have it as an axe is because your not given permission to class the weapon as a regular power weapon if it has special rules attached. Anything that isn't a normal power weapon by RAW would be unusual whether purchased or not. It doesn't make sense that you are arguing over your interpretation of the word unique v special and flat out discounting everyone else's.

The fact is there isn't a difference in the two terms when it comes to RAW because if you don't include it into the unusual category then they wouldn't be power weapons at all because they don't fit into the regular power weapon category. You can't have it your way and just rewrite the BRB. There are only two classes of power weapons and they either fit in to one or they go in the other.

Master Crafted is a Special Rule because it is given a name. A unique rule does not have a name for itself. If you want proof go read the entry for a Nemesis Force Halberd. It has unique rules and no special codex rules or BRB USR rules to describe it. Mastercrafted isn't unique because it can be applied to a wide variety of weapons, wargear options and codices. You keep assuming that Special = Unique, when clearly they do not. Look at the Grey Knights codex. All of the Nemesis weapons are Unusual weapons because they have unique rules described only in the codex and there isn't an overarching special rule that covers all of their effects for multiple books.

There is a difference between Special and Unique. Right now you are telling me that both words in the English language mean the same thing when they don't. Just because you are unique does not mean you are special. Technically Power Weapons with "no further special rules" have no classification if you really want to go with RAW. Because it never tells us what to do with Power Weapons with further Special Rules since Unusual Power Weapons need to be UNIQUE not SPECIAL.

**rogueeyes**

AresX8 wrote:Seems like I need to repeat myself:

Are you two seriously suggesting that The Axe Mortalis falls under the same rules that Relic Blades, Agonisers, Huskblades, Drach'nyen and Talon of Horus, and GK Force Halberds do? All of those weapons fall under unusual power weapons.

I am not.

**Red Comet**

rogueeyes wrote:What order do you apply the rules in? Master crafted or power weapon?

If you apply master crafted first then when you apply the power weapon rules there will be no further special rules. To apply thus making it identified by the power weapon types.

If you apply master crafted after then you would have an unusual power weapon being ap3 since you still need to apply master crafted to the weapon.

Since we read from right to left we should apply in the order we read the rules. For example a master crafted power weapon like dantes axe would be s+1 ap2 i1. Whereas astoraths axe woud be s6 ap3 because it still has special rules after power weapon is stated.

If it is a power weapon that is master crafted then we would apply power weapon and see that there is still extra rules to apply thus making it ap3 unusual weapon.

The wording there are no further special rules is key. Further specifies that there is the ability to have some special rules already applied. Otherwise it would state no special rules rather than no further special rules.

I'm assuming you meant read from left to right correct? I understand your interpretation and that makes a lot of sense. Further "Unique Rules" are specified after the word Power Weapon is stated.

**AresX8**

Where is this "order of operations" in regards to power weapons laid out in the rulebook? Master crafted is a modifier, it's not an addition.

**rogueeyes**

Red Comet wrote:
rogueeyes wrote:What order do you apply the rules in? Master crafted or power weapon?

If you apply master crafted first then when you apply the power weapon rules there will be no further special rules. To apply thus making it identified by the power weapon types.

If you apply master crafted after then you would have an unusual power weapon being ap3 since you still need to apply master crafted to the weapon.

Since we read from right to left we should apply in the order we read the rules. For example a master crafted power weapon like dantes axe would be s+1 ap2 i1. Whereas astoraths axe woud be s6 ap3 because it still has special rules after power weapon is stated.

If it is a power weapon that is master crafted then we would apply power weapon and see that there is still extra rules to apply thus making it ap3 unusual weapon.

The wording there are no further special rules is key. Further specifies that there is the ability to have some special rules already applied. Otherwise it would state no special rules rather than no further special rules.

I'm assuming you meant read from left to right correct? I understand your interpretation and that makes a lot of sense. Further "Unique Rules" are specified after the word Power Weapon is stated.

Yes from left to right is what I had meant. If there was no further stated then it would work the opposite way since a power weapon that has any special rules would be ap3 but the case is it states further special rules which would identify rules following power weapon rather than before power weapon rule is applied.

This is the only interpretation I can see and the faqs seems to support this intepretation as being correct.

**chewielight**

Once again. There are only two category of power weapons. You guys are trying to make a third, or at least a subset of regular power weapons. Your only given permission to use the regular power weapon entry if a power weapon doesn't have a special rule. Since USR's and CSR's(codex special rules) are just that ;special they can't be used to denote a regular power weapon, what other choice are you given? That's right unusual. I agree that this shouldn't be the case but there isn't any other choice unless you choose not to follow the BRB rules for regular power weapons,then I guess you can claim that a USR or CSR doesn't matter in determining what the weapons class is.

To answer the other part. Does a USR or CSR make a weapon unusual. The answer can only be yes based on the BRB.
GW needs to errata this to clear it up. Until they do we are going to keep going round and round.

**rogueeyes**

chewielight wrote:Once again. There are only two category of power weapons. You guys are trying to make a third, or at least a subset of regular power weapons. Your only given permission to use the regular power weapon entry if a power weapon doesn't have a special rule. Since USR's and CSR's(codex special rules) are just that ;special they can't be used to denote a regular power weapon, what other choice are you given? That's right unusual. I agree that this shouldn't be the case but there isn't any other choice unless you choose not to follow the BRB rules for regular power weapons,then I guess you can claim that a USR or CSR doesn't matter in determining what the weapons class is.

To answer the other part. Does a USR or CSR make a weapon unusual. The answer can only be yes based on the BRB.
GW needs to errata this to clear it up. Until they do we are going to keep going round and round.

Where did I state there was a third option? If special rules come before the power weapon rule then it has no further special rules after when you apply the power weapon rule and you decide what the weapon is at that point in time by looking at the weapon.

If there are still FURTHER special rules then it is an ap3 weapon.

You however are stating I get to pick and choose which order I apply rules in in which case I can argue a single weapon can end in two different sets of rules after everything is applied depending on when I apply a specific rule rather going in the order that they are specified and the precedence set by the faqs.

If I ignore further then any other rules that a power weapon has makes it an unusual power weapon rather than following raw which states further special rules. Power weapon is a weapon rule NOT a SPECIAL rule as defined in the special rules section. Pg 32 to 43 define special rules. It states further special rules are defined in the codex.

Power weapons are defined under the weapons section beginning on p50 to p62. If I may have no further special rules then what is the point of stating further when I cannot have any to begin with.

**Red Comet**

Alright look at page 32 of the rulebook and it says, "Many troops have their own unique abilities, which are laid out in their codex." This means that Rules that are not listed in the BRB are Unique rules.

Unusual Power Weapons say if the weapon has Unique Rules (not special). But when you look at how to define a power weapon it says special and not unique. This is a discrepancy that makes no sense and the rules do not bother to cover. The only way to explain it is how rogueeyes is explaining it.

**chewielight**

rogueeyes wrote:
chewielight wrote:Once again. There are only two category of power weapons. You guys are trying to make a third, or at least a subset of regular power weapons. Your only given permission to use the regular power weapon entry if a power weapon doesn't have a special rule. Since USR's and CSR's(codex special rules) are just that ;special they can't be used to denote a regular power weapon, what other choice are you given? That's right unusual. I agree that this shouldn't be the case but there isn't any other choice unless you choose not to follow the BRB rules for regular power weapons,then I guess you can claim that a USR or CSR doesn't matter in determining what the weapons class is.

To answer the other part. Does a USR or CSR make a weapon unusual. The answer can only be yes based on the BRB.
GW needs to errata this to clear it up. Until they do we are going to keep going round and round.

Where did I state there was a third option? If special rules come before the power weapon rule then it has no further special rules after when you apply the power weapon rule and you decide what the weapon is at that point in time by looking at the weapon.

Stretching a bit for your argument lol. Further also means in addition or additional. Yours doesn't make any sense because this isn't and never has been the chicken or the egg scenario. Its in addition or additional not which came first.

If there are still FURTHER special rules then it is an ap3 weapon.

yep your right since further means in addition to the power weapon entry(see this makes more sense and thanks for proving my point)

You however are stating I get to pick and choose which order I apply rules in in which case I can argue a single weapon can end in two different sets of rules after everything is applied depending on when I apply a specific rule rather going in the order that they are specified and the precedence set by the faqs.

nope because of above . I am stating that you must consider all parts of the entry for the rules to be satisfied.
Ignoring one part is ignoring the rule completely.

If I ignore further then any other rules that a power weapon has makes it an unusual power weapon rather than following raw which states further special rules. Power weapon is a weapon rule NOT a SPECIAL rule as defined in the special rules section. Pg 32 to 43 define special rules. It states further special rules are defined in the codex.

Power weapons are defined under the weapons section beginning on p50 to p62. If I may have no further special rules then what is the point of stating further when I cannot have any to begin with.

Once again its because your trying to fit a circle peg into a square square hole. If we use your definition then your still not making a point and your argument doesn't make sense. You fought the good fight on this one but your still just wrong. To turn your argument into a valid point. It states further special rules not in a linear sense but in addition to the regular power weapon entry(makes more sense than trying to see which came first). Thus it makes said USR's/CSR's further rules that make them unusual.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Red Comet wrote:Alright look at page 32 of the rulebook and it says, "Many troops have their own unique abilities, which are laid out in their codex." This means that Rules that are not listed in the BRB are Unique rules.

Unusual Power Weapons say if the weapon has Unique Rules (not special). But when you look at how to define a power weapon it says special and not unique. This is a discrepancy that makes no sense and the rules do not bother to cover. The only way to explain it is how rogueeyes is explaining it.

Yeah try reading the entire entry. That whole passage is for SPECIAL RULES . You got hung up on the one word, but it is included in the special rules. So by that rational any thing in the special rules section includes unique. His explanation is lopsided at best and he didn't include the complete definition for his one word FURTHER or unique that made his argument seem plausible which it didn't.

My comment that still hasn't been disproved in that there are only two types of power weapons. Regular or unusual. Regular are only power weapons that do not have further(additional) special rules attached. Which do not include USR's/CSR's. Unusual power weapons have unique (unique which Definition of unique is)

adjective being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else: the situation was unique in British politics

original and unique designs

(unique to) belonging or connected to (one particular person, place, or thing): a style of architecture that is unique to Portugal

particularly remarkable, special, or unusual: a unique opportunity to see the spectacular Bolshoi Ballet. ( oxfords dictionary)

So by the actual definition of the word unique does means special. So feel free to look up the meaning of these words for yourself.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Red Comet wrote:

There is a difference between Special and Unique. Right now you are telling me that both words in the English language mean the same thing when they don't. Just because you are unique does not mean you are special. Technically Power Weapons with "no further special rules" have no classification if you really want to go with RAW. Because it never tells us what to do with Power Weapons with further Special Rules since Unusual Power Weapons need to be UNIQUE not SPECIAL.

By the Webster or oxford definition of the word it does mean both. You might want to look those words up before you try to make a false statement.
Definition of SPECIAL

: distinguished by some unusual quality; especially : being in some
way superior <our special blend>
: held in particular esteem
: readily distinguishable from others of the same category : UNIQUE <they set it apart as a special day of thanksgiving>
: of, relating to, or constituting a species : SPECIFIC
: being other than the usual : ADDITIONAL, EXTRA, UNUSUAL
: designed for a particular purpose or occasion

Definition of unique
adjective being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else: the situation was unique in British politics
original and unique designs
(unique to) belonging or connected to (one particular person, place, or thing): a style of architecture that is unique to Portugal
particularly remarkable, SPECIAL, or UNUSUAL: a unique opportunity to see the spectacular Bolshoi Ballet

**Red Comet**

You don't see how unique and special rules are completely different within the rules themselves even if the definition is "similar'. The two words are not the same. Just because some of the definitions for unique contain references to being special doesn't mean all instances of something being unique are special.

Going back to the rules. Special Rules are clearly laid out in codices and the BRB. I admit that I forgot Codices have Special Rules like: Red Thirst for example. But it is not a unique rule because the codex describes it as Special. Unique rules are those like the Nemesis Daemon Weapons. They are all unique even though they actually follow a certain set of special rules as well they are all Unique weapons because they also follow unique rules. Why is it we can all agree that Astaroth is Unique while Dante isn't? Dante's rules are not unique, because they follow a specific set of generic rules that a lof of different codices or units within the same codex use.

GW's definition of USR means just that Universal Special Rule. Its Universal to all books, but unique rules don't have a specific category and in a way are miscellaneous rules that cannot be categorized.

**chewielight**

Red Comet wrote:You don't see how unique and special rules are completely different within the rules themselves even if the definition is "similar'. The two words are not the same. Just because some of the definitions for unique contain references to being special doesn't mean all instances of something being unique are special.

chewielight : they mean the same thing in the context of the BRB. Unique can mean one of a kind but there is a precedence that in the BRB and many codex's that it is a broader term, hence its meaning is clearly a (special rule ) broader in the aspect of giving rules that are not covered in the general rule set. The BRB tells us that these rules that break or change the basic generic rules are cover by being a USR or CSR and it also tells us that they are not a complete listing but we are to look in the codex's for additional special rules specific to each codex (which are special or/and unique). Being a USR or CSR makes the rules special (and by all definitions unique)

Going back to the rules. Special Rules are clearly laid out in codices and the BRB. I admit that I forgot Codices have Special Rules like: Red Thirst for example. But it is not a unique rule because the codex describes it as Special. Unique rules are those like the Nemesis Daemon Weapons. They are all unique even though they actually follow a certain set of special rules as well they are all Unique weapons because they also follow unique rules. Why is it we can all agree that Astaroth is Unique while Dante isn't? Dante's rules are not unique, because they follow a specific set of generic rules that a lof of different codices or units within the same codex use.

chewielight: once again your not correct. Either a USR/CSR are special meaning by definition making them unique to the IC,weapon,ability etc or they are generic. There is no other way. Now you can have something more unique than another but unless every single weapon of that type gets that generic rule then the weapon is by RAW special and by definition unique. Just like the power weapon entry. Its either a generic power weapon or its unusual because of a rule (whether by USR or CSR) thus making that weapon unique. This is where special and unique mean the same thing, because we have nothing that tells us that unusual weapons are one of a kind( one meaning) or they encompass a broader rule for a codex or item. Nemesis force weapons are not classified as unique in their codex nor the FAQ only unusual as they have special rules attached to them that change them from being regular power weapons. They might be more special but they are not unique(one of a kind) in the sense but are codex special. USR/CSR are not generic please stop saying so. Another falsehood is that red thirst isn't unique but it is unique to C:BA as no other codex gets it and the fact that it is listed as a special rule proves my point in that they mean the same. For the Dante v Astorath comment. Looking back at the old comments its not everyone agreeing just a handful, both have special power weapons(Lemartes,logan etc for that matter) because they are not generic. Are there power weapons that have more special rules than Dante,Lemartes,etc ,yes of course but that doesn't invalidate the others. It just means they are more special but all are unique.

GW's definition of USR means just that Universal Special Rule. Its Universal to all books, but unique rules don't have a specific category and in a way are miscellaneous rules that cannot be categorized.

No GW's definition of USR is defined in the BRB as special rules for abilities or items that break or change the generic rule set. Thats not true actually as not every book contains these rules. There is no such thing as a defined unique rule unless you let special rules (which is what we are doing with executioner, Nemesis force weapons) fill that gap. no where does it state unique only that those entries have SPECIAL rules of their own. Its the special rules that make them unique just like all special rules are unique to their respective ability or item.
Red you can't have it the way you want it and then turn around to say exactly what I wrote but with different twisting word play. Your talking yourself into a corner you cant get out of. They mean the same thing and aren't complete separate items as I have shown . One is just more special/unique than the other but it doesn't make items with only one special rule not unique. Last time there are only two power weapon category options. If it isn't a regular power weapon because it has a special rule then you are only left with option 2 that are unusual power weapons.

**rogueeyes**

Here is the argument you are portraying:

Power weapons with any special rules are unusual power weapons.
A Master Crafted Power Weapon has a special rule
A Master Crafted Power Weapon is S: User and AP: 3.

The argument I am portraying:
Power Weapons with no further special rules are defined as generic power weapons.
Power Weapons with additional special rules provided are defined as unusual power weapons.
A Master Crafted power weapon has a special rule given before power weapon.
A Master crafted power weapon has no additional special rules after power weapon.
A Master Crafted Power weapon is a generic power weapon.

I am in no way arguing that there are 3 different types of power weapons. There are generic and there are unusual.

The argument is not that hard. Unique and Special are the same but the argument is not based on that. The argument is based on a power weapon having further special rules and the order in which we apply rules.

Given your argument if I have a poisoned power weapon it is AP3. If I have any kind of weapon at all with ANY special rules then it is an unusual power weapon. The word FURTHER becomes ignored because it is impossible to have any special rules whatsoever in your argument.

If I choose to create a power weapon with a special rule bulky:

Big Stick
This is a bulky power weapon.

Your argument breaks down because I can only use it's own unique close combat rules. Bulky is not a close combat rule. My argument still stands and works correctly. Model counts as 2 models for the purpose of transport capacity. You look at the model to see what the Big Stick is modeled as in order to get the power weapon type of staff, sword, lance or maul.

Special Rules != unique close combat rule.
Special Rules = Unique Rules
Special Rules before Power Weapon = no additional special rules
Power Weapon before Special Rules = additional special rules

Dante's Axe = MAster crafted Power Axe
Blood Crozius = Master Crafted Power Maul (before it was errata'd to be just this)
Executioner's Axe = Unique Power Weapon
Glaive Encarmine = Generic Power Weapons as modeled.

chewielight wrote:
By the Webster or oxford definition of the word it does mean both. You might want to look those words up before you try to make a false statement.
Definition of SPECIAL

: distinguished by some unusual quality; especially : being in some
way superior <our special blend>
: held in particular esteem
: readily distinguishable from others of the same category : UNIQUE <they set it apart as a special day of thanksgiving>
: of, relating to, or constituting a species : SPECIFIC
: being other than the usual : ADDITIONAL, EXTRA, UNUSUAL
: designed for a particular purpose or occasion

Definition of unique
adjective being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else: the situation was unique in British politics
original and unique designs
(unique to) belonging or connected to (one particular person, place, or thing): a style of architecture that is unique to Portugal
particularly remarkable, SPECIAL, or UNUSUAL: a unique opportunity to see the spectacular Bolshoi Ballet

Tenets of YMDC:
6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

**chewielight**

rogueeyes wrote:Here is the argument you are portraying:

Power weapons with any special rules are unusual power weapons.
A Master Crafted Power Weapon has a special rule
A Master Crafted Power Weapon is S: User and AP: 3.

correct because further is a weapon with additional rules

The argument I am portraying:
Power Weapons with no further special rules are defined as generic power weapons.
Power Weapons with additional special rules provided are defined as unusual power weapons.
A Master Crafted power weapon has a special rule given before power weapon.
A Master crafted power weapon has no additional special rules after power weapon.
A Master Crafted Power weapon is a generic power weapon.

I am in no way arguing that there are 3 different types of power weapons. There are generic and there are unusual.

The argument is not that hard. Unique and Special are the same but the argument is not based on that. The argument is based on a power weapon having further special rules and the order in which we apply rules.

this line would be incorrect. There is no where in the rulebook that gives you the options nor permission to use order of operations to determine this. Your argument is only valid if you choose a single definition of the word further. Since order of operation isn't an option because your not given permission to do so we can only go by what the word means in total. Your argument has no merit and makes no sense to use it the way you are stating. Rogue your losing this argument because you can't use a meaning of a word and then turn around ignoring the actual meaning of further which is what the BRB gives permission in many instances.
Its either a weapon with a rule thus being unusual or its generic. Since those weapons have rules with them they are unusual.

Given your argument if I have a poisoned power weapon it is AP3. If I have any kind of weapon at all with ANY special rules then it is an unusual power weapon. The word FURTHER becomes ignored because it is impossible to have any special rules whatsoever in your argument.

this would be correct because the word further hasnt been ignored so the weapon would be unusual. Are regular power weapons poison,master crafted,rending,pinning,etc? No they are not. By including any special rule to a power weapon further (once again in addition and not oder of operation because OOO isn't an option for weapons) it is unusual. I am consistent you are not.

If I choose to create a power weapon with a special rule bulky:

Big Stick
This is a bulky power weapon.

Your argument breaks down because I can only use it's own unique close combat rules. Bulky is not a close combat rule. My argument still stands and works correctly. Model counts as 2 models for the purpose of transport capacity. You look at the model to see what the Big Stick is modeled as in order to get the power weapon type of staff, sword, lance or maul.

is there another power weapon that has that rule? Sounds like it is unique to me. Your trying way to hard and stretching way to much.

Special Rules != unique close combat rule.
Special Rules = Unique Rules
Special Rules before Power Weapon = no additional special rules
Power Weapon before Special Rules = additional special rules

Dante's Axe = MAster crafted Power Axe
Blood Crozius = Master Crafted Power Maul (before it was errata'd to be just this)
Executioner's Axe = Unique Power Weapon
Glaive Encarmine = Generic Power Weapons as modeled.

chewielight wrote:
By the Webster or oxford definition of the word it does mean both. You might want to look those words up before you try to make a false statement.
Definition of SPECIAL

: distinguished by some unusual quality; especially : being in some
way superior <our special blend>
: held in particular esteem
: readily distinguishable from others of the same category : UNIQUE <they set it apart as a special day of thanksgiving>
: of, relating to, or constituting a species : SPECIFIC
: being other than the usual : ADDITIONAL, EXTRA, UNUSUAL
: designed for a particular purpose or occasion

Definition of unique
adjective being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else: the situation was unique in British politics
original and unique designs
(unique to) belonging or connected to (one particular person, place, or thing): a style of architecture that is unique to Portugal
particularly remarkable, SPECIAL, or UNUSUAL: a unique opportunity to see the spectacular Bolshoi Ballet

Tenets of YMDC:
6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

Really? That's your entire argument on this posting. I have no problem not using a definition if you don't and let's be honest that's exactly what you have done. You pull this card because my definition makes sense and yours doesn't. Funny is that you were using the words incorrectly and I choose to use what they mean by their definitions . You don't get to make statements without rebuttal , and as I have a good understanding of the English language decided to call you on it. Please refrain from responding if your going to try to teach someone the meaning of a word which you have done with using your opinion and not what the word means in total.

**Eldercaveman**

Not sure if this has been mentioned anywhere in this thread as I haven't read every post, but in the blood angels codex on page 23, angelic host. Under equiptment it clearer says, (paraphrase) some wargear is unique, if this is the case then its rules will be in the section of the character or something to that effect, it the gives the axe mortalis as a specific example of one of these UNIQUE rules, and if I remember rightly, codex takes precedence over rule book?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not sure if this has been mentioned anywhere in this thread as I haven't read every post, but in the blood angels codex on page 23, angelic host. Under equiptment it clearer says, (paraphrase) some wargear is unique, if this is the case then its rules will be in the section of the character or something to that effect, it the gives the axe mortalis as a specific example of one of these UNIQUE rules, and if I remember rightly, codex takes precedence over rule book?

**chewielight**

Yes it does say the word unique for those items like Dante's axe and Lemartes weapons. I was wanting to show this isn't just for the BA players but for any power weapon that has additional rules attached.

**Eldercaveman**

This was more my justification for running it as an ap3 weapon. But yes any weapon that is describe as more than a power weapon, with extra rules, regardless of the codex. Is a unique weapon and there for strikes at initiative with ap3.

**rogueeyes**

chewielight wrote:

Really? That's your entire argument on this posting. I have no problem not using a definition if you don't and let's be honest that's exactly what you have done. You pull this card because my definition makes sense and yours doesn't. Funny is that you were using the words incorrectly and I choose to use what they mean by their definitions . You don't get to make statements without rebuttal , and as I have a good understanding of the English language decided to call you on it. Please refrain from responding if your going to try to teach someone the meaning of a word which you have done with using your opinion and not what the word means in total.

You've paid no attention to my logical argument which the FAQ's have reinforced at how the rules say weapons should work. I have used the definitions correctly. The fact is that you CANNOT use the full definition of a word in the context fo a rule set because language subsets different between regions let alone between different languages.

If I state that I walk down the road I have walked down segment A of the road. I now walk FURTHER down the road. During this movement I walk down segment B. I have walked an additional segment of the road. I have walked further on the road.

I start with a master crafted weapon. I add further rules to the weapon. I make it a power weapon. I do not add any more rules. I have no further rules.

I start with a power weapon. I add a rule that states any successful invulnerable saves must be re-rolled. I have an additional rule. I have a further rule I must implement.

The argument is not that difficult to understand and I have seen no proof to say that my logical interpretation of the rules are not correct. You say I am using the definition wrong when in fact it my reading of the rules is based on the definition of the wording within the book and within the English language.

Your argument would be based upon the argument that you can implement rules in any order that you so choose. If you implement rules in an incorrect order using ALL OF THE WORDS contained within the rules you can implement contradictions within the rules. By ignoring the word FURTHER you have done just that.

The correct way to determine if there are further special rules for a power weapon you must determine if there is any special rules to begin with. All special rules on power weapons that are stated before the power weapon rule do not make a power weapon unusual since they are not further special rules. They are in fact that basic special rules for that power weapon. These rules are implemented as you read them. As you read a rule you implement it based on the fact that they are interchangeable with the rules that are given.

A then B creates C
B then A creates D
C is not necessarily equal to D
C may be equal to D

You are falling into the basic fallacy that C must always be D when in fact what is C and what is D is determined by the order that you apply A and B rather then the simple existence of A and B.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eldercaveman wrote:Not sure if this has been mentioned anywhere in this thread as I haven't read every post, but in the blood angels codex on page 23, angelic host. Under equiptment it clearer says, (paraphrase) some wargear is unique, if this is the case then its rules will be in the section of the character or something to that effect, it the gives the axe mortalis as a specific example of one of these UNIQUE rules, and if I remember rightly, codex takes precedence over rule book?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not sure if this has been mentioned anywhere in this thread as I haven't read every post, but in the blood angels codex on page 23, angelic host. Under equiptment it clearer says, (paraphrase) some wargear is unique, if this is the case then its rules will be in the section of the character or something to that effect, it the gives the axe mortalis as a specific example of one of these UNIQUE rules, and if I remember rightly, codex takes precedence over rule book?

It states that the wargear is unique. Wargear being unique does not mean that it has unique rules.

I have a Big Stick. Only an the Ork Warboss Zartan has the Big Stick. The Big Stick is stated has being a power klaw. The Big Stick has no special rules other than it has a special name and is only used by Zartan. No one else can use this wargear. It is unique to Zartan but it has no unique nor special rules.

Unique wargear != unique rules
Unique wargear != special rules

Special wargear != unique rules
Special wargear != special rules

**Red Comet**

chewielight wrote:chewielight : they mean the same thing in the context of the BRB. Unique can mean one of a kind but there is a precedence that in the BRB and many codex's that it is a broader term, hence its meaning is clearly a (special rule ) broader in the aspect of giving rules that are not covered in the general rule set. The BRB tells us that these rules that break or change the basic generic rules are cover by being a USR or CSR and it also tells us that they are not a complete listing but we are to look in the codex's for additional special rules specific to each codex (which are special or/and unique). Being a USR or CSR makes the rules special (and by all definitions unique)

once again your not correct. Either a USR/CSR are special meaning by definition making them unique to the IC,weapon,ability etc or they are generic. There is no other way. Now you can have something more unique than another but unless every single weapon of that type gets that generic rule then the weapon is by RAW special and by definition unique. Just like the power weapon entry. Its either a generic power weapon or its unusual because of a rule (whether by USR or CSR) thus making that weapon unique. This is where special and unique mean the same thing, because we have nothing that tells us that unusual weapons are one of a kind( one meaning) or they encompass a broader rule for a codex or item. Nemesis force weapons are not classified as unique in their codex nor the FAQ only unusual as they have special rules attached to them that change them from being regular power weapons. They might be more special but they are not unique(one of a kind) in the sense but are codex special. USR/CSR are not generic please stop saying so. Another falsehood is that red thirst isn't unique but it is unique to C:BA as no other codex gets it and the fact that it is listed as a special rule proves my point in that they mean the same. For the Dante v Astorath comment. Looking back at the old comments its not everyone agreeing just a handful, both have special power weapons(Lemartes,logan etc for that matter) because they are not generic. Are there power weapons that have more special rules than Dante,Lemartes,etc ,yes of course but that doesn't invalidate the others. It just means they are more special but all are unique.

No GW's definition of USR is defined in the BRB as special rules for abilities or items that break or change the generic rule set. Thats not true actually as not every book contains these rules. There is no such thing as a defined unique rule unless you let special rules (which is what we are doing with executioner, Nemesis force weapons) fill that gap. no where does it state unique only that those entries have SPECIAL rules of their own. Its the special rules that make them unique just like all special rules are unique to their respective ability or item.
Red you can't have it the way you want it and then turn around to say exactly what I wrote but with different twisting word play. Your talking yourself into a corner you cant get out of. They mean the same thing and aren't complete separate items as I have shown . One is just more special/unique than the other but it doesn't make items with only one special rule not unique. Last time there are only two power weapon category options. If it isn't a regular power weapon because it has a special rule then you are only left with option 2 that are unusual power weapons.

You keep saying how Special Rules and Unique Rules are the same thing. If so explain to me why when I look at Page 23 of the Blood Angels codex the words Unique and Special are used exactly as I have described? Let's first look at at the top of the page shall we?

It says at the top right that models with UNIQUE wargear have that wargear's rules written into their Entry because no one else uses it. Does it define the weapon as special? Nope. So its pretty clear GW is using the word Unique to mean that only one exists of it.

Now let's go further down the page to where it says Blood Angels Special Rules. It says in the first paragraph that models in the BA army use rules that are a common to more than one type of unit. And it goes on to say that those Special Blood Angel rules that are shared are written on that page. Hence these rules are not unique, but just special. There is no indication on this page that Special and Unique are the same thing. It goes on to say that if a Special Rule (the bolded rules) aren't written into the codex to check the BRB. This implies that Special Rules are not unique as well and all fall under the same category as USR even though not every army has ATSKNF or Red Thirst. I don't see how the two words are at all the same.

Also please reply between quotations. Its pretty awful to have to read your words in tiny letters in the middle of what looks to be what I wrote. I had a hard time even understanding your blocks of text because of it.

Eldercaveman wrote:Not sure if this has been mentioned anywhere in this thread as I haven't read every post, but in the blood angels codex on page 23, angelic host. Under equiptment it clearer says, (paraphrase) some wargear is unique, if this is the case then its rules will be in the section of the character or something to that effect, it the gives the axe mortalis as a specific example of one of these UNIQUE rules, and if I remember rightly, codex takes precedence over rule book?

This was already mentioned. If you re read the codex entry it says its a Unique Weapon. When you look at the BRB it says that Unusual Weapons have UNIQUE rules. It never says that it is a Unique Weapon.

**chewielight**

rogueeyes wrote:
chewielight wrote:

Really? That's your entire argument on this posting. I have no problem not using a definition if you don't and let's be honest that's exactly what you have done. You pull this card because my definition makes sense and yours doesn't. Funny is that you were using the words incorrectly and I choose to use what they mean by their definitions . You don't get to make statements without rebuttal , and as I have a good understanding of the English language decided to call you on it. Please refrain from responding if your going to try to teach someone the meaning of a word which you have done with using your opinion and not what the word means in total.

You've paid no attention to my logical argument which the FAQ's have reinforced at how the rules say weapons should work. I have used the definitions correctly. The fact is that you CANNOT use the full definition of a word in the context fo a rule set because language subsets different between regions let alone between different languages.

If I state that I walk down the road I have walked down segment A of the road. I now walk FURTHER down the road. During this movement I walk down segment B. I have walked an additional segment of the road. I have walked further on the road.

I start with a master crafted weapon. I add further rules to the weapon. I make it a power weapon. I do not add any more rules. I have no further rules.

I start with a power weapon. I add a rule that states any successful invulnerable saves must be re-rolled. I have an additional rule. I have a further rule I must implement.

The argument is not that difficult to understand and I have seen no proof to say that my logical interpretation of the rules are not correct. You say I am using the definition wrong when in fact it my reading of the rules is based on the definition of the wording within the book and within the English language.

Your argument would be based upon the argument that you can implement rules in any order that you so choose. If you implement rules in an incorrect order using ALL OF THE WORDS contained within the rules you can implement contradictions within the rules. By ignoring the word FURTHER you have done just that.

The correct way to determine if there are further special rules for a power weapon you must determine if there is any special rules to begin with. All special rules on power weapons that are stated before the power weapon rule do not make a power weapon unusual since they are not further special rules. They are in fact that basic special rules for that power weapon. These rules are implemented as you read them. As you read a rule you implement it based on the fact that they are interchangeable with the rules that are given.

A then B creates C
B then A creates D
C is not necessarily equal to D
C may be equal to D

You are falling into the basic fallacy that C must always be D when in fact what is C and what is D is determined by the order that you apply A and B rather then the simple existence of A and B.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eldercaveman wrote:Not sure if this has been mentioned anywhere in this thread as I haven't read every post, but in the blood angels codex on page 23, angelic host. Under equiptment it clearer says, (paraphrase) some wargear is unique, if this is the case then its rules will be in the section of the character or something to that effect, it the gives the axe mortalis as a specific example of one of these UNIQUE rules, and if I remember rightly, codex takes precedence over rule book?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not sure if this has been mentioned anywhere in this thread as I haven't read every post, but in the blood angels codex on page 23, angelic host. Under equiptment it clearer says, (paraphrase) some wargear is unique, if this is the case then its rules will be in the section of the character or something to that effect, it the gives the axe mortalis as a specific example of one of these UNIQUE rules, and if I remember rightly, codex takes precedence over rule book?

It states that the wargear is unique. Wargear being unique does not mean that it has unique rules.

I have a Big Stick. Only an the Ork Warboss Zartan has the Big Stick. The Big Stick is stated has being a power klaw. The Big Stick has no special rules other than it has a special name and is only used by Zartan. No one else can use this wargear. It is unique to Zartan but it has no unique nor special rules.

Unique wargear != unique rules
Unique wargear != special rules

Special wargear != unique rules
Special wargear != special rules

No I understand your point completely, and I have stated my points clearly. You have clouded up the issues with a biased definition on how you perceive it. I don't have the energy to keep going in circles. We can agree to disagree and call it a day.

**chewielight**

Red Comet wrote:
chewielight wrote:chewielight : they mean the same thing in the context of the BRB. Unique can mean one of a kind but there is a precedence that in the BRB and many codex's that it is a broader term, hence its meaning is clearly a (special rule ) broader in the aspect of giving rules that are not covered in the general rule set. The BRB tells us that these rules that break or change the basic generic rules are cover by being a USR or CSR and it also tells us that they are not a complete listing but we are to look in the codex's for additional special rules specific to each codex (which are special or/and unique). Being a USR or CSR makes the rules special (and by all definitions unique)

once again your not correct. Either a USR/CSR are special meaning by definition making them unique to the IC,weapon,ability etc or they are generic. There is no other way. Now you can have something more unique than another but unless every single weapon of that type gets that generic rule hen the weapon is by RAW special and by definition unique. Just like the power weapon entry. Its either a generic power weapon or its unusual because of a rule (whether by USR or CSR) thus making that weapon unique. This is where special and unique mean the same thing, because we have nothing that tells us that unusual weapons are one of a kind( one meaning) or they encompass a broader rule for a codex or item. Nemesis force weapons are not classified as unique in their codex nor the FAQ only unusual as they have special rules attached to them that change them from being regular power weapons. They might be more special but they are not unique(one of a kind) in the sense but are codex special. USR/CSR are not generic please stop saying so. Another falsehood is that red thirst isn't unique but it is unique to C:BA as no other codex gets it and the fact that it is listed as a special rule proves my point in that they mean the same. For the Dante v Astorath comment. Looking back at the old comments its not everyone agreeing just a handful, both have special power weapons(Lemartes,logan etc for that matter) because they are not generic. Are there power weapons that have more special rules than Dante,Lemartes,etc ,yes of course but that doesn't invalidate the others. It just means they are more special but all are unique.

No GW's definition of USR is defined in the BRB as special rules for abilities or items that break or change the generic rule set. Thats not true actually as not every book contains these rules. There is no such thing as a defined unique rule unless you let special rules (which is what we are doing with executioner, Nemesis force weapons) fill that gap. no where does it state unique only that those entries have SPECIAL rules of their own. Its the special rules that make them unique just like all special rules are unique to their respective ability or item.
Red you can't have it the way you want it and then turn around to say exactly what I wrote but with different twisting word play. Your talking yourself into a corner you cant get out of. They mean the same thing and aren't complete separate items as I have shown . One is just more special/unique than the other but it doesn't make items with only one special rule not unique. Last time there are only two power weapon category options. If it isn't a regular power weapon because it has a special rule then you are only left with option 2 that are unusual power weapons.

You keep saying how Special Rules and Unique Rules are the same thing. If so explain to me why when I look at Page 23 of the Blood Angels codex the words Unique and Special are used exactly as I have described? Let's first look at at the top of the page shall we?

It says at the top right that models with UNIQUE wargear have that wargear's rules written into their Entry because no one else uses it. Does it define the weapon as special? Nope. So its pretty clear GW is using the word Unique to mean that only one exists of it.

Now let's go further down the page to where it says Blood Angels Special Rules. It says in the first paragraph that models in the BA army use rules that are a common to more than one type of unit. And it goes on to say that those Special Blood Angel rules that are shared are written on that page. Hence these rules are not unique, but just special. There is no indication on this page that Special and Unique are the same thing. It goes on to say that if a Special Rule (the bolded rules) aren't written into the codex to check the BRB. This implies that Special Rules are not unique as well and all fall under the same category as USR even though not every army has ATSKNF or Red Thirst. I don't see how the two words are at all the same.

Also please reply between quotations. Its pretty awful to have to read your words in tiny letters in the middle of what looks to be what I wrote. I had a hard time even understanding your blocks of text because of it.

Eldercaveman wrote:Not sure if this has been mentioned anywhere in this thread as I haven't read every post, but in the blood angels codex on page 23, angelic host. Under equiptment it clearer says, (paraphrase) some wargear is unique, if this is the case then its rules will be in the section of the character or something to that effect, it the gives the axe mortalis as a specific example of one of these UNIQUE rules, and if I remember rightly, codex takes precedence over rule book?

This was already mentioned. If you re read the codex entry it says its a Unique Weapon. When you look at the BRB it says that Unusual Weapons have UNIQUE rules. It never says that it is a Unique Weapon.

OK let's look at it the entry.

You will find some items of equipment as unique to particular characters or units , while others are used by more than one unit. When an item is unique , it is detailed in the relevant entry for its owner.

Nm. Like the gentleman above you two keep saying this while a lot of others disagree. So since we keep stating the same thing , I really don't see the point continuing this discussion. Also like I posted above I don't have the energy to keep this going as I hate typing lol. So good luck with that. We don't have to see eye to eye and that's OK.

**Brother Ramses**

rogueeyes wrote:
chewielight wrote:

Really? That's your entire argument on this posting. I have no problem not using a definition if you don't and let's be honest that's exactly what you have done. You pull this card because my definition makes sense and yours doesn't. Funny is that you were using the words incorrectly and I choose to use what they mean by their definitions . You don't get to make statements without rebuttal , and as I have a good understanding of the English language decided to call you on it. Please refrain from responding if your going to try to teach someone the meaning of a word which you have done with using your opinion and not what the word means in total.

You've paid no attention to my logical argument which the FAQ's have reinforced at how the rules say weapons should work. I have used the definitions correctly. The fact is that you CANNOT use the full definition of a word in the context fo a rule set because language subsets different between regions let alone between different languages.

If I state that I walk down the road I have walked down segment A of the road. I now walk FURTHER down the road. During this movement I walk down segment B. I have walked an additional segment of the road. I have walked further on the road.

I start with a master crafted weapon. I add further rules to the weapon. I make it a power weapon. I do not add any more rules. I have no further rules.

I start with a power weapon. I add a rule that states any successful invulnerable saves must be re-rolled. I have an additional rule. I have a further rule I must implement.

The argument is not that difficult to understand and I have seen no proof to say that my logical interpretation of the rules are not correct. You say I am using the definition wrong when in fact it my reading of the rules is based on the definition of the wording within the book and within the English language.

Your argument would be based upon the argument that you can implement rules in any order that you so choose. If you implement rules in an incorrect order using ALL OF THE WORDS contained within the rules you can implement contradictions within the rules. By ignoring the word FURTHER you have done just that.

The correct way to determine if there are further special rules for a power weapon you must determine if there is any special rules to begin with. All special rules on power weapons that are stated before the power weapon rule do not make a power weapon unusual since they are not further special rules. They are in fact that basic special rules for that power weapon. These rules are implemented as you read them. As you read a rule you implement it based on the fact that they are interchangeable with the rules that are given.

A then B creates C
B then A creates D
C is not necessarily equal to D
C may be equal to D

You are falling into the basic fallacy that C must always be D when in fact what is C and what is D is determined by the order that you apply A and B rather then the simple existence of A and B.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eldercaveman wrote:Not sure if this has been mentioned anywhere in this thread as I haven't read every post, but in the blood angels codex on page 23, angelic host. Under equiptment it clearer says, (paraphrase) some wargear is unique, if this is the case then its rules will be in the section of the character or something to that effect, it the gives the axe mortalis as a specific example of one of these UNIQUE rules, and if I remember rightly, codex takes precedence over rule book?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not sure if this has been mentioned anywhere in this thread as I haven't read every post, but in the blood angels codex on page 23, angelic host. Under equiptment it clearer says, (paraphrase) some wargear is unique, if this is the case then its rules will be in the section of the character or something to that effect, it the gives the axe mortalis as a specific example of one of these UNIQUE rules, and if I remember rightly, codex takes precedence over rule book?

It states that the wargear is unique. Wargear being unique does not mean that it has unique rules.

I have a Big Stick. Only an the Ork Warboss Zartan has the Big Stick. The Big Stick is stated has being a power klaw. The Big Stick has no special rules other than it has a special name and is only used by Zartan. No one else can use this wargear. It is unique to Zartan but it has no unique nor special rules.

Unique wargear != unique rules
Unique wargear != special rules

Special wargear != unique rules
Special wargear != special rules

You do not "start" with a master-crafted weapon. That kills your left to right reading of the rule and your made-up step by step process of a difference between power weapon master-crafted and master-crafted power weapon. You are easter egg hunting by saying that you will buy in an order to get a combination that you want versus how you it is actually done.

There is no such thing as purchasing a master-crafted weapon. I have looked through all my SM codex and you cannot buy a master-crafted weapon. You can master-craft a weapon, but you cannot buy a master-crafted weapon. So as you try to rationalize, you do not buy a master-crafted weapon and then make it a power weapon, because it doesn't exist. Even if you were to master-craft the default ccw on a model and then purchase a power weapon for said model, you still swap out your master-crafted ccw for the power weapon, thus requiring you to still master-craft the power weapon.

Seriously your argument is completely laughable and not based with any rules support.

**Ub3rb3n**

If I have a force staff with nothing attached it is S: user ap4 I:user, but then I put master craft on it which allows me to re roll a hit it doesn't make it unusual it is still the same just I can re roll one hit

This thread is pointless anyone trying to argue Dante's axe is his initiative is a poop tard

Asteroth is ap 3 while daunte is ap 2

**chewielight**

Ub3rb3n wrote:If I have a force staff with nothing attached it is S: user ap4 I:user, but then I put master craft on it which allows me to re roll a hit it doesn't make it unusual it is still the same just I can re roll one hit

This thread is pointless anyone trying to argue Dante's axe is his initiative is a poop tard

Asteroth is ap 3 while daunte is ap 2

Just when I was going to let this die a slow death you had to come on here name calling. If you purchase a special rule then yes it would become unusual because a normal power / force weapons are just that NORMAL as stated in the brb. There is no such entity in any codex or BRB that tells you to determine how a weapon is classified as special power/force weapons or power/force weapons with USR's, nor power/ force weapons with additional rules other than what's written. There is no such made up order of operation to determine power weapons with a special rule nor an USR. Its only one of two options, regular or unusual. The problem is with the word unique ,as in an item will have unique rules in close combat, and since there is nothing to define word unique in the BRB ,we have to use a definition available in a dictionary(whether oxford the language the BRB WAS WRITTEN IN) (or Websters which is almost word for word the same) as to what a word or term means. In both those unique can mean special, or one of a kind. Since we know from multiple codices like GK that other unusual power/force weapons like Nemesis force weapons aren't one of a kind (meaning only one) we can only assume it means special,and all USR,s/CSR's are special rules based on EVERY codex or rulebook, it even says so in the BRB. This isn't burger king , you can't have it your way because you that is how you want it. So while you and a very small few feel this way it by no means that your opinions are more validated than others. Let's let this thread die and deal with these issues in person.
Like I said already we can agree to disagree and call it a day
Your new so please don't start name calling.

**Brother Ramses**

Ub3rb3n wrote:If I have a force staff with nothing attached it is S: user ap4 I:user, but then I put master craft on it which allows me to re roll a hit it doesn't make it unusual it is still the same just I can re roll one hit

This thread is pointless anyone trying to argue Dante's axe is his initiative is a poop tard

Asteroth is ap 3 while daunte is ap 2

If you have a force weapon with no further rules you look to the model to determine type/rules. In your case, it would be determined to be type stave thus str +2, ap4, melee, concussive, force. If then choose to upgrade it via master-crafting, you are master-crafting a force weapon type stave, str +2, ap4, melee, concussive, force. Master-crafting a weapon after the fact does not make it special/unique as per the RAW, the force weapon wargear entry did not say it had further special rules. You may have gave it a special rule, but the wargear entry did not say it had further rules. Big difference between a weapon that has master-crafted and had master-crafting purchased.

**Azreal13**

Those arguing that master crafted makes a power weapon unusual and therefore AP3 regardless of how it's modelled have to explain to all the Vulcan C:.SM players that their Thunder Hammers are all AP3

The fact is that, in theory at least, all the weapon types are balanced against one another so as long as it's clear to your opponent play it how you prefer until something definitive is published.

My opinion is that a weapon that requires additional rules explanation in the codex entry is unique, if it only uses standard USRs then it's a standard weapon.

**Kommissar Kel**

azreal13 wrote:Those arguing that master crafted makes a power weapon unusual and therefore AP3 regardless of how it's modelled have to explain to all the Vulcan C:.SM players that their Thunder Hammers are all AP3

No.

No they don't.

Thunder hammers are not power weapons.

Thunder Hammers are Thunder Hammers.

**Azreal13**

No, on closer examination your right. The fact the entry appeared right after them threw me.

But on closer examination the rules for unusual power weapons state "if a weapon has its own unique close combat rules"

Master crafted etc are by definition universal special rules applied to many different weapons across many different units and codexes and it would be difficult to argue that they were unique to a weapon and belonged only to one particular type.