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.

Crimson wrote:There is one reading of the rules that makes impossible for the master-crafted power axes to exist, and then there is a reading that doesn't do that. I know which one I'm going to use.

That's fine if you are playing with yourself. ...This and previous closed threads are proof enough that there is NO definitive answer at this time. I can see this being a dice roll, if not an argument, in many a games.

so can i take a Power Lance then? on sammael? it would look cool

I also plan on having power lances on all my sarges

Gunzhard wrote:

Crimson wrote:There is one reading of the rules that makes impossible for the master-crafted power axes to exist, and then there is a reading that doesn't do that. I know which one I'm going to use.

That's fine if you are playing with yourself. ...This and previous closed threads are proof enough that there is NO definitive answer at this time. I can see this being a dice roll, if not an argument, in many a games.

There is no definitive answer about what exactly counts as an unusual weapon, but to claim the special rule "master crafted" in the BRB chapter discussing special rules, is not a a special rule, strikes me as more than a bit odd.

I think this whole argument is rather silly, tbh.

I've read this thread in its entirety; every post; every quoted post; all of it.

You aren't arguing about special/unique or special vs. unique, or what makes something special and is that different form something that makes something unique...

You are really arguing about "master crafted."

I'm gonna say it again for emphasis

Master Crafted.

First off: No Formosa. you Can't. Sammael is equipped with 'the Raven Sword' [MC Power Weapon] and it is in name, description and official model described/represented as a 'sword'. Hence user S, ap3.

So. ''If a power weapon has it's own Unique close combat rules,..'' Here's the key, ''unique'' and ''rules''. This means that the rules as written must be unique. Not the Effect, +1 stat is in no way unique. The whole rule text must be taken into account to determine it's type. So a ''Mastercrafted powerweapon'' is not unique, a huskblade, relic blade or warscythe is.

The use of master crafted in the argument is as an example.

The argument is around whether "master crafted" is enough to class as Unique for the Unusual Power Weapon rule

And whether "Master Crafted" is a futher special rule for deciding the type of weapon.

Its an easily identifiable, common, example to further the points people are trying to make.

This doesn't mean its a bad thing.

Kiredor is right on the money.

The OP (original post, and original point) of this thread asked about what is a special rule. Now that I have re-read page 32, I find it absurd to argue that special rules found in the special rule chapter are not considered to be special rules. That argument does not hold up under any reasonable reading of the rulebook.


We still have a bit of an issue with 'unique' though. The rulebook, again on page 32, states that the 'special rule' chapter is definitely not a definitive, all-inclusive list of special rules (there could be more in the brb) and it even goes so far to say that codexes also contain special rules. The problem is, it is still unclear when a special rule is also a 'unique' one, which is the requirement for an unusual power weapon. It seems like GW is treating these terms as synonyms but we can't be sure.

Thus, anything with a special rule (meaning we can't use the weapon type chart), but which is not unique / unusual, falls into a no-man's land, a dead zone, where we don't know how to treat the weapon. To play without a huge gaping hole in the power weapon rules people are suggesting that 'special' equals 'unique'. Which I think makes sense, but can't really be called RAW.

What I am sure of now and which can safely be considered RAW, is that anything in the Special Rule chapter starting on pg 32 is a special rule and cannot use the weapon type chart.

STC_LogisEngine wrote:First off: No Formosa. you Can't. Sammael is equipped with 'the Raven Sword' [MC Power Weapon] and it is in name, description and official model described/represented as a 'sword'. Hence user S, ap3.

So. ''If a power weapon has it's own Unique close combat rules,..'' Here's the key, ''unique'' and ''rules''. This means that the rules as written must be unique. Not the Effect, +1 stat is in no way unique. The whole rule text must be taken into account to determine it's type. So a ''Mastercrafted powerweapon'' is not unique, a huskblade, relic blade or warscythe is.

Please quote rules to back that up.

Both rules for determining which power weapon you are using have to be taken into account, not just the one you like.

(1) In order to get on of the four non-defaults you require a weapon with no special rules.
(2) In order to get the default, your weapon needs to have unique rules.

In addition, the rules for "Master Crafted" explicitly say that "Master Crafted" is a special rule. There is no way to get around that. If you are allowed to have a generic power weapon, and you master-craft it you can not have an Axe, Lance, Sword or Maul, because that's a violation of (1).
So, as unique is undefined, there's only two ways left to read the rule:
(A) Only weapons with truly unique rules are unique.
(B) All weapons which have any special rules are unique

(A), for whatever definition of "truly unique" you choose, would create a lot of weapons with no rules at all. This is a violation of the rule "Every weapon has a profile", found on the first page about weapons.
Thus, only B remains.

What order do you apply rules in? If I apply as I read them we get a completely different meaning aka

Dante's axe is a mc pw.

I first apply mc to his weapon which allows me a reroll to hit. Then I apply a power weapon to it. It is a power weapon with no additional special rules since all of the other rules came before power weapon. It is modelled as an axe so it becomes s+1 and ap2 i1.

Now if I look at astoraths axe I see that is is a power weapon that hits at s6. I first apply power weapon. Oh I see there are still other rules I must apply. I guess it is unusual.

By it saying no further special rules we should take this into the argument that there must be a stnadardized way of applying rules. If we apply them as we read them then it does not break the rules by stating further and giving mc to a pw.

For frost blades it would make them unusual pw but this was faq'd to state blades are s+1 and ap3 while frost axes are s+2 ap2 i1. Why would gw do that? Because reading the power weapon rules that state you have a power weapon that adds +1 s gives it additional rules and makes it an unusual pw no matter how it would be modelled.

Edit:
If it stated no special rules whatsoever then this argument would not work but since it states further we must view it as having a specific order for applying the rules. Since none is given we must apply them as we read them.

Raw dante
Mc means he gets to reroll one to hit
Power weapon
Has no additional rules
We look at the chart
Its an axe
He's +1 str and ap2
Its unweidly
We've already applied the power weapons rule and we are done. Having it have ectra rules now does not mean it is unusual because we cannot loop through and keep applying the same rule.

rogueeyes wrote:What order do you apply rules in? If I apply as I read them we get a completely different meaning aka

Dante's axe is a mc pw.

I first apply mc to his weapon which allows me a reroll to hit. Then I apply a power weapon to it. It is a power weapon with no additional special rules since all of the other rules came before power weapon. It is modelled as an axe so it becomes s+1 and ap2 i1.

You don't apply them in any order at all. You look at the weapon as whole. Has special rule? Yup, so can't be axe.

Now if I look at astoraths axe I see that is is a power weapon that hits at s6. I first apply power weapon. Oh I see there are still other rules I must apply. I guess it is unusual.

So you look at it and find a special rule. Thus, it can't be an Axe, Lance, Sword or Maul.

For frost blades it would make them unusual pw but this was faq'd to state blades are s+1 and ap3 while frost axes are s+2 ap2 i1. Why would gw do that? Because reading the power weapon rules that state you have a power weapon that adds +1 s gives it additional rules and makes it an unusual pw no matter how it would be modelled.

The rules only prevent master-crafted powerweapons from being axes. Nothing prevents an power axe from being master-crafted - you only ever start looking for special rules if you don't know the types. Weapons explicitly described as power axes, swords, lances, mauls or pogo-sticks can have any amount of rules attached to them.

Unless GW tells us in some way to ignore master-crafted for deciding the stats of a power weapon, you can't have an AP2 for your master-crafted power weapon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rogueeyes wrote:
If it stated no special rules whatsoever then this argument would not work but since it states further we must view it as having a specific order for applying the rules. Since none is given we must apply them as we read them.

I know I have a German flag next to my name, but I'm damn sure that "further" does not describe an order in this case.

Jidmah wrote:

rogueeyes wrote:What order do you apply rules in? If I apply as I read them we get a completely different meaning aka

Dante's axe is a mc pw.

I first apply mc to his weapon which allows me a reroll to hit. Then I apply a power weapon to it. It is a power weapon with no additional special rules since all of the other rules came before power weapon. It is modelled as an axe so it becomes s+1 and ap2 i1.

You don't apply them in any order at all. You look at the weapon as whole. Has special rule? Yup, so can't be axe.

Now if I look at astoraths axe I see that is is a power weapon that hits at s6. I first apply power weapon. Oh I see there are still other rules I must apply. I guess it is unusual.

So you look at it and find a special rule. Thus, it can't be an Axe, Lance, Sword or Maul.

For frost blades it would make them unusual pw but this was faq'd to state blades are s+1 and ap3 while frost axes are s+2 ap2 i1. Why would gw do that? Because reading the power weapon rules that state you have a power weapon that adds +1 s gives it additional rules and makes it an unusual pw no matter how it would be modelled.

The rules only prevent master-crafted powerweapons from being axes. Nothing prevents an power axe from being master-crafted - you only ever start looking for special rules if you don't know the types. Weapons explicitly described as power axes, swords, lances, mauls or pogo-sticks can have any amount of rules attached to them.

Unless GW tells us in some way to ignore master-crafted for deciding the stats of a power weapon, you can't have an AP2 for your master-crafted power weapon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rogueeyes wrote:
If it stated no special rules whatsoever then this argument would not work but since it states further we must view it as having a specific order for applying the rules. Since none is given we must apply them as we read them.

I know I have a German flag next to my name, but I'm damn sure that "further" does not describe an order in this case.

The fact that it states further means that you CAN have some special rules. If you would remove further the argument would stand. The fact that you ignored the word means you logic is flawed and that it is impossible to have any special rules with power weapons ever. If this is the case why write further?

MY argument still stands based on further. If you apply the rules in the correct way which the word further states that there is actually an order and some special rules can be applied to the basic generic power weapons and still have them be the generic types of power weapons stated in the book.

According to your logic I can just pick and choose which order I want to apply my rules in. This however is incorrect in that it causes conflicts such as this and no longer becomes RAW.

Jidmah wrote:Nothing prevents an power axe from being master-crafted - you only ever start looking for special rules if you don't know the types. Weapons explicitly described as power axes, swords, lances, mauls or pogo-sticks can have any amount of rules attached to them.

Excellent point that I don't think was mentioned before. Not sure if that was GW's intention, or even it is correct by reading the rules (I am still half asleep), but it sounds ok to me right now.

STC_LogisEngine wrote:First off: No Formosa. you Can't. Sammael is equipped with 'the Raven Sword' [MC Power Weapon] and it is in name, description and official model described/represented as a 'sword'. Hence user S, ap3.

So. ''If a power weapon has it's own Unique close combat rules,..'' Here's the key, ''unique'' and ''rules''. This means that the rules as written must be unique. Not the Effect, +1 stat is in no way unique. The whole rule text must be taken into account to determine it's type. So a ''Mastercrafted powerweapon'' is not unique, a huskblade, relic blade or warscythe is.

well I know the first part is not right, fluff has no bearing on rules, it could be called the raven fish and it would not matter, its the actual rules that do matter.

The only thing that matters, does MC make it a "unique" weapon, either way im going to model it as a lance... cos it looks cool, the only thing that really matters is am I able to use is as a lance (there not that great to be fair, but... well its cool right?)

Formosa wrote:

STC_LogisEngine wrote:First off: No Formosa. you Can't. Sammael is equipped with 'the Raven Sword' [MC Power Weapon] and it is in name, description and official model described/represented as a 'sword'. Hence user S, ap3.

So. ''If a power weapon has it's own Unique close combat rules,..'' Here's the key, ''unique'' and ''rules''. This means that the rules as written must be unique. Not the Effect, +1 stat is in no way unique. The whole rule text must be taken into account to determine it's type. So a ''Mastercrafted powerweapon'' is not unique, a huskblade, relic blade or warscythe is.

well I know the first part is not right, fluff has no bearing on rules, it could be called the raven fish and it would not matter, its the actual rules that do matter.

Really, GW's ruling on the GK's Plasma Syphon say other-wise. >

Now, seriously, The rule says that, "If a power weapon has its own unique close combat rules, treat it as an AP 3 mele weapon with the additional rules and characteristics presented in its entry.

The answer is right there.

Lets use the Eldar Executioner as an example. It is a power weapon with unique rules, so this makes it AP3. if you stop right there.

Thing is that you don't stop right there. there are additional rules and characteristics.

The additional characteristics describe it as a Glaive(A type of Halberd/axe) that gives +2 to the users Strength.

The Glaive wording makes it fall into the axe catagory, which makes the weapon AP2 that additionally adds +2 to the wielders strength..

Now, the four types of power weapon are not restricted to the "power weapons that have no further special rules" paragraph. They are mentioned seperately and before that paragraph.
The chart listing the different profiles is also seperate from that paragraph. This means that the chart is not restriced to "power weapons with no other special rules".

Rather, the "power weapons with no further special rules" paragraph is a shortcut, telling us to look at the model rather than trying to search for a rule as to what type it is, elsewhere, in your codex. It in no way restricts access to the chart that is below it.

Does anyone follow?

focusedfire wrote:

Formosa wrote:

STC_LogisEngine wrote:First off: No Formosa. you Can't. Sammael is equipped with 'the Raven Sword' [MC Power Weapon] and it is in name, description and official model described/represented as a 'sword'. Hence user S, ap3.

So. ''If a power weapon has it's own Unique close combat rules,..'' Here's the key, ''unique'' and ''rules''. This means that the rules as written must be unique. Not the Effect, +1 stat is in no way unique. The whole rule text must be taken into account to determine it's type. So a ''Mastercrafted powerweapon'' is not unique, a huskblade, relic blade or warscythe is.

well I know the first part is not right, fluff has no bearing on rules, it could be called the raven fish and it would not matter, its the actual rules that do matter.

Really, GW's ruling on the GK's Plasma Syphon say other-wise. >

Now, seriously, The rule says that, "If a power weapon has its own unique close combat rules, treat it as an AP 3 mele weapon with the additional rules and characteristics presented in its entry.

The answer is right there.

Lets use the Eldar Executioner as an example. It is a power weapon with unique rules, so this makes it AP3. if you stop right there.

Thing is that you don't stop right there. there are additional rules and characteristics.

The additional characteristics describe it as a Glaive(A type of Halberd/axe) that gives +2 to the users Strength.

The Glaive wording makes it fall into the axe catagory, which makes the weapon AP2 that additionally adds +2 to the wielders strength..

Now, the four types of power weapon are not restricted to the "power weapons that have no further special rules" paragraph. They are mentioned seperately and before that paragraph.
The chart listing the different profiles is also seperate from that paragraph. This means that the chart is not restriced to "power weapons with no other special rules".

Rather, the "power weapons with no further special rules" paragraph is a shortcut, telling us to look at the model rather than trying to search for a rule as to what type it is, elsewhere, in your codex. It in no way restricts access to the chart that is below it.

Does anyone follow?

yeah I follow, so your saying a PW with any other rules attached to it, is a special PW and thus cannot be swapped for an Axe etc. and is AP3, is that right?

To answer the plasma syphon, thats rules that tell you to use fluff, so it still comes under the "fluff has no bearing on rules" as PS is a rule and not fluff

Formosa wrote:

yeah I follow, so your saying a PW with any other rules attached to it, is a special PW and thus cannot be swapped for an Axe etc. and is AP3, is that right?

To answer the plasma syphon, thats rules that tell you to use fluff, so it still comes under the "fluff has no bearing on rules" as PS is a rule and not fluff

Yes, the weapon can not be swapped if it has other special rules and will be AP 3, BUT if the weapon is described as a Glaive/Halberd/Axe then it would become AP 2 due to the wording of treat as Ap3 melee weapon with the additional rules and characteristics presented in its entry. So the Executioner is described as a Glaive in its rules and thus is both AP3 and AP2 by how the rule is worded.

The question would then be, "Is the Glaive description a modifier?".

As to the Plasma Syphon rule........ Or it could be viewed as a precedent, that affects all rules that follow.

focusedfire wrote:

Formosa wrote:

yeah I follow, so your saying a PW with any other rules attached to it, is a special PW and thus cannot be swapped for an Axe etc. and is AP3, is that right?

To answer the plasma syphon, thats rules that tell you to use fluff, so it still comes under the "fluff has no bearing on rules" as PS is a rule and not fluff

Yes, the weapon can not be swapped if it has other special rules and will be AP 3, BUT if the weapon is described as a Glaive/Halberd/Axe then it would become AP 2 due to the wording of treat as Ap3 melee weapon with the additional rules and characteristics presented in its entry. So the Executioner is described as a Glaive in its rules and thus is both AP3 and AP2 by how the rule is worded.

The question would then be, "Is the Glaive description a modifier?".

As to the Plasma Syphon rule........ Or it could be viewed as a precedent, that affects all rules that follow.

so just to be clear, i can model is as lance, but it still fowllows the rules of a power sword... seems simple enough to me

Focusedfire - being described as an axe is irrelevant, if it has special rules it is a unique power weapon and is AP3.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Focusedfire - being described as an axe is irrelevant, if it has special rules it is a unique power weapon and is AP3.

So Gorechild is an AP3 Power Weapon that rolls an additional D6 for armour penetration, despite explicitly being described as a Power Axe in the FAQ?

Gorechild is not a "power weapon" if it's described as a "power axe".
You only ever care about special rules if you have a generic "power weapon".
Besides, nos was talking about the description of a weapon in its fluff.

rogueeyes wrote:The fact that it states further means that you CAN have some special rules. If you would remove further the argument would stand. The fact that you ignored the word means you logic is flawed and that it is impossible to have any special rules with power weapons ever. If this is the case why write further?

MY argument still stands based on further. If you apply the rules in the correct way which the word further states that there is actually an order and some special rules can be applied to the basic generic power weapons and still have them be the generic types of power weapons stated in the book.

According to your logic I can just pick and choose which order I want to apply my rules in. This however is incorrect in that it causes conflicts such as this and no longer becomes RAW.

You completely missed me by a landslide. "Further" is not an indication of any order of operation being present. I suggest that you look up the word "further" in a dictionary.

Weapon 1
- power weapon
- causes instant-death to gretchin

Weapon 1 has further rules besides "power weapon".

Weapon 2
- causes instant-death to gretchin
- powerweapon

Weapon 2 still has further rules besides "power weapon".

The order of their listing is completely irrelevant. You are not allowed to apply rules in any order. That would be a violation of rules. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, you have to apply all rules at once.

focusedfire wrote:

Formosa wrote:

STC_LogisEngine wrote:First off: No Formosa. you Can't. Sammael is equipped with 'the Raven Sword' [MC Power Weapon] and it is in name, description and official model described/represented as a 'sword'. Hence user S, ap3.

So. ''If a power weapon has it's own Unique close combat rules,..'' Here's the key, ''unique'' and ''rules''. This means that the rules as written must be unique. Not the Effect, +1 stat is in no way unique. The whole rule text must be taken into account to determine it's type. So a ''Mastercrafted powerweapon'' is not unique, a huskblade, relic blade or warscythe is.

well I know the first part is not right, fluff has no bearing on rules, it could be called the raven fish and it would not matter, its the actual rules that do matter.

Really, GW's ruling on the GK's Plasma Syphon say other-wise. >

Now, seriously, The rule says that, "If a power weapon has its own unique close combat rules, treat it as an AP 3 mele weapon with the additional rules and characteristics presented in its entry.

The answer is right there.

Lets use the Eldar Executioner as an example. It is a power weapon with unique rules, so this makes it AP3. if you stop right there.

Thing is that you don't stop right there. there are additional rules and characteristics.

The additional characteristics describe it as a Glaive(A type of Halberd/axe) that gives +2 to the users Strength.

The Glaive wording makes it fall into the axe catagory, which makes the weapon AP2 that additionally adds +2 to the wielders strength..

Now, the four types of power weapon are not restricted to the "power weapons that have no further special rules" paragraph. They are mentioned seperately and before that paragraph.
The chart listing the different profiles is also seperate from that paragraph. This means that the chart is not restriced to "power weapons with no other special rules".

Rather, the "power weapons with no further special rules" paragraph is a shortcut, telling us to look at the model rather than trying to search for a rule as to what type it is, elsewhere, in your codex. It in no way restricts access to the chart that is below it.

Does anyone follow?

So if I have a Master Crafted Power Weapon then this does not apply because Master Crafted is not unique to close combat?

The power weapons in the chart can have other special rules based on the premise of further special rules stated in the Power weapon section. Thus Dante's Axe is a master crafted power weapon. We apply master crafted which allows him to reroll one to hit attack. Then we apply power weapon rules which state that we look at the model if there are "no further special rules". There are no further special rules. There are only the special rules that come before.

In order for all the premise that All power weapons that have special rules are AP3 (master crafted power weapons in the case) to strike at initiative and be AP3 the power weapon section must state a power weapon with any special rules at all would be considered an unusual power weapon and we would not look at the model in question but take it as what it is.

SAmuel would be the same case. "is a master crafted power weapon." We apply the rules for MAster Crafted then we apply the rules for Power Weapon. IF you model it as a lance it is then a power lance with the profile given in the book. A Halberd or axe would be a power axe. A Sword or dagger would be a power sword.

If we were to add a special rule to SAmuel's axe that states "is a master crafted power weapon" "that allows all failed to wound rolls to be rerolled" then we would have a unique power weapon since there are more special rules given after the power weapon rule.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Focusedfire - being described as an axe is irrelevant, if it has special rules it is a unique power weapon and is AP3.

So Gorechild is an AP3 Power Weapon that rolls an additional D6 for armour penetration, despite explicitly being described as a Power Axe in the FAQ?

Gorechild is errataed to be an Axe, not a Power Weapon

When you have a Power *****weapon***** that has special rules, it is an AP3 power weapon with S:User and follow the special rules. If it is a power Sword / Axe / etc with special rules it is still a power sword etc with special rules.

Weapon /= Sword / Axe / etc

@rogueeyes

So if I apply powerklaw first, and then my warboss' initiative I get to strike at I4 again?

Seriously, you have absolutely no reason to assume that rules with a permanent effect have any timing at all.

And IF they had a timing, there is a rule on page 9 handling that, which has absolutely no resemblance with the nonsense you are typing. That's cute house rule, no more.

Jidmah wrote:Gorechild is not a "power weapon" if it's described as a "power axe".
You only ever care about special rules if you have a generic "power weapon".
Besides, nos was talking about the description of a weapon in its fluff.

rogueeyes wrote:The fact that it states further means that you CAN have some special rules. If you would remove further the argument would stand. The fact that you ignored the word means you logic is flawed and that it is impossible to have any special rules with power weapons ever. If this is the case why write further?

MY argument still stands based on further. If you apply the rules in the correct way which the word further states that there is actually an order and some special rules can be applied to the basic generic power weapons and still have them be the generic types of power weapons stated in the book.

According to your logic I can just pick and choose which order I want to apply my rules in. This however is incorrect in that it causes conflicts such as this and no longer becomes RAW.

You completely missed me by a landslide. "Further" is not an indication of any order of operation being present. I suggest that you look up the word "further" in a dictionary.

Weapon 1
- power weapon
- causes instant-death to gretchin

Weapon 1 has further rules besides "power weapon".
/*8
Weapon 2
- causes instant-death to gretchin
- powerweapon

Weapon 2 still has further rules besides "power weapon".

The order of their listing is completely irrelevant. You are not allowed to apply rules in any order. That would be a violation of rules. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, you have to apply all rules at once.

The order of the listing is not irrelevant. If I state the order of the turn is Assault, Movement, Shooting then that is the turn phase. The turn phase is actually Movement Shooting Assault as stated in that order. By stating them in that order it creates an order of precedence that you do this then this then this. Further means in addition or to a greater degree or extent. IF you apply the rules in a specific order you see there are no more rules in addition to the rules that you already applied.

Give me a solid example that shows I should not apply rules in the order that they are written in the book. I apply master-crafted. Then I apply power weapon rule. There are no additional rules aka there are no further rules. Why is this? Because I already applied all the other rules as they were stated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jidmah wrote:@rogueeyes

So if I apply powerklaw first, and then my warboss' initiative I get to strike at I4 again?

Seriously, you have absolutely no reason to assume that rules with a permanent effect have any timing at all.

And IF they had a timing, there is a rule on page 9 handling that, which has absolutely no resemblance with the nonsense you are typing. That's cute house rule, no more.

Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. I stated you apply rules in the order for a piece of wargear. Once you get to the unwieldy special rule for the weapon it states that you attack at I1. Nothing overrides that and in no way does it equate to anything I stated in my argument.

I apply rules in order for a specific piece of wargear I use. I attack with my warboss using his power klaw. It can only be used in melee because of melee. So I cant use it to shoot. It is a specialist weapon so I can't get an extra attack from another ccw. Oh it's unwieldy so I strike at I1.

Where oh where does it state that I get to strike at I4? Where does it state that I get to make attacks at any initiative except at 4? If he were on a Bike I could make an I10 HoW attack on the charge but that is it. Please try to understand my logic and don't give out irrelevant examples that do not help the argument for either side.

rogueeyes wrote:
Give me a solid example that shows I should not apply rules in the order that they are written in the book. I apply master-crafted. Then I apply power weapon rule. There are no additional rules aka there are no further rules. Why is this? Because I already applied all the other rules as they were stated.

There are further rules: Master-crafted. "Further" does not have to mean that it's listed after whatever you're referring to.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

rogueeyes wrote:
Give me a solid example that shows I should not apply rules in the order that they are written in the book. I apply master-crafted. Then I apply power weapon rule. There are no additional rules aka there are no further rules. Why is this? Because I already applied all the other rules as they were stated.

There are further rules: Master-crafted. "Further" does not have to mean that it's listed after whatever you're referring to.

Exactly. It does not matter if it says Master-crafted power weapon, or if it says a power weapon that is master crafted.

erick99 wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

rogueeyes wrote:
Give me a solid example that shows I should not apply rules in the order that they are written in the book. I apply master-crafted. Then I apply power weapon rule. There are no additional rules aka there are no further rules. Why is this? Because I already applied all the other rules as they were stated.

There are further rules: Master-crafted. "Further" does not have to mean that it's listed after whatever you're referring to.

Exactly. It does not matter if it says Master-crafted power weapon, or if it says a power weapon that is master crafted.

If it says it is a power weapon that was master crafted it would matter since you apply the rules in a different order.

Tell me how do you get to the rule for power weapon without first reading and applying the rule for master crafted?

Follow this statement:

This needs no further research.

Further means some research was already done.

I've not been further south than the Equator.

Further means I've been north of the equator but not south.

In your use of further it means that there cannot be ANY. If this were the case it would state that a power weapon with ANY special rules rather than FURTHER special rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

rogueeyes wrote:
Give me a solid example that shows I should not apply rules in the order that they are written in the book. I apply master-crafted. Then I apply power weapon rule. There are no additional rules aka there are no further rules. Why is this? Because I already applied all the other rules as they were stated.

There are further rules: Master-crafted. "Further" does not have to mean that it's listed after whatever you're referring to.

I've already applied the master crafted rule therefore it is not a further rule. It is a special rule that has been applied and is not a further rule. You can also not get to the power weapon rule without first looking at the master crafted rule and it explaining what you do.

rogueeyes wrote:The order of the listing is not irrelevant. If I state the order of the turn is Assault, Movement, Shooting then that is the turn phase. The turn phase is actually Movement Shooting Assault as stated in that order. By stating them in that order it creates an order of precedence that you do this then this then this.

How set up a battlefield comes after shooting. You must be playing funny games. I have just proven that the position of a rule in the BRB has absolutely no bearing on its timing.

Further means in addition or to a greater degree or extent. IF you apply the rules in a specific order you see there are no more rules in addition to the rules that you already applied.

You realize that addition is commutative? You just have refuted yourself. Hint, try looking up "commutative law".

Give me a solid example that shows I should not apply rules in the order that they are written in the book. I apply master-crafted. Then I apply power weapon rule. There are no additional rules aka there are no further rules. Why is this? Because I already applied all the other rules as they were stated.

Master-Crafted does not disapear, just because you "applied" the rule. If you look at Master-crafted, you have a further rule named "power weapon". if you look at power weapon, you have a further rule called "Master-Crafted".

Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. I stated you apply rules in the order for a piece of wargear.

Correct. YOU stated that. Without any rules backup. You are not an official source of rules as per the tenets of YMDC.

Once you get to the unwieldy special rule for the weapon it states that you attack at I1. Nothing overrides that and in no way does it equate to anything I stated in my argument.

So you mean that you may ignore a rule by inventing a timing, but I can't? I did exactly what you did.
Rule A prohibits you from using rule B. You claim that, by applying rule B first, you can get around rule A.

I apply rules in order for a specific piece of wargear I use. I attack with my warboss using his power klaw. It can only be used in melee because of melee. So I cant use it to shoot. It is a specialist weapon so I can't get an extra attack from another ccw. Oh it's unwieldy so I strike at I1.

Where oh where does it state that I get to strike at I4?

I looked up further in the dictionary. The issue here is that As I read a rule it is applied for a piece of wargear being used until another rule overrides the effects of that specific rule.

I stated the order of the phases in order to prove that the order something is stated in DOES matter.

If I apply a special rule before I apply a different rule then it has no further rules to apply. How is this wrong? How is this irrelevant?

Further is in fact being used as it is defined in any dictionary that can be found. I even GAVE the definition.

I apply a rule. I apply a second rule. IF there are more rules after the second rule then there are further rules that I must apply. If I remove further your argument actually works. The problem is that the english language requires you to read in order. The problem is that the commutative law does not WORK for logic.

A then B equates to C
B then A equate to C

These may be true but are not necessarily true in LOGIC.

By your logic I can apply Unwieldy then apply my model's Initiative. A+B = C correct? A is my initiative. B is I1. I'll apply B first so I can hit at my I by applying A.

Can you see the flaw in the argument that the commutative law applies to Logic? It does not because Logic and Math are not equivalent.

Seriously, the new edition of Warhammer 40k has introduced a plethora of rules lawyers that just barely passed the rules bar exam.

Until anyone can show me Warhammer 40k defined proof that master-crafted is not a special/unique rule, any and all entries that state a power weapon is master-crafted will be ap3, str/initiative user.