The 'Special' in the Power Weapon rules - Can we at least figure out what counts as special?

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.

**nosferatu1001**

I agree BR - now that doesnt happen often...quick, JotWW!

power weapon, master crafted makes it a unique power weapon, so is AP3 and master crafted. No more difficult than that.

**erick99**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So 5-4 =/= -4+5? You're saying order changes the outcome. Banshees are I10. Unwieldy strikes at I1. Order does not matter, if I am I10 before or after the striking limitation, I may still only strike at I1. Order has its place, but is irrelevant with regards to this. Math written in English is still Math.

Also, English does not need to be read in order. Order is placed on the English language to improve the likely hood a thought will be properly understood.

Based on the conventions of the English language, Master-Crafted describes power weapon, In the same way as Power describes weapon.
So it goes weapon type=power weapon. Power weapon type=master crafted. Master-Crafted power weapon=unusual power weapon. Therefore, the weapon type=unusual power weapon (master crafted).

**focusedfire**

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

This is not what the rule says.

The rule states that if it is a PW with unique(/special rules..debatable but not important) then it is AP 3.

But then goes on to say that you also "apply" any "additional" rules and "characteristics" presented in its entry.

The description "Glaive" or "Axe" is now a Characteristic and thusly is to be applied. You look at the Table and find that Axe is AP 2. So the weapon goes from being AP3 to AP2 due to apllying the Charcterist after first making the weapon AP3.

The rule gives the order of how to do this and shows weapon types as a characteristic in the chart.

**rigeld2**

No, Glaive fluff is not a characteristic of the weapon.

**rogueeyes**

erick99 wrote:
rogueeyes wrote:I looked up further in the dictionary. The issue here is that As I read a rule it is applied for a piece of wargear being used until another rule overrides the effects of that specific rule.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So 5-4 =/= -4+5? You're saying order changes the outcome. Banshees are I10. Unwieldy strikes at I1. Order does not matter, if I am I10 before or after the striking limitation, I may still only strike at I1. Order has its place, but is irrelevant with regards to this. Math written in English is still Math.

Also, English does not need to be read in order. Order is placed on the English language to improve the likely hood a thought will be properly understood.

Based on the conventions of the English language, Master-Crafted describes power weapon, In the same way as Power describes weapon.
So it goes weapon type=power weapon. Power weapon type=master crafted. Master-Crafted power weapon=unusual power weapon. Therefore, the weapon type=unusual power weapon (master crafted).

The problem is that you are using Addition. If I leave out rules in addition I can create any answer I so choose:

4+4 = 10.

This is correct if you are in Base 8 rather than base 10.

So -4+5 != 5+ -4 if both sides use different base terminology. If you know the base terminaology of both side then you must take that into account. This is why you cannot use the commutative law for ALL of logic.

The power weapon statement is more like

((Mastercrafted) X Power Weapon)

Which equates to
((1+1) X 4+5)

Your logic says I can do 4+5 and multiply by 1+1. This violates the rules of logic and mathematics. Additional rules would add something similar to this to the equation:

((1+1) X 4+5) + 1

According to your commutative mathematics rule as you applied it to the logical argument your have given you state that I can do any operation in any order I so choose.

+ X - or / or even % if I so choose. Which should I do first? The hell with the other rules that state I shodl do multiplication in order from left to right I'll jsut start with addition at the end and go from there to see what I get.

**erick99**

rogueeyes wrote:

The problem is that you are using Addition. If I leave out rules in addition I can create any answer I so choose:

4+4 = 10.

This is correct if you are in Base 8 rather than base 10.

So -4+5 != 5+ -4 if both sides use different base terminology. If you know the base terminaology of both side then you must take that into account. This is why you cannot use the commutative law for ALL of logic.

The power weapon statement is more like

((Mastercrafted) X Power Weapon)

Which equates to
((1+1) X 4+5)

Your logic says I can do 4+5 and multiply by 1+1. This violates the rules of logic and mathematics. Additional rules would add something similar to this to the equation:

((1+1) X 4+5) + 1

According to your commutative mathematics rule as you applied it to the logical argument your have given you state that I can do any operation in any order I so choose.

+ X - or / or even % if I so choose. Which should I do first? The hell with the other rules that state I shodl do multiplication in order from left to right I'll jsut start with addition at the end and go from there to see what I get.

Math has its own laws (PEMDOS), logic has its own. They are not interchangeable, true, but are often similar.

Actually, the Commutative law is vital for logic.

Commutativity (Com) (p \/ q) :: (q \/ p) (p x q) :: (q x p)

Logic is very clear about that. So don't tell me Commutativity does not work with logic. Make your argument using logic, following all the rules of logic.
I can't make heads or tails of what you mean.

I agree, 4+4=10, but we are assuming 4=5. Your argument ought to be 4=5, so 4+4=10. Note that now 10=8.
How you conclude 'master-crafted' is (1+1) and 'power weapon' is 4+5, I'm not sure.

If you mean:

A=Power weapon (True)
B=Master crafted (True)
Then you would be saying: "A+B=C, but B+A=/=C" Which makes no sense.
Reality is: A+B=C (True), B+A=C (True), Therefore C-A=B. and C-B=A (Both True)
If C= determining power weapon type (True)
Type-power weapon=master-crafted. (True)
Type-master crafted=power weapon. (True)

**rogueeyes**

erick99 wrote:
rogueeyes wrote:

The problem is that you are using Addition. If I leave out rules in addition I can create any answer I so choose:

4+4 = 10.

This is correct if you are in Base 8 rather than base 10.

So -4+5 != 5+ -4 if both sides use different base terminology. If you know the base terminaology of both side then you must take that into account. This is why you cannot use the commutative law for ALL of logic.

The power weapon statement is more like

((Mastercrafted) X Power Weapon)

Which equates to
((1+1) X 4+5)

Your logic says I can do 4+5 and multiply by 1+1. This violates the rules of logic and mathematics. Additional rules would add something similar to this to the equation:

((1+1) X 4+5) + 1

According to your commutative mathematics rule as you applied it to the logical argument your have given you state that I can do any operation in any order I so choose.

+ X - or / or even % if I so choose. Which should I do first? The hell with the other rules that state I shodl do multiplication in order from left to right I'll jsut start with addition at the end and go from there to see what I get.

Math has its own laws (PEMDOS), logic has its own. They are not interchangeable, true, but are often similar.

Actually, the Commutative law is vital for logic.
Commutativity (Com) (p \/ q) :: (q \/ p) (p x q) :: (q x p)

Logic is very clear about that. So don't tell me Commutativity does not work with logic. Make your argument using logic, following all the rules of logic.
I can't make heads or tails of what you mean.

I agree, 4+4=10, but we are assuming 4=5. Your argument ought to be 4=5, so 4+4=10. Note that now 10=8.
How you conclude 'master-crafted' is (1+1) and 'power weapon' is 4+5, I'm not sure.

If you mean:
A=Power weapon (True)
B=Master crafted (True)
Then you would be saying: "AB=C, but BA=/=C"
Which makes no sense.

Commutative is true for logical comparisons of Mathematics (aka Discrete Mathematics). However we must also include time at which something is applied into the argument since there is an order of precedence that we must follow. Since no order of precedence is given we must apply the rules in order.

A = Master Crafted
B = Power Weapon
C = Generic Power Weapon
D = Unusual Power Weapon

The problem here is that the argument is being made that if and only if B then C. The problem is that if you add in "further" you have exemptions which also make B true if you have other things applied BEFORE B is applied.

If B and No additional conditions then C else D.

This equates to the same as if I did
A + B

A is applied.
B is applied
No additional rules so C is applied.

Now if I state
B is applied.
Additional conditions exist.
So D.
A is now applied.

Commutative does matter when you have to apply rules in a particular order. Timing does matter what order we state since it equates to two different conclusions in the argument.

**Joe Mama**

LOL. What in the H-E-double hockey sticks is going on in here?

**erick99**

A=Axe
B=Sword
C=Lance
D=Maul
E=Unusual
F=Power weapon
G=Unique rules
H=Special rules
I=What model has [WYSIWIG]

So...
A=F+I (True)
B=F+I (True)
C=F+I (True)
D=F+I (True)
E=F+G (True)
E=F+H (True, most likely)

J=Category of Power Weapon

So...
A=J (True)
B=J (True)
C=J (True)
D=J (True)
E=J (True)

Therefore, J=F+I
J=F+G (True)
J=F+H (True, mostly)
J=F+G+H (True)

So, if the model has a power weapon, with no special/unique rules, you look at the model for type. If it does have special/unique rules, it is an unusual Power Weapon.
Power Weapon does not count as a special rule for purposes of determining type, as J=A through E
Special is any rule the power weapon has, beyond Power Weapon, that may apply to other weapon types, such as master crafted.
Unique refers to rules only pertaining to the power weapon, Such as +2S, inflicts ID on to-wound rolls of 6, etc.
Unique also pertains to rules written longhand- 2D6 penetration against armor is not Armor Bane. If it was Armor Bane, it would say Armor Bane, etc.

There you have it, a logical formula for determining how special your power weapon is. The only part debatable is if special, generic rules excepting power weapon cause the power weapon to be unusual or not.

**Camarodragon**

Math, Addition, Definitions from the dictionary. Soon it will be cats and dog sleeping together… Can somebody arguing this here please solve world hunger, figure out how we go about getting world peace, and if the Myans calculations are right that the earth is going to go “Poof!” this fall and how we can stop it!!!!!!

**Jidmah**

Thanks erick99, you saved me a lot of time of typing exactly what you did

*hands over brainboy badge*

**Formosa**

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

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

Well thats stupid eh, we know it is a special rule because its in the special rules part of the book lol (agreeing with you).

I was just asking if I was able to swap it out for something cooler (which I will still be doing..rule of cool wins all) like the power lance (found out its actually a spear lol), now due to its special rule I cant use it as a spear and it will always behave as a strx sp3 weapon, so this allows me to model it however the hell I like as its rules will always be the same.

yay

**Brother Ramses**

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

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

Well thats stupid eh, we know it is a special rule because its in the special rules part of the book lol (agreeing with you).

I was just asking if I was able to swap it out for something cooler (which I will still be doing..rule of cool wins all) like the power lance (found out its actually a spear lol), now due to its special rule I cant use it as a spear and it will always behave as a strx sp3 weapon, so this allows me to model it however the hell I like as its rules will always be the same.

yay

Of course.

In the case of special/unique weapons, the rule of determining what it is no longer applies and you can model it to whatever you please. The relevent special/unique rules are followed no matter what it looks like.

**Marthike**

Please stop bring my university work into warhammer is making my head hurt,

I seen enough truth tables and logic graphs for this year.

**MajorTom11**

Please refrain from reviving threads to add comments that are immaterial to the topic. Thank you -