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.

Gwar! wrote:Using the Two Powerfists Gramts you S8 I1 and no Bonus attack because you are weilding more than 1 Special Weapon (2 Power Fists and a Power Sword)

OK, Make both your hands into fists (to simulate using the Gauntlets) then try picking up a pencil without opening either hand( to simulate wielding a sword with the Gauntlets active )

Unless you're a mutant, you cannot wield 3 weapons with only 2 hands ! So, you need to choose, 2 gauntlets, 1 gauntlet and a sword, or just the sword.

If you're using both gauntlets, your sword will be in it's scabbard, hence NOT being wielded.

How simple does it need to be ? Look at the limits of your anatomy ! (Sarcasm optional !)

I fail to see what any of this has to do with the original question. Which was, what initiative does Calgar strike at one or five.


I've always seen it played that he gets the extra attack when using the power fists, because you choose whether or not to use the power fists together or just the power sword. At least thats what I have seen at GW.

Tri wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Utterly wrong.
You Can Choose to either use Both Power Fists or a Power Fist and the Power Seord.
Using the Two Powerfists Gramts you S8 I1 and no Bonus attack because you are weilding more than 1 Special Weapon (2 Power Fists and a Power Sword)
Using the Power Fist and the Power Sword Lets you Choose to make all your attacks at Either S8 I1 or S4 I5, again with no bonus attack because you are weilding more than 1 Special Weapon (2 Power Fists and a Power Sword)

How much more simple does it need to be ?</Sarcasm>

Gwar this is my last word on this since you seem to have it stuck in you head that all weapons cumulate together. The very top of the heading says

Fighting with Two single-handed weapons
Some models are equipped with two single handed weapons they can use in close combat, with the rules below for the different possible combinations...

So what do we get from that?
1)We can only fight with 2 single hand weapons max
2)We are using the weapons
3)We pick the rule for the Weapons combination we're using

Can you prove Weild does not mean any and all weapons they own? No you can't. It's Ambiguous and GW has to Erreta it. Until then it's legal to play it either way.

Of Course you can just Instead Emoragequit from the thread. Can't stop you I Guess. -Shrug-

Irrespective of all the rules for two weapons, he fights with 1 initative. he does get the two attacks though

BrotherStynier wrote:I fail to see what any of this has to do with the original question. Which was, what initiative does Calgar strike at one or five.
I've always seen it played that he gets the extra attack when using the power fists, because you choose whether or not to use the power fists together or just the power sword. At least thats what I have seen at GW.

Thank you, BrotherStynier, Your post helps further explain that you must CHOOSE the combination of weapons you wish to use, not assume you can wave everything on your list around like a lunatic octopus.

Further, it helps define that Calgar's Initiatve will be dependant on your choice of weaponry for the assault.

Any combination that utilises a Gauntlet will be subject to the Initiative penalty, whilst using the sword alone will not.

Gwar : Calgar's a hard-nut, but not even HE would wave a powersword around with his teeth just to be able to use every weapon he could ! In a combative context, wield can be supplanted by use(actively, as opposed to just hanging from your belt)

You're quite welcome old bean.

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:No, because its Only 1 Weapon (the Gauntlets of Ultramar). It "counts as" two powerfists, but it is only one weapon, and since you cant get the bonus attack if you have more than one different special CCW weapon...

I know that you cannot use rules from different codices, but sometimes they can at least create a precedent.

In the DE codex, the weapon "scissorhands" has the same effect as a pair of poisoned blades and do, in fact, provide a bonus attack.

From a logical standpoint, what is the purpose of counting as a pair of powerfists if they do not grant the extra attack? Seriously, if there is no bonus attack gained, there is absolutely no point to the statement "counts as a pair of powerfists."

Saldiven wrote:

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:No, because its Only 1 Weapon (the Gauntlets of Ultramar). It "counts as" two powerfists, but it is only one weapon, and since you cant get the bonus attack if you have more than one different special CCW weapon...

I know that you cannot use rules from different codices, but sometimes they can at least create a precedent.

Actually, they can't.

As for why bother, GW have done that Loads, Like Giving Abbadon a Bolt Pistol, or Elrad a Pistol, when they have NO use in CC and both have such awesome Psychic Shooting Attacks you will never ever Fire the Pistol. And even recently, Yarrick got a Useless Bolt Pistol too (he Has a Bolt Pistol, Hot Shot Las Pistol, CCW and Power Fist...).

The Main Reason for GW saying that is because the current Model has 2 Power Fists. It's to allow the old model to be used, same reason for Abbadon, Elrad and Yarrick coincidently...

Gwar! wrote:Can you prove Weild does not mean any and all weapons they own? No you can't. It's Ambiguous and GW has to Erreta it. Until then it's legal to play it either way.

Of Course you can just Instead Emoragequit from the thread. Can't stop you I Guess. -Shrug-

How 'bout the definition of "wield?"

wield
  /wild/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [weeld] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)
1. to exercise (power, authority, influence, etc.), as in ruling or dominating.
2. to use (a weapon, instrument, etc.) effectively; handle or employ actively.

Assuming a person with two hands, I cannot see how one could "handle or employ actively" three weapons that require a hand simultaneously.

You're not wielding a weapon that's in a scabbard. You are not wielding a weapon you are carrying casually down the road. You're not wielding a weapon that happens to be in a pocket or a backpack.

To be wielded, it must be employed "actively."

Saldiven wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Can you prove Weild does not mean any and all weapons they own? No you can't. It's Ambiguous and GW has to Erreta it. Until then it's legal to play it either way.

Of Course you can just Instead Emoragequit from the thread. Can't stop you I Guess. -Shrug-

How 'bout the definition of "wield?"

wield
  /wild/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [weeld] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)
1. to exercise (power, authority, influence, etc.), as in ruling or dominating.
2. to use (a weapon, instrument, etc.) effectively; handle or employ actively.

Assuming a person with two hands, I cannot see how one could "handle or employ actively" three weapons that require a hand simultaneously.

And, yeah, had you bothered to read the thread you would see we have shown that Wield can also mean to "apply, be possessed of, command, control, exercise, exert, have, have at one's disposal, hold, maintain, make use of, manage, possess, put to use, utilize"

Gwar! wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Can you prove Weild does not mean any and all weapons they own? No you can't. It's Ambiguous and GW has to Erreta it. Until then it's legal to play it either way.

Of Course you can just Instead Emoragequit from the thread. Can't stop you I Guess. -Shrug-

How 'bout the definition of "wield?"

wield
  /wild/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [weeld] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)
1. to exercise (power, authority, influence, etc.), as in ruling or dominating.
2. to use (a weapon, instrument, etc.) effectively; handle or employ actively.

Assuming a person with two hands, I cannot see how one could "handle or employ actively" three weapons that require a hand simultaneously.

And, yeah, had you bothered to read the thread you would see we have shown that Wield can also mean to "apply, be possessed of, command, control, exercise, exert, have, have at one's disposal, hold, maintain, make use of, manage, possess, put to use, utilize"

But not when specificially applied to "a weapon, instrument, etc." That definition applies to wielding things like authority. You need to read the contextual example that comes after the definition to understand that usage:

1. To govern; to rule; to keep, or have in charge; also, to possess. [Obs.]

When a strong armed man keepeth his house, all things that he wieldeth ben in peace. --Wyclif (Luke xi. 21).

Wile [ne will] ye wield gold neither silver ne money in your girdles. --Wyclif (Matt. x. 9.)

2. To direct or regulate by influence or authority; to manage; to control; to sway.

The famous orators . . . whose resistless eloquence Wielded at will that fierce democraty. --Milton.

Her newborn power was wielded from the first by unprincipled and ambitions men. --De Quincey.


You cannot use a word from one contextual meaning in the same place as another contextual meaning with impunity.

Does a man wield his authority the same way that he wields a sword? Of course not.

Wielding a weapon has a specific meaning, and trying to find any other meaning is a stretch of amazing lengths, assuming English is your first language.

Also, note that both of those uses of the word "wield" are of relatively archaic usage. The quotes cited to demonstrate those usages are of Rennaissance era writers.

Oh gosh, I just finished reading the whole thread, and the last sentence of your quoted post did not include definitions of wield. It was a list of synonyms. Synonyms are not definitions, they are merely a list of words that have similar meaning, not identical meaning. You can't quote a synonym and cite that as a definition. A thesaurus is not a dictionary.

Gwar, just give it up for once, your just simply TFG.
Seems you go against odds as often as you can to try and annoy people.

It does not need to be written again, its clear enough as it is.
If it counts as 2 power fists then it would act as such.

JD21290 wrote:Gwar, just give it up for once, your just simply TFG.
Seems you go against odds as often as you can to try and annoy people.

It does not need to be written again, its clear enough as it is.
If it counts as 2 power fists then it would act as such.

It does act as two power fists. I never said it didn't. I am saying that the Rule for Multiple COmplex Weapons also Kicks in and Denies the Bonus attack.

Also, I am TFG because I support an Equally valid reading of the rules? Oh, I suppose I am TFG because I want people to Play by the rules then. Am I TFG if I say "Yes, you can Fire 5 Plasma Guns from a Chimera Hatch"? Am I TFG if I say "No, you can't use the new Machine Spirit Rules from Codex Ultramarines because you are playing with Codex Black Templars"?

Frankly, I find your attacks against my character rather than my argument contrary to DakkaDakka Posting rules and would appriciate an Appology before this has to go any further.

JD - he;s not arguing against them not counting as 2 PF, just saying that as the model has 3 (special) CCW the rules for "fighting with 2 CCW" states you dont get the bonus

It's all down to whether "wield" means "using in this fight" or "has access to " | "owns" etc. That is the point of argument

Gwar! wrote:
Frankly, I find your attacks against my questionable character rather than my pointless argument contrary to DakkaDakka Posting rules and would appriciate an Appology before this has to go any further.

Go edit your post to incorporate valid rules then.



@ JD : calm down. No need to call names.

Gwar! wrote:And, yeah, had you bothered to read the thread you would see we have shown that Wield can also mean to "apply, be possessed of, command, control, exercise, exert, have, have at one's disposal, hold, maintain, make use of, manage, possess, put to use, utilize"

Uh, no it can't mean that ever Gwar. Those are synonyms; words with similar but not necessarily identical meanings. This means that you can't say "since possess is a synonym of wield, then wield = possess." It means that the two words have close meanings and in some (but not all) cases can be substituted for each other.

In this case the definition quoted is crystal clear: wielding a weapon is to actively use it.

Just for fun, since posting definitions seems to be the "in" thing:

syn·o·nym
n.
1. A word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or other words in a language.
2. A word or an expression that serves as a figurative or symbolic substitute for another.

Noun 1. synonym - two words that can be interchanged in a context are said to be synonymous relative to that context

TehCheator wrote:

Gwar! wrote:And, yeah, had you bothered to read the thread you would see we have shown that Wield can also mean to "apply, be possessed of, command, control, exercise, exert, have, have at one's disposal, hold, maintain, make use of, manage, possess, put to use, utilize"

Uh, no it can't mean that ever Gwar. Those are synonyms; words with similar but not necessarily identical meanings. This means that you can't say "since possess is a synonym of wield, then wield = possess." It means that the two words have close meanings and in some (but not all) cases can be substituted for each other.

In this case the definition quoted is crystal clear: wielding a weapon is to actively use it.

Wow, you are right. I am so sorry. It is so Crystal Clear.

No wait, it's not. That's why there is this thread and a whole bunch of Discussion.

No offence, but when you look up Wield in the Oxford English Dictionary (you know, the one that actually Deals with Proper English, the language the Rulebooks are Written in), you will find that Wield is defined as:

• verb
1) hold and use (a weapon or tool). 2) have and be able to use.

So see, my Definition is just as valid (in fact moreso) than yours. Like I said, It isn't clear and needs official GW Clarification IMO.

Actually there's really not very much discussion. There's two or three individuals attempting to tout a ridiculous interpretation through equally ridiculous circumlocution while the rest of the thread rolls its collective eyes.

sourclams wrote:Actually there's really not very much discussion. There's two or three individuals attempting to tout a ridiculous interpretation through equally ridiculous circumlocution while the rest of the thread rolls its collective eyes.

"Entrance of the Gladiators" comes to mind.

Okay, fair enough, you have an actual definition that support your position. My contention was that you were being extremely condescending while saying that the definition of "wield" can be read as "[insert list of synonyms here]," which is blatantly wrong.

Also, I said that the definition quoted (which is different from the one you quoted) was crystal clear, which it was.

As for the actual issue, as you say, there's no clear RAW interpretation, so it's something you have to clarify with your opponent beforehand. And in doing so, if someone is so worried about Calgar that they are going to interpret it to mean he can never get an extra attack ever and hold so steadfastly to that simply because they interpret the rules that way (even though it's ambiguous and no answer is "right"), then that person isn't going to have a lot of friends to play plastic war-men with

There's only "no clear RAW interpretatoin" if you allow inclusion of synonyms of the word 'wield' as a credible argument.

Seriously, logic that requires three Dictionary.com entries should be throwing up big red flags to anyone looking for a "correct" interpretation.

haha interesting thread really....

but really calgar gets the attack bonus, a lot other players I have played with also said for simplicity purposes by wielding an extra CCW wether it be the same one or a different will always confer an extra attack as long as it is a 1 handed weapon like pistols, swords, fists, calgar has 2 fists and a pwer sword so by rules he has 3 CCW weapons, but according to the rules you get ever only 1 bonus attack even if you had a hundred CCW since you can only use 2 (page 37 rulebook)... the only question here is at what initiative do you strike? right? if you chose to use the power sword in HTH and forego the PW then you strike at I 5 and no attack bonus since you used the sword.. if you strike using both the sword and the fist then you strike at I 1 due to the usage of a powerfist but still get the bonus attack, if you strike with both fists then you still count as having an extra CCW, unlike shooting wherein the same type of gun instead grants you the twinlinked rule. why try to bog down the rules if it can easily be interpreted in a much cleaner non hassle manner? This is a fun game and I really hate it when people mix in RAW and RAI together in a blender and makes things harder. Sometime common sense is needed (and they call it "common" sense)

Chill!

sourclams wrote:Actually there's really not very much discussion. There's two or three individuals attempting to tout a ridiculous interpretation through equally ridiculous circumlocution while the rest of the thread rolls its collective eyes.

You need to save that line, because you could probably use it about 3 times a day.

sourclams wrote:There's only "no clear RAW interpretatoin" if you allow inclusion of synonyms of the word 'wield' as a credible argument.

Seriously, logic that requires three Dictionary.com entries should be throwing up big red flags to anyone looking for a "correct" interpretation.

Oddly enough I Provided one Definition (Not synonyms, a Definition), that is the actual correct one (being from the Oxford English Dictionary).

dietrich wrote:

sourclams wrote:Actually there's really not very much discussion. There's two or three individuals attempting to tout a ridiculous interpretation through equally ridiculous circumlocution while the rest of the thread rolls its collective eyes.

You need to save that line, because you could probably use it about 3 times a day.

Glad to see you agree with me

Good thing GW never uses the word "cleave" in a rule... we wouldn't know if it cut something apart or stuck to it!

How many attacks does Eldrad get? *Ducks for cover*

That one is easier, because he has 2 Different Special Weapons and a Pistol, which isn't a Special Weapon.

As you MUST use all your special Weapons, Elrad Will always use his Staff and his Witchblade, choosing which one to use each turn. As he is Using More than 1 Different Special Weapons (and would have More than 1 Different Special Weapon anyway) He cannot get the Bonus Attack.

I'm going to go ahead and assume that Gwar! means "the version of English that GW uses...I think" rather than resorting to attacking someone's version of a version of a version of a version of grunting noises.

As to the question of whether or not Calgar gets the extra attack, the issue cannot be resolved via RaW. The thread may as well be locked. I do believe that RaI is in support of him getting the bonus attack.

Gwar! wrote:

TehCheator wrote:

Gwar! wrote:And, yeah, had you bothered to read the thread you would see we have shown that Wield can also mean to "apply, be possessed of, command, control, exercise, exert, have, have at one's disposal, hold, maintain, make use of, manage, possess, put to use, utilize"

Uh, no it can't mean that ever Gwar. Those are synonyms; words with similar but not necessarily identical meanings. This means that you can't say "since possess is a synonym of wield, then wield = possess." It means that the two words have close meanings and in some (but not all) cases can be substituted for each other.

In this case the definition quoted is crystal clear: wielding a weapon is to actively use it.

Wow, you are right. I am so sorry. It is so Crystal Clear.

No wait, it's not. That's why there is this thread and a whole bunch of Discussion.

No offence, but when you look up Wield in the Oxford English Dictionary (you know, the one that actually Deals with Proper English, the language the Rulebooks are Written in), you will find that Wield is defined as:

• verb
1) hold and use (a weapon or tool). 2) have and be able to use.

So see, my Definition is just as valid (in fact moreso) than yours. Like I said, It isn't clear and needs official GW Clarification IMO.

Um...notice how your first definitions specifies "A weapon or tool." I'm curious to see if you omitted a parenthetical example from the second definition that says something like "power or authority" because just about every dictionary online that I have looked at includes that clarification.

The OED is no more the definitive, be-all-end-all, comprehensive, better than anybody else dictionary than the New American, the Funk & Wagnall's, or any other "complete and unabridged" dictionary. It merely happens to be a dictionary published by Oxford University Press.

You still are getting caught up with denotation while completely tossing out connotation. Yes, those are both very important. The difference between the two is why non-native English speakers often make seemingly poor choices in word choice when trying to speak English. I have a friend from Bulgaria who is always asking my advice on correct word choice where two synonyms might seem to work in a sentence, but one just doesn't sound right to a native speaker. She is always trying to clarify use between get and have, should/could/would, on/above/on top of, and many others.

We native speakers know what sounds correct.

You still haven't answered any of my previous post.

Do you wield power in the same manner as you wield a sword? If you had your wallet in your pocket, and someone asked you if you had it, would you say, "Yes, I am currently wielding my wallet even as we speak?" The manner in which a weapon is wielded is not the same as which a non-weapon is wielded. There is a completely inarguable quality to the word wield as applied to a weapon, which is why the dictionaries specify that definition that applies to weapons. If wielding always merely meant "to have," then there would never be the additional entry to show:

wield (wēld)
tr.v. wield·ed, wield·ing, wields

1. To handle (a weapon or tool) with skill and ease.