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.

there is no rule for power weapons

Page 42: "A power weapon is sheathed in the lethal haze of a disruptive energy field blah blah blah Models wounded in close combat by the attacks of a power weapon are not allowed armour saves."

The CCW the possessed have becomes a power weapon. They don't have to be gaining one as a new piece of equipment. Again, the flavor text clarifies this.

Polonius wrote:Well, I like to chase RAW to the bone because it usually either reveals a good solution, or results in something dumb enough it's easy to justify ignoring it.

Not that Marbo needs the help, but it's hard to see the RAI as anything other than him having a poisoned weapon in this case.

Agreed. It seems kind of ridiculous to argue whether a big catachan knife is a CCW or not. Clearly it is, and if RAW is not completely congruent with this then it is obviously just an oversight. I know that if I were a writer for GW codex rules, I would be ripping my hair out over how literally some people take what is written.

I agree that it is clearly being described as a poisoned weapon, which is grouped under the "Special Close Combat Weapons" (pg. 42 of the AoBR rulebook). Meaning, he should get the extra attack for having a pistol (clearly listed in the Ripper Pistol's stat line) and a CCW.

Not to get overly literalist (because I agree that's probably the intent), but you have two choices according to the rules: either they get a special rule, or they get equipment. Power Weapon isn't a rule, it's a piece of equipment.


As a pedantic aside, the flavor text also says "weapons" of the possessed, which implies that each could have multiple weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FoxPhoenix135 wrote:

Polonius wrote:Well, I like to chase RAW to the bone because it usually either reveals a good solution, or results in something dumb enough it's easy to justify ignoring it.

Not that Marbo needs the help, but it's hard to see the RAI as anything other than him having a poisoned weapon in this case.

Agreed. It seems kind of ridiculous to argue whether a big catachan knife is a CCW or not. Clearly it is, and if RAW is not completely congruent with this then it is obviously just an oversight. I know that if I were a writer for GW codex rules, I would be ripping my hair out over how literally some people take what is written.

I agree that it is clearly being described as a poisoned weapon, which is grouped under the "Special Close Combat Weapons" (pg. 42 of the AoBR rulebook). Meaning, he should get the extra attack for having a pistol (clearly listed in the Ripper Pistol's stat line) and a CCW.

You do have to be careful, as not every "oversight" really is one. In this case, having two options, one of which is that the rule does nothing, does seem to make the RAI a lot clearer. But always pin the RAW down first before you dismiss it.

You have a point, Polonius. Maybe the designers thought of that, and included the extra attack in his base-statistics. No way to really know unless they append the FAQ or something.

Well, the bonus attack for two weapons isn't included in the base line stats unless specified, and that's usually in areas where the model has some odd wargear that acts like multiple ccws.

In addition, most of the time when a stat line is bumped due to wargear or special rule, rather than inherent, it's set off with parentheses.

Che-Vito wrote:
And RAW I wouldn't let them have it. The whole character concept is trash, and way OTT.

Dude... its 40k EVERYTHING is over the top. Calgar is so hardcore he killed a god, assasins are so g they do all kinds of crazy stuff, creed can hide a titan in a tool shed, elrad... dude elrad, and orks look at the entire ork army. And one guy who understands camoflouge and has a poisoned knife is "way OTT"?

iamthecougar wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:
And RAW I wouldn't let them have it. The whole character concept is trash, and way OTT.

Dude... its 40k EVERYTHING is over the top. Calgar is so hardcore he killed a god, assasins are so g they do all kinds of crazy stuff, creed can hide a titan in a tool shed, elrad... dude elrad, and orks look at the entire ork army. And one guy who understands camoflouge and has a poisoned knife is "way OTT"?

The thinly veiled Rambo comparison, and what can be done with Marbo...yes.
You wouldn't understand, you are from New Jersey after all

Polonius, in reguards to your question wether it is a rule or a weapon. I can answer with certainty that it is a weapon, and as such gives him the extra attack. This is found on page 95; Envenomed blade is listed as wargear not a Special Rule. In the description on page 61 it tells us this is a knife coated with toxins. Qualifing it as special CCW.

Datajax wrote:Polonius, in reguards to your question wether it is a rule or a weapon. I can answer with certainty that it is a weapon, and as such gives him the extra attack. This is found on page 95; Envenomed blade is listed as wargear not a Special Rule. In the description on page 61 it tells us this is a knife coated with toxins. Qualifing it as special CCW.

No, it doesn't. Nowhere in the Envenomed Blade Rules does it say it is a CCW. Frag grenades are listed as Wargear too, do they give Bonus Attacks now too?

So GWAR!'s position then is that a knife isn't a close combat weapon?

Because P. 61 of the guard codex says, "Marbo carries a large catachian KNIFE..."

Red_Lives wrote:So GWAR!'s position then is that a knife isn't a close combat weapon?

Because P. 61 of the guard codex says, "Marbo carries a large catachian KNIFE..."

Yeah, and Space Marines Carry Stim packs, Combat Blades and can punch through a tank bare handed. They don't get any bonuses from these do they. It says it is a Knife, but it does not say it counts as a CCW. Yes Polonius has pointed out that this means it does nothing, but RaW this seems to be the case.

Gwar! wrote:

Red_Lives wrote:So GWAR!'s position then is that a knife isn't a close combat weapon?

Because P. 61 of the guard codex says, "Marbo carries a large catachian KNIFE..."

Yeah, and Space Marines Carry Stim packs, Combat Blades and can punch through a tank bare handed. They don't get any bonuses from these do they. It says it is a Knife, but it does not say it counts as a CCW. Yes Polonius has pointed out that this means it does nothing, but RaW this seems to be the case.

What does that got to do with anything? Its on page 61 under the "envenomed blade" entry.

I suggest you read that, because i'm not talking about fluff here, the weapon description under the rules says its a knife.

And a Knife=A CCW unless otherwise noted.

That depends on how you read the rules for CCWs. Some argue that unless an item is listed as a CCW, it's not. The reasoning is pretty clear: you can use a boltgun in combat, but nobody is going to suggest you should get +1 attack for Bolter + Bolt Pistol.

Honestly, it's a bit of a mess when you start deciding who gets +1 attack for two CCWs. The argument seems to be, that unless you have two weapons that are listed as CCWs, or reference back to those rules, you can't get +1 attack.

That said, Marbo has a weapon that's described as a Knife that appears have been meant to be a poisoned weapon. Most people are going to spot you that one, but you should be careful not to confuse "thing that sounds like a one handed melee weapon" for "things the rules find to be CCWs"

If you look at Codex: Space Marines, it lists Chainswords and Combat Blades in the armory, and says they are CCWs. The IG codex also lists "Close Combat Weapon" under any model that has one.

The way to approach this isn't through the "knife = CCW" angle, but the "weapon that is poisoned = Poison Weapon" angle.

Red_Lives wrote:And a Knife=A CCW unless otherwise noted.

No, it isn't. It is a CCW if it says it is a CCW. Otherwise it is not.

the BGB lists knives as examples of close combat weapons.

Besides its a knife coated in venom, which makes it a Poisioned weapon, as clearly described in the BGB.

Not really. They mention combat knives, along with frag grenades, as things seasoned warriors take into battle for close combat.

The actual CCW rules are pretty short:

p42 wrote:Normal Close Combat Weapons
Weapons like chainswords, rifle butts, combat blades, bayonets, etc. do not confer any particular bonus to the model using them. Remember that, in close combat, pistols count as normal close combat weapons and so the Strength and AP of the Pistol are ignored.

These leaves two possibilities: either CCWs are defined elsewhere, or all weapons that don't confer a bonus in close combat are "Normal CCWs." As nearly every close combat weapon is defined, somewhere in it's rules, as such a CCW, it appears that they're simply saying that you don't get a bonus for having them. The new codices are doing a better job of giving every model such a "normal CCW" in their wargear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Red_Lives wrote:the BGB lists knives as examples of close combat weapons.

Besides its a knife coated in venom, which makes it a Poisioned weapon, as clearly described in the BGB.

To quote myself:

"To read Marbo's rules literally, his attacks are Poisoned(2+), which doesn't mean anything. You have to read that it's a Poisoned Weapon (2+) to get anywhere, and that would confer a +1 attack bonus as Poisoned weapons are CCWs by definition. "

With all due respect, try to follow the thread fully, and understand that in RAW discussions, odd results can occur.

Right so under the rules everything that can reasonably be a close combat weapon is a close combat weapon unless otherwise noted.

Red_Lives wrote:Right so under the rules everything that can reasonably be a close combat weapon is a close combat weapon unless otherwise noted.

My Missile Launcher is a Power Weapon. it is Reasonable to me.

Also, it mentions that under the "Envenomed blade" entry, describing that it is a knife coated in venom, then describes that it causes him to wound on a 2+. Which clearly makes it a "Posioned weapon"

Red_Lives wrote:Also, it mentions that under the "Envenomed blade" entry, describing that it is a knife coated in venom, then describes that it causes him to wound on a 2+. Which clearly makes it a "Posioned weapon"

No, it makes his Close Combat Attacks Poisoned. That is what the rule says. You are adding things.

Red_Lives wrote:Also, it mentions that under the "Envenomed blade" entry, describing that it is a knife coated in venom, then describes that it causes him to wound on a 2+. Which clearly makes it a "Posioned weapon"

there's a saying I learned in law school: "never use the terms 'clearly' or 'obviously' when arguing. If something were obvious, you wouldn't be arguing." It's probably not a bad rule of thumb for YMDC.

It's pretty reasonable that the author meant to make the envenomed blade a poisoned weapon. Alas, he didn't use that term, instead, they said that it's Poisoned, which has no exact analogue in the BGB. Now, I agree with you in that when a person tells you that they have a knife that's poisoned, it's a poisoned weapon, particularly since the other option is a null set; that it does nothing. It seems unlikely that GW would write rules that do nothing in a brand new book, so feel free to make a logical step.

In many ways this is like the LRBT in Hunters armies discussion: there is a difference between a literal reading of the rules that results in nonsense, and a contextual reading that tries to look at the core meaning. I think you should only do that in times like this, where the RAW is literally nothing and the core meaning is clear.

Gwar! wrote:

Red_Lives wrote:Also, it mentions that under the "Envenomed blade" entry, describing that it is a knife coated in venom, then describes that it causes him to wound on a 2+. Which clearly makes it a "Posioned weapon"

No, it makes his Close Combat Attacks Poisoned. That is what the rule says. You are adding things.

But it says it under the envenomed blade entry, therefor its wht causes him to wound on a 2+ i wasn't adding anything to the statement, just making connections that might not otherwise be apparent.

The human mind will generally add what is required to make a sentence parse, to make it make sense. That's what you're doing, because if you don't add words, the rule doesn't make any sense.

The problem is, the rule, as literally written, does not have any value. It says nothing. You can infer, you can make connections, you can take the reasonable train to common sense village, but you can't make the words literally say anything that makes sense.

So how does he make poison close combat attacks with no close combat weapon?

Does he punch you with a 2+ wound?

Does his pistol shoot a poison blade?

I could have swore that the model has a blade, and a pistol.... thus the 2 cc weapons.

Sanchez01 wrote:So how does he make poison close combat attacks with no close combat weapon?

Does he punch you with a 2+ wound?

Does his pistol shoot a poison blade?

I could have swore that the model has a blade, and a pistol.... thus the 2 cc weapons.

He doesn't.

Nowhere does it say he wounds on a 2+.

The pistol has it's own rules.

The model is also lacking a demo charge.

Let's break this down, old school style.

Axiom: There are no rules for poison, outside of the rules for poisoned Weapons.

This is true because nobody can find a counter example.

Thus, any rules for poison must refer to Poison Weapons, or be self sufficient.

If you look at the rules for the Chem Cannon on the Banewolf, it explains that the weapon always wounds on a 2+. Read marbo's entry: it doesn't.

Therefore, any reference to poison that does not include rules for wounding or a reference to Poisoned Weapons has no truth value.

Like it or not, Marbo's rules dont' include the words "close combat weapon," "poison weapon", or any mechanism for wounding.

To get anywhere else, you have to argue one of the following:

That "poisoned(2+)" really means "acts as a poisoned weapon that wounds on a 2+", or

that "poisoned(2+)" means "are a poisoned weapon(2+)", which immediately sets us down a new maze of mirrors about if the blade is itself a poisoned weapon, or if only his other attacks are poisoned weapons.

I think i may have a comparison that could be helpful, Zogwort, he has that nest of viper wargear that makes all of his attacks count as poisoned wounding on a 2+, but does it actually say that it is a poisoned weapon? If not then there is a precedent set for a model gaining the poisoned ruleset without actually having a poisoned ccw. Note: i do not have my codex or my rulebook i'm up in college so if somebody could check the codex for me and back that up or disprove it i think it might help settle this.

Envenomed Blade Marbo carries a large Catachan knife coated with deadly toxins. Guardsmen Marbo's close combat attacks are Poisoned (2+)

Page 61, Codex Imperial Guard

Poisoned Weapons Poisoned weapons range from blades coated in venom to hypodermic claws. They do not rely on a comparison of strength and toughness to wound - They always wound on a fixed number, generally shown in the brackets. Some venoms are so lethal that the merest drop can kill - these may wound on a 3+ or even a 2+ (as described in the appropriate codex) In addition, if the strength of the wielder is the same or higher than the Toughness of the victim, the wielder must re-roll failed rolls to wound in close combat. These weapons confer no advantage against vehicles.

Page 42, Rule Book.

Guardsmen Marbo has both a pistol (Ripper Pistol) and an Close Combat Weapon (Envenomed Blade)

The Blade is listed as a "Large Catachan Knife" now call me stupid, but isn't a knife a weapon... and a large knife as it is? So, he has a pistol and a knife... sounds like he gets a +1 Attack to me.

A weapon does not have to be a CCW to grant the extra attack. A model simply needs to have two one-handed weapons. Now, no where does it state that the Envenomed blade is either one handed or a CCW.

That being said, if anyone tried to argue that it isn't a CCW in a game they are a complete tool. Don't play them as they aren't worth it. If it comes up in a turnament I would bet the judge rules in your favor.

Sanchez01 wrote:

Envenomed Blade Marbo carries a large Catachan knife coated with deadly toxins. Guardsmen Marbo's close combat attacks are Poisoned (2+)

Page 61, Codex Imperial Guard

Poisoned Weapons Poisoned weapons range from blades coated in venom to hypodermic claws. They do not rely on a comparison of strength and toughness to wound - They always wound on a fixed number, generally shown in the brackets. Some venoms are so lethal that the merest drop can kill - these may wound on a 3+ or even a 2+ (as described in the appropriate codex) In addition, if the strength of the wielder is the same or higher than the Toughness of the victim, the wielder must re-roll failed rolls to wound in close combat. These weapons confer no advantage against vehicles.

Page 42, Rule Book.

Guardsmen Marbo has both a pistol (Ripper Pistol) and an Close Combat Weapon (Envenomed Blade)

The Blade is listed as a "Large Catachan Knife" now call me stupid, but isn't a knife a weapon... and a large knife as it is? So, he has a pistol and a knife... sounds like he gets a +1 Attack to me.

I think this is one of the problems of rules debates - it simply takes the fun out of the game (for some). Some people like to win at all costs. Therefore, they'll look for any rule they can to limit the power of something else. If people had their way, every convoluted rule would be turned on its ear because it didn't say "can" versus "may". Really? Now, I'm not judging anyone - some people love the rules debates - but to call an Envenomed Blade that is a large catachan knife not a close combat weapon - doesn't that break more logical rules than it being called a ccw? I mean, let's not forget the "Most Important Rule". If I played against someone playing Marbo, instead of trying to eek them out of one more attack, I'd say, sure, fire away with your 6 attacks. Why? Because if they said, "I have 6 attacks." And I said, "No you don't. The large catachan knife that is poisoned doesn't count as a close combat weapon." They'd probably say (being intelligent, reasoning adults/kids), "What?". According to some, the rulebook has no grounds for leeway and I think that pulls a lot of the fun out of games and rules debates in general.

Just my 2 pennies.

I just what to know on what planet is a knife not a weapon... if someone told me that knife he had does not count as a CCW, then i would either slap him across the face for being a douch/moron or just or just smile and pretend i did not hear a stupid remark.

I don't play marbo, but if my opponent did, i would say he gets 6 attacks...

but when someone tells me a knife... a large catachan knife, is not a close combat weapon... i am just dumbfounded.

the same page mentioned... 42 in the rule book, says knives are close combat weapons. right up in the top.