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.

BeRzErKeR wrote:Frost Blade 1 increases the model's strength by 1. 4+1=5.

Frost Blade 2 increases the model's strength by 1. 4+1=5.

You attack at Strength 5.

agreed SImple

Also, if they contributed different bonuses (making them +2 in total) it would not be two of the same weapon, so it would rule like two different special weapons with separate bonuses, and you would have to choses +1 or +1

Where does it say it would not stack outside of combat?

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:Frost Blade 1 increases the model's strength by 1. 4+1=5.

Frost Blade 2 increases the model's strength by 1. 4+1=5.

You attack at Strength 5.

agreed SImple

Why agreed?

Fluff <> rules, so WHERE the strength bonus is coming from (the fluff) does not matter. So looking at SW Codex page 57 - "Regardless of what they look like, all frost blades or frost axes are power weapons that add +1 to the user's strength"


From BRB

The power weapon portion only dissalows armor saves.

Two special weapons

Gain one additional attack. All of their attacks, including the bonus attack, use the special weapon's bonuses and penalties.

This does NOT state use ONE of the special weapon's bonuses, it explicitly covers the fact that two are already used by the heading "Two of the same special weapons".

Based on permission, the codex says you get +1 str for the weapon. If there are two you get +2 str.

This is how I read it.

It does specify ONE weapon, as it uses special weapon's bonuses.

That refer's to the TYPE since the heading covers the fact that there are two of the same weapon.

I don't think it's as clear cut as everyone is trying to make it out.

phyrephly wrote:That refer's to the TYPE since the heading covers the fact that there are two of the same weapon.

I don't think it's as clear cut as everyone is trying to make it out.

Then your trying to rre write the rules for an advantage. We've posted the rules, and why.

I'm a SW player. I would LOVE if Frost Blade str advantage stacked. It doesn't and you would be laughed out of a tournament if you said it did.

Its not even like its not clear cut.

Ok, I am just saying that there is nothing that stops you from getting the bonus.

What is the model's strength when NOT attacking?

1 Frostblade gives +1 Strength
2 Frostblades gives no additional bonuses as the Lord already has an extra attack for 2 CC weapons.
Just make the model with 2 Frostblades and pay (points wise) for one.

Except it states you can only USE one weapon. You get all the bonuses of ONE weapon, not 2. So yes, you are stopped from using both,...

It does not, in any way, refer to the type. It specifies all attacks gain the bonuses of the special *weapon*, NOT "weapons".

If you are using the special abilities of 1 frostblade you get +1 strength. Nothing more.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except it states you can only USE one weapon. You get all the bonuses of ONE weapon, not 2.

Where does it state that?

The term Weapon's is referring to the type NOT the quantitiy.

When he is not attacking, is the wolf lords str 6? Since the rule for multiple close combat weapons says when attacking.

"Special weapon's"

Weapon is SINGULAR. As has been explained since the first page....

Yes I understand that, there is only one TYPE of weapon.

Where are you getting type from?

THe context, clearly, is that ALL attacks are made with the bonuses from the, singular, weapon you have chosen. That is exactly what is stated - no mention of "type" anywhere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Additionally: the headings arent what you are using, but what happens if you *have* that weapon combination.

There is also no quantity explicitly indicated. And the base weapon increases the users strength, does not resolve the attacks at a different strength. I will play it as everyone says, I just don't agree with it.

Weapon is singular. There is your quantity.

But that is IMPLICIT not EXPLICIT. Which means that we are interpreting. No explicit prohibition has been placed on the second addition of strength.

One question that is still unanswered is what the str is outside of combat?

Yes, it IS explicit. It is as explicit as saying you can only have 1 weapon in use, because it is using the singular form of "weapon". Just because it doesnt say "1" doesnt make it implicit - in fact saying "1" would be a redundancy.

No interpretation beyond understanding the difference between singular and plural.

If it said "weapons" without the apostrophe you would be using both weapons, and the bonuses of each.

Weapon's bonuses - the bonuses of one weapon
Weapons' bonuses - the bonuses of multiple weapons

Scott-S6 wrote:Weapon's bonuses - the bonuses of one weapon
Weapons' bonuses - the bonuses of multiple weapons

English is my first language, and what you typed above still provides nothing EXPLICIT.

phyrephly wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:Weapon's bonuses - the bonuses of one weapon
Weapons' bonuses - the bonuses of multiple weapons

English is my first language, and what you typed above still provides nothing EXPLICIT.

It really is because it says in the rulebook "The models gain one additional attack. All of their attacks, including the bonus attack, use the special weapon's bonuses and penalties"(Pg 42 of the BRB)
This means that both weapons can only use the special effects of one of them. I.e. Frostblade 1 and 2 can only use the special effects of either frostblade 1 or frostblade 2 but not both at the same time.
The frostbade special effect is to ignore armour saves and icrease the users strengh by 1.

phyrephly wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:Weapon's bonuses - the bonuses of one weapon
Weapons' bonuses - the bonuses of multiple weapons

English is my first language, and what you typed above still provides nothing EXPLICIT.

In what way is that not explicit?

It is every bit as explicit as saying "the bonuses of one weapon". The two are entirely interchangeable.

Scott-S6 wrote:

phyrephly wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:Weapon's bonuses - the bonuses of one weapon
Weapons' bonuses - the bonuses of multiple weapons

English is my first language, and what you typed above still provides nothing EXPLICIT.

In what way is that not explicit?

It is every bit as explicit as saying "the bonuses of one weapon". The two are entirely interchangeable.

The two are not interchangable, that is the point I am trying to make. The apostrophe refers to owernership or possesion. The properties that belong to that weapon. NOT quantity. I don't play space wolves and probably never will, but when I read it, there is nothing in the BRB rules portion that states quantity. Only posession. It refers to a singular noun since in the case of the frost swords, there is still only a single type.

Reference below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostrophe

WEAPON is singular. Until you can show how type is important (which you have yet to do so) your issue is unfounded.

phyrephly wrote:The two are not interchangable, that is the point I am trying to make. The apostrophe refers to owernership or possesion. The properties that belong to that weapon.

Exactly. The properties of that Weapon.

Not the properties of multiple weapons.

ETA, your wikipedia link actually spells it out under basic rules - singular nouns and basic rules - plural nouns.

All of their attacks, including the bonus attack, use the special weapon’s bonuses and penalties. (direct from BRB)

We know that there are two different weapons, since this is covered in the current entry in the rule book(two of the same special weapon).

Nosferatu, you are asking for how type is important:

The apostrophe denotes POSESSION. The statement refers to a singular INSTANCE of the weapon, because they are showing that the WEAPON POSSES the properties. In English, if you read it the WAY IT IS WRITTEN, it says that the properties belong to the one INSTANCE/TYPE of weapon. It does not, AS IT IS WRITTEN, state that only one weapon (in terms of quantity) should be used.

RAI - The intention was to remove the conferred bonuses from choosing two of the same weapon, but in PURE ENGLISH, that is not what is written there.

Except you are inferring type when it is not included.

You use the special abilities and bonuses of the weapon. Not the weapons, which would include BOTH weapons, but the weapon *singular*

In pure English you are incorrect.

Ok, you win. I give up. Catch you all tomorrow for more fun

I was about to say something similar: we've gone round in circles somwhat...

I think we can all agree that it wouldn't have hurt them to spell it out a little more.

In fact, a statement of policy on stacking in general would have been nice.