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.

According to the entry under The Serpent's Bite, he fights with two Venom Blades. (He also has a Blast Pistol.) I say he can't be disarmed by the Exarch power, since he counts as having two poisoned weapons (the two venom blades), and he will still have the blast pistol. So even if an opponent successfully disarms one blade, the duke STILL has another blade plus the blast pistol, meaning his total attack profile will be unchanged. One opponent has argued that the Duke's two blades come from a single wargear rule (the serpent's bite) and are therefore both disarmed at the same time. He says that Marneus Calgar also has a dual set of weapons that fire using one profile, and argues that this is precedent for his case.

"These blades count as two poisoned weapons." (Direct quote from the DE codex.)

What do you guys think? Sliscus undisarmable, or not?

I would say not, for the reason you stated.

It's two weapons, and disarm only drops one.

Unless you have more than one person doing the disarm thing...

 Ascalam wrote:

Unless you have more than one person doing the disarm thing...

Not possible. Disarming Strike is done during a Challenge.

Fair enough then.

I do not know enough about this precedent, is there are Frequently Asked Question or Rule that can be quoted?

The Serpent's Bite:
"These blades count as two Poisoned Weapons (2+)."

Disarming Strike:
"nominate one of the opponent's melee weapons - this is treated as a close combat weapon until the end of the phase."

The Serpent's Bite is one piece of wargear, but is explicitly 2 weapons. Disarming Strike allows you to nominate 1 weapon. He can remove the special effects of one of the blades, but it won't matter because the Duke can just use the other one. If he tries to nominate "The Serpent's Bite" as a whole, he's breaking the rules for Disarming Strike which only allows you to nominate one weapon.

I was meaning the precedent Jimsolo's opponent mentioned, as I can not see why it is relevant to the disarming element even in Marneus Calgar's case. Baring some Frequently Asked Question stating that both Gauntlets are disarmed if one is, it stands to reason that Marneus Calgar is in fact pointless to disarm for the very same reason Duke Sliscus would be. He also has a secondary melee weapon he can use to evoke the More Then One Weapon Rule even if one of the two gauntlets are somehow disarmed, given that they are strangely not Specialist Weapons. The additional bonus of being able to 'shoot them together' during the shooting phase is meaningless.

 Jimsolo wrote:
I say he can't be disarmed by the Exarch power, since he counts as having two poisoned weapons (the two venom blades), and he will still have the blast pistol. So even if an opponent successfully disarms one blade, the duke STILL has another blade plus the blast pistol, meaning his total attack profile will be unchanged.

Technically he can be disarmed but as you said he would still have the one blade and the pistol so would still have the same number of attacks. So yes he can be disarmed but it wouldn't do anything.

Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
I say he can't be disarmed by the Exarch power, since he counts as having two poisoned weapons (the two venom blades), and he will still have the blast pistol. So even if an opponent successfully disarms one blade, the duke STILL has another blade plus the blast pistol, meaning his total attack profile will be unchanged.

Technically he can be disarmed but as you said he would still have the one blade and the pistol so would still have the same number of attacks. So yes he can be disarmed but it wouldn't do anything.

He wouldn't even need the pistol. Disarming Strike doesn't completely delete the weapon, it replaces it with a bog standard CCW. As the blades from The Serpent's Bite aren't specialist weapons, they can combine with CCWs for an extra attack.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
I was meaning the precedent Jimsolo's opponent mentioned, involving Marneus Calgar's Gauntlets, as I can not see why it is relevant. Baring some Frequently Asked Question stating that both Gauntlets are disarmed if one is, that I clearly do not know about, the fact that this one piece of wargear grants two weapons simply means it would be impossible to disarm or reduce Marneus Calgar's attacks either. He also has a secondary melee weapon he can use to evoke the More Then One Weapon Rule even if one of the two gauntlets are somehow disarmed, given that they are strangely not Specialist Weapons.

My mistake. I think he's more going for a "one weapon/piece of wargear that looks like two, but isn't" approach. I can't comment on Calgar's Powergloves, but the old Eldar Chainsabres, Power Blades, and Mirrorblades were all single weapons that gave an extra attack as if two weapons, and fluff wise were paired weapons. Thus they'd all be neutralised by Disarming Strike, as they were technically only 1 weapon.

In relation to those additional weapons, is there any Frequently Asked Question that supports the concept that disarming one would disarm both?

JinxDragon wrote:
In relation to those additional weapons, is there any Frequently Asked Question that supports the concept that disarming one would disarm both?

At the time, yes. As the FAQ ruled they did not qualify for extra attacks due to 2CCWs as there weren't 2 CCWs. Of course, those 3 examples both pre-date Disarming Strike, and no longer exist due to the new codex. But do remind me of one other example that does exist, that of Nemesis Falchions. From GK, "A wielder of a pair of Nemesis falchions has +1 Attack." Note that Falchions can only be bought as a single wargear option, which is named almost invariably as "Pair of Nemesis Falchions." Looks like two weapons, smells like two weapons. But not explicitly two weapons. Which then goes with the following FAQ:

"Q: Do Nemesis falchions count as 2 close combat weapons and thus give +2 Attacks in close combat (+1 for their special rule and +1 for wielding 2 close combat weapons)? (p54)
A: No, they just give +1 Attack."

So not actually two weapons. As far as rules are concerned they are 1 weapon, which means that Disarming Strike would take them "both" out. It would also mean they could be combined with a CCW to get the extra bonus if any GK could actually take another CCW with them.

Even with Old Codex Syndrome I still find that interesting, one of those curious situations where it both makes sense and doesn't at the same time.
At least it puts them on par with the Tyranid Codex's Rule of 'a pair is one melee weapon,' and also shows why the Author felt it necessary to state that Serpents Bite are two individual weapons.

I've just looked up Papa Smurf's rules, and the gauntlets are an odd middle ground.

"Each Gauntlet of Ultramar can be used as a melee weapon with the following melee weapon profile."

So far so good, "each Gauntlet of Ultramar" means that there are more than 1, so the "Gauntlets of Ultramar" are at the very least a pair of melee weapons.

"The combined pair can also be fired as a ranged weapon, using the ranged weapon profile below."

But when you shoot the built in pea-shooters, the Gauntlets of Ultramar Voltron it up to become a single ranged weapon.

So it's a single Chapter Relic, which is a pair of melee weapons and also simultaneously a single ranged weapon.

They are a little curious, but I don't think each individual glove looses their 'individual' status even during the Shooting Phase. While the rule states that both gloves are used in conjunction, granting a 'single shooting profile,' it is still identifying that there are two individual. At best I read it as a Restriction that we need both in order to access the shooting profile, at worse it is nothing more then fluff explanation as to why the profile has Assault 2 and to create the image that he is thrusting both fists forward, clapping them together or some other pose involving both Gloves. Honestly, it would be an interesting Restriction that could be useful if I could think of something which removes a model's weapon permanently outside of the Vehicle Damage charts.

Regardless to the topic on hand, which focuses only on Melee Weapons, but an interesting line of thought.

Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
I say he can't be disarmed by the Exarch power, since he counts as having two poisoned weapons (the two venom blades), and he will still have the blast pistol. So even if an opponent successfully disarms one blade, the duke STILL has another blade plus the blast pistol, meaning his total attack profile will be unchanged.

Technically he can be disarmed but as you said he would still have the one blade and the pistol so would still have the same number of attacks. So yes he can be disarmed but it wouldn't do anything.

I agree with this. Yes, he can lose one of the blades but it doesn't change anything. The text is pretty clear that the blades are in fact 2 different weapons.

Chrysis wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
In relation to those additional weapons, is there any Frequently Asked Question that supports the concept that disarming one would disarm both?

At the time, yes. As the FAQ ruled they did not qualify for extra attacks due to 2CCWs as there weren't 2 CCWs. Of course, those 3 examples both pre-date Disarming Strike, and no longer exist due to the new codex. But do remind me of one other example that does exist, that of Nemesis Falchions. From GK, "A wielder of a pair of Nemesis falchions has +1 Attack." Note that Falchions can only be bought as a single wargear option, which is named almost invariably as "Pair of Nemesis Falchions." Looks like two weapons, smells like two weapons. But not explicitly two weapons. Which then goes with the following FAQ:

"Q: Do Nemesis falchions count as 2 close combat weapons and thus give +2 Attacks in close combat (+1 for their special rule and +1 for wielding 2 close combat weapons)? (p54)
A: No, they just give +1 Attack."

So not actually two weapons. As far as rules are concerned they are 1 weapon, which means that Disarming Strike would take them "both" out. It would also mean they could be combined with a CCW to get the extra bonus if any GK could actually take another CCW with them.

It depends upon what they are referring to with the word "no." Does it mean "No they aren't two weapons," or does the emphasis on "they just give +1 attack" demonstrate that GW use of the word "no" is linked to the "+2 attacks" in the question therefore making the answer mean "no, they don't give +2 attacks, they just give +1 attack." This then would make the answer about falchions similar to elder jetbikes. Jetbikes state that they give +1 toughness, but they aren't 4T +1T, it's already included. So, GW's answer for falchions FAQs in the "it's already included" part of the sentence, and does nothing to the "it's two weapons" part.

===edit===
fixed a typo

IMHO

Using both venom blades? No

Using one blade and pistol? Yes

Is there a mechanism for forcing him to choose which set-up he uses that combat phase (like, say he shot in his shooting phase)? No, and thats where the problem arises when characters have 3 single hand weapons.

key wording "counts as" that means it still ids 1 weapon/rule for the purposes of disarmining, simple english

wargamer1985 wrote:
key wording "counts as" that means it still ids 1 weapon/rule for the purposes of disarmining, simple english

This ruleset tends to break if you don't take "count as = is".

no it really doesn't... simple one for you does my fist still count as a hand?

If a Rule disabling one weapon disables both, have they been counted as two separate weapons?
As far as the Rules are concerned, whenever we encounter instructions telling us to count X as Y we have to resolve any situations involving X in the same way one would Resolve those situations for Y.

Therefore, to answer your question:
Your Fist is only counts as a Hand if the Rules state that Fists are Hands.

wargamer1985 wrote:
no it really doesn't... simple one for you does my fist still count as a hand?

No, but in actual rule instances with "count-as" will work properly if read as "is".
Your hand has nothing to do in this ruleset

wargamer1985 wrote:
no it really doesn't... simple one for you does my fist still count as a hand?

So a ds vehicle hasn't moved at cruising speed?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

wargamer1985 wrote:
no it really doesn't... simple one for you does my fist still count as a hand?

So a ds vehicle hasn't moved at cruising speed?

Has it moved more than 6" on the table?

And wargamer; this has been explained to you several times.

counts as = is in the rules.
treated as = is in the rules.

and yes, your fist is still a hand.

so do you have any factual rules basis for your claim of counts as = is from the brb or de faq? the answer to the brb would be no and i cannot comment on the de codex or faq as those i dont, but a singular weapon which doubles as a pair in cqb is still a singular weapon for rules purposes UNLESS the wording is "is" soimple english

Where does it say that it is a single weapon? The Serpents Bite is simply a name. The rule states that the Duke fights with twin venom blades. The only difference is that these venom blades rend on 5+.

Wargamer1985,
If we fail to resolve X as if it was Y, all we have done is treated or counted X as if it was still X....
And that is not what the Rule tells us to do.