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.

Posted By insaniak on 12/16/2006 11:23 PM
As has already been pointed out in this thread, there is no stated requirement for a weapon to be categorised as either one- or two-handed.

So, if you're going to claim that a particular weapon is one-handed, it's up to you to find a rule that actually says so.

Already have, several times. If you can't even see where I'm coming from, then there is no debate. You can post again for the last word, I notice you do on all your posts....

No, all you've found is rules saying that certain weapons are two-handed. That certain weapons are two handed does not prove that a witchblade is one-handed.

Posted By Sazzlefrats on 12/16/2006 11:31 PM
Already have, several times. If you can't even see where I'm coming from, then there is no debate.

The whole point of a debate is that you present your viewpoint and then back it up if others disagree.

Simply saying "I'm right, just 'cause I say so" is not a debate. That's making up your mind beforehand and refusing to discuss the issue.

The closest you have got to an actual rule to back it up is the Special Close Combat Attacks entry (which is actually on page 46, not 48 )... but I'm not sure it actually says what you want it to say.

The Witchblade entry does not actually list it as a Close Combat Weapon. The 2nd paragraph infers that the various weapon types listed below it are close combat weapons, but then defines a specific category called 'Close Combat Weapons' with a specific application within the rules.

Weapons from the category 'Close Combat Weapons' confer the +1 attack... but nowhere on that page does it specify that all close combat weapons actually belong to that category. And the actual rules entry that explains how that +1 works (page 40) relies on the weapon being single-handed, not just being a close combat weapon.

So at best you have a vague rule that could be argued for intent, but certainly not by RAW.

Posted By Sazzlefrats on 12/16/2006 11:31 PM
You can post again for the last word, I notice you do on all your posts....

Thanks for your permission.

If I have a response to somebody's post, I post it. That's how discussions work. I couldn't care less about having the last word... but if you don't want a response, posting on here is a surefire route to aggravation.

Posted By insaniak on 12/16/2006 11:45 PM

The Witchblade entry does not actually list it as a Close Combat Weapon. The 2nd paragraph infers that the various weapon types listed below it are close combat weapons, but then defines a specific category called 'Close Combat Weapons' with a specific application within the rules.

Weapons from the category 'Close Combat Weapons' confer the +1 attack... but nowhere on that page does it specify that all close combat weapons actually belong to that category. And the actual rules entry that explains how that +1 works (page 40) relies on the weapon being single-handed, not just being a close combat weapon.

So at best you have a vague rule that could be argued for intent, but certainly not by RAW.

Acutally Insaniak awesome reply, it gave me something to think about. Lets see if I get this whole debate thing figured out.

Pg46. Paragraph2, sentence 1. Some common close combat weapons are listed below... close combat weapons, and then listing close combat weapons with special attacks....heavy close combat weapons, powerweapons, lightning claws, force weapons, witchblade, etc...... ok so now we have solid evidence that the witchblade is a close combat weapon.  This does leave rending weapons and posion attacks as odd examples of close combat weapons, but the posion entry states that these examples will be handled by the codex that said weapons exist. And for rending its pretty much restricted to nids (who's codex goes into clear detail on how to handle them) and chaos that says a model with daemonic claws can not weild other weapons and benfits from having an extra close combat weapon attack, so thats clear too.

pg 40 states that +1 for two weapons, two single handed weapons gives +1 attack (typically a close combat weapon and/or pistol in each hand)

So everything so far is by the rules.


The discenting opinion claims thats the witchblade coudl be two handed... here's the problem. There is no mention of 2 handed weapons in the main rulebook.... if there's no mention of two handed weapons... then there should be no arguement for them (by the rules). Two handed weapons are only listed in specifc codexes and are spelled out in each case(by the specific rules of each codex). So we can't assume that GW forgot to mention them in the main rulebook(we operate under RAW), we must assume that it was intentional that they were not mentioned... probably so we wouldn't have this very discussion.

Posted By Sazzlefrats on 12/17/2006 1:10 AM
Pg46. Paragraph2, sentence 1. Some common close combat weapons are listed below... close combat weapons, and then listing close combat weapons with special attacks....heavy close combat weapons, powerweapons, lightning claws, force weapons, witchblade, etc...... ok so now we have solid evidence that the witchblade is a close combat weapon. 

My point there in my last post was that while they have referred to everything on the page as close combat weapons, they haven't specifically stated that all of those weapons belong to the specific category of close combat weapons that are simply labelled 'Close Combat Weapons'

Posted By Sazzlefrats on 12/17/2006 1:10 AM
The discenting opinion claims thats the witchblade coudl be two handed...

Actually, that's only one of the opposing viewpoints, based on the assumption that weapons should be considered two-handed unless listed otherwise, which isn't actually backed up by the rules either.

The other option is that they are in fact neither one- or -two handed weapons, since those are specific types of weapons that are listed as such in their rules entries... but the Witchblade is instead simply a weapon, and the specific rules for one- or two-handed weapons do not apply to them.

Posted By insaniak on 12/17/2006 11:29 AM

Posted By Sazzlefrats on 12/17/2006 1:10 AM
Pg46. Paragraph2, sentence 1. Some common close combat weapons are listed below... close combat weapons, and then listing close combat weapons with special attacks....heavy close combat weapons, powerweapons, lightning claws, force weapons, witchblade, etc...... ok so now we have solid evidence that the witchblade is a close combat weapon. 

My point there in my last post was that while they have referred to everything on the page as close combat weapons, they haven't specifically stated that all of those weapons belong to the specific category of close combat weapons that are simply labelled 'Close Combat Weapons'

How could they possibly be any more specific, they gave us a list!  Other than close combat weapons what other h2h weapon types are listed in the BGB? NONE.

Posted By Sazzlefrats on 12/17/2006 1:10 AM
The discenting opinion claims thats the witchblade coudl be two handed...

Actually, that's only one of the opposing viewpoints, based on the assumption that weapons should be considered two-handed unless listed otherwise, which isn't actually backed up by the rules either. We can't make that particular assumption because there are no two handed close combat weapons listed in the BGB. The Eldar Codex doesn't even bother mentioning what the witchblade is because its described in the BGB.

The other option is that they are in fact neither one- or -two handed weapons, since those are specific types of weapons that are listed as such in their rules entries... but the Witchblade is instead simply a weapon, and the specific rules for one- or two-handed weapons do not apply to them. Poor assumption, the only h2h weapons in the bgb are close combat weapons.

Posted By Sazzlefrats on 12/17/2006 4:37 PM
How could they possibly be any more specific, they gave us a list! 

They could have been more specific by simply stating that all of the weapons on that page are treated as belonging to the 'Close Combat Weapons' category, with any extra rules as listed.

They didn't do so. They gave us a specific 'Close Combat Weapons' category, which has specific rules, and then gave us a bunch of other catagories that do not reference the 'Close Combat Weapons' category rules.

If the rules don't tell us to apply that category to other types of weapons, we can not do so.

So whether or not a Witchblade is a close combat weapon is irrelevant if it is not listed as belonging to the 'Close Combat Weapons' category. All that matters is that the Witchblade is given its own rules that do not reference the rules section that would grant it the extra attack. Nor is it specifically listed as a single-handed weapon.

It therefore does neither of these things. It is simply a weapon with the rules listed in its rules entry.

Look at the bigger picture.... ALL H2H Weapons Are Close Combat Weapons. If you see any other catagory of H2H weapon show me.

Even a singing spear is a close combat weapon, a huge choppa, even a great weapon... all the same basic catagory.

Posted By Sazzlefrats on 12/17/2006 5:23 PM
ALL H2H Weapons Are Close Combat Weapons.

Why?

Where is your rule that actually states this?

There is no other classification of h2h weapons... if you find another you tell me. Your the one that claims that a witchblade is something other than a close combat weapon. I only see one classification of combat weapon.

Posted By Sazzlefrats on 12/17/2006 7:01 PM
There is no other classification of h2h weapons... if you find another you tell me.

Rulebook, page 46. There are a whole list of different classifications for hand to hand weapons, including:
 - Close Combat Weapons
 - Heavy Close Combat Weapons
 - Power Weapons
 - Lightning Claws
 - etc...

'Witchblade' is simply one of those classifications. It is not in any way linked to the 'Close Combat Weapons' classification.

It absolutely is, its just one of the types of close combat weapons in the game.

Posted By Sazzlefrats on 12/17/2006 8:08 PM
It absolutely is,

No, you're assuming it is. There is no actual rule that says so.

Posted By Sazzlefrats on 12/17/2006 8:08 PM
its just one of the types of close combat weapons in the game.

Of course it is. but it isn't a type of close combat weapons from the category entitled 'Close Combat Weapons'... and so can not use the rules for that category.

You have close combat weapons, which are weapons used in close combat. And you have a specific category of close combat weapons, entitled 'Close Combat Weapons' which have specific rules when used in close combat.

You can't just apply the rules for 'Close Combat Weapons' to some other kind of close combat weapon any more than you can use Assault weapons in the Assault phase.

They're just two different things that (due to GW's poor use of terminology) happen to share a name.


Ultimately, it's not going to make a lot of difference. Most players will treat it as a single-handed weapon. All I was questioning was the rules basis behind that assumption.

And there we go, you claim that close combat weapons aren't all close combat weapons. If you want crystal clear rules you need a games company willing to have them written or clarified that way. However GW has a horrid writing techinique and demanding concisly written rules out of them is just going to lead to frustration. "You can't just apply the rules for 'Close Combat Weapons' to some other kind of close combat weapon" Why not? They are all close combat weapons, there is no other terminolgy. There's no conflict in the rules as written and the only place close combat weapons are described is the same page where are the examples of close combat weapons are given. Anyhow best of luck, if RAW has failed you go to commonsense, majority rule or what have you, and as you say we play it 1handed and I know we will... I think the rules are reasonable as they stand.. in this case.

Posted By Sazzlefrats on 12/17/2006 9:12 PM
And there we go, you claim that close combat weapons aren't all close combat weapons.

No, I'm claiming that not all close combat weapons are Close Combat Weapons.

Posted By Sazzlefrats on 12/17/2006 9:12 PM
 However GW has a horrid writing techinique and demanding concisly written rules out of them is just going to lead to frustration.

Hence my comment on how it will likely be played by the majority of people... myself included, since the method I stated earlier in the thread for how I apply the one- or two-handed rules is still the way I would do it.

You seem to have gotten confused as to just what we were discussing... which was what the rules actually say. The fact that the rules are badly written has no impact on that. The rules still say what they say.

Posted By Sazzlefrats on 12/17/2006 9:12 PM
 "You can't just apply the rules for 'Close Combat Weapons' to some other kind of close combat weapon" Why not?

For exactly the same reason you can't apply the rules for Assault weapons to the Assault phase.

The rules just don't work like that. If you have a specific rule that applies to a specified situation, you can not apply it to any other situation... particularly when those other situations have their own specific rules. Game rules just don't work like that.