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.

Ok, apparently two weeks of discussion about the nature of YMDC and what the purposes of these debates are haven't yielded any fruit.

This isn't a question of how it should be played. We all agree how it should be played. The quesion, and it's one that has merit, is "what do the rules actually say."

Now, I'm not a RAW literalist, and I think that RAI should be used when it's clear and RAW is either unclear or nonsensical. I think that there are people on this board that cling a little too tightly to RAW, and we don't get along so well sometimes. That's still no excuse to go half cocked against RAW: It is, after all, the rules.

Now, Rules debates in game suck the fun out of games. Rules debates outside of games enable you to prevent rules debates inside games, or at the lease, settle them before a game begins.

In this case, it means telling an opponent "look, accorind to the RAW the envenomed knife isn't actually a poisoned weapon, but I think it should still be played as one." Most reasonable people will agree, and those that don't, you at least know ahead of time how Marbo will treat you.

Now, as for the actually rules discussion, allow me to quote myself (in which I also quote myself, for recursive quoting!)

Polonius wrote:
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.

I'm guessing some of the more recent posters haven't read the whole thread, and while that's ok in most forums, your arguments aren't exactly fresh at this point.

Polonius wrote:

Now, I'm not a RAW literalist, and I think that RAI should be used when it's clear and RAW is either unclear or nonsensical. I think that there are people on this board that cling a little too tightly to RAW, and we don't get along so well sometimes. That's still no excuse to go half cocked against RAW: It is, after all, the rules.

I think this is what I was getting at.

puma713 wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Now, I'm not a RAW literalist, and I think that RAI should be used when it's clear and RAW is either unclear or nonsensical. I think that there are people on this board that cling a little too tightly to RAW, and we don't get along so well sometimes. That's still no excuse to go half cocked against RAW: It is, after all, the rules.

I think this is what I was getting at.

The thing to remember is that people very rarely support rules ideologies for game advantage. Maybe a person does that on a single ruling cause he's looking for an edge, but a person that's generally pro-RAW or pro-RAI usually takes the good with the bad.

I wrote up a thing on this issue http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253127.page that addresses some of why people do what they do. For the record, I play IG, I use Marbo, and I'm going to take both the poison and the extra attacks.

In short, its' very easy online to assume that people that disagree with you are doing so for malicious reasons, but that's usually not the case.

Polonius wrote:Ok, apparently two weeks of discussion about the nature of YMDC and what the purposes of these debates are haven't yielded any fruit.

This isn't a question of how it should be played. We all agree how it should be played. The quesion, and it's one that has merit, is "what do the rules actually say."

What the rules actually say might as well be "wibble wibble schplitt", as they're written by complete idiots. Arguing RAW matters in a game whose rules are as robust as a candyfloss umbrella is the pastime of the masochistic and the terminally imbecilic.

Wow, I'm off for a few hours to get my beauty sleep and you're on page three here.

Just a little thing: The people here who become slightly indignant about the RAW reading of the rules, because they think they're stupid - I can understand that. However, I just noticed that there are many "this is stupid", "this takes the fun out of the game", "I'd punch someone in the face if they try to tell me that blade is not a CCW" posts directed in the general direction of Polonius (and partially Gwar!), who advocate the RAW side here. However, in this thread, Polonius stated how he would play it first and then clearly went on to what the rules say. Hell, even Gwar! stated that the RAW could probably be read both ways. So, for the indignant people that dislike the RAW reading: No reason to be indignant! All that Polonius and Gwar! and other people supporting their view (like me) are trying to find out is what the rules really say. They're not trying to convince you that it should be played that Marbo gets no +1 attack, they are just providing you witht the conclusion that, by pure RAW, he does not get it.

So, no need for heated discussion between "how it should be played" and "this is RAW!", because these are different topics.

Finally, I agree with Polonius' final statements: The RAW seems to be too badly written to make his blade a poisoned CCW. However, with the tiny logical step from an envenomed blade that has poisoned(2+) attacks to a "poisoned weapon" - which is at most a slight deviaton from pure RAW reading - and some common sense, I think we can all agree that in this case it was really intended to be a poisoned weapon. Right?


(However, a short discussion with your opponent before the game is still in order, if not to show them how badly GW writes some rules.)

Polonius wrote: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.

To go utterly off topic, but I support this to be added to the YMTC rules

Witzkatz wrote:
Just a little thing: The people here who become slightly indignant about the RAW reading of the rules, because they think they're stupid - I can understand that. However, I just noticed that there are many "this is stupid", "this takes the fun out of the game", "I'd punch someone in the face if they try to tell me that blade is not a CCW" posts directed in the general direction of Polonius (and partially Gwar!), who advocate the RAW side here. However, in this thread, Polonius stated how he would play it first and then clearly went on to what the rules say. Hell, even Gwar! stated that the RAW could probably be read both ways. So, for the indignant people that dislike the RAW reading: No reason to be indignant! All that Polonius and Gwar! and other people supporting their view (like me) are trying to find out is what the rules really say. They're not trying to convince you that it should be played that Marbo gets no +1 attack, they are just providing you witht the conclusion that, by pure RAW, he does not get it.

That's very well put. I'd go one step further in that we've shown what the RAW strictly says, but we can also see the context of the overall rule as strong evidence that it's a Poisoned Weapon.

So, no need for heated discussion between "how it should be played" and "this is RAW!", because these are different topics.

Well, the reason I persued the RAW to it's extreme here was not to get people to follow it, but to justify ignoring it. By showing that not only did Marbo not get an extra attack, but by RAW his attacks weren't even poisoned, it enables me to argue more convincingly that the RAW should be read in context.

Finally, I agree with Polonius' final statements: The RAW seems to be too badly written to make his blade a poisoned CCW. However, with the tiny logical step from an envenomed blade that has poisoned(2+) attacks to a "poisoned weapon" - which is at most a slight deviaton from pure RAW reading - and some common sense, I think we can all agree that in this case it was really intended to be a poisoned weapon. Right?


(However, a short discussion with your opponent before the game is still in order, if not to show them how badly GW writes some rules.)

Well, a good YMDC outcome isn't always an answer, but a nicely boiled down issue with the key arguments for both sides. I think we've down that here.

So there are those that believe the this RAW creates a non-functional weapon/ability due to a minor miss-communication of wording?

So if the rules for his envenomed blade stated : this is a poisoned weapon that wounds on a 2+
there would be no issue?

However what his rules actually say describes a poisoned weapon to a tee almost exactly as described in the BGB.

Red_Lives wrote:So there are those that believe the this RAW creates a non-functional weapon/ability due to a minor miss-communication of wording?

Yes

So if the rules for his envenomed blade stated : this is a poisoned weapon that wounds on a 2+
there would be no issue?

Yes

However what his rules actually say describes a poisoned weapon to a tee almost exactly as described in the BGB.

Almost doesn't cut it.

Pretty much sums this thread up for those like myself who just made the mistake of reading the entire thing.

Witzkatz wrote:I just noticed that there are many "this is stupid", "this takes the fun out of the game", "I'd punch someone in the face if they try to tell me that blade is not a CCW" posts directed in the general direction of Polonius (and partially Gwar!), who advocate the RAW side here.

I can live with "What does a strict parsing of the words actually say". I even agree that the exercise can be useful. Dialog is always useful if the purpose is to share ideas and to try and understand what others think on a subject. In my opinion, any idea worth having should be strong enough to be discussed on it's merits.

What I don't think is useful is either overt name calling or insinuation. Someone who wants to play by the rules as best they understand them is not "stupid" or "TFG" and someone who wants the rules to actually make sense and thinks they are sometimes interpreted differently is not a "cheater" or "doesn't care" about the rules. What I find is usually someone who resorts to name calling is running out of idea so they have to create a diversion.

While it's not been the 100% stellar example of what a mature discussion should be I am encouraged by the general direction YMDC is taking as exhibited by this thread.

Oh, and FWIW while Marbro may not get the extra attack by RAW (I just haven't made enough synapses fire to form an opinion and this thread never answered the question) the way I would play it is to let him have them. It fits the theme and if I'm on the receiving end of things then I damn well deserve to have that extra attack put to me for letting Marbro get close enough to use it.

The Green Git wrote: I'm on the receiving end of things then I damn well deserve to have that extra attack put to me for letting Marbro get close enough to use it.

+1

I'm quite happy that this thread needed only three pages to come to the conclusion of

"RAW probably not 100% supportive of extra attack, but nevertheless a possible interpretation - discuss with your opponent before the game."

In other threads, you need seven pages of fighting with hard bandages before you get something like this.


(I'm a Marbo user, too. If my opponent insisted on him not getting the extra attack I would probably let it be played that way - his main usage is still the demo charge anyway. Today he blew up a 165 points predator on turn 3, relieving my armour of the threat. 65 points killing 165 points - what do you want more from an Elite unit? )

Ok, I talked to the GW store manager about this... Guardsmen Marbo does get 6 attacks on the charge... His envenomed blade is a special weapon and follows the rules on page 42 of the mini rule book under the section of A Normal and Special Weapon. So you do get the +1 attack for having both a pistol (Normal CCW) and envenomed blade (Special CCW).

Sanchez01 wrote:Ok, I talked to the GW store manager about this... Guardsmen Marbo does get 6 attacks on the charge... His envenomed blade is a special weapon and follows the rules on page 42 of the mini rule book under the section of A Normal and Special Weapon. So you do get the +1 attack for having both a pistol (Normal CCW) and envenomed blade (Special CCW).

And I talked to Robin Cruddace and he said Marbo gets 5 Attacks. </sarcasm>

What GW managers say means less than what a Coin Says. At least a Coin is right half the time.

Well a store manager has more credit then you Gwar.

The model has a knife... what else would he put venom... hell it even says he has a knife... and knives are a ccw. put 2 and 2 together. I don't know why you fight this... it is clear he gets his +1 for 2 ccw.

Sanchez01 wrote:Well a store manager has more credit then you Gwar.

The model has a knife... what else would he put venom... hell it even says he has a knife... and knives are a ccw. put 2 and 2 together. I don't know why you fight this... it is clear he gets his +1 for 2 ccw.

I have also heard a GW manager say that Hellfire Rounds can be fired out of a Storm Bolter. So no,they really don't have that much credit.

Sanchez01 wrote:Well a store manager has more credit then you Gwar.

Really? Can I ask why? What possible Qualifications does he have that make his opinion more valid than mine? Does he work at GW HQ Making the rules? Did he help in writing the Guard Codex? Is he The Emperor?

Eternal Newb wrote:I have also heard a GW manager say that Hellfire Rounds can be fired out of a Storm Bolter. So no,they really don't have that much credit.

See Point about Coins and why they are better than GW Managers.

Sanchez01 wrote:it is clear he gets his +1 for 2 ccw.

To quote Polonius (whom I am starting to grow to like I must admit ) '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."'

Gwar just doesnt want to admit that he is wrong.

jp400 wrote:Gwar just doesnt want to admit that he is wrong.

Of course I don't, especially when I am not wrong. That would be very counter-productive wouldn't it!

It seems I just cannot please anyone anymore. When I go strict RaW, people call me a Evil Rules Lawyer Bastard, yet when I say "Ok, this is the RaW, but this is what I would play it", I get attacked.

I'd let my opponent have the extra attack. It just makes sense to me seeing it's a knife and hence a close combat weapon. It's not like he is going to shave wif it really now.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:I'd let my opponent have the extra attack. It just makes sense to me seeing it's a knife and hence a close combat weapon. It's not like he is going to shave wif it really now.

G

Aye, but you have to admit from a Rules standpoint he shouldn't really?

lol

Omg... mark this day........ I find myself agreeing with Green Blow fly on something!

Gwar! Dont get all 4th point of contact hurt, your not being attacked... unless you call people not bending over backwards to agree with you an attack.

jp400 wrote:lol

Omg... mark this day........ I find myself agreeing with Green Blow fly on something!

Gwar! Dont get all 4th point of contact hurt, your not being attacked... unless you call people not bending over backwards to agree with you an attack.

Yes, mark it twice because even I agree with him. It's the exact same situation as Calgar. They do not get the bonus attack, but if my opponent whined, I wouldn't get into an argument about it (Unless he was a major prick and/or a Scientologist.)

Green Blow Fly wrote:I'd let my opponent have the extra attack. It just makes sense to me seeing it's a knife and hence a close combat weapon. It's not like he is going to shave wif it really now.

G

Well I would give him the extra attack even though its not listed as a CCW or as being single handed. GW seems to be forgetting handedness more and more ... even though its a fairly crucial for gaining an extra attack in CC.

He lost the battle cause his Knife wasnt listed as a CCW in the Predator Codex.......

Gwar, if he has no knife, then he has no way of delivering the poison attacks... so he then just attacks with a pistol in cc...

it says he has a long knife... why are you arguing he does not... the codex says knife... and a knife is a CCW...

Sanchez01 wrote:Gwar, if he has no knife, then he has no way of delivering the poison attacks... so he then just attacks with a pistol in cc...

Actually, RaW, this is correct, as there are only rules for Poisoned Weapons, which the Codex does not say he has.

it says he has a long knife... why are you arguing he does not... the codex says knife... and a knife is a CCW...

Yes, the Codex Says Knife. So what? It doesn't say it is a CCW. If you are going to claim it is a CCW even though it has no rules saying it is a CCW, I want my Bolters to count as CCW so my Tactical Marines can get a Bonus Attack too.

In case you forgot to read the thread, this is a discussion on the RaW, not HWYPI. We have already established what the RaW is (he doesn't), and How most people would play it (he does).
If you would like to give an argument as to why you feel the rules are in your favour, I will be glad to hear it and reply.

I don't know why so many people have to make things up to pretend that the rules coincide with how they play the game. GW writes bad rules. If we all played 100% by the rules, we would hardly be able to play the game at all.

willydstyle wrote:I don't know why so many people have to make things up to pretend that the rules coincide with how they play the game. GW writes bad rules. If we all played 100% by the rules, we would hardly be able to play the game at all.

Exactly. However 95% of the game is perfectly playable, even if it doesn't "make sense" or "isn't supposed to work that way".