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.

All page 37 says that having 3+ weapons gives no additional benefit, thus only confer +1 attack. It has nothing to do with this discussion.

I agree with Regwon's point of information...

Regwon wrote:Since there is no RAW on this you must decide amoungst yourselves.

Its a bit ridiculous that GW would create an ultimate special character with his own rule titled 'God of War' and somehow through some legalistic loop hole people would not allow that 'God of War' Character to have +1 attacks.

I'd give him +1, if he survived me shooting at him my squad is probably as good as dead anyway. Its only a game, but it turns into a sissy whinge fight if you argue about nit picking points like that.

I reckon a voting poll is in order.

ps. I studied classics and the roman legionaires used their sword as a secondary weapon, it was for stabbing barbarians with after the spear and shield were lost. So if the Ultramarines are so based on the Romans, I reckon its a backup sword and mostly for decoration.

Scott-S6 wrote:Tri, I totally get your point about selecting which two weapons to wield and it's a very sensible approach. However, there's nothing in the rules to support this extra step of selecting which two weapons to use.

In fact, on p37 it specifically mentions fighting with more than two weapons.

No, there's nothing about picking which weapon you want to use. Trouble is if a model has the option of X or Y (and now in many cases ,or Z) how do you use the rules on page 42 if you've no say in what is used? If you have 2 two handed weapons there is no rules for choosing which you hit with. In order for any one to use any close combat weapons there must be a choice. No it is not RAW, but without that choice models can't do jack, because you've reach a part of the game that has not been covered by the written rules.

At some point you need to decide that you are hitting with one or two weapons and that it/they will be X, Y or Z. No, this is not a written rule but like deploying units ... Nothing says you must use the rules for moving to deploy your army but i better every one reading this deploys their unit in coherency, not on Impassible terrain, beasts are all at ground level and no model is on top of one another.

Regwon wrote:1 Powerfist + 1 Powerfist + 1 Powersword = Three special weapons and a gap in the rules (RAW only cover situation for using TWO special weapons).

Since there is no RAW on this you must decide amoungst yourselves.

Actually, IIRC he only has two weapons. Power Sword and the Gauntlets of Ultramar. The gauntlets may consist of and/or act as two powerfists, but it's listed as a single weapon. So the three weapons argument is out the window.

And Tri, if there's nothing about selecting weapons, then how do you know what he's hitting his opponent with. Do I, as your opponent get to choose. OK, you just hit my tank with your power sword. No, at some point, you have to CHOOSE what he's using. That kicks in the two special weapons rule, and means the never get the bonus clause is in effect.

Now, is this what GW intended? I don't know. Only the codex author knows what was going through his mind when he wrote this. that they would have FAQed this by now, but alas, they tend to ignore the contentious issues. It does indeed seem silly that Calgar can't use the Gauntlets to full effect. And yes, I would probably (unless he's an utter a$$) allow my opponent to have the +1 attack. With that, I've said my piece and I'll let the rest of you continue to wrangle about it.

don_mondo wrote:
Actually, IIRC he only has two weapons. Power Sword and the Gauntlets of Ultramar. The gauntlets may consist of and/or act as two powerfists, but it's listed as a single weapon. So the three weapons argument is out the window.

I was wondering about this a while back as well.
The gauntlets are listed as a weapon (that consists of) much like "Claws and Teeth" are a weapon, and the pair of bolters in the gauntlets fire with one profile.
This has led me to the simplistic response of "No +1A", but I mostly run with it because it is also the weaker interpretation -- which is what I would use if it were my model/army. That said, I have yet to tell an opponent "No +1A", but neither have I had one insisting "Yes +1A".

THis whole argument is easily nullified in every game: Never let Calgar get into CC with you. Gun the Smurf down before hand, and then this rule doesn't matter!

After looking up Calgar in the Codex and re-reading the gauntlets. Sadly, since I was using him with the +1 attack, I would have to agree that he doesn't get +1 to attack. But it's not because of the two special weapons rules. If you look at every other Chapter Master they have a base attack of 3 while Calgar has a base attack of 4. So it looks like they figure his matching pair of gauntlets into the stat line. If you look at other special characters (i.e. Snikrot's Mork's Teeth) it says that you gain an extra attack. So consider it a bonus that your also getting 4 attacks with the power sword.

don_mondo wrote:
And Tri, if there's nothing about selecting weapons, then how do you know what he's hitting his opponent with. Do I, as your opponent get to choose. OK, you just hit my tank with your power sword. No, at some point, you have to CHOOSE what he's using. That kicks in the two special weapons rule, and means the never get the bonus clause is in effect.

Not really ...

The 'Two different special weapons' rule you keep quoting does not come on its own it is part of 'Fighting with 2 single handed weapons'... you cannot start to use 'Fighting with 2 single handed weapons' without picking 2 weapons once you've done that you start using the rule ... If for what ever reason you picked 'Two different special weapons' then of course you must now follow that rule.

... you must first choose to use 2 weapons to use the main rule and then you follow the sub-rules, unless you have 2 unmatched weapons you will never be both 'Fighting with 2 single handed weapons' & 'Two different special weapons'.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:All page 37 says that having 3+ weapons gives no additional benefit, thus only confer +1 attack. It has nothing to do with this discussion.

Actually, this page gives models an extra attack in a general sense and makes it very clear that this applies with 2 or more weapons, not exactly 2. The exceptions on page 42 require exactly 2 weapons.

I really don't see how anyone can say that the Gauntlets of Ultramar only count as 1 weapon even though it clearly says that it is a pair of power fists. Are you arguing that Shrike only has 1 rending lightning claw? What about the codices that allow veterans to buy a pair of lightning claws as one choice?

Lastly, you absolutely cannot assume that Calgar's 4th attack is from a bonus attack. Could I assume that Space Marines are supposed to also have close combat weapons? What about assuming that Librarians are supposed to have 3 Wounds?

Logan Grimnar has 5 base attacks, so its perfectly reasonable to think that a named character like calgar would have 4 base attacks rather than the 3 that vanilla chapter masters have.

The gauntlets are indeed called a pair of power fists, as has been pointed out other references to a pair of lightning claws etc are always taken to mean two, not one weapon.

If you wish to apply the rules on pg 42 to this discussion then you must accept that a choice of weapons can be made, otherwise the whole section must be disregarded since it only deals with fighting with two single-handed weapons. That section of rules does not deal at all with fighting with one weapon or somehow fighting with more than two weapons.


There literally is no reason for GW to have to expand on this topic, there is a perfectly valid reading of the rules that handles calgar cleanly and breaks no other rules (ie calgar fights with only two weapons at a time, so can get +1 attack with the right choice). The rules on pg 42 cannot be applied to calgar because he is NOT fighting with two different close combat weapons....unless you allow the player to choose which two weapons he uses and the player picks the sword and a gauntlet. If you hold the view that a model must always be held to wielding all of the weapons that he possesses in cc, then the pg 42 rules do not apply. Pg 42 specifically lists using TWO weapons, calgar under this interpretation would be wielding 3.


Either way, Calgar will get +1 attack. The only way he cannot get +1 attack is if the player is allowed to choose which two weapons Calgar is using and picks the sword and a gauntlet (the reason to do this would be to have calgar strike at his regular init).


The rules on this arent concise (then again many GW rules arent concise) but they are clear.



Sliggoth

So having two different special CCW denies you an extra attack "such is the penalty for wielding so many complex weapons" but having 3 is somehow LESS complex? You're REALLY saying that?

You have to choose which of the two special CCW to use, either the Gauntlets or the Power Sword. As soon as you do that you lose the chance to EVER get +1 attack.

What Im saying doesnt matter, however since the RAW quite clearly only talks about two special ccw then yes .... people who take the definition of using to mean anything on the model do indeed get smacked by the RAW. RAW does not consider 3 special ccws to be a problem in any shape or form.

Which brings a lot of weight to the side that argues for the other interpretation of the words wielding/ using. The player chooses and Calgar only wields/ uses two ccw at a time, the third is ignored. Wield/ use doesnt mean have, in this line of thought. Wield/ use means employs in combat.

RAW is crystal clear on it. RAW doesnt care a bit about 3 ccw in any of those rules on pg42, it only cares about 2 ccw.

So if the player so chooses, Calgar can wield/ use the pair of gauntlets and indeed have +1 attack.

Or he can use the sword and one gauntlet, not get +1 attack but then pick which special ccw effect to use, thereby using the sword to strike at his normal init.


The only way thet "such is the penalty for wielding so many complex weapons" would come into play is if one equates wield to have, but the rules cleverly only talk about two special ccws so are very clear about the matter.



Sliggoth

He only has 2 special CCW - the gauntlets which count as a pair of Powerfists, and the powersword. He has to choose one of them to fight with, and can therefore never gain the bonus for 2 CCW

¬_¬
gauntlet =1
gauntlets = many
Gauntlets = a pair of power fists

so logical he has 2 gauntlets

Except the Weapon is lists as a singular entity, which "counts as" 2 powerfists.

So you never select two powerfists, you choose between 1 of the 2 weapons he carries - and thus never gain the extra attack

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except the Weapon is lists as a singular entity, which "counts as" 2 powerfists.

So you never select two powerfists, you choose between 1 of the 2 weapons he carries - and thus never gain the extra attack

Well if you want to be pedantic ... a gauntlet is not a type of close combat weapon. It is a pair of power fists and a pair of bolters.

Gauntlets* of Ultramar: These* are a matched pair of power fists*. They also contain integrated bolters* that can be fired with the following profile.

*plural

Proper Noun indicated by capitals meaning it is not "plural" it is the singular item of wargear "Gauntlets of Ultramar"

And if you want to be really pedantic quite a lot of items aren't defined as close combat weapons

nosferatu1001 wrote:Proper Noun indicated by capitals meaning it is not "plural" it is the singular item of wargear "Gauntlets of Ultramar"

And if you want to be really pedantic quite a lot of items aren't defined as close combat weapons

?That doesn't make sense .... Ok time to Spot the difference

These Gauntlets of Ultramar are a pair of power fists

This Gauntlets of Ultramar is a pair of power fist.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except the Weapon is lists as a singular entity, which "counts as" 2 powerfists.

So you never select two powerfists, you choose between 1 of the 2 weapons he carries - and thus never gain the extra attack

The Gauntlets "count as" 2 powerfists so he has two powerfists. I hope you're just playing the Devil's Advocate.

I am going to have to side with tri on this ones...these one...this...crap

Tri wrote:These Gauntlets of Ultramar are a pair of power fists

This Gauntlets of Ultramar is a pair of power fist.

This item "Gauntles of Ultramar" counts as a pair of powerfists

See, painless. It is a proper noun describing a single wargear item that counts as 2 different weapons.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Tri wrote:These Gauntlets of Ultramar are a pair of power fists

This Gauntlets of Ultramar is a pair of power fist.

This item "Gauntles of Ultramar" counts as a pair of powerfists

See, painless. It is a proper noun describing a single wargear item that counts as 2 different weapons.

Gauntlets of Ultramar: These are a matched pair of power fists.
Not
Gauntlets of Ultramar: This is a matched pair of power fists.

For god sake its plural. . . wait you just trolling me aren't you ...

Ill have to go with tri on this one.
simply because he is right :p

What definition of pair is being used to mean one?


Sliggoth

Sluggoth - none. I am saying the Gauntlets are a single item of wargear that "counts as" a pair of powerfists.

I'd never troll you Tri

nosferatu1001 wrote:Sluggoth - none. I am saying the Gauntlets are a single item of wargear that "counts as" a pair of powerfists.

I'd never troll you Tri

And i'm just try my best to understand why you don't think that a proper name can't be plural ... Very true they normally are singular but that doesn't mean they all are.

Also its i don't think that gauntlets are a proper Noun .... they always appear at the start of a sentence so of course would get a capital letter. Gauntlets of Ultramar start at the beginning that's fine but we never see gauntlets of Ultramar any where else. So its up to you to

A) prove that it is a proper noun ...
and ...
B) prove that it is a singular proper noun ...

Isn't this similar to the thing in 4th Ed where Rapid Fire weapons were worded in such a way that simply carrying one prevented the model from performing a certain act (charging or some such) even if they never used that weapon and in fact fired something else (or nothing else).

That was seen as absurd then, so the very idea that Marneus can't use both his fists because he has a sword strapped to his belt is a little daft.

Lets get down to brass tacks, Marneus Calgar is a massive, massive waste of points.

I bought the figure when i saw it in the shop cos he looked awesome. Painted him up, played him once.

Never again.

Now he is a big overpriced paperweight.

265 points?! Take a Librarian and two dakka preds!