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.

Crimson wrote:Can I even nibble a little bit?

nomnomnomnom

DeathReaper wrote:
It matters because when a Space Marine honor guard squad model has one, the model will now have a Power Weapon, Bolt Pistol, and Relic Blade.

The relic blade being two handed affects close combat.

No it doesn't. Why do you think it would?

Crimson - yes, you can adjudge parts to be fluff. Its easy - does it have an actual rule in it?

The question I asked you was: prove a sword is a Close Combat weapon, of either Normal or Special type. Those are the only types allowed

There is NO problem with 2 handed power weapons existing. Absolutely none. The point is that it is defined as a 2 handed sword OR axe, NEITHER of which is a CCW or either normal or special - as they are NEVER defined as such. Read the rulebook on p42.

So you have fluff - it is defined as a 2 handed <thing which does not exist in game rules>, meaning you cannot just chop off (lol) the 2 handed part and surgically reattach it to the power weapon part. The rules dont work that way. So you have a 2 handed <non existant in rules item> making the whole thing a <non existant in rules item>

You then get to the real rules, which define it as a power weapon (A special CCW -> CCW -> single handed, see BRB) which then has a special addition which means you never gain the bonus attack.

And of course you can nibble, nibbling is good

So you are really claiming that an item described as two-handed power weapon, is a two-handed weapon, but item being described as two-handed sword and a power weapon isn't?

It is a good thing that in this case it does not matter one bit in one way or to the other, as I just have to disagree with that interpretation. As I said earlier, I assume the rules are written for human beings, not for robots that do not understand meanings of the words. Two-handed sword or axe is a two-handed weapon. In fact, the bit about fighting with two-weapons uses two-handed battle axe as n example.

Crimson wrote:So you are really claiming that an item described as two-handed power weapon, is a two-handed weapon, but item being described as two-handed sword and a power weapon isn't?

No he is saying a TWO-HANDED POWER WEAPON in the RULES are a two handed weapon, while a weapon DESCRIBED as a two-handed weapon then in the RULES said to be a power weapon is a single handed weapon. Like the rules book says power weapon are.

Noir wrote:
No he is saying a TWO-HANDED POWER WEAPON in the RULES are a two handed weapon, while a weapon DESCRIBED as a two-handed weapon then in the RULES said to be a power weapon is a single handed weapon. Like the rules book says power weapon are.

There is no separate rules text and description. They are happily mixed.

'Two-handed weapon' is a rules term, just like 'power weapon' is. And I claim that when that term 'two-handed' is applied to an item that we know to be a weapon, that in fact makes that item 'a two-handed weapon.' Assuming anything else is just silly.

Is there a heading over the part that says "a variety of close-combat weapons such as ... swords" that says FLUFF?

Or how do you know?

For the variance of "two-handed Sword" Vs rules portion telling us it is a Power weapon, and how in this case Fluff and rules are separated; I present to you:

The Big Choppa: "A big choppa is a two-handed close combat weapon. A model using a Big choppa adds +2 to it's Strength."

This is in the Orks codex, it is also the codex Written before the SM codex.

Now for the coupe de gras; the hellglaive: "A hellglaive is a two-handed weapon that grants both an additional attack and +1 strength"

Also, the Klaive: "Klaives are two-handed power weapons that confer +1 strength"

These are both in the Dark Eldar Codex, which came after the SM codex

Then we have the Glaive Encarmine: "A Glaive Encarmine is a two-handed master crafted power weapon."

Now we go back to the relic blade, where we have a separation between the Statement: "Relic blades are two-handed swords or axes that are sheathed in an Armour-sundering power field" and "A relic Blade counts as a Power weapon whose hits are resolved at Strength 6."

For both of these to be rules, we have a rules conflict. Power weapons are defined in the BRB(page 42) as single-handed Special ccws. The same part that declares the Relic blade a single-handed Special ccw also gives it the S6. Then we have the fluff bit that calls them 2-handed swords or Axes; this time they are not power weapons, as the description for the 2 fields("Armour-sundering power field" vs "disruptive energy field") is different, and again it does not contain the Strength increasing ability(which belongs to the single-handed weapon rules).

So we have a Choice:
Yes the Relic blade is a 2-handed normal weapon that does nothing for the modl using it other than to prevent a bonus attack.

Or

No, the relic Blade is not a 2-handed weapon, but it is a power weapon that increases the users strength to 6.

Personally I voted "No" since I like Strength 6 Power weapon attacks when I am paying 15 or 30 points.

Can you guys arguing about fluff vs rules come back to reality and comment why your arguments are even relevant?

It doesn't matter how many hands a relic blade is given the rules it actually has. It could be a six or zero handed weapon for all it matters.

Threat is TLR.

Bottom line: relic blade may be wielded with any other legal weapon (e.g bolt pistol) but may never gain an extra attack (from a bolt pistol, for instance)

Stop living in 4th.

DarknessEternal wrote:Can you guys arguing about fluff vs rules come back to reality and comment why your arguments are even relevant?

It doesn't matter how many hands a relic blade is given the rules it actually has. It could be a six or zero handed weapon for all it matters.

The reason it matters is for Honour guard with Pistol, Power sword, and Relic Blade.

If it is 1-handed then the Honour guard never gain a bonus attack as the 2 different Special single-handed CCWs equipped rules say so.

If it is 2-handed then the honour guard could choose to use his single-handed weapons in tandem(as he only has 2 single handed weapons equipped) and gain a bonus attack, or use the Relic Blade for S6 with no bonus.

Seriously - it's depicted as a two handed weapon (extra long hilt), a sword is a weapon, and while CCW is defined in the rules, I don't think weapon is.

You are allowed to use common sense and the english language to interpret rules. This is one of those cases.

And Komissar Kel - you're arguing for consistency in GW rules. That's against the norm - just look at the Tyranid FAQ rulings. Or are you going to assert that Librarian Hoods don't work while embarked?

Kommissar Kel wrote:

The reason it matters is for Honour guard with Pistol, Power sword, and Relic Blade.

If it is 1-handed then the Honour guard never gain a bonus attack as the 2 different Special single-handed CCWs equipped rules say so.

If it is 2-handed then the honour guard could choose to use his single-handed weapons in tandem(as he only has 2 single handed weapons equipped) and gain a bonus attack, or use the Relic Blade for S6 with no bonus.

And the relic blade section in the codex states it's a two handed weapon that never gains a bonus attack from having two CCW's equipped. Why must this thread exist?

I was merely showing that this 1 Inconsistency, is also inconsistent with itself.

the Relic Blade can either be a 2-handed Special Close combat weapon that does nothing(as we have no fluff-analog to draw); or it is a Single-handed power weapon, that grants Strength 6 and can never be used in conjunction with another weapon for bonus attacks(Due to its "size and weight").

juraigamer wrote:And the relic blade section in the codex states it's a two handed weapon that never gains a bonus attack from having two CCW's equipped. Why must this thread exist?

No the Relic blade section says 2 completely different things, at the same time; both are above.

Or, it could be a two handed power weapon. Which, you know, is how the section for it reads.

rigeld2 wrote:Or, it could be a two handed power weapon. Which, you know, is how the section for it reads.

Where exactly is the sentence: a relic blade is a two-handed power weapon?

Because I see: "Relic blades are two-handed swords or axes that are sheathed in an Armour-sundering power field"

and: "A relic Blade counts as a Power weapon whose hits are resolved at Strength 6."

Which are contradictory.

And before you say it; while Fluff does now = rules, "Armour-sundering power field" is not the same as "disruptive energy field", so the fluff for the Relic blade as a "two-handed Power weapon" argument does not pass muster since the relic blade is sheathed in a different type of Field(or can I start getting 4++ saves on my Company commander because his refactor Field is a Field and the rosarius is a field so they must be the same thing by fluff?)

So we can go by the exact, known rules: "A relic Blade counts as a Power weapon whose hits are resolved at Strength 6." instead of determining what an "Armour-sundering power field" is.

Or are you also trying to say that Power weapons are now all two-handed, because the BRB FAQ would like to have a few words with you if that is your argument

Kommissar Kel wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Or, it could be a two handed power weapon. Which, you know, is how the section for it reads.

Or are you also trying to say that Power weapons are now all two-handed, because the BRB FAQ would like to have a few words with you if that is your argument

Yeah... I wasn't wandering even close to saying that. Thanks though.

It is a 2 handed sword. We know that a sword is a weapon. So it's a two handed weapon. It's later clarified to be a power weapon. So it's a two handed power weapon.

Crimson wrote:Also, I'd claim that the rules are written with the assumption that the reader is a human being with at least a moderate grasp of the meanings and implications of common English words, instead of an automated robot. So that we can assume that swords and axes are indeed weapons.

This thread has left me so traumatised that, from now on, I'm going to insist on only playing against people who are at least this sane. Otherwise, I'd fear not only for my enjoyment of the game, but for my very sanity, as well.

After getting some questions answered (and having read through the posts) in this topic, and the topic regarding multiple SCCW, I have to vote no. Every 2-handed weapon I've seen has a sentence that says (e.g.) this is a 2-handed power weapon that grants +2 Strength. It's also almost always the last line in the description. Additionally, I've never seen a 2-handed weapon that also says you don't get a bonus attack for using it.

Happyjew wrote:After getting some questions answered (and having read through the posts) in this topic, and the topic regarding multiple SCCW, I have to vote no. Every 2-handed weapon I've seen has a sentence that says (e.g.) this is a 2-handed power weapon that grants +2 Strength. It's also almost always the last line in the description. Additionally, I've never seen a 2-handed weapon that also says you don't get a bonus attack for using it.

This has a sentence which says it too. And the reason for that last part is because 2 handed weapons mean nothing in 5th, so they had to specify.

rigeld2 wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Or, it could be a two handed power weapon. Which, you know, is how the section for it reads.

Or are you also trying to say that Power weapons are now all two-handed, because the BRB FAQ would like to have a few words with you if that is your argument

Yeah... I wasn't wandering even close to saying that. Thanks though.

It is a 2 handed sword. We know that a sword is a weapon. So it's a two handed weapon. It's later clarified to be a power weapon. So it's a two handed power weapon.

Then by that logic: Both the Bolt pistol and the Heavy bolter can opt to fire with the Boltgun profile(Bolt pistol as a "smaller version of the Boltgun", and heavy Bolter as an "enormous version of the boltgun")

So either we use the clear rules: "A relic Blade counts as a Power weapon whose hits are resolved at Strength 6." and due to its size and weight, a model weilding a relic blade cannot gain an extra attack for an additional close combat weapon"

Or the heavy bolter & Bolt pistol can both use the boltgun profile anytime they want.

Unit1126PLL: two-handed weapons do have specific rules(and as such "mean something" in 5th edition); BRB Page 42, last sentence of "Fighting with two single-handed weapons": "Of course, if a model is using a two-handed close combat weapon(some examples are given), it may not use it together with another weapon."

Kommissar Kel wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Or, it could be a two handed power weapon. Which, you know, is how the section for it reads.

Or are you also trying to say that Power weapons are now all two-handed, because the BRB FAQ would like to have a few words with you if that is your argument

Yeah... I wasn't wandering even close to saying that. Thanks though.

It is a 2 handed sword. We know that a sword is a weapon. So it's a two handed weapon. It's later clarified to be a power weapon. So it's a two handed power weapon.

Then by that logic: Both the Bolt pistol and the Heavy bolter can opt to fire with the Boltgun profile(Bolt pistol as a "smaller version of the Boltgun", and heavy Bolter as an "enormous version of the boltgun")

False. Bolt pistols and Heavy Bolters have specific statlines. Find me the statline of a power weapon. Not a generic power weapon - the statline that describes every power weapon. Yet there is a statline that describes every bolt pistol. And one that describes every Heavy Bolter. (Things like Psyammo either replace or modify that base statline)

You can't because there isn't one. It is a Bolt pistol. It's later clarified to be a Bolt pistol. It's a bolt pistol, not a bolter.

Kommissar Kel wrote:
The reason it matters is for Honour guard with Pistol, Power sword, and Relic Blade.

If it is 1-handed then the Honour guard never gain a bonus attack as the 2 different Special single-handed CCWs equipped rules say so.

If it is 2-handed then the honour guard could choose to use his single-handed weapons in tandem(as he only has 2 single handed weapons equipped) and gain a bonus attack, or use the Relic Blade for S6 with no bonus.

No, this doesn't matter either.

He can use a Relic Blade, or he can use his other two weapons. Whether or not a relic blade is 2 handed never matters.

nosferatu1001 wrote:This is a highly technical discussion

No. This is semantics, definition of.

With the desire to make a 3 page thread on minutiae like this, no wonder we don't get updated FAQs like we should. They're too busy laughing at us.

There should be a third poll option, labelled "Does it f'n matter?"

It does not matter if other two-handed power weapons are described slightly differently. You cannot declare rules-specific term like 'two-handed' to be fluff.

I think that the writer of the rules for the Relic Blade thought he made them super clear to avoid confusion. First he say it is two handed, but in the end he summarises the effects of being two-handed for your convenience.

The only possible way it would even matter, is the odd case of having one two-handed and one-handed special weapon, as well as third close combat weapon. And that is only if Kommissar Kei's interpretation of rules regarding that situation is correct, and I am not convinced it is.

No, you can declare "2 handed <thing that isnt a defined item within 40k>" to be fluff, as it literally does nothing for the model. WE've been through this, and you keep ignoring it - contrary to the tenets of this forum, you cannot back up your position in actual rules.

Darkness - yes, it DOES MATTER. If it is 2 handed then you gain an additional attack if you have a BP+Power weapon, as in the case of honour guard. This is because you are then NOT fighting with 2 different single-handed special CCW, and are thus not denied the additional attack.

Kels interpretation of this is exactly correct, unsurprisingly enough.

Word 'two-handed', referring to a weapon, makes it 'two-handed weapon', just as referring vehicle as 'open-topped' makes it an 'open topped vehicle.' How this is even controversial, I will never understand.

Crimson - because, as you keep on ignoring, a Sword or Axe is neither a special or normal CCW. So it is a 2 handed -something-, that is handily contradicted by being a power weapon in the actual rules bit below it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Crimson - because, as you keep on ignoring, a Sword or Axe is neither a special or normal CCW. So it is a 2 handed -something-, that is handily contradicted by being a power weapon in the actual rules bit below it.

We already know it is a weapon. It is in the weapon section of the book. Also, the Codex: Space Marines describes Power Weapons as 'Swords or Axes.'

No, you know it is a sword or axe. You dont know it is a special or normal CCW, because a sword or axe is neither

Fallacy in logic there - not all power weapons are swords or axes, and not all swords or axes are power weapons, which are special CCW. A-> B /= B-> and all that.

So, are swords or axes defined as Special or Normal CCW? Rules citation needed