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.

nosferatu1001 wrote: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

I do not understand why you think this even matters.


We know that the relic Blade is:
1) A power weapon
2 Two-handed (whatever)

Thus it is a a two-handed power weapon.

Failure to mention word 'weapon' in conjunction with 'two-handed' does not matter. We already know it is a weapon.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Swords and Axes are NOT close combat weapons. Therefore that first line, like ALL of that paragraph, is fluff

Wrong. BRB pg. 42, first paragraph explicitly names swords as Close Combat Weapons. The second paragraph says anything remotely resembling a weapon is a close combat weapon, inticated by "etc.". This includes axes.

They are one handed because a) they are a power weapon, defined as one handed

Wrong. Powerweapons are never defined as one-handed. See BRB pg. 42 "Power weapons" and

Q: What weapons count as single-handed weapons for
the purposes of gaining additional attacks in close
combat? (p37)
A: All pistols, close combat weapons and any weapons
that are specifically stated as single-handed weapons in
their rules.

If you want to go all out on stupid RAW, they are defined as two-handed, because it'S not specifically stated that they are one-handed.

and b) it then states they do not gain the bonus due to their size and weight

All entirely superfluous if you just wrote that they were two handed.

You know, the entire ork codex would stop working (and I bet a lot of other codices, too), if you purposely ignore any line remotely containing fluff. This proves that your attempt at interpretation is wrong.

Power Weapons are Special Close Combat WEapons by definition. "STupid RAW" is that they are SINGLE HANDED because it states that ALL CCW are single handed unless stated otherwise.

Also, dont misrepresent what I said. I did NOT say ignore the line because it contains fluff, I said ignore the "2 handed <not a special or normal CCW, the only two types of CCW allowed>" part, because it isnt something that exists in the game. You cannot surgically remove "2 handed" and apply it to "power weapon" to get "2 handed power weapon", because what is described in the first paragraph has no bearing in the game - read Kels much better explanation of it. This proves your failure to read others arguments....

You also quoted but never addressed anything in that second part. Do you not agree that "size and weight" has nothing to do with 2 - handedness? I dont see the word "2 handed" there, do you? I see "2 handed <not an item in the game>", but not "2 handed power weapon"

Crimson - no, that is incorrect, as I have shown. It is a 2-handed <thing that doesnt exist in th game>, and is also a single handed (by definition, unless explicitly stated otherwise which it isnt) power weapon that strikes at S6.

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

I do not need to find you the statline of a Power weapon, I can find you the rules for a Power weapon, and the FAQ stating that all CCWs that do not specify themselves as 2-handed are single handed.

The "Logic that the Relic Blade fluff says it is a 2-handed weapon with undefined rules, and the later rules that it is a "power weapon(not defined as 2-handed) that grants Strength 6", makes it a "2-handed power weapon"; would mean that since the heavy bolter is an "enormous Botler" with a given statline would also still make it a bolter(which also has a specific statline), and therefore you can use either statline to fire.

Note that the bolt pistol and Heavy bolters do not state that they always fire with the statline, instead you have the exact same situation: Fluff telling you it is a Bolter of a different size, then a simple statement of rules(the statline).

Combining the fluff that calls a relic blade a two-handed weapon that does nothing with its simple statement of rules as a Power weapon(defined as a CCW, which then is defined by FAQ to be single-handed, unless specifically stated to be a "two-handed power weapon"; which the relic blade is not) that grants Strength 6 and can never gain the bonus attack for 2 CCWS to make the relic blade into a "Two-handed power weapon that grants Strength 6 and can never gain the bonus attack for 2 CCWS" is the exact same as combining the Heavy bolter's "enormous Boltgun" with it's statline to mean it is both a Boltgun and a Heavy Bolter in statline(so either 24" S4 AP5 Rapid fire, or 36" S5 AP4 heavy 3).

If you want your Bolt pistol and heavy bolter to only fire with their own statline; then you must throw out the fluff with undefined rules.

If you throw out the bolt pistol and heavy bolter's fluff with undefined rules; then you must do the same for the Relic Blade.

Therefore Heavy bolters can only ever be fired as Heavy bolters, Bolt pistols can only ever be fired as bolt pistols and Relic Blades are only single handed Power weapons that Grant Strength 6 and the wielder cannot gain a bonus attack from a second single-handed weapon.

Jidmah wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Swords and Axes are NOT close combat weapons. Therefore that first line, like ALL of that paragraph, is fluff

Wrong. BRB pg. 42, first paragraph explicitly names swords as Close Combat Weapons. The second paragraph says anything remotely resembling a weapon is a close combat weapon, inticated by "etc.". This includes axes.

They are one handed because a) they are a power weapon, defined as one handed

Wrong. Powerweapons are never defined as one-handed. See BRB pg. 42 "Power weapons" and

Q: What weapons count as single-handed weapons for
the purposes of gaining additional attacks in close
combat? (p37)
A: All pistols, close combat weapons and any weapons
that are specifically stated as single-handed weapons in
their rules.

If you want to go all out on stupid RAW, they are defined as two-handed, because it'S not specifically stated that they are one-handed.

and b) it then states they do not gain the bonus due to their size and weight

All entirely superfluous if you just wrote that they were two handed.

You know, the entire ork codex would stop working (and I bet a lot of other codices, too), if you purposely ignore any line remotely containing fluff. This proves that your attempt at interpretation is wrong.

Actually nos is right. Just because it says sword does not mean CCW unless we are told so.

Page 129-133 – Power Sword.
Change all references to “Power Sword” to “Power
Weapon”

Otherwise why would this errata be neccessary? (From the C:SM FAQ pg 1 right coloumn 4th one down)
Simple because they say power sword it doesn't mean anything until the word "weapon" is used. Typically as gamers we assume a power sword to be a power weapon but true RAW it isn't until we are told so.

No codex stops working just because you ignore fluff. How does the ork codex stop working? Yeah it may be more boring of a codex but it combined with the BRB still give you all the rules you need.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Power Weapons are Special Close Combat WEapons by definition. "STupid RAW" is that they are SINGLE HANDED because it states that ALL CCW are single handed unless stated otherwise.

So, how "it is a two-handed close combat weapon" not stating otherwise?

Also, dont misrepresent what I said. I did NOT say ignore the line because it contains fluff, I said ignore the "2 handed <not a special or normal CCW, the only two types of CCW allowed>" part, because it isnt something that exists in the game.

Actually you do exactly that a few lines below the quoted one. Size and weight thingy. Anyways:
"...while specialized assault troops take pistols, swords or deadly power weapons into battle. In terms of rules, they are all grouped into either of the following categories:"(BRB pg. 42)
"If a model is using a two-handed close combat weapon (such as a rifle's butt or a two-handed battle axe, it may not use it together with another weapon."(BRB pg. 42)
So, apparently swords and axes are close combat weapons, axes even defined as two-handed. Who would have thought.

You cannot surgically remove "2 handed" and apply it to "power weapon" to get "2 handed power weapon", because what is described in the first paragraph has no bearing in the game - read Kels much better explanation of it. This proves your failure to read others arguments....

I read that argument, and it's just as wrong as yours, for the same reasons. Just because rules are mixed with some fluff, does not make the rules go away. That's like saying rules have no effect if they contain a spelling error. As of what I've seen lately you would probably do that.

You also quoted but never addressed anything in that second part. Do you not agree that "size and weight" has nothing to do with 2 - handedness? I dont see the word "2 handed" there, do you? I see "2 handed <not an item in the game>", but not "2 handed power weapon"

Have a look at page 42. It explicitly names swords and axes as being close combat weapons. In a 95 page long Chapter called "The Rules". Now please prove how swords and axes are "an item not in the game" if they are both explicitly named in the sub-chapter of the rules named "close combat weapons".

Crimson - no, that is incorrect, as I have shown. It is a 2-handed <thing that doesnt exist in th game>, and is also a single handed (by definition, unless explicitly stated otherwise which it isnt) power weapon that strikes at S6.

A two-handed sword or axe (which I have shown to be something that exists in the game) would still be two-handed if it becomes a power weapon, because both special and normal close combat weapons can be two-handed. Even if it were a one-handed two-handed Axe/Sword, that would still make it two-handed and cause the restriction on page 42 to apply. So you may not use another weapon in addition to it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The "Logic that the Relic Blade fluff says it is a 2-handed weapon with undefined rules, and the later rules that it is a "power weapon(not defined as 2-handed) that grants Strength 6", makes it a "2-handed power weapon"; would mean that since the heavy bolter is an "enormous Botler" with a given statline would also still make it a bolter(which also has a specific statline), and therefore you can use either statline to fire.

There is no weapon called "bolter". Bolt pistol, boltgun, storm bolter and heavy bolter are all well-defined weapons. Also a defined term containing a space is still the term. A Flamer is as much a heavy flamer as a "Space Marine Daemon Prince" is a Space Marine. However a twin-linked multi-melta is still a multi-melta, due to twin-linked being an attribute, just like two-handed, not a term.

Kommissar Kel wrote: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.

Those sentences aren't exactly contradictory.

It says that a Relic Blade is X (the "fluff" part). However, it counts as Y (the "rules" part). *note that I think the first sentence isn't fluff, especially given the "counts as" language in the second quoted section.

So we know that a relic blade is a two-handed weapon. However, we don't know if it counts as (for purposes of the rules) a 2-handed weapon.

I would suggest that it should count as a two-handed weapon because it is a two-handed weapon. But I suppose you could come down on the other side, particularly if power weapons are defined as one-handed.

Combining the fluff that calls a relic blade a two-handed weapon that does nothing with its simple statement of rules as a Power weapon(defined as a CCW, which then is defined by FAQ to be single-handed, unless specifically stated to be a "two-handed power weapon"; which the relic blade is not) that grants Strength 6 and can never gain the bonus attack for 2 CCWS to make the relic blade into a "Two-handed power weapon that grants Strength 6 and can never gain the bonus attack for 2 CCWS" is the exact same as combining the Heavy bolter's "enormous Boltgun" with it's statline to mean it is both a Boltgun and a Heavy Bolter in statline(so either 24" S4 AP5 Rapid fire, or 36" S5 AP4 heavy 3).

None of the weapons types are always defined either one- or two-handed per definition. Otherwise no weapon could ever be two-handed.

Jidmah - attacking the person? You're better than that.

RAW if a rule doesnt refer to antyhing in game it is a useless rule. So yes, technically "Scout" does nothing, because it is not the USR "Scouts". Who'd have thought - the proper noun defining an in game term is exactly that! Would I actually make a deal of it in game?

No.

Which is the problem with your "argument" there - youre making an emotional appeal to something which I've already acknowledged is a highly technical discussion. Is this a game? No. Are we having a discussion about the rules in a civilised manner? Well I'm attempting to - you're obviously not.

So, to desconstruct your argument a bit more:

1) I'll bold the relevant part for you: "two handed battle axe" You see the "two handed" part? That means an Axe isnt always 2 handed.

Also - frag grenades are defined, in that same sentence, as being close combat weapons. If you believe a fluff description to actually be rules. Which I dont. Howveer in YOUR world this means a model can use Frag Grenades as a close combat weapon!

2) No, you cannot remove 2 words from one rule, that apply to a non-existant weapon - there is no such thing as a sword with an armour sundering power field - it has no game function. If you disagree, please find some rules.

Or are you saying you are allowed to remove part of the descriptive text, and call it rules? So, if you are allowed to remove 2-handed from fluff text, I am allowed to remove "Heavy" from "Heavy Bolter" and decide it is fluff, leaving me with "Bolter", yes? After all, if you are allowed to arbitrarily break down a single object into constituent words, other people are allowed to as well, right? It's only fair!

Give it a try. Start randomly breaking away rules from non-existant items that have no in game effect, and see where it gets you.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
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.

No, still doesn't matter.

He can fight with a relic blade, and get his base number of attacks (plus other potential bonuses like charging).

Or he can fight with his power weapon and bolt pistol and get an additional attack (plus other potential bonuses like charging).

There's no way to get an additional attack for more weapons while wielding a relic blade. How many hands a relic blade takes is irrelevant.

relic blade wrote:
"a model wielding a relic blade cannot get an extra attack for an additional close combat weapon."

As we all know, "wielding" doesn't mean "equipped with".

Darkness - no, wrong. Read the entire thread on how the ruels for multiple different SCCW work. If he has 2 different single handed CCW he NEVER EVER gets the +1 attack

See how things matter now?

Wow! Really?

This seems crazy clear to me

If a model has a relic blade, a power weapon, and a pistol

It can either wield the PW and the pistol (gaining +1 attack)

or

It can wield the Relic Blade, gaining +2 Str, but not the +1 attack)

RAW, RAI, makes sense... so what's the debate?

Again nos, you are insisting that if you have " 2 different single handed CCW" when you seen to know the rules tell us that USING " 2 different single handed CCW" is what matters.

"Some models are equipped with two single handed weapons they can use in cc"

you have to be equipped with and using the two weapons to look at the rules for such.

That is why the relic blade debate is so crucial, though it seems pretty clear that more than 70% of the people who voted think they are two-handed (Which I know has nothing to do with RaW, but it serves as a basis of RaI) and if GW ever got around to putting out an FaQ they would say that they are two handed.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Darkness - no, wrong. Read the entire thread on how the ruels for multiple different SCCW work. If he has 2 different single handed CCW he NEVER EVER gets the +1 attack

See how things matter now?

Ok, let's pretend you can get 2 random people to even agree that's how the rules work (which you will never do, since that argument has been raging for years).

How does that matter to whether or not a relic blade is 2 handed?

DR - whcih is the point. You are equipped with 3, so none of those rules apply.

You have to make up rules for ANY model that can attack with 3 or more equipped CCW, otherwise they dont get to attack. So you either decide that they get to choose a subset of 2, to then choose 1 to actually use, thus circumventing the REALLY strong hint that you NEVER get the bonus attack in a truly Easter Egg fashion, or you decide that 2 different Special CCW applies in any instance where you have two or more different special CCW, and you never gain the bonus attack.

Darkness - if you have 1 single handed SCCW and 1 2 handed, you can still gain the bonus attack for using a speical and a normal CCW, as you dont have 2 different special 1 handed CCW.

So it does matter - if it is 2 handed (it isnt, RAW) then you get a bonus attack with the power sword on an Honour Guard.

You do not have to make up rules.

The rules tell us we can fight with two single-handed close combat weapons.

we can not fight with more than two single-handed close combat weapons. because the rules restrict us to fighting with two single-handed close combat weapons.

if we have more than that we can not use more, thus we have to pick two to fight with.

So, find me the rule saying you can choose.

I'll wait. I've been asking for it in every single thread so far, and you have yet to provide it.

Whenever youre ready.

DR, here's an example of a legal unit that fights with more than 2 CCW: Tyranid Warrior with Bonesword, Lash Whip, and Scything Talons. There you are a model with 3 different CCW. Now granted 'Nids don't get any bonus attacks for CCW, however they do get the benefits from all 3 weapons.

It seems non-intuitive that you accept a model armed with two one-handed close combat weapons and a two-handed close combat weapon can allow a bonus attack but do not accept that a model with three one-handed close combat weapons can.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So, find me the rule saying you can choose.

I'll wait. I've been asking for it in every single thread so far, and you have yet to provide it.

Whenever youre ready.

so if I have a Bolter, bolt pistol, and CCW... you think I'm not allowed to choose (kinda screws GHunters and CMs)?

nosferatu1001 wrote:So you either decide that they get to choose a subset of 2, to then choose 1 to actually use, thus circumventing the REALLY strong hint that you NEVER get the bonus attack in a truly Easter Egg fashion

When 5th Ed was released Alessio specifically mentions Calgar as one of the limited number of models that still gets +1 attack for two SCCWs.

I'll take his opinion over you making an appeal having criticised other users for fallacy approaches.

Some models are equipped with two single-handed weapons they can use in close combat, with the rules given below for different possible combinations. Of course, if a model is using (emphasis mine) a two-handed close combat weapon, it may not use it together with another weapon.
2 Normal CCW: 1 bonus attack
2 same SCCW: one additional attack
1 Normal CCW, 1 SCCW: one additional attack (with 3 listed exceptions)
2 different SCCW: choose which weapon to use, but never get bonus attack for 2 weapons.

Happyjew - actually no, Nids dont have CCW. Lashwhips and Boneswords are NOT Close Combat weapons. Page 32, from memory.

Darkness - not counter intuitive, just following the rules. For example it may be counter intuitive that a skimmer can receive both a 4+ cover save and be hit automatically in close combat - doesnt make it any less true.

Lobukla - find where "bolter" is a) a CCW at all and b) specifically a ONE HANDED CCW, then you may have a point. Oh wait, theyre not, so your "point" is irrelevant.

Baragash - citation needed, otherwise your fallacious argument can be ignored.

Additionally: I am making an appeal that, when you have to make rules up, as you DO in this situation, you at least dont try to circumvent the MASSIVE hint in the NEVER vein while doing so. Fairly unsafe and unfair way to play, no?

Because using a Relic Blade as a two-handed power sword is so game breaking...

Happyjew wrote:Some models are equipped with two single-handed weapons they can use in close combat, with the rules given below for different possible combinations. Of course, if a model is using (emphasis mine) a two-handed close combat weapon, it may not use it together with another weapon.
2 Normal CCW: 1 bonus attack
2 same SCCW: one additional attack
1 Normal CCW, 1 SCCW: one additional attack (with 3 listed exceptions)
2 different SCCW: choose which weapon to use, but never get bonus attack for Using 2 weapons.

Fixed that for you with the orange, you left out a very important part.

you never get bonus attack for Using 2 weapons. This is listed under the section that is talking about 2SCCW's

you never get the attack for using 2SCCW's.

if you are using something else you use the rules for what you are using.

This is where the relic blade being two handed comes in, since we would have to choose the relic blade, or the Power weapon and bolt pistol.

@Nos: The rule says we fight with two weapons. If we have more than two we still can only fight with two weapons. looking at those rules we are forces to pick two weapons to fight with, since we can only fight with two single-handed weapons.

They do not wield CCW as such (pg 32). As near as I can tell this is to explain why they don't get bonuses for having multiple CCW. However, all 3 of the weapons listed can be found on page 83 under the heading Close Combat Weapons.

Additionally, only 'Claws and Teeth' are listed as being a Normal CCW, every unit (except the Tervigon) has either 1 normal CCW, 1 Special CCW, or 2 SCCW (whose bonuses stack). The Tervigon has claws and teeth (normal) and can take crushing claws or scything talons (special), but still do not get the bonus to attack.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Jidmah - attacking the person? You're better than that.

No, I'm attacking the idiocy that GWAR used to call RAW. Just like Ghazzy's Waagh! is supposedly be able to called after his death because "his Warcry" is not rules, even though every single rule and all the fluff points towards that he himself calls the Waaagh! and can't do this when he is a read smear unter some land-raider's tracks. While Fluff should not influence rules, ignoring blatantly obvious statements because of technical issues, is not RAW, it's failure of reading comprehension. Even most modern code compilers are able to "overlook" minor errors and keep on interpreting. It's the exact same here. Those marine are wielding two-handed swords and axes. No amount of rules or deliberate blindness can ever justify swords explicitly described as two-handed not being two-handed.

RAW if a rule doesnt refer to antyhing in game it is a useless rule. So yes, technically "Scout" does nothing, because it is not the USR "Scouts". Who'd have thought - the proper noun defining an in game term is exactly that! Would I actually make a deal of it in game?

No.

RAW is not ignoring obvious links. A rule named Scout is obviously the same as scout. Just like a two-handed sword is a two-handed close combat weapon. A rokkit-pack is obviously a jump pack. Ignoring this fact has nothing to do with RAW.

Which is the problem with your "argument" there - youre making an emotional appeal to something which I've already acknowledged is a highly technical discussion. Is this a game? No. Are we having a discussion about the rules in a civilised manner? Well I'm attempting to - you're obviously not.

Hardly highly technical, a game of mind at most. What you are doing is coloring something entirely made of grey in black and white. There simply is no need to break down something into technical details if it is perfectly clear what to do without breaking it down. If you break down the ork codex, you will find that there is no definition for ork. Thus breaking the entire codex.

So, to desconstruct your argument a bit more:

1) I'll bold the relevant part for you: "two handed battle axe" You see the "two handed" part? That means an Axe isnt always 2 handed.

Sure, does it matter for the sake of argument? No. An axe is still a close combat weapon and not "<ERROR: unknown word 'axe'>".

Also - frag grenades are defined, in that same sentence, as being close combat weapons. If you believe a fluff description to actually be rules. Which I dont. Howveer in YOUR world this means a model can use Frag Grenades as a close combat weapon!

Actually, Frag Grenades are close combat weapons. Special close combat weapons even. Check BRB pg. 63 on how to use them.

2) No, you cannot remove 2 words from one rule, that apply to a non-existant weapon - there is no such thing as a sword with an armour sundering power field - it has no game function. If you disagree, please find some rules.

"Sword with an armor sundering power field"(if that's the exact quote) would be a close combat weapon:
"These include more complex and powerful weapons that enhance the wielder's combat skills and confer bonuses, and sometimes penalties, to models using them." (BRB pg. 42)
More complex than a chain sword and obviously enhances the wielders combat skills (armor sundering). Per definition a special close combat weapon.

Or are you saying you are allowed to remove part of the descriptive text, and call it rules? So, if you are allowed to remove 2-handed from fluff text, I am allowed to remove "Heavy" from "Heavy Bolter" and decide it is fluff, leaving me with "Bolter", yes? After all, if you are allowed to arbitrarily break down a single object into constituent words, other people are allowed to as well, right? It's only fair!

Yeah, mourning at me for ignoring you argument and ignoring mine in turn. An eye for an eye, I guess.

"Heavy bolter" a defined term. A space does not make it two terms. If you break up heavy bolter, that's just like breaking up killkannon into kill and kannon. One term, well-defined, no questions. On the other hand, "twin-linked" just like "two-handed" are attributes added to an already existing term. Twin-linked multi-meltas are still multi-meltas, twin-linked heavy bolters with psy-ammo are still heavy bolters, and two-handed closes combat weapons are still close combat weapons.

By the way: "bolter" is not a defined term. The thing you are referring to is defined as "Boltgun".

Give it a try. Start randomly breaking away rules from non-existant items that have no in game effect, and see where it gets you.

I should be greatful for you to be looking down to me from above the coulds, I guess. You should give even the slightest hint of common sense a try. Accepting a sword as a close combat weapon would be the first step, but I guess that's too random fo a "highly technical discussion".

Sorry for sarcasm, but "a sword is something undefined" is simply not a conclusion a semi-intelligent person should ever reach.

DR - so, you still dont have a rule then?

If you could admit you need to make up a rule, that would actually help your argument. We could have a reasoned discourse, with less "nah nah nah"
Before you respond: I understand perfectly what you are saying. Do not bother to restate the same thing over and over and over, as it is a waste of everyones time.

Just, for this time, provide a rule. An actual RULE, in the book, which allows you to pick 2 close combat weapons from 3+before you get tot he "fighting with..." part. Just a real rule, with an actual page number, nothing more is needed.

If you cannot provide one, then you are breaking the tenets of this forum, and I would ask you to stop and retract.


Happy - no, they do not use CCW. That heading is erroneous, as they do not have CCW, they never ever receive the bonus AND they never "fight with" CCW. Boneswords are not Close Combat Weapons, neither are scything talons, etc. Do a search on this, as it is OT here.

Edit:

Jidmah - yes, you ARE attacking the person. As in "from what I;ve seen of YOU". You cant really get much more personal than that, when youve just quoted the person. Try again.

Yes, Ghazzguls WAAAGh in RULES can be called when he is dead, or even if he isnt on the board, because it is the army rules. You say "every" rule, yet in that thread you could not provide a single one that actually suffered any sort of analysis. You failed utterly then, and bringing it up now means you are failing again here.

Stay On topic or dont post.

The marines are wielding "two handed swords or axes sheathed in an armour sundering field" - as a whole, not a part. Those dont exist in the game, at all. You are failing reading comprehension if you insist otherwise, as there is no such item with those characteristics listed in any rulebook as an actual weapon.

Re Scouts vs Scout. You notice the difference there, as you changed it in your post? One letter makes all the difference when dealing with proper nouns. To give your "modern code compiler" fallacy a shot here, if you had a variable named "Scouts" but called $Scout, the compiler would not translate this into a working program.

Re breaking it down: Actually we have shown a reason for it, which is the reason behind this thread. A 2 handed weapon is treated differently to a single handed one.
If you dont see the need in this thread, then feel free not to post.

Re Two-handed Axe: It matters when you break down an object and declare it to exist, when it doesnt. I ngame terms there is NO SUCH THING as the fluff part of the Relic Blade text. ALL of the ACTUAL rules are contained in the second paragraph, where it defines it as a single handed weapon.

Re Bolter not being a defined term: before spouting off about rules I would suggest you do some research. 30 seconds would have found you p97, codex SM, first line. "The Boltgun, or bolter"

Try again.

Also - I didnt say a sword is something undefined. I said the whole line is not defined, because it isnt. Try again

I will concede that the second part of my post was OT here.

The rule is right ther on Page 42, it tells you that you can fight with two (Notice how it does not say more than two) close combat weapons.

The rule is listed under the section 'fighting with two single-handed close combat weapons.'

"Some models are equipped with two single-handed weapons they can use in close combat" P.42

There is your rules quote that tells us that we need to pick two weapons. It permits us to fight with two weapons, if we have three we can not use three, so we have to only use two.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The marines are wielding "two handed swords or axes sheathed in an armour sundering field" - as a whole, not a part. Those dont exist in the game, at all.

Actually they do, they are called Relic Blades. (A close combat weapon)