This question has recently surfaced. Apparently the former codex stated that Tyranid ccws worked in conjunction together but this is not in print in the new codex. I have provided an example using an Alpha Warrior in the poll. The Alpha Warrior is armed with a bone sword and lash whip. If Tyranid ccws work in conjunction together then the Alpha Warrior would both ignore armor saves and reduce enemy models in b2b contact to I1. If they work separately then the Alpha Warrior would have to choose between the two.

I'm certain that this will be addressed in the next release of the INAT FAQ and would like to discuss this here.

G

From my Unofficial Tyranid FAQ v1.0 (link in the sig):

TYR.83.01 – Q: Do Tyranid models with more than one Non-Normal Close Combat Weapon have to choose which one to benefit from each turn or do they always benefit from their effects?

A: Tyranid models armed with more than one Non-Normal Close Combat Weapon have attacks that always benefit from every close combat weapon they have. This is because, as per page 33, “Tyranids do not wield Close Combat Weapons”. Furthermore, each Close Combat Weapon Biomorph has wording that makes it clear that the Tyranid themselves has the effect, not the weapon. For example, Crushing Claws states “A Tyranid with crushing claws gains” as opposed to “A Tyranid using crushing claws gains”. This essentially means that the Close Combat Weapon Biomorphs “stack”, so (for example) a model with Scything Talons and Rending Claws will benefit from both the re-roll effect and the rending effect with each of it's attacks. [Clarification]
• It can, however, be interpreted that Tyranid Models with more than one Non-Normal Close Combat Weapon must choose which one to use each turn, even if armed with “passive” close combat weapons like Lash Whips, and can only benefit from a single one in a turn.

I can't read the blue text as it heavily blends into the background.

G


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:
Q: Do Tyranid models with more than one Non-Normal Close Combat Weapon have to choose which one to benefit from each turn or do they always benefit from their effects?

A: Tyranid models armed with more than one Non-Normal Close Combat Weapon have attacks that always benefit from every close combat weapon they have. This is because, as per page 33, “Tyranids do not wield Close Combat Weapons”. Furthermore, each Close Combat Weapon Biomorph has wording that makes it clear that the Tyranid themselves has the effect, not the weapon. For example, Crushing Claws states “A Tyranid with crushing claws gains” as opposed to “A Tyranid using crushing claws gains”. This essentially means that the Close Combat Weapon Biomorphs “stack”, so (for example) a model with Scything Talons and Rending Claws will benefit from both the re-roll effect and the rending effect with each of it's attacks.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I fixed it for you Gwar. The reference to page 33 of the new codex is very useful.

G

Sorry about that.

While I understand the inferred meaning of Tyranid CCW's, the method they are presented in the codex with is their own flaw.

One page says they do not have CCW's as such, then another page gives special types of CCW's available to them.

Now for the statement of Using vs With. For my example I am going to ignore the rules for special weapons stacking from the main rule book.

I can have a SM armed/equipped with a power fist. He is both Using and he is with a power fist.

This is why I am completely on the fence about how they interact with the rules.

InquisitorFabius wrote:I can have a SM armed/equipped with a power fist. He is both Using and he is with a power fist.

Do the rules for power fists give him an ability just for having it (like Nid CCWs do) or does it only work when he uses it in a Close combat?

The same can be asked of a Tyranid with a bio-morph.


The answer is no.

Please understand I am not arguing to argue. I fully feel they should stack as they did in previous editions. The language is what I have a problem with.

InquisitorFabius wrote:The same can be asked of a Tyranid with a bio-morph.

The answer is no.

Please understand I am not arguing to argue. I fully feel they should stack as they did in previous editions. The language is what I have a problem with.

The thing is, the Tyranid one doesn't have to be used. Just by having it, the effect applies to any attacks they make, even if they don't use the Close Combat Biomorph to make those attacks.

Here is a new proposal, how does a Lash whip work if charging a unit in cover if the lash equipped charging unit has no offensive grenades?

Both models strike at I1. How is that ambiguous?

Yeah both units would hit at I1.

G

Simply *having* the biomorph grants the 'nid the extra ability.

Charing into cover without grenades? Both sides strike at I1

Gwar! wrote:

InquisitorFabius wrote:The same can be asked of a Tyranid with a bio-morph.

The answer is no.

Please understand I am not arguing to argue. I fully feel they should stack as they did in previous editions. The language is what I have a problem with.

The thing is, the Tyranid one doesn't have to be used. Just by having it, the effect applies to any attacks they make, even if they don't use the Close Combat Biomorph to make those attacks.

By the same logic, then simply having a lightning claw should allow my powerfist to reroll any failed to wound rolls. The lightning claw entry in the 40k rulebook doesn't say a model has to actually use it, it just says it allows the model to reroll failed to wound rolls. But there exists a rule that prevents such stacking. And the last two Tyranid books had very specific wording that said their close combat symbiotes/biomorph abilities stacked. Again, it was very specific wording, and in the latest Tyranid book, it is missing. So a rules change, or a major oversight?

The only CCW in the entire Tyranid codex is Claws and Teeth, and the only models that have that don't have access to the pieces of close combat wargear.

A lightning claw is defined as a special power weapon, which is a special CCW, so it has to follow the CCW rules. Boneswords, Rending Claws, and the like are not defined as CCWs, so they are not bound by CCW rules.

All of the Tyranid CCW are labeled under a big heading on page 83 that says, "Close Combat Weapons". However, you don't "use" lash whips or rending claws. It's not like you're attacking with your bonesword -or- your rending claws.

Rending claws simply state: "Close combat attacks made by models with rending claws gain the rending ability." It doesn't say you're using rending claws - it confers the rending rule. Same thing with the lash whip. You're not "using" the lash whip, it simply confers the ability to the model that "any enemy model in base contact with a Tyranid counts their initiative value as 1."

These are simply close combat weapons that don't really do anything but add bonuses to the model. While they're called "Close Combat weapons" - they aren't really "used". Not even boneswords. It doesn't say "a hit from a bonesword" - it says "No armour saves may be taken in close combat by a TYRANID with a bonesword."

No mention of him actually even "using" the bonesword. I mean, I could go on and on - but each entry on page 83 makes no mention of using the biomorphs as weapons, rather the weapons affecting how the tyranid strikes in close combat.

It's just like a lightning claws that are also rending (Shrike). You don't choose power or rending - it does both.

If you have rending claws and scything talons, the bonuses you'd receive are:

Rending claws - the model's CC attacks count as rending

and

Scything Talons - a model with a single set of scything talons re-rolls any To Hit rolls of 1 in a close combat.

If you were allowed to have a lash whip too, then any enemy in base contact with you would strike at Init 1.

Furthermore, tyranids never gain any attacks from more or less "weapons". These weapons don't affect their attack value. It's because they're more of biomorphs and, according to page 33, "Tyranids do not wield close combat weapons as such. . ."

Actually the Tyranids are attacking with "claws and teeth" - as per page 33.
As per page 83, model equiped with the biomorphs listed in the section "Close Combat Weapons" get bonus to those attacks, as listed. None of them require being used.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:The only CCW in the entire Tyranid codex is Claws and Teeth, and the only models that have that don't have access to the pieces of close combat wargear.

A lightning claw is defined as a special power weapon, which is a special CCW, so it has to follow the CCW rules. Boneswords, Rending Claws, and the like are not defined as CCWs, so they are not bound by CCW rules.

Follow me, if you will, on a trip down memory lane....

3rd Edition Tyranid Codex: Rending claws, lash whips, etc., are called "close combat symbiotes" instead of "close combat weapons" yet they had a rule that stated "...a Tyranid creature can use all of its close combat symbiotes in an assault phase and is not only limited to using one at a time like most models."

4th Edition Tyranid Codex: Rending claws, lash whips, etc., are called "close combat biomorphs" instead of "close combat weapons" yet they had a rule that stated "Close combat biomorphs can only be used during an assault. A Tyranid creature can use all of its close combat biomorphs in an assault and is not limited to using one at a time like most models."

Your argument is that they aren't defined as "close combat weapons" so if that is the case, why the rules stating that they get to stack their abilities?

5th Edition Tyranid Codex: Rending claws, lash whips, etc., are called "Close Combat Weapons" and this time there is no rule as in the previous two books that says their abilities stack. If in the 5th edition codex they were labeled as symbiotes or biomorphs, then I could see your argument as then they aren't defined as "close combat weapons." There were a lot of changes made in this codex. Just because something worked one way for the previous two doesn't mean that is the case now....






Automatically Appended Next Post:
In addition, there is also another section in the 5th edition book called "Biomorph Upgrades." One of them is "implant attack" that can be used in close combat. Why is it not listed with boneswords, lash whips, etc., if those are just "biomorphs?" It is not listed with them because those are all close combat weapons and implant attack is a biomorph, thus a difference exists.

Except there is a rule on page 33 which states they only ever attack with "teeth and claws" and that the biomorphs are NOT defined as CCW.

So they stack, as they all define that the Tyranid with X obtains not abailty. "With" is not the same as "uses"

I do not care what the old codex said. The new one does not say they are CCWs, so they are not CCWs. The combat upgrades are more akin to SM digital weapons or an Ork attack squig.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:I do not care what the old codex said. The new one does not say they are CCWs, so they are not CCWs. The combat upgrades are more akin to SM digital weapons or an Ork attack squig.

Exactly. You can call them what you like. You can call them Close Combat Weapons all day if you want to. They're still not "using" them. On page 83, where all the weapons are listed, the weapons all confer abilities or bonuses. None of them mention the use of any of them as a weapon at any time.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except there is a rule on page 33 which states they only ever attack with "teeth and claws" and that the biomorphs are NOT defined as CCW.

So they stack, as they all define that the Tyranid with X obtains not abailty. "With" is not the same as "uses"

Yeah, that is just a fluff reason to explain why a termagant, who obviously has teeth and claws on both hands, doesn't get +1 attack for having two close combat weapons (teeth and claws, or claws on 2+ arms). Just like the fluff reasons for why Mutants count as being armed with only one close combat weapon and Zombies with their "grasping hands and slavering jaws" count as having 2 close combat weapons in their respective Apocalypse Datasheets.

Besides, starting with page 81, the rules state there are weapons and biomorphs, and then breaks that down into ranged weapons, close combat weapons, and then biomorphs. How weapons in the close combat weapons section of the rules don't count as weapons but really are biomorphs but they aren't listed in the biomorphs section with the other biomorphs is really beyond me....

They still arent CCWs, are not special CCWs and simply require the 'nid to possess them to gain the benefits.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:I do not care what the old codex said. The new one does not say they are CCWs, so they are not CCWs. The combat upgrades are more akin to SM digital weapons or an Ork attack squig.

Except that an attack squig is listed in the "other equipment" section instead of the "weapons" section, and we don't know if digital weapons are true close combat weapons or not as all SM close combat and ranged weapons are listed under one section called "weapons." As with "implant attack" just because something grants an ability in close combat doesn't mean it is a close combat weapon. But weapons listed under a section called "close combat weapons" kinda points us in the direction that they are close combat weapons....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:They still arent CCWs, are not special CCWs and simply require the 'nid to possess them to gain the benefits.

Okay then. I will leave you to your world of where things listed under the section "close combat weapons" aren't really close combat weapons, but really are just biomorphs....I guess lightning claws aren't special close combat weapons either because "special close combat weapon" is not listed in its description, nor does it state in its description that one has to actually use the lightning claw to gain the reroll, even though it is listed under a section called "special close combat weapons" just like boneswords are listed under a section called "close combat weapons."

...but they are listed in the BRB as special CCW, and therefore *are* special CCW.

In addition it doesnt even matter if they ARE CCW, As it does not state a Tyranid ATTACKING with a Bone Sword ignores aremour saves, it states a Tyranid WITH them benefits.

This is the part you have yet to deal with....at all.

nosferatu1001 wrote:...but they are listed in the BRB as special CCW, and therefore *are* special CCW.

In addition it doesnt even matter if they ARE CCW, As it does not state a Tyranid ATTACKING with a Bone Sword ignores aremour saves, it states a Tyranid WITH them benefits.

This is the part you have yet to deal with....at all.

Oh but I have...."with" has been used the same way in the previous two Tyranid books as it is in the current one. Yet both of the previous books had a rule that allowed the abilities to stack. So if "with" is the same now as it was then, which you think means simply having the weapon grants the ability and not having to actually use it, then why a specific rule that has to state that the abilities stack when they weren't even labeled "close combat weapons" but now that they are actually labeled close combat weapons there is no specific rule? They stacked previously because there was a rule that allowed them to stack, but you are saying they still stack despite no rule that specifically says they do now even though they used the same "with" terminology in the previous two books.

You assume the previous rule wasnt redundant, therefore you have *not* addressed this - you have commited a logical fallacy. You have not proven a need for the rule in the current OR previous codexes, you have assumed a need.

If you pick up the current codex it clearly indicates they stack. No additional rule is necessary.

Lord_Mortis wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:...but they are listed in the BRB as special CCW, and therefore *are* special CCW.

In addition it doesnt even matter if they ARE CCW, As it does not state a Tyranid ATTACKING with a Bone Sword ignores aremour saves, it states a Tyranid WITH them benefits.

This is the part you have yet to deal with....at all.

Oh but I have...."with" has been used the same way in the previous two Tyranid books as it is in the current one. Yet both of the previous books had a rule that allowed the abilities to stack. So if "with" is the same now as it was then, which you think means simply having the weapon grants the ability and not having to actually use it, then why a specific rule that has to state that the abilities stack when they weren't even labeled "close combat weapons" but now that they are actually labeled close combat weapons there is no specific rule? They stacked previously because there was a rule that allowed them to stack, but you are saying they still stack despite no rule that specifically says they do now even though they used the same "with" terminology in the previous two books.

Actually, let's look at the last Codex versus this one.

Scything Talons (old edition): Tyranid Creatures with scything talons count as having two close combat weapons and so gain +1 Attack.

Scything Talons (new edition): A Tyranid model with a single set of scything talons rerolls any to-hit rolls in close combat.

One distinguishes a "close combat weapon". The other does not. The first one is a close combat weapon and, if you get another one, you get +2 attacks. The second one simply modifies the way the tyranid attacks. The first one says: A tyranid with X counts as having a close combat weapon that does Y. The second one simply says, a tyranid model with X gets Y.

What you're not getting is the weapon, whether you use it or not, is affecting the Tyranid. The tyranid's profile is basically changed. The creature itself has rending attacks because he has rending claws, not the other way around. The claws aren't rending, the creature is because he has them. Just like the Lash whip isn't being "used". You don't have to roll to hit - it simply affects anyone in base contact with it.

Imagine it this way: When you buy Rending Claws and a Lash Whip, instead of imagining the creature armed with anything at all - imagine the creature gaining a USR: Rending and a USR: Lash Whip. It still has its same number of attacks regardless of what it is carrying, because the weapons it is carrying are modifiers to the way it attacks.

Edit: Also, it is important to note that in the last codex, they had to distinguish the fact that if a tyranid had more than one close combat weapon, it could use both of them in a combat. The reason that they're not distinguishing in this codex is because you're not "using" the close combat weapon to attack, rather you're using the close combat weapon to alter the way you attack.

I just thought it might be useful to get some exact wordings.

BGB pg 42 wrote:
Power Weapons
[snip] Models wounded in close combat by the attacks of a model armed with a power weapon are not allowed armour saves.

Lightning Claws
[snip] A lightning claw is a power weapon and it also allows the wielder to re-roll any failed roll to wound.

Enjoy the slight ambiguity (most other weapons are 'as a power weapon plus some other stuff' and so don't contribute much)

Orkestra wrote:I just thought it might be useful to get some exact wordings.

BGB pg 42 wrote:
Power Weapons
[snip] Models wounded in close combat by the attacks of a model armed with a power weapon are not allowed armour saves.

Lightning Claws
[snip] A lightning claw is a power weapon and it also allows the wielder to re-roll any failed roll to wound.

Enjoy the slight ambiguity (most other weapons are 'as a power weapon plus some other stuff' and so don't contribute much)

Here's another way to look at it:

Let's say I have Scything Talons and Rending Claws. And let's go with the theory that all Tyranid Close Combat weapons are "special weapons" and therefore, you must choose which one you use. I choose to use the Scything Talons. So, I can re-roll my To hit rolls of 1.

Great. Now, I look at the Rending Claws rule. It simply states, "Close combat attacks made by models with rending claws gain the Rending ability."

Okay, I hit with my scything talons. I reroll my 1's. Now, are those close combat attacks? Yes. Does my model have rending claws, even though he didn't use them? Yes. Can a model with rending claws count their attacks as rending? Yes.

Therefore, my scything talon's attacks are rending. Why? Because I didn't have to use Rending claws to obtain the bonus. I get the bonus simply by having the claws.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You assume the previous rule wasnt redundant, therefore you have *not* addressed this - you have commited a logical fallacy. You have not proven a need for the rule in the current OR previous codexes, you have assumed a need.

If you pick up the current codex it clearly indicates they stack. No additional rule is necessary.

Sigh. I believe I have when I replied to this.

nosferatu1001 wrote:...but they are listed in the BRB as special CCW, and therefore *are* special CCW.

In addition it doesnt even matter if they ARE CCW, As it does not state a Tyranid ATTACKING with a Bone Sword ignores aremour saves, it states a Tyranid WITH them benefits.

This is the part you have yet to deal with....at all.

The BRB has lightning claws listed under "special close combat weapons." They are therefore special close combat weapons. We agree on this.

The Tyranid Codex lists Boneswords under "Close Combat Weapons" just like lightning claws are listed under "special close combat weapons." However, for some reason you don't think a Bonesword is a close combat weapon but a lightning claw is a special close combat weapon.

Again, the rules for lightning claws doesn't say a model attacking with a lightning claw gets to reroll failed to wound rolls. The model just has to wield it. Just like a Tyranid with Boneswords only has to have them with him. Both the model with the lightning claw and the Tyranid with the boneswords can use their foot to fight their enemies, both gain the abilities confered by the weapon.

The definition of a special close combat weapon, according to the BRB is: "...complex and powerful weapons that enhance the wielder's combat skills and confer bonuses, and sometimes penalties, to the models using them. The most widely used are listed below." Then it goes on to list power weapons, lightning claws, etc. These aren't the only special weapons, just the most widely used. So basically, a special close combat weapon is any close combat weapon that confers extra abilities to the model using it. A bonesword is listed under "Close Combat Weapons" in the new Tyranid codex. It has special abilities that it confers upon the model that has it that a normal close combat weapon, which in the Tyranid codex is claws and teeth, doesn't have. Thus, by the BRB definition, a Bonesword, and any other weapon listed in the Tyranid codex under "Close Combat Weapons" that has a special ability, is a special weapon. An implant attack, while it does give an ability in close combat, is not listed under Close Combat Weapons and is therefore not a weapon, but a biomorph. It may therefore be used in addition to the abilities of Tyranid close combat weapons.

According to the BRB, models with two special weapons must choose which one to use in the assault phase. Previous Tyranid books had a rule that allowed them to stack their weapons. The new codex lacks such a rule. Are boneswords and lashwhips close combat weapons? According to the Tyranid rulebook they are. Do they have extra abilities that normal close combat weapons do not? Yes they do. Does that make them special weapons according to the BRB? Yes it does. Do Tyranids have a special rule in the new book that allows them to stack abilities as in the past books? No they don't. Must they choose which special close combat weapon they are going to use in each assault? Yes they do.

Wield = using, actively possessing

The 'nids simply have to own them. Are you saying a Digital Weapon is a close combat weapon?

You have still made an assumption, based on your knowledge of the previous codexes, that something that is not described as a close combat weapon and does not function as such requires something to explicitly states it "combines" with other items that are also not Close Combat Weapons.

You then simply dismiss the *rule* on Page 33 which states they do not use Close Combat Weapons. This is an army wide rule and as such any rules relating to special or normal CCW cannot apply to them.

Finally: "sigh"ing when someone has pointed out your fallacies is not exactly a great response.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Wield = using, actively possessing

Yes, are not Tyranids armed with boneswords actively possessing and using the abilities of said boneswords?

You then simply dismiss the *rule* on Page 33 which states they do not use Close Combat Weapons. This is an army wide rule and as such any rules relating to special or normal CCW cannot apply to them.

No, I addressed that. It's a fluff reason to explain why they never get an extra attack for having more than one close combat weapon. A Tyranid warior that takes a pair of boneswords does not gain an extra attack for taking two close combat weapons per the rule on page 33. It does not say any special abilities of close combat weapons are included in the models profile, just the extra attack is already included, and it does not say rules that apply to close combat weapons don't apply to Tyranid close combat weapons. That is what you are wanting it to say, but that is not what it says. You are reading more into the rules than what are actually there.

I find it amusing that people need to reference editions that no longer matter to prove a point.

The biomorphs under "Close Combat Weapons" do not fall into Special Close Combat Weapons -- AND they specify that they only need to be on the model using them to have effect.

I agree with Kirsanth, the biomorphs are treated more as wargear then acctual weapons, they cannot gain extra attacks, or different strength attacks at any point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
so I would say yeah, they could use both, a model with rending still gets to re-roll ones if it has scything talons.

kirsanth wrote:The biomorphs under "Close Combat Weapons" do not fall into Special Close Combat Weapons -- AND they specify that they only need to be on the model using them to have effect.

And around in circles we go.....

Seriously, if you all want to say weapons list under "close combat weapons" aren't close combat weapons but weapons listed under "special close combat weapons" are special close combat weapons....

If you want to apply one rule to lightning claws and not the same exact rule to Tyranid close combat weapons....

If you want to take a rule that simply says Tyranids do not get extra attacks for being armed with 2 close combat weapons and say that it means something else entirely....

If you want to say a model with a Tyranid close combat weapon with special abilities is just using the abilities and not the weapon itself...

If you want to ignore the definition in the BRB of what a special close combat weapon is when it comes to the special abilities of Tyranid close combat weapons....

Well, I say good luck with all of that.

Lord_mortis - no, you ignored and dismissed it as fluff. That is entirely different. The very first sentence is a *rule* stating they do not use close combat weapons.

It then goes on to say that, because of this, they dont get plus one attack for 2 ccw - as they never HAVE two ccw, as they never use them.

None of the weapons are described as CCW or function as such, and you are told they never use CCW to begin with.

So, are you saying a Digital weapon is a CCW? Just curious to see if you are at least consistent in ignoring the rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Lord_mortis - no, you ignored and dismissed it as fluff. That is entirely different. The very first sentence is a *rule* stating they do not use close combat weapons.

It then goes on to say that, because of this, they dont get plus one attack for 2 ccw - as they never HAVE two ccw, as they never use them.

Duh, that's because their teeth and claws ARE their close combat weapons! Just like a zombie's "grasping hands and slavering jaws" count as 2 close combat weapons.

None of the weapons are described as CCW or function as such, and you are told they never use CCW to begin with.

Really? Are we reading the same rulebook? Because models with claws and teeth count as having a normal close combat weapon! Not to mention that all the Tyranid close combat weapons are listed in their own section called "Close Combat WEAPONS." Simply because a Tyranid close combat weapon may seem like a piece of wargear to you instead of a weapon doesn't stop it being classified by the rulebook as a close combat weapon by being placed in a section called "Close Combat WEAPONS" instead of "Biomorph Upgrades."

So, are you saying a Digital weapon is a CCW? Just curious to see if you are at least consistent in ignoring the rules.

I have no idea what it is since all the SM ranged and close combat weapons are lumped together in one section simply called "Weapons." I know it must be some sort of weapon because it is listed there instead of "Other Equipment." At least I am not trying to claim that Digital Weapons are really armor instead of weapons based on something in their description like you are trying to claim boneswords aren't really weapons but biomorphs even though they are clearly listed under Close Combat Weapons instead of Biomorph Upgrades. Again, just because you feel something seems like a piece of wargear doesn't change it from being labeled as a Close Combat Weapon by the rulebook.

At this point 40 votes to 4 is a very good indicator.

G

Lord_Mortis wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:You assume the previous rule wasnt redundant, therefore you have *not* addressed this - you have commited a logical fallacy. You have not proven a need for the rule in the current OR previous codexes, you have assumed a need.

If you pick up the current codex it clearly indicates they stack. No additional rule is necessary.

Sigh. I believe I have when I replied to this.

nosferatu1001 wrote:...but they are listed in the BRB as special CCW, and therefore *are* special CCW.

In addition it doesnt even matter if they ARE CCW, As it does not state a Tyranid ATTACKING with a Bone Sword ignores aremour saves, it states a Tyranid WITH them benefits.

This is the part you have yet to deal with....at all.

The BRB has lightning claws listed under "special close combat weapons." They are therefore special close combat weapons. We agree on this.

The Tyranid Codex lists Boneswords under "Close Combat Weapons" just like lightning claws are listed under "special close combat weapons." However, for some reason you don't think a Bonesword is a close combat weapon but a lightning claw is a special close combat weapon.

Again, the rules for lightning claws doesn't say a model attacking with a lightning claw gets to reroll failed to wound rolls. The model just has to wield it. Just like a Tyranid with Boneswords only has to have them with him. Both the model with the lightning claw and the Tyranid with the boneswords can use their foot to fight their enemies, both gain the abilities confered by the weapon.

The definition of a special close combat weapon, according to the BRB is: "...complex and powerful weapons that enhance the wielder's combat skills and confer bonuses, and sometimes penalties, to the models using them. The most widely used are listed below." Then it goes on to list power weapons, lightning claws, etc. These aren't the only special weapons, just the most widely used. So basically, a special close combat weapon is any close combat weapon that confers extra abilities to the model using it. A bonesword is listed under "Close Combat Weapons" in the new Tyranid codex. It has special abilities that it confers upon the model that has it that a normal close combat weapon, which in the Tyranid codex is claws and teeth, doesn't have. Thus, by the BRB definition, a Bonesword, and any other weapon listed in the Tyranid codex under "Close Combat Weapons" that has a special ability, is a special weapon. An implant attack, while it does give an ability in close combat, is not listed under Close Combat Weapons and is therefore not a weapon, but a biomorph. It may therefore be used in addition to the abilities of Tyranid close combat weapons.

According to the BRB, models with two special weapons must choose which one to use in the assault phase. Previous Tyranid books had a rule that allowed them to stack their weapons. The new codex lacks such a rule. Are boneswords and lashwhips close combat weapons? According to the Tyranid rulebook they are. Do they have extra abilities that normal close combat weapons do not? Yes they do. Does that make them special weapons according to the BRB? Yes it does. Do Tyranids have a special rule in the new book that allows them to stack abilities as in the past books? No they don't. Must they choose which special close combat weapon they are going to use in each assault? Yes they do.

I see you ignored my example above. Here, I'll repost it.

puma713 wrote:

Let's say I have Scything Talons and Rending Claws. And let's go with the theory that all Tyranid Close Combat weapons are "special weapons" and therefore, you must choose which one you use. I choose to use the Scything Talons. So, I can re-roll my To hit rolls of 1.

Great. Now, I look at the Rending Claws rule. It simply states, "Close combat attacks made by models with rending claws gain the Rending ability."

Okay, I hit with my scything talons. I reroll my 1's. Now, are those close combat attacks? Yes. Does my model have rending claws, even though he didn't use them? Yes. Can a model with rending claws count their attacks as rending? Yes.

Therefore, my scything talon's attacks are rending. Why? Because I didn't have to use Rending claws to obtain the bonus. I get the bonus simply by having the claws.

puma713 wrote:I see you ignored my example above. Here, I'll repost it.

No, it was addressed with the post of mine you quoted. You have two close combat weapons with special abilities, thus they are special close combat weapons as defined by the BRB. According to the BRB, you must choose which weapon you are going to use in the current assault phase. So you either get your rending attacks or you get your rerolls, but not both, as Tyranids no longer have a rule that allows them to stack abilities.

You are defining "with" as meaning simply having the weapon on their person and not actually having to use it, with the weapon granting the ability regardless of whether they are using it or not. Are you consistent in all cases of where it states "models with X weapon receive X ability?" If so, then Nurgle Chaos Lords can use their poisoned attacks without ever having to roll a D6 and possibly suffering a wound....

So your argument solely depends on how "with" is properly applied, meaning simply having the weapon or actually using the weapon.

So does that mean Vulkan is required to choose between using his Master Crafted, his Digital Weapons, and his Relic Blade, as all three are listed as Close Combat Weapons in the Codex?

Aduro wrote:So does that mean Vulkan is required to choose between using his Master Crafted, his Digital Weapons, and his Relic Blade, as all three are listed as Close Combat Weapons in the Codex?

No, he doesn't

Lord_Mortis wrote:Duh, that's because their teeth and claws ARE their close combat weapons! Just like a zombie's "grasping hands and slavering jaws" count as 2 close combat weapons.

Wrong. Read the RULE again. They do not use close combat weapons.

One more insult and I'll report your posts. UNLIKE a zombie they do not have a "counts as" close combat weapon. You even state the difference in your own posts yet do not see it - impressive.

Lord_Mortis wrote:Really? Are we reading the same rulebook? Because models with claws and teeth count as having a normal close combat weapon!

No, they dont. It states they do not use CCW. Please, stop ignoring rules and calling them fluff - as a quick suggestion: when formulating an argument ignoring rules is not a good start. You lose credibility.

Lord_Mortis wrote:Not to mention that all the Tyranid close combat weapons are listed in their own section called "Close Combat WEAPONS." Simply because a Tyranid close combat weapon may seem like a piece of wargear to you instead of a weapon doesn't stop it being classified by the rulebook as a close combat weapon by being placed in a section called "Close Combat WEAPONS" instead of "Biomorph Upgrades."

Except it does not function as a close combat weapon. As has been point out to you repeatedly.
Yet again you ignore something that disproves your argument. This isnt going well.

Lord_Mortis wrote:I have no idea what it is since all the SM ranged and close combat weapons are lumped together in one section simply called "Weapons."

Nope, it is listed under the section "close combat weapons" in the SM codex. Again, stop dodging - do you believe it is a CCW and therefore you must choose to use it?

Lord_Mortis wrote:I know it must be some sort of weapon because it is listed there instead of "Other Equipment." At least I am not trying to claim that Digital Weapons are really armor instead of weapons based on something in their description like you are trying to claim boneswords aren't really weapons but biomorphs even though they are clearly listed under Close Combat Weapons instead of Biomorph Upgrades. Again, just because you feel something seems like a piece of wargear doesn't change it from being labeled as a Close Combat Weapon by the rulebook.

Wrong, wrong and wrong. 3/3

1) there is a rule stating they do not use CCW.

Done, that is all you need - they never use CCW, therefore the CCW rules cannot apply to them. But given your entire argument is predicated on ignoring this I dont expect much.

with 90%+ disagreeing with you I would sugggest that you formulate a more persuasive, less ignorant of rules argument.

They may be armed with a CCW (Claws and Teeth), but they never actualy use it. Q.E.D

Green Blow Fly wrote:At this point 40 votes to 4 is a very good indicator....

G

...that there are a lot of people not understanding the rules. Yes, good poll!

Aduro wrote:So does that mean Vulkan is required to choose between using his Master Crafted, his Digital Weapons, and his Relic Blade, as all three are listed as Close Combat Weapons in the Codex?

Actually, there is no "Close Combat Weapons" section of the SM codex, so I don't know where you are getting that they are listed as close combat weapons. But to answer your question, no, as his relic blade and his master crafted weapon are the same weapon, and we don't know what digiital weapons are classified as since they aren't described as a close combat weapon in their description and they are lumped together with ranged weapons.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Lord_Mortis wrote:Duh, that's because their teeth and claws ARE their close combat weapons! Just like a zombie's "grasping hands and slavering jaws" count as 2 close combat weapons.

Wrong. Read the RULE again. They do not use close combat weapons.

One more insult and I'll report your posts. UNLIKE a zombie they do not have a "counts as" close combat weapon. You even state the difference in your own posts yet do not see it - impressive.

Lol. Tyranids do not march into the armory and get fitted with close combat weapons as such, their teeth and claws are their close combat weapons. It even says this under Close Combat Weapons: Claws and Teeth on page 83.

No, they dont. It states they do not use CCW. Please, stop ignoring rules and calling them fluff - as a quick suggestion: when formulating an argument ignoring rules is not a good start. You lose credibility.

Lol. See above. The rule is that they don't get +1 attack for being armed with 2 close combat weapons as this bonus attack is already included in their profile.

Lord_Mortis wrote:Not to mention that all the Tyranid close combat weapons are listed in their own section called "Close Combat WEAPONS." Simply because a Tyranid close combat weapon may seem like a piece of wargear to you instead of a weapon doesn't stop it being classified by the rulebook as a close combat weapon by being placed in a section called "Close Combat WEAPONS" instead of "Biomorph Upgrades."

Except it does not function as a close combat weapon. As has been point out to you repeatedly.
Yet again you ignore something that disproves your argument. This isnt going well.

Mortis if you are in any way shape or form saying that a lash whip is a close combat weapon you are just flat out wrong. It cannot be used to attack enemy models in close combat. Think of it as the old doom siren. Basically what you are saying you would shaft a bug player because you think you have found a convenient loophole. Not cool, not cool at all.

G

Lord_Mortis brought up a good point. If the tyranid codex lists boneswords under "close combat weapons" then it is one. Just like a Lightning claw.

As it has already been stated
Bonesword (not an exact quote)
"it states a Tyranid WITH them benefits. "
and Lightning claw
"allows the wielder to re-roll any failed roll to wound"

So saying it isn't a special CCW, is like saying that someone with a PF and a LC can enjoy a re-roll to wound with the PF as the LC "allows" the re-roll to wound and not that you have to "attack" with it.

Obviously this is not so. If the Lash whip in question is *not* listed as a CCW, then the alpha warrior can benefit from both rules, but if it is then you have the situation of 2 special CCWs.

EDIT: I don't have the codex, so didn't vote, but it all comes down to whether a lash whip is a CCW like the bonesword. It may be just an item that adds a special rule Ala Wyche weapons (which are not CCWs at all but just a wargear that grants a special rule even though the name is mis-leading, which may be the case of the lash whip)

Green Blow Fly wrote:Mortis if you are in any way shape or form saying that a lash whip is a close combat weapon you are just flat out wrong. It cannot be used to attack enemy models in close combat. Think of it as the old doom siren. Basically what you are saying you would shaft a bug player because you think you have found a convenient loophole. Not cool, not cool at all.

G

What I think is that, RAI, they meant for Tyranid close combat weapons to stack just like they have in the last two Tyranid books. However, RAW, they are close combat weapons, actually special close combat weapons by the definition in the BRB, and according to the BRB, a model must choose which weapon they are going to be using in the current assault phase, regardless of whether they don't "seem" like true close combat weapons or not. Oh, and btw, the old Doom Siren was a ranged attack weapon that had a special ability in close combat, so that isn't a good comparison.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

padixon wrote:If the Lash whip in question is *not* listed as a CCW, then the alpha warrior can benefit from both rules, but if it is then you have the situation of 2 special CCWs.

And that is the crux of it. Lash whip is listed under the section entitled "Close Combat Weapons" along with boneswords, crushing claws, etc.

Lord_Mortis wrote:Actually, there is no "Close Combat Weapons" section of the SM codex, so I don't know where you are getting that they are listed as close combat weapons.

Weapons listed in a codex do not need to be listed as a ccw in the codex to be a ccw.

Lord_Mortis wrote:But to answer your question, no, as his relic blade and his master crafted weapon are the same weapon

So if 2 different special close combat weapons are combined into one weapon, the user gets to use both abilities and doesn't have to choose? Hmmm...

PM on how you think calgar's gauntlets work then as I don't wish to derail this thread...

padixon wrote:EDIT: I don't have the codex, so didn't vote, but it all comes down to whether a lash whip is a CCW like the bonesword. It may be just an item that adds a special rule Ala Wyche weapons (which are not CCWs at all but just a wargear that grants a special rule even though the name is mis-leading, which may be the case of the lash whip)

The Codex specifically states "Tyranids do not wield Close Combat Weapons".

Thus, you could then equip a Nid with 87 Boneswords, it doesn't matter, he will NEVER weild it, or use it, or do diddly squat with it.

Luckily, all the CCW Biomorphs have rules wording that make it very clear that just by having said Biomorph, the model gets the effect, even though they are not using the CCW (or any CCW at all).

Gwar! wrote:

padixon wrote:EDIT: I don't have the codex, so didn't vote, but it all comes down to whether a lash whip is a CCW like the bonesword. It may be just an item that adds a special rule Ala Wyche weapons (which are not CCWs at all but just a wargear that grants a special rule even though the name is mis-leading, which may be the case of the lash whip)

The Codex specifically states "Tyranids do not wield Close Combat Weapons".

Thus, you could then equip a Nid with 87 Boneswords, it doesn't matter, he will NEVER weild it, or use it, or do diddly squat with it.

Luckily, all the CCW Biomorphs have rules wording that make it very clear that just by having said Biomorph, the model gets the effect, even though they are not using the CCW (or any CCW at all).

If that is what it states, then I am sold.

Gwar! wrote:

padixon wrote:EDIT: I don't have the codex, so didn't vote, but it all comes down to whether a lash whip is a CCW like the bonesword. It may be just an item that adds a special rule Ala Wyche weapons (which are not CCWs at all but just a wargear that grants a special rule even though the name is mis-leading, which may be the case of the lash whip)

The Codex specifically states "Tyranids do not wield Close Combat Weapons".

Thus, you could then equip a Nid with 87 Boneswords, it doesn't matter, he will NEVER weild it, or use it, or do diddly squat with it.

Not true. They could have 87 arms with 87 Boneswords in each one, but they will never get a +1 attack bonus for having more than one ccw. That is the rule. No more, no less.

If a Nid isn't "using" his bonesword, then he isn't "using" the ability of it either. If you believe they do, then does a Nurgle Chaos Lord get to use the poisoned attacks of his demon weapon without having to roll a D6 when he attacks?

Luckily, all the CCW Biomorphs have rules wording that make it very clear that just by having said Biomorph, the model gets the effect, even though they are not using the CCW (or any CCW at all).

Can a Carnifex with crushing claws choose not to use them in order to get the Iniative bonus on the charge? Or is it forever stuck at I1 simply by having the weapon (it isn't a biomorph, biomorphs have their own section entitled "Biomorph Upgrades") even if it isn't using them?

Lord_Mortis wrote:Not true. They could have 87 arms with 87 Boneswords in each one, but they will never get a +1 attack bonus for having more than one ccw. That is the rule. No more, no less.

That's only part of the rule. Using your 'vision' of the nid ccw rules, they can't use them at all.

I could have no other 'weapons' or 'biomorphs' other than a bonesword and I could not use it since nids never wield ccw's.

Lord_Mortis wrote:Can a Carnifex with crushing claws choose not to use them in order to get the Iniative bonus on the charge? Or is it forever stuck at I1 simply by having the weapon (it isn't a biomorph, biomorphs have their own section entitled "Biomorph Upgrades") even if it isn't using them?

He never uses the Crushing Claws. Just by having the Crushing Claws, all his attacks (including the bonus ones) are at I1.

Furthermore, this is not stated to be optional, so it isn't.

imweasel wrote:

Lord_Mortis wrote:Not true. They could have 87 arms with 87 Boneswords in each one, but they will never get a +1 attack bonus for having more than one ccw. That is the rule. No more, no less.

That's only part of the rule. Using your 'vision' of the nid ccw rules, they can't use them at all.

I could have no other 'weapons' or 'biomorphs' other than a bonesword and I could not use it since nids never wield ccw's.

Going in circles again. Tyranids' close combat weapons are their teeth, claws, and talons. It states this in the rulebook. But beat that dead horse all you want to.

Lord_Mortis wrote:Not true. They could have 87 arms with 87 Boneswords in each one, but they will never get a +1 attack bonus for having more than one ccw. That is the rule. No more, no less.

No, there is one rule, and one *consquence* to that rule.

The RULE is that Tyranids do not wield Close Combat Weapons. As a consequence of them not wielding close combat weapons they can never gain a bonus for wielding two.

Odd that.

Lord_Mortis wrote:If a Nid isn't "using" his bonesword, then he isn't "using" the ability of it either. If you believe they do, then does a Nurgle Chaos Lord get to use the poisoned attacks of his demon weapon without having to roll a D6 when he attacks?

He doesnt need to use the bonesword, the rules state he has to *have* a bonesword. A chaos lord is required to use the CCW they are armed with as it is a Special CCW.

Use /= Have

Lord_Mortis wrote:Can a Carnifex with crushing claws choose not to use them in order to get the Iniative bonus on the charge? Or is it forever stuck at I1 simply by having the weapon (it isn't a biomorph, biomorphs have their own section entitled "Biomorph Upgrades") even if it isn't using them?

It does not have to use the Crushing Claws, simply having them adds +D3 attacks and makes your strike at I1, that is a consequence of possesion.

Additionally it is not listed as optional so it isn't. Really simple....

Gwar! wrote:

Lord_Mortis wrote:Can a Carnifex with crushing claws choose not to use them in order to get the Iniative bonus on the charge? Or is it forever stuck at I1 simply by having the weapon (it isn't a biomorph, biomorphs have their own section entitled "Biomorph Upgrades") even if it isn't using them?

He never uses the Crushing Claws. Just by having the Crushing Claws, all his attacks (including the bonus ones) are at I1.

Furthermore, this is not stated to be optional, so it isn't.

So then just by having a Plaguebringer, a Nurgle Chaos Lord has poisoned attacks without ever having to use the weapon itself?

Lord_Mortis wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Lord_Mortis wrote:Can a Carnifex with crushing claws choose not to use them in order to get the Iniative bonus on the charge? Or is it forever stuck at I1 simply by having the weapon (it isn't a biomorph, biomorphs have their own section entitled "Biomorph Upgrades") even if it isn't using them?

He never uses the Crushing Claws. Just by having the Crushing Claws, all his attacks (including the bonus ones) are at I1.

Furthermore, this is not stated to be optional, so it isn't.

So then just by having a Plaguebringer, a Nurgle Chaos Lord has poisoned attacks without ever having to use the weapon itself?

-Sigh-

No, because a Chaos Lord must use the Plaugebringer as a CCW to get the effect. Tyranids, however, have a special rule saying they do not ever use CCW, as well as their CCWs clearly stating that just by having them (rather than using them) gain the effect.

Please, try reading. It's good for you.

Lord_Mortis wrote:So then just by having a Plaguebringer, a Nurgle Chaos Lord has poisoned attacks without ever having to use the weapon itself?

No, as you must use the weapon in order to gain the effects of it, as the weapon modifies your attacks. Similarly you have no choice not to use it, as it is a special CCW so you must use it.

You're done trying very hard here arent you?

nosferatu1001 wrote:He doesnt need to use the bonesword, the rules state he has to *have* a bonesword. A chaos lord is required to use the CCW they are armed with as it is a Special CCW.

Use /= Have

"No armor saves by be taken against wounds inflicted in close combat by a Tyranid with a bonesword."

"A model with a Plaguebringer has poisoned attacks that wound on a 4+..."

Using your understanding of the word "with," a Nurgle Chaos Lord has poisoned attacks simply by having the Plaguebringer. As a special ccw, the Nurgle Lord can choose not to use it and thus loses the extra D6 attacks. However, his normal profile attacks are still poisoned, as the rule says a model "with" a Plaguebringer has poisoned attacks. At least according to you guys.

Lord_Mortis wrote:Can a Carnifex with crushing claws choose not to use them in order to get the Iniative bonus on the charge? Or is it forever stuck at I1 simply by having the weapon (it isn't a biomorph, biomorphs have their own section entitled "Biomorph Upgrades") even if it isn't using them?

It does not have to use the Crushing Claws, simply having them adds +D3 attacks and makes your strike at I1, that is a consequence of possesion.

Additionally it is not listed as optional so it isn't. Really simple....

Yeah, if they weren't considered Close Combat Weapons, then I guess they wouldn't be optional. Too bad they are in a section entitled "Close Combat Weapons."

I giggle a little when these posts get so serious and people start quoting english lessons hehe.

In reality I think the majority of us agree that GW intentions were the effects would stack. However again this is an instance where GW did not clearly state without a doubt (due to others interpretations) how these rules work in harmony with the generic GW rules. This is apparent in several portions of the codex (Mawloc, Pods getting TS, CC Weapons or not, etc..) and my recomendation is to get an idea how it will be played in your area until the FAQ series start to come out. Everyone has made great points but we just seem to interpret this differently. No biggy so lets stay friends and keep er civil

Everyone here has a legitamate argument (someone spell check that for me ) but we wont know 100% until GW gives us their RAI. I will say that I am starting to think GW uses Microsofts buisness model by throwing a beta version on the market then letting everyone else find the holes hehe.

As a side note it is bad form to threaten someone with reporting abuse while in the same post you treat the individual abusively. Also it is bad form to be in the minority of a poll and stating it is a bad poll because most people dont agree with you...or vise versa. Also not a great way to make friends in my opinion or to gain respect in upcoming discussions.

Lord Mortis - erm, no. If you have a special CCW you must use it - the exact opposite of what you just posted.

Page 33: Tyranids NEVER USE CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS

Got that now?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Lord Mortis - erm, no. If you have a special CCW you must use it - the exact opposite of what you just posted.

Page 33: Tyranids NEVER USE CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS

Got that now?

Where in the rules does it say I must use my special CCW?

Tyranids' teeth, claws and talons are their close combat weapons. Page 33 and page 83.

Page 35 BRB, just under the bullets under "Who can fight". Its why people have been talking for a year now about not being able to "turn off" powerfists, you know...

And they never Wield CCW, meaning that the rules about 2 CCW never applies. Page 33

nosferatu1001 wrote:Page 35 BRB, just under the bullets under "Who can fight". Its why people have been talking for a year now about not being able to "turn off" powerfists, you know...

Nope, I don't know, as I don't frequent this forum that often. That said, I do see that one must use their special ccw.

And they never Wield CCW, meaning that the rules about 2 CCW never applies. Page 33

Their teeth, claws, and talons are their ccws. Pages 33 and 83. However they don't get 1+ attack for using 2 ccws, as this bonus has already been included in their profile. That is the rule. No more, no less.

Lord_Mortis wrote:Their teeth, claws, and talons are their ccws. Pages 33 and 83. However they don't get 1+ attack for using 2 ccws, as this bonus has already been included in their profile. That is the rule. No more, no less.

Yes, well done. They are CCW. We know this.

However, as per page 33, “Tyranids do not wield Close Combat Weapons”

How hard is that to grasp?

SO, given that they do not wield Close Combat Weapons, nothing they buy triggers the rules combining the effects of 2 CCW as they never wield the weapon.

Clear now?

Mortis you are basically arguing at this point for the sake of arguing while Gwar is preaching to the gospel here at Dakka. You are trying to pass this off as RAW and if the King of RAW doesn't agree then that really says something.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Mortis you are basically arguing at this point for the sake of arguing while Gwar is preaching to the gospel here at Dakka. You are trying to pass this off as RAW and if the King of RAW doesn't agree then that really says something.

G

Which doesn't mean anything to me. I have been the minority on rules questions in the past when the majority were sure they were playing it correctly, only to have GW release a FAQ later on that supported the minority position. But yeah, we are beating a dead horse at this point, each side firmly entrenched into their particular view.

Lord_Mortis wrote:Which doesn't mean anything to me. I have been the minority on rules questions in the past when the majority were sure they were playing it correctly, only to have GW release a FAQ later on that supported the minority position. But yeah, we are beating a dead horse at this point, each side firmly entrenched into their particular view.

You do realise that GW releasing an FAQ in your favour actually means your view was wrong 90% of the time?

Lord_Mortis wrote:Which doesn't mean anything to me. I have been the minority on rules questions in the past when the majority were sure they were playing it correctly, only to have GW release a FAQ later on that supported the minority position. But yeah, we are beating a dead horse at this point, each side firmly entrenched into their particular view.

Which is usually because they *change the rules* - you cannot account for Deus Ex Machina when reading rules as they currently stand. In fact if you agree with the errata it does mean your initial reading was wrong - as they had to change the rules to fit what you said that means whaty ou said was initially not the rules.

The rules, currently, work this way. I really doubt they will FAQ that really Nids dont get to combine their non-CCW effects.

That is how I feel too. It's seems so obvious to me.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Mortis you are basically arguing at this point for the sake of arguing while Gwar is preaching to the gospel here at Dakka. You are trying to pass this off as RAW and if the King of RAW doesn't agree then that really says something.

G

/facepalm.


Gwar is not the "king of Raw" - he is but another person with an opinion.

Please stop adding to his already over inflated ego by saying things like this.

Mortis has a point - the wording for the Tyranid "CCWs" is similar to that of the other special CCWs.

For instance, power weapons: "Models wounded in close combat by the attacks of a model armed with a power weapon are not allowed armor saves."

Note the distinction in meaning between the former and this 'Models wounded in close combat by attacks from a power weapon are not allowed armor saves.'

Power weapons only give the bonus to the model, and it does not specifically mention that he has to be wielding it, just armed with it.

I have a feeling that as frequently happens, the whole sentence in the Nid codex is getting cut short that describes Nids not using CCWs.

I do not have the Nid Dex, can someone quote the rule in its entirety?

MULTIPLE Mod Alerts on this thread.

Some OT/attack posts have been cleaned up/deleted.

STOP the personal attacks.

DEBATE THE ACTUAL POINTS of the argument, and NOT the personal character of the poster.

This is an OFFICIAL in thread warning.

Beyond this point, if things continue how they were before, there will be consequences.

From page 33 of the new 'dex;

Tyranid creatures do not wield close combat weapons as such, but rather slash at their opponents with their own teeth, claws, and talons. As a result, Tyranid models never receive bonus Attacks for fighting with more than one close combat weapon- these bonuses are always included in the creatures's profile.

So, all this means is that Tyranid creatures do not receive the +1 attack bonus for being armed with more than one ccw. Please note the word, "As a result", meaning because they "do not wield close combat weapons as such", this is why they do not receive the attack bonus. That's all that is written here on page 33.....

Now, let's move on to page 81; there it lists the page as Weapons and Biomorphs. This is further sub-categorized as Ranged Weapons, Close Combat Weapons, and Biomorphs. Listed under the Close Combat Weapons category, there is bonesword, claws and teeth, crushing claws, lash whip, rending claws, and scything talons.

Most of these close combat weapons (with the exception of claws and teeth) confer some sort of special ability for the attacker or penalty to the opponent in close combat; therefore, it would seem to me that these are indeed special close combat weapons as listed in the BRB.

I just do not see anything in this new 'dex that allows special ccw's to stack at all and i've read the thing from top-to-bottom.

Additionally, i think people really need to read the whole entry that is listed on page 33 instead of just part of it. I think it's clear......now, this does not mean I favor that 'nids should be restricted from their weapons stacking. I surely thought they would, however, from what I have read with the BRB and what is listed in this 'dex, I'm not finding anything that is allowing it.....therefore, I agree with Mortis.

Until there is a GW FAQ that clears this up, OR maybe this was meant to be.....who knows, but it would be nice of them to be much less vague with their rules in their future codexes.....

Just my .02 worth here....cheers!

Thank you ThirdUltra. I figured the case was something like this - a quote taken out of context to achieve the desired end result.

Frankly, I do not see any way you could read into the entry on p.33 as saying that they are allowed to stack special weapons.

Don't get me wrong, I figured for sure it would work that way. But the RAW indicates otherwise it would seem.

Anyone got a rule that supports that Tyranid special CCWs stack?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Interesting consequence:

Models with 2 special weapons must decide which to use when it is their turn to attack (p.42 brb). For the lash whip, it reduces Initiative. However, because the selection must be done at the time the model is making its attacks, it seems anything with a higher Initiative than the model with the lash whip will not be effected - they get to attack before the model can choose to use its lash whip.

The term AS A RESULT does not negate the fact that Tyranids don't have close combat weapons, it's just pointing out that as a result OF NOT HAVING CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS they don't receive +1 attack. The rules clearly don't say Tyranids HAVE CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS but don't receive a +1 attack. What you are saying is a redirect.

G

But in fact they do have CCWs - there is a section in the codex called CCWs. Are you arguing they are not allowed to use those items? Certainly if they do not use CCWs then those items can't be used.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The fact is that the phrase "As a result" is used to clarify the previous sentence. Arguing that it has no meaning is outright disingenuous. What other possible meaning could the phrase "As a result" have? The way you are reading it, the phrase has no meaning.

What we do know:

Tyranids don't have close combat weapons and as a result don't get the bonus +1 attack. If Tyranids had close combat then they would get the bonus +1 attack. It's very simple but the confusion stems from the upgrades on page 83 are listed under a heading entitled Close Combat Weapons... But we already know from page 33 that Tyranids don't have close combat weapons. It was a poor choice of wording for the title Close Combat Weapons that appears on page 33. Confusing? Yes indeed but the rules are there.

Here are the options listed under the section beginning on page 83:

Bone Sword (sounds like a close combat weapon and works like one as well)

Claws and Teeth (this is by far the one of most interest, it's another rule stating that Tyranids DON'T have close combat weapons unless armed with claws and teeth... This is the last nail in the proverbial coffin as it says in black and white that only claws and teeth count as close combat weapons)

if we go back to the rules for the bone sword it's clearly stated that a model armed with said bone sword ignores armor saves. Sounds like an upgrade/biomorphic to me. The rules don't state that a bone sword is a close combat weapon.

Crushing Claws (allows a model to gain d3 additional attacks. Sounds like a close combat weapon but by the rules all it does is confer extra attacks)

it's pretty much the same for all the other entries, they might sound like a close combat weapon but in fact they simply add something beneficial.

They aren't ccws and the rules are explicily clear on this issue.

G

Green Blow Fly just to confirm, you are saying that the entries under "Close Combat Weapons" are not Close Combat Weapons?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Tyranids don't have close combat weapons and as a result don't get the bonus +1 attack.

False, Tyranids do not WIELD CCWs. Use proper verbiage as changing the words changes the meaning.

If Tyranids had close combat then they would get the bonus +1 attack. It's very simple but the confusion stems from the upgrades on page 83 are listed under a heading entitled Close Combat Weapons... But we already know from page 33 that Tyranids don't have close combat weapons. It was a poor choice of wording for the title Close Combat Weapons that appears on page 33. Confusing? Yes indeed but the rules are there.

And the change you made from Wield to Have is lending itself to your argument. This entire section is false because they do HAVE CCWs, they just do not WIELD them.

Here are the options listed under the section beginning on page 83:

Bone Sword (sounds like a close combat weapon and works like one as well)

Claws and Teeth (this is by far the one of most interest, it's another rule stating that Tyranids DON'T have close combat weapons unless armed with claws and teeth... This is the last nail in the proverbial coffin as it says in black and white that only claws and teeth count as close combat weapons)

if we go back to the rules for the bone sword it's clearly stated that a model armed with said bone sword ignores armor saves. Sounds like an upgrade/biomorphic to me. The rules don't state that a bone sword is a close combat weapon.

Crushing Claws (allows a model to gain d3 additional attacks. Sounds like a close combat weapon but by the rules all it does is confer extra attacks)

it's pretty much the same for all the other entries, they might sound like a close combat weapon but in fact they simply add something beneficial.

They aren't ccws and the rules are explicily clear on this issue.

So the heading Close Combat Weapons does not mean that the entries that follow are Close Combat Weapons?

Do you understand how this assertion is difficult to reconcile?

No one ever reads my examples. Alright, I'll post it a third time:

puma713 wrote:

Let's say I have Scything Talons and Rending Claws. And let's go with the theory that all Tyranid Close Combat weapons are "special weapons" and therefore, you must choose which one you use. I choose to use the Scything Talons. So, I can re-roll my To hit rolls of 1.

Great. Now, I look at the Rending Claws rule. It simply states, "Close combat attacks made by models with rending claws gain the Rending ability."

Okay, I hit with my scything talons. I reroll my 1's. Now, are those close combat attacks? Yes. Does my model have rending claws, even though he didn't use them? Yes. Can a model with rending claws count their attacks as rending? Yes.

Therefore, my scything talon's attacks are rending. Why? Because I didn't have to use Rending claws to obtain the bonus. I get the bonus simply by having the claws.

Okay, I'll quote my response to that.

Dracos wrote:the wording for the Tyranid "CCWs" is similar to that of the other special CCWs.

For instance, power weapons: "Models wounded in close combat by the attacks of a model armed with a power weapon are not allowed armor saves."

Note the distinction in meaning between the former and this 'Models wounded in close combat by attacks from a power weapon are not allowed armor saves.'

Power weapons only give the bonus to the model, and it does not specifically mention that he has to be wielding it, just armed with it.

Note that the wording in the Tyranid Codex is consistent with that for other special weapons in the BGB. Therefore, if what you are saying is true for Tyranid special ccws, it is also true for everyone else.

So happy I read this. Lord_Mortis, Third_Ultra, as well as others, thank you for standing your ground in the face of populist opinion. The debate was heated. Your talking points actually use RAW. I believe the language as posted in this thread unequivocally show that specific entries are Special CCWs and as such may not be used together. Whether or not this was a GW oversight or intentional is to be seen. The darn FAQ will clear the air in due time.

Strong debate people!

Dracos wrote:Okay, I'll quote my response to that.

Dracos wrote:the wording for the Tyranid "CCWs" is similar to that of the other special CCWs.

For instance, power weapons: "Models wounded in close combat by the attacks of a model armed with a power weapon are not allowed armor saves."

Note the distinction in meaning between the former and this 'Models wounded in close combat by attacks from a power weapon are not allowed armor saves.'

Power weapons only give the bonus to the model, and it does not specifically mention that he has to be wielding it, just armed with it.

Note that the wording in the Tyranid Codex is consistent with that for other special weapons in the BGB. Therefore, if what you are saying is true for Tyranid special ccws, it is also true for everyone else.

Okay, so just so we're on the same page: you're saying that close combat attacks by models with (that have) rending claws don't count their close combat attacks as rending, even though the Codex say they do?

Do my Scything Talon attacks count as close combat attacks? Yes or no? Yes.

Does my Tyranid have Rending Claws? Yes or no? Yes.

Do the Tyranid's close combat attacks therefore count as rending? Yes.

Therefore, are the Tyranid's scything talon attacks rending? No.

I don't get it. What I do get, from your example, is that the marine gets a bonus from having two weapons. The power weapon + the pistol (let's say). The pistol gets the bonus from the power weapon and vice versa. The pistol gives +1 attack to the power weapon just like the power weapon gives "ignores armor saves" to the pistol. The thing is, Tyranids don't benefit from having more than one weapon as they "Don't wield close combat weapons as such. . .". Instead, they get bonuses from both of their weapons. If you want to go with your theory, then the weapons aren't even "in use." The pistol gives the Marine +1 attack to his profile, just like the power weapon makes his close combat attacks ignore armor saves. We're saying the same thing.

Using your logic...
Lets say I have say a power weapon and a power fist.

Since I am equiped with 2 special CCWs, I can choose which to use.

I choose the power weapon, so strike at I. However, since I am still armed with the power fist I can still get the double strength even though I am not using it. Since the power fist rules state only attacks made with the weapon are at I1, I do not get the penalty but I do get the bonus.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Since I reject that scenario, I reject yours as well.

Edit: Although.... I guess I'm talking about RAI in this post..... The above scenario indeed seems to be RAW. Okay, I accept your assertion. Now to model some dudes with power fists and power weapons.......

Except the BRB states you do not get the bonus of any weapon you are not using. The bonus of the Weapon "powerfist" is to double your strength of atacks, ignore armour and strike at I1 - this is clear from their entry. So if you are not using that weapon you cannot claim the bonus for it.

"As a result" can be replaced by "because of this" - thus the first sentence IS a rule, and the second sentence is a consequence of this rule - exactly as i posted a page before.

As Tyranids never wield CC weapons, the requirements to choose which weapon and indeed which require you to use your special weapon are overridden

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except the BRB states you do not get the bonus of any weapon you are not using.

This is not anywhere in the rules. If you find it, please quote the rule that says this.

Hmm, interesting.

I'm definitely of the opinion that 'nid weapons stack, and will be playing that way regardless of this discussion.

This is not anywhere in the rules. If you find it, please quote the rule that says this.

The rule people are thinking of is...

"Two Different Special Weapons.
when it is their turn to attack, these models must choose which weapon to use that turn, but they never get the bonus for using two weapons. (such is the penalty for wielding too many complex weapons!)"

And, having quoted, I leave you to discuss.

Yes, it is in the rules, please do not make blanket denials.

Page 42, "and confer bonuses to the models USING THEM"

If you are not Using the weapon you cannot be enhanced by it.

Okay, there you go. That was the section I missed.

Note that phrase applies equally to Tyranid special weapons, so you only gain the bonuses of the weapon you are using.

Thanks!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually, since tyranids never wield their CCWs, I guess none of their special weapons work since they are not using them...

lol.

Tyranids don't have any special weapons.

Nope. They have close combat weapons they do not use but instead provide a bonus for simply having them.

It's that simple.

Dracos you are going to have to do a lot better than that to dissuade my discussion.

G

Dracos wrote:Green Blow Fly just to confirm, you are saying that the entries under "Close Combat Weapons" are not Close Combat Weapons?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Tyranids don't have close combat weapons and as a result don't get the bonus +1 attack.

False, Tyranids do not WIELD CCWs. Use proper verbiage as changing the words changes the meaning.

If Tyranids had close combat then they would get the bonus +1 attack. It's very simple but the confusion stems from the upgrades on page 83 are listed under a heading entitled Close Combat Weapons... But we already know from page 33 that Tyranids don't have close combat weapons. It was a poor choice of wording for the title Close Combat Weapons that appears on page 33. Confusing? Yes indeed but the rules are there.

And the change you made from Wield to Have is lending itself to your argument. This entire section is false because they do HAVE CCWs, they just do not WIELD them.

Here are the options listed under the section beginning on page 83:

Bone Sword (sounds like a close combat weapon and works like one as well)

Claws and Teeth (this is by far the one of most interest, it's another rule stating that Tyranids DON'T have close combat weapons unless armed with claws and teeth... This is the last nail in the proverbial coffin as it says in black and white that only claws and teeth count as close combat weapons)

if we go back to the rules for the bone sword it's clearly stated that a model armed with said bone sword ignores armor saves. Sounds like an upgrade/biomorphic to me. The rules don't state that a bone sword is a close combat weapon.

Crushing Claws (allows a model to gain d3 additional attacks. Sounds like a close combat weapon but by the rules all it does is confer extra attacks)

it's pretty much the same for all the other entries, they might sound like a close combat weapon but in fact they simply add something beneficial.

They aren't ccws and the rules are explicily clear on this issue.

So the heading Close Combat Weapons does not mean that the entries that follow are Close Combat Weapons?

Do you understand how this assertion is difficult to reconcile?

Just to clear up one point that has muddied the discussion:

The rule on pg 35 of the BRB states "and use any special close combat attacks they have". Please note that this says attacks, not WEAPONS. So this rule applies to models who have those rare things called close combat attacks, such as the tyranid bioplasm attack. It does not apply to things such as power weapons, power fists etc.

It is critical to use use the correct words in discussions on the RAW as changing a word, such as has, to another word, such as use, causes a great deal of pointless sidetracking in this particular rules debate. Have isnt the same as use/ wield; special weapon isnt the same as special attack; etc etc.

Tyranids do not use close combat weapons does not mean the same thing as tyranids do not have close combat weapons.

If you are discussing RAW or even RAI then it becomes critically important to not paraphrase and change the words used when talking about the rules.



Sliggoth

Tyranids have CCWs but do not wield them.

P.33:
Tyranid creatures do not wield close combat weapons as such, but rather slash at their opponents with their own teeth, claws, and talons. As a result, Tyranid models never receive bonus Attacks for fighting with more than one close combat weapon - these bonuses are always included in the creature's profile.

Saying that they don't have CCWs because they can't wield them is nonsense. There is no contradiction in the new codex in this regards. This rule, as has been stated before, simply points out that the CCWs listed in the codex do not provide the Tyranid model a bonus +1 attack. Unless the selection specifically states otherwise (i.e., Crushing Claws) Tyranid CCW selections do not affect the models Attacks stat line. Furthermore, this does not prohibit the Tyranid model from gaining the benefits of being equipped with a specific CCW.

What P.33 is stating is that, in an assault, a Tyranid model fights with teeth, claws, and talons as represented by their Attacks stat. The CCW selections in the codex are not wielded in the sense that the model is attacking with them. Rather they are providing various effects/bonuses to the Tyranid model's assault.

So yes, they do stack. A Tyranid Warrior armed with Scything Talons and Rending Claws attacks with 'claws, teeth, and talons' (as reflected in their statline), and is allowed to re-roll 1's and gains Rending.

A Carnifex that has Scything Talons and Crushing Claws does not 'wield' either of these. Instead it simply attacks with 'claws, teeth, and talons', but is allowed to re-roll 1's and gains d3 attacks on the charge.

Just my opinion, but I suspect this is how my group with play it out.

-Yad

+1 on they stack since the rules specify benefits for having them and the models are not wielding them.

Nosferatu quite correctly pointed out that in order to gain the benefits of a special weapon, you must be using it.

p.42 brb :"...confer bonuses, and sometimes penalties, to models using them."

Under two special weapons, it tells you that you must choose which one to use:

"these models must choose which weapon to use that turn."

The BRB forces you to choose which special CCW to use, and it states you only get the bonuses of the weapon you are using. There is nothing in the Tyranid codex that opposes this, therefore this rule stands for Tyranids as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Green Blow Fly wrote:
Dracos you are going to have to do a lot better than that to dissuade my discussion.

G

So basically you don't agree with my points, but you are unable to refute them?

/boggle. Talk about reading the rules to achieve a specific result.

No. Tyranids do not wield Close Combat Weapons, as such.

kirsanth wrote:No. Tyranids do not wield Close Combat Weapons, as such.

That is irrelevent. They still use them, and must choose which to use.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you are arguing that Tryanids do not use special CCWs, then they do not get the bonuses from any of their special CCWs because you must be USING them to gain the bonuses.

No, in fact, they do not, as has been posted repeatedly. You apparently do not agree with the Codex, but I am fine with that.
Being that the codex is more specific that the main rules (Tyranids > Models), they do not weild CCWs as such, so merely having them is what is needed.

Wielding them or not is irrelevent to the rules found on p.42.

p.42 Describes USING them, not WIELDING them.

Sorry, but no matter how you slice it if you want your Tryanids to get bonuses from Special CCWs they must be using them.

If they have 2 special CCWs that are different, they must choose which to use. This language is explicit in the BRB, and the phrase about not WIELDING is irrelevent when considering which special CCW to use.

The point is that Tyranids do not need to wield or use them.

They do not use the weapon, they use claws teeth.

Do you know what "wield" means?

This is VERY relevent to the discussion.

You said they do not need to use them, but that is exactly what is required to gain a bonus from a special CCW. Therefore you must be saying that none of the Tyranid special CCWs actually do anything. You want to know what wield means?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/wield

Main Entry: wield
Pronunciation: \ˈwēld\
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English welden to control, from Old English wieldan; akin to Old High German waltan to rule, Latin valēre to be strong, be worth
Date: before 12th century

1 chiefly dialect : to deal successfully with : manage
2 : to handle (as a tool) especially effectively <wield a broom>
3 a : to exert one's authority by means of <wield influence> b : have at one's command or disposal <did not wield appropriate credentials — G. W. Bonham>

— wield·er noun

Note the distinct lack of the term "use".

Wield =/= Use. Wield is a subset of the actions one can do while Using, but they are not interchangeable.

I know people are going to jump down my throat about a dictionary definition, but he brought up proper use of the word, not me...

One thing I can see is perhaps RAI is that the writer intended for us to read Wield as = Use (even though its not actually the same thing). I'm all for RAI arguments that it stacks together, but the language used does not denote that they do.

They are English.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/wield?view=uk

wield

• verb 1 hold and use (a weapon or tool). 2 have and be able to use (power or influence).

— DERIVATIVES wielder noun.

— ORIGIN Old English, govern, subdue, direct.

Wow, interesting that the definition there is so different.

That does lend support to the idea that the writer intended us to read wield as = use.

Point conceded.

* claps hands *

: )

G

All fear the English Language!

There in lies the problem, American English, versus GB's English. One word, two very different meanings.

But given the rulebook is written in actual English, that should be the first place to stop for definitions

When you said GB at 1st I thought you were referring to me then I immediately realized you mean Great Britian. Hee!

G

Yes, England.

I would stand to bet alot of the problems with the system are our own versions of the language.

So let me just ask a question of those in the pro-stacking camp. Pretend for a moment that the only rule listed regarding Tyranid Close Combat Weapons on page 33 was "Tyranid creatures do not wield close combat weapons as such, but rather slash at their opponents with their own teeth, claws, and talons." The '"as a result" part doesn't exist, and really isn't needed in the first place. The question is, what rules from the BRB concerning close combat weapons (normal and special) are overridden by that one sentence in the Tyranid codex (codex overrides brb)? If that was all you had as a rule, that one sentence, what would you conclude?

Lord_Mortis wrote:So let me just ask a question of those in the pro-stacking camp. Pretend for a moment that the only rule listed regarding Tyranid Close Combat Weapons on page 33 was "Tyranid creatures do not wield close combat weapons as such, but rather slash at their opponents with their own teeth, claws, and talons." The '"as a result" part doesn't exist, and really isn't needed in the first place. The question is, what rules from the BRB concerning close combat weapons (normal and special) are overridden by that one sentence in the Tyranid codex (codex overrides brb)? If that was all you had as a rule, that one sentence, what would you conclude?

First of all, it's not codex overrides brb, it's Specific > General.

Secondly, I am in the pro-stacking camp and my reasoning has nothing to do with the "Tyranids do not wield close combat. . ." line. Mine has to do with the simple fact that the wording on the weapons states that simply having the weapon gives them bonuses. The argument gets back to the "Tyranids do not wield" line because it ends up boiling down to that, or has in this thread, anyway.

Wouldn't you agree that boneswords are the Tyranid version of force weapons?

LM - back again?

Not really, given it a) doesnt require a psychic test and b) doesnt use your leadership. It is just an abiltiy that can cause instant death. Unless you believe that EVERY weapon that can cause Instant Death is "a version" of a Force Weapon?

They do not Wield, meaning use, CCW - so at no point do they use their CCW. This overrides the requirement to use any special weapon, or to choose which weapon to use.

Lord_Mortis wrote:Wouldn't you agree that boneswords are the Tyranid version of force weapons?

They are Direswords that are not CCWs.

nosferatu1001 wrote:LM - back again?

Not really, given it a) doesnt require a psychic test and b) doesnt use your leadership. It is just an abiltiy that can cause instant death. Unless you believe that EVERY weapon that can cause Instant Death is "a version" of a Force Weapon?

I didn't say it had to be exactly like a force weapon, just the Tyranids version of it. It ignores armor saves and, if I remember correctly, you roll 2d6 or 3d6 against Ld and if failed, instant death occurs.

They do not Wield, meaning use, CCW - so at no point do they use their CCW. This overrides the requirement to use any special weapon, or to choose which weapon to use.

You are obviously in the camp that the question I asked was directed at. Would you be so kind and answer the question I posed a couple posts back?

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

Lord_Mortis wrote:Wouldn't you agree that boneswords are the Tyranid version of force weapons?

They are Direswords that are not CCWs.

I don't have any of my rulebooks with me at the moment, so you'll have to refresh my memory of what a Diresword is.

Force weapons work on *your own* leadership, whereas the Bonesword works on *their* Leadership. Like a Diresword.

I did answer the question - they never use CCW, any rule requiring them to USE the CCW is therefore overidden.

So you wouldn't have concluded that they didn't get a +1 attack bonus for having 2 or more ccws?

Because what I asked was what rules concerning close combat weapons (normal or special) from the BRB are overridden by that sentence? You only listed one.

A few things. First England and GB are not the same thing. Secondly the wield versus use arguement really bares no fruit when you consider the rule on page 42 being referenced also uses the term wielder as well as use.

weapons that enhance the wielder's combat skills and confer bonuses, and sometimes penalties, to the models using them.

I'd say RaW is pretty clear from everything I've read. The CCWs of the Tyranids are indeed CCWs and as they confer special bonuses they are special CCWs. Whether they are single-handed is up for debate (scything talons are not) for the use one or the other restriction. Also a model with Scything talons, Bonesword and Lash whip is not restricted by this restriction as he has 3 CCWs not 2.

FIGHTING WITH TWO SINGLE-HANDED WEAPONS

Some models are equiped with two single handed weapons...

Two different special weapons

However it is also clear by RaW that the Tyranids never use their CCWs and that they have to use them to gain any benefit as lined out on page 42 (see quote above). Hence by RaW those close combat weapons are entirely useless as the Tyranids cannot use them and therefore cannot gain the benefits from them as there is no rule in the Tyranid codex overriding the rule that you have to use a Special CCW to gain the benefits from it.

However the above makes the rules obvious and RaI is clear that the bonuses do stack why would GW write those bonuses down if they have no value? Certainly the restriction does not apply to most cases as the model is either armed with one two handed weapon (talons) or 3 weapons or 2 of the same weapon and a 3rd weapon etc.

Okay, so this is a legitimate question, which apparently no one has sufficiently answered. If "Tyranids do not wield ccws" = rules regarding ccws don't apply to them, then I would like to know specifically which rules we are talking about and how they are different from normal models with ccws. The Tyranid codex gives us one, and at least one other has been mentioned in this thread. I'll start a nice list of them beginning with the first two.

1. Tyranids do not get +1 attack bonus for having two close combat weapons. (Normally models do get the bonus.)

2. Tyranids do not have to choose which special ccw they use in the current assault phase. (Normally models with 2 different special ccws have to choose which one they use.)

Are there other specific rules regarding ccws that don't apply to Tyranids?

Not that I can think of.

They stack.

Tyranid creatures do not wield close combat weapons as such, but rather slash at their opponents with their own teeth, claws, and talons. As a result, Tyranid models never receive bonus Attacks for fighting with more then one close combat weapon - these bonuses are always included in the creature's profile.

GW worded it horribly to explain why they stack and some of you here made it even worse.

They stack per RAW because a Bone Sword, a Lash Whip, Scything Talons, and Rending Claws are different types of Tyranid's "...OWN TEETH, CLAWS, AND TALONS" that have their own added effects such as instant kills, lowering initiative, reroll hits, and rend.

That is why they do not "...WIELD CLOSE COMBATS AS SUCH,...." because a Bone Sword is a type of TOOTH/CLAW/TALON, a Lash Whip is a type of TOOTH/CLAW/TALON a Scything Talon is a type of TOOTH/CLAW/TALON, and a Rending Claw is a type of TOOTH/CLAW/TALON.

This explains why a Hive Tyrant with a Bone Sword and Lash Whip does not get an additional bonus attack for two CCW because he is attacking with a form of his teeth, claws, or talons which happen to take the shape of a Bone Sword and a Lash Whip, each with their own special abilities per the codex. Because they are not wielding close combat weapons (but instead using specialized teeth, claws, or talons), the rules for having to choosing which close combat weapon to use per the BRB do not apply.

Brother Ramses wrote:They stack.

Tyranid creatures do not wield close combat weapons as such, but rather slash at their opponents with their own teeth, claws, and talons. As a result, Tyranid models never receive bonus Attacks for fighting with more then one close combat weapon - these bonuses are always included in the creature's profile.

...
This explains why a Hive Tyrant with a Bone Sword and Lash Whip does not get an additional bonus attack for two CCW because he is attacking with a form of his teeth, claws, or talons which happen to take the shape of a Bone Sword and a Lash Whip, each with their own special abilities per the codex. Because they are not wielding close combat weapons (but instead using specialized teeth, claws, or talons), the rules for having to choosing which close combat weapon to use per the BRB do not apply.

The first sentence in the quote from the Nid dex above is NOT meant to affect the game. It is simply an explanation for the game result. THE RESULT IS that Nids, never receive the +1 Attack Bonus. Only one bonus is mentioned, the Attack bonus. All other BGB Rules apply.

Deuce11 wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:They stack.

Tyranid creatures do not wield close combat weapons as such, but rather slash at their opponents with their own teeth, claws, and talons. As a result, Tyranid models never receive bonus Attacks for fighting with more then one close combat weapon - these bonuses are always included in the creature's profile.

...
This explains why a Hive Tyrant with a Bone Sword and Lash Whip does not get an additional bonus attack for two CCW because he is attacking with a form of his teeth, claws, or talons which happen to take the shape of a Bone Sword and a Lash Whip, each with their own special abilities per the codex. Because they are not wielding close combat weapons (but instead using specialized teeth, claws, or talons), the rules for having to choosing which close combat weapon to use per the BRB do not apply.

The first sentence in the quote from the Nid dex above is NOT meant to affect the game. It is simply an explanation for the game result. THE RESULT IS that Nids, never receive the +1 Attack Bonus. Only one bonus is mentioned, the Attack bonus. All other BGB Rules apply.

Lash Whips, Boneswords, Scything Talons, Rending Claws, and Crushing Claws are not special close combat weapons. The rules on page 42 of the rulebook do not apply to them.

Deuce11 wrote:The first sentence in the quote from the Nid dex above is NOT meant to affect the game.

Oh, apologies Robin. Glad you could sort us all out!

All other BGB Rules apply.

Which ones? Are scything talons a single-handed close combat weapon? A model with Scything talons and 2 Boneswords can use all 3 yes (no restriction prevents this)?

A model with scything talons, bonesword and lashwhip can likewise use all three. But a model with bonesword, lashwhip and say a Venom Cannon has to choose?

Just saying that one line of the rules doesn't have any effect on the game and claiming the next line is sacrosanct isn't a viable argument.

They never use close combat weapons therefore they never gain any bonuses for having special close combat weapons and they never have to choose between them.

That is the RaW. RaI is that they get the bonuses for simply being equiped with the weapon.

Dicta is not part of the rule.

Dicta refers to extraneous material which is merely informative or explanatory.

So RAW is "Tyranid models never receive bonus Attacks for fighting with more then one close combat weapon - these bonuses are always included in the creature's profile." This means the A characteristic in the profile is never buffed by taking two CCWs. GW is telling us that this is the important part to look at. Its clear, concise, and written to affect game play.

Now if there is a CCW section separate and apart from a biomorph section, then there sure are CCWs in this new dex. The BGB requires that only one CCWs special characteristics be used when rolling the dice.

How do you know it's Dicta?

Dicta is not part of the rule.

Dicta refers to extraneous material which is merely informative or explanatory.

As Gwar says how do you know it is dicta? Who decides this? You?

You still haven't answered my question in regards to does a model with Lash whip, boneswords and scything talons have to choose? If so what rule are you using for that?

I'd appreciate it if you stayed out of my personal affairs, haha.

Through use of critical reading skills. The Dex's are all written in a pattern. GW gives some fluff in the rules section so that you can cinematically imagine what the special rules tweeks are doing to our toy soldiers. Then immediately following there is a clear, concise sentence or two describing how you should be representing the fluff during game play.

In this case, the one rule being articulated is that Nids don't benefit as other standard armies do by having more than one CCW. That is the only thing going on in this rule. And it is all that GW needed the player to take away from it from a rules perspective.

Deuce11 wrote:Now if there is a CCW section separate and apart from a biomorph section, then there sure are CCWs in this new dex. The BGB requires that only one CCWs special characteristics be used when rolling the dice.

There is one Close Combat Weapon in this codex - Claws and Teeth. The other weapons are merely biomorphs that have an effect on a Tyranid's close combat attacks.

FlingitNow wrote:
You still haven't answered my question in regards to does a model with Lash whip, boneswords and scything talons have to choose? If so what rule are you using for that?

SINCE there are no rules as of now that allow Nids to put into effect the special rules from multiple CCWs AND those things you listed are in a CCW section of the dex THEN without further information I would have to say that Nids do not benefit from stacking CCWs.

However, biomorphs are not CCWs and therefore a Nid player can stack as many biomorph special rules as possible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

Deuce11 wrote:Now if there is a CCW section separate and apart from a biomorph section, then there sure are CCWs in this new dex. The BGB requires that only one CCWs special characteristics be used when rolling the dice.

There is one Close Combat Weapon in this codex - Claws and Teeth. The other weapons are merely biomorphs that have an effect on a Tyranid's close combat attacks.

Not according to the info in this thread. There has been a lot of back and forth, but I am under the impression that in the 5th Ed. Dex there is a separate section for CCWs and another for biomorphs. If that is untrue then the discussion is much more difficult. Can someone clarify, please?

The BGB requires that only one CCWs special characteristics be used when rolling the dice.

Where is this rule? It is certainly not in my BRB, maybe yours is different. Please point me to the page and quote the rule?

I can find a rule that states if you are armed with exactly 2 single-handed weapons you have to choose between them but nothing regarding multi-handed weapons and having 3 or more weapons. Please point to the rule covering this eventually (I bet you can't).

TYRANIDS DO NOT HAVE MULTIPLE CCWS

None of the five pieces of wargear that you think are CCWs are CCWs. Nowhere in their description are they called CCWs. In addition, their effects apply simply by having the wargear - the verb used is "with", not "using" or "armed", so even if they were close combat weapons, their effects would still stack.

There really isn't anything more to say on the matter.

None of the five pieces of wargear that you think are CCWs are CCWs.

Please remind me what heading they are under in the Tyranid wargear section?

FlingitNow wrote:

The BGB requires that only one CCWs special characteristics be used when rolling the dice.

Where is this rule? It is certainly not in my BRB, maybe yours is different. Please point me to the page and quote the rule?

I can find a rule that states if you are armed with exactly 2 single-handed weapons you have to choose between them but nothing regarding multi-handed weapons and having 3 or more weapons. Please point to the rule covering this eventually (I bet you can't).

With all due respect, comments like these don't further the debate at all. I'm not quoting rules because the book is not in front of me but everyone knows what I am alluding to.
Please mind the tone. Not because there are penalties but because it helps engage better dialogue.

What is dicta?

Deuce11 wrote:The first sentence in the quote from the Nid dex above is NOT meant to affect the game. It is simply an explanation for the game result. THE RESULT IS that Nids, never receive the +1 Attack Bonus. Only one bonus is mentioned, the Attack bonus. All other BGB Rules apply.

That is what I was getting at with the question about what ccw rules from the BRB apply/don't apply to Tyranids. There seems to be two rules, but the Tyranid codex only addresses the rule about getting +1 attack for having two ccws. "As a result" tells us which of the two rules are affected. Tyranids don't get +1 attack because the Tyranid codex says they don't, but it does not address the second rule about "stacking" abilities of special ccws, therefore that rule remains in place, meaning they have to choose which weapon to use.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Lash Whips, Boneswords, Scything Talons, Rending Claws, and Crushing Claws are not special close combat weapons. The rules on page 42 of the rulebook do not apply to them.

And items listed under Ranged Weapons aren't really ranged weapons, items listed under Armor aren't really armor, up is down, and left is right. Yeah, let's just start redefining things how we see fit and pay no attention to the section labels that items appear under.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:TYRANIDS DO NOT HAVE MULTIPLE CCWS

None of the five pieces of wargear that you think are CCWs are CCWs. Nowhere in their description are they called CCWs.
There really isn't anything more to say on the matter.

Boneswords: Boneswords are living blades of chitin that continuously grow to repair any damage and maintain a monomolecular edge....Boneswords crackle with psychic energy and they can drain the life-force of their victims.

From it's description, and the section that it is listed under, "Close Combat Weapons," boneswords sound like ccws to me.

Crushing claws: These massive crab-like claws are only ever found on the largest of Tyranid organisms, the only creatures that are capable of hefting the enormous bulk. The obscene strength of the claws allows them to tear apart an armored bastion....A Tyranid with crushing claws gains an extra D3 attacks...."

Sounds like a ccw weapon to me. I mean, demon weapons give a model D6 extra attacks....

And I could do the same with the other Tyranid ccws as well, as they all are ccws.

In addition, their effects apply simply by having the wargear - the verb used is "with", not "using" or "armed", so even if they were close combat weapons, their effects would still stack.

And as has been brought up already in this discussion, lightning claws have similar wording, which, if not for the rule about having to choose which ccw to use, the re-roll ability of the lightning claw would apply when using a powerfist, as one does not have to be actively using the lightning claw in order to get a re-roll. So that argument is basically negated.

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

As the Tyranids do not need to use special close combat weapons, in any case the issue is null.

Lord_Mortis wrote:lightning claws have similar wording

You can stop there.
"Lightning claws are commonly used" is the first part of the Lightning claws section.
When used, the effects occur.

kirsanth wrote:"Some models are equipped with two single-handed weapons they can use in close combat"

As the Tyranids do not need to use special close combat weapons, in any case the issue is null.

I don't see that listed under affected rules in the "As a result" part of the Tyranid Close Combat Weapons on page 33...

You can stop there.
"Lightning claws are commonly used" is the first part of the Lightning claws section.
When used, the effects occur.

And if one prooftexts as you have, we could come up with all sort of crazy ideas....

Geesh!

When a hive tyrant is using his bone sword and lash whip he is using his own SPECIALIZED teeth, claws, and talons.

That is why he doesn't get a +1 attack bonus for using both of them and why he does not have to choose which one to choose. He is not wielding two ccw per the BRB because the first line in the rule states that they do not wield close combat weapons.

As I said, badly worded by GW and using the title of Close Combat Weapons only further confuses.

I can only guess that they titled it CCW so people would not try and combine rending claws with a venom cannon for instance by saying that since the abilities stack in close combat, why can't they stack in shooting.

As someone else pointed out, how about trying to see how many game mechanics this breaks by not allowing them to stack?

FlingitNow wrote:

None of the five pieces of wargear that you think are CCWs are CCWs.

Please remind me what heading they are under in the Tyranid wargear section?

The heading is completely meaningless, other than as in an organizational function.

There is a rule and a consequence to that rule

The RULE is that they do not use CCW.

As a result they can never get +1 attack - that is the consequence.

You cannot say one is dicta when it very clearly describes a rule.

Brother Ramses wrote:Geesh!

When a hive tyrant is using his bone sword and lash whip he is using his own SPECIALIZED teeth, claws, and talons.

That is why he doesn't get a +1 attack bonus for using both of them

Exactly right! The Tyranid codex specifically addresses this.

and why he does not have to choose which one to choose.

Exactly wrong. The Tyranid codex fails to address this at all.

He is not wielding two ccw per the BRB because the first line in the rule states that they do not wield close combat weapons.

And if "they do not wield ccws" = "none of the ccw rules apply" then there is no need to address the +1 attack bonus. If you are saying they don't need to choose a ccw due to the first line in the rule, then accordingly, the first line in the rule also addresses the +1 attack bonus and so there is no need to address it. Yet, the "As a result" part specifically states which ccw rules from the BRB are affected, and that is the +1 attack bonus. You are reading more into the rules than what the rules address.

Lord_Mortis wrote:And if "they do not wield ccws" = "none of the ccw rules apply" then there is no need to address the +1 attack bonus. If you are saying they don't need to choose a ccw due to the first line in the rule, then accordingly, the first line in the rule also addresses the +1 attack bonus and so there is no need to address it.

This is incorrect. CCW rules do apply. Tyranids use their claws and teeth. Another reason the +1 issue is also there is to let us know that the claws and teeth are 1 CCW, not 2.
As for chosing a CCW, there is no choice.

The +1 attack bonus exclusion is there specifically to disallow a player from saying that teeth, claws, and talons attacks + bone sword/lash whip = a bonus attack. Teeth/claws/talons and bone sword/lash whip are one and the same.

The first line that they do not wield CCWs still stands as an all encompassing rule because it specifically states that tyranids attack with their teeth, claws, and talons.

So if a hive tyrant is attacking with a bone sword and a lash whip, he is in reality attacking with his teeth, claws, and talons. Not ccws. Since he is not attacking with ccws, he is therefore not required to choose which weapon he is attacking with per the BRB.

I would say that you are the one not reading the rules at all. You see CCW and immediately forget about the teeth, claws, and talons entry and run straight to the BRB to prove your half thought out theory.

There is RAW here and it has RAI to support it.

I wouldn't normally jump in on something this convoluted and, honestly, kind of heated, in a first post, but I think I've got a couple interesting things to add.

I think DeuceII is right about the first line in question on page 33: it's not supposed to be a rule, just a fluffy justification for the rule that follows. I have three reasons for this:

1. It follows the pattern set by all the other entries in that section of the book. Every other one ("Tyranid Psykers," "Synapse Creature," Shadow in the Warp," "Instinctive Behaviour," even "Lurk" and "Feed") start with 1-2 sentences of fluff. Surely nobody will argue that the second sentence under "Tyranid Psykers" is supposed to be a rule: "[Tyranid creatures] do not draw power from the Warp in any fathomable way, but rather they harness a fraction of the Hive Mind's gestalt will." In fact, the very next line says that that little bit of fluff makes no difference for game purposes!

2. The line after the disputed one reads, as has been quoted several times, "As a result, Tyranid models never receive bonus Attacks for fighting with more than one close combat weapon - these bonuses are always included in the creature's profile." Now, if the preceding line were meant as a rule, it would be obvious that Tyranids never got a bonus for fighting with two close combat weapons, because they could never have two close combat weapons - they couldn't even have one!

3. The entry for "Claws and Teeth" on page 83 says the model counts as having a normal close combat weapon. If we read the line on page 33 as a rule, then the entry for "Claws and Teeth" flatly contradicts it. They can't wield close combat weapons, but having claws and teeth makes them count as having a close combat weapon. Maybe, MAYBE you could argue that with claws and teeth the models counts as having a close combat weapon, but doesn't REALLY have it, or that it has one, but can't wield it. As others have mentioned, though, that contradicts widely accepted interpretations of rules in the main rulebook, and probably other codeces too.

The first two points might seem like RAI arguments, rather than RAW ones, but in this case we're not actually arguing about the rules yet: we're arguing about which parts of the book even ARE rules. I think you have to look at the writer's intent for that, so context matters.

Based on that, I don't think the various weapons stack, RAW. However, RAI, they certainly do, and that's the way I'll play it.

Finally, you might get away with claiming that the lash whip and bonesword stack, because in the actual unit entries they occur on the same line, i.e. as part of the same bullet. As far as I know, they're the only pair of weapons that do so, so you might argue that they are in fact one weapon, with separate entries in the Weapons and Biomorphs section for convenience: two boneswords do something very similar to one half of the lash whip and bonesword, and presumably lashwhips (which the Venomthrope has) does the same thing as the other half.

Whew, long first post. Sorry about that.

kirsanth wrote:This is incorrect. CCW rules do apply. Tyranids use their claws and teeth. Another reason the +1 issue is also there is to let us know that the claws and teeth are 1 CCW, not 2.
As for chosing a CCW, there is no choice.

If Tyranids do not use ccws, per the "Tyranids do not wield ccw" sentence, then they do not ever gain +1 attack, so there is no reason to include the "As a result" section.

Brother Ramses wrote:The +1 attack bonus exclusion is there specifically to disallow a player from saying that teeth, claws, and talons attacks + bone sword/lash whip = a bonus attack. Teeth/claws/talons and bone sword/lash whip are one and the same.

The first line that they do not wield CCWs still stands as an all encompassing rule because it specifically states that tyranids attack with their teeth, claws, and talons.

As above. If the first line is all encompassing, and means that Tyranids do not wield ccws, then there is no reason to include the "As a result" part, as you only get +1 attack for using a 2 ccws, and as has been argued, Tyranids do not use ccws. It does not matter if a player wanted to say teeth and claws count as a ccw, as the sentence says they do not wield ccws, and therefore would not get +1 attack.

Unless of course this is the only rule regarding ccws that the first sentence is addressing in the "As a result" part. I listed two ccw rules, and the Tyranid codex is only addressing one.

Lord_Mortis wrote:If Tyranids do not use ccws, per the "Tyranids do not wield ccw" sentence, then they do not ever gain +1 attack, so there is no reason to include the "As a result" section.

They add the "as a result" part because 99% of the playerbase are utter idiots. Notice how it does not say "The ONLY result".

Gwar! wrote:

Lord_Mortis wrote:If Tyranids do not use ccws, per the "Tyranids do not wield ccw" sentence, then they do not ever gain +1 attack, so there is no reason to include the "As a result" section.

They add the "as a result" part because 99% of the playerbase are utter idiots. Notice how it does not say "The ONLY result".

And if that is the case, then you think they would have also included clear wording that states they do not have to choose which special ccw to use in the current assault phase, so that "99% of the idiot playerbase" wouldn't conclude otherwise. You are saying that 99% of the playerbase are idiots and can't figure out that Tyranids don't get +1 attack, but are at the same time smart enough to see that they don't have to choose which special ccw to use? They used clear wording in the previous two Tyranid books that said they get to use all their ccws. I guess that was in there so that 99% of the people would clearly understand the rule, since they are "utter idiots."

If they wanted the abilities to stack but at the same time did not want Tyranids getting +1 attack, then for the sake of those 99% idiots, why is the "As a result" part not as follows: "As a result, Tyranid models never receive bonus Attacks for fighting with more than one close combat weapon--these bonuses are always included in the creature's profile. In addition, a Tyranid creature can use all of its close combat weapons in an assault and is not limited to using one at a time like most models."

99% of GW Devs are also Utter idiots, hence the Space Wolf Codex

Gwar! wrote:99% of GW Devs are also Utter idiots, hence the Space Wolf Codex

And that is something we can definitely agree on!

Lord_Mortis wrote:If Tyranids do not use ccws, per the "Tyranids do not wield ccw" sentence, then they do not ever gain +1 attack, so there is no reason to include the "As a result" section.

Arguiingthat the rule is redundant is not an argument that it is not a rule in the first place. It is most definitely a rule - you can tell because it has an ingame effect using ingame terms.

GW consistently write redundant rules, normally as a memory aide. For example read pretty much every Bike entry - this repeats that the bonus toughness does not count for instant death, despite this being entirely unecessary as it is spelt out clearly in the BRB.

Which is most definitely a rule, the first sentence under the "Tyranid close combat weapons" heading, or the second sentence? I agree that the second clearly is, but not the first. "Close combat weapon" is not obviously a technical term: how else are you going to refer to the variety of stuff that the 40k races stab each other with? "Wield" also isn't a technical term. The BRB sometimes calls a particular model a "wielder," but never says that any model "wields" a weapon. It's always "uses."

As I said earlier, given the structure of the other paragraphs in that section of the book, the first sentence looks like fluff to me.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Lord_Mortis wrote:If Tyranids do not use ccws, per the "Tyranids do not wield ccw" sentence, then they do not ever gain +1 attack, so there is no reason to include the "As a result" section.

Arguiingthat the rule is redundant is not an argument that it is not a rule in the first place.

I am not arguing that the rule is redundant. I am saying that it is a clarification of what "Tyranids do not wield ccws" actually means as far as in-game goes. The writer is changing the way ccw rules from the BRB interact with Tyranids, and the in-game effects of this are listed in the "As a result" section. The only rule he has apparently changed is that Tyranids do not get +1 attack bonus for having two close combat weapons. All the other rules apparently still apply. You are saying "Tyranids do not wield ccws" means that they don't get +1 attack and that they don't have to choose between ccws. However, the writer of the codex is stating in the "As a result" section that "Tyranids don't wield ccws" means, as far as in-game goes, that they never get +1 attack bonus for having two ccws. Sort of like saying "I got a promotion. As a result, I am going to get paid more, but I have to relocate to another city." The writer explains "Tyranids don't wield ccws" in the "As a result" part as meaning they don't get +1 attack for having two ccws. Nothing more, nothing less.

It is most definitely a rule - you can tell because it has an ingame effect using ingame terms.

The only in-game effects being that Tyranids don't get +1 attack for having two ccws. This is clearly spelled out in the "As a result" part.

You are limiting the sentence without cause.

"as a result" ≠ "the only result is"

kirsanth wrote:You are limiting the sentence without cause.

"as a result" ≠ "the only result is"

But since it is the only result listed, and I am not a mind reader and don't know whether the RAI by the writer meant to include allowing ccws to stack, then I am left with just what the book says is the result.

Lord_Mortis wrote:

kirsanth wrote:You are limiting the sentence without cause.

"as a result" ≠ "the only result is"

But since it is the only result listed, and I am not a mind reader and don't know whether the RAI by the writer meant to include allowing ccws to stack, then I am left with just what the book says is the result.

No, you are not a mind reader. You do, however, speak a version of English. Using said version of English (as well as using English), it is impossible to conclude that it is the only result, thus you use logic and the other rules of the game to determine if there are any other results.

kirsanth wrote:You are limiting the sentence without cause.

"as a result" ≠ "the only result is"

Gwar! wrote:

Lord_Mortis wrote:

kirsanth wrote:You are limiting the sentence without cause.

"as a result" ≠ "the only result is"

But since it is the only result listed, and I am not a mind reader and don't know whether the RAI by the writer meant to include allowing ccws to stack, then I am left with just what the book says is the result.

No, you are not a mind reader. You do, however, speak a version of English. Using said version of English (as well as using English), it is impossible to conclude that it is the only result, thus you use logic and the other rules of the game to determine if there are any other results.

huh?! "as a result" = "the only result is". Why? Because the rules are going out of their way to tell us what the (singular) result is.

I'm starting to believe Gwar is just playing devil's advocate to work out every possible argument for is unofficial FAQ series, haha. If that is the case, the result is I applaud you. [tongue in cheek]

Deuce11 wrote:huh?! "as a result" = "the only result is". Why? Because the rules are going out of their way to tell us what the (singular) result is.

I'm starting to believe Gwar is just playing devil's advocate to work out every possible argument for is unofficial FAQ series, haha. If that is the case, the result is I applaud you. [tongue in cheek]

If it were the only result, it would say so.

Hesperus wrote:Which is most definitely a rule, the first sentence under the "Tyranid close combat weapons" heading, or the second sentence? I agree that the second clearly is, but not the first. "Close combat weapon" is not obviously a technical term: how else are you going to refer to the variety of stuff that the 40k races stab each other with? "Wield" also isn't a technical term. The BRB sometimes calls a particular model a "wielder," but never says that any model "wields" a weapon. It's always "uses."

As I said earlier, given the structure of the other paragraphs in that section of the book, the first sentence looks like fluff to me.

Erm, "Close Combat Weapons" is a defined term in the rulebook (in fact you have both normal and special versions), and they use the term "wield" in the sections dealing with close combat weapons - as the English "wield" means "use". It defines a specific change to the rules in the rulebook, to whit there are different classes of close combat weapons that models must use - instead you are told tyranids do not wield (remember, this means *use*) close combat weapons.

So yes, it is a rule. Very much so.

Also - "As a result" is giving an example, nothing states it is the ONLY result.

With all due respect, comments like these don't further the debate at all. I'm not quoting rules because the book is not in front of me but everyone knows what I am alluding to.
Please mind the tone. Not because there are penalties but because it helps engage better dialogue.

You rule you are talking about only applies to the exact situation of a model being equiped with 2 single handed close combat weapons. Look it up that is the point hence it is nearly impossible to map that onto the Tyranid lay out as they have 4 arms and are equiped with a mixture of single and double-handed weapons totalling up to 4 "weapon slots" (for want of a better phrase).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
nosferatu1001

Just a question if the Tyranids never use close combat weapons (as clearly stated on page 33 of the codex) how can they receive ANY bonuses from them as per Page 42 of the BRB only the wielder gains such bonuses?

By strict RaW the Tyrand Close Combat Weapons are in fact useless.

No additional attacks unless +1 for charging. Only the benefits of being armed with said weapons give them their corresponding abilities.

Sounds like a bunch of whiny people trying to cheese-ball their way for additional attacks or nerf 'nid players.

Yeah its pretty clear,
Like Poisoned Rending claws with implant attack and scything teeth and claws,
You wound on 4+ rerolling 1s to hit, ignore armour and insta kill on a 6,

But its still teeth and claws. Which is the only weapon they have in CC, Everything from Swarmlord to Rippers

Clear according to the book.

Lost Ripper wrote:Yeah its pretty clear,
Like Poisoned Rending claws with implant attack and scything teeth and claws,
You wound on 4+ rerolling 1s to hit, ignore armour and insta kill on a 6,

But its still teeth and claws. Which is the only weapon they have in CC, Everything from Swarmlord to Rippers

Clear according to the book.

Someone buy this guy a pizza!

To those in the 'don't stack' camp:

When it's Lucius the Eternal's turn to attack, do you ask your opponent whether he'll be using his power sword or the lash of torment? The lash is a close combat weapon that confers a particular bonus to Lucius (-1 attack to enemy models in base contact), which makes it a special close combat weapon. Does he have to choose to use the power weapon that negates armor saves, or the lash, which imposes a penalty on enemy models but allows normal armor saves (as it is not a power weapon)? Or does Lucius simply get to make his attacks, ignoring armor saves, and when the enemy swings back they're at -1A?

RAW says he has to pick one or the other, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone play it that way. Nor would I expect anyone too, nor would I rule in an official event that he had to choose.

It's pretty clear to me that Tyranid close combat abilities do stack, and any ambiguity is simply GW being imprecise with their words, as per usual. I highly doubt GW would, in 5th ed. 40k, force something on Tyranid players so complicated as having to choose only one effect from any number of possible options on most of the units in the book, each time they fight in CC.

Until GW tells me otherwise, for official events and tournaments at my store Tyranid close combat abilities will stack. I'm not in the business of hosing players of a new codex over semantics.

-Dis.

disdainful wrote:To those in the 'don't stack' camp:

When it's Lucius the Eternal's turn to attack, do you ask your opponent whether he'll be using his power sword or the lash of torment? The lash is a close combat weapon that confers a particular bonus to Lucius (-1 attack to enemy models in base contact), which makes it a special close combat weapon. Does he have to choose to use the power weapon that negates armor saves, or the lash, which imposes a penalty on enemy models but allows normal armor saves (as it is not a power weapon)? Or does Lucius simply get to make his attacks, ignoring armor saves, and when the enemy swings back they're at -1A?

RAW says he has to pick one or the other, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone play it that way. Nor would I expect anyone too, nor would I rule in an official event that he had to choose.

It's pretty clear to me that Tyranid close combat abilities do stack, and any ambiguity is simply GW being imprecise with their words, as per usual. I highly doubt GW would, in 5th ed. 40k, force something on Tyranid players so complicated as having to choose only one effect from any number of possible options on most of the units in the book, each time they fight in CC.

Until GW tells me otherwise, for official events and tournaments at my store Tyranid close combat abilities will stack. I'm not in the business of hosing players of a new codex over semantics.

-Dis.

Marneus Calgar has two power fists and a power sword. Do you have to choose which one to use? Yes.

This discussion is not about lash whips and bone swords. Its about categories of wargear in the dex. One list falls under the heading Close Combat Weapons. The other list has a category heading Biomorphs. Biormorphs simply confer benefits to the unit. These we all agree 'stack.' However, this may or may not be the case regarding the CCWs. Old codex versions, fluff and RAI are completely unimportant. There is no rule, as far as I can find, that says nids are not bound by the prohibition against benefiting from more than one close combat weapons' special attributes in combat. There is a rule however that says nids do not get +1A for having more than one CCW.

the horse is officially dead.

I spoke with my gaming group. We know how we are going to play it. You all should do the same.

God speed ladies and gentlemen

Deuce11 wrote:Marneus Calgar has two power fists and a power sword.

<nitpick>He only has two weapons, "The Gauntlets of Ultramar" (which is ONE weapon) and a Power Sword (which RaW does nothing )</nitpick>

disdainful wrote:
It's pretty clear to me that Tyranid close combat abilities do stack, and any ambiguity is simply GW being imprecise with their words, as per usual. I highly doubt GW would, in 5th ed. 40k, force something on Tyranid players so complicated as having to choose only one effect from any number of possible options on most of the units in the book, each time they fight in CC.

Until GW tells me otherwise, for official events and tournaments at my store Tyranid close combat abilities will stack. I'm not in the business of hosing players of a new codex over semantics.

-Dis.

Nah No ambiguity (For a Change...)
They attack with teeth and claws,
Whether its Rending teeth with scything Boneswordy Claws,
or Poisoned Gnashing Teeth with Lashwhipy Claws,
Still Teeth and claws.

This is one thing they were clear on.

Deuce
pg 33 tyranid dex says it all

They use Gnashing teeth, claws and talons,
Thats it,
Period,

The citter is modified by what biomorphs are built into his body,
ITs damn clear,
They stack,


Painful to think otherwise when its that clear.

Another thing that some people are overlooking is that every Close Combat weapon in every other codex specifically refers to one of the "special close combat weapons" on page 42 of the BRB.

For example, page 57 of the Space Wolves codex:

"Frost Blade or Axe

.... Regardless of what they look like, all frost blades or frost axes are power weapons that add +1 to the user's strength."

Or, Page 99 of the Space Marine Codex:

"Relic Blade

A Relic Blade counts as a power weapon whose hits are resolved at strength 6."

Close Combat weapons in other codexes are specified to be special close combat weapons because they directly refer to established Special weapons in the BRB.

The closest thing the Tyranids have is the Bonesword. Now, if the Tyranids acted like every other codex, wouldn't it refer to it as a power weapon plus X rule?

Page 83 of the Tyranid Codex:

"Bonesword

No Armor saves may be taken against wounds inflicted in close combat by a Tyranid with a bonesword."

I believe there are assumptions being made on the "don't stack" side of the argument.

When you are talking about Close Combat weapons and whether a weapon is or is not a "special" close combat weapon, don't the rules have to specify if it is a special weapon or not. Assuming that just because it is a "weapon" and it does something "special" doesn't mean it's a "special close combat weapon" as defined in the rules. In fact the only thing in the whole Tyranid codex that even refers to these upgrades as close combat weapons in the header on page 83. That's the whole crux of the argument for the "don't stack" camp.

Here is the bottom line, the Tyranid codex introduces us to something entirely new. It's called "Tyranid Close Combat Weapons" and what defines that is the blurb from page 33 of the Tyranid codex.

"Tyranid creatures do not wield close combat weapons as such, but rather slash at their opponents with their own teeth, claws, and talons. As a result, Tyranid models never receive bonus Attacks for fighting with more than one close combat weapon - these bonuses are always included in the creature's profile."

Tyranids don't wield close combat weapons as defined in the BRB. Each Tyranid Close Combat weapon is defined by what their effects are to the creature. Nothing more nothing less, Tyranids don't get additional attacks, Tyranids don't get to choose what weapon to use where. This is very simple, if a Tyranid has a weapon or a biomorph then those effects carry over to what it does in close combat.

No. Special close combat weapons are simply any weapon which confers a bonus to the user.

However, since tyranids do not wield (and therefore "use") their CCW as CCWs, they are not bound by the special CCW rules - even though they are still special CCWs.

GW could have avoided all of this by simply omitting the CCW heading in the codex and put all of these under the Biomorph heading. I mean, that is what these "CCWs" are right? Biomorphed appendages that enhance their natural attacks.

My argument is that Tyranids don't use "Close Combat Weapons" or "Special Close Combat Weapons". They use "Tyranid Close Combat Weapons", so the heading on that particular page is irrelevant.

Gwar! wrote:f it were the only result, it would say so.

It does say so. "As a result" explains what "Tyranids do not wield ccws" means. It only covers one rule, not two as people are trying to make it. If it wanted to let Tyranids stack their ccws abilities, then it would say so, just like it says they don't get +1 attack.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Also - "As a result" is giving an example, nothing states it is the ONLY result.

Except it is written not as an example, but rather an explanation of what the in-game effects of "Tyranids do not wield ccws" are, which is to deny Tyranids the +1 attack bonus for having 2 ccws.

And it odes not state it is the only result now, does it? Please show that it is the ONLY result of this rule - which none of your posts have yet to do. You are trying to claim it states X when it does not

The rule gives a consequence - they did not write *every* consequence in.

Lord_Mortis

Just a quick question for you how do you propose the RaW works?

Lets assume that Tyranid CCWs are Special CCWs and that Tyranids weild them to thus gain the benefits from them and restrictions. This is your arbument, correct?

Therefore a model with a bonesword, lashwhip and devourer has to choose between his bonesword or lashwhip? Using the rule that means if you have 2 single-handed special CCWs you have to choose between them.

However a model with Scything talons, bonesword and lashwhip can use all 3 as they are not longer armed with just 2 Special CCWs.

Likewise a model with Scything talons and a pair of boneswords doesn't have to choose because either a pair of boneswords is still 2 CCWS (for a total of 3) or it is two-handed.

Trying to map this rule onto the Tyranids simply doesn't work. They have 4 arms and they CCWs normall add up to 4 handed worth of CCWs be that 4 single single handed, 2 double handed or a mixture.

I really don't understand how you think the RaW works?

Additionally you do not know the "handedness" of ANY of the Tyranid weapons - they are never listed as single or two handed. As such you cannot assume that any rule relaitng to single handed weapons applies here.

nosferatu1001 wrote:And it odes not state it is the only result now, does it? Please show that it is the ONLY result of this rule - which none of your posts have yet to do. You are trying to claim it states X when it does not

The rule gives a consequence - they did not write *every* consequence in.

They wrote the only consequence that was affected by "Tyranids do not wield ccws." If they had wanted it to include more, they would have said so. "A result of this" is not the same thing as "As a result."

FlingitNow wrote:Lord_Mortis

Just a quick question for you how do you propose the RaW works?

Lets assume that Tyranid CCWs are Special CCWs and that Tyranids weild them to thus gain the benefits from them and restrictions. This is your arbument, correct?

Therefore a model with a bonesword, lashwhip and devourer has to choose between his bonesword or lashwhip? Using the rule that means if you have 2 single-handed special CCWs you have to choose between them.

However a model with Scything talons, bonesword and lashwhip can use all 3 as they are not longer armed with just 2 Special CCWs.

Likewise a model with Scything talons and a pair of boneswords doesn't have to choose because either a pair of boneswords is still 2 CCWS (for a total of 3) or it is two-handed.

Trying to map this rule onto the Tyranids simply doesn't work. They have 4 arms and they CCWs normall add up to 4 handed worth of CCWs be that 4 single single handed, 2 double handed or a mixture.

I really don't understand how you think the RaW works?

Does a model with 3 close combat weapons have "a" ccw? Yes

Does a model with 3 close combat weapons have 2 ccws? Yes

Does a model with 3 close combat weapons have 3 ccws? Yes

I'm not seeing how a model with 3+ ccws fails to satisfy the "armed with 2 single handed" ccws. Do the rules state they must have exactly 2 close combat weapons before they have to choose?

In your opinion they wrote the only consequence of this is X - Doesnt mean that is what the rule actually says however.

You have not provided why the rule states this is the ONLY consquence, which was what was asked.

LM - how do you know ANY of them are single handed CCW? PLease provide proof.

nosferatu1001 wrote:In your opinion they wrote the only consequence of this is X - Doesnt mean that is what the rule actually says however.

You have not provided why the rule states this is the ONLY consquence, which was what was asked.

Because the writer is explaining what "Tyranids do not wield ccws" means with "As a result." He does not say "A result of this is that Tyranids never get +1 attack for having 2 ccws." He instead lists the only rule from the BRB concerning ccws that is affected. I'm not one who plays games in the manner of "well, it doesn't say I can't do it." I play by what the rules say I can and can not do. If you read it that Tyranid ccws stack and others read it as they don't, then that just proves that the rules are poorly written and too ambiguous and things will only be satisfied with a FAQ by GW.

LM - how do you know ANY of them are single handed CCW? PLease provide proof.

None of the ccws in the BRB are specifically mentioned as being singled handed ccws. Some ccws do say they are doubled handed, like relic blades. So I would say the default is that ccws are single-handed unless otherwise stated in their description.

209 votes to 18... I am going to request the mods lock this thread now.

G

Lord_Mortis wrote:Some ccws do say they are doubled handed, like relic blades.

Lolfail.

Lrn2Read please. Nowhere in the Relic Blades rules does it state it is a 2 handed CCW.

Also, Does a model with 3 close combat weapons have a ccw? Yes.

If you speak ENGLISH (aka the Language these book were written in), "as a result" does not mean "as the only result".

Lord_Mortis wrote:Because the writer is explaining what "Tyranids do not wield ccws" means with "As a result." He does not say "A result of this is that Tyranids never get +1 attack for having 2 ccws." He instead lists the only rule from the BRB concerning ccws that is affected.

as A result....

Still A result

Not "the only" result.

The sentence still does nto say waht you so dearly want it to say.

Lord_Mortis wrote:I'm not one who plays games in the manner of "well, it doesn't say I can't do it." I play by what the rules say I can and can not do. If you read it that Tyranid ccws stack and others read it as they don't, then that just proves that the rules are poorly written and too ambiguous and things will only be satisfied with a FAQ by GW.

No, it proves that some people will, seemingly wilfully, miscontrue even clearly written rules. Again, just because some people have a problem reading rules does not make it a valid problem with the rules - the person readin g them can be, and often is, at fault.

Lord_Mortis wrote:None of the ccws in the BRB are specifically mentioned as being singled handed ccws. Some ccws do say they are doubled handed, like relic blades. So I would say the default is that ccws are single-handed unless otherwise stated in their description.

So you are making an assumption? I asked for PROOF.

Does a model with 3 close combat weapons have "a" ccw? Yes

Does a model with 3 close combat weapons have 2 ccws? Yes

Does a model with 3 close combat weapons have 3 ccws? Yes

I'm not seeing how a model with 3+ ccws fails to satisfy the "armed with 2 single handed" ccws. Do the rules state they must have exactly 2 close combat weapons before they have to choose?

I've noticed you've:

a) Ignored the single handed part.

b) Ignored the English doesn't make sense for more than 2 CCWs, it specifies 2 is never states this rule applies to more than 2.

I expect this to be FAQed and will play by the rules until then (that they gain the benefits for each CCW they are armed with). I imagine most Tournaments will play that way too.

Gwar! wrote:

Lord_Mortis wrote:Some ccws do say they are doubled handed, like relic blades.

Lolfail.

Lrn2Read please. Nowhere in the Relic Blades rules does it state it is a 2 handed CCW.

"Relic blades are two-handed swords or axes....A relic blade counts as a power weapon...."

What is a power weapon? See "Special Close Combat Weapons" on page 42 in the BRB.

If you speak ENGLISH (aka the Language these book were written in), "as a result" does not mean "as the only result".

And if the writer was wanting to change how all the rules apply to Tyranids concerning ccws then he would have listed the changes. Instead, he listed only one.

nosferatu1001 wrote:as A result....

Still A result

Not "the only" result.

The sentence still does nto say waht you so dearly want it to say.

And the same could be said of your view. No sense in repeating the same thing over and over. We will just have to disagree.

So you are making an assumption? I asked for PROOF.

lol. Yeah, that is the same as trying to prove that any ccws, other than powerfists, thunderhammers, and lightning claws, are single handed weapons. So really, since only those 3 are mentioned in the singled handed weapons section, then no other special ccws count as single handed, and therefore aren't bound by the rule about having to choose which special ccw to use in the current assault. Are you saying we have been playing power weapons and such all wrong this whole time?

Good luck with that.

So either all ccws weapons that are not listed as two-handed weapons are single handed weapons, or they aren't single handed weapons at all but something else entirely.

Lord_Mortis wrote:"Relic blades are two-handed swords or axes."

Good Job on Quoting Fluff there.

And if the writer was wanting to change how all the rules apply to Tyranids concerning ccws then he would have listed the changes. Instead, he listed only one.

That is not how the rules work. By your logic, they would need to have a rule forbidding the use of Biochemical Nerve Gas against your Sister if you fail a save.

lol. Yeah, that is the same as trying to prove that any ccws, other than powerfists, thunderhammers, and lightning claws, are single handed weapons. So really, since only those 3 are mentioned in the singled handed weapons section, then no other special ccws count as single handed, and therefore aren't bound by the rule about having to choose which special ccw to use in the current assault. Are you saying we have been playing power weapons and such all wrong this whole time?

There are no defined single-handed weapons and very few (if any) defined double handed weapons. Hence you have to just read the English and look at the models...

Not too tough.

FlingitNow wrote:I've noticed you've:

a) Ignored the single handed part.

No I didn't. That was the whole point of that post. Oh, so maybe I didn't use "single handed" in each sentence until the end, but single handed weapons is what I was addressing.

b) Ignored the English doesn't make sense for more than 2 CCWs, it specifies 2 is never states this rule applies to more than 2.

The rules say 2 different special weapons. A model with 3 different special weapons still has 2 special weapons that are different. It doesn't matter if he has 50 arms and 50 different special weapons. He will always have at least 2 different special weapons. The rules do not say a model with only 2 special weapons has to choose.

I expect this to be FAQed and will play by the rules until then (that they gain the benefits for each CCW they are armed with). I imagine most Tournaments will play that way too.

Well good for you. I don't play in tournaments so that doesn't matter to me. Since when did this game become solely about tournaments?

Well good for you. I don't play in tournaments so that doesn't matter to me. Since when did this game become solely about tournaments?

When did I say it was all about Tournaments? If you are trying to stop a Tyranid player from using his CCWs then you are just being TFG, so for friendly games you're just going to lose friends and for competitive games you'll almost certainly just get ruled against.

So why argue this on an Internet forum?

Mortis is painful to watch them tear you down like a pack of dawgs.

G

LM - they listed one, as the most common example.

Still doesnt mean it isnt AN example. I wil not "agree to disagree" when your point is so clealy wrong - you are trying to misconstrue a sentence to mean something else entirely other than what it is actually statiung.

This is why I said not all debated rules are the rules being unclear, merely the people reading them fail at some critical piece of understanding.

nosferatu1001 wrote:LM - they listed one, as the most common example.

Still doesnt mean it isnt AN example. I wil not "agree to disagree" when your point is so clealy wrong - you are trying to misconstrue a sentence to mean something else entirely other than what it is actually statiung.

This is why I said not all debated rules are the rules being unclear, merely the people reading them fail at some critical piece of understanding.

this one.

QFT.

G

FlingitNow wrote:So why argue this on an Internet forum?

Because I like to make sure I know the rules before playing.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Mortis is painful to watch them tear you down like a pack of dawgs.

G

That's your opinion. If you don't have anything constructive to add, then move along.

nosferatu1001 wrote:LM - they listed one, as the most common example.

Still doesnt mean it isnt AN example. I wil not "agree to disagree" when your point is so clealy wrong - you are trying to misconstrue a sentence to mean something else entirely other than what it is actually statiung.

This is why I said not all debated rules are the rules being unclear, merely the people reading them fail at some critical piece of understanding.

Who are you trying to convince? Me or yourself? I will only be convinced of your way when I see a GW FAQ that agrees with you as I have seen nothing here that would make me change my mind. Of course, the fact that if they do FAQ means that it was ambiguous to begin with.

Of course, the fact that if they do FAQ means that it was ambiguous to begin with.

Not necessarily, and to be honest given the poll responses it seems unlikely this will require an FAQ. Some people (like you evidently) get so scared about a new codex that they have to try to find ways of rules lawyering all the special rules away.

Mortis don't be so hard on yourself, back your own ability to win without having to be TFG to try to gain an advantage by deliberately mis-reading or mis-representing the rules.

Just play by the rules and I have confidence that you'll still have fun and win games. You just need a little more self belief. I hope I've helped

Mortis how much do you want to bet the FAQ proves you wrong? $100, $200, $500? Put your money where your mouth is.

G

LM - I have no desire to convince you, as you seem to wilfully misconstrue a seriously simple sentence into something else. I just wanted to make it clear to any other posters that our positions are not as equally weighted as your post implies.

FAQs do not prove something was ambiguous, more that some people seem intent on deliberalely misreading rules to gain advantage. IN this case the rules are woefully clear, so much so that (and the poll bears this out) I doubt GW will see the need to state the blindingly obvious.

nosferatu1001 wrote:LM - I have no desire to convince you, as you seem to wilfully misconstrue a seriously simple sentence into something else. I just wanted to make it clear to any other posters that our positions are not as equally weighted as your post implies.

FAQs do not prove something was ambiguous, more that some people seem intent on deliberalely misreading rules to gain advantage. IN this case the rules are woefully clear, so much so that (and the poll bears this out) I doubt GW will see the need to state the blindingly obvious.

This.

G

FlingitNow wrote:Some people (like you evidently) get so scared about a new codex that they have to try to find ways of rules lawyering all the special rules away.

Mortis don't be so hard on yourself, back your own ability to win without having to be TFG to try to gain an advantage by deliberately mis-reading or mis-representing the rules.

LOL! Hardly. I had no trouble beating Tyranids when their ccw abilities stacked, so why would that matter now? I'm discussing a rules interpretation. The past two Tyranid books had specific, clear wording that said their abilities stacked. That wording is missing from the current book and has been replaced with a rule that states they do not get +1 attack bonus instead. Lacking that specific wording that was in the previous books, I am not going to make an assumption that that rule still stands, and the arguments here have done nothing to convince me that "Tyranids do not wield ccws = they lose the bonus attack but their ccw abilities stack."

Lord_Mortis wrote:
The past two Tyranid books had specific, clear wording that said their abilities stacked. That wording is missing from the current book and has been replaced with a rule that states they do not get +1 attack bonus instead.

Except that's not what the rule says. It says that they do not wield CCWs. It says that a result of this is that they do not get the bonus attack.

It says that they do not wield CCWs. That is what it says.

+1 to you stubbornly misreading a clear sentence.

Yeah he is way too stubborn to admit it and this thread has gone on and on and on and on with him repeating himself over and over ad nauseum. I think he cannot stand to lose an argument and wants the last word on this subject.

G

I have said my peace and only want address the poll.

The poll is far from indicative. There was no requirement that those polled read the arguments. Many of those who voted may have done so without seeing both sides of the issue and thus the poll fails to show support based on two well argued points.

I don't see how you can read the Nid codex section on their close combat weapons and conclude that they work like special weapons. The particular example that stands out is scything talons. Having two pairs confers re-rolls of all failed to hit rolls. Having one pair lets you reroll to hit rolls that are 1's. How could a nid ever use more than one pair if the talons are actually to be treated as CCWs? Does a pair of scything talons count as one CCW so a nid can then "wield" two pairs? I'm used to rules that are invalidated by new editions of the rules (thornback, symbiote rippers et al), but I don't think so poorly of GW that they would write a useless rule into a brand new codex.

Arschbombe wrote:I'm used to rules that are invalidated by new editions of the rules (thornback, symbiote rippers et al), but I don't think so poorly of GW that they would write a useless rule into a brand new codex.

Bwahahhhaaaa! No offense intended but that was hilarious. One example that immediately came to mind was the Copy/Paste from 4th Edition to Bjorn the Fell-handed that gave him a re-roll to something that does not exist in 5th Edition games.

Let's not also forget the Berserk Charge that never works!

And how Venerable doesn't work either.

Or how even if Berserk Charge worked, Skyclaws and Swiftclaws would never get it.

The list goes on!

Yeah it doth go on and on for sure... Hmmm.

G

Gorkamorka wrote:

Lord_Mortis wrote:
The past two Tyranid books had specific, clear wording that said their abilities stacked. That wording is missing from the current book and has been replaced with a rule that states they do not get +1 attack bonus instead.

Except that's not what the rule says. It says that they do not wield CCWs. It says that a result of this is that they do not get the bonus attack.

It says that they do not wield CCWs. That is what it says.

+1 to you stubbornly misreading a clear sentence.

Except that that is exactly what the rule says, "Tyranid creatures do not wield close combat weapons as such ("...") As a result, tyranid models never recieve bonus Attacks for fighting with more than one close combat weapon" Note the AS SUCH.
Never and nowhere in the entire book does it say that tyranids doesn't fight with close combat, I've checked. I fully agree with Lord Mortis.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Black Blow Fly wrote:Mortis how much do you want to bet the FAQ proves you wrong? $100, $200, $500? Put your money where your mouth is.

G

Dude you are so in the wrong, the FAQ does indeed say that the effects stack, but the FAQ's aren't the rules. They are the GW's own house rules, you are under no obligation to follow them and GW actually says that if you have another interpretation you should use that instead of theirs.

Holy necro, Batman!

+++ Initiate Augury +++

+++ Scrying . . . +++

+++ Scrying . . . +++

+++ Scrap Code Detected +++

+++ Analyzing . . . +++

+++ Analysis Complete +++

+++ Tech Heresy Classification: Thread Necromancy +++

+++ In Nomines Mechanicus Anathema Sit +++

+++ Initiate Communication Ablution Protocol Aleph-Nu-75 +++

+++ Locking Thread +++

+++ Locking . . . +++

+++ Locking . . . +++

+++ Locking . . . +++

+++ Communication Ablution Complete +++

+++ All praise to the Omnissiah +++