Prove the fist may be used on its own in combat. 5 pages of waiting now.
The Hand cannot attack on its own, but that is not because the fist is subsumed under some combined weapon (which I have already proved cannot exist per the rules).
Rather, the Hand cannot attack on its own without the other weapon pitching in its attacks at the same time.
The rules say that the two weapons are "used together" so the two weapons attack at the same time.
That means there will be two weapons with a melee weapon profile applied attacking, which will result in +1A.
If the Hand and Sword were not required to be attacking at the same time, the Hand would be perfectly eligible to attack on its own since it is a melee weapon all on its own.
"Used together" effectively means "more than one melee weapon in combat".
You're assuming it means dual wielding when in this case it does not. They're used together and you're given one melee profile, you need a second melee profile that wasn't a part of those two to be able to claim the bonus attack.
There are two weapons incontrovertibly. The single melee profile is applied to each weapon individually.
We know this to be the case because the Hand of Dominion has the melee profile applied to it and not some combined weapon. There is absolutely on rules basis for a combined weapon.
Your argument is disproven.
Col_Impact - We all can see where you're coming from on here. There are two separate weapons on the model and therefor, barring a statement that unambiguously claims that you do not get bonus attacks for it, you get bonus attacks.
However, their argument isn't disproven. The vast majority of people think that the interpretation is that you don't get a bonus attack- It's cool that you are sticking to your guns on this and that's fine. If you were facing me, though I disagree, I wouldn't spend a lot of effort stopping you from getting +1 attack on to Guliliman's already devastating profile. It just wouldn't make a difference.
But claiming that their argument is disproven in an argument that is essentially about rules of the English language and implied subjects is a bit disingenuous.
Thanks for joining in.
I think you should look carefully at this rule statement.
Spoiler:
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
That statement says the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon.
This is key. It effectively proves my argument.
The counter argument is that there is a combined weapon profile. This would mean that the melee weapon type would be assigned to some combined weapon profile and not directly to the Hand of Dominion.
Because the Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon, this proves that the profile was applied individually to the Hand itself, and it disproves any argument that there is a combined weapon profile.
Prove the fist may be used on its own in combat. 5 pages of waiting now.
Under it's ranged profile it states it can be used in melee even though it shot. Did the sword shoot?
Which allows it the ability to act as the other half to the melee profile Bobby G has to try to avoid confusion. But this is GW. If this use together stuff for Bobby G is "duel wielding" then it's like the only case of it happening in 40k as far as I know. Merely this thread is likely power grasping for Bobby G, but I prefer to go with Hanlon's Razor.
So far it seems to pretty much be everyone vs col and now you and I'm wondering what's up with that really. Like maybe the reading interpretation thing is a regional thing or something? I don't know, just that everyone I've asked has come to the same conclustion I've been talking about which is they just don't get the +1A as illogical as it seems since the guy has two weapons physically on his model. I admitted back in the thread that I'd play it as two weapons myself to avoid conflict, however I'd still not grant the +1A as it seems very clear than this jumbled mess was a result of someone derping while trying to get that effect. However this stubborn arguing it like getting tired and as most "discussions" on the internet it'll ultimately come down to whoever has the most disposable time for it; likely col as I'm not heavily invested in this discussion enough to honestly care about what some guy in America does with his Bobby G. However the purpose of this section of the forum is to settle these disputes to avoid the same arguing happening during actual games. So far col has seemed to fail to present how the fist can be used as a separate weapon; like even show me how it can be used as a normal combat weapon and I'll concede the point instantly; I'm not afraid to admit when I'm actually wrong I just like to be actually shown when I am rather than just told so I learn.
As it stands the derpy way these rules work is that you need a second free weapon to claim that +1A, it's pushing pretty hard by giving them one profile rather than individual ones that they're to be used as one group. Now since you can only use one weapon once you'd need a second profile that doesn't have either of these weapons in it to claim that bonus attack annoyingly enough. One thing I've noticed with his line that he's failed to pick up on is that how it mentions the fist can be used as a melee weapon too. As in he could be arguing perhaps that it can be used as a normal ccw as its mentioned as being able to be used as a melee weapon but without a profile on its own. Now while this is good for say the Avatar of Khaine if you really wanted to try it, it still is used in that initial pairing which sadly overrides pg49's "if a model has two single handed weapons it gets +1A". That's why I'm asking him to try to prove if he can get an attack that's not part of that combo so he can easily and without a doubt get that +1A. Sadly though, Bobby G breaks the games in a few ways and I think we'll never have an agreed upon ruling to any of the 3 things he has that break the game at the moment without an official FAQ which I hope is not too far off.
You're assuming it means dual wielding when in this case it does not. They're used together and you're given one melee profile, you need a second melee profile that wasn't a part of those two to be able to claim the bonus attack.
There are two weapons incontrovertibly. The single melee profile is applied to each weapon individually.
We know this to be the case because the Hand of Dominion has the melee profile applied to it and not some combined weapon. There is absolutely on rules basis for a combined weapon.
Your argument is disproven.
Col_Impact - We all can see where you're coming from on here. There are two separate weapons on the model and therefor, barring a statement that unambiguously claims that you do not get bonus attacks for it, you get bonus attacks.
However, their argument isn't disproven. The vast majority of people think that the interpretation is that you don't get a bonus attack- It's cool that you are sticking to your guns on this and that's fine. If you were facing me, though I disagree, I wouldn't spend a lot of effort stopping you from getting +1 attack on to Guliliman's already devastating profile. It just wouldn't make a difference.
But claiming that their argument is disproven in an argument that is essentially about rules of the English language and implied subjects is a bit disingenuous.
Thanks for joining in.
I think you should look carefully at this rule statement.
Spoiler:
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
That statement says the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon.
This is key. It effectively proves my argument.
The counter argument is that there is a combined weapon profile. This would mean that the melee weapon type would be assigned to some combined weapon profile and not directly to the Hand of Dominion.
Because the Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon, this proves that the profile was applied individually to the Hand itself, and it disproves any argument that there is a combined weapon profile.
Prove the fist may be used on its own in combat. 5 pages of waiting now.
Under it's ranged profile it states it can be used in melee even though it shot. Did the sword shoot?
We have two permissions :
1) using sword and hand together in melee with one melee profile
2) using the hand to shoot, with clear permission to also use it (together with the sword) in melee.
Prove the fist may be used on its own in combat. 5 pages of waiting now.
The Hand cannot attack on its own, but that is not because the fist is subsumed under some combined weapon (which I have already proved cannot exist per the rules).
Rather, the Hand cannot attack on its own without the other weapon pitching in its attacks at the same time.
The rules say that the two weapons are "used together" so the two weapons attack at the same time.
That means there will be two weapons with a melee weapon profile applied attacking, which will result in +1A.
If the Hand and Sword were not required to be attacking at the same time, the Hand would be perfectly eligible to attack on its own since it is a melee weapon all on its own.
"Used together" effectively means "more than one melee weapon in combat".
Prove the fist may be used on its own in combat. 5 pages of waiting now.
The Hand cannot attack on its own, but that is not because the fist is subsumed under some combined weapon (which I have already proved cannot exist per the rules).
Multiple examples of combined weapons have been listed.
col_impact wrote: Rather, the Hand cannot attack on its own without the other weapon pitching in its attacks at the same time.
I agree, the hand isn't an independent melee weapon.
col_impact wrote: The rules say that the two weapons are "used together" so the two weapons attack at the same time.
Correct, both parts of the relic are used together to make melee attacks with the profile listed below that line
If the Hand and Sword were not required to be attacking at the same time, the Hand would be perfectly eligible to attack on its own since it is a melee weapon all on its own.
"Used together" effectively means "more than one melee weapon in combat".
Are you somehow making Robby G. a superheavy walker using superheavy shooting rules for melee weapons?
You're assuming it means dual wielding when in this case it does not. They're used together and you're given one melee profile, you need a second melee profile that wasn't a part of those two to be able to claim the bonus attack.
There are two weapons incontrovertibly. The single melee profile is applied to each weapon individually.
We know this to be the case because the Hand of Dominion has the melee profile applied to it and not some combined weapon. There is absolutely on rules basis for a combined weapon.
Your argument is disproven.
Col_Impact - We all can see where you're coming from on here. There are two separate weapons on the model and therefor, barring a statement that unambiguously claims that you do not get bonus attacks for it, you get bonus attacks.
However, their argument isn't disproven. The vast majority of people think that the interpretation is that you don't get a bonus attack- It's cool that you are sticking to your guns on this and that's fine. If you were facing me, though I disagree, I wouldn't spend a lot of effort stopping you from getting +1 attack on to Guliliman's already devastating profile. It just wouldn't make a difference.
But claiming that their argument is disproven in an argument that is essentially about rules of the English language and implied subjects is a bit disingenuous.
Thanks for joining in.
I think you should look carefully at this rule statement.
Spoiler:
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
That statement says the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon.
This is key. It effectively proves my argument.
The counter argument is that there is a combined weapon profile. This would mean that the melee weapon type would be assigned to some combined weapon profile and not directly to the Hand of Dominion.
Because the Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon, this proves that the profile was applied individually to the Hand itself, and it disproves any argument that there is a combined weapon profile.
Prove the fist may be used on its own in combat. 5 pages of waiting now.
Under it's ranged profile it states it can be used in melee even though it shot. Did the sword shoot?
Which allows it the ability to act as the other half to the melee profile Bobby G has to try to avoid confusion. But this is GW. If this use together stuff for Bobby G is "duel wielding" then it's like the only case of it happening in 40k as far as I know. Merely this thread is likely power grasping for Bobby G, but I prefer to go with Hanlon's Razor.
So far it seems to pretty much be everyone vs col and now you and I'm wondering what's up with that really. Like maybe the reading interpretation thing is a regional thing or something? I don't know, just that everyone I've asked has come to the same conclustion I've been talking about which is they just don't get the +1A as illogical as it seems since the guy has two weapons physically on his model. I admitted back in the thread that I'd play it as two weapons myself to avoid conflict, however I'd still not grant the +1A as it seems very clear than this jumbled mess was a result of someone derping while trying to get that effect. However this stubborn arguing it like getting tired and as most "discussions" on the internet it'll ultimately come down to whoever has the most disposable time for it; likely col as I'm not heavily invested in this discussion enough to honestly care about what some guy in America does with his Bobby G. However the purpose of this section of the forum is to settle these disputes to avoid the same arguing happening during actual games. So far col has seemed to fail to present how the fist can be used as a separate weapon; like even show me how it can be used as a normal combat weapon and I'll concede the point instantly; I'm not afraid to admit when I'm actually wrong I just like to be actually shown when I am rather than just told so I learn.
As it stands the derpy way these rules work is that you need a second free weapon to claim that +1A, it's pushing pretty hard by giving them one profile rather than individual ones that they're to be used as one group. Now since you can only use one weapon once you'd need a second profile that doesn't have either of these weapons in it to claim that bonus attack annoyingly enough. One thing I've noticed with his line that he's failed to pick up on is that how it mentions the fist can be used as a melee weapon too. As in he could be arguing perhaps that it can be used as a normal ccw as its mentioned as being able to be used as a melee weapon but without a profile on its own. Now while this is good for say the Avatar of Khaine if you really wanted to try it, it still is used in that initial pairing which sadly overrides pg49's "if a model has two single handed weapons it gets +1A". That's why I'm asking him to try to prove if he can get an attack that's not part of that combo so he can easily and without a doubt get that +1A. Sadly though, Bobby G breaks the games in a few ways and I think we'll never have an agreed upon ruling to any of the 3 things he has that break the game at the moment without an official FAQ which I hope is not too far off.
I didn't just come from know where lol I started this topic
I don't think it's regional, it's how one interprets poorly worded or intended rules from a company notorious for doing so.
My issue is it can be interpreted both ways. I own the model and played it already without the +1 attack. But I can see how it's open to interpretation. I myself will never play it with +1 attack because he definitely does not need it. I hope that I am wrong and GW rules that way. But until then it'll be a gray area in my book
We have two permissions :
1) using sword and hand together in melee with one melee profile
2) using the hand to shoot, with clear permission to also use it (together with the sword) in melee.
The one melee profile is applied to each weapon individually.
The net result is two melee weapons. One of those melee weapons (the Hand) has a ranged weapon profile in addition to a melee profile.
Since the Hand is shown in the rules to have its own melee profile there is no 'combined' weapon profile.
The two weapons must attack together in combat since they are "used together" - "used together" effectively means Robute has more than one close combat weapon and gets +1A.
The Hand cannot attack on its own, but that is not because the fist is subsumed under some combined weapon (which I have already proved cannot exist per the rules).
Multiple examples of combined weapons have been listed.
You misunderstand. I mean some combined weapon cannot exist in Robute's case since the Hand is itself described in the rules as a melee weapon.
If the Hand is itself a melee weapon, then the melee profile was applied to the Hand and not some combined weapon profile which would prevent the Hand from being itself a melee weapon.
We have two permissions :
1) using sword and hand together in melee with one melee profile
2) using the hand to shoot, with clear permission to also use it (together with the sword) in melee.
The one melee profile is applied to each weapon individually.
The net result is two melee weapons. One of those melee weapons (the Hand) has a ranged weapon profile in addition to a melee profile.
Since the Hand is shown in the rules to have its own melee profile there is no 'combined' weapon profile.
The two weapons must attack together in combat since they are "used together" - "used together" effectively means Robute has more than one close combat weapon and gets +1A.
The Hand cannot attack on its own, but that is not because the fist is subsumed under some combined weapon (which I have already proved cannot exist per the rules).
Multiple examples of combined weapons have been listed.
You misunderstand. I mean some combined weapon cannot exist in Robute's case since the Hand is itself described in the rules as a melee weapon.
If the Hand is itself a melee weapon, then the melee profile was applied to the Hand and not some combined weapon profile which would prevent the Hand from being itself a melee weapon.
What is - according to you - the requirement for the more than one weapon bonus attack?
Spoiler:
if a model has two or more Melee weapons he gains +1 attack in close combat.
I agree, that is excactly what the BRB says. So we need two or more Melee weapons.
Both Weapon and Melee weapon are a defined term in the BRB. That means to count as a Melee weapon a piece of gear has to fulfill the requirements in both definitions.
Each weapon has a profile. Here are two examples:
Boltgun 24" S4 AP5 Rapid Fire
Power Sword - S:User AP3 Melee
BRB p.40
To be considered a Weapon for the rules, a piece of gear is required to have a Weapon Profile.
Each Weapon Profile does includes a Weapon Type.
Weapon Type and Profile together allow us to use the Weapon with the shooting or close combat rules respectively.
As demonstrated by the example with gluing extra knives on to the model, the model itself is irrelevant without the rule support to make it relevant.
That is no different for Robby G. Without rules support for the case that he has two Melee weapons as defined in the BRB, the separately modeled sword and fist are irrelevant.
Let's assume for a moment the RAI is that sword and hand are separate, independent weapons. That would imply that Robby G. can indeed attack with either the Sword or the Hand as desired. While it would be exceedingly boring design to make both weapons have the same profile, it would be possible. It would however be necessary to assign that single profile to both individual weapons. That could easily be done, by saying something along the lines of "Both of the sword and the hand use the profile below" or "sword and hand each use the profile below" .
That is not the case for Robby:
RAW is (Sword and Hand together) = Melee weapon
This is not equivalent to: (sword = Melee weapon AND hand = Melee weapon) dual-whielding FTW!
As explained earlier, there is no method in the rules that describes how to attack with several weapons "together" simulaneously or support for dual-whielding. Which is why those readings of the sentence are useless in a rules discussion. Yes, Robby has two weapons on the model. Both of these together are - per his datasheet - a single Melee weapon as defined in the rules, furthermore the hand can also be used to make shooting attacks.
If Robby has a paddle ball - can he use the ball and the paddle separately?
The Hand of Dominion has the melee weapon type, not some combined weapon.
Show us the profile to verify that.
Because all that quote you keep harping does is confirm that the ranged option is not an either/or as it is in the case of certain other weapons such as Ork Burnas.
His entire argument is based on an assumption.
The fact that the title of the one weapon profile he does have, has the words "hand of dominion" in it. He is then attributing that profile to the supposed melee profile of the ranged weapon with that name. We have a profile for Hand of Dominion, a RANGED profile, and it does NOT have the pistol special rule, meaning it CANNOT grant an additional attack. The rules state a ranged weapon must have that rule in order to do so.
He has NO precedence to dictate one profile is two weapons. Every other circumstance of two weapons being in one entry has a profile line for EACH weapon individually. This situation does not follow the standard GW has used. The circumstances where an extra attack is provided it is notated in the profile.
Everyone agrees that it does say "these" but it provides insufficient detail to point exactly what "these" actually are, you have to make an assumption to do that. Once you make an assumption you are no longer making a RAW argument.
The rules for Whirling Flame and Hand of the Emperor say THIS weapon, not these weapons. It collaborates that "used together" means they act as on weapon. You have to prove that "used together" means something else. Because here is the thing within a profile are SPECIAL RULES meaning that they mean something different than normal rules. Instead you choose to disregard the words as nonsensical because they don't fit your line of thought. You are cherry picking which words you want to read and ignore.
If you took this argument into a courthouse and tried to argue that "these" and "also" indicated a specific entity that is not named, you would have insufficient evidence to prove that point, which is the situation as it currently stands, nor do you have any precedence that backs up your interpretation.
Wow. 11 pages and still going strong. Stephanius and Col_impact shouldn't be allowed on opposite sides of an argument as both are willing to repeat the same phrases ad infinitum.
MattKing wrote: Wow. 11 pages and still going strong. Stephanius and Col_impact shouldn't be allowed on opposite sides of an argument as both are willing to repeat the same phrases ad infinitum.
I'm trying to figure out if col_impact is actually legally old enough to do anything. The way he's clinging to this sinking ship to the extent of pulling what I can only assume is his backup account to back him up for every ambiguous statement reminds me an awful lot of my younger sister's tenacity when she was like, 5-6 years old.
MattKing wrote: Wow. 11 pages and still going strong. Stephanius and Col_impact shouldn't be allowed on opposite sides of an argument as both are willing to repeat the same phrases ad infinitum.
I'm trying to figure out if col_impact is actually legally old enough to do anything. The way he's clinging to this sinking ship to the extent of pulling what I can only assume is his backup account to back him up for every ambiguous statement reminds me an awful lot of my younger sister's tenacity when she was like, 5-6 years old.
So you assume that me zoopants "his back up account" started this thread to argue on his behalf? On top you insult​ him? Grow up. Contribute to discussion with out insults please.
MattKing wrote: Wow. 11 pages and still going strong. Stephanius and Col_impact shouldn't be allowed on opposite sides of an argument as both are willing to repeat the same phrases ad infinitum.
MattKing wrote: Wow. 11 pages and still going strong. Stephanius and Col_impact shouldn't be allowed on opposite sides of an argument as both are willing to repeat the same phrases ad infinitum.
I'm trying to figure out if col_impact is actually legally old enough to do anything. The way he's clinging to this sinking ship to the extent of pulling what I can only assume is his backup account to back him up for every ambiguous statement reminds me an awful lot of my younger sister's tenacity when she was like, 5-6 years old.
Just because you disagree with the guy is no reason for ad hominem's. Then everyone starts throwing slurs around. For instance, I could openly speculate whether your failure to understand Col's point after 11 pages is reminiscent of children with reading comprehension problems I've met. It gets no one anywhere.
Anyway, he's not alone. Zoo obviously agrees with it and I stated earlier in the thread that, just on RAW, he's offering a completely valid interpretation so far as I can tell. Col and Stephanius think there is enough RAW to prove one side right and vanquish the other, I think the RAW is ambiguous enough neither of them will ever win, but there's definitely people who agree with both of them. Let's respect their opinions.
This has been a fantastic popcorn thread! Thank you!
Just to add my opinion- I think they are two separate weapons that share one stat profile. For all intents and purposes, it's one weapon so no, you do not get an additional close combat attack for two weapons.
But the other side of the argument is just as valid. GW rules writing at its best! Roll a d6.
MattKing wrote: Wow. 11 pages and still going strong. Stephanius and Col_impact shouldn't be allowed on opposite sides of an argument as both are willing to repeat the same phrases ad infinitum.
I'm trying to figure out if col_impact is actually legally old enough to do anything. The way he's clinging to this sinking ship to the extent of pulling what I can only assume is his backup account to back him up for every ambiguous statement reminds me an awful lot of my younger sister's tenacity when she was like, 5-6 years old.
So you assume that me zoopants "his back up account" started this thread to argue on his behalf? On top you insult​ him? Grow up. Contribute to discussion with out insults please.
Oh, you wish for a lack of insults?
SHOW ME THE PROOF.
Show me the occular proof.
We're about 6 pages in and still waiting for the evidence of the Hand of Dominion's melee profile. You also have flip-flopped back and forth, refusing to accept an explanation that applies the very same logistical approach that your supposed confirmations have.
So until we see one of the following:
-A seperate melee profile for the Hand of Dominion (following the precedent set by Relics such as the Pandemic Staff and weapons such as the Ork Burna)
-A statement explicitly stating that The Sword and Hand count as a pair of melee weapons (such as the Claws of the Night Terror) and grant an additional attack
Then all we have is a combined profile for both, which does not grant an additional attack and effectively functions as a single weapon. This isn't a new thing for GW.
Abaddon functioned like this with the previous CSM codex.
Tyranids and GSC have the Lash Whip and Bonesword which functions like this (i.e., single profile counting as a single weapon).
Dark Eldar have Razorflails which operate in a similar manner.
And there are plenty of examples of single choice 'paired' weapons that explicitly state they grant +1 attack and/or count as a pair of melee weapons - The Claws of the Night Terror, Shardnets and Impalers, Demi-Klaives in their dual blade mode as examples.
Nor is the idea of a weapon having TWO profiles - one for melee and one for ranged a new concept.
The Pandemic Staff, Ork Burna and St. Celestine's sword are examples of this. The fact that the Hand states it can be used in melee on the same turn it fires isn't an indicator that it's a melee weapon - it's an indicator that you can shoot AND assault utilising it, unlike, say, the Ork Burna which is either/or.
The single profile matters - the lack of a mention of it being a pair of weapons or the term 'each weapon' in relation to the profile is important.
There are plenty of abilities that make it useless (Eldar Avatars ignoring Soulblaze, units ignore flame attacks, units that can Disarm etc) so it's actually beneficial to you to have the Hand having a seperate melee profile as a Plan B in case of one of those circumstances.
But the absence of this implies that - no - the Hand and Sword function as a single weapon in assault, much like the Lash Whip and Bonesword or DE Razorflails.
MattKing wrote: Wow. 11 pages and still going strong. Stephanius and Col_impact shouldn't be allowed on opposite sides of an argument as both are willing to repeat the same phrases ad infinitum.
I'm trying to figure out if col_impact is actually legally old enough to do anything. The way he's clinging to this sinking ship to the extent of pulling what I can only assume is his backup account to back him up for every ambiguous statement reminds me an awful lot of my younger sister's tenacity when she was like, 5-6 years old.
So you assume that me zoopants "his back up account" started this thread to argue on his behalf? On top you insult​ him? Grow up. Contribute to discussion with out insults please.
Oh, you wish for a lack of insults?
SHOW ME THE PROOF.
Show me the occular proof.
We're about 6 pages in and still waiting for the evidence of the Hand of Dominion's melee profile. You also have flip-flopped back and forth, refusing to accept an explanation that applies the very same logistical approach that your supposed confirmations have.
So until we see one of the following:
-A seperate melee profile for the Hand of Dominion (following the precedent set by Relics such as the Pandemic Staff and weapons such as the Ork Burna)
-A statement explicitly stating that The Sword and Hand count as a pair of melee weapons (such as the Claws of the Night Terror) and grant an additional attack
Then all we have is a combined profile for both, which does not grant an additional attack and effectively functions as a single weapon. This isn't a new thing for GW.
Abaddon functioned like this with the previous CSM codex.
Tyranids and GSC have the Lash Whip and Bonesword which functions like this (i.e., single profile counting as a single weapon).
Dark Eldar have Razorflails which operate in a similar manner.
And there are plenty of examples of single choice 'paired' weapons that explicitly state they grant +1 attack and/or count as a pair of melee weapons - The Claws of the Night Terror, Shardnets and Impalers, Demi-Klaives in their dual blade mode as examples.
Nor is the idea of a weapon having TWO profiles - one for melee and one for ranged a new concept.
The Pandemic Staff, Ork Burna and St. Celestine's sword are examples of this. The fact that the Hand states it can be used in melee on the same turn it fires isn't an indicator that it's a melee weapon - it's an indicator that you can shoot AND assault utilising it, unlike, say, the Ork Burna which is either/or.
The single profile matters - the lack of a mention of it being a pair of weapons or the term 'each weapon' in relation to the profile is important.
There are plenty of abilities that make it useless (Eldar Avatars ignoring Soulblaze, units ignore flame attacks, units that can Disarm etc) so it's actually beneficial to you to have the Hand having a seperate melee profile as a Plan B in case of one of those circumstances.
But the absence of this implies that - no - the Hand and Sword function as a single weapon in assault, much like the Lash Whip and Bonesword or DE Razorflails.
You want this without insults?
Answer the god damn question. Show us the proof.
They gave you proof. You just don't like it. They say that one profile works as two separate weapon entries. You want to shut it up, quote some raw that says profiles can't do that.
That proof isn't sufficient for you? That's fine. That's why we have discussions, but just because you disagree doesn't mean they haven't offered any.
MattKing wrote: Wow. 11 pages and still going strong. Stephanius and Col_impact shouldn't be allowed on opposite sides of an argument as both are willing to repeat the same phrases ad infinitum.
I'm trying to figure out if col_impact is actually legally old enough to do anything. The way he's clinging to this sinking ship to the extent of pulling what I can only assume is his backup account to back him up for every ambiguous statement reminds me an awful lot of my younger sister's tenacity when she was like, 5-6 years old.
So you assume that me zoopants "his back up account" started this thread to argue on his behalf? On top you insult​ him? Grow up. Contribute to discussion with out insults please.
Oh, you wish for a lack of insults?
SHOW ME THE PROOF.
Show me the occular proof.
We're about 6 pages in and still waiting for the evidence of the Hand of Dominion's melee profile. You also have flip-flopped back and forth, refusing to accept an explanation that applies the very same logistical approach that your supposed confirmations have.
So until we see one of the following:
-A seperate melee profile for the Hand of Dominion (following the precedent set by Relics such as the Pandemic Staff and weapons such as the Ork Burna)
-A statement explicitly stating that The Sword and Hand count as a pair of melee weapons (such as the Claws of the Night Terror) and grant an additional attack
Then all we have is a combined profile for both, which does not grant an additional attack and effectively functions as a single weapon. This isn't a new thing for GW.
Abaddon functioned like this with the previous CSM codex.
Tyranids and GSC have the Lash Whip and Bonesword which functions like this (i.e., single profile counting as a single weapon).
Dark Eldar have Razorflails which operate in a similar manner.
And there are plenty of examples of single choice 'paired' weapons that explicitly state they grant +1 attack and/or count as a pair of melee weapons - The Claws of the Night Terror, Shardnets and Impalers, Demi-Klaives in their dual blade mode as examples.
Nor is the idea of a weapon having TWO profiles - one for melee and one for ranged a new concept.
The Pandemic Staff, Ork Burna and St. Celestine's sword are examples of this. The fact that the Hand states it can be used in melee on the same turn it fires isn't an indicator that it's a melee weapon - it's an indicator that you can shoot AND assault utilising it, unlike, say, the Ork Burna which is either/or.
The single profile matters - the lack of a mention of it being a pair of weapons or the term 'each weapon' in relation to the profile is important.
There are plenty of abilities that make it useless (Eldar Avatars ignoring Soulblaze, units ignore flame attacks, units that can Disarm etc) so it's actually beneficial to you to have the Hand having a seperate melee profile as a Plan B in case of one of those circumstances.
But the absence of this implies that - no - the Hand and Sword function as a single weapon in assault, much like the Lash Whip and Bonesword or DE Razorflails.
You want this without insults?
Answer the god damn question. Show us the proof.
They gave you proof. You just don't like it. They say that one profile works as two separate weapon entries. You want to shut it up, quote some raw that says profiles can't do that.
That proof isn't sufficient for you? That's fine. That's why we have discussions, but just because you disagree doesn't mean they haven't offered any.
A claim isn't proof. You need to show arguments for why the statement actually means the direct opposite of what it we uninitiated read it as.
MattKing wrote: Wow. 11 pages and still going strong. Stephanius and Col_impact shouldn't be allowed on opposite sides of an argument as both are willing to repeat the same phrases ad infinitum.
I'm trying to figure out if col_impact is actually legally old enough to do anything. The way he's clinging to this sinking ship to the extent of pulling what I can only assume is his backup account to back him up for every ambiguous statement reminds me an awful lot of my younger sister's tenacity when she was like, 5-6 years old.
So you assume that me zoopants "his back up account" started this thread to argue on his behalf? On top you insult​ him? Grow up. Contribute to discussion with out insults please.
Oh, you wish for a lack of insults?
SHOW ME THE PROOF.
Show me the occular proof.
We're about 6 pages in and still waiting for the evidence of the Hand of Dominion's melee profile. You also have flip-flopped back and forth, refusing to accept an explanation that applies the very same logistical approach that your supposed confirmations have.
So until we see one of the following:
-A seperate melee profile for the Hand of Dominion (following the precedent set by Relics such as the Pandemic Staff and weapons such as the Ork Burna)
-A statement explicitly stating that The Sword and Hand count as a pair of melee weapons (such as the Claws of the Night Terror) and grant an additional attack
Then all we have is a combined profile for both, which does not grant an additional attack and effectively functions as a single weapon. This isn't a new thing for GW.
Abaddon functioned like this with the previous CSM codex.
Tyranids and GSC have the Lash Whip and Bonesword which functions like this (i.e., single profile counting as a single weapon).
Dark Eldar have Razorflails which operate in a similar manner.
And there are plenty of examples of single choice 'paired' weapons that explicitly state they grant +1 attack and/or count as a pair of melee weapons - The Claws of the Night Terror, Shardnets and Impalers, Demi-Klaives in their dual blade mode as examples.
Nor is the idea of a weapon having TWO profiles - one for melee and one for ranged a new concept.
The Pandemic Staff, Ork Burna and St. Celestine's sword are examples of this. The fact that the Hand states it can be used in melee on the same turn it fires isn't an indicator that it's a melee weapon - it's an indicator that you can shoot AND assault utilising it, unlike, say, the Ork Burna which is either/or.
The single profile matters - the lack of a mention of it being a pair of weapons or the term 'each weapon' in relation to the profile is important.
There are plenty of abilities that make it useless (Eldar Avatars ignoring Soulblaze, units ignore flame attacks, units that can Disarm etc) so it's actually beneficial to you to have the Hand having a seperate melee profile as a Plan B in case of one of those circumstances.
But the absence of this implies that - no - the Hand and Sword function as a single weapon in assault, much like the Lash Whip and Bonesword or DE Razorflails.
You want this without insults?
Answer the god damn question. Show us the proof.
They gave you proof. You just don't like it. They say that one profile works as two separate weapon entries. You want to shut it up, quote some raw that says profiles can't do that.
That proof isn't sufficient for you? That's fine. That's why we have discussions, but just because you disagree doesn't mean they haven't offered any.
This.
We have you just don't accept it and it seems like he's throwing a tantrum and insulting us.
MattKing wrote: Wow. 11 pages and still going strong. Stephanius and Col_impact shouldn't be allowed on opposite sides of an argument as both are willing to repeat the same phrases ad infinitum.
I'm trying to figure out if col_impact is actually legally old enough to do anything. The way he's clinging to this sinking ship to the extent of pulling what I can only assume is his backup account to back him up for every ambiguous statement reminds me an awful lot of my younger sister's tenacity when she was like, 5-6 years old.
So you assume that me zoopants "his back up account" started this thread to argue on his behalf? On top you insult​ him? Grow up. Contribute to discussion with out insults please.
Oh, you wish for a lack of insults?
SHOW ME THE PROOF.
Show me the occular proof.
We're about 6 pages in and still waiting for the evidence of the Hand of Dominion's melee profile. You also have flip-flopped back and forth, refusing to accept an explanation that applies the very same logistical approach that your supposed confirmations have.
So until we see one of the following:
-A seperate melee profile for the Hand of Dominion (following the precedent set by Relics such as the Pandemic Staff and weapons such as the Ork Burna)
-A statement explicitly stating that The Sword and Hand count as a pair of melee weapons (such as the Claws of the Night Terror) and grant an additional attack
Then all we have is a combined profile for both, which does not grant an additional attack and effectively functions as a single weapon. This isn't a new thing for GW.
Abaddon functioned like this with the previous CSM codex.
Tyranids and GSC have the Lash Whip and Bonesword which functions like this (i.e., single profile counting as a single weapon).
Dark Eldar have Razorflails which operate in a similar manner.
And there are plenty of examples of single choice 'paired' weapons that explicitly state they grant +1 attack and/or count as a pair of melee weapons - The Claws of the Night Terror, Shardnets and Impalers, Demi-Klaives in their dual blade mode as examples.
Nor is the idea of a weapon having TWO profiles - one for melee and one for ranged a new concept.
The Pandemic Staff, Ork Burna and St. Celestine's sword are examples of this. The fact that the Hand states it can be used in melee on the same turn it fires isn't an indicator that it's a melee weapon - it's an indicator that you can shoot AND assault utilising it, unlike, say, the Ork Burna which is either/or.
The single profile matters - the lack of a mention of it being a pair of weapons or the term 'each weapon' in relation to the profile is important.
There are plenty of abilities that make it useless (Eldar Avatars ignoring Soulblaze, units ignore flame attacks, units that can Disarm etc) so it's actually beneficial to you to have the Hand having a seperate melee profile as a Plan B in case of one of those circumstances.
But the absence of this implies that - no - the Hand and Sword function as a single weapon in assault, much like the Lash Whip and Bonesword or DE Razorflails.
You want this without insults?
Answer the god damn question. Show us the proof.
They gave you proof. You just don't like it. They say that one profile works as two separate weapon entries. You want to shut it up, quote some raw that says profiles can't do that.
That proof isn't sufficient for you? That's fine. That's why we have discussions, but just because you disagree doesn't mean they haven't offered any.
A claim isn't proof. You need to show arguments for why the statement actually means the direct opposite of what it we uninitiated read it as.
They did. Again, you're mistaking your disagreement for lack of attempt. The proof isn't sufficient for you? Good. There's a discussion, but you're just gonna drive in circles if you can't make the distinction.
They gave you proof. You just don't like it. They say that one profile works as two separate weapon entries. You want to shut it up, quote some raw that says profiles can't do that.
That proof isn't sufficient for you? That's fine. That's why we have discussions, but just because you disagree doesn't mean they haven't offered any.
You're calling that proof?
The profile does not explicitly state that it is a) two melee weapons (Claws of the Night Terror) or that it b) grants an additional attack (Claws again, Demiklaives, Shardnet and Impaler). Instead it presents a single profile much the same as the Lash Whip and Bonesword or Razorflails do - neither of those grant +1 attack for being two weapons. They are two weapons which mechanically function as one.
He then tries to claim the Hand already has a profile - yes. A ranged profile. That does not include the term 'Melee' or 'Pistol' in its rules.
Every other instance of a single profile working for two weapons either explicitly states they count as two weapons (and/or grant +1 attack) or does not.
Examples that do? Gauntlets of Ultamar, Demi-Klaives, Shardnets and Impalers, Claws of the Night Terror.
Examples that don't? Razorflails, Lash Whip and Bonesword
And guess what - The Hand and Sword do NOT state they count as a pair of melee weapons. They do not have a rule granting +1 attack either.
I guess it's because after all this time, certain basic questions remain unanswered. I asked a question earlier about trying to agree certain base rules. 40k is a permissive rule set. If it doesn't explicitly say you can, then you can't. Does the entry explicitly say that the Sword and the Hand are two weapons for the purpose of obtaining the +1A? No it doesn't. It doesn't give clear explicit profiles for the relics as individual weapons. Does it say that they are a 2 handed weapon? No, neither does it say that they are 2 one handed weapons. It lists a profile that can be accessed when they are used together, so what happens when they are not used together?
This ambiguity of the profile and rules is what is causing this headache, so rather than sitting there and arguing round in circles we have to look at the permissions given, it doesn't say that you can, ergo you can't.
MattKing wrote: Wow. 11 pages and still going strong. Stephanius and Col_impact shouldn't be allowed on opposite sides of an argument as both are willing to repeat the same phrases ad infinitum.
I'm trying to figure out if col_impact is actually legally old enough to do anything. The way he's clinging to this sinking ship to the extent of pulling what I can only assume is his backup account to back him up for every ambiguous statement reminds me an awful lot of my younger sister's tenacity when she was like, 5-6 years old.
So you assume that me zoopants "his back up account" started this thread to argue on his behalf? On top you insult​ him? Grow up. Contribute to discussion with out insults please.
Oh, you wish for a lack of insults?
SHOW ME THE PROOF.
Show me the occular proof.
We're about 6 pages in and still waiting for the evidence of the Hand of Dominion's melee profile. You also have flip-flopped back and forth, refusing to accept an explanation that applies the very same logistical approach that your supposed confirmations have.
So until we see one of the following:
-A seperate melee profile for the Hand of Dominion (following the precedent set by Relics such as the Pandemic Staff and weapons such as the Ork Burna)
-A statement explicitly stating that The Sword and Hand count as a pair of melee weapons (such as the Claws of the Night Terror) and grant an additional attack
Then all we have is a combined profile for both, which does not grant an additional attack and effectively functions as a single weapon. This isn't a new thing for GW.
Abaddon functioned like this with the previous CSM codex.
Tyranids and GSC have the Lash Whip and Bonesword which functions like this (i.e., single profile counting as a single weapon).
Dark Eldar have Razorflails which operate in a similar manner.
And there are plenty of examples of single choice 'paired' weapons that explicitly state they grant +1 attack and/or count as a pair of melee weapons - The Claws of the Night Terror, Shardnets and Impalers, Demi-Klaives in their dual blade mode as examples.
Nor is the idea of a weapon having TWO profiles - one for melee and one for ranged a new concept.
The Pandemic Staff, Ork Burna and St. Celestine's sword are examples of this. The fact that the Hand states it can be used in melee on the same turn it fires isn't an indicator that it's a melee weapon - it's an indicator that you can shoot AND assault utilising it, unlike, say, the Ork Burna which is either/or.
The single profile matters - the lack of a mention of it being a pair of weapons or the term 'each weapon' in relation to the profile is important.
There are plenty of abilities that make it useless (Eldar Avatars ignoring Soulblaze, units ignore flame attacks, units that can Disarm etc) so it's actually beneficial to you to have the Hand having a seperate melee profile as a Plan B in case of one of those circumstances.
But the absence of this implies that - no - the Hand and Sword function as a single weapon in assault, much like the Lash Whip and Bonesword or DE Razorflails.
You want this without insults?
Answer the god damn question. Show us the proof.
They gave you proof. You just don't like it. They say that one profile works as two separate weapon entries. You want to shut it up, quote some raw that says profiles can't do that.
That proof isn't sufficient for you? That's fine. That's why we have discussions, but just because you disagree doesn't mean they haven't offered any.
Your argument is stupid. If you want to go by RAW you have to interpret what everything says as a whole instead you and col are cherry picking specific words to make your point you cannot do this while claiming it is RAW.
You can also prove a RAW interpretation by precedence set by other rules. There is no precedence for the claim of how col says this works. NONE. Every other circumstance either has seperate profiles or specifically states it grants another attack. The wording alludes to another weapon but this weapon is not clearly defined so you have to make an assumption as to what it is, which is RAI not RAW. The only know profile for the Hand is a ranged weapon without the pistol rule. Non pistol weapons cannot be used in melee.
MattKing wrote: Wow. 11 pages and still going strong. Stephanius and Col_impact shouldn't be allowed on opposite sides of an argument as both are willing to repeat the same phrases ad infinitum.
I'm trying to figure out if col_impact is actually legally old enough to do anything. The way he's clinging to this sinking ship to the extent of pulling what I can only assume is his backup account to back him up for every ambiguous statement reminds me an awful lot of my younger sister's tenacity when she was like, 5-6 years old.
So you assume that me zoopants "his back up account" started this thread to argue on his behalf? On top you insult​ him? Grow up. Contribute to discussion with out insults please.
Oh, you wish for a lack of insults?
SHOW ME THE PROOF.
Show me the occular proof.
We're about 6 pages in and still waiting for the evidence of the Hand of Dominion's melee profile. You also have flip-flopped back and forth, refusing to accept an explanation that applies the very same logistical approach that your supposed confirmations have.
So until we see one of the following:
-A seperate melee profile for the Hand of Dominion (following the precedent set by Relics such as the Pandemic Staff and weapons such as the Ork Burna)
-A statement explicitly stating that The Sword and Hand count as a pair of melee weapons (such as the Claws of the Night Terror) and grant an additional attack
Then all we have is a combined profile for both, which does not grant an additional attack and effectively functions as a single weapon. This isn't a new thing for GW.
Abaddon functioned like this with the previous CSM codex.
Tyranids and GSC have the Lash Whip and Bonesword which functions like this (i.e., single profile counting as a single weapon).
Dark Eldar have Razorflails which operate in a similar manner.
And there are plenty of examples of single choice 'paired' weapons that explicitly state they grant +1 attack and/or count as a pair of melee weapons - The Claws of the Night Terror, Shardnets and Impalers, Demi-Klaives in their dual blade mode as examples.
Nor is the idea of a weapon having TWO profiles - one for melee and one for ranged a new concept.
The Pandemic Staff, Ork Burna and St. Celestine's sword are examples of this. The fact that the Hand states it can be used in melee on the same turn it fires isn't an indicator that it's a melee weapon - it's an indicator that you can shoot AND assault utilising it, unlike, say, the Ork Burna which is either/or.
The single profile matters - the lack of a mention of it being a pair of weapons or the term 'each weapon' in relation to the profile is important.
There are plenty of abilities that make it useless (Eldar Avatars ignoring Soulblaze, units ignore flame attacks, units that can Disarm etc) so it's actually beneficial to you to have the Hand having a seperate melee profile as a Plan B in case of one of those circumstances.
But the absence of this implies that - no - the Hand and Sword function as a single weapon in assault, much like the Lash Whip and Bonesword or DE Razorflails.
You want this without insults?
Answer the god damn question. Show us the proof.
They gave you proof. You just don't like it. They say that one profile works as two separate weapon entries. You want to shut it up, quote some raw that says profiles can't do that.
That proof isn't sufficient for you? That's fine. That's why we have discussions, but just because you disagree doesn't mean they haven't offered any.
Your argument is stupid. If you want to go by RAW you have to interpret what everything says as a whole instead you and col are cherry picking specific words to make your point you cannot do this while claiming it is RAW.
Excuse me? My position is both interpretations are supported by the RAW and we've reached an impossible ambiguity. You might want to re-read the thread.
You can also prove a RAW interpretation by precedence set by other rules. There is no precedence for the claim of how col says this works. NONE. Every other circumstance either has seperate profiles or specifically states it grants another attack. The wording alludes to another weapon but this weapon is not clearly defined so you have to make an assumption as to what it is, which is RAI not RAW. The only know profile for the Hand is a ranged weapon without the pistol rule. Non pistol weapons cannot be used in melee.
Anything that involves looking at other examples is RAI, not RAW. It's like when lawyers analogize the facts of cases to conform or distinguish from precedent. This is not a RAW argument you are making here; it's RAI.
That is exactly my point. NO other weapon profile supports the claim that you and col are making. Every other circumstance either has two profiles OR notated they grant +1 attack. The data sheet for RG does neither and has no precedence set to make this leap.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Let's also add the fact that the had profile doesn't exist as a melee weapon, only a ranged weapon without the pistol rule so it cannot grant an additional attack.
AndrewC wrote: I guess it's because after all this time, certain basic questions remain unanswered. I asked a question earlier about trying to agree certain base rules. 40k is a permissive rule set. If it doesn't explicitly say you can, then you can't. Does the entry explicitly say that the Sword and the Hand are two weapons for the purpose of obtaining the +1A? No it doesn't. It doesn't give clear explicit profiles for the relics as individual weapons. Does it say that they are a 2 handed weapon? No, neither does it say that they are 2 one handed weapons. It lists a profile that can be accessed when they are used together, so what happens when they are not used together?
This ambiguity of the profile and rules is what is causing this headache, so rather than sitting there and arguing round in circles we have to look at the permissions given, it doesn't say that you can, ergo you can't.
Cheers
Andrew
The only ambiguity in the profile is the title of the Weapon. People are using the fluff of "and" to try and make it more than what it is presented as.
Aside from the need for differentiating it from other Weapons, the only purpose of the title of a Weapon is fluff. Attributing anything else to it is giving it more authority than the game gives it. If one can demonstrate otherwise in a general sense, they are welcome to try. Yes, there are some Weapons that state otherwise, but Basic Vs Advanced covers that concept pretty well.
Realistically, though, if the Hand was only meant to be used as a Ranged Weapon, it would have been far better off just leaving it off of the title with the Sword profile.
The only ambiguity in the profile is the title of the Weapon. People are using the fluff of "and" to try and make it more than what it is presented as.
Incorrect.
The rules refer to "the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" in the plural separably as "these weapons". Plural. This is supported by the rules and not just the "and" in the title.
"Used together" does not mean that the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion count as a single weapon.
They are called out as "these weapons" and when they are used together they are still considered weapons and not as a single weapon. No rule designates them as counting as a single weapon so they remain two weapons.
"Used together" means simply that they are used at the same time in combat.
The profiles reference "this weapon" and so must reference the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion separably since the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion collectively are referred to as 'weapons' and as 'relics' and never as weapon or relic.
Moreover, the Hand is explicitly discussed as being separably a 'weapon' and able to be used as both a melee and as a ranged weapon.
Spoiler:
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
Because the Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon, this proves that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself, and it disproves any argument that there is somehow a 'combined weapon profile'.
If there was some 'combined weapon' then the Hand of Dominion could not itself be a melee weapon. The melee profile provided would have been used to give the combined weapon the melee type and not the Hand of Dominion.
Since the Hand is definitively a melee weapon, this means that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet has been separably applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
This in turn means that both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are melee weapons.
This in turn means that we satisfy the rule that grants an a model an additional attack for having two or more melee weapons.
If the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon then the Emperor's Sword is also a melee weapon.
Show me the actual rule that says that the Sword of the Emperor is also a melee weapon on it's own.
40k is a permission based rules system. nothing can do anything without specifically saying you can. Even when it's dumb that it can/cannot. a 3" wide grenade can blow up 6 levels inside a building because it has permission to do so.
We have a line saying that the sword and hand used together have a single profile. We have a rule that says the hand can be shot as a ranged weapon and still used in conjunction with the sword using the previous profile. What rule gives the sword permission to be used on it's own as a melee weapon?
If the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon then the Emperor's Sword is also a melee weapon.
Show me the actual rule that says that the Sword of the Emperor is also a melee weapon on it's own.
40k is a permission based rules system. nothing can do anything without specifically saying you can. Even when it's dumb that it can/cannot. a 3" wide grenade can blow up 6 levels inside a building because it has permission to do so.
We have a line saying that the sword and hand used together have a single profile. We have a rule that says the hand can be shot as a ranged weapon and still used in conjunction with the sword using the previous profile. What rule gives the sword permission to be used on it's own as a melee weapon?
The Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon,
Spoiler:
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
this proves that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself and not some 'combined weapon profile'.
If the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself then it was also applied to the Emperor's Sword. We use the evidence of such an application of the melee profile on the Hand to infer directly from the evidence in the rule itself that the same application happens to the Emperor's Sword.
There is really no other way of accounting for the fact evidenced in the rule itself that the Hand is itself a melee weapon than that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was individually applied to the Sword and the Hand.
The rules simply does not state this (which is required for the 'combined profile' theory- or some facsimile thereof)
Spoiler:
The Sword of the the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
If the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself then it was also applied to the Emperor's Sword.
I see everything you are saying about the hand. But you are ASSUMING that the profile is applied to the sword on it's own. There is no statement that says the sword has that profile by itself. What rule gives the sword permission to use that profile without being used in conjunction with the hand? Where is the swords melee profile?
If the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself then it was also applied to the Emperor's Sword.
I see everything you are saying about the hand. But you are ASSUMING that the profile is applied to the sword on it's own. There is no statement that says the sword has that profile by itself. What rule gives the sword permission to use that profile without being used in conjunction with the hand? Where is the swords melee profile?
If the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself then it was also applied to the Emperor's Sword. We use the evidence of such an application of the melee profile on the Hand to infer directly from the evidence in the rule itself that the same application happens to the Emperor's Sword.
There is really no other way of accounting for the fact evidenced in the rule itself that the Hand is itself a melee weapon than that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was individually applied to the Sword and the Hand.
You didn't address his point - show that the Sword of the Emperor is also a melee weapon on its own.
Your "proof" is lacking - just because there is a statement saying the hand can be used as a ranged weapon as well as in melee in no way proved that the profile is for a single weapon when we are told the weapons are used combined using
the profile
EDIT: It does not state "each weapon" uses the profile below. That is merely how you are trying to interpret it..
If the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself then it was also applied to the Emperor's Sword.
I see everything you are saying about the hand. But you are ASSUMING that the profile is applied to the sword on it's own. There is no statement that says the sword has that profile by itself. What rule gives the sword permission to use that profile without being used in conjunction with the hand? Where is the swords melee profile?
If the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself then it was also applied to the Emperor's Sword. We use the evidence of such an application of the melee profile on the Hand to infer directly from the evidence in the rule itself that the same application happens to the Emperor's Sword.
There is really no other way of accounting for the fact evidenced in the rule itself that the Hand is itself a melee weapon than that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was individually applied to the Sword and the Hand.
You don't get to assume the profile applies to the sword because that makes sense. That is not how permission based rules work. The sword does not have specific permission to use the profile by itself. You need to proove that the sword, on it's own, has permission to use a profile that says it is a Melee type in order to get an additional attack.
Post the link please. Hopefully the link is to some officially recognized GW dispenser of FAQ authority so that the matter can at least be considered "draft-FAQed" at this point.
If this is official and coming from the body that is charged with producing FAQs, the GW reply adds in the concept of "combined" or "counts as a single weapon" that is missing in the actual rules.
Since the entity says "at least this is how we play it" then it suggests that this info is not coming from an official FAQ body.
You don't get to assume the profile applies to the sword because that makes sense. That is not how permission based rules work. The sword does not have specific permission to use the profile by itself. You need to proove that the sword, on it's own, has permission to use a profile that says it is a Melee type in order to get an additional attack.
No. My approach was rationally sound. I was making an inference based directly on the evidence and not making an assumption. The evidence provided only allows for one possible resolution of the missing pieces.
No. My approach was rationally sound. I was making an inference based directly on the evidence and not making an assumption. The evidence provided only allows for one possible resolution of the missing pieces.
Rationality doesn't play a part in a permission based rule set about abstracting fictional genetic monsters wearing fictional materials as armor wielding a flaming sword against enemies with guns that can destroy planets.
The only thing that matters is what you have explicit permission to do and when. You don't get to infer that a rule gets to extend beyond the scope of the permissions it was given. You only get to do what it says you can do. When is the sword given permission to use that profile by itself?
No. My approach was rationally sound. I was making an inference based directly on the evidence and not making an assumption. The evidence provided only allows for one possible resolution of the missing pieces.
Rationality doesn't play a part in a permission based rule set about abstracting fictional genetic monsters wearing fictional materials as armor wielding a flaming sword against enemies with guns that can destroy planets.
The only thing that matters is what you have explicit permission to do and when. You don't get to infer that a rule gets to extend beyond the scope of the permissions it was given. You only get to do what it says you can do. When is the sword given permission to use that profile by itself?
Based directly on the rules themselves, "this weapon" in the melee profile can only refer to either the Hand or the Sword, and this proves that the unnamed melee profile provided in Robute's datasheet is applied to the Sword.
"Every weapon has a profile" mandates that the unnamed melee profile is provided both to the Hand and the Sword. The rules don't care that the melee profile is doubly applied and is the same for each weapon.
No. My approach was rationally sound. I was making an inference based directly on the evidence and not making an assumption. The evidence provided only allows for one possible resolution of the missing pieces.
Rationality doesn't play a part in a permission based rule set about abstracting fictional genetic monsters wearing fictional materials as armor wielding a flaming sword against enemies with guns that can destroy planets.
The only thing that matters is what you have explicit permission to do and when. You don't get to infer that a rule gets to extend beyond the scope of the permissions it was given. You only get to do what it says you can do. When is the sword given permission to use that profile by itself?
Based directly on the rules themselves, "this weapon" in the melee profile can only refer to either the Hand or the Sword, and this proves that the unnamed melee profile provided in Robute's datasheet is applied to the Sword.
"Every weapon has a profile" mandates that the unnamed melee profile is provided both to the Hand and the Sword. The rules don't care that the melee profile is doubly applied and is the same for each weapon.
No. You make the leap and assume it's the sword. You could just as easily make the same leap that when they say they are used together that the "This weapon" is talking about the hand and sword used together. I.e. When the sword and hand are used together this weapon uses this profile.
Unless it specifically says the sword gets to use that profile then the sword does not get to use that profile. Leaving the sword on it's own profileless. Which means rules wise, it doesn't exist.
No. My approach was rationally sound. I was making an inference based directly on the evidence and not making an assumption. The evidence provided only allows for one possible resolution of the missing pieces.
Rationality doesn't play a part in a permission based rule set about abstracting fictional genetic monsters wearing fictional materials as armor wielding a flaming sword against enemies with guns that can destroy planets.
The only thing that matters is what you have explicit permission to do and when. You don't get to infer that a rule gets to extend beyond the scope of the permissions it was given. You only get to do what it says you can do. When is the sword given permission to use that profile by itself?
Based directly on the rules themselves, "this weapon" in the melee profile can only refer to either the Hand or the Sword, and this proves that the unnamed melee profile provided in Robute's datasheet is applied to the Sword.
"Every weapon has a profile" mandates that the unnamed melee profile is provided both to the Hand and the Sword. The rules don't care that the melee profile is doubly applied and is the same for each weapon.
No. You make the leap and assume it's the sword. You could just as easily make the same leap that when they say they are used together that the "This weapon" is talking about the hand and sword used together. I.e. When the sword and hand are used together this weapon uses this profile.
Unless it specifically says the sword gets to use that profile then the sword does not get to use that profile. Leaving the sword on it's own profileless. Which means rules wise, it doesn't exist.
The rule refers to the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion in the plural as "these weapons" and there is no mention of them being "combined to count as a single weapon". If you make that leap that "this weapon" is talking about the hand and sword used together, you are violating case agreement and adding stuff to the rules that is not there. Also, you wind up being unable to explain how the Hand of Dominion winds up with its own melee profile and must conclude that the rules are somehow in error. Barring a FAQ you can't do that and call your argument a RAW one. "Used together" doesn't convert plural to singular.
My RAW argument sticks to precisely what we have and makes no leaps. Doubly applying a melee profile breaks no rules. For example, a model equipped with two chain swords.
Stephanius wrote: "these weapons" in the text isn't equivalent to Weapons as defined in the rules. When confusing references, you arrive at incorrect conclusions.
For some reason I'm reminded of the old duracell commercial.
Per the rules provided,
the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are weapons.
The Hand of Dominion is a weapon
The Emperor's Sword is a weapon
Touch of the Emperor: Any attacks with this weapon with a To Hit roll of 6 are resolved at Strength D rather than Strength 10.
What can "this weapon" refer to?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marmatag wrote: Why do you keep going back to the two chain swords example? It just doesn't fit.
This is abundantly clear in the rules. It's 1 weapon with 2 profiles, that just happens to have 2 different bit sets on the model.
Marneus Calgar is the closest approximation, not "two chain swords."
And seriously, when has "assault 3 rending" ever equated to an attack in melee anyway.
Per the rules provided,
the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are weapons and not one weapon.
the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are weapons and not one weapon.
Weapons used combined with the one profile provided. We've had someone supply GW's answer and you still don't want to accept it. It wasn't something that wasn't there to start with that was added, you were just reading it incorrectly based on assumptions you had. Do you really need to keep arguing against the way GW said to play it?
Weapons used combined with the one profile provided.
The rules make no mention of "combined pair" or the weapons "counting as a single weapon". That's your problem. You are reading into the rules and making a RAI argument and not a RAW one. You are resorting to 'mind-reading'. I am not resorting to 'mind-reading'.
Please keep in mind that I am not saying you are wrong. I am only saying that you are not arguing from the RAW. Obviously your argument could wind up being confirmed later at some point by a FAQ.
We've had someone supply GW's answer and you still don't want to accept it. It wasn't something that wasn't there to start with that was added, you were just reading it incorrectly based on assumptions you had. Do you really need to keep arguing against the way GW said to play it?
I have no problem accepting GW's answer if it comes officially from a FAQ authority. I asked to person who posted an iPhone screen grab to fill in additional info but they did not respond apparently. Feel free to provide the info that we can take the answer provided as equivalent to a Draft FAQ. We obviously don't want simply a salesperson perspective since that perspective has no weight in this forum per the rules of YMDC.
2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop are easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.
Stephanius wrote: "these weapons" in the text isn't equivalent to Weapons as defined in the rules. When confusing references, you arrive at incorrect conclusions.
For some reason I'm reminded of the old duracell commercial.
Per the rules provided,
the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are weapons.
The Hand of Dominion is a weapon
The Emperor's Sword is a weapon
Both are weapons in the fluff and on the model.
Both used together are one Melee Weapon as defined in the BRB.
The hand is also a Ranged weapon as defined in the BRB.
The sword by itself is not a Weapon as defined in the BRB.
Touch of the Emperor: Any attacks with this weapon with a To Hit roll of 6 are resolved at Strength D rather than Strength 10.
What can "this weapon" refer to?
Since this is a new special rule that we see as part of the melee profile for the sword and hand relic, it's obviously referring to the Melee Weapon comprised out of sword and hand used together.
Both used together are one Melee Weapon as defined in the BRB.
Cite or quote your reference please. You are making this up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stephanius wrote: it's obviously referring to the Melee Weapon comprised out of sword and hand used together.
Interesting bit of 'mind-reading' on your part since the rules provided make no mention at all of a "Melee Weapon comprised out of sword and hand used together."
I will stick to the rules themselves and make no attempts at 'mind reading'.
You can't ask anyone to cite or reference anything.
You have claimed repeatedly that the rules support your interpretation along with a reverse extrapolation of one profile into two weapons to suit your point.
Provide the rule and the precedent, quit dodging it.
You have no other profile to give you precedence that this works the way you think it does. Every other ambiguous profile either has one for each weapon under the same entry or it has specific words stating it has a +1A. The profile for RG has that nowhere.
He does not have two melee weapons listed under his war gear. You are trying to use a logical argument ignoring the bounds of the rules to state that he has two weapons.
Even IF you were correct, which you arent, you can only use two weapons together if they are categorized the same. So you could only attack with either one, not both. Additionally the ranged profile for the Hand does not have the pistol special rule so it is not eligible for an extra attack.
I will stick to the rules themselves and make no attempts at 'mind reading'.
Ha. Except that's what your whole argument actually is. You're trying to read the rules-writers' minds and even then coming up with the wrong answer.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ceann wrote: You can't ask anyone to cite or reference anything. You have claimed repeatedly that the rules support your interpretation along with a reverse extrapolation of one profile into two weapons to suit your point.
Provide the rule and the precedent, quit dodging it.
It's probably worth noting that this is their style of argument. Claim "that's what it says" and refuse to prove it, only asking to be proven wrong even after repeatedly being proven wrong. Likely better to let this thread die than continue engaging.
Additionally the ranged profile for the Hand does not have the pistol special rule so it is not eligible for an extra attack.
No one debating that it's a pistol. We're are trying to show you that it says the hand been be used in melee after making a shooting attack giving merit that it is it's own weapon since everyone is trying to say they're one weapon. The hand shoots not the sword.
Oh neat, I was right for those bunch of pages I typed up.
Tenet 2
Spoiler:
2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop are easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.
I will stick to the rules themselves and make no attempts at 'mind reading'.
Ha. Except that's what your whole argument actually is. You're trying to read the rules-writers' minds and even then coming up with the wrong answer.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ceann wrote: You can't ask anyone to cite or reference anything.
You have claimed repeatedly that the rules support your interpretation along with a reverse extrapolation of one profile into two weapons to suit your point.
Provide the rule and the precedent, quit dodging it.
It's probably worth noting that this is their style of argument. Claim "that's what it says" and refuse to prove it, only asking to be proven wrong even after repeatedly being proven wrong. Likely better to let this thread die than continue engaging.
Besides being part of the failure very clearly explained here: https://xkcd.com/386/, I have to wonder about the argumentation style as well.
It's perfectly fine to be contrarian and even to be wrong. Recently I argued for a position on IK Ion shields thinking I'd be right, but finding out in the process that I really wasn't.
There is a clear refusal to work with the actual relic text and fixed terms defined by the BRB and instead something of a ransom letter version out of individual cut bits while leaving out others.
When one side of the argument refuses to engage with the RAW or the arguments of the opposing side, there isn't really a useful rules discussion to be had.
Unless you count the entertainment value of seeing people go back and fourth - seen from a distance with a side of popcorn, that is ;-]
I will stick to the rules themselves and make no attempts at 'mind reading'.
Ha. Except that's what your whole argument actually is. You're trying to read the rules-writers' minds and even then coming up with the wrong answer.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ceann wrote: You can't ask anyone to cite or reference anything.
You have claimed repeatedly that the rules support your interpretation along with a reverse extrapolation of one profile into two weapons to suit your point.
Provide the rule and the precedent, quit dodging it.
It's probably worth noting that this is their style of argument. Claim "that's what it says" and refuse to prove it, only asking to be proven wrong even after repeatedly being proven wrong. Likely better to let this thread die than continue engaging.
Besides being part of the failure very clearly explained here: https://xkcd.com/386/, I have to wonder about the argumentation style as well.
It's perfectly fine to be contrarian and even to be wrong. Recently I argued for a position on IK Ion shields thinking I'd be right, but finding out in the process that I really wasn't.
There is a clear refusal to work with the actual relic text and fixed terms defined by the BRB and instead something of a ransom letter version out of individual cut bits while leaving out others.
When one side of the argument refuses to engage with the RAW or the arguments of the opposing side, there isn't really a useful rules discussion to be had.
Unless you count the entertainment value of seeing people go back and fourth - seen from a distance with a side of popcorn, that is ;-]
The most amusing part is that he could present a more valid point with a simple post, yet 13 pages after he's too blind in his interpretation that he can't notice it.
A) The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together, using the profile below.
B) The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together as a combined weapon using the profile below.
Do these two rules statements mean exactly the same thing or do they differ in meaning?
If they differ in meaning, how do they differ?
These statements are equivalent from a rules perspective, since they instruct us to take the same steps.
Let me be specific.
The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion:
Name of the relic. It doesn't matter if this is 37 rabbits, deamon heart, three donkeys or paddle-ball.
These weapons
I think this is the confusing part for you, since it uses the same word "weapons" to refer to the model's bits as is used as a defined term - or keyword - in the rules. Undeniably the physical model has two melee weapons. That is why it says "these weapons", refering to the two weapons in the name and on the model. A weapon on the model becomes a weapon in the rules - i.e. useable in game - only by being listed in the datasheet and by fulfilling the requirements towards weapons per the rules, namely having a profile and a type so they can function within the rules.
are used together
this explains, that contrary to expectations, "these weapons" do not offer the choice to use the one or the other, which would be the normal case in the rules if you have two separate Melee weapons - like the two chainsword example. That is also the key reason why there is even this sentence here, to bridge from the models two weapon bits to the single Melee weapon that represents them rulewise.
, using the profile below:
here "these weapons" "used together" are assigned a weapon profile, thereby becoming one Melee weapon as defined in the rules.
The instruction provided by this rule is not changed by adding "combined weapon" into it. That would be a tautology.
Combined together = together = combined = not separate. No logical difference.
2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop are easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.
2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop are easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.
And so are GWFAQs.
To be fair, there is a difference between an offical FAQ and a Facebook post from a GW Account.
2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop are easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.
And so are GWFAQs.
To be fair, there is a difference between an offical FAQ and a Facebook post from a GW Account.
True. This argument is never going to be resolved because it's an argument of implied subjects, which the rule in this case most definitely contains.
And the difference between 6 and 7 potentially D attacks is miniscule. If Guilliman is fighting a vehicle, the vehicle is dead with or without that +1 attack. If he's fighting infantry, he is hilariously going to curb-stomp them with or without the +1 attack, but probably will be stuck in combat wasting his 350 points.
Bonus points if he's in combat with 3+ invulnerable save dudes. That fight is going nowhere unless he rolls 6(Or 7) 6s followed by 6(Or 7) 6s.
Guilliman wrecks Knights and Super-Heavies and that's what he's meant to do. Whether he does it with 6 or 7 attacks isn't ultimately meaningful.
A) The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together, using the profile below.
B) The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together as a combined weapon using the profile below.
Do these two rules statements mean exactly the same thing or do they differ in meaning?
If they differ in meaning, how do they differ?
These statements are equivalent from a rules perspective, since they instruct us to take the same steps.
Let me be specific.
The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion:
Name of the relic. It doesn't matter if this is 37 rabbits, deamon heart, three donkeys or paddle-ball.
These weapons
I think this is the confusing part for you, since it uses the same word "weapons" to refer to the model's bits as is used as a defined term - or keyword - in the rules. Undeniably the physical model has two melee weapons. That is why it says "these weapons", refering to the two weapons in the name and on the model. A weapon on the model becomes a weapon in the rules - i.e. useable in game - only by being listed in the datasheet and by fulfilling the requirements towards weapons per the rules, namely having a profile and a type so they can function within the rules.
are used together
this explains, that contrary to expectations, "these weapons" do not offer the choice to use the one or the other, which would be the normal case in the rules if you have two separate Melee weapons - like the two chainsword example. That is also the key reason why there is even this sentence here, to bridge from the models two weapon bits to the single Melee weapon that represents them rulewise.
, using the profile below:
here "these weapons" "used together" are assigned a weapon profile, thereby becoming one Melee weapon as defined in the rules.
The instruction provided by this rule is not changed by adding "combined weapon" into it. That would be a tautology.
Combined together = together = combined = not separate. No logical difference.
Y'know mate,
I wonder how many times and how many different ways we can say this before he finally understands.
You know, short of printing it out, taping it to a brick and bludgeoning him a few dozen times with said brick.
It is NOT polite to insult another user - attack the points in a post, NOT the poster.
FINAL WARNING.
Alpharius! I'm glad you're on because I can finally ask you the question I've been dying to ask:
Are you dead, or is Omegon dead, or did you guys just do the blood thing where you make one of your regular dudes super-powered and Primarch-esque and then Guilliman got confused when he killed him?
Also, are you Cypher? Or is Omegon Cypher? Or are both of you Cypher, but one of you fell to Chaos and so the reason you seem to sometimes help Chaos and sometimes help the Imperium is because one of you is a Traitor and one isn't?
Because if you're both heading to Terra because one person wants to save the Imperium and one wants to destroy it and you're having this 'Enemy at the Gates' moment, then that. Is. Awesome.
A) The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together, using the profile below.
B) The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together as a combined weapon using the profile below.
Do these two rules statements mean exactly the same thing or do they differ in meaning?
If they differ in meaning, how do they differ?
They mean the same thing. Note that A) does not say "each using the profile below", it just said "using the profile below" after the comma. They are used together - you use the profile below for using them together.
I think the important thing here is that GW responded, meaning that this will likely be brought up in a future FAQ. Until then, I think we can all agree to simply bring this up with our opponent's ahead of time, and I for one will follow what GW Facebook has stated.
Yarium wrote: I think the important thing here is that GW responded, meaning that this will likely be brought up in a future FAQ. Until then, I think we can all agree to simply bring this up with our opponent's ahead of time, and I for one will follow what GW Facebook has stated.
As a fair warning, some of the immediate answers given in the FBFAQ were changed once they were put in to print.
I doubt that this will be the case here, but I have been proven wrong before on this account.
A True
B True when used with the Hand of Dominion
C Truen when used with the Emperor's Sword
If the Hand and Sword are not used together, there is no profile to be used. Therefore, they cannot be melee weapons when used by themselves. This is due to the fact you only have permission to use the listed profile, when the Hand and Sword are used together.
col_impact wrote: Thank you for your response. I would like some further clarification from Stephanius and anyone who agrees with Stephanius.
In light of your answer, please provide answers for the following.
A) The Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon. True or false?
B) The Emperor's Sword is a melee weapon. True or false?
C) The Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon. True or false?
Happyjew wrote: A True
B True when used with the Hand of Dominion
C Truen when used with the Emperor's Sword
If the Hand and Sword are not used together, there is no profile to be used. Therefore, they cannot be melee weapons when used by themselves. This is due to the fact you only have permission to use the listed profile, when the Hand and Sword are used together.
Basically, what he said. You should know this, though, from the answer to your earlier question
"Consider:
A) The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together, using the profile below.
B) The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together as a combined weapon using the profile below.
Do these two rules statements mean exactly the same thing or do they differ in meaning? "
Those on the side of RAW say "Yes, they mean exactly the same thing", and they'll answer your latest question the same way Happyjew does
Stephanius wrote: here "these weapons" "used together" are assigned a weapon profile, thereby becoming one Melee weapon as defined in the rules.
Thank you for your response. I would like some further clarification from Stephanius and anyone who agrees with Stephanius.
In light of your answer, please provide answers for the following.
A) The Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon. True or false?
True
B) The Emperor's Sword is a melee weapon. True or false?
Can not be determined from the information presented
C) The Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon. True or false?
Can not be determined from the information presented
Just to make a clarification here. Col, you have fixated on the one argument to the exclusion of the rest. My interpretation is on the fact that you cannot determine whether it is actually two weapons. On the basis that you cannot determine this without some quite convoluted inferences and assumptions then you have to fall back on the 'Can't unless the rules say you can'
Happyjew wrote: A True
B True when used with the Hand of Dominion
C Truen when used with the Emperor's Sword
If the Hand and Sword are not used together, there is no profile to be used. Therefore, they cannot be melee weapons when used by themselves. This is due to the fact you only have permission to use the listed profile, when the Hand and Sword are used together.
You answered the question oddly by adding a condition, which means, I guess, that you personally have a problem with how the initial question was asked.
Fair enough. Let's roll in your condition so I can understand your personal response better.
I will re-phrase the question for you.
While the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are being used together . . .
A) . . . is the Emperor's Sword a melee weapon, true or false?
B) . . . is the Hand of Dominion a melee weapon, true or false?
col_impact wrote: Thank you for your response. I would like some further clarification from Stephanius and anyone who agrees with Stephanius.
In light of your answer, please provide answers for the following.
A) The Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon. True or false?
B) The Emperor's Sword is a melee weapon. True or false?
C) The Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon. True or false?
Happyjew wrote: A True
B True when used with the Hand of Dominion
C Truen when used with the Emperor's Sword
If the Hand and Sword are not used together, there is no profile to be used. Therefore, they cannot be melee weapons when used by themselves. This is due to the fact you only have permission to use the listed profile, when the Hand and Sword are used together.
Basically, what he said. You should know this, though, from the answer to your earlier question
"Consider:
A) The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together, using the profile below.
B) The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together as a combined weapon using the profile below.
Do these two rules statements mean exactly the same thing or do they differ in meaning? "
Those on the side of RAW say "Yes, they mean exactly the same thing", and they'll answer your latest question the same way Happyjew does
What Happyjew and doctortom said, with one clarification:
- Both the sword and hand are melee weapons as far as bits and fluff are concerned.
- Neither sword nor hand by themselves are Melee weapons as defined in the BRB rules and the rules for the relic.
B) The Emperor's Sword is a melee weapon. True or false?
Can not be determined from the information presented
C) The Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon. True or false?
Can not be determined from the information presented
Just to make a clarification here. Col, you have fixated on the one argument to the exclusion of the rest. My interpretation is on the fact that you cannot determine whether it is actually two weapons. On the basis that you cannot determine this without some quite convoluted inferences and assumptions then you have to fall back on the 'Can't unless the rules say you can'
I find it interesting that you evade an answer on B and C. These are straightforward questions.
Are there some conditions you want to add to your answer?
If you can't come up with any condition under which the Hand of the Emperor for example is a melee weapon, then it seems you should be able to provide a definitive answer that the Hand of Dominion is NOT a melee weapon.
Happyjew wrote: A True
B True when used with the Hand of Dominion
C Truen when used with the Emperor's Sword
If the Hand and Sword are not used together, there is no profile to be used. Therefore, they cannot be melee weapons when used by themselves. This is due to the fact you only have permission to use the listed profile, when the Hand and Sword are used together.
You answered the question oddly by adding a condition, which means, I guess, that you personally have a problem with how the initial question was asked.
Fair enough. Let's roll in your condition so I can understand your personal response better.
I will re-phrase the question for you.
While the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are being used together . . .
A) . . . is the Emperor's Sword a melee weapon, true or false?
B) . . . is the Hand of Dominion a melee weapon, true or false?
C) . . . how many melee weapons does Robute have?
A) False
B) False
C) 1
D) Is "The Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" a melee weapon, true of false?
True.
col_impact wrote: I find it interesting that you evade an answer on B and C. These are straightforward questions.
Are there some conditions you want to add to your answer?
If you can't come up with any condition under which the Hand of the Emperor for example is a melee weapon, then it seems you should be able to provide a definitive answer that the Hand of Dominion is NOT a melee weapon.
Am I missing something?
Yes, I think you can't see the wood for the trees.
And the answers for B and C are not evasions, you truly can't make the determination if the individual components are actually weapons in their own right. For example you have used the Hand as an defining feature of your argument that it is a melee weapon. But is it? The sentence you quote only states that it can be used as a melee weapon. That it can be used as a ranged weapon. If it were wouldn't the rules say that the Hand is a ranged weapon or that it is a melee weapon that can be used in both phases?
As has been pointed out numerous times in this forum, counts as is not is. But that is not my main point. As I have written earlier, without a clear definition that they are two weapons, that can't overrides can and they do not count as 2 weapons.
While the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are being used together . . .
A) . . . is the Emperor's Sword a melee weapon, true or false?
B) . . . is the Hand of Dominion a melee weapon, true or false?
C) . . . how many melee weapons does Robute have?
A) False
B) False
C) 1
D) Is "The Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" a melee weapon, true of false?
True.
Cool. I appreciate your lack of evasiveness. I also appreciate the additional clarification provided with answer D.
I would like you to examine this rule statement . . .
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
This rule statement appears to me to directly contradict your answer to B. Can you comment on this? I want to know your perspective on this contradiction.
B) The Emperor's Sword is a melee weapon. True or false?
Can not be determined from the information presented
C) The Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon. True or false?
Can not be determined from the information presented
Just to make a clarification here. Col, you have fixated on the one argument to the exclusion of the rest. My interpretation is on the fact that you cannot determine whether it is actually two weapons. On the basis that you cannot determine this without some quite convoluted inferences and assumptions then you have to fall back on the 'Can't unless the rules say you can'
I find it interesting that you evade an answer on B and C. These are straightforward questions.
Are there some conditions you want to add to your answer?
If you can't come up with any condition under which the Hand of the Emperor for example is a melee weapon, then it seems you should be able to provide a definitive answer that the Hand of Dominion is NOT a melee weapon.
Am I missing something?
He gave you a straightforward answer and did not evade, as you accuse him of doing. Just like you thought that happyjew answered the conidition oddly. There was no evasion and no answering oddly. We are given the profile for the weapons when used together. We are not given profiles for each weapon used separately, so from a rules standpoint, it is not defined that each one is a melee weapon for the purpose of trying to get the +1 attack. Since we don't have the separate profiles but only the profile when both are used together, you only get to use the profile you are given for when they are used together. The profile given would have to give you the information that you get the bonus attack; others have provides plenty of examples where they do provide the bonus in these cases and plenty where they don't provide a bonus.
While the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are being used together . . .
A) . . . is the Emperor's Sword a melee weapon, true or false?
B) . . . is the Hand of Dominion a melee weapon, true or false?
C) . . . how many melee weapons does Robute have?
A) False
B) False
C) 1
D) Is "The Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" a melee weapon, true of false?
True.
Cool. I appreciate your lack of evasiveness. I also appreciate the additional clarification provided with answer D.
I would like you to examine this rule statement . . .
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
This rule statement appears to me to directly contradict your answer to B. Can you comment on this? I want to know your perspective on this contradiction.
No contradiction at all. We are not given a profile for the Hand when used separately. We are only given a profile for the profile when the relics are used together, and it is based on that profile. You can use the hand as a ranged weapon using the profile below, or you can use the hand as part of "The Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" using the profile that is provided for that.
B) The Emperor's Sword is a melee weapon. True or false?
Can not be determined from the information presented
C) The Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon. True or false?
Can not be determined from the information presented
Just to make a clarification here. Col, you have fixated on the one argument to the exclusion of the rest. My interpretation is on the fact that you cannot determine whether it is actually two weapons. On the basis that you cannot determine this without some quite convoluted inferences and assumptions then you have to fall back on the 'Can't unless the rules say you can'
I find it interesting that you evade an answer on B and C. These are straightforward questions.
Are there some conditions you want to add to your answer?
If you can't come up with any condition under which the Hand of the Emperor for example is a melee weapon, then it seems you should be able to provide a definitive answer that the Hand of Dominion is NOT a melee weapon.
Am I missing something?
You find it interesting that someone has dodged an answer....
You have never proven that two weapons exist. He has no wargear listing to show he has two weapons. All other instances of two weapons on a single entry contain a profile for each or specifically note they add +1A. You have never proved a precedence for your claim nor provided a rule entry that supports your interpretation.
Additionally you only get an extra attack if you have a ranged weapon with the pistol rule, which it doesnt, or if you can prove that both weapons share the same type which you can't because the types are not noted individually.
No contradiction at all. We are not given a profile for the Hand when used separately. We are only given a profile for the profile when the relics are used together, and it is based on that profile. You can use the hand as a ranged weapon using the profile below, or you can use the hand as part of "The Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" using the profile that is provided for that.
There is a contradiction. The rule statement says the Hand is a melee weapon. Stephanius said the Hand is not a melee weapon. He clarified earlier that the the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon but that the Hand is not a melee weapon.
Either the rules have a mistake in them or Stephanius' argument contradicts the rules on this point.
Ceann wrote: The rules obviously have mistakes otherwise you would have no poorly worded sections to pick apart with ambiguous arguments.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Still dodging on precedence and the rule you have claimed that supports your interpretation.
I don't think you understand what dodging means.
I take the rule statement I quoted as saying there are two weapons.
When I ask you the question, you say "the rules obviously have mistakes otherwise you would have no poorly worded sections to pick apart with ambiguous arguments", ie you avoid answering the question directly (in other words "dodge").
We seem to have a fundamental disagreement over whether we are going to accept the Rules As Written.
No contradiction at all. We are not given a profile for the Hand when used separately. We are only given a profile for the profile when the relics are used together, and it is based on that profile. You can use the hand as a ranged weapon using the profile below, or you can use the hand as part of "The Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" using the profile that is provided for that.
There is a contradiction. The rule statement says the Hand is a melee weapon. Stephanius said the Hand is not a melee weapon. He clarified earlier that the the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon but that the Hand is not a melee weapon.
Okay, if the Hand is a melee weapon, provide the melee profile for using the Hand by itself. Also, provide the melee profile for using the Sword by itself. As many people have asked you to. If you can't, then you only have the profile for using them together. Using the profile for the two together, the profile would need to tell you if you get a +1 attack for two weapons. Since it doesn't say that, you don't.
col_impact wrote: [Either the rules have a mistake in them or Stephanius' argument contradicts the rules on this point.
Or there's a mistake on how you're trying to interpret the rules.
You have never proven that two weapons exist. He has no wargear listing to show he has two weapons.
You have an interesting take . . .
The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together, using the profile below.
How many weapons does "these weapons" refer to?
From a rules standpoint, they are treated as one weapon since it doesn't say to treat the profile as two weapons for the purpose of gaining +1 attack. If it's referring to more than one weapon, then by all means provide the profile for attacking with each weapon without using the other to indicate that from a rules standpoint they qualify for +1 attack. How can you prove that we're not dealing with one specialist weapon and one that isn't? You don't get a bonus attack in that case. You have to be able to prove not only that they are two separate weapons, but two weapons that both qualify for allowing you to get a bonus attack when using two weapons.
You said a rule supported your interpretation of "these" and have still to yet quote that rule. You cannot claim the very lines in question are your proof.
You also have not stated your precedence. There are many other profiles that perform the exact function you are claiming this one does but they specifically notate either an individual profile for each weapon or state they grant an extra attack.
You have not disputed either of these points for pages, you ignore them.
No contradiction at all. We are not given a profile for the Hand when used separately. We are only given a profile for the profile when the relics are used together, and it is based on that profile. You can use the hand as a ranged weapon using the profile below, or you can use the hand as part of "The Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" using the profile that is provided for that.
There is a contradiction. The rule statement says the Hand is a melee weapon. Stephanius said the Hand is not a melee weapon. He clarified earlier that the the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon but that the Hand is not a melee weapon.
Okay, if the Hand is a melee weapon, provide the melee profile for using the Hand by itself. Also, provide the melee profile for using the Sword by itself. As many people have asked you to. If you can't, then you only have the profile for using them together. Using the profile for the two together, the profile would need to tell you if you get a +1 attack for two weapons. Since it doesn't say that, you don't.
Lots of confrontation in your answer. I am looking for straightforward answers.
Spoiler:
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
The rule statement says the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon.
I accept the Rules As Written that the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon.
Do you accept the Rules As Written that the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon?
From a rules standpoint, they are treated as one weapon since it doesn't say to treat the profile as two weapons for the purpose of gaining +1 attack. If it's referring to more than one weapon, then by all means provide the profile for attacking with each weapon without using the other to indicate that from a rules standpoint they qualify for +1 attack. How can you prove that we're not dealing with one specialist weapon and one that isn't? You don't get a bonus attack in that case. You have to be able to prove not only that they are two separate weapons, but two weapons that both qualify for allowing you to get a bonus attack when using two weapons.
Again a lot of confrontation in your response. I am asking "how many weapons does 'these weapons' refer to".
I accept the basic grammar in the Rules As Written that "these weapons" is plural.
You seem to be unable to accept that "these weapons" is plural.
We seem to differ on whether or not we are going to accept the Rules As Written.
You said a rule supported your interpretation of "these" and have still to yet quote that rule. You cannot claim the very lines in question are your proof.
A rule statement says "these weapons". That's plural usage. I accept the rules usage of the plural and recognition of two weapons.
You, on the other hand, are fighting what the rule statement is saying.
We are fundamentally at odds here. I accept the Rules As Written. You don't. You claim they are mistaken - "the rules obviously have mistakes".
Every other circumstance that the rules perform the action you are claiming these rules do , explicitly state that they do.
You have no precedence for your interpretation. So all you are saying is based on assumptions. You are assuming the single profile is split to match your view when everyone can see it is not.
No contradiction at all. We are not given a profile for the Hand when used separately. We are only given a profile for the profile when the relics are used together, and it is based on that profile. You can use the hand as a ranged weapon using the profile below, or you can use the hand as part of "The Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" using the profile that is provided for that.
There is a contradiction. The rule statement says the Hand is a melee weapon. Stephanius said the Hand is not a melee weapon. He clarified earlier that the the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon but that the Hand is not a melee weapon.
Either the rules have a mistake in them or Stephanius' argument contradicts the rules on this point.
The function of this sentence is clearly to override this sentence from page 41 of the BRB:
Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon's profile for each, and you can choose which to use each turn.
RAW GS3 p.128
It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
I assume you agree that that is the function of the sentence. I my opinion, it should have been written as follows, to be consistent with the rest of the relic's rules:
It may be used as both part of a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
I understand that you point to "melee weapon" and see that as proof that the hand is a Melee weapon as defined by the BRB or alternatively as a declaration making it so.
However, by lacking a weapon profile, it isn't a Melee weapon as defined in the BRB. If you read it as declaration, it is one we cannot follow, since we cannnot use it without the values a profile provides.
It is a ranged weapon as defined in the BRB though.
Now, since the sentence has a clear purpose - which it fulfills - let's ignore the whole sentence for a moment and focus only on the part that is relevant to your argument.
Let's take the best statement that you could wring from it instead and assume it said:
The Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon.
Would that be sufficient? No, because it would - by not having a weapon profile - violate the requirements placed on weapons, which exist so we can use them within the game rules framework.
Now, change the statement to:
The Hand of Dominon is a Close Combat Weapon.
or
The Hand of Dominion is a master-crafted Power-Fist.
Those examples work, since they refer to pre-defined weapons for which we can refer to the BRB on how to use them within the rules.
...
How many weapons does "these weapons" refer to?
As explained in my previous post, you are confusing "weapons" used colloquially to refer to the bits on the model with "Weapon" or "Melee weapon" as defined by the BRB.
Stephanius wrote: I my opinion, it should have been written as follows, to be consistent with the rest of the relic's rules:
It may be used as both part of a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
I understand that you point to "melee weapon" and see that as proof that the hand is a Melee weapon as defined by the BRB or alternatively as a declaration making it so.
So you agree that the rules as stated contradict your argument that the Hand is not a melee weapon, rather that the Hand and Sword is a melee weapon?
Rule statements can have mistakes as we know from past experience with GW rules. I am just pointing out that your argument requires that you deviate at least a tiny bit from the Rules As Written, correct?
He's saying they're written in such a way that they might cause confusion at first glance. Of course, reasonable reading of it in-depth would clear it up. Someone would have to be incredibly stubborn to think otherwise.
col_impact wrote:
...
How many weapons does "these weapons" refer to?
As explained in my previous post, you are confusing "weapons" used colloquially to refer to the bits on the model with "Weapon" or "Melee weapon" as defined by the BRB.
JNAProductions wrote: He's saying they're written in such a way that they might cause confusion at first glance. Of course, reasonable reading of it in-depth would clear it up. Someone would have to be incredibly stubborn to think otherwise.
You should put your energy into attacking my argument, rather than veiling personal attacks. It's your argument that needs attention.
Alright. My argument is that he is presented, quite clearly, with two profiles-one melee, one ranged. You are given permission to use the melee weapon in the same turn it's fired as a ranged weapon, since they are the same relic, but nowhere are you told in the rules that there are two weapons.
In the fluff, on the model, in flavor text... Two weapons. That's fine, no is arguing that.
One weapon, according to the actual rules. Take it in its context, Col.
The actual rule refers to "these weapon". It's not in the fluff.
The rule makes no mention that the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion is "one weapon" as you claim. If you can find it, point it out. Otherwise, claiming it is "one weapon" is an assumption (based on context) on your part, correct?
Nor does it make any claim that they are two weapons. When presented with a SINGLE MELEE PROFILE, it should be applied to a single weapon, without being explicitly said it applies to more than one.
JNAProductions wrote: Nor does it make any claim that they are two weapons. When presented with a SINGLE MELEE PROFILE, it should be applied to a single weapon, without being explicitly said it applies to more than one.
The rule itself says "these weapons" so we know incontrovertibly that the rule is using the plural and not the singular. I can with confidence unequivocally assert that the rule is using the plural here.
You are claiming that when a rule contextually supplies you with a single melee profile then we can safely assume we are actually dealing with one weapon, even though the rule makes no mention of one weapon, correct?
JNAProductions wrote: Nor does it make any claim that they are two weapons. When presented with a SINGLE MELEE PROFILE, it should be applied to a single weapon, without being explicitly said it applies to more than one.
Indeed. Only the fluff in the name would even suggest that there was more than one Weapon involved with this Relic.
However, as you said, context for rules afterwards removes any ability for that fluff to be used in regards to this, especially with the precedent of other Weapons that are setup similarly specifically have to set it up. That's even assuming fluff could be rules in the first place. But then, the Ignored One has repeatedly shown a tendency to ignore context provided by words of the rest of the sentence.
JNAProductions wrote: Nor does it make any claim that they are two weapons. When presented with a SINGLE MELEE PROFILE, it should be applied to a single weapon, without being explicitly said it applies to more than one.
Indeed. Only the fluff in the name would even suggest that there was more than one Weapon involved with this Relic.
However, as you said, context for rules afterwards removes any ability for that fluff to be used in regards to this, especially with the precedent of other Weapons that are setup similarly specifically have to set it up. That's even assuming fluff could be rules in the first place. But then, the Ignored One has repeatedly shown a tendency to ignore context provided by words of the rest of the sentence.
The rule statement says "these weapons". It's not in the fluff. Have you actually read the rules in question? Perhaps you should do that first.
col_impact wrote: The rule statement says "these weapons". It's not in the fluff. Have you actually read the rules in question? Perhaps you should do that first.
I will repeat what I said.. as Col seems to skip over any argument that beats his with his own logic
You keep stating 'these weapons', but only the fist is mentioned as being able to be used as a melee weapon, as you also like to point out.
There is no mention of the sword itself being a melee weapon.. its only mention of it even being there is 'these weapons' and the relic's name, You could argue that obviously a sword is a melee weapon, But Gulliman's good mate Cyper also Carries a sword which isn't a melee weapon
Feel free to post precedence that contradicts my argument.
Precedence supports me. Every instance to my knowledge of a combined profile indicates that we are dealing with weapons counting explicitly a single weapon. For example, "the combined pair" for the Gauntlets of Ultramar.
The problem with the case at hand is that there is no explicit statement in the rules themselves that we are dealing with a single weapon. You feel comfortable making that assumption with no explicit rules statement allowing that. I, on the other hand, will stick to the Rules As Written.
col_impact wrote: The rule statement says "these weapons". It's not in the fluff. Have you actually read the rules in question? Perhaps you should do that first.
I will repeat what I said.. as Col seems to skip over any argument that beats his with his own logic
You keep stating 'these weapons', but only the fist is mentioned as being able to be used as a melee weapon, as you also like to point out.
There is no mention of the sword itself being a melee weapon.. its only mention of it even being there is 'these weapons' and the relic's name, You could argue that obviously a sword is a melee weapon, But Gulliman's good mate Cyper also Carries a sword which isn't a melee weapon
The only way the Hand could be a melee weapon is if the profile provided is doubly applied to the weapons as in the 2 chain swords example, which is perfectly legal according to the rules, and in fact what we have no choice but to do since we are not informed that the Hand and the Sword count as a single weapon.
The profile doubly applied results in the Sword being a melee weapon.
The profile doubly applied would result in the Sword being a melee weapon.
Well no, the Hand has a range profile and can be used as melee, so being a melee weapon on a MC its at Units Str with AP2, But it also has an option to be voltroned with the Sword to become uber weapon
The sword itself doesn't have a profile and isn't a Melee weapon unless you voltron it with the fist, becoming a single item so no extra Atk
Feel free to post precedence that contradicts my argument.
Precedence supports me. Every instance to my knowledge of a combined profile indicates explicitly that we are dealing with a single weapon. For example, "the combined pair" for the Gauntlets of Ultramar.
Every instance?
Every instance?
The Lash Whip and Bonesword say hello and only count as a single weapon - not just because of the Tyranid rules regarding weapon sets but because of the GSC rules as well.
The Talons of the Night Terror (which explicitly state they are a pair of melee weapons) say hello as well.
As for weapons that have seperate profiles for ranged and melee? Ork Burnas and the Pandemic Staff say hi as well.
So, by every instance do you mean apart from the ones which have been given multiple times in this thread and which you have chosen to consistently ignore as they rather awkwardly shoot your argument down with ease.....?
Feel free to post precedence that contradicts my argument.
Precedence supports me. Every instance to my knowledge of a combined profile indicates explicitly that we are dealing with a single weapon. For example, "the combined pair" for the Gauntlets of Ultramar.
Every instance?
Every instance?
The Lash Whip and Bonesword say hello and only count as a single weapon - not just because of the Tyranid rules regarding weapon sets but because of the GSC rules as well.
The Talons of the Night Terror (which explicitly state they are a pair of melee weapons) say hello as well.
As for weapons that have seperate profiles for ranged and melee? Ork Burnas and the Pandemic Staff say hi as well.
So, by every instance do you mean apart from the ones which have been given multiple times in this thread and which you have chosen to consistently ignore as they rather awkwardly shoot your argument down with ease.....?
The Tyranid codex refers to them as "one" or "combination" or as a "pair" which is singular. I have already indicated that precedence is explicitly careful about case agreement (e.g "combined pair" for Gauntlets of Ultramar)
There is no such singular usage in the case at hand. And that's your problem. You are supplying the singular usage from inside your head rather than from the printed page of the rules. This is why your argument is RAI and mine is RAW.
The rules we are looking at definitively call out the Hand as a melee weapon. This we know as a fact. You are the one choosing to ignore this fact. I choose not to ignore what the Rules As Written say.
This can only mean that we have a Hand as a melee weapon and the Sword as a melee weapon
This can only mean that we have a Hand as a melee weapon and the Sword as a melee weapon
But there is nothing to say the Sword is a Melee weapon on its own, only that it counts as melee when used with the Fist, that you have well established is a melee weapon
you are the one making presumptions on the rules, for the Sword being Melee in its own right
This can only mean that we have a Hand as a melee weapon and the Sword as a melee weapon
But there is nothing to say the Sword is a Melee weapon on its own, only that it counts as melee when used with the Fist, that you have well established is a melee weapon
you are the one making presumptions on the rules, for the Sword being Melee in its own right
Incorrect. If the Melee profile is applied to the combined pair of the Hand and the Sword then only the Hand and the Sword is a melee weapon. The Hand on its own in that case would not be a melee weapon. But the rules say it is.
You are put in the awkward position where the rules contradict your argument.
If you take a Rules As Written approach you have to accept the fact that the Hand on its own is a melee weapon and go from there. Doubly applying a profile is perfectly allowable so we do that and contradict no rule statements.
When it says these weapons it must obviously be referring to the ranged profile and the melee profile for the hand. As the sword is not mentioned and we have already met the requirement for "these" then we must conclude the sword is merely cosmetic.
Ceann wrote: When it says these weapons it must obviously be referring to the ranged profile and the melee profile for the hand. As the sword is not mentioned and we have already met the requirement for "these" then we must conclude the sword is merely cosmetic.
Feel free to post precedence that contradicts my argument.
Precedence supports me. Every instance to my knowledge of a combined profile indicates explicitly that we are dealing with a single weapon. For example, "the combined pair" for the Gauntlets of Ultramar.
Every instance?
Every instance?
The Lash Whip and Bonesword say hello and only count as a single weapon - not just because of the Tyranid rules regarding weapon sets but because of the GSC rules as well.
The Talons of the Night Terror (which explicitly state they are a pair of melee weapons) say hello as well.
As for weapons that have seperate profiles for ranged and melee? Ork Burnas and the Pandemic Staff say hi as well.
So, by every instance do you mean apart from the ones which have been given multiple times in this thread and which you have chosen to consistently ignore as they rather awkwardly shoot your argument down with ease.....?
The Tyranid codex refers to them as "one" or "combination" or as a "pair" which is singular. I have already indicated that precedence is explicitly careful about case agreement (e.g "combined pair" for Gauntlets of Ultramar)
There is no such singular usage in the case at hand. And that's your problem. You are supplying the singular usage from inside your head rather than from the printed page of the rules. This is why your argument is RAI and mine is RAW.
The rules we are looking at definitively call out the Hand as a melee weapon. This we know as a fact. You are the one choosing to ignore this fact. I choose not to ignore what the Rules As Written say.
This can only mean that we have a Hand as a melee weapon and the Sword as a melee weapon
Hmm no Gauntlets of Ultramar are properly worded to grant an extra attack.
Each Gauntlet of Ultramar can be used as a Melee weapon with the Melee weapon profile below. The combined pair can also be fired as a ranged weapon, using the ranged weapon profile below
Notice it clearly states each gauntlet it's a different weapon with the same profile (clearly shows 2 weapons )
Also Shrike Raven's Talons are worded in a similar way.
Each Raven’s Talon can be used as a Melee weapon with the following profile.
Yet RG weapons don't say each weapon can be used with an specific profile just says BOTH attack combined as following profile. Notice how RG weapons rules tell you to consider both as a single one for melee purposes on the same way Gauntlets of Ultramar tell you to consider both fist a single shooting weapon instead 2x different ones for shooting.
Oh neat, I was right for those bunch of pages I typed up.
Tenet 2
Spoiler:
2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop are easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.
I'm just throwing my hands against my ears like you here, I'm satisfied with this until the official FAQ finally comes out. I'll admit you're quite dedicated to your point though.
Feel free to post precedence that contradicts my argument.
Precedence supports me. Every instance to my knowledge of a combined profile indicates explicitly that we are dealing with a single weapon. For example, "the combined pair" for the Gauntlets of Ultramar.
Every instance?
Every instance?
The Lash Whip and Bonesword say hello and only count as a single weapon - not just because of the Tyranid rules regarding weapon sets but because of the GSC rules as well.
The Talons of the Night Terror (which explicitly state they are a pair of melee weapons) say hello as well.
As for weapons that have seperate profiles for ranged and melee? Ork Burnas and the Pandemic Staff say hi as well.
So, by every instance do you mean apart from the ones which have been given multiple times in this thread and which you have chosen to consistently ignore as they rather awkwardly shoot your argument down with ease.....?
The Tyranid codex refers to them as "one" or "combination" or as a "pair" which is singular. I have already indicated that precedence is explicitly careful about case agreement (e.g "combined pair" for Gauntlets of Ultramar)
There is no such singular usage in the case at hand. And that's your problem. You are supplying the singular usage from inside your head rather than from the printed page of the rules. This is why your argument is RAI and mine is RAW.
The rules we are looking at definitively call out the Hand as a melee weapon. This we know as a fact. You are the one choosing to ignore this fact. I choose not to ignore what the Rules As Written say.
This can only mean that we have a Hand as a melee weapon and the Sword as a melee weapon
Hmm no Gauntlets of Ultramar are properly worded to grant an extra attack.
Each Gauntlet of Ultramar can be used as a Melee weapon with the Melee weapon profile below. The combined pair can also be fired as a ranged weapon, using the ranged weapon profile below
Notice it clearly states each gauntlet it's a different weapon with the same profile (clearly shows 2 weapons )
Also Shrike Raven's Talons are worded in a similar way.
Each Raven’s Talon can be used as a Melee weapon with the following profile.
Yet RG weapons don't say each weapon can be used with an specific profile just says BOTH attack combined as following profile. Notice how RG weapons rules tell you to consider both as a single one for melee purposes on the same way Gauntlets of Ultramar tell you to consider both fist a single shooting weapon instead 2x different ones for shooting.
Incorrect. If the Melee profile is applied to the combined pair of the Hand and the Sword then only the Hand and the Sword is a melee weapon. The Hand on its own in that case would not be a melee weapon. But the rules say it is.
You are put in the awkward position where the rules contradict your argument.
If you take a Rules As Written approach you have to accept the fact that the Hand on its own is a melee weapon and go from there. Doubly applying a profile is perfectly allowable so we do that and contradict no rule statements.
Well no, you are just being very selective in what you are choosing to argue here..
Facts. 1. The weapons 'used together' make the melee profile listed
2. The Fist is a ranged Weapon that is Also a Melee Weapon
What isn't a Fact is the Sword being a Melee Weapon, only the catalyst to get the special rules in Melee when used with the Fist
Also when you read the special rules for the Relic, it only mentions 'This Weapon'
So we have 1 Melee weapon (the Fist) and then a Catalyst item to make it a better weapon (the Sword), as there is no mention of the Sword being a melee weapon anywhere within the rules any Assumption of such is just that
Feel free to post precedence that contradicts my argument.
Precedence supports me. Every instance to my knowledge of a combined profile indicates that we are dealing with weapons counting explicitly a single weapon. For example, "the combined pair" for the Gauntlets of Ultramar.
The problem with the case at hand is that there is no explicit statement in the rules themselves that we are dealing with a single weapon. You feel comfortable making that assumption with no explicit rules statement allowing that. I, on the other hand, will stick to the Rules As Written.
col_impact wrote: The rule statement says "these weapons". It's not in the fluff. Have you actually read the rules in question? Perhaps you should do that first.
I will repeat what I said.. as Col seems to skip over any argument that beats his with his own logic
You keep stating 'these weapons', but only the fist is mentioned as being able to be used as a melee weapon, as you also like to point out.
There is no mention of the sword itself being a melee weapon.. its only mention of it even being there is 'these weapons' and the relic's name, You could argue that obviously a sword is a melee weapon, But Gulliman's good mate Cyper also Carries a sword which isn't a melee weapon
The only way the Hand could be a melee weapon is if the profile provided is doubly applied to the weapons as in the 2 chain swords example, which is perfectly legal according to the rules, and in fact what we have no choice but to do since we are not informed that the Hand and the Sword count as a single weapon.
The profile doubly applied results in the Sword being a melee weapon.
Show us your PRECEDENCE since you claimed it supports you. You tried to use the gauntlets and got blown out of the water when someone looked it up. I have quoted Cyphers pistols, others have quoted Tyranids and other examples that support we are explicitly told in unambiguous terms that there are two weapons or an extra attack.
Incorrect. If the Melee profile is applied to the combined pair of the Hand and the Sword then only the Hand and the Sword is a melee weapon. The Hand on its own in that case would not be a melee weapon. But the rules say it is.
You are put in the awkward position where the rules contradict your argument.
If you take a Rules As Written approach you have to accept the fact that the Hand on its own is a melee weapon and go from there. Doubly applying a profile is perfectly allowable so we do that and contradict no rule statements.
Well no, you are just being very selective in what you are choosing to argue here..
Facts.
1. The weapons 'used together' make the melee profile listed
2. The Fist is a ranged Weapon that is Also a Melee Weapon
What isn't a Fact is the Sword being a Melee Weapon, only the catalyst to get the special rules in Melee when used with the Fist
Also when you read the special rules for the Relic, it only mentions 'This Weapon'
So we have 1 Melee weapon (the Fist) and then a Catalyst item to make it a better weapon (the Sword), as there is no mention of the Sword being a melee weapon anywhere within the rules any Assumption of such is just that
"Used together" does not turn plural into singular. There is a missing "as a combined pair" that your are providing that the rules themselves do not provide. Thus, you are breaking from the Rules As Written.
The only way the Fist is a melee weapon is if the melee Profile is doubly applied to each of "these weapons". There is nothing wrong about doubly applying the profile, and if we adhere to the rules exactly and maintain that the rules contain no errors we accept double application as the only way to resolve the Rules As Written.
"Used together" does not turn plural into singular. There is a missing "as a combined pair" that your are providing that the rules themselves do not provide. Thus, you are breaking from the Rules As Written.
The only way the Fist is a melee weapon is if the melee Profile is doubly applied to each of "these weapons". There is nothing wrong about doubly applying the profile, and if we adhere to the rules exactly and maintain that the rules contain no errors we accept double application as the only way to resolve the Rules As Written.
Well no, 'used together' and 'combined' share a meaning, you are adding 'pair' yourself.
the rule is 'These weapons are used together, using the profile below'
'The Hand of Dominion... It may be used as both a melee and a ranged weapon in the same turn'
So combined they use the Melee profile listed with full special rules, Only the Fist has mention of it being Melee, but doesn't get any special rules for CC as per normal melee weapons
Once again there is no mention of the Sword being a melee weapon, you are the one making it one for your justification of the rules.
Hmm no Gauntlets of Ultramar are properly worded to grant an extra attack.
Each Gauntlet of Ultramar can be used as a Melee weapon with the Melee weapon profile below. The combined pair can also be fired as a ranged weapon, using the ranged weapon profile below
Notice it clearly states each gauntlet it's a different weapon with the same profile (clearly shows 2 weapons )
Also Shrike Raven's Talons are worded in a similar way.
Each Raven’s Talon can be used as a Melee weapon with the following profile.
Yet RG weapons don't say each weapon can be used with an specific profile just says BOTH attack combined as following profile. Notice how RG weapons rules tell you to consider both as a single one for melee purposes on the same way Gauntlets of Ultramar tell you to consider both fist a single shooting weapon instead 2x different ones for shooting.
In order for the RG weapons to become singular they must be explicitly stated as such, which is what "combined pair" does in the case of the Gauntlets of Ultramar.
In the case of RG we are presented with weapons and a single profile. We are also told the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon.
We have two choices -
1) we can guess that the Hand and the Sword is combined pair and apply the single profile to that. The problem with that is that means the Hand is not a melee weapon and the rules tell us that it is.
2) we can doubly apply the profile so that the Hand is a melee weapon and the Sword is a melee weapon. Doubly applying a profile is perfectly allowable in the rules. Doing this, we do not contradict the fact we learn later that the Hand is a melee weapon.
Your argument is based on a guess and goes against stated rules which you need to claim are then in error.
My argument adheres to the Rules As Written, makes no guesses, and doesn't have to handwave away any unexplainable errors in the rules.
My argument isn't necessarily better or worse than yours. It's just a Rules As Written argument, whereas yours isn't.
2) we can doubly apply the profile so that the Hand is a melee weapon and the Sword is a melee weapon. Doubly applying a profile is perfectly allowable in the rules. Doing this, we do not contradict the fact we learn later that the Hand is a melee weapon.
Your argument is based on a guess and goes against stated rules which you need to claim are then in error.
My argument adheres to the Rules As Written, makes no guesses, and doen't have to handwave away any unexplainable errors in the rules.
But this is pure RAI as you are presuming that the Sword is a Melee Weapon
Stating a combined pair can fire as a melee weapon grants the profile to both. As you said the word combined isn't there so the profile can't apply to two weapons it wasn't told too.
"Used together" does not turn plural into singular. There is a missing "as a combined pair" that your are providing that the rules themselves do not provide. Thus, you are breaking from the Rules As Written.
The only way the Fist is a melee weapon is if the melee Profile is doubly applied to each of "these weapons". There is nothing wrong about doubly applying the profile, and if we adhere to the rules exactly and maintain that the rules contain no errors we accept double application as the only way to resolve the Rules As Written.
Well no, 'used together' and 'combined' share a meaning, you are adding 'pair' yourself.
I guess you don't see your problem. "Combined pair" changes plural to singular. "Used together" does not change plural to singular.
This forces your argument to assume a singular entity when in fact the rule statement itself makes no such proclamation.
2) we can doubly apply the profile so that the Hand is a melee weapon and the Sword is a melee weapon. Doubly applying a profile is perfectly allowable in the rules. Doing this, we do not contradict the fact we learn later that the Hand is a melee weapon.
Your argument is based on a guess and goes against stated rules which you need to claim are then in error.
My argument adheres to the Rules As Written, makes no guesses, and doen't have to handwave away any unexplainable errors in the rules.
But this is pure RAI as you are presuming that the Sword is a Melee Weapon
Someone should let Cypher know the sword on his back is a Weapon, too.
Now, where is that Sword profile in the BRB... No, that's Power Sword. No, that's Chainsword. No, that's Force Sword. Can't find it. Argument is crap.
Ceann wrote: Perfectly allowable in the rules WHERE.
No precedence.
2 chainswords.
He does not have 2 chainswords, nowhere does it say he has two weapons and each individual sword has its own profile it is not sharing a profile with something else which is your claim. All previous instances of two weapons sharing a profile are explicit this one is not, therefore it does not meet the precedent.
YOU need to prove that two weapons can share one profile in one entry. It does not exist. Two chainswords has nothing to do with this. You have yet to prove two weapons exist on one profile.
2) we can doubly apply the profile so that the Hand is a melee weapon and the Sword is a melee weapon. Doubly applying a profile is perfectly allowable in the rules. Doing this, we do not contradict the fact we learn later that the Hand is a melee weapon.
Your argument is based on a guess and goes against stated rules which you need to claim are then in error.
My argument adheres to the Rules As Written, makes no guesses, and doen't have to handwave away any unexplainable errors in the rules.
But this is pure RAI as you are presuming that the Sword is a Melee Weapon
Nope. In order to not contradict the fact that the Hand is a melee weapon, we must choose to doubly apply the profile provided. No guesswork involved.
Your argument however is RAI. From the outset you are required to guess/assume (based on precedence and context) and add to the rules "counts as a single weapon" and handwave away the contradiction presented by a Hand that is a melee weapon on its own.
"Used together" does not turn plural into singular. There is a missing "as a combined pair" that your are providing that the rules themselves do not provide. Thus, you are breaking from the Rules As Written.
The only way the Fist is a melee weapon is if the melee Profile is doubly applied to each of "these weapons". There is nothing wrong about doubly applying the profile, and if we adhere to the rules exactly and maintain that the rules contain no errors we accept double application as the only way to resolve the Rules As Written.
Well no, 'used together' and 'combined' share a meaning, you are adding 'pair' yourself.
I guess you don't see your problem. "Combined pair" changes plural to singular. "Used together" does not change plural to singular.
This forces your argument to assume a singular entity when in fact the rule statement itself makes no such proclamation.
Your argument relies on guesswork. Mine doesn't.
Your guesswork is assuming that two weapons exist and assuming you are free to split the profile. TO WHICH you claim you precedence and you do not it.
Nope. In order to not contradict the fact that the Hand is a melee weapon, we must choose to doubly apply the profile provided. No guesswork involved.
The only part of the combined item that is the Emperors Sword and Hand of Domination that has mention of being a Melee Weapon in its own right is the Fist
For your argument to work you need to run on the presumption of both halves of this relic item to be able to use the combined profile individually
Ceann wrote: Stating a combined pair can fire as a melee weapon grants the profile to both. As you said the word combined isn't there so the profile can't apply to two weapons it wasn't told too.
No precedence.
You proved my point. There is no explicit mention of "a combined pair" or some facsimile that would assign the profile to the combined pair. Thus, we can only follow the path of doubly applying the profile to each of "these weapons".
The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together, using the profile below.
WRONG.
A title of a relic is not identification of anything other than fluff. It essentially says "weapon 1" and then at some point later it says that you use these weapons using the below profile. WHICH weapons, it does not say. The gauntlets say which weapons. Cyphers pistols say which weapons, the Tyranids profiles say which weapons. Every other instance of multiple weapons being on a profile explicitly states which weapon s it is talking about. This profile does not, meaning you could easily assume it is talking about the ranged profile for the hand.
Nope. In order to not contradict the fact that the Hand is a melee weapon, we must choose to doubly apply the profile provided. No guesswork involved.
The only part of the combined item that is the Emperors Sword and Hand of Domination that has mention of being a Melee Weapon in its own right is the Fist
For your argument to work you need to run on the presumption of both halves of this relic item to be able to use the combined profile individually
Nope. The only way the Hand is a melee weapon is if the profile is doubly applied to each of these weapons.
If the profile is only applied to the combined pair, as you would have it in your RAI argument, then the Hand does not wind up being a melee weapon.
col_impact wrote: Nope. The only way the Hand is a melee weapon is if the profile is doubly applied to each of these weapons.
If the profile is only applied to the combined pair, as you would have it in your RAI argument, then the Hand does not wind up being a melee weapon.
Oaky you are goanna have to explain your thinking there..
The rules and I am looking at them right now, Have mention of the Hand of Domination being a Melee Weapon (Therefore it is a Melee Weapon RAW), has a mention of when used with the Emperor's Sword it gets bonuses (RAW). but there is no mention of the sword being a Melee Weapon in its own right (RAW)
What is RAI is saying that the Sword and the Hand get to individually apply the Melee Profile therefore making the 2nd a Melee Weapon in its own right granting +1 Atk
The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together, using the profile below.
WRONG.
A title of a relic is not identification of anything other than fluff. It essentially says "weapon 1" and then at some point later it says that you use these weapons using the below profile. WHICH weapons, it does not say. The gauntlets say which weapons. Cyphers pistols say which weapons, the Tyranids profiles say which weapons. Every other instance of multiple weapons being on a profile explicitly states which weapon s it is talking about. This profile does not, meaning you could easily assume it is talking about the ranged profile for the hand.
Incorrect. We know we have two proper nouns (the Hand of Dominion is later differentiated) and weapons (plural). So my argument rests on the solid foundation of the Rules As Written.
col_impact wrote: Nope. The only way the Hand is a melee weapon is if the profile is doubly applied to each of these weapons.
If the profile is only applied to the combined pair, as you would have it in your RAI argument, then the Hand does not wind up being a melee weapon.
Oaky you are goanna have to explain your thinking there..
The rules and I am looking at them right now, Have mention of the Hand of Domination being a Melee Weapon (Therefore it is a Melee Weapon RAW), has a mention of when used with the Emperor's Sword it gets bonuses (RAW). but there is no mention of the sword being a Melee Weapon in its own right (RAW)
What is RAI is saying that the Sword and the Hand get to individually apply the Melee Profile therefore making the 2nd a Melee Weapon in its own right granting +1 Atk
As already mentioned . . .
In the case of RG we are presented with weapons and a single profile. We are also informed by the rules that the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon as if it was established information.
We have two choices -
1) we can guess that the Hand and the Sword is combined pair and apply the single profile to that. The problem with that is that means the Hand is not a melee weapon and the rules tell us that it is.
2) we can doubly apply the profile so that the Hand is a melee weapon and the Sword is a melee weapon. Doubly applying a profile is perfectly allowable in the rules. Doing this, we do not contradict the fact we learn later that the Hand is a melee weapon.
Choosing #1 is a RAI approach. Your argument is that the rules overlooked explicitly stating that the Hand and the Sword are a combined pair and that the later mention of the Hand as a melee weapon is in error.
Choosing #2 is a RAW approach. The Rules As Written leave us no choice but to make this choice. Choosing #1 requires guesswork and handwaving away the rule statement that the Hand is a melee weapon as an error.
col_impact wrote: Choosing #1 is a RAI approach. Your argument is that the rules overlooked explicitly stating that the Hand and the Sword are a combined pair and that the later mention of the Hand as a melee weapon is in error.
Choosing #2 is a RAW approach. The Rules As Written leave us no choice but to make this choice. Choosing #1 requires guesswork and handwaving away the rule statement that the Hand is a melee weapon as an error.
Well No..
I am saying the Hand is a Melee Weapon as there is a rule stating that it is, but it doesn't get any bonus rules if used on it own just counts as a Melee Weapon for the purposes of H2H Combat.
I am also saying there is nothing within this relics rules that makes the Sword a Melee Weapon
I am saying when using both halves of this Relic together you get to use the profile listed
There isn't a single piece of guesswork there at all.
Your option 2 relies on the presumption that both halves of this relic are Melee Weapons
col_impact wrote: Choosing #1 is a RAI approach. Your argument is that the rules overlooked explicitly stating that the Hand and the Sword are a combined pair and that the later mention of the Hand as a melee weapon is in error.
Choosing #2 is a RAW approach. The Rules As Written leave us no choice but to make this choice. Choosing #1 requires guesswork and handwaving away the rule statement that the Hand is a melee weapon as an error.
Well No..
I am saying the Hand is a Melee Weapon as there is a rule stating that it is, but it doesn't get any bonus rules if used on it own just counts as a Melee Weapon for the purposes of H2H Combat.
I am also saying there is nothing within this relics rules that makes the Sword a Melee Weapon
I am saying when using both halves of this Relic together you get to use the profile listed
There isn't a single piece of guesswork there at all.
Your option 2 relies on the presumption that both halves of this relic are Melee Weapons
The rule statement merely describes the Hand as a melee weapon. The rule statement as is cannot declare it as such. For the Hand to be a melee weapon the profile would have to be doubly applied. A double application of the profile is the only way you get the Hand declared as a melee weapon.
Also, you are assuming that the Hand and the Sword are halves of a relic. Where does it actually state this in the rules? As I said already, your argument is making the jump from plural to singular. There is no mention of any singularity in the rules. That there is some singular entity that we apply the single profile to is entirely an assumption on your part. It's not necessarily a wrong assumption, but an assumption nonetheless.
The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together, using the profile below.
WRONG.
A title of a relic is not identification of anything other than fluff. It essentially says "weapon 1" and then at some point later it says that you use these weapons using the below profile. WHICH weapons, it does not say. The gauntlets say which weapons. Cyphers pistols say which weapons, the Tyranids profiles say which weapons. Every other instance of multiple weapons being on a profile explicitly states which weapon s it is talking about. This profile does not, meaning you could easily assume it is talking about the ranged profile for the hand.
Incorrect. We know we have two proper nouns (the Hand of Dominion is later differentiated) and weapons (plural). So my argument rests on the solid foundation of the Rules As Written.
col_impact wrote: Nope. The only way the Hand is a melee weapon is if the profile is doubly applied to each of these weapons.
If the profile is only applied to the combined pair, as you would have it in your RAI argument, then the Hand does not wind up being a melee weapon.
Oaky you are goanna have to explain your thinking there..
The rules and I am looking at them right now, Have mention of the Hand of Domination being a Melee Weapon (Therefore it is a Melee Weapon RAW), has a mention of when used with the Emperor's Sword it gets bonuses (RAW). but there is no mention of the sword being a Melee Weapon in its own right (RAW)
What is RAI is saying that the Sword and the Hand get to individually apply the Melee Profile therefore making the 2nd a Melee Weapon in its own right granting +1 Atk
As already mentioned . . .
In the case of RG we are presented with weapons and a single profile. We are also informed by the rules that the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon as if it was established information.
We have two choices -
1) we can guess that the Hand and the Sword is combined pair and apply the single profile to that. The problem with that is that means the Hand is not a melee weapon and the rules tell us that it is.
2) we can doubly apply the profile so that the Hand is a melee weapon and the Sword is a melee weapon. Doubly applying a profile is perfectly allowable in the rules. Doing this, we do not contradict the fact we learn later that the Hand is a melee weapon.
Choosing #1 is a RAI approach. Your argument is that the rules overlooked explicitly stating that the Hand and the Sword are a combined pair and that the later mention of the Hand as a melee weapon is in error.
Choosing #2 is a RAW approach. The Rules As Written leave us no choice but to make this choice. Choosing #1 requires guesswork and handwaving away the rule statement that the Hand is a melee weapon as an error.
Still wrong. You have NO PRECEDENCE for your #2.
Every other known circumstance for this SAME situation has rules that EXPLICITLY state there are individual weapons that can each attack RAW. Therefore your #2 is and ASSUMPTION with NO PRECEDENCE. You cannot use the very lines in question to validate itself.
col_impact wrote: The rule statement merely describes the Hand as a melee weapon. The rule statement as is cannot declare it as such. For the Hand to be a melee weapon the profile would have to be doubly applied. A double application of the profile is the only way you get the Hand declared as a melee weapon.
Yes the hand is a Melee weapon as Stated in the rules (not a description). it is a presumption to declare that this would then have to apply to the sword as there is nothing stating that it is also a Melee Weapon
col_impact wrote: Also, you are assuming that the Hand and the Sword are halves of a relic. Where does it actually state this in the rules? .
So now they are a single item and therefor do not get a extra atk for being 2 close combat weapons as they are only a single item. Its funny because your arguement relies on them being halves of the item as well
col_impact wrote: The rule statement merely describes the Hand as a melee weapon. The rule statement as is cannot declare it as such. For the Hand to be a melee weapon the profile would have to be doubly applied. A double application of the profile is the only way you get the Hand declared as a melee weapon.
Yes the hand is a Melee weapon as Stated in the rules (not a description).
It can only be a melee weapon from the application of the melee profile discussed prior. "The Hand is also a ranged weapon . . ."
col_impact wrote: Also, you are assuming that the Hand and the Sword are halves of a relic. Where does it actually state this in the rules? .
So now they are a single item and therefor do not get a extra atk for being 2 close combat weapons as they are only a single item. Its funny because your arguement relies on them being halves of the item as well
Nope. All we know from the rule statements is that they are weapons. No rule anywhere makes mention of them as somehow a singularity. That's guesswork on your part.
Well no as I stated it is a Melee Weapon, so counts as a Weapon in H2H but has no special rules associated with it in H2H, So if he also had a pistol or a knife as well on his profile He would get a +1Atk
When used with the 2nd half of the Relic being the Sword it then gets to apply the Profile, and the bonus rules listed.
This is purely going by what is written in the rules. You are relying on the Interpretation/Presumption that the hand Cannot be Melee, without the Sword being Melee. Which there is nothing written there to support that
GodDamUser wrote: Well no as I stated it is a Melee Weapon, so counts as a Weapon in H2H but has no special rules associated with it in H2H, So if he also had a pistol or a knife as well on his profile He would get a +1Atk
When used with the 2nd half of the Relic being the Sword it then gets to apply the Profile, and the bonus rules listed.
This is purely going by what is written in the rules. You are relying on the Interpretation/Presumption that the hand Cannot be Melee, without the Sword being Melee. Which there is nothing written there to support that
Nope. Your argument begins by assuming the Hand and the Sword are a combined pair. That they count as a single weapon is guesswork on your part. Precedence or context may inform that guess but it's still a guess.
If we take the rules exactly as written we have no choice but to doubly assign the provided profile to "these weapons".
As already mentioned . . .
In the case of RG we are presented with weapons and a single profile. We are also informed by the rules that the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon as if it was established information.
We have two choices -
1) we can guess that the Hand and the Sword is combined pair and apply the single profile to that. The problem with that is that means the Hand is not a melee weapon and the rules tell us that it is.
2) we can doubly apply the profile so that the Hand is a melee weapon and the Sword is a melee weapon. Doubly applying a profile is perfectly allowable in the rules. Doing this, we do not contradict the fact we learn later that the Hand is a melee weapon.
Choosing #1 is a RAI approach. Your argument is that the rules overlooked explicitly stating that the Hand and the Sword are a combined pair and that the later mention of the Hand as a melee weapon is in error.
Choosing #2 is a RAW approach. The Rules As Written leave us no choice but to make this choice. Choosing #1 requires guesswork and handwaving away the rule statement that the Hand is a melee weapon as an error.
I am saying it gets to use the Profile listed below when used together
Which is exactly what the rules say, and means that that profile is only relevant when they are used together as a single item, and if you go on the read the special rules associated with using it together it uses weapon singular.
So both are separate halves i.e. 'weapons' , But only the Hand as the melee Weapon rule Associated to it, to give it to the Sword is assumption as it isn't stated.
So in the end if you want to use to profile listed there they are a single thing. This is also relevant when you compare it to similar combos like Lashwhip and Bonesword, in which two separate items count as a singular item for the purposes of H2H combat
Every other known circumstance for this SAME situation has rules that EXPLICITLY state there are individual weapons that can each attack RAW. Therefore your #2 is and ASSUMPTION with NO PRECEDENCE. You cannot use the very lines in question to validate itself.
You are NEVER told to split it and make two weapons you only make this assumption because of the later line reference to a weapon.
1) we can guess that the Hand and the Sword is combined pair and apply the single profile to that. The problem with that is that means the Hand is not a melee weapon and the rules tell us that it is.
How does that happen?
We have 2 sections of the Relic Rules
One that focuses on the Melee Aspect of the Relic, that is when using both halves you get these rules and profile,
Then separately you have the hand is a melee weapon that can Shoot in the same turn with the shooting profile
These two are mutually exclusive and not reliant on the other at all (other then the shoot and melee in the same turn)
GodDamUser wrote: I am saying it gets to use the Profile listed below when used together
Which is exactly what the rules say, and means that that profile is only relevant when they are used together as a single item, and if you go on the read the special rules associated with using it together it uses weapon singular.
So both are separate halves i.e. 'weapons' , But only the Hand as the melee Weapon rule Associated to it, to give it to the Sword is assumption as it isn't stated.
So in the end if you want to use to profile listed there they are a single thing. This is also relevant when you compare it to similar combos like Lashwhip and Bonesword, in which two separate items count as a singular item for the purposes of H2H combat
Maybe I can help nip this circle in the bud. I believe Col is saying your assumption is in the bolded part. Just using plain English, "used together" could mean "used together as dual-weapons" or "used together as a single weapon". He's saying you're making an assumption adding "as a single weapon" instead of "as dual-weapons".
This is why, until official clarification, I think it's an impossible spot, RAW. There's nothing RAW to determine which was meant. There's some RAI we can look at, but not RAW.
GodDamUser wrote: I am saying it gets to use the Profile listed below when used together
Which is exactly what the rules say, and means that that profile is only relevant when they are used together as a single item, and if you go on the read the special rules associated with using it together it uses weapon singular.
So both are separate halves i.e. 'weapons' , But only the Hand as the melee Weapon rule Associated to it, to give it to the Sword is assumption as it isn't stated.
So in the end if you want to use to profile listed there they are a single thing. This is also relevant when you compare it to similar combos like Lashwhip and Bonesword, in which two separate items count as a singular item for the purposes of H2H combat
There is no statement to the effect that they count as a singular item. You are making that assumption based on precedence. That's the problem with your argument. It adds to the Rules As Written.
If you adhere to the Rules As Written you have two weapons and must doubly apply the single profile provided.
GodDamUser wrote: I am saying it gets to use the Profile listed below when used together
Which is exactly what the rules say, and means that that profile is only relevant when they are used together as a single item, and if you go on the read the special rules associated with using it together it uses weapon singular.
So both are separate halves i.e. 'weapons' , But only the Hand as the melee Weapon rule Associated to it, to give it to the Sword is assumption as it isn't stated.
So in the end if you want to use to profile listed there they are a single thing. This is also relevant when you compare it to similar combos like Lashwhip and Bonesword, in which two separate items count as a singular item for the purposes of H2H combat
Maybe I can help nip this circle in the bud. I believe Col is saying your assumption is in the bolded part. Just using plain English, "used together" could mean "used together as dual-weapons" or "used together as a single weapon". He's saying you're making an assumption adding "as a single weapon" instead of "as dual-weapons".
This is why, until official clarification, I think it's an impossible spot, RAW. There's nothing RAW to determine which was meant. There's some RAI we can look at, but not RAW.
Thanks for your comments.
I do think my argument is RAW since we are presented with two weapons RAW and a single profile. If we make no assumptions, we simply doubly apply the profile. There is nothing disallowing the double application of the profile.
E.g., RG has 2 chainswords. Use this chainsword profile.
Emperor's Sword and Hand of Domination, is a single relic, If they were listed a separate relics I would go with the +1Atk argument. but it is a single Relic and treat it as such
Every other known circumstance for this SAME situation has rules that EXPLICITLY state there are individual weapons that can each attack RAW. Therefore your #2 is and ASSUMPTION with NO PRECEDENCE. You cannot use the very lines in question to validate itself.
You are never told to apply the profile twice. You take it upon your to assume what it means and then assume the weapons it refers too.
RAW it is just not functional playable, this requires to make RAI assumptions to even play the model.
Emperor's Sword and Hand of Domination, is a single relic, If they were listed a separate relics I would go with the +1Atk argument. but it is a single Relic and treat it as such
You are making guess out of nowhere that its a single relic. The box says RELICS OF ULTRAMAR.
On what basis are you arriving at the conclusion that the Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion is a single relic?
Emperor's Sword and Hand of Domination, is a single relic, If they were listed a separate relics I would go with the +1Atk argument. but it is a single Relic and treat it as such
You are assuming its a single relic. The box says RELICS OF ULTRAMAR.
Yes because there are Two Relics
1. Emperor's Sword and Hand of Domination 2. Armour of Fate
it is like what was mentioned before with Gloves of Ultramar, in which case it is a single Relic have says plainly that each hand uses the profile (togeather when shooting as a singular), where here it states Together.
When taken as a stand a lone sentence the 'Singular' vs 'Dual' weapon makes sense. But when you factor in the Special rules for the profile all being singular, and looking at all other examples of Dual Weapon Items (not double weapons i.e. 2 chainswords) you see that GW's language is towards the Singular
On what basis are you arriving at the conclusion that the Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion is a single relic? Is there some statement to that effect in the rules?
The name could say Cypher’s 12 assault cannons. It is fluff.
The pistols have two weapon profiles, you can't claim RAW while following fluff names. The weapon RG has, has ONE profile, you are NEVER told to use it twice, duplicate it, that it counts as two weapons or any other number of things you assume it to mean.
Cypher's pistols has a single entry and they are two relics.
MYSTERIOUS RELICS Cypher’s Pistols:
BOOM.
Captain cherry picker who ignores precedence.
EACH of his pistols has IT'S OWN entry.
You are confusing entry with profile. "Cypher's Pistols:" is the entry. They are relics.
They are a Relic,
And have the Individual listing for either half of it.
The reason I count it as a single relic is if it was a normal Relic that could be Acquired by a Commander.. it would be a single item purchase.
Gloves of Ultramar is another Single relic that has two halves
Emperor's Sword and Hand of Domination is a third
The difference between the 3 is that Cypher's Pistols and Gloves of Ultramar has rules very clear written rules for using them as individual items in Close Combat. Where for the Sword and hand you have to try and justify a very ambiguous argument for the Extra Attack that is at odds with every other case of Dual weapons that doesn't explicitly says can are two weapons for CC purposes
But they also prove you wrong. Each other relic that counts as two weapons CLEARLY STATES, whether by outright saying "This is a pair of weapons" or by having separate profiles.
Cypher's pistols has a single entry and they are two relics.
MYSTERIOUS RELICS
Cypher’s Pistols:
BOOM.
Captain cherry picker who ignores precedence.
EACH of his pistols has IT'S OWN entry.
You are confusing entry with profile. "Cypher's Pistols:" is the entry. They are relics.
They are a Relic,
And have the Individual listing for either half of it.
The reason I count it as a single relic is if it was a normal Relic that could be Acquired by a Commander.. it would be a single item purchase.
Gloves of Ultramar is another Single relic that has two halves
Emperor's Sword and Hand of Domination is a third
The difference between the 3 is that Cypher's Pistols and Gloves of Ultramar has rules very clear written rules for using them as individual items in Close Combat. Where for the Sword and hand you have to try and justify a very ambiguous argument for the Extra Attack that is at odds with every other case of Dual weapons that doesn't explicitly says can are two weapons for CC purposes
Aka no PRECEDENCE. I will bang this war drum until you provide precedence, you cannot use ambiguous language as justification for itself. As mentioned all other instances are explicitly clear.
JNAProductions wrote: But they also prove you wrong. Each other relic that counts as two weapons CLEARLY STATES, whether by outright saying "This is a pair of weapons" or by having separate profiles.
Incorrect. No where in the rules for the Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of the Dominion are they stated as counting as a single weapon (or relic for that matter).
Precedence shows in every case that there is an explicit assertion of a singular weapon, e.g. "a combined pair".
Cypher's pistols has a single entry and they are two relics.
MYSTERIOUS RELICS
Cypher’s Pistols:
BOOM.
Captain cherry picker who ignores precedence.
EACH of his pistols has IT'S OWN entry.
You are confusing entry with profile. "Cypher's Pistols:" is the entry. They are relics.
They are a Relic,
And have the Individual listing for either half of it.
The reason I count it as a single relic is if it was a normal Relic that could be Acquired by a Commander.. it would be a single item purchase.
Gloves of Ultramar is another Single relic that has two halves
Emperor's Sword and Hand of Domination is a third
The difference between the 3 is that Cypher's Pistols and Gloves of Ultramar has rules very clear written rules for using them as individual items in Close Combat. Where for the Sword and hand you have to try and justify a very ambiguous argument for the Extra Attack that is at odds with every other case of Dual weapons that doesn't explicitly says can are two weapons for CC purposes
Aka no PRECEDENCE. I will bang this war drum until you provide precedence, you cannot use ambiguous language as justification for itself. As mentioned all other instances are explicitly clear.
LOL. Slow down. Make sure you keep track of the points brought up and who you are addressing.
Also, please don't just spam us with you disruptive comments that aren't adding anything to the discussion. It's against the rules and makes your side of the argument look like its populated with immature posters.
But yeah, With the rules trend of cases of double items clearly stating if they are 2 things, where in this case it isn't I am against the +1Atk
Nothing wrong with your line of reasoning. It just isn't a RAW argument. It certainly is possible and maybe even likely that the rules writers simply forgot to add "as a combined pair". And I could easily see a FAQ upholding that they are "a combined pair".
But if we go strictly off the Rules As Written, we wind up with the profile doubly applied to the two weapons and therewith +1 A.
JNAProductions wrote: But they also prove you wrong. Each other relic that counts as two weapons CLEARLY STATES, whether by outright saying "This is a pair of weapons" or by having separate profiles.
Incorrect. No where in the rules for the Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of the Dominion are they stated as counting as a single weapon (or relic for that matter).
Precedence shows in every case that there is an explicit assertion of a singular weapon, e.g. "a combined pair".
Dude you are 100% wrong here. In the case of Cypher there are two profiles and it explicitly tells you that you either have two weapons of an extra attack. The issue is you bring up the combined part which you have to have two weapons in the first place to combine. Cyphers relic entry has two profiles one for each weapon, Tyranids have a profile for each weapon, every circumstance where two weapons are under a single entry you either have two profiles or explicit instructions for two weapons or an extra attack.
RG profile has NONE of these.
So you have NO precedence to determine he has two weapons from one relic entry. That is your assumption.
But if we go strictly off the Rules As Written, we wind up with the profile doubly applied to the two weapons and therewith +1 A.
but as pointed out by someone else.. Both of our RAW's are as valid as the other, depending on how you define 'Used Together'
in which case I argue my RAW is more valid when you take greater context into account
But yeah, With the rules trend of cases of double items clearly stating if they are 2 things, where in this case it isn't I am against the +1Atk
Nothing wrong with your line of reasoning. It just isn't a RAW argument. It certainly is possible and maybe even likely that the rules writers simply forgot to add "as a combined pair". And I could easily see a FAQ upholding that they are "a combined pair".
But if we go strictly off the Rules As Written, we wind up with the profile doubly applied to the two weapons and therewith +1 A.
RAW you are not told to doubly apply the profile and there is no precedence set to determine you can. You have previously claimed and alluded to being allowed to do this and you have be dodging this item specifically. The examples you have tried to provide AS precedence have all been shot down.
PROVE you can assume there are two weapons.
The title is fluff.
The sword is never referred to as existing outside of the title and a relic title is not a RAW factor.
But if we go strictly off the Rules As Written, we wind up with the profile doubly applied to the two weapons and therewith +1 A.
but as pointed out by someone else.. Both of our RAW's are as valid as the other, depending on how you define 'Used Together'
in which case I argue my RAW is more valid when you take greater context into account
"Used together" by itself means nothing. That's the problem for your argument. You are adding "counting as a single weapon" or "as a combined pair" to the rules. You are making a guess/assumption based on precedence. That's a RAI argument.
If we take "used together" as is then we have two weapons since "used together" does not in any way shape or form turn a plural into a singular. That's a RAW argument.
It's a false dichotomy though to rank a RAW argument necessarily over a RAI argument, especially in this case where it's reasonable to conclude that they simply forgot to add "as a combined pair".
col_impact wrote: "Used together" by itself means nothing. That's the problem for your argument. You are adding "counting as a single weapon" or "as a combined pair" to the rules. You are making a guess/assumption based on precedence. That's a RAI argument.
If we take "used together" as is then we have two weapons. That's a RAW argument.
But if you reverse what you just said, it is also as true to RAW
I am just also arguing going with the trend GW has had with the rules of dual weapons relics and such, I am certain that I have the RAW and you are the RAI
As the other example can I can think off is Gloves of Ultramar in which case you don't apply the shooting profile twice as they are used together to create a singular
But if we go strictly off the Rules As Written, we wind up with the profile doubly applied to the two weapons and therewith +1 A.
but as pointed out by someone else.. Both of our RAW's are as valid as the other, depending on how you define 'Used Together'
in which case I argue my RAW is more valid when you take greater context into account
"Used together" by itself means nothing. That's the problem for your argument. You are adding "counting as a single weapon" or "as a combined pair" to the rules. You are making a guess/assumption based on precedence. That's a RAI argument.
If we take "used together" as is then we have two weapons. That's a RAW argument.
It is not a RAW argument.
Every case explicitly says which weapons it refers too. This just says "these weapons" it is ambiguous and it actually does NOT allow a RAW interpretation. RAW that is functional in all other similar situations expressly identifies WHICH weapons it is talking about. RAW this profile is illegible.
col_impact wrote: "Used together" by itself means nothing. That's the problem for your argument. You are adding "counting as a single weapon" or "as a combined pair" to the rules. You are making a guess/assumption based on precedence. That's a RAI argument.
If we take "used together" as is then we have two weapons. That's a RAW argument.
But if you reverse what you just said, it is also as true to RAW
I am pretty sure "used together" by itself does not turn plural into singular. That's the problem of your argument, jumping from plural to singular. Mine doesn't have that problem.
I am just also arguing going with the trend GW has had with the rules of dual weapons relics and such, I am certain that I have the RAW and you are the RAI
As the other example can I can think off where they used, 'used together' is Gloves of Ultramar in which case you don't apply the shooting profile twice as they are used together to create a singular
In the case of the Gloves of Ultramar it is stated as a "combined pair". 'Pair' is single. "Used together" doesn't make a singular.
Ceann wrote: You assume it isn't singular. You have no precedence to assume you have two weapons.
Except in the very rule itself it says "these weapons". Hence why my argument is RAW.
To summarize:
Spoiler:
The rules refer to "the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" in the plural separably as "these weapons". Plural.
"Used together" does not mean that the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion count as a single weapon.
They are called out as "these weapons" and when they are used together they are still considered weapons and not as a single weapon. No rule designates them as counting as a single weapon so they remain two weapons.
"Used together" means simply that they are used at the same time in combat.
The profiles reference "this weapon" and so must reference the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion separably since the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion collectively are referred to as 'weapons' and as 'relics' and never as weapon or relic.
Moreover, the Hand is explicitly discussed as being separably a 'weapon' and able to be used as both a melee and as a ranged weapon.
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
Because the Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon, this proves that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself, and it disproves any argument that there is somehow a 'combined weapon profile'.
If there was some 'combined weapon' then the Hand of Dominion could not itself be a melee weapon. The melee profile provided would have been used to give the combined weapon the melee type and not the Hand of Dominion.
Since the Hand is definitively a melee weapon, this means that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet has been separably applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
This in turn means that both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are melee weapons.
This in turn means that we satisfy the rule that grants an a model an additional attack for having two or more melee weapons.
Ceann wrote: You assume it isn't singular. You have no precedence to assume you have two weapons.
Except in the very rule itself it says "these weapons". Hence why my argument is RAW.
Yes and in all circumstances the profiles explicitly tell you WHICH weapons it refers too. This profile does not. I could say it means this chain sword and that lasipistol. Or this meltagun and that power sword, these grenades and a missile launcher. IT DOESN'T specify. Every other multi weapon on a single entry has a profile for each or states that there are two specific weapons.
None of those are on RG leaving you to assume and assuming is RAI.
If you have to make an assumption, even a logical one, is not RAW.
Oh god, this is the Canoptek Harvest debacle all over again
Gotta give it you though Col, your expansive knowledge of the rules, uncanny knack for finding ways to get the most out of them and arguing them extensively while staying cohesive and coherent is very impressive. (Not intended to be sarcastic in any way )
Oh dear, I go and sleep a few hours and we have another couple of pages on this carousel?
Going by the previous points argued in this thread, I think that the main reason for this going in circles is a failure to differentiate defined terms from general language. By ignoring the requirements made in the definition of terms and ignoring context, it is possible to claim things that are not supported by the rules or cannot be used with the rulesset. At the same time, clearly false claims are thrown out (i.e. sword and hand are not one relic) to muddy the water a bit more. Failure to actually stick to any point or engage with the arguments leaves this going nowhere on the issue and only drags this out for popcorn value.
Stephanius wrote: Oh dear, I go and sleep a few hours and we have another couple of pages on this carousel?
Going by the previous points argued in this thread, I think that the main reason for this going in circles is a failure to differentiate defined terms from general language. By ignoring the requirements made in the definition of terms and ignoring context, it is possible to claim things that are not supported by the rules or cannot be used with the rulesset. At the same time, clearly false claims are thrown out (i.e. sword and hand are not one relic) to muddy the water a bit more. Failure to actually stick to any point or engage with the arguments leaves this going nowhere on the issue and only drags this out for popcorn value.
*looks at who is making those arguments* Yeah, it is standard form for that Ignored One. At least he hasn't lied as far as I can tell, yet. That makes it one of his more intelligent debates he's had.
Stephanius wrote: Oh dear, I go and sleep a few hours and we have another couple of pages on this carousel?
Spoiler:
Well, hardheaded people gonna be hardheaded. It's a simple rule, even with it being cleared by GW staff themselves... But no "It's not a FAQ."
Id hardly consider GW PR team to be rules experts or a deciding factor. What they said means nothing unless it's FAQ'd officially.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ceann wrote: You assume it isn't singular. You have no precedence to assume you have two weapons.
The Ultramar explicitly identify each weapon.
Cypher explicitly identifies each weapon.
You assume it is singular when we have shown you 3 examples that it may not be due to poorly written rules.
1. Emperors sword AND the hand of dominion under relics of ultramar
2. The sentence talking about the profile states in mentions weapons plural no singular
3. in the ranged profile it states that hand can be used in melee. It doesnt say the hand and sword.
Again I understand that RAI it can swing both ways but RAW he has two weapons that share one profile and no where does it say they are combined, single or act as one.
Stephanius wrote: Oh dear, I go and sleep a few hours and we have another couple of pages on this carousel?
Spoiler:
Well, hardheaded people gonna be hardheaded. It's a simple rule, even with it being cleared by GW staff themselves... But no "It's not a FAQ."
Id hardly consider GW PR team to be rules experts or a deciding factor. What they said means nothing unless it's FAQ'd officially.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ceann wrote: You assume it isn't singular. You have no precedence to assume you have two weapons.
The Ultramar explicitly identify each weapon.
Cypher explicitly identifies each weapon.
You assume it is singular when we have shown you 3 examples that it may not be due to poorly written rules.
1. Emperors sword AND the hand of dominion under relics of ultramar
2. The sentence talking about the profile states in mentions weapons plural no singular
3. in the ranged profile it states that hand can be used in melee. It doesnt say the hand and sword.
That is irrelevant. The title of a relic means nothing, it is fluff. As I have said on repeat from the beginning. All other instances of two weapons on one profile either have two profiles, explicitly name and identify the weapons, or state that +1A is granted. Which includes the Ultramar, Cyphers pistols, Tyranids weapons, the list goes on. There is no precedence to assume you have two weapons and "these weapons" does not tell you what weapons it refers too.
1. His relic entry states none of these things and you cannot use the item name to make an assumption that there are two separate items.
2. WHAT weapons, it doesn't tell you, so you have to make an assumption, once you make as assumption, even a logical one you are doing RAI.
3. It also never says the sword even exists, nothing does besides a title and a title is not a relevant factor for RAW.
ZooPants, those statements are either false or misleading. For ease of reading, I'll put rule keywords in BOLD TYPE.
ZooPants wrote: 1. Emperors sword AND the hand of dominion under relics of ultramar
There is one (1) relic entry with the name "The Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominon".
Your statement makes it sound like there are two separate entries which is demonstrably not the case.
(There are also no sword and hand sub-headings within the relic entry.)
ZooPants wrote: 2. The sentence talking about the profile states in mentions weapons plural no singular
That would be weapons as in bits and in the name of the relic, not weapons as in WEAPONS defined in the BRB, which is clear in the context.
If you don't understand the difference between the the word weapon and the defined term WEAPON, you should probably read up on it before participating further.
ZooPants wrote: 3. in the ranged profile it states that hand can be used in melee. It doesnt say the hand and sword.
Yes, but neither does it make the hand useable as a melee weapon. MELEE WEAPON is a weapon type, not a defined WEAPON. The defined term for a generic melee type weapon is CLOSE COMBAT WEAPON.
ZooPants wrote: Again I understand that RAI it can swing both ways but RAW he has two weapons that share one profile and no where does it say they are combined, single or act as one.
It does say together, which is logically equivalent to combined AND logically opposed to separate/individual melee profile assignement claims.
There is no such thing as a defined term "combined" in the rules so there is no justification for insisting on the use of that word over it's synonyms.
Attempts to construct some alternative explanation what combined might mean here (dual-whielding) fall flat on their face since there isn't any such thing in the rules.
Essentially, the +1A argument only works when you ignore tenet #1:
1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate. For more detail on how to actually create a logically supported conclusion, please read this article on how to have an intelligent rules debate.
Stephanius wrote: ZooPants, those statements are either false or misleading. For ease of reading, I'll put rule keywords in BOLD TYPE.
ZooPants wrote: 1. Emperors sword AND the hand of dominion under relics of ultramar
There is one (1) relic entry with the name "The Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominon".
Your statement makes it sound like there are two separate entries which is demonstrably not the case.
(There are also no sword and hand sub-headings within the relic entry.)
ZooPants wrote: 2. The sentence talking about the profile states in mentions weapons plural no singular
That would be weapons as in bits and in the name of the relic, not weapons as in WEAPONS defined in the BRB, which is clear in the context.
If you don't understand the difference between the the word weapon and the defined term WEAPON, you should probably read up on it before participating further.
ZooPants wrote: 3. in the ranged profile it states that hand can be used in melee. It doesnt say the hand and sword.
Yes, but neither does it make the hand useable as a melee weapon. MELEE WEAPON is a weapon type, not a defined WEAPON. The defined term for a generic melee type weapon is CLOSE COMBAT WEAPON.
ZooPants wrote: Again I understand that RAI it can swing both ways but RAW he has two weapons that share one profile and no where does it say they are combined, single or act as one.
It does say together, which is logically equivalent to combined AND logically opposed to separate/individual melee profile assignement claims.
There is no such thing as a defined term "combined" in the rules so there is no justification for insisting on the use of that word over it's synonyms.
Attempts to construct some alternative explanation what combined might mean here (dual-whielding) fall flat on their face since there isn't any such thing in the rules.
Essentially, the +1A argument only works when you ignore tenet #1:
1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate. For more detail on how to actually create a logically supported conclusion, please read this article on how to have an intelligent rules debate.
ZooPants, those statements are either false or misleading. For ease of reading, I'll put rule keywords in BOLD TYPE.
ZooPants wrote:
1. Emperors sword AND the hand of dominion under relics of ultramar
There is one (1) relic entry with the name "The Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominon".
Your statement makes it sound like there are two separate entries which is demonstrably not the case.
(There are also no sword and hand sub-headings within the relic entry.)
ZooPants wrote:
2. The sentence talking about the profile states in mentions weapons plural no singular
That would be weapons as in bits and in the name of the relic, not weapons as in WEAPONS defined in the BRB, which is clear in the context.
If you don't understand the difference between the the word weapon and the defined term WEAPON, you should probably read up on it before participating further.
Its not misleading or false at all its whats on the data slate.
I understand what your saying and I agree that it can be viewed as one entry since they bundled it and the stats together under one profile. But the misleading part is they speak of two weapons through out and make mention of them plural. If the intention was to use as one weapon they should have said this weapon and not refereed to it as weapons for sake of fluff and bits in a data slate.
Again let me state I agree that RAI they want this to be one weapon with NO bonus attack.
ZooPants wrote:
3. in the ranged profile it states that hand can be used in melee. It doesnt say the hand and sword.
Yes, but neither does it make the hand useable as a melee weapon. MELEE WEAPON is a weapon type, not a defined WEAPON. The defined term for a generic melee type weapon is CLOSE COMBAT WEAPON.
Again gray area, do i think RAI they are trying to separate gun and hand? Yes. Could they have done a better job of doing that? Yes. Does it leave it open to interpretation? Yes. Since they say in the data slate that these weapons are used together using the profile below meaning two weapons share the same stats. They should have said some thing along the lines as "The emperors sword and the hand of dominion" can still be used in melee etc
ZooPants wrote:
Again I understand that RAI it can swing both ways but RAW he has two weapons that share one profile and no where does it say they are combined, single or act as one.
It does say together, which is logically equivalent to combined AND logically opposed to separate/individual melee profile assignement claims.
There is no such thing as a defined term "combined" in the rules so there is no justification for insisting on the use of that word over it's synonyms.
Attempts to construct some alternative explanation what combined might mean here (dual-whielding) fall flat on their face since there isn't any such thing in the rules.
Essentially, the +1A argument only works when you ignore tenet #1:
Again logically is irrelevant to what is intended vs what is written.
You have your view and I have mine. Nothing is wrong with either other then we happen to disagree. But as i had mention maaaany pages back when i started this thread i do agree he doesnt need the +1 attack nor did I play him with it.
And even more entertainment, cos when the FaQ comes out, if it rules that it's only one weapon, somebody will be on here saying that they were right all along and that GW changed the rules.
No contradiction at all. We are not given a profile for the Hand when used separately. We are only given a profile for the profile when the relics are used together, and it is based on that profile. You can use the hand as a ranged weapon using the profile below, or you can use the hand as part of "The Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" using the profile that is provided for that.
There is a contradiction. The rule statement says the Hand is a melee weapon. Stephanius said the Hand is not a melee weapon. He clarified earlier that the the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon but that the Hand is not a melee weapon.
Okay, if the Hand is a melee weapon, provide the melee profile for using the Hand by itself. Also, provide the melee profile for using the Sword by itself. As many people have asked you to. If you can't, then you only have the profile for using them together. Using the profile for the two together, the profile would need to tell you if you get a +1 attack for two weapons. Since it doesn't say that, you don't.
Lots of confrontation in your answer. I am looking for straightforward answers.
Spoiler:
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
The rule statement says the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon.
I accept the Rules As Written that the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon.
Do you accept the Rules As Written that the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon?
Just because you see "lots of confrontation" in my answer does not mean the answer is not straightforward. It also doesn't mean you should dodge the issues brought up. Perhaps there's "lots of confrontation" because you are consistently ignoring questions and requests for specific rules (beyond the one about using the Hand as a melee weapon and a ranged weapon). Specifically, show us the profile for the Hand of Dominion by itself. Show us the profile of the Emperor's Sword by itself. You have to show that not only do they count as two weapons, but that they both count as weapons that, when yused together, entitle you to +1 attack. You cannot prove that from your "It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn. " Is the Hand a specialist weapon? Or is the Emperor's Sword a specialist weapon? You've totally ignored so far what kind of weapon the Sword is (if it's indeed treated as a separate weapon). Where's the statement to say that the Emperor's Sword is a melee weapon? Where's the profile that shows it's not a specialist weapon by itself? (Then again, where's the profile to show that the Hand by itself isn't a specialist weapon which keeps the Emperor's Sword from granting +1 attack?) Given that they referred us to a combined profile when using them together, they did not mention if the Hand is a Specialist Weapon - it can be used as a melee weapon but still be a specialist weapon which keeps you from getting +1 attack without a second specialist weapon. You have to show us proof that you have permission to gain the +1 attack. You have yet to demonstrate that you have permission.
No contradiction at all. We are not given a profile for the Hand when used separately. We are only given a profile for the profile when the relics are used together, and it is based on that profile. You can use the hand as a ranged weapon using the profile below, or you can use the hand as part of "The Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" using the profile that is provided for that.
There is a contradiction. The rule statement says the Hand is a melee weapon. Stephanius said the Hand is not a melee weapon. He clarified earlier that the the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon but that the Hand is not a melee weapon.
Okay, if the Hand is a melee weapon, provide the melee profile for using the Hand by itself. Also, provide the melee profile for using the Sword by itself. As many people have asked you to. If you can't, then you only have the profile for using them together. Using the profile for the two together, the profile would need to tell you if you get a +1 attack for two weapons. Since it doesn't say that, you don't.
Lots of confrontation in your answer. I am looking for straightforward answers.
Spoiler:
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
The rule statement says the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon.
I accept the Rules As Written that the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon.
Do you accept the Rules As Written that the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon?
Just because you see "lots of confrontation" in my answer does not mean the answer is not straightforward. It also doesn't mean you should dodge the issues brought up. Perhaps there's "lots of confrontation" because you are consistently ignoring questions and requests for specific rules (beyond the one about using the Hand as a melee weapon and a ranged weapon). Specifically, show us the profile for the Hand of Dominion by itself. Show us the profile of the Emperor's Sword by itself. You have to show that not only do they count as two weapons, but that they both count as weapons that, when yused together, entitle you to +1 attack. You cannot prove that from your "It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn. " Is the Hand a specialist weapon? Or is the Emperor's Sword a specialist weapon? You've totally ignored so far what kind of weapon the Sword is (if it's indeed treated as a separate weapon). Where's the statement to say that the Emperor's Sword is a melee weapon? Where's the profile that shows it's not a specialist weapon by itself? (Then again, where's the profile to show that the Hand by itself isn't a specialist weapon which keeps the Emperor's Sword from granting +1 attack?) Given that they referred us to a combined profile when using them together, they did not mention if the Hand is a Specialist Weapon - it can be used as a melee weapon but still be a specialist weapon which keeps you from getting +1 attack without a second specialist weapon. You have to show us proof that you have permission to gain the +1 attack. You have yet to demonstrate that you have permission.
This exactly what I have been saying the entire time. They have demonstrated no precedence to make the assumption that there are two weapons or which weapons that "these" actually are. The provided profile for RG is unplayable RAW, it requires RAI assumptions to even be played with.
n0t_u wrote: Don't make fun of the guy, I'm genuinely impressed.
I'm honestly not making fun of anyone.
When you have seen sooooo many of these types of threads, once it becomes apparent that one side or the other will not budge or acknowledge that the other side has a valid position it become entrenched and degenerates much like this one. An established precedent from this is that when GW (eventually) gets round to FaQing the entire mess the 'loosing' side will invariably state that GW changed the rules rather than say they were mistaken in their interpretation.
Which is a shame because there can be a lot that you can learn from these types of discussions.
JNAProductions wrote: But they also prove you wrong. Each other relic that counts as two weapons CLEARLY STATES, whether by outright saying "This is a pair of weapons" or by having separate profiles.
Incorrect. No where in the rules for the Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of the Dominion are they stated as counting as a single weapon (or relic for that matter).
Precedence shows in every case that there is an explicit assertion of a singular weapon, e.g. "a combined pair".
Sigh.
The precedence is the fact that there are OTHER such 'paired' relics that use a single profile (and weapons) that explicitly state they are either A - a pair (through use of the term 'each') or B - grant an additional attack.
The Gauntlets of Ultramar (Codex Space Marines, Marneus Calgar) - states Each
The Raven's Talons (Codex Space Marines, Captain Shrike) - states Each
Swiftstrike and Murder (Angels of Death Supplement, Raven Guard) - states Each
The Blades of Reason (Codex Dark Angels, Chaplain Asmodai) - Does not grant additional attack or state each though there are 'many' blades
The Khaidesi Haeomvores (Codex Haemonculus Covens supplemnt) - Does not grant the additional attack for 2 or more weapons though clearly plural.
Slaughter and Carnage (Codex Chaos Daemons - Skarbrand) - Explicitly provides 2 profiles for the weapons even though they are one choice.
The Whips of Agony (Codex Chaos Daemons - Daemonic Incursion edition) - Does not grant the additional attack though it is a pair of whips.
The Claws of the Black Hunt (Traitor Legions supplement, Night Lords) - States it is a 'pair of melee weapons' and uses 'Each' terminology regarding the profile.
Cyper's Pistols (Gathering Storm III) - Single choice, explicitly provides 2 profiles for the weapons.
So, what sort of precedence are we looking for?
You can't go 'But those aren't SM relics' because a significant portion of them ARE.
We've examples of relics specifically stating 'Each' and utilising the same weapon profile or providing TWO profiles. In all cases these are 'single choice' combined Relics that function together as a pair. In all cases they either explicitly state they are treated as 2 seperate weapons or provide two seperate profiles to satisfy the requirements for +1 attack for the extra melee weapon.
JNAProductions wrote: You know, I'm going to agree, the RAW is ambiguous. While the intent is clear, the EXPLICIT WORDING is not.
So RAW, you cannot tell if it is one weapon or two.
I repeat:
RAW, you cannot tell if it is one weapon or two.
So, we have to move on to RAI, which would follow precedence, of which it supports them being one weapon for the purposes of the rules.
In addition, Col, would you actually play Guilliman as having two weapons? Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?
Personally I would rather Gulliman did not have an extra attack. I play Necrons.
I am not arguing for the sake of arguing. I am not arguing to try to get an advantage. I am arguing to try to get at the truth of the matter from a RAW perspective.
The RAW indicates plural and nothing overrides that plural. So if we are truthful about what the rules tell us then we proceed to accept that we are dealing with "weapons."
Is anyone able to point to anything in the rules themselves that overrides the plural "these weapons" with some notion of "counts as a single weapon"? If not, then we accept the rules tell us "weapons."
The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together, using the profile below.
Exactly where in this rule statement are we told that "these weapons" count as a single Weapon?
Why does it matter?
I present you with a Space Marine armed with a Power Fist and a Power Sword. Both are listed as melee weapons. Does he get a +1 attack bonus for two weapons? No, because the power fist is a specialist weapon. You need to know the profile of each of the two weapons to know if you can get the bonus atttack if using two of them together. You don't have profiles for the individual weapons. We are given a profile for when they are used together. It does not state that "each" weapon has the profile below, as do the Gauntlets of Ultramar and other things. Please provide the proof that you have two weapons that are eligible for the +1 bonus when used together; merely saying you have two melee weapons is not sufficient proof (as the Powerfist/ Power sword combo proves).
JNAProductions wrote: You know, I'm going to agree, the RAW is ambiguous. While the intent is clear, the EXPLICIT WORDING is not.
So RAW, you cannot tell if it is one weapon or two.
I repeat:
RAW, you cannot tell if it is one weapon or two.
So, we have to move on to RAI, which would follow precedence, of which it supports them being one weapon for the purposes of the rules.
In addition, Col, would you actually play Guilliman as having two weapons? Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?
Personally I would rather Gulliman did not have an extra attack. I play Necrons.
I am not arguing for the sake of arguing. I am not arguing to try to get an advantage. I am arguing to try to get at the truth of the matter from a RAW perspective.
The RAW indicates plural and nothing overrides that plural. So if we are truthful about what the rules tell us then we proceed to accept that we are dealing with "weapons."
Is anyone able to point to anything in the rules themselves that overrides the plural "these weapons" with some notion of "counts as a single weapon"? If not, then we accept the rules tell us "weapons."
And again, insisting on "weapons" without providing any proof that the weapons involved make the model eligible for the +1 attack bonus if those weapons are used together. Please, provide the proof that the "weapons" qualify for the bonus.
The precedence is the fact that there are OTHER such 'paired' relics that use a single profile (and weapons) that explicitly state they are either A - a pair (through use of the term 'each') or B - grant an additional attack.
Right. And this is a case where we have "weapons", "a profile" and NO explicit statement that they are a "pair" or otherwise "counting as single weapon".
The precedent is that the explicit statement is present. So why did the rules writers leave out such a statement in this unprecedented case?
In this case, we simply have "weapons" and a "profile". We also know that the Hand winds up its own melee profile which could be only be possible if the melee profile were doubly applied to the Hand and the Sword and not applied to some hypothetical "combined weapon".
So we go with double application as that's the only way supported solely by RAW.
Right. And this is a case where we have "weapons", "a profile" and NO explicit statement that they are a "pair" or otherwise "counting as single weapon".
The precedent is that the explicit statement is present. So why did the rules writers leave out such a statement in this unprecedented case?
In this case, we simply have "weapons" and a "profile". We also know that the Hand winds up its own melee profile which could be only be possible if the melee profile were doubly applied to the Hand and the Sword and not applied to some hypothetical "combined weapon".
So we go with double application as that's the only way supported solely by RAW.
You are selectively ignoring the examples where there is NOT a statement or permission to grant them an extra attack - such as the Blades of Reason, the Haemovores or the Whips of Agony.
The way RAW works is that you do exactly what you are told to do. If you cannot do that then you must make assumptions. Once you make an assumption "such as doubly applying the profile" you are making a RAI case. The fact of the matter is that the rules are not up to a RAW standard.
You are selectively ignoring the examples where there is NOT a statement or permission to grant them an extra attack
Any statement to grant them an extra attack would be redundant with permission already provided. The rule in the BRB grants the extra attack.
Spoiler:
if a model has two or more Melee weapons he gains +1 attack in close combat.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ceann wrote: Once you make an assumption "such as doubly applying the profile" you are making a RAI case.
Doubly applying the profile is not an assumption. It's completely allowable in the rules.
Spoiler:
Every weapon has a profile.
notice it does NOT say
Spoiler:
Every Weapon has a profile.
Since the rule states "these weapons" we have no choice but to come up with a profile for each of "these weapons" since "every weapon has a profile". The rules provide us with an unnamed profile so we have no problem providing "every weapon" of "these weapons" with a profile.
n0t_u wrote: Don't make fun of the guy, I'm genuinely impressed.
I'm honestly not making fun of anyone.
When you have seen sooooo many of these types of threads, once it becomes apparent that one side or the other will not budge or acknowledge that the other side has a valid position it become entrenched and degenerates much like this one. An established precedent from this is that when GW (eventually) gets round to FaQing the entire mess the 'loosing' side will invariably state that GW changed the rules rather than say they were mistaken in their interpretation.
Which is a shame because there can be a lot that you can learn from these types of discussions.
Cheers
Andrew
Ohh I see, I generally have avoided this section. Yeh it seems like a self limiting shame for people to simply dismiss it like that instead of trying to figure out how it got to that ruling cause that'd probably help them know which way GW would likely swing on later things too. If there's any consistency to it.
You are selectively ignoring the examples where there is NOT a statement or permission to grant them an extra attack
Any statement to grant them an extra attack would be redundant with permission already provided. The rule in the BRB grants the extra attack.
Spoiler:
if a model has two or more Melee weapons he gains +1 attack in close combat.
Ok lets start here. In order for a model to have the bonus attack it must have 2 or more Melee weapons, correct?
How do we know if a weapon is a Melee weapon?
You are selectively ignoring the examples where there is NOT a statement or permission to grant them an extra attack
Any statement to grant them an extra attack would be redundant with permission already provided. The rule in the BRB grants the extra attack.
Spoiler:
if a model has two or more Melee weapons he gains +1 attack in close combat.
Ok lets start here. In order for a model to have the bonus attack it must have 2 or more Melee weapons, correct?
How do we know if a weapon is a Melee weapon?
The weapon has a profile applied with the Melee type, such as this one:
Range (-) Strength (10) AP (1) Type (Melee, Armourbane, Concussion, Soul Blaze, Touch of the Emperor, Whirling Flame)
You are selectively ignoring the examples where there is NOT a statement or permission to grant them an extra attack
Any statement to grant them an extra attack would be redundant with permission already provided. The rule in the BRB grants the extra attack.
Spoiler:
if a model has two or more Melee weapons he gains +1 attack in close combat.
Ok lets start here. In order for a model to have the bonus attack it must have 2 or more Melee weapons, correct?
How do we know if a weapon is a Melee weapon?
The weapon has a profile applied with the Melee type, such as this one:
Range (-) Strength (10) AP (1) Type (Melee, Armourbane, Concussion, Soul Blaze, Touch of the Emperor, Whirling Flame)
Yes. Melta bombs are grenades. Grenades that have a profile are Melee weapons by virtue of being grenades.
Spoiler:
A model can use such a grenade as a Melee weapon, but can only ever make one attack, regardless of the number of Attacks on its profile or any bonuses.
Further,
Spoiler:
If the weapon’s range contains a ‘-’, it is (unless otherwise stated) a Melee weapon.
Grenades without profiles are not necessarily Melee weapons.
Spoiler:
Some grenades do not have a profile. Any effects that they have will be covered in their special rules. Unless specifically stated otherwise, these grenades cannot be thrown or used as a Melee weapon.
You are selectively ignoring the examples where there is NOT a statement or permission to grant them an extra attack
Any statement to grant them an extra attack would be redundant with permission already provided. The rule in the BRB grants the extra attack.
Spoiler:
if a model has two or more Melee weapons he gains +1 attack in close combat.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ceann wrote: Once you make an assumption "such as doubly applying the profile" you are making a RAI case.
Doubly applying the profile is not an assumption. It's completely allowable in the rules.
Spoiler:
Every weapon has a profile.
notice it does NOT say
Spoiler:
Every Weapon has a profile.
Since the rule states "these weapons" we have no choice but to come up with a profile for each of "these weapons" since "every weapon has a profile". The rules provide us with an unnamed profile so we have no problem providing "every weapon" of "these weapons" with a profile.
Every known profile with two weapons explicitly states and identifies the weapons it is referring too. When this says "these" weapons you are forced to assume what it is referencing, because it does not specifically tell you. Once you make an assumption you are doing RAI. Again, you have no precedence do doubly apply the profile, you are assuming you are supposed too as we are not told to do so anywhere.
Yes. Melta bombs are grenades. Grenades that have a profile are Melee weapons by virtue of being grenades.
Spoiler:
A model can use such a grenade as a Melee weapon, but can only ever make one attack, regardless of the number of Attacks on its profile or any bonuses.
Further,
Spoiler:
If the weapon’s range contains a ‘-’, it is (unless otherwise stated) a Melee weapon.
Grenades without profiles are not necessarily Melee weapons.
Spoiler:
Some grenades do not have a profile. Any effects that they have will be covered in their special rules. Unless specifically stated otherwise, these grenades cannot be thrown or used as a Melee weapon.
So if a model has a chainsword and melta bombs (and no other melee weapons) does it get a bonus attack?
Yes. Melta bombs are grenades. Grenades that have a profile are Melee weapons by virtue of being grenades.
Spoiler:
A model can use such a grenade as a Melee weapon, but can only ever make one attack, regardless of the number of Attacks on its profile or any bonuses.
Further,
Spoiler:
If the weapon’s range contains a ‘-’, it is (unless otherwise stated) a Melee weapon.
Grenades without profiles are not necessarily Melee weapons.
Spoiler:
Some grenades do not have a profile. Any effects that they have will be covered in their special rules. Unless specifically stated otherwise, these grenades cannot be thrown or used as a Melee weapon.
So if a model has a chainsword and melta bombs (and no other melee weapons) does it get a bonus attack?
No. It would except the grenade rule specifically overrides and makes it so the model can only ever make one attack if the melee profile for the grenade is chosen. So however many normal attacks + 1 bonus attack becomes one attack per grenade rule.
Spoiler:
A model can use such a grenade as a Melee weapon, but can only ever make one attack, regardless of the number of Attacks on its profile or any bonuses.
Are we dealing with grenades in the case of Robute? If not, then why would you think the grenade rule applies?
Yes. Melta bombs are grenades. Grenades that have a profile are Melee weapons by virtue of being grenades.
Spoiler:
A model can use such a grenade as a Melee weapon, but can only ever make one attack, regardless of the number of Attacks on its profile or any bonuses.
Further,
Spoiler:
If the weapon’s range contains a ‘-’, it is (unless otherwise stated) a Melee weapon.
Grenades without profiles are not necessarily Melee weapons.
Spoiler:
Some grenades do not have a profile. Any effects that they have will be covered in their special rules. Unless specifically stated otherwise, these grenades cannot be thrown or used as a Melee weapon.
So if a model has a chainsword and melta bombs (and no other melee weapons) does it get a bonus attack?
No. It would except the grenade rule specifically overrides and makes it so the model can only ever make one attack if the melee profile for the grenade is chosen. So however many normal attacks + 1 bonus attack becomes one attack per grenade rule.
Spoiler:
A model can use such a grenade as a Melee weapon, but can only ever make one attack, regardless of the number of Attacks on its profile or any bonuses.
Are we dealing with grenades in the case of Robute? If not, then why would you think the grenade rule applies?
But according to your interpretation in RG rules that marine with Chainsword and Grenade have 2x capable melee weapons and he should get +1 attack on assault due having a 2nd melee weapon (the grenade) ?
So if a model has a chainsword and melta bombs (and no other melee weapons) does it get a bonus attack?
No. It would except the grenade rule specifically overrides and makes it so the model can only ever make one attack if the melee profile for the grenade is chosen. So however many normal attacks + 1 bonus attack becomes one attack per grenade rule.
Spoiler:
A model can use such a grenade as a Melee weapon, but can only ever make one attack, regardless of the number of Attacks on its profile or any bonuses.
Are we dealing with grenades in the case of Robute? If not, then why would you think the grenade rule applies?
But according to your interpretation in RG rules that marine with Chainsword and Grenade have 2x capable melee weapons and he should get +1 attack on assault due having a 2nd melee weapon (the grenade) ?
The grenade rule actively takes all the normal attacks and the bonus attack and turns the number of attacks into 1 if the melee profile for the grenade is chosen. The bonus attack and the normal attacks are being overridden.
So the grenade rule obviously leads to an entirely different resolution than a simple case of 2 melee weapons.
I am confused. Are you claiming that one of RG weapons is actually a grenade? That seems to be a totally baseless claim considering there is absolutely nothing on his datasheet to back up that claim. Would you care to clarify how one of RG's weapons is a grenade?
So if a model has a chainsword and melta bombs (and no other melee weapons) does it get a bonus attack?
No. It would except the grenade rule specifically overrides and makes it so the model can only ever make one attack if the melee profile for the grenade is chosen. So however many normal attacks + 1 bonus attack becomes one attack per grenade rule.
Spoiler:
A model can use such a grenade as a Melee weapon, but can only ever make one attack, regardless of the number of Attacks on its profile or any bonuses.
Are we dealing with grenades in the case of Robute? If not, then why would you think the grenade rule applies?
But according to your interpretation in RG rules that marine with Chainsword and Grenade have 2x capable melee weapons and he should get +1 attack on assault due having a 2nd melee weapon (the grenade) ?
The grenade rule actively takes all the normal attacks and the bonus attack and turns the number of attacks into 1 if the melee profile for the grenade is chosen. The bonus attack and the normal attacks are being overridden.
So the grenade rule obviously leads to an entirely different resolution than a simple case of 2 melee weapons.
I am confused. Are you claiming that one of RG weapons is actually a grenade? That seems to be a totally baseless claim considering there is absolutely nothing on his datasheet to back up that claim. Would you care to clarify how one of RG's weapons is a grenade?
No i'm saying that according to *your* interpretation of 2 melee weapons if a model equipped with chainsword and grenade choose to attack with the Chainsword gets an extra attack as you ignore the *grenade rule for melee*but Hey! can be used as a melee weapon on the same way you choose to ignore the Sword of the emperor and Hand of dominion rule that tells you both are used as a single weapon.
Ceann wrote: Can you point exactly where is this statement? "Doubly apply the profile" or " use this profile twice" I can't find that part.
The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon.
The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon as a profile" for "these weapons".
Ceann wrote: Can you point exactly where is this statement? "Doubly apply the profile" or " use this profile twice" I can't find that part.
He is literally going to repeat his phrase ad nauseam. He ignores any argument counter to his position. This thread should have been locked 2 mod warnings ago.
Ceann wrote: Can you point exactly where is this statement? "Doubly apply the profile" or " use this profile twice" I can't find that part.
He is literally going to repeat his phrase ad nauseam. He ignores any argument counter to his position. This thread should have been locked 2 mod warnings ago.
I backed up my argument fully with rules justification. Can you provide a counter argument that is fully backed up with rules justification? If you can, please share.
Audustum wrote: To be fair, everything you said about his argument can be applied to your own. That's kind of why you're going in circles.
I don't read Col_Ignored's posts anymore, as he is on Ignore for me, but it is actually quite common for him to completely ignore what is stated and repeat the exact same thing without ever acknowledging anything that was presented to counter in his argument. He has literally gone on for pages doing exactly that in several other threads. This leads to the people countering him to repeat themselves as he doesn't address the counters 90% of the time.
But yeah, you can consider any thread where he is the only one arguing after a page to be worth locking.
Fragile wrote: Already did, you ignored.
Others did, you ignore.
You hinge all your arguments on your interpretation of what words mean and not what the rules say. Then you repeat ad nauseam.
When shown arguments that show your wrong, you completely ignore. On this very page.
This thread became dead once you were the only person arguing for it as you will never admit your wrong and never just let it go.
They (and you) all got hung up on the actual rules citation part. I asked them (and you) to show the rules statement for "counts as a single weapon". Their (and your) arguments rely on a guess/assumption that the rule writers intended to say "counts as single weapon" but did not include it out of error. I have indicated in each case that they are welcome to their RAI arguments as I push forward with a RAW argument.
If you feel that I have somehow overlooked your properly rules supported argument, then by all means Fragile please re-post your argument. I am interested in any RAW argument you have to share.
My argument takes the rules as they are.
To summarize:
Spoiler:
The rules refer to "the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" in the plural separably as "these weapons". Plural.
"Used together" does not mean that the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion count as a single weapon.
They are called out as "these weapons" and when they are used together they are still considered weapons and not as a single weapon. No rule designates them as counting as a single weapon so they remain two weapons.
"Used together" means simply that they are used at the same time in combat.
The profiles reference "this weapon" and so must reference the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion separably since the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion collectively are referred to as 'weapons' and as 'relics' and never as weapon or relic.
The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons".
Moreover, the Hand is explicitly discussed as being separably a 'weapon' and able to be used as both a melee and as a ranged weapon.
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
Because the Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon, this proves that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself, and it disproves any argument that there is somehow a 'combined weapon profile'.
If there was some 'combined weapon' then the Hand of Dominion could not itself be a melee weapon. The melee profile provided would have been used to give the combined weapon the melee type and not the Hand of Dominion.
Since the Hand is definitively a melee weapon, this means that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet has been separably applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
This in turn means that both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are melee weapons.
This in turn means that we satisfy the rule that grants an a model an additional attack for having two or more melee weapons.
Your interpretation doesn't do anything. You cannot point to where it explicitly, VERBATIM, tells you to doubly apply the profile. You are drawing your own conclusion and applying it, which is an assumption. There is no precedence to apply a profile in this manner. You INVENTED this method simply to apply your argument and no one agrees with you.
Ceann wrote: Your interpretation doesn't do anything. You cannot point to where it explicitly, VERBATIM, tells you to doubly apply the profile. You are drawing your own conclusion and applying it, which is an assumption. There is no precedence to apply a profile in this manner. You INVENTED this method simply to apply your argument and no one agrees with you.
Wrong is wrong.
You claim I make an assumption. Point out what assumption I am making . . .
The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons".
Ok then, How does the Hand of Dominion have the Emperors Touch, Make Guilliman do a Spin-2-Win and Set People on Fire?
Oh wait it Cannot, The Sword does that
The Hand and Sword are used as ONE WEAPON, no ifs, no Buts
"Oh but it says these WEAPONS"
Yeah, it also says "Are used TOGETHER"
If GW wanted and INTENDED Guilliman to be able to use Both Weapons, they would have...
A. GIVEN HIM WEAPON MASTERY
B. Made the Sword as a Seperate profile to the Hand (E.G S:User AP2, Melee, Touch of the Emperor, Soul Blaze, Whirling Flame)
AndrewC wrote: And even more entertainment, cos when the FaQ comes out, if it rules that it's only one weapon, somebody will be on here saying that they were right all along and that GW changed the rules.
Cheers
Andrew
The "GW just ignored the RAW" or "GW just changed the rules" has been the age old last defiance to those on the losing end of a debate here for as long as I can remember.
Yes. Melta bombs are grenades. Grenades that have a profile are Melee weapons by virtue of being grenades.
Spoiler:
A model can use such a grenade as a Melee weapon, but can only ever make one attack, regardless of the number of Attacks on its profile or any bonuses.
Further,
Spoiler:
If the weapon’s range contains a ‘-’, it is (unless otherwise stated) a Melee weapon.
Grenades without profiles are not necessarily Melee weapons.
Spoiler:
Some grenades do not have a profile. Any effects that they have will be covered in their special rules. Unless specifically stated otherwise, these grenades cannot be thrown or used as a Melee weapon.
So if a model has a chainsword and melta bombs (and no other melee weapons) does it get a bonus attack?
No. It would except the grenade rule specifically overrides and makes it so the model can only ever make one attack if the melee profile for the grenade is chosen. So however many normal attacks + 1 bonus attack becomes one attack per grenade rule.
Spoiler:
A model can use such a grenade as a Melee weapon, but can only ever make one attack, regardless of the number of Attacks on its profile or any bonuses.
Are we dealing with grenades in the case of Robute? If not, then why would you think the grenade rule applies?
I'm talking about models in general. If a model has a chainsword (a weapon with the Melee type), and a melta bomb (which according to your interpretation of the rules is a melee weapon), and attacks with the chainsword why would he not get an extra attack? After all, he has two Melee weapons, that are neither Specialist weapons nor Two-handed weapons.
I'm just trying to figure out whether or not Roboute has two Melee weapons or not. I am neither for one side nor the other. The one point you've made that I disagree with is that both the Hand and the Sword have the profile listed in Gathering Storm. This is what your argument hinges on. This is what I've asked you to prove to me. Since you seem reluctant to do so, I figured I would try and reason out your argument, starting with the basic rules. I asked what is a Melee weapon? You replied "A weapon with a profile such as this", which is a fine example, but I want a written rule that tells me how to determine if weapon A, B or C is a Melee weapon.
BTW, if you are wondering why it takes me so long to respond, I have more important things then lurking on dakka (such as work and watching NLL games).
I'm talking about models in general. If a model has a chainsword (a weapon with the Melee type), and a melta bomb (which according to your interpretation of the rules is a melee weapon), and attacks with the chainsword why would he not get an extra attack? After all, he has two Melee weapons, that are neither Specialist weapons nor Two-handed weapons.
Grenades are a special case - when they are used in assault they have a melee profile chosen. When they are not used in assault they don't have a melee profile chosen. So if I am using a melta bomb in assault then I am using the melta bomb as the weapon I am attacking with (and not the chainsword). This would normally result in the normal number of attacks plus the bonus attack, but the grenade rule turns those attacks into one attack. If I am attacking with the chainsword then I am not assaulting with the melta bomb and so do not have that profile chosen.
Happyjew wrote: I'm just trying to figure out whether or not Roboute has two Melee weapons or not. I am neither for one side nor the other. The one point you've made that I disagree with is that both the Hand and the Sword have the profile listed in Gathering Storm. This is what your argument hinges on. This is what I've asked you to prove to me. Since you seem reluctant to do so . . .
I have been more than forthcoming with my RAW argument. Everything in my argument is substantiated by and proven by rules and makes no assumptions, and it has been posted several times.
In short . . .
The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons".
Longer form of argument . . .
Spoiler:
The rules refer to "the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" in the plural separably as "these weapons". Plural.
"Used together" does not mean that the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion count as a single weapon.
They are called out as "these weapons" and when they are used together they are still considered weapons and not as a single weapon. No rule designates them as counting as a single weapon so they remain two weapons.
"Used together" means simply that they are used at the same time in combat.
The profiles reference "this weapon" and so must reference the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion separably since the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion collectively are referred to as 'weapons' and as 'relics' and never as weapon or relic.
The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons".
Moreover, the Hand is explicitly discussed as being separably a 'weapon' and able to be used as both a melee and as a ranged weapon.
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
Because the Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon, this proves that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself, and it disproves any argument that there is somehow a 'combined weapon profile'.
If there was some 'combined weapon' then the Hand of Dominion could not itself be a melee weapon. The melee profile provided would have been used to give the combined weapon the melee type and not the Hand of Dominion.
Since the Hand is definitively a melee weapon, this means that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet has been separably applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
This in turn means that both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are melee weapons.
This in turn means that we satisfy the rule that grants an a model an additional attack for having two or more melee weapons.
The key thing for you to focus on is if the rules at any point actually say "count as a single weapon" or anything along those lines. If you cannot find such a statement then you have to accept what the rules actually tell us, which is that we are dealing with "weapons" in the plural. The omission of a line to the effect of "count as a single weapon" could be a mistake on the part of the rule writers, but arguing that there is a mistake in the rules is of course a RAI argument. So, press yourself to accept the omission as is and answer what do the rules standing entirely on their own tell us about the number of melee weapons and therewith whether or not Robute gets a bonus attack.
AndrewC wrote: And even more entertainment, cos when the FaQ comes out, if it rules that it's only one weapon, somebody will be on here saying that they were right all along and that GW changed the rules.
Cheers
Andrew
The "GW just ignored the RAW" or "GW just changed the rules" has been the age old last defiance to those on the losing end of a debate here for as long as I can remember.
Actually, I think the RAI argument that GW just made a mistake and forgot to add the critical line that these weapons "count as a single weapon" is a perfectly reasonable one. If they FAQ later that the weapons are 'a combined pair' then they are adding a line to the rules statement that they forgot to originally add.
The RAW argument that I am discussing has to accept the rules as they are. So until a FAQ comes later to clean up any errors, the rules in this case are dealing with "weapons".
Happyjew wrote: I'm talking about models in general. If a model has a chainsword (a weapon with the Melee type), and a melta bomb (which according to your interpretation of the rules is a melee weapon), and attacks with the chainsword why would he not get an extra attack? After all, he has two Melee weapons, that are neither Specialist weapons nor Two-handed weapons.
To make it more common, what about a Bolt Pistol and Krak Grenade? This is standard kit for a Tactical Squad Marine.
Happyjew wrote: I'm talking about models in general. If a model has a chainsword (a weapon with the Melee type), and a melta bomb (which according to your interpretation of the rules is a melee weapon), and attacks with the chainsword why would he not get an extra attack? After all, he has two Melee weapons, that are neither Specialist weapons nor Two-handed weapons.
To make it more common, what about a Bolt Pistol and Krak Grenade? This is standard kit for a Tactical Squad Marine.
Grenades have special rules that specifically reduce the normal attacks and any bonus attack to one.
Spoiler:
A model can use such a grenade as a Melee weapon, but can only ever make one attack, regardless of the number of Attacks on its profile or any bonuses.
Are you claiming that one of RG's weapons is somehow a grenade?
Just as important, how many Weapons does a Tactical Marine have?
Their Wargear list is:
Boltgun
Bolt Pistol
Krak Grenade
Frag Grenade
All four of these provide Weapon profiles. Three of them are conditional upon what Phase the game is. Indeed, both the Bolt Pistol and Krak Grenades both carry or use a Ranged and Melee profile during the course of a game. Should we separate out those two different profiles as two different Weapons?
And yes, I still have you on Ignore, Col_Ignored. I'll only see a response if someone else quotes you on it.
Charistoph, if I could avail of your good will. I remember seeing something in one of the Space Marine Codecii (past or present) that said all marines were armed with the following, and then listed the usual, as opposed to listing it in the relevant entries. Does that still exist?
AndrewC wrote: And how does it tell us that it is two weapons?
I quoted the relevant rule proving "weapons".
Spoiler:
The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together, using the profile below.
Since the Hand of Dominion is later discussed as a "weapon" . . .
Spoiler:
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
. . . we know for a fact that we are dealing with two weapons.
But where does it say two weapons? I see a header name for a relic and a reference to these weapons, but nothing that says two weapons. Where does it say two weapons?
AndrewC wrote: But where does it say two weapons? I see a header name for a relic and a reference to these weapons, but nothing that says two weapons. Where does it say two weapons?
You see an entry name for two items that may be a relic or relics. You see a mention of "these weapons" after the entry listing of two items. You see a later description that indicates one of those items in the listing is "a weapon".
The rule statements prove that we are dealing with 2 weapons.
AndrewC wrote: Does it? I see a ranged weapon, a power fist, and a sword, so it could actually be referring to 3 weapons?
Incorrect. The 'ranged weapon' is not a separate item as it is identified as a profile for The Hand of Dominion which is a weapon. So "these weapons" can only refer to two weapons.
I should point out that your argument is moot here in addition to being incorrect, since claiming it says "2 or more weapons" will still end up with a bonus attack. You have to prove "1 weapon" to dismiss the bonus attack.
The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together, using the profile below.
The rules tell us two weapons.
Spoiler:
The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together, using the profile below.
The rules state they are used together using a single profile - precedence for such a thing already exists in Lash Whips and Boneswords, The Blades of Reason and The Whips of Agony.
They also do not state that they count as a pair of melee weapons nor is there any rule in the profile that grants +1 Attack.
If your entire argument is based on a description then I'd point you to the Chaos Daemons updates and ask you to read the description for The Whips of Agony. Thanks.
DarkStarSabre wrote: Lash Whips and Boneswords, The Blades of Reason and The Whips of Agony.
In each of these cases they are referred to as "one", "combined pair", "this weapon", or "counts as a single weapon".
For example, the Whips of Agony are referred to as "one", "pair", and "this weapon".
In the case of the Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion we are dealing with two weapons.
We are dealing with a case that DOES NOT follow precedence.
Futher, I should point out that precedence can only be used to make a RAI argument, not a RAW argument, so talking about precedence doesn't factor in to a RAW discussion.
AndrewC wrote: Does it? I see a ranged weapon, a power fist, and a sword, so it could actually be referring to 3 weapons?
Incorrect. The 'ranged weapon' is not a separate item as it is identified as a profile for The Hand of Dominion which is a weapon. So "these weapons" can only refer to two weapons.
I should point out that your argument is moot here in addition to being incorrect, since claiming it says "2 or more weapons" will still end up with a bonus attack. You have to prove "1 weapon" to dismiss the bonus attack.
No and this is what you're missing, I don't have to prove anything here, because you're the one claiming something. The point is this, at no point does the rules ever state that they are two weapons, what I was trying to illustrate to you is that we don't know what number 'these weapons' could be referring to. Any inference that there are two weapons is a deduction of your own. It doesn't matter how logical that deduction is, it is still a deduction. From that point on you are not arguing rules as written, but a deduced set of rules, a rules as inferred by you.
As I have pointed out earlier, 40k is a permissive rule set, if it doesn't say you can then you can't. Please point out where it states that it is acceptable to double entry a single profile to two (unique) weapons? Can't provide references? Then you can't do it. Also, all weapons have a profile. You have stated this repeatedly as justification for the double entry, well the reverse is also true. If you don't have a profile then its not a weapon.
So your argument isn't RaW as you've claimed. The rules as written doesn't provide enough evidence to provide a decision on either side and as such we can only go on what is written in his entry. No mention of two weapons meeting the criteria to merit +1 attacks and as such we do not, cannot add it.
No and this is what you're missing, I don't have to prove anything here, because you're the one claiming something. The point is this, at no point does the rules ever state that they are two weapons, what I was trying to illustrate to you is that we don't know what number 'these weapons' could be referring to. Any inference that there are two weapons is a deduction of your own. It doesn't matter how logical that deduction is, it is still a deduction. From that point on you are not arguing rules as written, but a deduced set of rules, a rules as inferred by you.
As I have pointed out, your criticism is moot. Your saying that it says non-deductively "2 or more weapons" instead of "2 weapons" still ends up supporting the result of my argument. My argument can easily swap "2 weapons" for "2 or more weapons".
Spoiler:
if a model has two or more Melee weapons he gains +1 attack in close combat.
You need to assert that we are dealing with just 1 weapon to counter my argument.
Summarized here:
Spoiler:
The rules refer to "the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" in the plural separably as "these weapons". Plural.
"Used together" does not mean that the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion count as a single weapon.
They are called out as "these weapons" and when they are used together they are still considered weapons and not as a single weapon. No rule designates them as counting as a single weapon so they remain at least two weapons.
"Used together" means simply that they are used at the same time in combat.
The profiles reference "this weapon" and so must reference the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion separably since the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion collectively are referred to as 'weapons' and as 'relics' and never as weapon or relic.
The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons".
Moreover, the Hand is explicitly discussed as being separably a 'weapon' and able to be used as both a melee and as a ranged weapon.
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
Because the Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon, this proves that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself, and it disproves any argument that there is somehow a 'combined weapon profile'.
If there was some 'combined weapon' then the Hand of Dominion could not itself be a melee weapon. The melee profile provided would have been used to give the combined weapon the melee type and not the Hand of Dominion.
Since the Hand is definitively a melee weapon, this means that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet has been separably applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
This in turn means that both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are melee weapons.
This in turn means that we satisfy the rule that grants an a model an additional attack for having two or more melee weapons.
DarkStarSabre wrote: Lash Whips and Boneswords, The Blades of Reason and The Whips of Agony.
In each of these cases they are referred to as "one", "combined pair", "this weapon", or "counts as a single weapon".
For example, the Whips of Agony are referred to as "one", "pair", and "this weapon".
In the case of the Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion we are dealing with two weapons.
We are dealing with a case that DOES NOT follow precedence.
Futher, I should point out that precedence can only be used to make a RAI argument, not a RAW argument, so talking about precedence doesn't factor in to a RAW discussion.
Yes we are dealing with two weapons, only one of which could possibly be a Melee weapon. There is no profile for the sword, and no profile for the Fist. There is a profile for using the weapons together, but if you are not using hte weapons together, you do not have permission to use the profile.
Yes we are dealing with two weapons, only one of which could possibly be a Melee weapon. There is no profile for the sword, and no profile for the Fist. There is a profile for using the weapons together, but if you are not using hte weapons together, you do not have permission to use the profile.
Where does it say that "only one of which could possibly be a Melee weapon"?
Since, as you admit, we are dealing with two weapons, we are still dealing with two weapons even while they are being "used together".
The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons".
AndrewC wrote:Charistoph, if I could avail of your good will. I remember seeing something in one of the Space Marine Codecii (past or present) that said all marines were armed with the following, and then listed the usual, as opposed to listing it in the relevant entries. Does that still exist?
Cheers
Andrew
In terms of fluff or rules? Fluff can vary and means nothing for a rules-question forum, but the rules will be based on the current version.
In terms of rules, models only have what is listed in their unit entry list. This may be part of the force group in 6th Edition codices, or Datasheets for 7th Edition codices.
From there, Options can then allow for some of them to be changed or added on to.
Yes we are dealing with two weapons, only one of which could possibly be a Melee weapon. There is no profile for the sword, and no profile for the Fist. There is a profile for using the weapons together, but if you are not using hte weapons together, you do not have permission to use the profile.
Where does it say that "only one of which could possibly be a Melee weapon"?
Since, as you admit, we are dealing with two weapons, we are still dealing with two weapons even while they are being "used together".
The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons".
But what rule tells you to apply the profile listed to both weapons? Unless you have permission to apply it to "these weapons" you may not.
But what rule tells you to apply the profile listed to both weapons? Unless you have permission to apply it to "these weapons" you may not.
I am not applying the single profile to "these weapons" collectively. The rules only allow for applying it to a weapon. So I apply it to each weapon in "these weapons." The rules have no problem with that.
The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons".
But what rule tells you to apply the profile listed to both weapons? Unless you have permission to apply it to "these weapons" you may not.
The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons".
Where do the rules allow you to apply an unnamed profile to a weapon? You seem to insist that "every weapon has a profile" is what gives you permission to apply an unnamed profile to a weapon. You make the claim, you back it up.
Where do the rules allow you to apply an unnamed profile to a weapon? You seem to insist that "every weapon has a profile" is what gives you permission to apply an unnamed profile to a weapon. You make the claim, you back it up.
The rules say the Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion are "these weapons".
So the Sword of the Emperor is a weapon.
And the Hand of Dominion is also a weapon.
The BRB tells us that "every weapon has a profile".
The rules statement provides us with an unnamed profile.
If we apply the unnamed profile to just the Sword and not the Hand we are left with a weapon without a profile and we are not satisfying "every weapon has a profile".
Only by applying the unnamed profile to the Sword and also the Hand are we able to satisfy "every weapon has a profile". If we do not, then not "every weapon has a profile".
*Head hits table*
20 pages?
20!
For feths sake last month we had a rules discussion that ended with "Legally speaking, Guilliman becomes a super heavy vehicle and then explodes on the titanic chart"
and it went on for 5....
MattKing wrote: For feths sake last month we had a rules discussion that ended with "Legally speaking, Guilliman becomes a super heavy vehicle and then explodes on the titanic chart"
and it went on for 5....
Yarium wrote: I'm surprised that no one in that thread pointed out that, when Wrecked, Gulliman's armour might "save" him so that he could explode again next turn
I'm talking about models in general. If a model has a chainsword (a weapon with the Melee type), and a melta bomb (which according to your interpretation of the rules is a melee weapon), and attacks with the chainsword why would he not get an extra attack? After all, he has two Melee weapons, that are neither Specialist weapons nor Two-handed weapons.
Grenades are a special case - when they are used in assault they have a melee profile chosen. When they are not used in assault they don't have a melee profile chosen. So if I am using a melta bomb in assault then I am using the melta bomb as the weapon I am attacking with (and not the chainsword). This would normally result in the normal number of attacks plus the bonus attack, but the grenade rule turns those attacks into one attack. If I am attacking with the chainsword then I am not assaulting with the melta bomb and so do not have that profile chosen.
Happyjew wrote: I'm just trying to figure out whether or not Roboute has two Melee weapons or not. I am neither for one side nor the other. The one point you've made that I disagree with is that both the Hand and the Sword have the profile listed in Gathering Storm. This is what your argument hinges on. This is what I've asked you to prove to me. Since you seem reluctant to do so . . .
I have been more than forthcoming with my RAW argument. Everything in my argument is substantiated by and proven by rules and makes no assumptions, and it has been posted several times.
In short . . .
The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons".
Longer form of argument . . .
Spoiler:
The rules refer to "the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" in the plural separably as "these weapons". Plural.
"Used together" does not mean that the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion count as a single weapon.
They are called out as "these weapons" and when they are used together they are still considered weapons and not as a single weapon. No rule designates them as counting as a single weapon so they remain two weapons.
"Used together" means simply that they are used at the same time in combat.
The profiles reference "this weapon" and so must reference the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion separably since the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion collectively are referred to as 'weapons' and as 'relics' and never as weapon or relic.
The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons".
Moreover, the Hand is explicitly discussed as being separably a 'weapon' and able to be used as both a melee and as a ranged weapon.
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
Because the Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon, this proves that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself, and it disproves any argument that there is somehow a 'combined weapon profile'.
If there was some 'combined weapon' then the Hand of Dominion could not itself be a melee weapon. The melee profile provided would have been used to give the combined weapon the melee type and not the Hand of Dominion.
Since the Hand is definitively a melee weapon, this means that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet has been separably applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
This in turn means that both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are melee weapons.
This in turn means that we satisfy the rule that grants an a model an additional attack for having two or more melee weapons.
The key thing for you to focus on is if the rules at any point actually say "count as a single weapon" or anything along those lines. If you cannot find such a statement then you have to accept what the rules actually tell us, which is that we are dealing with "weapons" in the plural. The omission of a line to the effect of "count as a single weapon" could be a mistake on the part of the rule writers, but arguing that there is a mistake in the rules is of course a RAI argument. So, press yourself to accept the omission as is and answer what do the rules standing entirely on their own tell us about the number of melee weapons and therewith whether or not Robute gets a bonus attack.
AndrewC wrote: And even more entertainment, cos when the FaQ comes out, if it rules that it's only one weapon, somebody will be on here saying that they were right all along and that GW changed the rules.
Cheers
Andrew
The "GW just ignored the RAW" or "GW just changed the rules" has been the age old last defiance to those on the losing end of a debate here for as long as I can remember.
Actually, I think the RAI argument that GW just made a mistake and forgot to add the critical line that these weapons "count as a single weapon" is a perfectly reasonable one. If they FAQ later that the weapons are 'a combined pair' then they are adding a line to the rules statement that they forgot to originally add.
The RAW argument that I am discussing has to accept the rules as they are. So until a FAQ comes later to clean up any errors, the rules in this case are dealing with "weapons".
You have no RAW argument. Your continued insistence that the use of "these weapons" constitutes +1 Attack is just as RAI as those that insist that "used together" does not warrant an additional attack. In fact, just like them, everything you have posted in this thread is based on RAI.
You have no RAW argument. Your continued insistence that the use of "these weapons" constitutes +1 Attack is just as RAI as those that insist that "used together" does not warrant an additional attack. In fact, just like them, everything you have posted in this thread is based on RAI.
Incorrect. My argument follows strictly from the rules and makes absolutely no assumptions. If you think otherwise feel free to point to any assumptions I make.
The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons".
Summarized here:
Spoiler:
The rules refer to "the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" in the plural separably as "these weapons". Plural.
"Used together" does not mean that the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion count as a single weapon.
They are called out as "these weapons" and when they are used together they are still considered weapons and not as a single weapon. No rule designates them as counting as a single weapon so they remain at least two weapons.
"Used together" means simply that they are used at the same time in combat.
The profiles reference "this weapon" and so must reference the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion separably since the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion collectively are referred to as 'weapons' and as 'relics' and never as weapon or relic.
The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons".
Moreover, the Hand is explicitly discussed as being separably a 'weapon' and able to be used as both a melee and as a ranged weapon.
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
Because the Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon, this proves that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself, and it disproves any argument that there is somehow a 'combined weapon profile'.
If there was some 'combined weapon' then the Hand of Dominion could not itself be a melee weapon. The melee profile provided would have been used to give the combined weapon the melee type and not the Hand of Dominion.
Since the Hand is definitively a melee weapon, this means that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet has been separably applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
This in turn means that both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are melee weapons.
This in turn means that we satisfy the rule that grants an a model an additional attack for having two or more melee weapons.
It states "these weapons" it does not tell you what those weapons are.
There is one entry for a weapon and one entry armor. Fact
You are not told there are two melee weapons. Fact
You are not told there are two weapons that share the same type. Fact
There is no precedence that supports your interpretation of "these weapons". Fact. You also admitted this by stating this was a new case without precedence.
As the rules are not EXPLICITLY stating what weapons, or that there are even two melee weapons in the first place we have to make an assumption. We have to assume there are two melee weapons and that the single entry should be split, we are not ever told to double the profile, you are assuming this too. You claim the basic rule states all weapons must have a profile, then the most logical deduction is that a second weapon doesn't exist then, no rule tells us to double a profile.
The RAW are not explicitly clear, meaning RAW they do not function and require RAI.
Ceann wrote: It states "these weapons" it does not tell you what those weapons are.
Contextually speaking, there isn't anything else there except the Sword and the Hand. However, all this is just reinforcing the fluff concept of two weapons in the name.
However, as has been pointed out, only one profile, and a specific direction to use that profile as the combination of both fluff-named weapons, means that we are stuck as considering it as only one Weapon as far as the game is concerned.
In short (and something the Ignored One forgets), "fluff" does not equal "rules".
But what rule tells you to apply the profile listed to both weapons? Unless you have permission to apply it to "these weapons" you may not.
I am not applying the single profile to "these weapons" collectively. The rules only allow for applying it to a weapon. So I apply it to each weapon in "these weapons." The rules have no problem with that.
That's not even remotely true. Where do you have permission to apply the profiles to "each" weapon? You don't have permission to do so like you do with the Gauntlets of Ultramar. "These weapons are used together, using the profile below" only gives you permission to use the singular profile below when using the weapons combined. It doesn't say in any fashion that you apply the profile to each weapon. You don't know what the profile is for each weapon separately - because they use them together. If they have the same profile and you are supposed to apply it to each one, it would say "each with the profile below", or specify how the two sepearate weapons work in melee (as they do for Cypher using his poistols in close combat) or otherwise tell you that you use them together as two weapons. You aren't given a profile for each weapon separately, only the two weapons together. You can't tell if the Hand counts as a specialist weapon by itself, since we don't have that profile. You don't get a bonus attack armed with a power sword and power fist - two melee weapons - something you've tried to ignore or deflect. Other people brought up the pistol and grenade option - it is valid from the stanpoint that you can have two melee weapons, just like having a power fist and power sword, and not get +1 A. You have to have the profile of the Hand and of the Sword by themselves to make sure there is nothing in there to prevent you from getting the bonus attack, and you don't have permission to use the profile for the weapons used together as an individual profile from each weapon.
You have no RAW argument. Your continued insistence that the use of "these weapons" constitutes +1 Attack is just as RAI as those that insist that "used together" does not warrant an additional attack. In fact, just like them, everything you have posted in this thread is based on RAI.
Incorrect. My argument follows strictly from the rules and makes absolutely no assumptions. If you think otherwise feel free to point to any assumptions I make.
The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons".
Summarized here:
Spoiler:
The rules refer to "the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" in the plural separably as "these weapons". Plural.
"Used together" does not mean that the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion count as a single weapon.
They are called out as "these weapons" and when they are used together they are still considered weapons and not as a single weapon. No rule designates them as counting as a single weapon so they remain at least two weapons.
"Used together" means simply that they are used at the same time in combat.
The profiles reference "this weapon" and so must reference the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion separably since the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion collectively are referred to as 'weapons' and as 'relics' and never as weapon or relic.
The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons".
Moreover, the Hand is explicitly discussed as being separably a 'weapon' and able to be used as both a melee and as a ranged weapon.
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
Because the Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon, this proves that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself, and it disproves any argument that there is somehow a 'combined weapon profile'.
If there was some 'combined weapon' then the Hand of Dominion could not itself be a melee weapon. The melee profile provided would have been used to give the combined weapon the melee type and not the Hand of Dominion.
Since the Hand is definitively a melee weapon, this means that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet has been separably applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
This in turn means that both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are melee weapons.
This in turn means that we satisfy the rule that grants an a model an additional attack for having two or more melee weapons.
I don't need to rehash 20 pagws of people showing you the error of your ways, but here is your most blatant assumption;
Your continued use of "these weapons" without the rest of sent nice for context, you are assuming that it has no merit and thus "these weapons" are the only parts of that sentence to support your argument. The rest of your dribble that follows is assumptions based upon this RAI of the sentence.
But like I said, the no crowd has based their arguments on RAI as well.
MattKing wrote: *Head hits table*
20 pages?
20!
For feths sake last month we had a rules discussion that ended with "Legally speaking, Guilliman becomes a super heavy vehicle and then explodes on the titanic chart"
and it went on for 5....
Yeah, I had the same reaction. I thought this was answered on like page 2.
Ceann wrote: It states "these weapons" it does not tell you what those weapons are.
Incorrect.
Spoiler:
The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together, using the profile below.
"These weapons" can only refer to the entry line "the Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion" which is grammatically a list containing two items. So the "Sword of the Emperor" is a weapon". Also "the Hand of Dominion" is a weapon. Later in the rules, "the Hand of Dominion" is described individually as "a weapon" which further proves that we are dealing with two weapons, a "Sword of the Emperor" and a "Hand of Dominion".
Spoiler:
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
Ceann wrote: There is one entry for a weapon and one entry armor. Fact
Incorrect. All we know is that there is a single entry line for "the Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion" . A single entry line can refer to multiple items, whether relics, weapons, or suits of armor. That can only be the case here, because the rules refer to "these weapons" after an entry of two proper noun items in a list format (X and Y).
As the rules are not EXPLICITLY stating what weapons, or that there are even two melee weapons in the first place we have to make an assumption. We have to assume there are two melee weapons and that the single entry should be split, we are not ever told to double the profile, you are assuming this too. You claim the basic rule states all weapons must have a profile, then the most logical deduction is that a second weapon doesn't exist then, no rule tells us to double a profile.
The rules provide us with two weapons and a single unnamed profile. There are no rules relating to profiles except for the rule that "every weapon has a profile".
If we start making assumptions that the presentation of a single profile must mean that the rules writers intend for us to treat the two weapons as a single weapon then we have slipped into making a RAI argument.
If we make no assumptions, then we have no choice except to apply the profile in such a way that "every weapon has a profile". If we apply the single unnamed profile to just one of the weapons and not both then we violate the one rule that we know about profiles, that "every weapon has a profile". In order to not violate "every weapon has a profile" then we do what we are allowed by the rules to do - we apply the single unnamed profile to both the Sword and the Hand. So the one rule we have about profiles leads, based on nothing more than the rules themselves, exactly to the resolution where we have two melee weapons. That resolution comes directly from the rules themselves, when we make zero assumptions. Therefore, this way of resolving the rule statements is a RAW argument and not a RAI argument.
Here is the full argument:
Spoiler:
The rules refer to "the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" in the plural separably as "these weapons". Plural.
"Used together" does not mean that the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion count as a single weapon.
They are called out as "these weapons" and when they are used together they are still considered weapons and not as a single weapon. No rule designates them as counting as a single weapon so they remain at least two weapons.
"Used together" means simply that they are used at the same time in combat.
The profiles reference "this weapon" and so must reference the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion separably since the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion collectively are referred to as 'weapons' and as 'relics' and never as weapon or relic.
The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons".
Moreover, the Hand is explicitly discussed as being separably a 'weapon' and able to be used as both a melee and as a ranged weapon.
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
Because the Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon, this proves that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself, and it disproves any argument that there is somehow a 'combined weapon profile'.
If there was some 'combined weapon' then the Hand of Dominion could not itself be a melee weapon. The melee profile provided would have been used to give the combined weapon the melee type and not the Hand of Dominion.
Since the Hand is definitively a melee weapon, this means that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet has been separably applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
This in turn means that both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are melee weapons.
This in turn means that we satisfy the rule that grants an a model an additional attack for having two or more melee weapons.
1st : all weapons must have a profile.. ok everyone agree with this
2nd Sword of the emperor and Hand of dominion , shows a combined profile, this mean this profile only can be used when attacking with both weapons, (to further clarify this if Jain Zar disarm Roboute then you ARE NOT attacking with both weapons so you can't access this profile then as you would be hitting with either Fist or Sword but NOT BOTH. (this is RAW)
3rd If the profile it's for *these weapons combined* and weapons always must have a profile (considering the previous situation) i request AGAIN that you show the individual profile of the Sword and the individual profile of the Hand ( again not the combined one show the rules with the individual profiles of each weapon shown)
As you can't provide proof from the previous statement (unless you assume both weapons have same profile, despite never being told that)
You are the one assuming the little bit of rule that only show permission to use the relic in the shooting phase and the melee phase (check Orks Burnas wich have a similar wording that forces them to use their weapons as either shooting or melee) granting you extra attacks and doubling profiles out of nowhere.
2nd Sword of the emperor and Hand of dominion , shows a combined profile,[u] this mean this profile only can be used when attacking with both weapons,
This is entirely an assumption on your part. There are no rules that describe combined profiles or how to handle them. There are no rules to describe what "used together" means. If you feel otherwise, it is up to you to find the rules so that they can enter the discussion.
The only rule we have for profiles is that "every weapon has a profile".
Further, we know that with regards to "the Sword of Dominion and the Hand of the Emperor" we are dealing with "these weapons".
If we assume that we are somehow dealing with a single combined weapon then we go directly against the rules statement "these weapons".
Applying a single profile to some assumed single combined weapons goes directly against the rules. If we do that then we have surely abandoned a RAW approach for a RAI one.
Instead, if we stick to RAW, we make no assumptions and apply the single unnamed profile to "these weapons" such that "every weapon has a profile". The only way to do that is to apply the single profile to both the Sword and also the Hand. The rules allow for applying a single profile to more than one weapon.
BRB page 49 states that you only get +1A with two single handed weapons, but when it comes to the relic, you do not have a choice of two single weapons, you have ONE choice.
Both or none at all. You never have a choice between the Sword and the Fist. You only use the profile for "THESE WEAPONS TOGETHER" not separate.
In order to meet the criteria of having two single weapons you need two weapons that can each be wielded individually and make attacks individually, as the rule states "these weapons" you do not have a choice to count either as a single weapon. The profile requires you to use both at once, not singly, so you do not meet the +1A criteria.
2nd Sword of the emperor and Hand of dominion , shows a combined profile,[u] this mean this profile only can be used when attacking with both weapons,
This is entirely an assumption on your part. There are no rules that describe combined profiles or how to handle them. There are no rules to describe what "used together" means. If you feel otherwise, it is up to you to find the rules so that they can enter the discussion.
The only rule we have for profiles is that "every weapon has a profile".
Further, we know that with regards to "the Sword of Dominion and the Hand of the Emperor" we are dealing with "these weapons".
If we assume that we are somehow dealing with a single combined weapon then we go directly against the rules statement "these weapons".
Applying a single profile to some assumed single combined weapons goes directly against the rules. If we do that then we have surely abandoned a RAW approach for a RAI one.
Instead, if we stick to RAW, we make no assumptions and apply the single unnamed profile to "these weapons" such that "every weapon has a profile". The only way to do that is to apply the single profile to both the Sword and also the Hand. The rules allow for applying a single profile to more than one weapon.
Oh no remember, this is a new case with no precedence, you said so yourself.
So obviously this profile means you can only use the weapons together, at the same time, not individually.
Just like we can "doubly apply the profile" even though those words do not exist anywhere in the BRB or the profile.
Ceann wrote: BRB page 49 states that you only get +1A with two single handed weapons, but when it comes to the relic, you do not have a choice of two single weapons, you have ONE choice.
Both or none at all. You never have a choice between the Sword and the Fist. You only use the profile for "THESE WEAPONS TOGETHER" not separate.
In order to meet the criteria of having two single weapons you need two weapons that can each be wielded individually and make attacks individually, as the rule states "these weapons" you do not have a choice to count either as a single weapon. The profile requires you to use both at once, not singly, so you do not meet the +1A criteria.
Incorrect. In order to meet the +1A criteria you only need to meet the following . . .
Spoiler:
if a model has two or more Melee weapons he gains +1 attack in close combat.
The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons". This results in two Melee weapons. Two Melee weapons that are "used together" are still two Melee weapons and so satisfy the criteria for +1A.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ceann wrote: Oh no remember, this is a new case with no precedence, you said so yourself.
So obviously this profile means you can only use the weapons together, at the same time, not individually.
Sure, if you go ahead and make up allowances and violate the rules we have ("these weapons", "every weapon has a profile"). Such an approach is a perfect example of a RAI approach, because you are assuming that the weapons "count as a single weapon".
Just like we can "doubly apply the profile" even though those words do not exist anywhere in the BRB or the profile.
This approach is different than the one you talk about above. It's what you do if you strictly follow the rules we have ("these weapons", "every weapon has a profile") and make no assumptions. This approach is a perfect example of a RAW approach and it winds up with two Melee weapons and therewith +1A.
Ceann wrote: BRB page 49 states that you only get +1A with two single handed weapons, but when it comes to the relic, you do not have a choice of two single weapons, you have ONE choice.
Both or none at all. You never have a choice between the Sword and the Fist. You only use the profile for "THESE WEAPONS TOGETHER" not separate.
In order to meet the criteria of having two single weapons you need two weapons that can each be wielded individually and make attacks individually, as the rule states "these weapons" you do not have a choice to count either as a single weapon. The profile requires you to use both at once, not singly, so you do not meet the +1A criteria.
Incorrect. In order to meet the +1A criteria you only need to meet the following . . .
Spoiler:
if a model has two or more Melee weapons he gains +1 attack in close combat.
The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons". This results in two Melee weapons. Two Melee weapons that are "used together" are still two Melee weapons and so satisfy the criteria for +1A.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ceann wrote: Oh no remember, this is a new case with no precedence, you said so yourself.
So obviously this profile means you can only use the weapons together, at the same time, not individually.
Sure, if you go ahead and make up allowances and violate the rules we have ("these weapons", "every weapon has a profile"). Such an approach is a perfect example of a RAI approach, because you are assuming that the weapons "count as a single weapon".
Just like we can "doubly apply the profile" even though those words do not exist anywhere in the BRB or the profile.
This approach is different than the one you talk about above. It's what you do if you strictly follow the rules we have ("these weapons", "every weapon has a profile") and make no assumptions. This approach is a perfect example of a RAW approach and it winds up with two Melee weapons and therewith +1A.
And you are assuming they two seperate weapons, you are not told that, ANYWHERE. Nor is there any place you can reference that allows you doubly apply a profile. You are also not told whether or not they are specialist weapons, you assume there as well.
What does together mean then?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Page 49 states EXPLICITLY that you need two SINGLE handed weapons. If you feel that is incorrect CITE THE RULE.
Ceann wrote: BRB page 49 states that you only get +1A with two single handed weapons, but when it comes to the relic, you do not have a choice of two single weapons, you have ONE choice.
Both or none at all. You never have a choice between the Sword and the Fist. You only use the profile for "THESE WEAPONS TOGETHER" not separate.
In order to meet the criteria of having two single weapons you need two weapons that can each be wielded individually and make attacks individually, as the rule states "these weapons" you do not have a choice to count either as a single weapon. The profile requires you to use both at once, not singly, so you do not meet the +1A criteria.
Incorrect. In order to meet the +1A criteria you only need to meet the following . . .
Spoiler:
if a model has two or more Melee weapons he gains +1 attack in close combat.
You mean like having a power fist and a power sword, two melee weapons, one of which is a specialist weapon? Or do you mean an eviscerator and a ccw, both of which are melee weapons but one is two handed?Or do you mean an assault grenade and ccw, both of which can be used as melee weapons but one of which has restrictions in melee combat? That right there disproves your statement "you only need to meet the following".
Now, where does it specifically state that you use the combined profile for each weapon separately? The "every weapon has a profile" statement is not a statement that says you can assume that it applies to each weapon. We are only told that they are used together, using the profile below. It does not say each weapon uses the profile below. The weapons have a profile, which is what is supplied, when they are used together - as we are instructed. We are not instructed that each weapon goes by that profile, as myself and others have cited precedence for (with Space Marines even) when that is how they wish to handle that.
He also needs to quit citing "every weapon has a profile". That is a BASIC rule, we are dealing with a non-basic rule, which means the TOGETHER part supersedes the basic rule you are quoting.
So please stop quoting a basic rule when it is being contradicted by together.
doctortom wrote: You mean like having a power fist and a power sword, two melee weapons, one of which is a specialist weapon?
To be fair, the Power Fist would count as a second Melee Weapon for a Power Sword, but the Power Sword would not count for the Power Fist. In order for the Specialist Weapon to be used, you have to be fighting with it. Ironically, same applies to the Two-handed Weapon.
As for the Assault Grenade, no Melee profile, the Krak does have one, but apparently, using it is the same as throwing it so only one model would be able to use it, and only against Monstrous Creatures and Vehicles.
doctortom wrote: You mean like having a power fist and a power sword, two melee weapons, one of which is a specialist weapon?
To be fair, the Power Fist would count as a second Melee Weapon for a Power Sword, but the Power Sword would not count for the Power Fist. In order for the Specialist Weapon to be used, you have to be fighting with it. Ironically, same applies to the Two-handed Weapon.
As for the Assault Grenade, no Melee profile, the Krak does have one, but apparently, using it is the same as throwing it so only one model would be able to use it, and only against Monstrous Creatures and Vehicles.
There's still the larger point that you don't automatically get the +1 attack for two melee weapons, unlike what col impact states. You have to know the profiles of each weapon separately to know if there's a +1 attack, or if you're given rules that say you use the weapons together there should be a note there as to whether you get the +1 attack. Gauntlets of Ultramar, where you are told each gauntlet has the profile given, is an example of this where you get the +1 attack. You don't have to assume a profile because you're told specifically each gauntlet has the profile. We aren't told each weapon has the profile here, so the assumption that you apply the profile to each weapon is not valid.
Yarium wrote: I'm surprised that no one in that thread pointed out that, when Wrecked, Gulliman's armour might "save" him so that he could explode again next turn
I like to say he gets wrecked, not slain so armour of fate doesn't work. I'd let him explode; at least you can like imagine it's the armour going critical, but I wouldn't let him do both.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ceann wrote: He also needs to quit citing "every weapon has a profile". That is a BASIC rule, we are dealing with a non-basic rule, which means the TOGETHER part supersedes the basic rule you are quoting.
So please stop quoting a basic rule when it is being contradicted by together.
doctortom wrote:There's still the larger point that you don't automatically get the +1 attack for two melee weapons, unlike what col impact states. You have to know the profiles of each weapon separately to know if there's a +1 attack, or if you're given rules that say you use the weapons together there should be a note there as to whether you get the +1 attack.
And we don't consider the special rules of the other Weapon. For a basic Melee Weapon, all you need is the other Weapon to state "Melee". That's all laid out in More Than One Weapon.
I was merely pointing out that such an example is bad as there are ways around it now that were not available during an Edition or two.
doctortom wrote:Gauntlets of Ultramar, where you are told each gauntlet has the profile given, is an example of this where you get the +1 attack. You don't have to assume a profile because you're told specifically each gauntlet has the profile.
As I pointed out earlier with the Gauntlets, the problem there is that there is no defined quantity of Gauntlets which the rules provide for them. In a way, this is the mirror opposite of the case in question. We have no defined quantity to go by, but we are given permission to use multiples of it.
doctortom wrote:We aren't told each weapon has the profile here, so the assumption that you apply the profile to each weapon is not valid.
To true. In direct opposition of case from the Gauntlets, we have a name with a definite number of articles provided, but they have to be used together to gain that Weapon profile. This is definitely a case of GW writers doing things the hard way.
If the Hand was supposed to be used as a Ranged Weapon, why bother including it as a pair with the Sword at all if they are supposed to only work together? Far simpler and easier to give the Sword one Melee profile and the Hand one Ranged Profile.
Sometimes, I wonder if GW has pools going for how long rule arguments on forums will last and deliberately set up the rules just for this task.
doctortom wrote:There's still the larger point that you don't automatically get the +1 attack for two melee weapons, unlike what col impact states. You have to know the profiles of each weapon separately to know if there's a +1 attack, or if you're given rules that say you use the weapons together there should be a note there as to whether you get the +1 attack.
And we don't consider the special rules of the other Weapon. For a basic Melee Weapon, all you need is the other Weapon to state "Melee". That's all laid out in More Than One Weapon.
I was merely pointing out that such an example is bad as there are ways around it now that were not available during an Edition or two.
doctortom wrote:Gauntlets of Ultramar, where you are told each gauntlet has the profile given, is an example of this where you get the +1 attack. You don't have to assume a profile because you're told specifically each gauntlet has the profile.
As I pointed out earlier with the Gauntlets, the problem there is that there is no defined quantity of Gauntlets which the rules provide for them. In a way, this is the mirror opposite of the case in question. We have no defined quantity to go by, but we are given permission to use multiples of it.
doctortom wrote:We aren't told each weapon has the profile here, so the assumption that you apply the profile to each weapon is not valid.
To true. In direct opposition of case from the Gauntlets, we have a name with a definite number of articles provided, but they have to be used together to gain that Weapon profile. This is definitely a case of GW writers doing things the hard way.
If the Hand was supposed to be used as a Ranged Weapon, why bother including it as a pair with the Sword at all if they are supposed to only work together? Far simpler and easier to give the Sword one Melee profile and the Hand one Ranged Profile.
Sometimes, I wonder if GW has pools going for how long rule arguments on forums will last and deliberately set up the rules just for this task.
There are multiple issues here.
1. We are not told to apply the profile twice.
2. We are not told if the weapons have types that allow an extra attack.
3. We are told that the weapons must be used together.
4. A requirement for gaining an extra attack is having two single handed weapons, we are not permitted to singly apply the profile, as they must be used together not individually.
5. We have no precedence for what "together" means. As it is a part of the rules you have to account for it, making any interpretation of "together" an assumption. Even col. cannot avoid this. And because we have this ambiguous word all interpretations are RAI because no one knows what together actually means, you also cannot ignore that it is there.
I am honestly surprised given the number of games out there, M:TG being a great example, where they have established keywords, rules for those keywords and clauses, that GW should understand the concept clearly of standardized rules language. An example for our previous discussion on IC, if the trigger word "whenever" was used for joining a unit, you could clearly layout the outcome initiated by a specific event.
Instead we deal with ambiguous wording because the writers are probably not possessed of that skillset.
1. We are not told to apply the profile twice.
2. We are not told if the weapons have types that allow an extra attack.
3. We are told that the weapons must be used together.
4. A requirement for gaining an extra attack is having two single handed weapons, we are not permitted to singly apply the profile, as they must be used together not individually.
These are only issues, game-wise, if we are trying to milk the multiple Weapon bonus Attack out of the situation. The name carries two articles, but it is still just one single name with one single Melee profile. If we look at it in that specific light as it is presented, than there are no issues, just with GW's formatting policies (which could fill its own thread).
Ceann wrote: 5. We have no precedence for what "together" means. As it is a part of the rules you have to account for it, making any interpretation of "together" an assumption. Even col. cannot avoid this. And because we have this ambiguous word all interpretations are RAI because no one knows what together actually means, you also cannot ignore that it is there.
We have the precedence provided by the English language. The BRB does not change this nor use it in a different manner, so using it in the standard vernacular is right and proper. Using the "together" to bind the two articles in the Artifact's name as one is RAW, not RAI.
Ceann wrote: I am honestly surprised given the number of games out there, M:TG being a great example, where they have established keywords, rules for those keywords and clauses, that GW should understand the concept clearly of standardized rules language. An example for our previous discussion on IC, if the trigger word "whenever" was used for joining a unit, you could clearly layout the outcome initiated by a specific event.
More importantly, it is used in Age of Sigmar, which means there are rule-writers in Games Workshop who are aware of this technique and have been using it for at least a year and a half before RG's rules were setup.
Again, the latter part is more of a commentary on GW writing practices, not a critique on how to treat the situation.
Ceann wrote: He also needs to quit citing "every weapon has a profile". That is a BASIC rule, we are dealing with a non-basic rule, which means the TOGETHER part supersedes the basic rule you are quoting.
So please stop quoting a basic rule when it is being contradicted by together.
Can you point to a rule defining what "together" means? If you cannot, then how can the "together" part supersede anything?
Ceann wrote: 5. We have no precedence for what "together" means. As it is a part of the rules you have to account for it, making any interpretation of "together" an assumption. Even col. cannot avoid this. And because we have this ambiguous word all interpretations are RAI because no one knows what together actually means, you also cannot ignore that it is there.
We have the precedence provided by the English language. The BRB does not change this nor use it in a different manner, so using it in the standard vernacular is right and proper. Using the "together" to bind the two articles in the Artifact's name as one is RAW, not RAI.
"Used together" does not mean "count as one". You are making that up.
In fact, any rule weight you attribute to "used together" is entirely an assumption on your part. The rules don't recognize "used together" as meaning anything. If you make up some significance to "used together" then you are most assuredly making a RAI argument.
Applying a single profile to more than one weapon is something the rules allow us to do, and in this case must do, in order that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons". If you don't apply a profile for each of these weapons then you are breaking the rules.
Ceann wrote: 2. We are not told if the weapons have types that allow an extra attack.
The rules don't need to. So long as it's two melee weapons they will provide an extra attack.
Ceann wrote: 3. We are told that the weapons must be used together.
"Used together" means absolutely nothing in a rules sense.
Ceann wrote: 4. A requirement for gaining an extra attack is having two single handed weapons, we are not permitted to singly apply the profile, as they must be used together not individually.
Incorrect. The requirement is merely two or more melee weapons.
Ceann wrote: 5. We have no precedence for what "together" means. As it is a part of the rules you have to account for it, making any interpretation of "together" an assumption. Even col. cannot avoid this. And because we have this ambiguous word all interpretations are RAI because no one knows what together actually means, you also cannot ignore that it is there.
"Used together" has no rules associated with it so it means nothing according to the rules. If you make up rules for "used together" you are forming a RAI argument.
In short . . .
The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons". This results in two Melee weapons. Two Melee weapons that are "used together" are still two Melee weapons and so satisfy the criteria for +1A.
Longer summary . . .
Spoiler:
The rules refer to "the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" in the plural separably as "these weapons". Plural.
"Used together" does not mean that the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion count as a single weapon.
They are called out as "these weapons" and when they are used together they are still considered weapons and not as a single weapon. No rule designates them as counting as a single weapon so they remain two weapons.
"Used together" means simply that they are used at the same time in combat.
The profiles reference "this weapon" and so must reference the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion separably since the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion collectively are referred to as 'weapons' and as 'relics' and never as weapon or relic.
The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons".
Moreover, the Hand is explicitly discussed as being separably a 'weapon' and able to be used as both a melee and as a ranged weapon.
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
Because the Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon, this proves that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself, and it disproves any argument that there is somehow a 'combined weapon profile'.
If there was some 'combined weapon' then the Hand of Dominion could not itself be a melee weapon. The melee profile provided would have been used to give the combined weapon the melee type and not the Hand of Dominion.
Since the Hand is definitively a melee weapon, this means that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet has been separably applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
This in turn means that both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are melee weapons.
This in turn means that we satisfy the rule that grants an a model an additional attack for having two or more melee weapons.
I like how a simple question devolved into 20 pages of people arguing over the linguistic definitions of "these weapons" and "used together".
Since all of you are just yelling at an echo chamber at this point, maybe we should just put it to a vote? Like that whole Team Edward (counts as one weapon) and Team Jacobs (counts as two weapons) thing from the other thread. At least we can see what the majority of the forum goers think rather than some arcane interpretation of linguistics.
EDIT: By the way I'm in the Team Edward Camp (one weapon) as there was a precedent for this kind of bad wording before; the Nemesis Force Falchion in the Grey Knights 5th ed codex had a similar lack of specific wording and, as it turns out, GW intended it to be used as one weapon rather than two (despite constantly refering to it as "a pair of weapons"). Anyone remember that?
