19754
Post by: puma713
col_impact wrote:
Not correct at all. Again, the profile defines what the weapon is. In this case 'massive scything talons' is the weapon. So you can only choose 'massive scything talons' as a weapon and no subset of that as a weapon. You only have permission to consider 'massive scything talons' as a weapon and you don't have permission to consider anything else as a weapon. I am sorry but the weapon profile says what it says. If you don't adhere to the weapon profile then you are breaking from the Rules As Written
Again, you do not choose a "profile" to attack with. You choose a weapon. Where do you go to choose a model's weapon? Not its profile. You choose from what it is armed with. Then, after you've chosen your weapons, then you consult their profiles.
Furthermore, you're ignoring the rules of the english language. You cannot choose which rules of the english language to follow and which ones you don't.
Three is an adjective describing the noun pairs, which is further described by the prepositional phrase of, of which talons is the object of the preposition and massive scything are adjectives describing the object. This is grammar. When you choose your weapons, you have [three pairs] of [massive scything talons] and [a] [biostatic rattle] to choose from.
85004
Post by: col_impact
 puma713 wrote:col_impact wrote:
Not correct at all. Again, the profile defines what the weapon is. In this case 'massive scything talons' is the weapon. So you can only choose 'massive scything talons' as a weapon and no subset of that as a weapon. You only have permission to consider 'massive scything talons' as a weapon and you don't have permission to consider anything else as a weapon. I am sorry but the weapon profile says what it says. If you don't adhere to the weapon profile then you are breaking from the Rules As Written
Again, you do not choose a "profile" to attack with. You choose a weapon. Where do you go to choose a model's weapon? Not its profile. You choose from what it is armed with. Then, after you've chosen your weapons, then you consult their profiles.
Furthermore, you're ignoring the rules of the english language. You cannot choose which rules of the english language to follow and which ones you don't.
Three is an adjective describing the noun pairs, which is further described by the prepositional phrase of, of which talons is the object of the preposition and massive scything are adjectives describing the object. This is grammar. When you choose your weapons, you have [three pairs] of [massive scything talons] and [a] [biostatic rattle] to choose from.
The datasheet indicates that you are armed with three pairs of massive scything talons but makes no mention of what is or is not considered a weapon. The weapon profile is what indicates that 'massive scything talons' is the weapon. I have no choice but to recognize 'massive scything talons' as the weapon and I have no permission to recognize anything else as a weapon. 'A pair of massive scything talons' is not a profile and so is not a recognized weapon by the rules. When I go to attack I must choose 'massive scything talons' as the weapon I attack with. I am not able to choose any subset of 'massive scything talons' as a weapon since I lack a profile giving me permission to do so. That is English and that is the Rules As they are Written.
93221
Post by: Lance845
I am 90% sure Orknado is just a sock puppet account of col_impact. Just go read all the threads he's posted in.
85004
Post by: col_impact
 Lance845 wrote:I am 90% sure Orknado is just a sock puppet account of col_impact. Just go read all the threads he's posted in.
As I said, orknado is a relative of mine.
But what does that have to do with the argument of this thread?
Saying orknado is a sock puppet account is another personal attack.
I suggest you pay attention to your argument rather than attack others personally.
110116
Post by: Ceann
col_impact wrote: puma713 wrote:col_impact wrote:
Not correct at all. Again, the profile defines what the weapon is. In this case 'massive scything talons' is the weapon. So you can only choose 'massive scything talons' as a weapon and no subset of that as a weapon. You only have permission to consider 'massive scything talons' as a weapon and you don't have permission to consider anything else as a weapon. I am sorry but the weapon profile says what it says. If you don't adhere to the weapon profile then you are breaking from the Rules As Written
Again, you do not choose a "profile" to attack with. You choose a weapon. Where do you go to choose a model's weapon? Not its profile. You choose from what it is armed with. Then, after you've chosen your weapons, then you consult their profiles.
Furthermore, you're ignoring the rules of the english language. You cannot choose which rules of the english language to follow and which ones you don't.
Three is an adjective describing the noun pairs, which is further described by the prepositional phrase of, of which talons is the object of the preposition and massive scything are adjectives describing the object. This is grammar. When you choose your weapons, you have [three pairs] of [massive scything talons] and [a] [biostatic rattle] to choose from.
The datasheet indicates that you are armed with three pairs of massive scything talons but makes no mention of what is or is not considered a weapon. The weapon profile is what indicates that 'massive scything talons' is the weapon. I have no choice but to recognize 'massive scything talons' as the weapon and I have no permission to recognize anything else as a weapon. 'A pair of massive scything talons' is not a profile and so is not a recognized weapon by the rules. When I go to attack I must choose 'massive scything talons' as the weapon I attack with. I am not able to choose any subset of 'massive scything talons' as a weapon since I lack a profile giving me permission to do so. That is English and that is the Rules As they are Written.
Lets find another Col_Impact quote...
For The Emperor’s Sword and The Hand of Dominion
col_impact wrote:The rules refer to "the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" in the plural separably as "these weapons". Plural.
Talons are WEAPONS plural.
But now you argue the opposite grammatically.
The hypocrisy has no bounds.
85004
Post by: col_impact
Ceann wrote:
Lets find another Col_Impact quote...
For The Emperor’s Sword and The Hand of Dominion
col_impact wrote:The rules refer to "the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" in the plural separably as "these weapons". Plural.
Talons are WEAPONS plural.
But now you argue the opposite grammatically.
The hypocrisy has no bounds.
My argument is the opposite of hypocritical. I consistently argue that the rules say what they mean. In the case of Robute Gulliman the profile said 'these weapons'. In the case we are discussing the profile says 'this weapon'.
It would be hypocritical if I considered singular/plural significant in one case but not the other. I am treating them as significant in both cases. Thus, I am not hypocritical.
Before you accuse someone of being hypocritical, make sure you understand what hypocritical means.
80338
Post by: Hyrgola
I think if a Trygon get +3attack when it can split the pool dice, then it will be able to do the same think in one-to-one melee, but the ambiguity doesn't fit in this case, so, I think first you must split how many attacks go to each pool, for that you must know how many attack has the model, in Trygons it will be 6+1(6base +1 for more than one pair of scything talons), one a this must be made with the prehensile pincer tail's profile.
80258
Post by: Rustyeh
Woah... I'm gone for a few days and you guys have made this post in to science! O___O
I got to play a few games of 8th a couple days back and I played the rule as only +1 attack. (I didn't wanna take advantage of the rule ambiguity so I played in favor for my opponent) And given 6+1 attacks the Trygon prime was still a beast! I'm certain now that the RAI is meant to be only +1, because 9 attacks would be just friggin overkill for a model like that. Though I still want an actual FAQ to clear this, because the wording of the rule could still go either way and given only RAW I would still say it's +3 attacks.
Also this post was featured on the Dakka Facebook, so I'm glad it has sparked a conversation and hopefully given new light to this rule and others with similar wording. 
85004
Post by: col_impact
 Rustyeh wrote:Woah... I'm gone for a few days and you guys have made this post in to science! O___O
I got to play a few games of 8th a couple days back and I played the rule as only +1 attack. (I didn't wanna take advantage of the rule ambiguity so I played in favor for my opponent) And given 6+1 attacks the Trygon prime was still a beast! I'm certain now that the RAI is meant to be only +1, because 9 attacks would be just friggin overkill for a model like that. Though I still want an actual FAQ to clear this, because the wording of the rule could still go either way and given only RAW I would still say it's +3 attacks.
Also this post was featured on the Dakka Facebook, so I'm glad it has sparked a conversation and hopefully given new light to this rule and others with similar wording.
RAW is actually for +1A. The weapon profile is for 'massive scything talons' and there is no profile for 'pair of massive scything talons' or 'massive scything talon'.
66969
Post by: lokust2501
+1A total. Compare to Ork Deff Dread weapons in the same book if you want it to be absolutely clear.
80258
Post by: Rustyeh
 doctortom wrote:
"Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out" In this case they should have had a disclaimer for not stopping at 1.
I love you for your excellent use of a Monty Python quote. Automatically Appended Next Post: col_impact wrote: Rustyeh wrote:Woah... I'm gone for a few days and you guys have made this post in to science! O___O
I got to play a few games of 8th a couple days back and I played the rule as only +1 attack. (I didn't wanna take advantage of the rule ambiguity so I played in favor for my opponent) And given 6+1 attacks the Trygon prime was still a beast! I'm certain now that the RAI is meant to be only +1, because 9 attacks would be just friggin overkill for a model like that. Though I still want an actual FAQ to clear this, because the wording of the rule could still go either way and given only RAW I would still say it's +3 attacks.
Also this post was featured on the Dakka Facebook, so I'm glad it has sparked a conversation and hopefully given new light to this rule and others with similar wording.
RAW is actually for +1A. The weapon profile is for 'massive scything talons'.
I've now read about half the pages of this post, since I last read this. And given how over the top weird Bulls*** you have spouted out, I am not going to take your oppinions into account.
Since time immemorial Tyranid scything talons have always been pairs. In the codex for 6th it is stated that a single weapon profile for "Scything talons" always means 1 pair. Given the Trygons wargear is 3 pairs, meaning 3 individual weapons. Your arguments for "Only one weapon profile blablabla" can get the fudge out of this thread.
85004
Post by: col_impact
Rustyeh wrote:
I've now read about half the pages of this post, since I last read this. And given how over the top weird Bulls*** you have spouted out, I am not going to take your oppinions into account.
Since time immemorial Tyranid scything talons have always been pairs. In the codex for 6th it is stated that a single weapon profile for "Scything talons" always means 1 pair. Given the Trygons wargear is 3 pairs, meaning 3 individual weapons. Your arguments for "Only one weapon profile blablabla" can get the fudge out of this thread.
You are mistaken about how YMDC works. You need to present an argument with proof. Your feelings and unsupported opinion don't matter.
80258
Post by: Rustyeh
To throw more fuel in to the fire. In the 7th edition the Trygon and Trygon Prime had 2 pairs of scything talons.
Cometh 8th it got pumped into 3 pairs. Why was there need for it to get pumped to 3 pairs? It makes no sense, if it actually cannot benefit from actually having 3 pairs. 2 pairs of MST would cost 44 points for a model to take. The 3 pairs cost 60 points.
So what this means is you have to pay 16 additional points, to get no extra benefit for owning a third pair. Given how many people here intrepid the rule is it doesn't matter how many pairs you own beyond 2, you only get +1 attack.
I understand this gaming wise as a balancing factor, because a 9 attack Trygon would be just overkill...
But why was it changed from 2 pairs to 3 from 7th to 8th? Why are the Trygon models the only ones able to purchase more than 2 pairs in the whole book? Heck, they are required to buy three pairs, and they dont benefit from the third pair at all. Why not just give them 2 pairs? Why not word the rule so that it clearly only gives +1/+2/+3/+X attacks at all times when fighting? Why not create Trygon specific weapons to have a clear ruling that wouldn't conflict with other models and their weapons? Why word it so ambiguously so these type of circlejerk argument threads need to be created to bring nothing new to the table except more confusion?
Why oh why indeed... All we can do is wait for an official FAQ to clear this, in the mean time I suggest everyone to agree with your opponents on how these types of situations should be cleared in your games and have fun.
85004
Post by: col_impact
Rustyeh wrote:To throw more fuel in to the fire. In the 7th edition the Trygon and Trygon Prime had 2 pairs of scything talons.
Cometh 8th it got pumped into 3 pairs. Why was there need for it to get pumped to 3 pairs? It makes no sense, if it actually cannot benefit from actually having 3 pairs. 2 pairs of MST would cost 44 points for a model to take. The 3 pairs cost 60 points.
So what this means is you have to pay 16 additional points, to get no extra benefit for owning a third pair. Given how many people here intrepid the rule is it doesn't matter how many pairs you own beyond 2, you only get +1 attack.
I understand this gaming wise as a balancing factor, because a 9 attack Trygon would be just overkill...
But why was it changed from 2 pairs to 3 from 7th to 8th? Why are the Trygon models the only ones able to purchase more than 2 pairs in the whole book? Heck, they are required to buy three pairs, and they dont benefit from the third pair at all. Why not just give them 2 pairs? Why not word the rule so that it clearly only gives +1/+2/+3/+X attacks at all times when fighting? Why not create Trygon specific weapons to have a clear ruling that wouldn't conflict with other models and their weapons? Why word it so ambiguously so these type of circlejerk argument threads need to be created to bring nothing new to the table except more confusion?
Why oh why indeed... All we can do is wait for an official FAQ to clear this, in the mean time I suggest everyone to agree with your opponents on how these types of situations should be cleared in your games and have fun.
8th edition has nothing to do with 7th edition.
80258
Post by: Rustyeh
It does and it doesn't. I am merely using it as a reference.
But your argument for having "only a single weapon profile" makes no sense. You have said over and over and over and over that "there is no profile called pair of massive scything talons" The only mention of what weapons a Trygon has in the index is word for word: "A Trygon is a single model armed with a bio-electric pulse, three pairs of massive scything talons and a toxinspike"
How you intrepid this means, the Trygon doesn't have any pairs of scything talons, or scything talons at all for that matter. As there is no point cost or a profile for a weapon called: "three pairs of massive scything talons." So they are non-existent if the RAW is what you have established in your arguments.
Now if we look at the actual RAW and actual Tyranid biology. Tyranid weapons come in pairs. Rending claws = a pair, Crushing Claws = a pair, Boneswords = a pair etc.
One pair = One profile
Three pairs = Three profiles
For the sake of simplicity and room on the physical page of the book there are no individual profiles for all different amounts of weapons, but they are clumped under "Massive scything talons"
"Massive Scything Talons" is a profile for one pair of Massive Scything talons, alas one pair is one weapon.
Given the Trygons datasheet grants it three pairs, it comes equipped with 3 weapons with the same profile and same name. It is only represented with one profile, and not three separate identical profiles for yet again simplicity and saving room on the physical book.
I do not know and frankly I do not care how you have come to an assumption that this would only be one weapon profile that gets "upgrades." Because then that should be applied to other rules as well, if some model has more than one of the same weapon, it should only have one weapon and the rest should be upgrades. Like the Leman Russ for example. It can take two heavy flamers, but as they are identical they should only ever be considered as one weapon, because there is no profile in the book for a weapon called "two heavy flamers" the second one is merely a upgrade for the first one. And the unit can only ever fire one Heavy Flamer, because that is the profile it has.
93221
Post by: Lance845
The thing is you cannot prove a negative. There is no evidence you can present to prove that something does not exist. Only that something does exist. There is no evidence to disprove that a model equipped with 3 wargear is supposed to treat it as 1. Because there is no rule that says you are supposed to. However, there IS a rule that says the model comes equipped with 3 wargear. We can prove that. It should be all the evidence we need.
3 wargear. 3 profiles.
80258
Post by: Rustyeh
Lance845 wrote:The thing is you cannot prove a negative. There is no evidence you can present to prove that something does not exist. Only that something does exist. There is no evidence to disprove that a model equipped with 3 wargear is supposed to treat it as 1. Because there is no rule that says you are supposed to. However, there IS a rule that says the model comes equipped with 3 wargear. We can prove that. It should be all the evidence we need.
3 wargear. 3 profiles.
Exactly this. The profile only includes one of a given wargear / weapon, because it would be a real pain to list all the possible combinations you can include said wargear / weapon in your army.
The amount of profiles is given in the datasheet and the profile itself is the profile for one single wargear / weapon, you just have to multiply it by the amount the model has equiped.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
Lance845 wrote:The thing is you cannot prove a negative. There is no evidence you can present to prove that something does not exist. Only that something does exist. There is no evidence to disprove that a model equipped with 3 wargear is supposed to treat it as 1. Because there is no rule that says you are supposed to. However, there IS a rule that says the model comes equipped with 3 wargear. We can prove that. It should be all the evidence we need.
3 wargear. 3 profiles.
There are ways to prove a negative. If you take a person to a hole in the ground and you are saying there is no ground there, then you are proving a negative. This is possible in writing where you can quote a passage and highlight a section where someone is assuming something to be.
For example, there was the phrase in 7th Edition when talking about multiple weapon profiles that you "can choose which to choose each turn." I can prove that it does not say "can choose which one to choose each turn" because the word " one" is not present in the proper quote. (highlights for easy viewing).
The real question would be is "pairs" part of the title of the possessed weapons or is indicating another relationship that Twin-linked did in editions previous? If part of the title, then yes, the Weapon isn't carried by model. But if it carries that other relationship that Twin-linked had, then we may actually be looking at 6 actual Weapons possessed by the model if that "pair" is not already defined elsewhere (as it did in the bug's last codex), now isn't THAT scary?
85004
Post by: col_impact
Rustyeh wrote:
It does and it doesn't. I am merely using it as a reference.
But your argument for having "only a single weapon profile" makes no sense. You have said over and over and over and over that "there is no profile called pair of massive scything talons" The only mention of what weapons a Trygon has in the index is word for word: "A Trygon is a single model armed with a bio-electric pulse, three pairs of massive scything talons and a toxinspike"
How you intrepid this means, the Trygon doesn't have any pairs of scything talons, or scything talons at all for that matter. As there is no point cost or a profile for a weapon called: "three pairs of massive scything talons." So they are non-existent if the RAW is what you have established in your arguments.
Now if we look at the actual RAW and actual Tyranid biology. Tyranid weapons come in pairs. Rending claws = a pair, Crushing Claws = a pair, Boneswords = a pair etc.
One pair = One profile
Three pairs = Three profiles
For the sake of simplicity and room on the physical page of the book there are no individual profiles for all different amounts of weapons, but they are clumped under "Massive scything talons"
"Massive Scything Talons" is a profile for one pair of Massive Scything talons, alas one pair is one weapon.
Given the Trygons datasheet grants it three pairs, it comes equipped with 3 weapons with the same profile and same name. It is only represented with one profile, and not three separate identical profiles for yet again simplicity and saving room on the physical book.
I do not know and frankly I do not care how you have come to an assumption that this would only be one weapon profile that gets "upgrades." Because then that should be applied to other rules as well, if some model has more than one of the same weapon, it should only have one weapon and the rest should be upgrades. Like the Leman Russ for example. It can take two heavy flamers, but as they are identical they should only ever be considered as one weapon, because there is no profile in the book for a weapon called "two heavy flamers" the second one is merely a upgrade for the first one. And the unit can only ever fire one Heavy Flamer, because that is the profile it has.
The profile tells us what is a weapon. A single talon is not a weapon. A pair is not a weapon. Only 'massive scything talons' is recognized by the rules as a weapon.
93221
Post by: Lance845
col_impact wrote: Rustyeh wrote:
It does and it doesn't. I am merely using it as a reference.
But your argument for having "only a single weapon profile" makes no sense. You have said over and over and over and over that "there is no profile called pair of massive scything talons" The only mention of what weapons a Trygon has in the index is word for word: "A Trygon is a single model armed with a bio-electric pulse, three pairs of massive scything talons and a toxinspike"
How you intrepid this means, the Trygon doesn't have any pairs of scything talons, or scything talons at all for that matter. As there is no point cost or a profile for a weapon called: "three pairs of massive scything talons." So they are non-existent if the RAW is what you have established in your arguments.
Now if we look at the actual RAW and actual Tyranid biology. Tyranid weapons come in pairs. Rending claws = a pair, Crushing Claws = a pair, Boneswords = a pair etc.
One pair = One profile
Three pairs = Three profiles
For the sake of simplicity and room on the physical page of the book there are no individual profiles for all different amounts of weapons, but they are clumped under "Massive scything talons"
"Massive Scything Talons" is a profile for one pair of Massive Scything talons, alas one pair is one weapon.
Given the Trygons datasheet grants it three pairs, it comes equipped with 3 weapons with the same profile and same name. It is only represented with one profile, and not three separate identical profiles for yet again simplicity and saving room on the physical book.
I do not know and frankly I do not care how you have come to an assumption that this would only be one weapon profile that gets "upgrades." Because then that should be applied to other rules as well, if some model has more than one of the same weapon, it should only have one weapon and the rest should be upgrades. Like the Leman Russ for example. It can take two heavy flamers, but as they are identical they should only ever be considered as one weapon, because there is no profile in the book for a weapon called "two heavy flamers" the second one is merely a upgrade for the first one. And the unit can only ever fire one Heavy Flamer, because that is the profile it has.
The profile tells us what is a weapon. A single talon is not a weapon. A pair is not a weapon. Only 'massive scything talons' is recognized by the rules as a weapon.
Nope.
85004
Post by: col_impact
Lance845 wrote:The thing is you cannot prove a negative. There is no evidence you can present to prove that something does not exist. Only that something does exist. There is no evidence to disprove that a model equipped with 3 wargear is supposed to treat it as 1. Because there is no rule that says you are supposed to. However, there IS a rule that says the model comes equipped with 3 wargear. We can prove that. It should be all the evidence we need.
3 wargear. 3 profiles.
There is nothing indicating what is a weapon except for the profile. Pairs is not a weapon. Only 'massive scything talons' is a weapon recognized by the rules.
93221
Post by: Lance845
 Charistoph wrote: Lance845 wrote:The thing is you cannot prove a negative. There is no evidence you can present to prove that something does not exist. Only that something does exist. There is no evidence to disprove that a model equipped with 3 wargear is supposed to treat it as 1. Because there is no rule that says you are supposed to. However, there IS a rule that says the model comes equipped with 3 wargear. We can prove that. It should be all the evidence we need.
3 wargear. 3 profiles.
There are ways to prove a negative. If you take a person to a hole in the ground and you are saying there is no ground there, then you are proving a negative. This is possible in writing where you can quote a passage and highlight a section where someone is assuming something to be.
For example, there was the phrase in 7th Edition when talking about multiple weapon profiles that you "can choose which to choose each turn." I can prove that it does not say "can choose which one to choose each turn" because the word " one" is not present in the proper quote. (highlights for easy viewing).
The real question would be is "pairs" part of the title of the possessed weapons or is indicating another relationship that Twin-linked did in editions previous? If part of the title, then yes, the Weapon isn't carried by model. But if it carries that other relationship that Twin-linked had, then we may actually be looking at 6 actual Weapons possessed by the model if that "pair" is not already defined elsewhere (as it did in the bug's last codex), now isn't THAT scary?
Which is what I have said is the raw. But not the RAI. Rai seems clear. It should be 3.
85004
Post by: col_impact
Lance845 wrote:col_impact wrote: Rustyeh wrote:
It does and it doesn't. I am merely using it as a reference.
But your argument for having "only a single weapon profile" makes no sense. You have said over and over and over and over that "there is no profile called pair of massive scything talons" The only mention of what weapons a Trygon has in the index is word for word: "A Trygon is a single model armed with a bio-electric pulse, three pairs of massive scything talons and a toxinspike"
How you intrepid this means, the Trygon doesn't have any pairs of scything talons, or scything talons at all for that matter. As there is no point cost or a profile for a weapon called: "three pairs of massive scything talons." So they are non-existent if the RAW is what you have established in your arguments.
Now if we look at the actual RAW and actual Tyranid biology. Tyranid weapons come in pairs. Rending claws = a pair, Crushing Claws = a pair, Boneswords = a pair etc.
One pair = One profile
Three pairs = Three profiles
For the sake of simplicity and room on the physical page of the book there are no individual profiles for all different amounts of weapons, but they are clumped under "Massive scything talons"
"Massive Scything Talons" is a profile for one pair of Massive Scything talons, alas one pair is one weapon.
Given the Trygons datasheet grants it three pairs, it comes equipped with 3 weapons with the same profile and same name. It is only represented with one profile, and not three separate identical profiles for yet again simplicity and saving room on the physical book.
I do not know and frankly I do not care how you have come to an assumption that this would only be one weapon profile that gets "upgrades." Because then that should be applied to other rules as well, if some model has more than one of the same weapon, it should only have one weapon and the rest should be upgrades. Like the Leman Russ for example. It can take two heavy flamers, but as they are identical they should only ever be considered as one weapon, because there is no profile in the book for a weapon called "two heavy flamers" the second one is merely a upgrade for the first one. And the unit can only ever fire one Heavy Flamer, because that is the profile it has.
The profile tells us what is a weapon. A single talon is not a weapon. A pair is not a weapon. Only 'massive scything talons' is recognized by the rules as a weapon.
Nope.
In YMDC, you need to back up what you claim with support. I am able to point to the weapon profile for 'massive scything talons' for support for my statement. What are you able to point to?
93221
Post by: Lance845
col_impact wrote: Lance845 wrote:The thing is you cannot prove a negative. There is no evidence you can present to prove that something does not exist. Only that something does exist. There is no evidence to disprove that a model equipped with 3 wargear is supposed to treat it as 1. Because there is no rule that says you are supposed to. However, there IS a rule that says the model comes equipped with 3 wargear. We can prove that. It should be all the evidence we need.
3 wargear. 3 profiles.
There is nothing indicating what is a weapon except for the profile. Pairs is not a weapon. Only 'massive scything talons' is a weapon recognized by the rules.
Nope.
85004
Post by: col_impact
Lance845 wrote: Charistoph wrote: Lance845 wrote:The thing is you cannot prove a negative. There is no evidence you can present to prove that something does not exist. Only that something does exist. There is no evidence to disprove that a model equipped with 3 wargear is supposed to treat it as 1. Because there is no rule that says you are supposed to. However, there IS a rule that says the model comes equipped with 3 wargear. We can prove that. It should be all the evidence we need.
3 wargear. 3 profiles.
There are ways to prove a negative. If you take a person to a hole in the ground and you are saying there is no ground there, then you are proving a negative. This is possible in writing where you can quote a passage and highlight a section where someone is assuming something to be.
For example, there was the phrase in 7th Edition when talking about multiple weapon profiles that you "can choose which to choose each turn." I can prove that it does not say "can choose which one to choose each turn" because the word " one" is not present in the proper quote. (highlights for easy viewing).
The real question would be is "pairs" part of the title of the possessed weapons or is indicating another relationship that Twin-linked did in editions previous? If part of the title, then yes, the Weapon isn't carried by model. But if it carries that other relationship that Twin-linked had, then we may actually be looking at 6 actual Weapons possessed by the model if that "pair" is not already defined elsewhere (as it did in the bug's last codex), now isn't THAT scary?
Which is what I have said is the raw. But not the tau. Tau seems clear. It should be 3.
'Pair of massive scything talons' is not recognized as a a weapon. Automatically Appended Next Post: Lance845 wrote:col_impact wrote: Lance845 wrote:The thing is you cannot prove a negative. There is no evidence you can present to prove that something does not exist. Only that something does exist. There is no evidence to disprove that a model equipped with 3 wargear is supposed to treat it as 1. Because there is no rule that says you are supposed to. However, there IS a rule that says the model comes equipped with 3 wargear. We can prove that. It should be all the evidence we need.
3 wargear. 3 profiles.
There is nothing indicating what is a weapon except for the profile. Pairs is not a weapon. Only 'massive scything talons' is a weapon recognized by the rules.
Nope.
In YMDC, you need to back up what you claim with support. I am able to point to the weapon profile for 'massive scything talons' for support for my statement. What are you able to point to?
93221
Post by: Lance845
col_impact wrote: Lance845 wrote:col_impact wrote: Rustyeh wrote:
It does and it doesn't. I am merely using it as a reference.
But your argument for having "only a single weapon profile" makes no sense. You have said over and over and over and over that "there is no profile called pair of massive scything talons" The only mention of what weapons a Trygon has in the index is word for word: "A Trygon is a single model armed with a bio-electric pulse, three pairs of massive scything talons and a toxinspike"
How you intrepid this means, the Trygon doesn't have any pairs of scything talons, or scything talons at all for that matter. As there is no point cost or a profile for a weapon called: "three pairs of massive scything talons." So they are non-existent if the RAW is what you have established in your arguments.
Now if we look at the actual RAW and actual Tyranid biology. Tyranid weapons come in pairs. Rending claws = a pair, Crushing Claws = a pair, Boneswords = a pair etc.
One pair = One profile
Three pairs = Three profiles
For the sake of simplicity and room on the physical page of the book there are no individual profiles for all different amounts of weapons, but they are clumped under "Massive scything talons"
"Massive Scything Talons" is a profile for one pair of Massive Scything talons, alas one pair is one weapon.
Given the Trygons datasheet grants it three pairs, it comes equipped with 3 weapons with the same profile and same name. It is only represented with one profile, and not three separate identical profiles for yet again simplicity and saving room on the physical book.
I do not know and frankly I do not care how you have come to an assumption that this would only be one weapon profile that gets "upgrades." Because then that should be applied to other rules as well, if some model has more than one of the same weapon, it should only have one weapon and the rest should be upgrades. Like the Leman Russ for example. It can take two heavy flamers, but as they are identical they should only ever be considered as one weapon, because there is no profile in the book for a weapon called "two heavy flamers" the second one is merely a upgrade for the first one. And the unit can only ever fire one Heavy Flamer, because that is the profile it has.
The profile tells us what is a weapon. A single talon is not a weapon. A pair is not a weapon. Only 'massive scything talons' is recognized by the rules as a weapon.
Nope.
In YMDC, you need to back up what you claim with support. I am able to point to the weapon profile for 'massive scything talons' for support for my statement. What are you able to point to?
I have. I won't write it all out again. My answer this this is...
Nope.
85004
Post by: col_impact
Lance845 wrote:
I have. I won't write it all out again. My answer this this is...
Nope.
Your unsupported opinion means nothing in this thread. But feel free to keep saying 'nope'. It makes your argument look unsupportable.
Meanwhile the actual rules on the page support my argument.
93221
Post by: Lance845
col_impact wrote: Lance845 wrote:
I have. I won't write it all out again. My answer this this is...
Nope.
Your unsupported opinion means nothing in this thread. But feel free to keep saying 'nope'. It makes your argument look unsupportable.
Meanwhile the actual rules on the page support my argument.
Nope.
I don't believe that's true. I believe your are making pair a mechanical entity instead of a numerical value. Your entire argument hinges on that being true. But we have no wargear to support that. Only a single self referential line that ALSO functions as a numerical value. We do however have precedence that plural works otherwise and the English language granting pair a value.
So no. Nope. None. You are wrong. Have been. Continue to be. Seemingly always will be since you just parrot the same few lines over and over.
105443
Post by: doctortom
col_impact wrote: Rustyeh wrote:
It does and it doesn't. I am merely using it as a reference.
But your argument for having "only a single weapon profile" makes no sense. You have said over and over and over and over that "there is no profile called pair of massive scything talons" The only mention of what weapons a Trygon has in the index is word for word: "A Trygon is a single model armed with a bio-electric pulse, three pairs of massive scything talons and a toxinspike"
How you intrepid this means, the Trygon doesn't have any pairs of scything talons, or scything talons at all for that matter. As there is no point cost or a profile for a weapon called: "three pairs of massive scything talons." So they are non-existent if the RAW is what you have established in your arguments.
Now if we look at the actual RAW and actual Tyranid biology. Tyranid weapons come in pairs. Rending claws = a pair, Crushing Claws = a pair, Boneswords = a pair etc.
One pair = One profile
Three pairs = Three profiles
For the sake of simplicity and room on the physical page of the book there are no individual profiles for all different amounts of weapons, but they are clumped under "Massive scything talons"
"Massive Scything Talons" is a profile for one pair of Massive Scything talons, alas one pair is one weapon.
Given the Trygons datasheet grants it three pairs, it comes equipped with 3 weapons with the same profile and same name. It is only represented with one profile, and not three separate identical profiles for yet again simplicity and saving room on the physical book.
I do not know and frankly I do not care how you have come to an assumption that this would only be one weapon profile that gets "upgrades." Because then that should be applied to other rules as well, if some model has more than one of the same weapon, it should only have one weapon and the rest should be upgrades. Like the Leman Russ for example. It can take two heavy flamers, but as they are identical they should only ever be considered as one weapon, because there is no profile in the book for a weapon called "two heavy flamers" the second one is merely a upgrade for the first one. And the unit can only ever fire one Heavy Flamer, because that is the profile it has.
The profile tells us what is a weapon. A single talon is not a weapon. A pair is not a weapon. Only 'massive scything talons' is recognized by the rules as a weapon.
And the dataset tells us it has 3 separate weapons groups of the massive scathing talons by saying there are 3 of them. And we are told that a model can use its different weapons for different melee attacks, so it can use all 3. The profile doesn't enter into it until after the weapons you are fighting with have been selected. And a pair of massive scathing talons are massive scathing talons, plural, so the profile is used for each one of those three sets of weapons. This meets all requirements whereas yours does not. You deny the opportunity to split attacks between weapons the data sheet clearly indicates the model has. You treat all scathing talons after the first as "equipment" -your word - and not as weapons without providing valid rules support to back that up. Your claim that the profile lumps in all claws has no RAW basis as we are told there are multiple sets, and you wish to ignore that "massive scathing claws" can consist of a pair of claws. 2 of something makes it plural. This means the profile DOES apply to a pair of massive scything claws. Since it is established on the data sheet that there are 3 pairs -3 sets of weapons, lumping them all together as one goes against the RAW that there are 3 sets that can be used in separate attacks.
85004
Post by: col_impact
doctortom wrote:
And the dataset tells us it has 3 separate weapons groups of the massive scathing talons by saying there are 3 of them. And we are told that a model can use its different weapons for different melee attacks, so it can use all 3. The profile doesn't enter into it until after the weapons you are fighting with have been selected. And a pair of massive scathing talons are massive scathing talons, plural, so the profile is used for each one of those three sets of weapons. This meets all requirements whereas yours does not. You deny the opportunity to split attacks between weapons the data sheet clearly indicates the model has. You treat all scathing talons after the first as "equipment" -your word - and not as weapons without providing valid rules support to back that up. Your claim that the profile lumps in all claws has no RAW basis as we are told there are multiple sets, and you wish to ignore that "massive scathing claws" can consist of a pair of claws. 2 of something makes it plural. This means the profile DOES apply to a pair of massive scything claws. Since it is established on the data sheet that there are 3 pairs -3 sets of weapons, lumping them all together as one goes against the RAW that there are 3 sets that can be used in separate attacks.
There is no profile for a 'pair of massive scything talons' so a pair is not a weapon recognized by the rules. The only weapon recognized by the rules is 'massive scything talons' so that is the only weapon you have.
15582
Post by: blaktoof
If the bearer has more than 1 pair of massive scything talons it can make +1 attack each time it fights.
Not +1 for each pair , just plus one if it has more.
If the trygon was a centipede and it had 100 paira of this weapon it would get +1 attack, not +100.
Any number of pairs past one is all more than one pair.
85004
Post by: col_impact
blaktoof wrote:If the bearer has more than 1 pair of massive scything talons it can make +1 attack each time it fights.
Not +1 for each pair , just plus one if it has more.
If the trygon was a centipede and it had 100 paira of this weapon it would get +1 attack, not +100.
Any number of pairs past one is all more than one pair.
Yup. A 'pair of massive scything talons' is not a weapon. The weapon is 'massive scything talons'. It checks to see if there are additional pairs beyond the first and grants +1A if there is an additional pair beyond the first.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
blaktoof wrote:If the bearer has more than 1 pair of massive scything talons it can make +1 attack each time it fights.
Not +1 for each pair , just plus one if it has more.
If the trygon was a centipede and it had 100 paira of this weapon it would get +1 attack, not +100.
Any number of pairs past one is all more than one pair.
That doesn't match the quote given. It's a bonus attack with THIS Weapon. At a minimum, it has three of THIS Weapon that can call it in for a bonus Attack, so it can make 3 Bonus Attacks, one for each Weapon.
In order for it to be as you said, the rule would state, "If the bearer has more than one pair of massive scything talons, it can make 1 additional attack each time it fights."
So, is it an additional attack for the bearer, or for this Weapon?
93221
Post by: Lance845
blaktoof wrote:If the bearer has more than 1 pair of massive scything talons it can make +1 attack each time it fights.
Not +1 for each pair , just plus one if it has more.
If the trygon was a centipede and it had 100 paira of this weapon it would get +1 attack, not +100.
Any number of pairs past one is all more than one pair.
That's not what the rule says though.
2 requirements. It fights and it has more than one pair.
1 effect. It can make +1 attack with this weapon. With this weapon being a major keybphrase here.
If the model has multiple weapon profiles, all with the same rule, than +1 attack with each weapon profile.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
col_impact wrote:blaktoof wrote:If the bearer has more than 1 pair of massive scything talons it can make +1 attack each time it fights.
Not +1 for each pair , just plus one if it has more.
If the trygon was a centipede and it had 100 paira of this weapon it would get +1 attack, not +100.
Any number of pairs past one is all more than one pair.
Yup. A 'pair of massive scything talons' is not a weapon. The weapon is 'massive scything talons'. It checks to see if there are additional pairs beyond the first and grants +1A if there is an additional pair beyond the first.
Nope.
85004
Post by: col_impact
Charistoph wrote:blaktoof wrote:If the bearer has more than 1 pair of massive scything talons it can make +1 attack each time it fights.
Not +1 for each pair , just plus one if it has more.
If the trygon was a centipede and it had 100 paira of this weapon it would get +1 attack, not +100.
Any number of pairs past one is all more than one pair.
That doesn't match the quote given. It's a bonus attack with THIS Weapon. At a minimum, it has three of THIS Weapon that can call it in for a bonus Attack, so it can make 3 Bonus Attacks, one for each Weapon.
In order for it to be as you said, the rule would state, "If the bearer has more than one pair of massive scything talons, it can make 1 additional attack each time it fights."
So, is it an additional attack for the bearer, or for this Weapon?
There is no weapon called 'pair of massive scything talons'. The only weapon you have is 'massive scything talons'. How are you justifying that 'it has three of THIS Weapon'? A 'pair' is not a weapon.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance845 wrote:blaktoof wrote:If the bearer has more than 1 pair of massive scything talons it can make +1 attack each time it fights.
Not +1 for each pair , just plus one if it has more.
If the trygon was a centipede and it had 100 paira of this weapon it would get +1 attack, not +100.
Any number of pairs past one is all more than one pair.
That's not what the rule says though.
2 requirements. It fights and it has more than one pair.
1 effect. It can make +1 attack with this weapon. With this weapon being a major keybphrase here.
If the model has multiple weapon profiles, all with the same rule, than +1 attack with each weapon profile.
The models doesn't have multiple weapon profiles. You are making that up. It has one profile for 'massive scything talons'. The Trygon is armed with a single weapon called 'massive scything talons'
93221
Post by: Lance845
col_impact wrote: Charistoph wrote:blaktoof wrote:If the bearer has more than 1 pair of massive scything talons it can make +1 attack each time it fights.
Not +1 for each pair , just plus one if it has more.
If the trygon was a centipede and it had 100 paira of this weapon it would get +1 attack, not +100.
Any number of pairs past one is all more than one pair.
That doesn't match the quote given. It's a bonus attack with THIS Weapon. At a minimum, it has three of THIS Weapon that can call it in for a bonus Attack, so it can make 3 Bonus Attacks, one for each Weapon.
In order for it to be as you said, the rule would state, "If the bearer has more than one pair of massive scything talons, it can make 1 additional attack each time it fights."
So, is it an additional attack for the bearer, or for this Weapon?
There is no weapon called 'pair of massive scything talons'. The only weapon you have is 'massive scything talons'. How are you justifying that 'it has three of THIS Weapon'? A 'pair' is not a weapon.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance845 wrote:blaktoof wrote:If the bearer has more than 1 pair of massive scything talons it can make +1 attack each time it fights.
Not +1 for each pair , just plus one if it has more.
If the trygon was a centipede and it had 100 paira of this weapon it would get +1 attack, not +100.
Any number of pairs past one is all more than one pair.
That's not what the rule says though.
2 requirements. It fights and it has more than one pair.
1 effect. It can make +1 attack with this weapon. With this weapon being a major keybphrase here.
If the model has multiple weapon profiles, all with the same rule, than +1 attack with each weapon profile.
The models doesn't have multiple weapon profiles. You are making that up. It has one profile for 'massive scything talons'. The Trygon is armed with a single weapon called 'massive scything talons'
Nope. I think you should read the dataslate where it is clearly armed with 3. Though potentially 6. As per the English language.
85004
Post by: col_impact
Lance845 wrote:
Nope. I think you should read the dataslate where it is clearly armed with 3. Though potentially 6. As per the English language.
No weapon profile is provided for 'pair of massive scything talons' so a pair isn't a weapon. The profile that you do have is for 'massive scything talons' so you only have a single weapon.
56277
Post by: Eldarain
One side thinks it has one weapon. One side thinks it has three. This either ends up with +1 or +3 attacks.
Col_Impact has a relative whose sole interest in Dakka is coming into YMDC threads and backing up his positions in the same writing style and quote formatting.
These are the facts and we can only wait for a FAQ or Errata now.
85004
Post by: col_impact
 Eldarain wrote:Col_Impact has a relative whose sole interest in Dakka is coming into YMDC threads and backing up his positions in the same writing style and quote formatting.
What exactly are you suggesting? Orknado is free to post whatever he wants to.
Eldarain wrote:One side thinks it has one weapon. One side thinks it has three. This either ends up with +1 or +3 attacks.
These are the facts and we can only wait for a FAQ or Errata now.
My argument is the one with RAW support. It is also the obvious RAI.
93221
Post by: Lance845
col_impact wrote: Eldarain wrote:Col_Impact has a relative whose sole interest in Dakka is coming into YMDC threads and backing up his positions in the same writing style and quote formatting.
What exactly are you suggesting? Orknado is free to post whatever he wants to.
Seriously? Is this a real question?
Eldarain wrote:One side thinks it has one weapon. One side thinks it has three. This either ends up with +1 or +3 attacks.
These are the facts and we can only wait for a FAQ or Errata now.
My argument is the one with RAW support. It is also the obvious RAI.
Nope.
85004
Post by: col_impact
Lance845 wrote:col_impact wrote: Eldarain wrote:Col_Impact has a relative whose sole interest in Dakka is coming into YMDC threads and backing up his positions in the same writing style and quote formatting.
What exactly are you suggesting? Orknado is free to post whatever he wants to.
Seriously? Is this a real question?
Yes. Please clarify what you or Eldarain are suggesting here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The weapon profile says 'massive scything talons'. It does not say 'pair of massive scything talons' or 'massive scything talon'. So my argument is supported by the RAW and yours isn't.
10953
Post by: JohnnyHell
12 pages on, I'm still in Camp Plus One Attack.
80258
Post by: Rustyeh
col_impact wrote: doctortom wrote:
And the dataset tells us it has 3 separate weapons groups of the massive scathing talons by saying there are 3 of them. And we are told that a model can use its different weapons for different melee attacks, so it can use all 3. The profile doesn't enter into it until after the weapons you are fighting with have been selected. And a pair of massive scathing talons are massive scathing talons, plural, so the profile is used for each one of those three sets of weapons. This meets all requirements whereas yours does not. You deny the opportunity to split attacks between weapons the data sheet clearly indicates the model has. You treat all scathing talons after the first as "equipment" -your word - and not as weapons without providing valid rules support to back that up. Your claim that the profile lumps in all claws has no RAW basis as we are told there are multiple sets, and you wish to ignore that "massive scathing claws" can consist of a pair of claws. 2 of something makes it plural. This means the profile DOES apply to a pair of massive scything claws. Since it is established on the data sheet that there are 3 pairs -3 sets of weapons, lumping them all together as one goes against the RAW that there are 3 sets that can be used in separate attacks.
There is no profile for a 'pair of massive scything talons' so a pair is not a weapon recognized by the rules. The only weapon recognized by the rules is 'massive scything talons' so that is the only weapon you have.
I love it how you completely dismissed my Leman Russ example before, because it was clearly proving you wrong.
I repeat. If some model has more than one of the same weapon, it should only have one weapon and the rest should be upgrades. Like the Leman Russ for example. It can take two heavy flamers, but as they are identical they should only ever be considered as one weapon, because there is no profile in the book for a weapon called "two heavy flamers" the second one is merely a upgrade for the first one. And the unit can only ever fire one Heavy Flamer, because that is the profile it has.
I believe you have talked yourself into a corner with this "There is no profile of X name" bullshittery...
93221
Post by: Lance845
Rustyeh wrote:col_impact wrote: doctortom wrote:
And the dataset tells us it has 3 separate weapons groups of the massive scathing talons by saying there are 3 of them. And we are told that a model can use its different weapons for different melee attacks, so it can use all 3. The profile doesn't enter into it until after the weapons you are fighting with have been selected. And a pair of massive scathing talons are massive scathing talons, plural, so the profile is used for each one of those three sets of weapons. This meets all requirements whereas yours does not. You deny the opportunity to split attacks between weapons the data sheet clearly indicates the model has. You treat all scathing talons after the first as "equipment" -your word - and not as weapons without providing valid rules support to back that up. Your claim that the profile lumps in all claws has no RAW basis as we are told there are multiple sets, and you wish to ignore that "massive scathing claws" can consist of a pair of claws. 2 of something makes it plural. This means the profile DOES apply to a pair of massive scything claws. Since it is established on the data sheet that there are 3 pairs -3 sets of weapons, lumping them all together as one goes against the RAW that there are 3 sets that can be used in separate attacks.
There is no profile for a 'pair of massive scything talons' so a pair is not a weapon recognized by the rules. The only weapon recognized by the rules is 'massive scything talons' so that is the only weapon you have.
bullshittery...
Yup.
Any argument he cannot refute he refuses to acknowledge.
It's the "Blah blah blah I cannot hear you!" defense.
81759
Post by: BaconCatBug
New FAQ is New:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/07/02/warhammer-40000-faq-now-available-july2gw-homepage-post-1/
Q. Monstrous scything talons say that if the bearer has more than one pair it can make one additional attack. How many extra attacks does a Trygon, which has three pairs of monstrous scything talons, make?
A. It makes a total of one additional attack.
97541
Post by: Servbot43
Wow Lance I guess that rule wasn't as "clearly obvious" after all 
85004
Post by: col_impact
Yup. The FAQ has clarified that RAW the Trygon only has the one weapon named 'massive scything talons' and only gets +1A for having additional pairs of massive scything talons beyond the first pair.
This should come as no surprise as the rules literally supported my argument and disproved any others.
And for the record Lance "nope" is not an argument.
Also, it should be pointed out that it was ridiculous the amount of personal attacks I had to endure in this thread for presenting my RAW argument.
I hope the outcome changes people's future conduct.
10953
Post by: JohnnyHell
It's like reading the rules gave you the answer here or something. Weird.
80258
Post by: Rustyeh
Glad to see this get cleared officially. I though from the start that the RAI was +1 attack, because a 9 attack Trygon would just be wrong.
As for the weapon profile bullshittery thats been going on in this thread for the last 10 pages:
col_impact can say anything he wants, he was right that it is +1A, but the way he tried to justify it was just utter nonsense.
It was written poorly in the beginning and it caused all this commotion. Should have just been clarified as "+1 attack in this fight phase" or some other way so it wasn't possible to misinterpret.
85004
Post by: col_impact
Rustyeh wrote:Glad to see this get cleared officially. I though from the start that the RAI was +1 attack, because a 9 attack Trygon would just be wrong.
As for the weapon profile bullshittery thats been going on in this thread for the last 10 pages:
col_impact can say anything he wants, he was right that it is +1A, but the way he tried to justify it was just utter nonsense.
It was written poorly in the beginning and it caused all this commotion. Should have just been clarified as "+1 attack in this fight phase" or some other way so it wasn't possible to misinterpret.
The FAQ clarified that 'massive scything talons' is a single weapon. That was my RAW argument all along. I think you need to re-assess how you read the rules if you are going to persist in calling my true argument 'utter nonsense' or 'bullshittery'.
112594
Post by: Dionysodorus
col_impact wrote: Rustyeh wrote:Glad to see this get cleared officially. I though from the start that the RAI was +1 attack, because a 9 attack Trygon would just be wrong.
As for the weapon profile bullshittery thats been going on in this thread for the last 10 pages:
col_impact can say anything he wants, he was right that it is +1A, but the way he tried to justify it was just utter nonsense.
It was written poorly in the beginning and it caused all this commotion. Should have just been clarified as "+1 attack in this fight phase" or some other way so it wasn't possible to misinterpret.
The FAQ clarified that 'massive scything talons' is a single weapon. That was my RAW argument all along. I think you need to re-assess how you read the rules if you are calling my argument 'utter nonsense'.
I don't think I even participated in this thread, but you're just continuing to embarrass yourself. That a FAQ ruling says something does not mean that that's what the RAW said all along. Like, duh? That's basically the whole point of the RAW vs RAI distinction, right?
80258
Post by: Rustyeh
Welp I am not continuing this shitstorm any longer. Just glad to see it getting cleared. As for this thread....
LOCK IT UP BOYS!
85004
Post by: col_impact
Dionysodorus wrote:col_impact wrote: Rustyeh wrote:Glad to see this get cleared officially. I though from the start that the RAI was +1 attack, because a 9 attack Trygon would just be wrong.
As for the weapon profile bullshittery thats been going on in this thread for the last 10 pages:
col_impact can say anything he wants, he was right that it is +1A, but the way he tried to justify it was just utter nonsense.
It was written poorly in the beginning and it caused all this commotion. Should have just been clarified as "+1 attack in this fight phase" or some other way so it wasn't possible to misinterpret.
The FAQ clarified that 'massive scything talons' is a single weapon. That was my RAW argument all along. I think you need to re-assess how you read the rules if you are calling my argument 'utter nonsense'.
I don't think I even participated in this thread, but you're just continuing to embarrass yourself. That a FAQ ruling says something does not mean that that's what the RAW said all along. Like, duh? That's basically the whole point of the RAW vs RAI distinction, right?
They didn't issue an errata so the FAQ is an indication that people were simply reading the rule wrong. My argument represents the correct reading of the rule. 'Massive scything talons' is correctly read as a single weapon. So my argument is obviously not 'utter nonsense' as some individuals are even now persisting in claiming.
80258
Post by: Rustyeh
col_impact wrote:Dionysodorus wrote:col_impact wrote: Rustyeh wrote:Glad to see this get cleared officially. I though from the start that the RAI was +1 attack, because a 9 attack Trygon would just be wrong.
As for the weapon profile bullshittery thats been going on in this thread for the last 10 pages:
col_impact can say anything he wants, he was right that it is +1A, but the way he tried to justify it was just utter nonsense.
It was written poorly in the beginning and it caused all this commotion. Should have just been clarified as "+1 attack in this fight phase" or some other way so it wasn't possible to misinterpret.
The FAQ clarified that 'massive scything talons' is a single weapon. That was my RAW argument all along. I think you need to re-assess how you read the rules if you are calling my argument 'utter nonsense'.
I don't think I even participated in this thread, but you're just continuing to embarrass yourself. That a FAQ ruling says something does not mean that that's what the RAW said all along. Like, duh? That's basically the whole point of the RAW vs RAI distinction, right?
They didn't issue an errata so the FAQ is an indication that people were simply reading the rule wrong. My argument represents the correct reading of the rule. 'Massive scything talons' is correctly read as a single weapon. So my argument is obviously not 'utter nonsense' as some individuals are even now persisting in claiming.
So which part of "LOCK IT UP!" didn't you get? The case is closed, GW has officially now tackled the issue and given us a clear answer.
Why do you have such an arrogant need to boost your ego, that you still continue to argue about this matter?
The Trygon gets +1A when it fights, as per the FAQ, you don't need to justify your own reading comprehension or anything else here anymore. Go bugger off some place else and stop wasting your energy on an issue that is already cleared. Automatically Appended Next Post: Also given the FAQ it is also wrong if we REALLY TRULY have to keep going at this internet fistfight.
The FAQ goes word to word:
"Q. Monstrous scything talons say that if the bearer has more
than one pair it can make one additional attack. How many
extra attacks does a Trygon, which has three pairs of monstrous
scything talons, make?
A. It makes a total of one additional attack. "
The Trygon and Trygon Prime are both equipped with MASSIVE Scything talons. So this does not resolve anything, since the FAQ is only meant for Monstrous Scything Talons.
Shall we have another 12 pages of fun col_impact? Or will you silence and leave this thread with your bullshittery and utter nonsense? 
19754
Post by: puma713
Glad this is officially resolved.
85004
Post by: col_impact
Rustyeh wrote:col_impact wrote:Dionysodorus wrote:col_impact wrote: Rustyeh wrote:Glad to see this get cleared officially. I though from the start that the RAI was +1 attack, because a 9 attack Trygon would just be wrong.
As for the weapon profile bullshittery thats been going on in this thread for the last 10 pages:
col_impact can say anything he wants, he was right that it is +1A, but the way he tried to justify it was just utter nonsense.
It was written poorly in the beginning and it caused all this commotion. Should have just been clarified as "+1 attack in this fight phase" or some other way so it wasn't possible to misinterpret.
The FAQ clarified that 'massive scything talons' is a single weapon. That was my RAW argument all along. I think you need to re-assess how you read the rules if you are calling my argument 'utter nonsense'.
I don't think I even participated in this thread, but you're just continuing to embarrass yourself. That a FAQ ruling says something does not mean that that's what the RAW said all along. Like, duh? That's basically the whole point of the RAW vs RAI distinction, right?
They didn't issue an errata so the FAQ is an indication that people were simply reading the rule wrong. My argument represents the correct reading of the rule. 'Massive scything talons' is correctly read as a single weapon. So my argument is obviously not 'utter nonsense' as some individuals are even now persisting in claiming.
So which part of "LOCK IT UP!" didn't you get? The case is closed, GW has officially now tackled the issue and given us a clear answer.
Why do you have such an arrogant need to boost your ego, that you still continue to argue about this matter?
The Trygon gets +1A when it fights, as per the FAQ, you don't need to justify your own reading comprehension or anything else here anymore. Go bugger off some place else and stop wasting your energy on an issue that is already cleared.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also given the FAQ it is also wrong if we REALLY TRULY have to keep going at this internet fistfight.
The FAQ goes word to word:
"Q. Monstrous scything talons say that if the bearer has more
than one pair it can make one additional attack. How many
extra attacks does a Trygon, which has three pairs of monstrous
scything talons, make?
A. It makes a total of one additional attack. "
The Trygon and Trygon Prime are both equipped with MASSIVE Scything talons. So this does not resolve anything, since the FAQ is only meant for Monstrous Scything Talons.
Shall we have another 12 pages of fun col_impact? Or will you silence and leave this thread with your bullshittery and utter nonsense?
I think you need to re-assess how you read the rules if you are going to persist in calling my true argument 'utter nonsense' or 'bullshittery'.
70127
Post by: luke1705
Exalted. Lock this thread
81759
Post by: BaconCatBug
They outright answered the wrong question.
They answered "Do does a model with 3 pairs of monstrous scything talons get +2 attacks instead of +1".
When the actual question asked is "Does the +1 attack for having 2 or more pairs of scything talons apply to each pair of scything talons that is used to fight in close combat."
Nobody ever thought a trygon should get +2 attacks. They think each pair of scything talons that is used to fight gets +1, which applies to every single tyranid unit that has 2 pairs of scything talons and remains completely unaddressed.
10953
Post by: JohnnyHell
It really doesn't. Intent is clear at +1 regardless of number of pairs of Scything Talons beyond the first.
80258
Post by: Rustyeh
col_impact wrote: Rustyeh wrote:col_impact wrote:Dionysodorus wrote:col_impact wrote: Rustyeh wrote:Glad to see this get cleared officially. I though from the start that the RAI was +1 attack, because a 9 attack Trygon would just be wrong.
As for the weapon profile bullshittery thats been going on in this thread for the last 10 pages:
col_impact can say anything he wants, he was right that it is +1A, but the way he tried to justify it was just utter nonsense.
It was written poorly in the beginning and it caused all this commotion. Should have just been clarified as "+1 attack in this fight phase" or some other way so it wasn't possible to misinterpret.
The FAQ clarified that 'massive scything talons' is a single weapon. That was my RAW argument all along. I think you need to re-assess how you read the rules if you are calling my argument 'utter nonsense'.
I don't think I even participated in this thread, but you're just continuing to embarrass yourself. That a FAQ ruling says something does not mean that that's what the RAW said all along. Like, duh? That's basically the whole point of the RAW vs RAI distinction, right?
They didn't issue an errata so the FAQ is an indication that people were simply reading the rule wrong. My argument represents the correct reading of the rule. 'Massive scything talons' is correctly read as a single weapon. So my argument is obviously not 'utter nonsense' as some individuals are even now persisting in claiming.
So which part of "LOCK IT UP!" didn't you get? The case is closed, GW has officially now tackled the issue and given us a clear answer.
Why do you have such an arrogant need to boost your ego, that you still continue to argue about this matter?
The Trygon gets +1A when it fights, as per the FAQ, you don't need to justify your own reading comprehension or anything else here anymore. Go bugger off some place else and stop wasting your energy on an issue that is already cleared.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also given the FAQ it is also wrong if we REALLY TRULY have to keep going at this internet fistfight.
The FAQ goes word to word:
"Q. Monstrous scything talons say that if the bearer has more
than one pair it can make one additional attack. How many
extra attacks does a Trygon, which has three pairs of monstrous
scything talons, make?
A. It makes a total of one additional attack. "
The Trygon and Trygon Prime are both equipped with MASSIVE Scything talons. So this does not resolve anything, since the FAQ is only meant for Monstrous Scything Talons.
Shall we have another 12 pages of fun col_impact? Or will you silence and leave this thread with your bullshittery and utter nonsense?
I think you need to re-assess how you read the rules if you are going to persist in calling my true argument 'utter nonsense' or 'bullshittery'.
I think you need to re-assess how you read the rules if you are going to persist in calling your false argument something else than "utter nonsense" or "bullshittery"
See this crap works both ways. I have staked my claim on how badly you intrepret the rules with my Leman Russ argument, which you haven't yet countered in anyway. In the case of scything talons you happened to achieve the same and in this case correct outcome, through false and dumb intrepreting of the rules. Congratulations on that, but if you keep reading the rules like that for all other similar cases you're gonna have a bad time.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
 JohnnyHell wrote:It really doesn't. Intent is clear at +1 regardless of number of pairs of Scything Talons beyond the first.
Well, it is clear NOW. It wasn't clear before. If anything, it was clearly dependent on the number of Weapons that were being used with the phrase "this weapon".
85004
Post by: col_impact
I already addressed the Leman Russ example as it was presented by a different poster with a different example. See https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/240/729357.page#9462392
The weapon profile is for 'heavy flamer' so without a doubt the Leman Russ is equipped with two heavy flamers. So your argument is simply not relevant at all to the case at hand and you are trying to misrepresent and strawman my argument.
In the case of the Trygon he is equipped with 'massive scything talons' and it is recognized as a single weapon. As I have been saying all along, the use of the plural in the weapon profile is significant and how the rule is written. Automatically Appended Next Post: Charistoph wrote: JohnnyHell wrote:It really doesn't. Intent is clear at +1 regardless of number of pairs of Scything Talons beyond the first.
Well, it is clear NOW. It wasn't clear before. If anything, it was clearly dependent on the number of Weapons that were being used with the phrase "this weapon".
Considering that 'this weapon' referred to 'massive scything talons' in the plural and there was no profile for 'pair of massive scything talons' or 'massive scything talon', it was more a case of you getting confused by the use of the plural. The rule as written clearly indicated +1A as long as you didn't overlook the use of the plural.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
Anyone else notice in the rulebook FAQ the Chainsword is allowed to make additional attacks with two Chainswords?
Aren't the rules that do this written the same way (I don't have either index)?
85004
Post by: col_impact
Charistoph wrote:Anyone else notice in the rulebook FAQ the Chainsword is allowed to make additional attacks with two Chainswords?
Aren't the rules that do this written the same way (I don't have either index)?
Chainsword:
Massive scything talons:
The difference between the two is the use of the plural in the latter weapon profile. "This weapon" refers to 'massive scything talons' and you only have permission to attack with that weapon. You got confused by the plural.
10953
Post by: JohnnyHell
Charistoph wrote: JohnnyHell wrote:It really doesn't. Intent is clear at +1 regardless of number of pairs of Scything Talons beyond the first.
Well, it is clear NOW. It wasn't clear before. If anything, it was clearly dependent on the number of Weapons that were being used with the phrase "this weapon".
I was referring to now. I felt it was before, YMMV. My point replying to BaconCatBug was that his gripe wasn't valid. They may have tangentially answered the question but they've answered it.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
JohnnyHell wrote: Charistoph wrote: JohnnyHell wrote:It really doesn't. Intent is clear at +1 regardless of number of pairs of Scything Talons beyond the first.
Well, it is clear NOW. It wasn't clear before. If anything, it was clearly dependent on the number of Weapons that were being used with the phrase "this weapon".
I was referring to now. I felt it was before, YMMV. My point replying to BaconCatBug was that his gripe wasn't valid. They may have tangentially answered the question but they've answered it.
Fair enough. Lack of quoting or addressing the person in question made it seem a general comment rather than a specific response.
------
Could someone who is reliable and I don't have on ignore answer the questions regarding the Scything Talons and Chainsword question?
10953
Post by: JohnnyHell
They're worded and now both FAQ clarified differently.
Two chainswords gives +2 Chainsword Attacks.
Two extra pairs of Scything talons only gives +1 attack, not +2.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
I read the FAQs, which is why I was asking the question. Out of curiosity, how are they worded differently?
10953
Post by: JohnnyHell
col_impact wrote: Charistoph wrote:Anyone else notice in the rulebook FAQ the Chainsword is allowed to make additional attacks with two Chainswords?
Aren't the rules that do this written the same way (I don't have either index)?
Chainsword:
Massive scything talons:
The difference between the two is the use of the plural in the latter weapon profile. "This weapon" refers to 'massive scything talons' and you only have permission to attack with that weapon. You got confused by the plural.
Like so.
171
Post by: Lorek
In-thread warnings have been applied as warranted.
The question has been answered officially, so I'm locking this thread.
|
|
