If I have a model with Disarming Strike Exarch power, do they get to try and remove the lash whips or whip coils before their initiative gets dropped to 1?
Can these even be removed as I am not sure if they count as weapons?
Neither are weapons, so Disarming Strike won't do anything. The Tyranids have no melee weapons at all in fact, so Disarming Strike is utterly useless against them.
The section says Tyranids do not wield close combat weapons as such instead slashing with their own teeth, claws and talons, they don't get the bonus for additional CCW's as it is included in their profile. It doesn't say anything about them not being treated as combat weapons for the purpose of other rules as far as I can see. It would need a FAQ to clarify if this were to be the case, as it stands the way I read it is they are as vulnerable as anyone else with a combat weapon.
They even have an armory section titled Close Combat Weapons. The description of Claws and Teeth for example is "models with claws and teeth count as having a normal close combat weapon"
The wording for disarming strike says:
"nominate one of the opponent's melee weapons - this is treated as a close combat weapon until the end of the phase. If his opponent has no weapons, this ability has no effect."
The Tyranid rule is specifically to deny the bonus for multiple weapons (as it is included in their profile) it doesn't say anything about disregarding further rules, and in fact says they are to be counted as close combat weapons. Unless GWfaq otherwise I see nothing that makes them immune to Disarming Strike.
shamikebab wrote: The section says Tyranids do not wield close combat weapons as such instead slashing with their own teeth, claws and talons, they don't get the bonus for additional CCW's as it is included in their profile. It doesn't say anything about them not being treated as combat weapons for the purpose of other rules as far as I can see. It would need a FAQ to clarify if this were to be the case, as it stands the way I read it is they are as vulnerable as anyone else with a combat weapon.
They even have an armory section titled Close Combat Weapons. The description of Claws and Teeth for example is "models with claws and teeth count as having a normal close combat weapon"
The wording for disarming strike says:
"nominate one of the opponent's melee weapons - this is treated as a close combat weapon until the end of the phase. If his opponent has no weapons, this ability has no effect."
The Tyranid rule is specifically to deny the bonus for multiple weapons (as it is included in their profile) it doesn't say anything about disregarding further rules, and in fact says they are to be counted as close combat weapons. Unless GWfaq otherwise I see nothing that makes them immune to Disarming Strike.
If they are melee weapons, where are their weapon profiles or at least rules on what the profiles look like? They aren't in the codex (obviously), they aren't in the FAQ and they aren't in the Rulebook. The only thing in the Tyranid codex defined to be an actual, by rules, CCW is the entry "Teeth and Claws" which is a standard CCW. So Disarming Strike on that won't do anything useful against that. Nothing else is defined as an actual melee weapon, just a modifier to the owning creatures Attacks.
It doesn't say they don't use them. It says they don't wield them as such.
Fluffwise there's no difference between Tyranids and say a Terminator powerfist.
It clearly needs to be clarified.
As for not being in the 40k rulebook, I think there's quite a few missing from that list (War Scythes?) and again I can see nowhere where it says anything not listed doesn't count as a weapon.
They do not "wield" them. Meaning use them, in a combat context. If you do not use something, then having it count as a "normal" CCW makes no difference - as the benefits you gain from it were not dependent on you using it in the first place.
Fluffwise there is a lot of difference - a powerfist comes off*, a nid biomorph doesnt. I am not even sure how you could even come to that conclusion, as it is almost exactly the opposite of fluff.
The rule for Disarming Strike says nothing about them wielding or not wielding them it says if they have no weapons.
The rules for Boneswords even say they are wielded.
The section about Tyranid Close Combat Weapons merely states they are not wielded for the purpose of getting bonus attacks for multiple weapons, it doesn't say anything about not treating them as weapons for every other purpose.
This needs a FAQ, using a rule from an old codex and assuming it leads onto affecting a different rule is not RAW.
shamikebab wrote: Well they're all in a section called Close Combat Weapons!
This is why it needs an FAQ, it's just not clear at the moment.
Is a Heavy Flamer a weapon with the Heavy type? Is an Assault Cannon a weapon with the Assault type?
Turns out, the name isn't as important as the rules. And none of the Tyranid CCW analogues follow the rules for weapons with the Melee type, with the one exception of "Teeth and Claws."
"Every weapon has a profile." Page 50 of the rulebook. If a Bonesword is a weapon, where is it's profile? They didn't give it one in the FAQ bringing Tyranids up to date with 6th, and none of the "Tyranid Close Combat Weapons" are given a profile in the main rulebook like their ranged counterparts.
"A Warscythe is a two-handed close combat weapon."
Necron Codex says yes.
Alternatively, we could look in the Necron FAQ where they give it a profile so we don't have to build it up ourselves from the Close Combat Weapon profile. What with it having special rules to overwrite pretty much every aspect of that profile except being of Melee type.
Chrysis wrote: "Every weapon has a profile." Page 50 of the rulebook. If a Bonesword is a weapon, where is it's profile? They didn't give it one in the FAQ bringing Tyranids up to date with 6th, and none of the "Tyranid Close Combat Weapons" are given a profile in the main rulebook like their ranged counterparts.
So I posit that it is, in fact, clear.
Wow, way to cherry pick to try and make your army's argument stronger. By this argument, the following Eldar 4th Edition melee weapons were not, in fact, "weapons" because they didn't have a profile:
Spoiler:
Biting Blade
Chainsabres
Diresword
Harlequin's Kiss
Laser Lance (Melee)
Scorpion Chainsword
Singing Spear (Melee)
Staff of Ulthamar
Star Lance (Melee)
The Spear of Twilight
The Sword of Asur
Wraithsword
Here's the melee weapons that were "weapons", courtesy of Rulebook or FAQ:
Spoiler:
Close Combat Weapon
Executioner
Power Weapons
Scorpion's Claw
The Fire Axe
Witchblade
... Alternatively, old codices have not yet been updated to follow "Every weapon has a profile" properly and new codices have.
To be fair, the Exarch could be "Disarming" the tyranid with the Boneswords by knocking them away so he can only use his teeth/whiphands/blunt sides of swords. Rather then actively knocking them out of their hands.
Quark - so, you agree that they arent weapons? You havent actually posted a counter to the rule "every weapon has a profile" , just a disagreement as to whether that is applied to old codexes.
It does not alter that, according to the 6th edition rulebook, NO tyranid biomorph, with the exception of teeth and claws, is a CCW of any type
shamikebab - please do not paraphrase and alter meaning. It does NOT say they do not wield CCW for the purpose of the 2CCW bonus. The inabilty to gain the 2CCW bonus is given as a direct RESULT of them not wielding [which is using, in a combat context, no matter what you say to the contrary) CCW
They do not wield (use) CCW; you can disarm them if you like, but you turn Teeth and Claws (a normal CCW) into... a normal CCW
No it's not. it's your interpretation. Stop thinking your view is gospel.
Let's quote the Tyranid Codex a bit shall we?
"The Swarmlord wields four serrated blades"
"A bonesword has a rudimentary sentience of it's own, but is completely slaved to the will of the wielder"
That's a lot of wielding for a race that doesn't wield weapons.
At the beginning of the army list:
"Weapons and Biormorphs - This section details the weapons and biomorph enhancements the models in the unit are armed with"
It IS unclear at the moment, whether you wish it to be or not. The mere fact we are discussing it shows it is unclear. You are stating that the codex saying they don't wield close combat weapons as such means they don't have them at all. I am saying that is an interpretation of that rule. You've looked at a sentence (Tyranids don't wield close combat weapons as such) and added a second sentence (therefore they do not count as having close combat weapons) that does not exist in the codex. if you have a specific page reference where it says this then please share it.
Wow, way to cherry pick to try and make your army's argument stronger. By this argument, the following Eldar 4th Edition melee weapons were not, in fact, "weapons" because they didn't have a profile:
Biting Blade - "It is a two-handed close combat weapon that ..." Chainsabres - "... they count as a single weapon ... " from V1.1 of the update FAQ. Diresword - "A Diresword is a power weapon." Harlequin's Kiss - "... counts as a close combat weapon." Laser Lance (Melee) - "... count as having Strength 6 power weapons." Scorpion Chainsword - "This is a one-handed weapon that adds ..." Singing Spear (Melee)
Staff of Ulthamar
Star Lance (Melee) - "It follows the rules for a laser lance, but ..." The Spear of Twilight
The Sword of Asur - "... is a Diresword ... " Wraithsword
So of 12 "examples", only 4 do not actually have explicit rules making them at least weapons. The Singing Spear (and by extension Spear of Twilight) are borderline, due to repeated references to the Witchblade and the line "The spear can be used in close combat, but it requires two hands and so the wielder cannot gain the extra attack from an extra hand weapon." There would only be the question of if it was able to gain the attack from an extra hand weapon if it was itself a hand weapon, but that's only implicit. For a codex that old, that's not a bad record for keeping in line with new rules. Especially given, prior to the new Eldar codex, it wasn't really important if it was a weapon or just gave a model's attacks rules.
I'd also like it to be known that while I started with collecting Tyranids, I haven't taken them out of the shoe box since the codex with all the mutation stuff. The 3rd edition book was it? But thank you for jumping to conclusions to fuel your Ad Hominem attack. Especially when it appears you are the one guilty of "cherry-picking" when you made your list of "examples."
shamikebab wrote:No it's not. it's your interpretation. Stop thinking your view is gospel.
No, that is how the rules are written. Fluff may say something different. Notice your lack of a rules argument otherwise so far?
shamikebab wrote:Let's quote the Tyranid Codex a bit shall we?
Lets!
shamikebab wrote:"The Swarmlord wields four serrated blades"
Hmm, distinctive lack in that fluff sentence about those blades being CCW. Can you find the rule stating those blades are close combat weapons, as well as their profile please? Page and graph will suffice - should be a breeze as you have the codex right there?
shamikebab wrote:"A bonesword has a rudimentary sentience of it's own, but is completely slaved to the will of the wielder"
Hmm, distinct lack in that FLUFF sentence that the bonesword is a close combat weapon. Of course I am sure you can find - page and graph will suffice - the phrase that states they are CCW, and the profile they have?
shamikebab wrote:That's a lot of wielding for a race that doesn't wield weapons.
Ah no, that is a lot of wielding of "things" that are not defined as WEAPONS (certainly not CCW, as the rulebook definition of such hasnt been met as yet) for a race that doesnt wield weapons. Spotted a glaring error in your argument so far?
shamikebab wrote:At the beginning of the army list:
"Weapons and Biormorphs - This section details the weapons and biomorph enhancements the models in the unit are armed with"
Yes, because *some* are weapons - the ranged weapons are, as they have a profile. Or are you claiming that ranged weapon existence has some bearing on CCW?
shamikebab wrote:It IS unclear at the moment, whether you wish it to be or not. The mere fact we are discussing it shows it is unclear.
Ah, a classic fallacy. The existence of debate does not prove the merit of the debates existence. In other words - people dont understand rules, even when they are clearly written. Check out half the GWFAQs for proof
shamikebab wrote:You are stating that the codex saying they don't wield close combat weapons as such means they don't have them at all.
Again with your paraphrasing and altering meaning.
I. did. not. say. that
I stated they only have ONE CCW. Claws and Teeth. Which are a normal CCW. Every single Biomorph that effects Close Combat are not, by definition in both the codex AND the BRB, close combat weapons. They just arent. The BRB defines that a weapon(melee or not) will havea profile.
As you disagree that they have CCW, find the Bonesword profile. Page and graph. Or, c oncede that by definition it isnt a CCW
shamikebab wrote: I am saying that is an interpretation of that rule. You've looked at a sentence (Tyranids don't wield close combat weapons as such) and added a second sentence (therefore they do not count as having close combat weapons) that does not exist in the codex. if you have a specific page reference where it says this then please share it.
No, I have not, and yet again you have managed to summarise while changing meaning. Bad habit I suggest you change. The codex states they do not use CCW, as such. So, they do not use them. You only get the bonus (with some rare exceptions, like the DK Great Sword) of a weapon when you actually use it. So, given tyranids never use CCW, yet get a bonus from items such as Rending Claws, that must mean - GASP! - that they are not close combat weapons
To back this up you have the BRB, which states that EVERY weapon has a profile. So, since you claim Boneswords are weapons (for example) - find their profile. Now. Find the profile stating "melee, S:users,..."
Wait, there isnt one? Then that means they arent weapons, and certainly not close combat weapons.
So no, disarming strike will effectively do nothing - as the only CCW they can ever possess are claws and teeth, which are normal CCW.
Chrysis wrote: So of 12 "examples", only 4 do not actually have explicit rules making them at least weapons. The Singing Spear (and by extension Spear of Twilight) are borderline, due to repeated references to the Witchblade and the line "The spear can be used in close combat, but it requires two hands and so the wielder cannot gain the extra attack from an extra hand weapon." There would only be the question of if it was able to gain the attack from an extra hand weapon if it was itself a hand weapon, but that's only implicit. For a codex that old, that's not a bad record for keeping in line with new rules. Especially given, prior to the new Eldar codex, it wasn't really important if it was a weapon or just gave a model's attacks rules.
You're still cherry picking. You're the one that brought up the book entry, and I just showed that all old codices don't follow that for melee weapons but new codices do. And you're reading "is a weapon" in an entry but ignoring the section called "Close Combat Weapons" in the Tyranid codex. If it's a Close Combat Weapon, why is it not a weapon? If it's wielded and listed under "Weapons", why is it not a weapon?
By your logic, Disarming Strike does not work against any pre-6th codex melee weapon not FAQ'd or in the main rulebook reference section.
shamikebab wrote:No it's not. it's your interpretation. Stop thinking your view is gospel.
No, that is how the rules are written. Fluff may say something different. Notice your lack of a rules argument otherwise so far?
shamikebab wrote:Let's quote the Tyranid Codex a bit shall we?
Lets!
shamikebab wrote:"The Swarmlord wields four serrated blades"
Hmm, distinctive lack in that fluff sentence about those blades being CCW. Can you find the rule stating those blades are close combat weapons, as well as their profile please? Page and graph will suffice - should be a breeze as you have the codex right there?
shamikebab wrote:"A bonesword has a rudimentary sentience of it's own, but is completely slaved to the will of the wielder"
Hmm, distinct lack in that FLUFF sentence that the bonesword is a close combat weapon. Of course I am sure you can find - page and graph will suffice - the phrase that states they are CCW, and the profile they have?
shamikebab wrote:That's a lot of wielding for a race that doesn't wield weapons.
Ah no, that is a lot of wielding of "things" that are not defined as WEAPONS (certainly not CCW, as the rulebook definition of such hasnt been met as yet) for a race that doesnt wield weapons. Spotted a glaring error in your argument so far?
shamikebab wrote:At the beginning of the army list:
"Weapons and Biormorphs - This section details the weapons and biomorph enhancements the models in the unit are armed with"
Yes, because *some* are weapons - the ranged weapons are, as they have a profile. Or are you claiming that ranged weapon existence has some bearing on CCW?
shamikebab wrote:It IS unclear at the moment, whether you wish it to be or not. The mere fact we are discussing it shows it is unclear.
Ah, a classic fallacy. The existence of debate does not prove the merit of the debates existence. In other words - people dont understand rules, even when they are clearly written. Check out half the GWFAQs for proof
shamikebab wrote:You are stating that the codex saying they don't wield close combat weapons as such means they don't have them at all.
Again with your paraphrasing and altering meaning.
I. did. not. say. that
I stated they only have ONE CCW. Claws and Teeth. Which are a normal CCW. Every single Biomorph that effects Close Combat are not, by definition in both the codex AND the BRB, close combat weapons. They just arent. The BRB defines that a weapon(melee or not) will havea profile.
As you disagree that they have CCW, find the Bonesword profile. Page and graph. Or, c oncede that by definition it isnt a CCW
shamikebab wrote: I am saying that is an interpretation of that rule. You've looked at a sentence (Tyranids don't wield close combat weapons as such) and added a second sentence (therefore they do not count as having close combat weapons) that does not exist in the codex. if you have a specific page reference where it says this then please share it.
No, I have not, and yet again you have managed to summarise while changing meaning. Bad habit I suggest you change. The codex states they do not use CCW, as such. So, they do not use them. You only get the bonus (with some rare exceptions, like the DK Great Sword) of a weapon when you actually use it. So, given tyranids never use CCW, yet get a bonus from items such as Rending Claws, that must mean - GASP! - that they are not close combat weapons
To back this up you have the BRB, which states that EVERY weapon has a profile. So, since you claim Boneswords are weapons (for example) - find their profile. Now. Find the profile stating "melee, S:users,..."
Wait, there isnt one? Then that means they arent weapons, and certainly not close combat weapons.
So no, disarming strike will effectively do nothing - as the only CCW they can ever possess are claws and teeth, which are normal CCW.
then the only thing we have left is that a tyranid has no weapons other than claws and teef and therefore cannot attack with anything but ccw... I mean according to what you said thats how it should be played right?
we had this same problem when they tried to say that abaddon couldnt join marked squads to his super special secret squirrel mark that makes him different...
stop being a rules lawyer, get off your high horse, and show some respect... you know how its going to be faq'd so give it a rest.
Quark - again, you arent arguing the topic, but a separate one. Secondfly, as you have already been shown, the name isnt as aimportant as the rules. A heavy flamer is an assault weapon. A close combat weapon heading doesnt make everything in there a melee weapon.
Rigeld - I knew there were some in there that didnt get a CCW listed, should be careful with absolutes and GW rules
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WarlordRob wrote:
then the only thing we have left is that a tyranid has no weapons other than claws and teef and therefore cannot attack with anything but ccw... I mean according to what you said thats how it should be played right?
we had this same problem when they tried to say that abaddon couldnt join marked squads to his super special secret squirrel mark that makes him different...
stop being a rules lawyer, get off your high horse, and show some respect... you know how its going to be faq'd so give it a rest.
Wow, you felt the need to quote a huge block of text to do nothing but break the forum rules, lie about what a poster has written and fail to add anything to the thread?
Impressive
It can, indeed, only attack with claws and teeth. [or the default CCW all models have, if not otherwise stated - thanks Rigeld for pointing out the inconsistency in the Nid book there!] It just so happens to gain benefits to those attacks, based on the biomorphs. Are you struggling with that concept? A TWM makes a Wolf Lords close combat attacks stronger, yet it isnt a CCW.
Or, if your claim is that Rending Claws and Scything talons are both CCW, surely then you do not play that a model with both gets to rend AND reroll? Because if they are CCW (They're not, I'm just trying to show the error in your "argument" through example) then how are you gaining the benefits of two CCW at the same time?
This isnt being a rules lawyer. THis is going by the fluff AND the rules. It isnt a high horse to ask someone to follow the tenets, and I showed respect to the poster - more than they did.
I expect it to be faq'd that it is patently absurd to "disarm" a genestealer by it losing its rending claws, or for a trygon to lose scything talons, etc. Of course the history of GWFAQs and Tyranids hasnt been that kind to 'nids, so you never know.
What I do know is what the rules currently say, and that the argument on rules AND fluff is sound. If you have anything to add to the thread, of value, please continue.
I can actually see both sides of this argument (hence the reason I asked in the main thread). I agree it needs a faq. The problem is there is no way to know which way GW will rule. If they go by fluff (and rules) then it is useless against Nids. I'd they continue to show Nids their normal level of love, they will be able to get disarmed (which when your arm is the weapon takes on a whole 'nother meaning).
Oh I agree - they could continue to bash the nids through FAQ, however that would be an explicit rules change, as currently none of the biomorphs are CCW.
Nids DO have weapons. In fact, look at the unit entries in the back of the book. "Biomorphs and weapons" is the category header.
The argument against is that the fluff reason "tyranids do not wield weapons per say" is connoting a rule. The addition of "per say" at the end means that the statement preceding is a qualifier for the statement afterwards. The following statement is that "tyrands cannot claim the additional attack for having two close combat weapons". Therefore it is not referencing the fact they are not weapons as a rule, but as a explanation to why you dont get the 2 CCW bonus. That is how the phrase "per say" functions in the English language.
The problem comes in explaining WHAT is a weapon. This has never been qualified as it has never been an issue. Locally we rule as the arms connote weapons. ST, RC, boneswords, bonesabres. AG and TS are built into the hide (i believe they tried to add the bits for it in some kits, but never explained what is what in any part of the codex).
zephoid wrote: Nids DO have weapons. In fact, look at the unit entries in the back of the book. "Biomorphs and weapons" is the category header.
The argument against is that the fluff reason "tyranids do not wield weapons per say" is connoting a rule. The addition of "per say" at the end means that the statement preceding is a qualifier for the statement afterwards. The following statement is that "tyrands cannot claim the additional attack for having two close combat weapons". Therefore it is not referencing the fact they are not weapons as a rule, but as a explanation to why you dont get the 2 CCW bonus. That is how the phrase "per say" functions in the English language.
The problem comes in explaining WHAT is a weapon. This has never been qualified as it has never been an issue. Locally we rule as the arms connote weapons. ST, RC, boneswords, bonesabres, AG and TS are built into the hide (i believe they tried to add the bits for it in some kits, but never explained what is what in any part of the codex).
Wrong about the bonesword and sabers.
This is the swarmlord, Look at it's weapons held in the hands.
Yeah , Nids clearly have weapons. There's a whole section title CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS with a list of weapons under it.
Then in the FAQ there is a question:
Q: Do Tyranid models combine the effects of multiple Tyranid close combat weapons in an assault? For example, if I have a model that has both Scything Talons and Rending Claws, do I re-roll results of 1To Hit and still have the Rending special rule. (p83)
A: Yes.
Tyranids close combat weapons. At the very least it is open to debate right now, it needs an faq. Of course, some people can just be rude and aggressive about it, but it's not worth trying to have a discussion with people like that.
If tyranids teeth and claws are treated as normal close combat weapons, and disarm make them close combat weapons isn't it just the same thing. So why is an FAQ needed. They are still ap 2 if its a monstrous creature since dissarm doesn't change the type of critter it is.
Like abbadon with two weapons. You disarm him and take his daemon weapon away, he just attacks with his claw.
Disarm is good but not game ending or too great to jump in a combat with just anyone.
Lungpickle wrote: If tyranids teeth and claws are treated as normal close combat weapons, and disarm make them close combat weapons isn't it just the same thing. So why is an FAQ needed. They are still ap 2 if its a monstrous creature since dissarm doesn't change the type of critter it is.
Like abbadon with two weapons. You disarm him and take his daemon weapon away, he just attacks with his claw.
Disarm is good but not game ending or too great to jump in a combat with just anyone.
Yes, but we are talking of Disarm vs their Special CCW weaponry, such as Bone Swords and the like.
Sure you can disarm a Hive Tyrant, but you'll at least knock away his instant death from the sword or rerolls from scything talons.
A biomorph and say a power sword are two completely different things. If the Exarch power was named Sever then it might make some sense it would work against Tyranids.
PrinceRaven wrote: Could someone actually provide the phrasing of Disarming Strike?
Word for word:
In any round of a challenge, this model can attempt to temporarily disarm his opponent. If he wishes to do so, both he and his opponent roll a d6 before either makes any To Hit rolls. The model with this power adds 1 to the total if his Weapon Skill is higher than his opponent's.
If the model's total is equal to or higher than his opponent's, nominate one of the opponent's melee weapons - this is treated as a close combat weapon until the end of the phase. If his opponent has no weapons, this ability has no effect.
Otherwise a Tyranid couldn't benefit from a Bonesword, Scything Talons, Toxin Sacs, and Rending Claws at the same time(hypothetically)
So no disarming a tyranid.
Rending claws can't really be taken on any of those together, however it could be disarmed as it is listed under CLOSE COMBAT WEAPON.
Toxin Sacks grant Poisoned Attacks to all the attacks a user has, not a Poisoned Weapon, so it could be used together. It's listed as a Biomorph, counted as an upgrade to the model rather then attached to a weapon (unike the poison weapon specific plaguesword or Plagueknife)
Bonesword is a weapon, thus it can be disarmed, it is listed under CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS.
The main issue is a lot of the Tyranid stuff comes in pairs, so presumably the power could only disarm one (or does one pair count as one) Who knows. This could also be applied to some special character gear.
One of the general nid rules before the unit description sections allows you to use all the abilities of the weapons nids are wielding. That is the exception you were looking for that allows you to use all the rules of the weapons a nid creature is wielding.
Edit: that actually is a good point. Can disarm be used against weapons that are described as "a pair". GK falchions, chain sabres, boneswords, ect. I have no idea. You buy both as a pair and their rule fuctions as assuming they are used together, but they are often indicated as two weapons. Thats one for a faq as there is no real yes/no.
Having a pair of weapons at your disposal grants you the +1 Attack bonus for using a second weapon. It wouldn't make sense for the weapon to qualify for the two weapon rule if everything was to treat it as just one weapon, at least not without it being stated as such. In such a case it seems logical for the disarm skill to be able to remove the +1 attack, if nothing more, when used against two weapons of the very same description. It would function that way if you where using it on someone that surrender their bolt gun and pistol for two power swords, though it would be strange to see two power swords seeing you could get the same bonus from keeping your pistol.
Assuming they don't have three or more weapons, of course.
This is the swarmlord, Look at it's weapons held in the hands.
Logically, they can be disarmed.
Thus, all nid CCW can be disarmed.
Is this really a serious point?
Do you own a single nid model?
Each model is made to look like the biomorph is a gun/CCW carried like every other race would, but if you actually look at a model, or that pic, you can see the hand like section is part of the blade.
Nids dont have hands!
They have a biomorph on the end of an arm.
Also, why try and gain a point simply from a pic?
This is a rules discussion, pics have nothing to do with it.
OT: It is a pretty tough one though, because they dont actually function like regular CCW's do.
1: people keep using "wield" alot.
Since people are bringing common sense into it, could someone in theory "wield" their own hand?
Because it usually relates to holding an object, and if such an object is part of your body, then you would not be "wielding" it.
2: While the model gains the rules from the biomorph (rending, re-rolls etc) they can stack them, something normal CCW's cannot do.
Which makes me think its actually more of an upgrade than a CCW.
JinxDragon wrote: From what I know a pair of weapons grants you the +1 bonus for wielding a second weapon. It wouldn't make sense for the weapon to qualify for the two weapon rule if everything was to treat it as just one weapon. In such a case it seems logical for the disarm skill to be able to remove the +1 attack, if nothing more, when used against duel wielded weapons.
Assuming they don't have three or more weapons, of course.
Except Nids don't ever get that +1 attack, nor do they lose it - if a Carnifex trades both sets of Talons for guns, he loses zero attacks.
Well, how would disarming strike work against a more conventional army's melee weapon that grants bonuses whether you attack with it or not? I believe the Grey Knight's Dreadknight has one.
Nids don't get bonus attacks based on the fact they have a ton of melee weapons available to them?
Bummer for them.
But my post still stands only the outcome is different. If they do not get the +1 attack for a 'pair of' weapons then it can be easily argued they are not 'using two weapons.' If one rule has to treat them as one weapon, then all rules should be treating them as one weapon as well. Unless, of course, those rules specifically state that it is one weapon only for the +1 attack rule and every other rule treats them as two.
JinxDragon wrote: Nids don't get bonus attacks based on the fact they have a ton of melee weapons available to them?
Bummer for them.
But my post still stands only the outcome is different. If they do not get the +1 attack for having multiple melee equivalent weapons then it is clear they are not 'using two weapons.' If the rules don't grant them any bonus for having a second weapon when they take a 'pair of' weapons, then it is clear. For all rule purposes, the pair is treated as a single weapon.
Well actually a pair of boneswords does grant a bonus compared to one, the leadership test is made on a 3d6 instead of a 2d6. Plus you have Bonesword and Lash Whip, which is 2 biomorphs taken as 1 option.
I like to think that the bonus attacks are already included in the profile, and the reason why they don't lose any attacks for switching cc weapons out for guns is because they have mastered the pistol whip.
A second set of talons allows you to re-roll all fails, not just 1's.
So that functions as a result of using 2 pairs of weapons.
And nope jinx, only way to gain extra attacks for nids is to take crushing claws for D3.
Other than that, they get basic profile attacks, even if you stack them with weapons.
The other funny issue is tyrant guards.
The come with rending claws and talons.
You can swap the talong for lashwhips, or for a single bonesword.
Which leaves you with 2 claw hands, and sword hand, and somehow, nothing in the 4th one.
2: While the model gains the rules from the biomorph (rending, re-rolls etc) they can stack them, something normal CCW's cannot do.
Which makes me think its actually more of an upgrade than a CCW.
Eldar can run and shoot, something other races can't do. It's just an army specific rule to benefit Tyranids, it doesn't necessarily mean they won't count as combat weapons.
Yeah but any rules that have a specific 'in this case' clause are except from being treated as a standard rule. The pair could still be treated as a single weapon for all rule purposes, only it gains a bonus to the leadership test and nothing more thanks to the exception. Therefore simply having this exception doesn't automatically turn them into two individual weapons.
Of course this still has an issue.
It seems the no +1 attack is an exception rule unique to the nids themselves, blanket across all units regardless of what weapons they are carrying. That does render my whole post moot, as it would also negate the bonus for having two individual weapons. Throwing the whole 'is a pair of weapons the same as two individual weapons' firmly back into the I don't know category.
Nids can use onslaught, which is the same as eldar so moot point.
So because its an army wide rule, its no longer valid?
Can you tell me how you came to that idea please?
Because im at a loss to see how an army wide rule now has no bearing on a ruling to do with CCW's.
I didn't say that it was no longer valid :/ Of course the rule that states that Tyranids do not get the additional attack for multiple combat weapons as it is already included in their profile is valid.
Fragile wrote: Until anyone can produce a profile for any tyranid biomorph/close combat weapon, then it would not count as a legal target to be "disarmed".
When you use this argument, you claim that Disarming Strike is not supposed to work against any pre-6th Codex. Melee weapons didn't have profiles pre-6th, and only basic (rulebook reference) or really complicated (Codex FAQs) weapons were amended to have profiles.
The problem is not every CCW has a profile - only the 6th edtion codices, and the ones that have been FAQ'd do.
Or is the argument that Dark Eldar cannot be disarmed, unless they have a (demi)klaive, or are using Kheradruakh? Except for those three, there is no statline for any Dark Eldar CCW.
Happyjew wrote: The problem is not every CCW has a profile - only the 6th edtion codices, and the ones that have been FAQ'd do.
Or is the argument that Dark Eldar cannot be disarmed, unless they have a (demi)klaive, or are using Kheradruakh? Except for those three, there is no statline for any Dark Eldar CCW.
Basic RAW yes.
Most of the weapons in their codex are UPWs that I see. Agoniser, Djin Blade, Electrocorrosive whip, Huskblade... etc. Did you have another example?
Edit... The kiss has a profile. The other one appears to be overlooked atm.
The Kiss has a profile in the Eldar codex. Now, every weapon (at the moment) in the older codices can easily be given a profile (unlike Tyranid CCW).
I'm not arguing that you can disarm Tyranids (I can see it going either way, and I play both armies so either way, Yay?). My argument is that you cannot use "It has no profile therefore it is not a weapon" as a valid reason for why it cannot be disarmed.
zephoid wrote:Nids DO have weapons. In fact, look at the unit entries in the back of the book. "Biomorphs and weapons" is the category header.
Already pointed out that they have weapons. Ranged ones. becuase those pesky rules state that EVERY weapon has a profile - if it has no profile it isnt a weapon, according to the rules.
zephoid wrote:The argument against is that the fluff reason "tyranids do not wield weapons per say" is connoting a rule. The addition of "per say" at the end means that the statement preceding is a qualifier for the statement afterwards.
No, that is not what "per se" means. It means "in itself". Latin. They do not wield close combat weapons "in themselves" [to get the noun right]. It is not a qualifier. THat is just wrong.
zephoid wrote: The following statement is that "tyrands cannot claim the additional attack for having two close combat weapons". Therefore it is not referencing the fact they are not weapons as a rule, but as a explanation to why you dont get the 2 CCW bonus. That is how the phrase "per say" functions in the English language.
Wrong, as already proven. This follows the tenets, as you are just defining a phrase entirely incorrectly. Please do not repeat this incorrect usage
zephoid wrote:The problem comes in explaining WHAT is a weapon.
Easy, as the 6th edition BRB tells you what IS a weapon - only those with a profile. Done.
zephoid wrote: This has never been qualified as it has never been an issue. Locally we rule as the arms connote weapons. ST, RC, boneswords, bonesabres. AG and TS are built into the hide (i believe they tried to add the bits for it in some kits, but never explained what is what in any part of the codex).
Which is fine, as a houserule, however NO nid biomorph counts as a CCW, apart from claws and teeth
Shamikebab -so, given you have no rules argument I assume you will concede the point? You failed to provide a single rules quote, or any citations to back your argument up. As such please note that you are arguing houserules.
Happyjew - of course you can argue that, because the rulebook states that Weapons have profiles that you identify a weapon as being a weapon by looking for a profile. That this makes things complicated for some codexes (and not as badly as some are trying to make out, as was proven by chrysis) is irrelevant.
zephoid wrote:Nids DO have weapons. In fact, look at the unit entries in the back of the book. "Biomorphs and weapons" is the category header.
Already pointed out that they have weapons. Ranged ones. becuase those pesky rules state that EVERY weapon has a profile - if it has no profile it isnt a weapon, according to the rules.
Out of all the arguments you could pick ... just stop using this one. As we've said multiple times ... no pre-6th Codex has been properly updated to give all melee weapons profiles. If you're arguing that Disarming Strike is not supposed to work against any pre-6th Codices, I'm just going to ignore you and any other argument you could possibly have will then be pointless.
No, it wont be pointless - others will be able to see your lack of an argument, or rules based response. Arguing here isnt juyst for your benefit.
It is also yet more hyuperbole on your part - it works just fine against the majority of 5th ed and previous codexes, as you are able to find a profile for the weapons. You were even shown this by Chrysis, after your failed attempt at claiming 12 Eldar weapons did not have a profile, when only 4 didnt, and of those some were arguable.
So, no, picking the most simple argfument - that the rules define what CCW are, and only Teeth and Claws are CCW - is a VERY good argument to pick
It is also one that neither you, nor Shami et al, have actually been able to counter with any rules.
Disarming strike has, RAW, no effect on Nids. Best you can do is turn a normal CCW into...a normal CCW.
nosferatu1001 wrote: It is also yet more hyuperbole on your part - it works just fine against the majority of 5th ed and previous codexes, as you are able to find a profile for the weapons. You were even shown this by Chrysis, after your failed attempt at claiming 12 Eldar weapons did not have a profile, when only 4 didnt, and of those some were arguable.
Not one of his clarifications had "profiles" - they had rules calling them weapons. Not profiles. Which is the same as Tyranid melee weapons being listed in the "Close Combat Weapons" section of the codex.
This is not hyperbole - if you say it must have a profile to be a melee weapon, then you are claiming a huge percentage of pre-6th Codex gear are not melee weapons.
nosferatu1001 wrote: It is also yet more hyuperbole on your part - it works just fine against the majority of 5th ed and previous codexes, as you are able to find a profile for the weapons. You were even shown this by Chrysis, after your failed attempt at claiming 12 Eldar weapons did not have a profile, when only 4 didnt, and of those some were arguable.
Not one of his clarifications had "profiles" - they had rules calling them weapons. Not profiles. Which is the same as Tyranid melee weapons being listed in the "Close Combat Weapons" section of the codex.
This is not hyperbole - if you say it must have a profile to be a melee weapon, then you are claiming a huge percentage of pre-6th Codex gear are not melee weapons.
If they have rules calling them a normal close combat weapon that gives them a profile.
None of the Nid "weapons" have a rule that says that. So again - Disarm works fine against anything that is a CCW, which is the majority of weapons out there - named or not.
A model has CCW if 1) the weapons "don't confer any Strength bonuses, AP values or special rules" or 2) "not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type".
So none of the examples I listed are treated as a CCW with a CCW profile. They all have strength bonuses or special rules. Thus, they have no profile.
Quark wrote: A model has CCW if 1) the weapons "don't confer any Strength bonuses, AP values or special rules" or 2) "not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type".
So none of the examples I listed are treated as a CCW with a CCW profile. They all have strength bonuses or special rules. Thus, they have no profile.
Wow, way to cherry pick to try and make your army's argument stronger. By this argument, the following Eldar 4th Edition melee weapons were not, in fact, "weapons" because they didn't have a profile:
Biting Blade - "It is a two-handed close combat weapon that ..." Diresword - "A Diresword is a power weapon." Harlequin's Kiss - "... counts as a close combat weapon." Laser Lance (Melee) - "... count as having Strength 6 power weapons." Scorpion Chainsword - "This is a one-handed weapon that adds ..." Singing Spear (Melee)
Staff of Ulthamar
Star Lance (Melee) - "It follows the rules for a laser lance, but ..." The Spear of Twilight
The Sword of Asur - "... is a Diresword ... " Wraithsword
Biting Blade - a CCW (omg is that a profile?) that does other stuff.
Diresword - a power weapon (profile provided on page 61)
Kiss - counts as a CCW - profile
Laser Lance - power weapon with STR6. Profile.
S. Chainsword - CCW that adds somethnig. Profile.
Star Lance - see Laser Lance.
Sword of Asur - see Diresword.
Again, you're incorrect. At least some of them have a profile. I'm not familiar enough (and don't own) an old Eldar codex to work on the other weapons.
Quark wrote: A model has CCW if 1) the weapons "don't confer any Strength bonuses, AP values or special rules" or 2) "not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type".
So none of the examples I listed are treated as a CCW with a CCW profile. They all have strength bonuses or special rules. Thus, they have no profile.
Incorrect. They refer back to the BRB for the full profile, by stating such classics as "normal CCW"
You then look up the profile for a "normal CCW" - oh look, it has one. You then find if it has any additional rules - whcih are given in the codex - and find out that this doesnt magically remove the profile.
So, again, do you have an actual, rules based argument that shows that ANY nid weapon, barring of course Claws and Teeth, is a CCW? Anything? Given we have shown that the opposite is true - ONLY claws and teeth are CCW - then disarm does nothing constructive as far as 'nids are concerned.
So no, I think you will find that Chrysis was right to correct your hyperbolic claim that "NONE" of the pre-=6th codexes follow the rule that "every weapon has a profile" as it is, and remains, false.
Sorry I should have taken more time and worded the posts better. I'm trying less to say "Disarming Strike works because" and more to say "Don't spend time on this argument, focus on that one".
Three arguments have been brought up: Profile, Tyranid Wargear, Tyranid Special Rule
1) Profile Okay, there is contention between the CCW section of the main rulebook ("no special rules") and the Codex ("is a CCW with"), but we know what happens then. So I was wrong about most of the list. Note it's still not a contention in newer codices - all the profiles are there, in the Codex, and any modifiers the old weapon had are turned into special rules in the profile.
Old Diresword: "is a power weapon. In addition, ..." New Diresword: Does not reference Power Weapon at all. "- User 2 Melee, Soulrazor". Soulrazor takes place of "in addition to".
There are still issues with some weapons not having profiles, though. Particularly with special characters, but even with, for example, Scorpion's chainsword "is a one-handed weapon" - well, okay, but that one doesn't actually say "close combat weapon". And I don't think it's a coincidence that despite wording in the old codex, they're getting profiles in the new codex. And this is why I don't like the "profile" argument. There are clear examples of old codices not following the profile rule, even if it's rarer than I initially thought.
2) Tyranid Wargear Again, I don't think this is the key argument, but here is the ambiguity. Claws and Teeth is the only one that directly says CCW. But most are in a section called CCW. If it's not a close combat weapon, why is it in a section called Close Combat Weapons? Bone Sabres and Bone Swords both reference being wielded. If you're wielding something, it's not part of you, and can be taken from you.
3) Tyranid Special Rule I really think this is the heart of the matter, and debating this is where time should be spent.
Tyranid creatures do not wield close combat weapons as such, but rather slash at their opponents with their own teeth, claws and talons. As a result, Tyranid models never receive bonus Attacks for fighting with more than one close combat weapon - these bonuses are always included in the creature's profile.
Well, we have the exceptions for wielding noted. Beyond that, I guess the argument is this. Do we take a strict interpretation of this rule, and say the "as a result" tells you exactly what the rule is supposed to mean? Or do we take a loose interpretation and say "among other things, this means you don't get an extra attack?" And if we take the loose interpretation, are there any unintended consequences?
The inclination is that the loose interpretation wins, because otherwise scything talons don't stack with rending claws. But that was already specifically FAQ'd, so we're left with a new strict interpretation that the Tyranid special rule allows stacking weapon properties without bonus attacks. So, strict interpretation or loose interpretation? Welcome to the Supreme Court!
It'll be interesting to see what will happen with the new Tyranid codex. My guess? A split. Some of the "CCW" become weapons with actual profiles, while others become biomorphs that add rules to the model.
"As a result" does not, in any way, restrict the previous rule to only meaning the following (the lack of bonus attacks) - it gives A result, not ALL results.
THAT is the strict reading. A, single, result is that you dont get bonus from dual CCW. The rule is unchanged elsewhere
As for the profile argument not being valid? It is - as you fail to dissuade anyone as to the validity of it in determining whetehr or not disarming strike has any effect.
Which is the point of this thread.
RAW, disarming stirke cannot yet do anything to nids, and I would definitely argue this is backed up by the fluff as well.
The new nid codex will likely have this much better clarified, however I would be shocked if you lost the ability to stack special rules, like you can now.
Another question that is similar to this, If you tried to use DS on a Dreadknight wielding a greatsword, would it negate the benefit of the weapon considering you don't have to use the weapon in order to gain its benefit? As I see it, the Biomorphs are to be cnsidered nothign more than a SR that modifies the CCW that Tyranids have IE: claws and teeth. Any of the older codexes with weapons that have not been given a clear profile can be given one just by reading the weapons' description Example: "a model weilding this weapon increases it's Strength by +2 and strikes at AP3 = S:+2 AP:3 Melee. The only biomorph I can think of that can be done that way is rending claws ( S:User AP:- Melee, Rending). I think it could go either way honestly. Just another example of an old codex not fitting snugly with 6th edition rules as they weren't written to accommodate them.
Gotta agree with nos on this one but not just due to lack of profiles.
Ignoring the fluff and implications from the names, you cannot use any of the Tyranid biomorphs to make a CC attack(except Claws and Teeth). Purely RAW you will never attack with a bonesword. It does not have that function. All it is, is a piece of nid style gear(biomorphs) that give it bonuses in CC. If some IC had an amulet that gave him +d3 Attacks would you call that a CCW? How about some socks that negated your opponents armor saves in CC, would you call that a CWW? No and no. How about if they were in the CCW section? No, you'd just assume they were there because they provide CC bonuses not because they are close combat weapons.
People are getting to hung up on names and fluff. Functionally they provide only buffs and cannot themselves be used offensively. This is akin to calling a blessing a weapon. Would you try to disarm a psykers blessing? I don't think so.
Grey Templar wrote: Correct, disarming a Dreadknight's sword would do nothing. but disarming his Doomfist would.
Incorrect. The Melee weapon chosen by the player using Disarming Strike is treated as a Close Combat Weapon until the effect ends. So his Nemesis Greatsword would no longer be a Nemesis Greatsword, and thus would no longer give the re-rolls or any of the other benefits.
Incorrect. The Melee weapon chosen by the player using Disarming Strike is treated as a Close Combat Weapon until the effect ends. So his Nemesis Greatsword would no longer be a Nemesis Greatsword, and thus would no longer give the re-rolls or any of the other benefits.
but you don't have to use the GS in close combat to receive its effect. You use the Doomfist to make him attack at S:x2 with the re-roling buff from the GS which doesn't require you to use it as the active weapon, its just a passive given to the model when it's equipped. So DS would only effect the Doomfist, so he would attack then only at normal Strength but still had the re-rolling hits and wounds.
Incorrect. The Melee weapon chosen by the player using Disarming Strike is treated as a Close Combat Weapon until the effect ends. So his Nemesis Greatsword would no longer be a Nemesis Greatsword, and thus would no longer give the re-rolls or any of the other benefits.
but you don't have to use the GS in close combat to receive its effect. You use the Doomfist to make him attack at S:x2 with the re-roling buff from the GS which doesn't require you to use it as the active weapon, its just a passive given to the model when it's equipped. So DS would only effect the Doomfist, so he would attack then only at normal Strength but still had the re-rolling hits and wounds.
Doesn't matter. Disarming Strike lets the Eldar player nominate the weapon, so if the Eldar player nominates the Greatsword the Greatsword no longer works. He doesn't have to nominate a weapon you are using, only one you have. And given the Dreadknight is going to be wounding on 2+ anyway (Base S6 right?) and usually inflicting Instant Death (either from Strength alone or from having a force weapon) there's no real reason to nominate the Doomfist when the Greatsword does everything it does + re-rolls.
I think it needs clarification, though I'm more leaning to the side of the Nid looses the benefit of his weapons. They are not Biomorphs under the codex, they are classed under the "Close Combat Weapons" section and as such should be treated as CCWs, they just have the nifty little bonus of not having to be used in combat for their effect to go off, just like a Dreadknight doesnt have to choose to swing with the GS to gain it's re-rolling bonuses. If you look in the Codex, each model has a "weapons and biomorphs" section and whenever the model has a different weapon other than claws and teeth, they don't have CaT too, meaning the Bonesword/RC/CC/ST all replace them as weapons.
A tyranid player still has to choose which weapon to use in CC but until now it didn't matter which was used bc they got both anyways, however with DS it's going to become important which benefit the model will loose. Heck, even fluff wise, the individual weapons are almost all independent creatures of some form of sentience, especially the Bonesword that are attached the the Tyranid host with the exceptions of a few. Besides, if the DS eldar warrior is good enough to remove a weapon from a SM or other Eldar, he could easily be assumed to be able to block/remove a Tyranid's weapon from it's hands.
This is a permissive ruleset, so if the "it doesn't work on nids" side cant show me a rules page RAW setence that blatantly says "These upgrades are not to be considered Weapons, and are not used in combat at all; but instead are passive bonuses to the Tyranids CCW attacks". Until then, I can't find a good foothold to deny the Eldar rule from working on Nids
overlordweasel wrote: I think it needs clarification, though I'm more leaning to the side of the Nid looses the benefit of his weapons. They are not Biomorphs under the codex, they are classed under the "Close Combat Weapons" section and as such should be treated as CCWs, they just have the nifty little bonus of not having to be used in combat for their effect to go off, just like a Dreadknight doesnt have to choose to swing with the GS to gain it's re-rolling bonuses. If you look in the Codex, each model has a "weapons and biomorphs" section and whenever the model has a different weapon other than claws and teeth, they don't have CaT too, meaning the Bonesword/RC/CC/ST all replace them as weapons.
A tyranid player still has to choose which weapon to use in CC but until now it didn't matter which was used bc they got both anyways, however with DS it's going to become important which benefit the model will loose. Heck, even fluff wise, the individual weapons are almost all independent creatures of some form of sentience, especially the Bonesword that are attached the the Tyranid host with the exceptions of a few. Besides, if the DS eldar warrior is good enough to remove a weapon from a SM or other Eldar, he could easily be assumed to be able to block/remove a Tyranid's weapon from it's hands.
This is a permissive ruleset, so if the "it doesn't work on nids" side cant show me a rules page RAW setence that blatantly says "These upgrades are not to be considered Weapons, and are not used in combat at all; but instead are passive bonuses to the Tyranids CCW attacks". Until then, I can't find a good foothold to deny the Eldar rule from working on Nids
Actually a nid player does not have the option of deciding what weapon to use... they don't have any aside from claws and teeth to attack with. the others you are reffering to have no Str or AP value you can even make a profile out of. The effects to not say 'when attacking with this weapon...'. They say while the model has item X(bonesword, Talons, Etc) its CC attacks gain Y effect. You are never permitted to attack with them. They may seem like weapons because of names/modeling/fluff.... They may be in the CCW section.... but it is a fact that they do not have weapon types, Str, AP or anything remotely resembling a weapon in their rules for use. IE, you are never permitted to attack with your bonesword... you cannot do it per RAW
You have the permissive rule set idea backwards. You need to find proof they are weapons before you are allowed to consider them such.
Actually a nid player does not have the option of deciding what weapon to use... they don't have any aside from claws and teeth to attack with. the others you are reffering to have no Str or AP value you can even make a profile out of. The effects to not say 'when attacking with this weapon...'. They say while the model has item X(bonesword, Talons, Etc) its CC attacks gain Y effect. You are never permitted to attack with them. They may seem like weapons because of names/modeling/fluff.... They may be in the CCW section.... but it is a fact that they do not have weapon types, Str, AP or anything remotely resembling a weapon in their rules for use. IE, you are never permitted to attack with your bonesword... you cannot do it per RAW
You have the permissive rule set idea backwards. You need to find proof they are weapons before you are allowed to consider them such.
The nid player and every other player that has more than one weapon has the option...it's called "More than one Weapon" pg 51 BRB. Heck in the codex, its specifies that they don't gain the bonus for having 2 CCWs (+1 attack) and that the passive benefits stack, which is a needed exception to having more than weapon, I'll even quote it for the heck of it:
If a Model has more than one melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with when he comes to strike blows - he cannot mix and match the abilities of several different melee weapons. However, it's worth remembering that if a model has two or more melee weapons he gains +1 Attacks in close combat.
If they weren't weapons in the first place, why would they bother putting those sentences in? Also to note that ALL of the Nid melee weapons are referred to MANY times as "weapons" and refer to the model striking in CC as "using this weapon". As to profiles, they have them, they are, just like in almost every codex pre 6th edition; they are hidden in the paragraph of text underneath the fluff, were they give the rules of said weapon. Here's some examples right off the top of my hat:
Rending claws: S: User AP: - Melee, Rending
Crushing Claws: S: User AP: - Melee, Crushing (+D3 attacks), Unwieldy*
The Model equipped with this weapon still strikes at I1 regardless of being a Monstrous Creature or Walker. Lash Whip: S: User AP: - Melee, Lash (Enemy models in btb are counted as I1 until assault phase ends)
Scything Talons: S: User AP: - Melee, Scything (Re-rolls all To Hit rolls of 1 in close combat)*
A Model with two sets of talons instead re-rolls all failed to hit rolls in close combat. Boneswords: S: User AP: 2 Melee, Bonesword (ID upon failing a LD test after the model suffers one or more unsaved Wounds)*
A Model with a pair of Boneswords increases the LD test to a 3D6 instead
Okay, went ahead and did all of them just to prove my point.
so AP: - and the weapon has a passive that ignores armor saves completely, still completely plausible as a profile and a weapon. It's not the first or only CCW that ignores armor saves. That'd probably make more sense anyways as giving it AP2 would also grant it certain bonuses it wouldn't have normally against things like AV, although most tyranids that can take BS are MC and already AP 2 regardless. I think it would only matter in regards to Warriors? It could be anything really, for instance the Necron Warscythe ignored armor saves pre-6th and the FAQ to it's profile turned it into AP1. Would you argue that pre-FAQ that the Cron warscythe was not classified as a weapon as it did not ave a profile per se in the codex? That sounds like a real stretch of the imagination and rules to me.
overlordweasel wrote: so AP: - and the weapon has a passive that ignores armor saves completely, still completely plausible as a profile and a weapon. It's not the first or only CCW that ignores armor saves. That'd probably make more sense anyways as giving it AP2 would also grant it certain bonuses it wouldn't have normally against things like AV, although most tyranids that can take BS are MC and already AP 2 regardless. I think it would only matter in regards to Warriors? It could be anything really...
I could be anything here because you're now just making things up.
for instance the Necron Warscythe ignored armor saves pre-6th and the FAQ to it's profile turned it into AP1. Would you argue that pre-FAQ that the Cron warscythe was not classified as a weapon as it did not ave a profile per se in the codex? That sounds like a real stretch of the imagination and rules to me.
I do not have this codex. Does it state the warscyth is a weapon? Does it say its a CCW? Does it have a str value or modifier? Does it say it's AP anything? Does it have weapon stats at all? Does it list an effect that happens when you hit something with it? Do it's rules give any indicator that it is used to attack?
Well Boneswords and other Tyranid "weapons" do none of these and no FAQ says otherwise.
I do not have this codex. Does it state the warscyth is a weapon? Does it say its a CCW? Does it have a str value or modifier? Does it say it's AP anything? Does it have weapon stats at all? Does it list an effect that happens when you hit something with it? Do it's rules give any indicator that it is used to attack?
Well Boneswords and other Tyranid "weapons" do none of these and no FAQ says otherwise.
outside of the Strength and AP, the codex doess all those things...so you agree that it is a weapon now or don't?
How are you claiming the wargear under the section "CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS" then gives a list, are not actually weapons...it's the same as looking in the BRB and looking under the section "allocating wounds in the assault phase" then claiming there is no existing rules on how to allocate wounds in the assault phase. It makes no logical sense. If that is true than no codex can claim they have any weapons of any kind, as they all have a page for wargear and typically section out a spot that clearly defines "everything in the section is a close combat weapon, treat it as such in addition to its individual rules". So what if you're saying is true, the none of the items listed in that section are considered weapons, profile or not, because as I've already shown you the Tyranid weapons do have profiles; they are just not updated into the same convenient forms I showed previously but DO have rules and even gives themselves exceptions to rules based on the fact they are considered WEAPONS. Tyranid models that have anything other than CaT, which as you say is the only RAWCCW they have, replace CaT with w/e they have. So are you saying that since they have no weapon at all, are they even allowed to strike at all in CC? I'm failing to see the logical process of claiming a list of "weapons" does not count the items listed as weapons in the first place.
The one sentence you and nos seem to not be able to let go is the "All weapons have a profile. But as I recall Codex trumps BRB, so if codex says X is a weapon, then its a weapon, too bad if the BRB contradicts it...
The one sentence you and nos seem to not be able to let go is the "All weapons have a profile. But as I recall Codex trumps BRB, so if codex says X is a weapon, then its a weapon, too bad if the BRB contradicts it...
Pity the Tyranid Codex at no point says they're weapons. Point me to one quote, just one, that is from a rule section and says that any of the Tyranid CCWs (except Teeth and Claws) are weapons. And not the section title, because the section title is addressed both in the Tyranid Special Rules section that says Tyranid CCW != Weapon and in the general rule that names are not rules.
The Tyranid CCWs go out of their way to avoid using the word weapon, or any similar verbiage in their actual rules. In the fluff as well for that matter. The only place the word "weapon" is used in connection with the Tyranid CCWs is the section header, in which case we may as well argue that Eldar don't have Wargear they have "Treasures of Vaul" and so they can't be negated by Shield Breaker Rounds.
Is a vehicle in the Heavy Support section of the codex considered a Heavy vehicle? How about one in Fast Attack, is it a Fast vehicle? Do all terrain pieces in the Fortifications section of the rulebook count as Fortifications when determining the cover save they grant? There are good arguments for both sides and genuine ambiguity here, I'd say work it out with your opponent/gaming group/TO until there's an FAQ.
so when you look at pages 86-95, and under every Tyranid listed in the codex they all have a section that says "Weapons and Biomorphs" what do you think that list entails? a bunch of biomorphs and special rules? gnomes in skirts doing funny dances? here's an example:
Hive Tyrant
Weapons and Biomorphs:
Bonded Exoskeleton
Lash whip and bonesword
Scything Talons
Biomorphs have their own section that details and lists all biomorphs and some of them (Wings, Acid Blood, Implant Attack, Acid Maw, Blinding Venom, Chameleonic Skin, Containment Spines, and Frag Spines to be exact) don't even specify themselves as biomorphs, so following your logic they aren't biomorphs at all so what gives them permission to use them? The codex grants them Biomorphs as upgrades, so that doesn't work. Are you following me here so far?
And the codex says they are weapons many times, at the top of pg 81 (even bigger letters "WEAPONS AND BIOMORPHS"). Common sense would say "hey, if it's in this section, it's going to be either a weapon or a biomorph." And that's not even counting the paragraphs below the header that repeatedly calls everything in the section a weapon or biomorph. Then again on page 83, the page i keep referring too, which you still have not refuted in any way with some form of rule or otherwise. And now that I look at the special rules section the first sentence is vague "Tyranid creatures do not wield close combat weapons as such, but...As a result, Tyranid Models never receive bonus Attacks for fighting with more than one close combat weapon - these bonuses are always included in the creature's profile." The wording leans to both interpretations of either they are weapons or not as the first part of the sentence is arguably just a fluffy response looking to the rest about the way they attack; meaning they don't have guns and swords like a SM would have but instead have symbiotic creatures they use to fight with or just fight with CaT. If they weren't to be classified as weapons in the first place, then the following sentences are redundant UNLESS they were weapons then it would need to be a needed clarification when the model had two sets of weapons. The only thing you have/will convince me off is that it needs a FAQ to clarify bad choices in wording. Never mix rules with fluff, it always mucks it up, but it's to be expected of 40k. Just makes me even more happy that I switched over to Warmahordes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Is a vehicle in the Heavy Support section of the codex considered a Heavy vehicle? How about one in Fast Attack, is it a Fast vehicle? Do all terrain pieces in the Fortifications section of the rulebook count as Fortifications when determining the cover save they grant? There are good arguments for both sides and genuine ambiguity here, I'd say work it out with your opponent/gaming group/TO until there's an FAQ.
No, but all vehicles/Models in the Heavy Support, etc section are all considered Heavy Support, etc. What you are claimign with Tyranids is that a Necron NightScythe isn't a Transport bc nowhere in the vehicles profile other than the section it's labeled under denotes it as a transport, and no transport capacity is not a Transport exclusive factor IE land raiders. If a Wargear section labels a list of items within it as "weapons" everything within that list should be considered a weapon, vague fluffy rules wording or otherwise. And Iagree, it needs a FAQ, solely for a recurring theme of bad wording in most GW codexes...
Find the profile for Rending Claws. Page and paragraph. Yes, I have read your hand waving attempt at claiming you do not need one, your misuse of codex > rulebook (there isnt a conflict here), and your made up profile.
Now find the real one. Page, and paragraph, or admit that you have just made up rules where none exist.
They could have named the section Tyranid Cake Recipes and it would not change anything. It does not matter what the section is called, the rules presented are what matter and no rules indicate they can be treated as a weapons.
