Ceann wrote: He also needs to quit citing "every weapon has a profile". That is a BASIC rule, we are dealing with a non-basic rule, which means the TOGETHER part supersedes the basic rule you are quoting.
So please stop quoting a basic rule when it is being contradicted by together.
Can you point to a rule defining what "together" means? If you cannot, then how can the "together" part supersede anything?
Ceann wrote: 5. We have no precedence for what "together" means. As it is a part of the rules you have to account for it, making any interpretation of "together" an assumption. Even col. cannot avoid this. And because we have this ambiguous word all interpretations are RAI because no one knows what together actually means, you also cannot ignore that it is there.
We have the precedence provided by the English language. The BRB does not change this nor use it in a different manner, so using it in the standard vernacular is right and proper. Using the "together" to bind the two articles in the Artifact's name as one is RAW, not RAI.
"Used together" does not mean "count as one". You are making that up.
In fact, any rule weight you attribute to "used together" is entirely an assumption on your part. The rules don't recognize "used together" as meaning anything. If you make up some significance to "used together" then you are most assuredly making a RAI argument.
lol.
ok. "used together" isn't a previously defined term in the BRB. Just like used. and. below. ... the list goes on.
That really explains a lot.
So let's read only defined words now:
These weapons are used together, using the profile below
really reads
brzzz WEAPONS bzz rszs zzrZZzz, zzrsz srs PROFILE
The trick is to ignore the instruction the rule gives us and just focus on the words that fit the narrative we are trying to build!
It can be difficult to ignore the overt instruction in the rule, but with enough practice we'll manage.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: EDIT: By the way I'm in the Team Edward Camp (one weapon) as there was a precedent for this kind of bad wording before; the Nemesis Force Falchion in the Grey Knights 5th ed codex had a similar lack of specific wording and, as it turns out, GW intended it to be used as one weapon rather than two (despite constantly refering to it as "a pair of weapons"). Anyone remember that?
The precedent you cite disproves your case. "A pair" is singular and so allows it to be counted as a single entity in the rules. "These weapons" in the case of Robute are not called "a pair" and so are unequivocally plural.
ok. "used together" isn't a previously defined term in the BRB. Just like used. and. below. ... the list goes on.
That really explains a lot.
So let's read only defined words now:
These weapons are used together, using the profile below
really reads
brzzz WEAPONS bzz rszs zzrZZzz, zzrsz srs PROFILE
The trick is to ignore the instruction the rule gives us and just focus on the words that fit the narrative we are trying to build!
It can be difficult to ignore the overt instruction in the rule, but with enough practice we'll manage.
Now that you have gotten some sarcasm out of your system, would you please provide us with a rule-based meaning for "used together" that can actually be used in a RAW argument?
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: EDIT: By the way I'm in the Team Edward Camp (one weapon) as there was a precedent for this kind of bad wording before; the Nemesis Force Falchion in the Grey Knights 5th ed codex had a similar lack of specific wording and, as it turns out, GW intended it to be used as one weapon rather than two (despite constantly refering to it as "a pair of weapons"). Anyone remember that?
The precedent you cite disproves your case. "A pair" is singular and so allows it to be counted as a single entity in the rules. "These weapons" in the case of Robute are not called "a pair" and so are unequivocally plural.
I'm pointing out that the argument for "Two weapons" in that case was eerily similar to the argument here, as people latched onto the term "Weapons" and since it was plural, they ignored everything else. It didn't help that back then melee weapons didn't have profiles (you were either a close combat weapon, a power weapon, or a power fist, and then got some special rules and that was it). Also I was paraphrasing when I said "a pair". I don't have the book with me but in I do remember them also being refered to as "weapons used as a pair" and so forth.
Funny enough, that argument actually said "A pair" must have meant there were two weapons, since "pair" by english definition can only refer to two things. And yes, I think someone brought "pants" into the argument as well just to make everything three times more confusing.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: EDIT: By the way I'm in the Team Edward Camp (one weapon) as there was a precedent for this kind of bad wording before; the Nemesis Force Falchion in the Grey Knights 5th ed codex had a similar lack of specific wording and, as it turns out, GW intended it to be used as one weapon rather than two (despite constantly refering to it as "a pair of weapons"). Anyone remember that?
The precedent you cite disproves your case. "A pair" is singular and so allows it to be counted as a single entity in the rules. "These weapons" in the case of Robute are not called "a pair" and so are unequivocally plural.
I'm pointing out that the argument for "Two weapons" in that case was eerily similar to the argument here, as people latched onto the term "Weapons" and since it was plural, they ignored everything else. It didn't help that back then melee weapons didn't have profiles (you were either a close combat weapon, a power weapon, or a power fist, and then got some special rules and that was it). Also I was paraphrasing when I said "a pair". I don't have the book with me but in I do remember them also being refered to as "weapons used as a pair" and so forth.
Funny enough, that argument actually said "A pair" must have meant there were two weapons, since "pair" by english definition can only refer to two things. And yes, I think someone brought "pants" into the argument as well just to make everything three times more confusing.
"A pair" is singular, so when that word is present it can be argued that a single provided profile is applied to the "pair".
The problem in the current argument is that we are definitely dealing with the plural. "These weapons" and "every weapon has a profile" leads to two melee weapons.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: EDIT: By the way I'm in the Team Edward Camp (one weapon) as there was a precedent for this kind of bad wording before; the Nemesis Force Falchion in the Grey Knights 5th ed codex had a similar lack of specific wording and, as it turns out, GW intended it to be used as one weapon rather than two (despite constantly refering to it as "a pair of weapons"). Anyone remember that?
The precedent you cite disproves your case. "A pair" is singular and so allows it to be counted as a single entity in the rules. "These weapons" in the case of Robute are not called "a pair" and so are unequivocally plural.
I'm pointing out that the argument for "Two weapons" in that case was eerily similar to the argument here, as people latched onto the term "Weapons" and since it was plural, they ignored everything else. It didn't help that back then melee weapons didn't have profiles (you were either a close combat weapon, a power weapon, or a power fist, and then got some special rules and that was it). Also I was paraphrasing when I said "a pair". I don't have the book with me but in I do remember them also being refered to as "weapons used as a pair" and so forth.
Funny enough, that argument actually said "A pair" must have meant there were two weapons, since "pair" by english definition can only refer to two things. And yes, I think someone brought "pants" into the argument as well just to make everything three times more confusing.
"A pair" is singular, so when that word is present it can be argued that a single provided profile is applied to the "pair".
The problem in the current argument is that we are definitely dealing with the plural. "These weapons" and "every weapon has a profile" leads to two melee weapons.
Then for the sake of the argument, what does selecting a "Pair of lightning claws" count as for the purposes of unit selection?
For everyone else: Note that I'm not trying to bring that dead horse back to life, but just illustrating how cherry picked this argument has become. Again, I choose Team Edward.
Page 49 of the BRB. Not my opinion, the BRB explicitly says you must have two one handed weapons.
There is only ONE Melee profile for RG and these weapons must be used together. The English precedence for together means, at the same time. You cannot choose to ignore the existence of the word in the sentence, THAT, is breaking the rules. As for you quoting basic rules they are irrelevant.
You 100% agreed with me when I used the same argument on the IC thread when people were trying to use basic rules to supersede advanced rules, you doing so now is hypocritical and exactly the opposite of a position you previously advocated for.
Because we do not have a precedence from a rules perspective, we have to assume what together means or use the literal definition of the word, which means at the same time.
So you can only use the weapons at the same time and per page 49 you only get the bonus if you have two single handed weapons. We do not have any singled handled profiles, 0. We have one profile that requires two hands, you cannot apply the profile twice because you do not have 4 hands nor are you told you are allowed too.
Basic rules are irrelevant if a contradiction exists, which one does.
Page 49 of the BRB. Not my opinion, the BRB explicitly says you must have two one handed weapons.
Sure and since the Two-handed special rule is no where to be found then we know for sure we are dealing with single handed weapons.
Did you forget that 'single-handed' is not a rule in itself? Two-handed is the special rule.
Spoiler:
Two-Handed
A model attacking with this weapon never receives +1 Attack for fighting with two Melee weapons.
If the Two-Handed special rule is not present then the melee weapon is single-handed. Melee weapons are single-handed unless the Two-Handed special rule supersedes their single-handedness.
Ceann wrote: There is only ONE Melee profile for RG and these weapons must be used together. The English precedence for together means, at the same time. You cannot choose to ignore the existence of the word in the sentence, THAT, is breaking the rules. As for you quoting basic rules they are irrelevant.
That's fine. If you use two melee weapons 'at the same time' then you are still using two melee weapons and therewith satisfying the criteria for +1A.
Spoiler:
if a model has two or more Melee weapons he gains +1 attack in close combat.
Ceann wrote: Because we do not have a precedence from a rules perspective, we have to assume what together means or use the literal definition of the word, which means at the same time.
So you can only use the weapons at the same time and per page 49 you only get the bonus if you have two single handed weapons. We do not have any singled handled profiles, 0. We have one profile that requires two hands, you cannot apply the profile twice because you do not have 4 hands nor are you told you are allowed too.
Basic rules are irrelevant if a contradiction exists, which one does.
Okay, So I use the two melee weapons 'at the same time' which means I have two melee weapons and therewith satisfy the criteria for +1A. We know the melee weapons are single-handed because the Two-handed special rule is not present.
That's fine. If you use two melee weapons 'at the same time' then you are still using two melee weapons and therewith satisfying the criteria for +1A.
Not when given a profile for using the weapons together. One profile, and not a profile that states you apply it to each weapon. Much like lash and bonesword, and other examples that other people have cited that you want to ignore. You have yet to provide proof that you get to apply the profile to each weapon separately. Your "every weapon has a profile" quote doesn't cut it here, as we are given a profile for using the Hand and the Sword - together. It doesn't list +1 attack, so you don't get to take it. Making assumptions that you get to apply the profile to each and then get to take the bonus attack is that, an assumption both unwarranted and false.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: EDIT: By the way I'm in the Team Edward Camp (one weapon) as there was a precedent for this kind of bad wording before; the Nemesis Force Falchion in the Grey Knights 5th ed codex had a similar lack of specific wording and, as it turns out, GW intended it to be used as one weapon rather than two (despite constantly refering to it as "a pair of weapons"). Anyone remember that?
The precedent you cite disproves your case. "A pair" is singular and so allows it to be counted as a single entity in the rules. "These weapons" in the case of Robute are not called "a pair" and so are unequivocally plural.
I'm pointing out that the argument for "Two weapons" in that case was eerily similar to the argument here, as people latched onto the term "Weapons" and since it was plural, they ignored everything else. It didn't help that back then melee weapons didn't have profiles (you were either a close combat weapon, a power weapon, or a power fist, and then got some special rules and that was it). Also I was paraphrasing when I said "a pair". I don't have the book with me but in I do remember them also being refered to as "weapons used as a pair" and so forth.
Funny enough, that argument actually said "A pair" must have meant there were two weapons, since "pair" by english definition can only refer to two things. And yes, I think someone brought "pants" into the argument as well just to make everything three times more confusing.
"A pair" is singular, so when that word is present it can be argued that a single provided profile is applied to the "pair".
The problem in the current argument is that we are definitely dealing with the plural. "These weapons" and "every weapon has a profile" leads to two melee weapons.
So by this post, a "pair of lightning claws" is a single entity with the profile of the thing defined as a pair put over it. So does that mean a "Pair of lightning claws" is functionally identical to a single Lightning Claw and thus only count as one weapon/entity?
See this is where the issue lies; the Falchion, much like Guilliman's weapons, was listed as "a pair of falchions" even in the rules, but functionally it was one weapon (or at least that was what the FAQ implied the intent was) whereas using the same language for a Pair of Lightning Claws results in either you finding no profile for "a pair of lightning claws" or resulting in assuming it's two lightning claws. The difference though is that the Falchion's own special rules says they are used together (which is, again, similar to guilliman's weapons) while no such special distinction was made for the Lightning Claw. In fact, which of Guilliman's Weapons does the profile belong to?
THE PAGE, including PAGE NUMBER. That contradicts page 49.
In order to meet the criteria you need two profiles, for single handed weapons. You cannot use the profile twice because that would require you to have 4 weapons, which he does not. Another requirement is to choose an individual weapon to attack with, which you cannot because you have to use "these weapons together".
I like how you dodged that you were in agreement of advanced rules on another thread but all you do here is resort back to basic ones.
Good to know when the world ends and all of humanity is dust this thread will somehow carry on. copy/pasting the same responses till the heat death of the universe.
So by this post, a "pair of lightning claws" is a single entity with the profile of the thing defined as a pair put over it. So does that mean a "Pair of lightning claws" is functionally identical to a single Lightning Claw and thus only count as one weapon/entity?
Are you actually looking at the rules and profiles involved? The profile says "lightning claw" and not "pair of lightning claws" so there is nothing at all to discuss here.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: See this is where the issue lies; the Falchion, much like Guilliman's weapons, was listed as "a pair of falchions" even in the rules, but functionally it was one weapon (or at least that was what the FAQ implied the intent was) whereas using the same language for a Pair of Lightning Claws results in either you finding no profile for "a pair of lightning claws" or resulting in assuming it's two lightning claws. The difference though is that the Falchion's own special rules says they are used together (which is, again, similar to guilliman's weapons) while no such special distinction was made for the Lightning Claw. In fact, which of Guilliman's Weapons does the profile belong to?
Robute has two weapons and "every weapon has a profile" so the profile has to be applicable to both of his weapons. There is no rule saying Robute has a single weapon so you have no rules justification applying the single profile to some make-believe 'combined weapon'. So Robute has two weapons. This means that if you only apply the profile to one of the weapons - let's say just the Sword - then you have violated the rule that "every weapon has a profile". Nothing prevents you from applying the single unnamed profile to both of Robute's weapons, so you do that.
THE PAGE, including PAGE NUMBER. That contradicts page 49.
In order to meet the criteria you need two profiles, for single handed weapons. You cannot use the profile twice because that would require you to have 4 weapons, which he does not.
I like how you dodged that you were in agreement of advanced rules on another thread but all you do here is resort back to basic ones.
I have no problem with the rule on page 49. Here is the rule.
Spoiler:
• +1 Two Weapons: Engaged models with two single-handed weapons (often a Melee weapon and/or pistol in each hand) get +1 Attack.
Okay, So I use the two melee weapons 'at the same time' which means I have two melee weapons and therewith satisfy the criteria for +1A. We know the melee weapons are single-handed because the Two-handed special rule is not present.
The unnamed profile on the left side Robute's Relics box refer to "this weapon [singular]" so the profile has to be applied to each [singular] of "these weapons [plural]" or else you violate the plainly stated case agreement in the rule statement and you violate the rule "every weapon has a profile".
So by this post, a "pair of lightning claws" is a single entity with the profile of the thing defined as a pair put over it. So does that mean a "Pair of lightning claws" is functionally identical to a single Lightning Claw and thus only count as one weapon/entity?
Are you actually looking at the rules and profiles involved? The profile says "lightning claw" and not "pair of lightning claws" so there is nothing at all to discuss here.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: See this is where the issue lies; the Falchion, much like Guilliman's weapons, was listed as "a pair of falchions" even in the rules, but functionally it was one weapon (or at least that was what the FAQ implied the intent was) whereas using the same language for a Pair of Lightning Claws results in either you finding no profile for "a pair of lightning claws" or resulting in assuming it's two lightning claws. The difference though is that the Falchion's own special rules says they are used together (which is, again, similar to guilliman's weapons) while no such special distinction was made for the Lightning Claw. In fact, which of Guilliman's Weapons does the profile belong to?
Robute has two weapons and "every weapon has a profile" so the profile has to be applicable to both of his weapons. There is no rule saying Robute has a single weapon so you have no rules justification applying the single profile to some make-believe 'combined weapon'. So Robute has two weapons. This means that if you only apply the profile to one of the weapons - let's say just the Sword - then you have violated the rule that "every weapon has a profile". Nothing prevents you from applying the single unnamed profile to both of Robute's weapons, so you do that.
To the first: No in fact. I got that purely by what you told me, hence the quotes and "so by this post".
To the second: See here is where your logic breaks down. You insist that if the profile is applied to a single weapon (in this case the sword) then it violates the rule "every weapon has a profile". But you also deny that both weapons are represented by the single profile (and thus count as one weapon) by saying that they're clearly different weapons and every weapon has a profile. Are you saying that they in fact have the exact same profile and that Roboute Gulliman is carrying two identical weapons?
Another thing is I assume that the Sword and Glove are both listed under "weapons" in Roboute Guilliman's profile. If not (and it's listed like an Artifact) then they are technically not two separate instances of weapons, or even separate instances of wargear (this is a legit question, I don't own that book yet).
Every weapon has a profile is ignored.
It is a basic rule, this is not basic rules.
These weapons are used TOGETHER. You cannot apply the profile to them individually or you are breaking the rule of these weapons together.
You cannot ignore together.
The profile on the left side of Robute's Relics box is for a single weapon. Unless you can prove that "together" means "counts as a single weapon" then the player has no choice but to apply the single profile to each single weapon in "these weapons".
To the first: No in fact. I got that purely by what you told me, hence the quotes and "so by this post".
Any argument you make should start and end with the rules. Merely tripping people up from stray word choice in their argument doesn't actually advance any points. I have already shown how Lightning Claws isn't an example of anything by pointing to the actual rules. So it's case closed, correct?
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: To the second: See here is where your logic breaks down. You insist that if the profile is applied to a single weapon (in this case the sword) then it violates the rule "every weapon has a profile". But you also deny that both weapons are represented by the single profile (and thus count as one weapon) by saying that they're clearly different weapons and every weapon has a profile. Are you saying that they in fact have the exact same profile and that Roboute Gulliman is carrying two identical weapons?
The rules tell us that Robute has "these weapons" and provides us with one melee profile. This can only mean that Robute is carrying two weapons with the exact same melee profile. The Hand is further described as also having a ranged weapon profile. So the Hand and the Sword are not exactly the same weapon since the Hand has two profiles.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: RAW is unclear. You CANNOT tell for sure, by RAW, whether there's one weapon or two.
But, RAI is clear. There is a precedent for this. There is one.
The rule statement says "these weapons". Based on that statement alone we know Robute has two or more weapons.
If you feel there is some applicable precedent, feel free to post it. So far there has been no applicable precedent.
JNAProductions wrote: Gauntlets of Ultramar.
Lash whip and bonesword.
Need I go on, with what has already been posted?
As I have already said, in both of those cases the weapons are explicitly deemed 'counted as a single weapon' before the single profile is applied.
Robute's case is unprecedented. There is nothing to make "these weapons" count as a single weapon.
Summary of my argument . . .
Spoiler:
The rules refer to "the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" in the plural separably as "these weapons". Plural.
"Used together" does not mean that the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion count as a single weapon.
They are called out as "these weapons" and when they are used together they are still considered weapons and not as a single weapon. No rule designates them as counting as a single weapon so they remain two weapons.
"Used together" means simply that they are used at the same time in combat.
The profiles reference "this weapon" and so must reference the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion separably since the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion collectively are referred to as 'weapons' and as 'relics' and never as weapon or relic.
The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons".
Moreover, the Hand is explicitly discussed as being separably a 'weapon' and able to be used as both a melee and as a ranged weapon.
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
Because the Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon, this proves that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself, and it disproves any argument that there is somehow a 'combined weapon profile'.
If there was some 'combined weapon' then the Hand of Dominion could not itself be a melee weapon. The melee profile provided would have been used to give the combined weapon the melee type and not the Hand of Dominion.
Since the Hand is definitively a melee weapon, this means that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet has been separably applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
This in turn means that both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are melee weapons.
This in turn means that we satisfy the rule that grants an a model an additional attack for having two or more melee weapons.
To the first: No in fact. I got that purely by what you told me, hence the quotes and "so by this post".
Any argument you make should start and end with the rules. Merely tripping people up from stray word choice in their argument doesn't actually advance any points. I have already shown how Lightning Claws isn't an example of anything by pointing to the actual rules. So it's case closed, correct?
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: To the second: See here is where your logic breaks down. You insist that if the profile is applied to a single weapon (in this case the sword) then it violates the rule "every weapon has a profile". But you also deny that both weapons are represented by the single profile (and thus count as one weapon) by saying that they're clearly different weapons and every weapon has a profile. Are you saying that they in fact have the exact same profile and that Roboute Gulliman is carrying two identical weapons?
The rules tell us that Robute has "these weapons" and provides us with one melee profile. This can only mean that Robute is carrying two weapons with the exact same melee profile. The Hand is further described as also having a ranged weapon profile. So the Hand and the Sword are not exactly the same weapon.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: RAW is unclear. You CANNOT tell for sure, by RAW, whether there's one weapon or two.
But, RAI is clear. There is a precedent for this. There is one.
The rule statement says "these weapons". Based on that statement alone we know Robute has two or more weapons.
If you feel there is some applicable precedent, feel free to post it. So far there has been no applicable precedent.
Again, the 5th edition Falchion Example was a precedent. It was listed as a "Pair of" in the wargear section of any model that could take it, but was treated as a single weapon. I tried pointing this out with the actual rules (Page 91 of the 5th edition Grey Knights Codex and the 5th edition Grey Knight FAQs for examples of the Falchion listed as a Wargear Choice. Page 97 of the 6th Edition Chaos Codex for an example of a pair of lightning claws) but you chose to dodge them after I pointed out a flaw in the logic (specifically the equally listed Lightning Claws in a character's wargear choices is NOT treated as a single weapon, and the only thing the two had different is that the Falchion's own rules stated it had to be wielded as a pair, or in it's words "Wielder of a pair of these". Pg 54 of the 5th edition Grey Knight Codex), hence me using your quotes to illustrate your own point to you. Me bringing them up was the start, you provided the filling, and here be the end.
On the second part: What you revealed is curious to me. It says "these weapons" and gave the hand a different profile for shooting. Did it ever say that they were both melee weapons? Also since you must have exact words, exactly where does it say both weapons have the exact same profile? Otherwise, I asked again, which weapon does the profile belong to?
JNAProductions wrote: Gauntlets of Ultramar.
Lash whip and bonesword.
Need I go on, with what has already been posted?
As I have already said, in both of those cases the weapons are explicitly deemed 'counted as a single weapon' before the single profile is applied.
Robute's case is unprecedented. There is nothing to make "these weapons" count as a single weapon.
Except there is, they are used TOGETHER. You keep ignoring that the word exists. The opposite of together is SEPARATELY. You keep saying APPLY THE PROFILE TO EACH. You cannot because that means they are no longer TOGETHER which is a word that is actually in the rules.
You are right in this case it is unprecedented. It means you have a single profile, to use two weapons, at the same time. The rules for TWO weapons require you to pick a profile when attacking for an INDIVIDUAL weapon to get the +1A. Together means you CANNOT separate these into individual weapons, because they are TOGETHER.
We are not forced to use the "every weapon has a profile" basic rule, because every weapon DOES have a profile, they use it TOGETHER. Not independently, TOGETHER.
I had to call up someone to show me the actual profile for the weapons and lo and behind.
They not only have the same profile, but have one Entry.
Also being used as a Melee Weapon and being used as part of a combination weapon are not mutually exclusive, Using the Hand alongside the sword as a single weapon is still using it as a melee weapon. Trying to imply otherwise is a false dichotomy (i.e: implying that there is only two options when there is, in fact, more).
Finally, you keep asking for a precedent. We not only gave you two, but now we must ask you for one. Give us a Precedent of a weapon listed under a single entry (that is, one bolded name in it's place under artifacts or the armoury) where it's counted as two different weapons without explicitly stating so (as in it does not contain the phrase "counts as two weapons" or any variations thereof).
EDIT: Also JNAProductions brought up the Lashwhip and Boneswords and yes, they are explicitly referred to as one weapon. But only in the Tyranid Codex. There is no such qualifier in the Genestealer Cult Codex.
Again, the 5th edition Falchion Example was a precedent. It was listed as a "Pair of" in the wargear section of any model that could take it, but was treated as a single weapon. I tried pointing this out with the actual rules (Page 91 of the 5th edition Grey Knights Codex and the 5th edition Grey Knight FAQs for examples of the Falchion listed as a Wargear Choice. Page 97 of the 6th Edition Chaos Codex for an example of a pair of lightning claws) but you chose to dodge them after I pointed out a flaw in the logic (specifically the equally listed Lightning Claws in a character's wargear choices is NOT treated as a single weapon, and the only thing the two had different is that the Falchion's own rules stated it had to be wielded as a pair, or in it's words "Wielder of a pair of these". Pg 54 of the 5th edition Grey Knight Codex), hence me using your quotes to illustrate your own point to you. Me bringing them up was the start, you provided the filling, and here be the end.
And you have advanced zero points since the profile says Lightning Claw. It's important to check the rules.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: On the second part: What you revealed is curious to me. It says "these weapons" and gave the hand a different profile for shooting. Did it ever say that they were both melee weapons? Also since you must have exact words, exactly where does it say both weapons have the exact same profile? Otherwise, I asked again, which weapon does the profile belong to?
Spoiler:
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
This rules statement can only be true if the Hand has both the melee profile on the left side and the range profile on the right side applied to it. The only way the Hand could be itself a melee weapon is if the profile on the left side is applied to each of "these weapons" such that "every weapon has a profile".
Except there is, they are used TOGETHER. You keep ignoring that the word exists. The opposite of together is SEPARATELY. You keep saying APPLY THE PROFILE TO EACH. You cannot because that means they are no longer TOGETHER which is a word that is actually in the rules.
You are right in this case it is unprecedented. It means you have a single profile, to use two weapons, at the same time. The rules for TWO weapons require you to pick a profile when attacking for an INDIVIDUAL weapon to get the +1A. Together means you CANNOT separate these into individual weapons, because they are TOGETHER.
We are not forced to use the "every weapon has a profile" basic rule, because every weapon DOES have a profile, they use it TOGETHER. Not independently, TOGETHER.
You MUST choose A WEAPON in the attack subphase. A WEAPON, not TWO weapons A WEAPON.
There is NO PROFILE for the Hand or the Sword individually, there is only one profile and they must be used TOGETHER. If you are using them TOGETHER you have no free extra weapon to give you +1A.
Again, the 5th edition Falchion Example was a precedent. It was listed as a "Pair of" in the wargear section of any model that could take it, but was treated as a single weapon. I tried pointing this out with the actual rules (Page 91 of the 5th edition Grey Knights Codex and the 5th edition Grey Knight FAQs for examples of the Falchion listed as a Wargear Choice. Page 97 of the 6th Edition Chaos Codex for an example of a pair of lightning claws) but you chose to dodge them after I pointed out a flaw in the logic (specifically the equally listed Lightning Claws in a character's wargear choices is NOT treated as a single weapon, and the only thing the two had different is that the Falchion's own rules stated it had to be wielded as a pair, or in it's words "Wielder of a pair of these". Pg 54 of the 5th edition Grey Knight Codex), hence me using your quotes to illustrate your own point to you. Me bringing them up was the start, you provided the filling, and here be the end.
And you have advanced zero points since the profile says Lightning Claw. It's important to check the rules.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: On the second part: What you revealed is curious to me. It says "these weapons" and gave the hand a different profile for shooting. Did it ever say that they were both melee weapons? Also since you must have exact words, exactly where does it say both weapons have the exact same profile? Otherwise, I asked again, which weapon does the profile belong to?
Spoiler:
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
This rules statement can only be true if the Hand has both the melee profile on the left side and the range profile on the right side applied to it. The only way the Hand could be itself a melee weapon is if the profile on the left side is applied to each of "these weapons" such that "every weapon has a profile".
And again you chose to completely ignore my argument in favour of cherry picking my words. I even provided the page numbers and edition this time as well as context as to why I decided to not reference the rules for one of my many posts. Not to mention you chose to again completely ignore our questions since you cannot answer them.
Also please stop quoting "These Weapons" as if that's the only words there. The full sentence is "These Weapons are used Together, using the profile below". Quoting only one part of the rule is still misrepresenting that rule.
And if your answer is that the profile applies to the hand, then please tell me where to find the profile for the sword. Like an actual rule, not interpretation via elimination. I'm also waiting for that example of two weapons sharing the same profile entry without an explicit rule stating so as well.
Except there is, they are used TOGETHER. You keep ignoring that the word exists. The opposite of together is SEPARATELY. You keep saying APPLY THE PROFILE TO EACH. You cannot because that means they are no longer TOGETHER which is a word that is actually in the rules.
You are right in this case it is unprecedented. It means you have a single profile, to use two weapons, at the same time. The rules for TWO weapons require you to pick a profile when attacking for an INDIVIDUAL weapon to get the +1A. Together means you CANNOT separate these into individual weapons, because they are TOGETHER.
"Used together" doesn't mean anything in terms of rules. It could refer simply to getting the +1A bonus for having two or more weapons. Unless you can point to some rules to apply we have no choice but to apply no rules for "used together".
Ceann wrote: We are not forced to use the "every weapon has a profile" basic rule, because every weapon DOES have a profile, they use it TOGETHER. Not independently, TOGETHER.
First, "these weapons" are not "a weapon" so providing one profile for "these weapons" will mean that every weapon DOES NOT have a profile and therefore violate the rule "every weapon has a profile". The unnamed profile on the left side of Robute's Relics box has to provide that profile for each weapon in "these weapons".
Second, the unnamed profile refers to "this weapon [singular]" and so cannot be applied to "these weapons [plural]" but must be applied to each weapon in "these weapons"
The rule "every weapon has a profile" is irrelevant.
You agreed on the IC thread that special rules override basic rules, I can go pull the thread if you wish.
This is a special rule. The case is unprecedented as you said so yourself.
The relic is called The Sword of the Emperor and The Hand of Dominion.
It is not.
The Sword of the Emperor and,
The Hand of Dominion.
You are creating a second relic and item entirely on your own, we are not told to do this.
We are told to use the relic known as "The Sword of the Emperor and The Hand of Dominion" and those weapons are used TOGETHER, on a single profile.
You are not permitted to separate them into individual weapons, separate is an antonym of together. Together means explicitly that you cannot separate them.
When you are in the fight subphase you are required to choose A weapon to attack with. Not two weapons.
The provided profile is permitted only for using the weapons TOGETHER. If you look for an individual weapon or try to separate them into individual weapons, they would not have a profile, because they do not meet the condition of being used together, which is required to use the provided profile. If you want to make an attack with the Sword, then you are not using the Hand, hence you cannot use the profile, it requires them to be used together.
If you use the relic "The Sword of the Emperor and The Hand of Dominion." Then you no longer have another unused melee profile, which would be required to grant you +1A.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And here you go, Page 6 of the other thread.
col_Impact wrote:
When you stick to the logical relationship between Basic and Advanced (override, conflict, precedence) you can come to no other conclusion than that the unit status of the IC is overridden...
...overrides normal rule interactions...
You keep confusing functional relationship with actual relationship. When one rule takes precedence over another rule for (almost) all purposes, it might not matter functionally what the original rule was and so we could functionally treat it as wholly absent...
Do I need to keep going? Obviously Together here overrides the basic rules you keep going on and on about and you have already agreed previously that is the correct position but here you ignore that position and spout on and on about basic rules. Hypocritically.
Ceann wrote: You applying no rules to "used together" is an assumption.
You are RAI.
There are no Rules As Written for "used together". The only way I can apply a rule for "used together" is if I make up a rule.
If I make up a rule for phrases that have no rules like you are doing then it is RAI.
If I make up no rules for phrases that have no rules like I am doing then it is RAW.
There is technically no rule for "these weapons" in a weapon's wargear entry indicating they are separate weapons either, so by that logic you're also making up rules.
It is at this point where the rest of us are just yelling at a brick wall. Again, I say we just sound off with our votes and let the OP (if he's still watching this thread) and anyone else decide which interpretation people will find most acceptable.
Again, I go with Team Edward (no bonus attack, 1 weapon)
When you stick to the logical relationship between Basic and Advanced (override, conflict, precedence) you can come to no other conclusion than that the unit status of the IC is overridden...
...overrides normal rule interactions...
You keep confusing functional relationship with actual relationship. When one rule takes precedence over another rule for (almost) all purposes, it might not matter functionally what the original rule was and so we could functionally treat it as wholly absent...
Do I need to keep going? Obviously Together here overrides the basic rules you keep going on and on about and you have already agreed previously that is the correct position but here you ignore that position and spout on and on about basic rules. Hypocritically.
Cool, so what is the "used together" rule that you are going to use to override the "every weapon has a profile"? I have found no such rule. Please share.
Ceann wrote: The relic is called The Sword of the Emperor and The Hand of Dominion.
It is not.
The Sword of the Emperor and,
The Hand of Dominion.
You are creating a second relic and item entirely on your own, we are not told to do this.
Incorrect. We have a single entry line and no idea of how many relics in that entry line. We do not know if that single entry line refers to a 'relic' or 'relics'.
Even so, whether 'relic' or 'relics', what we care about for the purposes of this discussion is how many weapons. With regards to how many weapons, we know we have two.
Ceann wrote: We are told to use the relic known as "The Sword of the Emperor and The Hand of Dominion" and those weapons are used TOGETHER, on a single profile.
You are not permitted to separate them into individual weapons, separate is an antonym of together. Together means explicitly that you cannot separate them.
When you are in the fight subphase you are required to choose A weapon to attack with. Not two weapons.
The provided profile is permitted only for using the weapons TOGETHER. If you look for an individual weapon or try to separate them into individual weapons, they would not have a profile, because they do not meet the condition of being used together, which is required to use the provided profile. If you want to make an attack with the Sword, then you are not using the Hand, hence you cannot use the profile, it requires them to be used together.
If you use the relic "The Sword of the Emperor and The Hand of Dominion." Then you no longer have another unused melee profile, which would be required to grant you +1A.
You have no idea what "used together" means. Feel free to show me rules telling us what "used together" means and I will happily apply them.
As far as we know, "used together" could mean "equipped so as to get a bonus attack". A model with a pistol and a chainsword could be 'using them together' to get a bonus attack.
We simply do not know what "used together" means. If you don't know what "used together" means then you cannot apply a restriction with it.
In fact, one of the things we do know is that "used together" does not prevent the Hand of Dominion from being considered separably a melee weapon on it's own.
Spoiler:
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
So your guesswork about what "used together" means violates the rules statements we have. Obviously your guess about "used together" is wrong since its proved wrong by the rules statements we have.
Summary of my argument . . .
Spoiler:
The rules refer to "the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" in the plural separably as "these weapons". Plural.
"Used together" does not mean that the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion count as a single weapon.
They are called out as "these weapons" and when they are used together they are still considered weapons and not as a single weapon. No rule designates them as counting as a single weapon so they remain two weapons.
"Used together" means simply that they are used at the same time in combat.
The profiles reference "this weapon" and so must reference the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion separably since the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion collectively are referred to as 'weapons' and as 'relics' and never as weapon or relic.
The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons".
Moreover, the Hand is explicitly discussed as being separably a 'weapon' and able to be used as both a melee and as a ranged weapon.
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
Because the Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon, this proves that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself, and it disproves any argument that there is somehow a 'combined weapon profile'.
If there was some 'combined weapon' then the Hand of Dominion could not itself be a melee weapon. The melee profile provided would have been used to give the combined weapon the melee type and not the Hand of Dominion.
Since the Hand is definitively a melee weapon, this means that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet has been separably applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
This in turn means that both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are melee weapons.
This in turn means that we satisfy the rule that grants an a model an additional attack for having two or more melee weapons.
Ceann wrote: The rule "every weapon has a profile" is irrelevant.
You agreed on the IC thread that special rules override basic rules, I can go pull the thread if you wish.
This is a special rule. The case is unprecedented as you said so yourself.
What special rule is overriding the "every weapon has a profile" rule? Remember, overrides need to specifically override.
Ceann wrote: The relic is called The Sword of the Emperor and The Hand of Dominion.
It is not.
The Sword of the Emperor and,
The Hand of Dominion.
You are creating a second relic and item entirely on your own, we are not told to do this.
Incorrect. We have a single entry line and no idea of how many relics in that entry line. We do not know if that single entry line refers to a 'relic' or 'relics'.
Even so, whether 'relic' or 'relics', what we care about for the purposes of this discussion is how many weapons. With regards to how many weapons, we know we have two.
Ceann wrote: We are told to use the relic known as "The Sword of the Emperor and The Hand of Dominion" and those weapons are used TOGETHER, on a single profile.
You are not permitted to separate them into individual weapons, separate is an antonym of together. Together means explicitly that you cannot separate them.
When you are in the fight subphase you are required to choose A weapon to attack with. Not two weapons.
The provided profile is permitted only for using the weapons TOGETHER. If you look for an individual weapon or try to separate them into individual weapons, they would not have a profile, because they do not meet the condition of being used together, which is required to use the provided profile. If you want to make an attack with the Sword, then you are not using the Hand, hence you cannot use the profile, it requires them to be used together.
If you use the relic "The Sword of the Emperor and The Hand of Dominion." Then you no longer have another unused melee profile, which would be required to grant you +1A.
You have no idea what "used together" means. Feel free to show me rules telling us what "used together" means and I will happily apply them.
As far as we know, "used together" could mean "equipped so as to get a bonus attack". A model with a pistol and a chainsword could be 'using them together' to get a bonus attack.
We simply do not know what "used together" means. If you don't know what "used together" means then you cannot apply a restriction with it.
Summary of my argument . . .
Spoiler:
The rules refer to "the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" in the plural separably as "these weapons". Plural.
"Used together" does not mean that the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion count as a single weapon.
They are called out as "these weapons" and when they are used together they are still considered weapons and not as a single weapon. No rule designates them as counting as a single weapon so they remain two weapons.
"Used together" means simply that they are used at the same time in combat.
The profiles reference "this weapon" and so must reference the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion separably since the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion collectively are referred to as 'weapons' and as 'relics' and never as weapon or relic.
The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons".
Moreover, the Hand is explicitly discussed as being separably a 'weapon' and able to be used as both a melee and as a ranged weapon.
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
Because the Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon, this proves that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself, and it disproves any argument that there is somehow a 'combined weapon profile'.
If there was some 'combined weapon' then the Hand of Dominion could not itself be a melee weapon. The melee profile provided would have been used to give the combined weapon the melee type and not the Hand of Dominion.
Since the Hand is definitively a melee weapon, this means that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet has been separably applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
This in turn means that both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are melee weapons.
This in turn means that we satisfy the rule that grants an a model an additional attack for having two or more melee weapons.
So you are saying that YOU don't know what "together means" other than being an antonym of separate, which is exactly the word you are inventing in the rules to apply a profile to two weapons.
Since you don't know what "together" means you are assuming it means nothing and an assumption is RAI.
Meaning that as I said previously and you ignored, that all interpretations of the profile are then RAI because we have what you call an undefined term. Although I think the English language speaks for itself clearly enough. You call for "these weapons" to be a pluralization allowing you to assume two weapons but when you get to "together" you apparently lost your english book by that point in the same sentence.
You either apply the ENTIRE SENTENCE, or NONE OF IT. You don't get to cherry pick the part you like and ignore the rest.
What special rule is overriding the "every weapon has a profile", the word TOGETHER. It overrides them having SEPARATE profiles.
Not, "Incorrect". We do not have any precedence to assume there are multiple relics, other than the name which is fluff. Every relic, regardless of whether its "this and that" or "Pinocchio's twelve noses" they are ONE relic if they have ONE entry. We do know that we have two weapons, but only one relic, we also know that you have to use them TOGETHER.
Feel free to show me in the rules what "these weapons" means and I will happily apply it. Except it doesn't exist in the BRB.
As far as we know "used together" could mean "using them together under a single profile" A model with a pistol and a chainsword DOES NOT use them together. In close combat he CHOOSES A WEAPON to attack with, which will be the chainsword. The bonus attack from the pistol is granted because of the PISTOL special rule. You don't get to roll an actual attack with it, you single get granted +1A by merit of having it, to the weapon you chose to attack with.
We simply know that you cannot apply "used together" to make weapons "used together" into "used separately".
To your points.
The rules refer to "the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" in the plural separably as "these weapons". Plural.
- Correct
"Used together" does not mean that the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion count as a single weapon.
- Incorrect, there is one profile and it mandates you use them as one profile, together.
They are called out as "these weapons" and when they are used together they are still considered weapons and not as a single weapon. No rule designates them as counting as a single weapon so they remain two weapons.
- Correct
"Used together" means simply that they are used at the same time in combat.
- Correct
The profiles reference "this weapon" and so must reference the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion separably since the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion collectively are referred to as 'weapons' and as 'relics' and never as weapon or relic.
- Incorrect, the weapons are used together, together is the antonym of separate, if we separate anything we are not permitted to use the profile.
The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons".
- Incorrect, the rules tell us they are used together, this overrides "every weapon has a profile". It is not perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon, the rules do not tell us to do this ANYWHERE. The only way to resolve the situation is to follow the rules and use the weapons together.
Moreover, the Hand is explicitly discussed as being separably a 'weapon' and able to be used as both a melee and as a ranged weapon.
- Incorrect, the Hand is explicitly discussed, but it is a permission for it to make a ranged attack by itself, not to create a separate melee weapon. If we separated it as a melee weapon it would not be allowed to use the profile as a melee weapon, choosing it to be the weapon you attack with would then not be attacking with the sword also and breaking the rules for the profile.
Because the Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon, this proves that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself, and it disproves any argument that there is somehow a 'combined weapon profile'.
- Incorrect, the melee profile explicitly states the weapons are used TOGETHER. You cannot separate the profile.
if there was some 'combined weapon' then the Hand of Dominion could not itself be a melee weapon. The melee profile provided would have been used to give the combined weapon the melee type and not the Hand of Dominion.
- Incorrect, the profile states the weapons use the profile together.
Since the Hand is definitively a melee weapon, this means that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet has been separably applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
- Incorrect, Together does not allow you to use the profile by separating.
This in turn means that both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are melee weapons.
- Correct
This in turn means that we satisfy the rule that grants an a model an additional attack for having two or more melee weapons.
- Incorrect, A model is required to have two SINGLE HANDED weapons. You do not have two SINGLE handed weapons. You are REQUIRED in the combat subphase to choose A WEAPON to attack with. As TOGETHER prevents you from SEPERATING the profile into individual weapons, you cannot have two single handed weapons. You have one profile choice that uses both hands.
Please define "can" according to the BRB.
Please define "also" according to the BRB.
Please define "be" according to the BRB.
Please define "used" according to the BRB.
Please define "as" according to the BRB.
Please define "a" according to the BRB.
Please define "ranged" according to the BRB.
Please define "weapon" according to the BRB.
Please define "using" according to the BRB.
Please define "the" according to the BRB.
Please define "profile" according to the BRB.
Please define "it" according to the BRB.
Please define "may" according to the BRB.
Need I go on?
When the BRB does not give a definition, you use basic English.
You are not far off when considering his whole perspective is all about taking one word out of context and ignoring everything else. Being wrong is fairly easy.
You are not far off when considering his whole perspective is all about taking one word out of context and ignoring everything else. Being wrong is fairly easy.
Rather than making purely disruptive comments, why don't you prove my argument wrong?
It must be the case that you are coming up short with regards to actually disproving my argument.
Summary of my argument . . .
Spoiler:
The rules refer to "the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" in the plural separably as "these weapons". Plural.
"Used together" does not mean that the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion count as a single weapon.
They are called out as "these weapons" and when they are used together they are still considered weapons and not as a single weapon. No rule designates them as counting as a single weapon so they remain two weapons.
"Used together" means simply that they are used at the same time in combat.
The profiles reference "this weapon" and so must reference the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion separably since the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion collectively are referred to as 'weapons' and as 'relics' and never as weapon or relic.
The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons".
Moreover, the Hand is explicitly discussed as being separably a 'weapon' and able to be used as both a melee and as a ranged weapon.
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
Because the Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon, this proves that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself, and it disproves any argument that there is somehow a 'combined weapon profile'.
If there was some 'combined weapon' then the Hand of Dominion could not itself be a melee weapon. The melee profile provided would have been used to give the combined weapon the melee type and not the Hand of Dominion.
Since the Hand is definitively a melee weapon, this means that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet has been separably applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
This in turn means that both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are melee weapons.
This in turn means that we satisfy the rule that grants an a model an additional attack for having two or more melee weapons.
according to the rules what does "used together" mean exactly?
Ceann, you act like you have the answer. Do you have the answer?
I opened a dictionary and read the word "together" and applied it with common sense.
You created this elaborate scheme which consisted of ignoring the word "together".
Taking a profile that consisted of two weapons, which is simply the opposite of many profiles of a single weapon with two attacks, this is two weapons with one attack. This isn't rocket science. Then proceeding to invent a method of applying a profile twice because a rule dictated everything must have a profile, but everything already has a profile, followed by a magical adventure into the land of tentative assumptions under the basis you are following rules even though NONE of the words or terms you use even exist in the profile in question.
Instead of just applying one word actually in rules, with common sense.
You are not far off when considering his whole perspective is all about taking one word out of context and ignoring everything else. Being wrong is fairly easy.
Rather than making purely disruptive comments, why don't you prove my argument wrong?
It must be the case that you are coming up short with regards to actually disproving my argument.
He doesn't need to disprove your argument because you don't actually have one. Looking at the word together and applying it meets all the rules requirements, I even outlined this line by line.
He doesn't need to disprove your argument because you don't actually have one. Looking at the word together and applying it meets all the rules requirements, I even outlined this line by line.
GodDamUser wrote: I am hungry so lets do a food related break down of the 'these weapons used together'..
Col 'it is a knife and Fork, two items used together but different things"
Everyone else 'they are chop sticks, used togeather as a single item'
I am team Edward
I don't think you have it right.
If you eat something using two chopsticks together, you are simply eating something with two chopsticks.
If you eat something using two chopsticks together as a single utensil, then you are doing something very unusual with the chopsticks, such as binding two chopsticks together to make a fatter chopstick that is easier to grab.
This proves that "used together" does not equal "used together as a single item/weapon"
You are not far off when considering his whole perspective is all about taking one word out of context and ignoring everything else. Being wrong is fairly easy.
Rather than making purely disruptive comments, why don't you prove my argument wrong?
It must be the case that you are coming up short with regards to actually disproving my argument.
Summary of my argument . . .
Spoiler:
The rules refer to "the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" in the plural separably as "these weapons". Plural.
"Used together" does not mean that the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion count as a single weapon.
They are called out as "these weapons" and when they are used together they are still considered weapons and not as a single weapon. No rule designates them as counting as a single weapon so they remain two weapons.
"Used together" means simply that they are used at the same time in combat.
The profiles reference "this weapon" and so must reference the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion separably since the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion collectively are referred to as 'weapons' and as 'relics' and never as weapon or relic.
The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons".
Moreover, the Hand is explicitly discussed as being separably a 'weapon' and able to be used as both a melee and as a ranged weapon.
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
Because the Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon, this proves that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself, and it disproves any argument that there is somehow a 'combined weapon profile'.
If there was some 'combined weapon' then the Hand of Dominion could not itself be a melee weapon. The melee profile provided would have been used to give the combined weapon the melee type and not the Hand of Dominion.
Since the Hand is definitively a melee weapon, this means that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet has been separably applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
This in turn means that both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are melee weapons.
This in turn means that we satisfy the rule that grants an a model an additional attack for having two or more melee weapons.
We kinda disproved your argument a few pages back when we all pointed out you've cut off the entire portion of a sentence of the rules because anything past "These Weapons" would have contradicted your argument. Again you haven't actually provided anything supporting your claim that "These Weapons" actually means, in rule terms, that it's two weapons, only conjecture by english. Yet when we do the same with "used together, using the profile below", your argument insist that the portion of the sentence has no meaning because that wasn't stated directly in the rulebook either.
Breaking it down:
Is "Used Together" defined in the rulebook? No.
Is "These Weapons" defined in the rulebook? No.
Has any other weapon have either of these statements? No.
Is "Used Together" meaning using the two items as one something from the rules or something from plain english? Plain english
Is "These Weapons" indicating a plural of weapons something from the rules or something from plain english? Plain english
The same logic you are using to support your point doesn't work when it is applied to your own point. Otherwise please post a page and paragraph number where the term "These weapons" is equal to "Count as Two Weapons". In addition, you are forcing a false dichotomy by assuming that being used as part of a combination of a melee weapon is mutually exclusive to being used as a melee weapon. Being used as a part of a combination of a melee weapon is still being used as a melee weapon, so the Hand being stated as such isn't definitive proof. In addition, even if it is, it does not prove that the profile stated belongs to the Hand, this is actually a fabrication by you (the quote says may be used as a melee weapon, not that melee weapon with that profile). In fact nothing states what that profile belongs to, other than when the two weapons are "used together". Which is why I ask again, to which weapon does the profile belong to (if they're not a combined profile)? And this time, please answer with an actual page quote and not your own conjecture.
GodDamUser wrote: I am hungry so lets do a food related break down of the 'these weapons used together'..
Col 'it is a knife and Fork, two items used together but different things"
Everyone else 'they are chop sticks, used togeather as a single item'
I am team Edward
I don't think you have it right.
If you eat something using two chopsticks together, you are simply eating something with two chopsticks.
If you eat something using two chopsticks together as a single utensil, then you are doing something very unusual with the chopsticks, such as binding two chopsticks together to make a fatter chopstick that is easier to grab.
This proves that "used together" does not equal "used together as a single item/weapon"
WAT?
let me break it down for you.. since you seem to need a clear explanation of my simple analogy..
Your argument is that they are a knife and fork, two items used together to eat, but preform different tasks in the eating and one in each hand..
The Chopsticks are used together in unison performing the 1 task, in the one hand (unless you have some cray way of using chopsticks... )
In the context of the Relic in question
I take on the chopstick approach, it is a single item that consists of two parts that is used together to perform the single task
I must remind you all that 40k is a game of permissions. While indeed it doesn't say "used together" is the same as "treated as one weapon", it also doesn't say "these weapons" suddenly split the relic into two things.
Both items are listed under one relic. i.e: one piece of wargear. When given no exceptions either way, we treat it as one piece of wargear, because we were never given permission to treat it as two wargear. Tau Twin-linked Weapons take up two slots, but is treated as one weapon because it's a single Twin-linked weapon, even if realistically it's two guns glued to the same model.
The burden of proof is on you col_impact to actually give us a rule citation saying that the rule "These weapons are used together, using the profile below. " is actually synonymous with "treated as two weapons". And yes, the entire phrase, as taking one section of the phrase so wildly out of context is in fact rules misinterpretation.
GodDamUser wrote: I am hungry so lets do a food related break down of the 'these weapons used together'..
Col 'it is a knife and Fork, two items used together but different things"
Everyone else 'they are chop sticks, used togeather as a single item'
I am team Edward
I don't think you have it right.
If you eat something using two chopsticks together, you are simply eating something with two chopsticks.
If you eat something using two chopsticks together as a single utensil, then you are doing something very unusual with the chopsticks, such as binding two chopsticks together to make a fatter chopstick that is easier to grab.
This proves that "used together" does not equal "used together as a single item/weapon"
WAT?
let me break it down for you.. since you seem to need a clear explanation of my simple analogy..
Your argument is that they are a knife and fork, two items used together to eat, but preform different tasks in the eating and one in each hand..
The Chopsticks are used together in unison performing the 1 task, in the one hand (unless you have some cray way of using chopsticks... )
Right, so you are saying that two weapons used together are two weapons used together to fight in combat (single task).
Two weapons "used together" does not mean that the two weapons are "used together as a single weapon".
"As a single weapon" is an entirely different statement.
"Two chopsticks used together as a single chopstick" would again involve a weird way of eating with chopsticks.
This proves my point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: I must remind you all that 40k is a game of permissions. While indeed it doesn't say "used together" is the same as "treated as one weapon", it also doesn't say "these weapons" suddenly split the relic into two things.
Both items are listed under one relic. i.e: one piece of wargear. When given no exceptions either way, we treat it as one piece of wargear, because we were never given permission to treat it as two wargear. Tau Twin-linked Weapons take up two slots, but is treated as one weapon because it's a single Twin-linked weapon, even if realistically it's two guns glued to the same model..
One entry listing does not necessarily mean one relic.
col_impact wrote: One entry listing does not necessarily mean one relic.
Please provide us with an actual rule stating this. Not a precedent, but an actual rule. Otherwise we will assume that one = one unless given permission within the relic's rule itself.
Right, so you are saying that two weapons used together are two weapons used together to fight in combat (single task).
Two weapons "used together" does not mean that the two weapons are "used together as a single weapon".
"As a single weapon" is an entirely different statement.
"Two chopsticks used together as a single chopstick" would again involve a weird way of eating with chopsticks.
This proves my point.
You have a very strange sense of logic.. or just very bad at reading and/or understanding the English language.. (possibly a regional dialect barrier going on)
I am not saying it magically becomes 1 chopstick, I am saying they are 'used together' for the single purpose, because 1 is useless without the other
The burden of proof is on you col_impact to actually give us a rule citation saying that the rule "These weapons are used together, using the profile below. " is actually synonymous with "treated as two weapons". And yes, the entire phrase, as taking one section of the phrase so wildly out of context is in fact rules misinterpretation.
"Weapons" is plural. This indicates the rule in itself recognizes two or more weapons. The rule does not say "weapon" or "as a single weapon" which it would have to do for us to recognize just one weapon.
The burden of proof is on you col_impact to actually give us a rule citation saying that the rule "These weapons are used together, using the profile below. " is actually synonymous with "treated as two weapons". And yes, the entire phrase, as taking one section of the phrase so wildly out of context is in fact rules misinterpretation.
"Weapons" is plural. This indicates the rule in itself recognizes two or more weapons. The rule does not say "weapon" or "as a single weapon" which it would have to do for us to recognize just one weapon.
Once again you have engaged in rules misinterpretation. You cannot remove one word from the whole sentence, as it becomes your conjecture and no longer the rules. Please describe why the phrase "These weapons are used together, using the profile below" also means "This counts as two weapons".
You were never given permission to treat them as two weapons.
Right, so you are saying that two weapons used together are two weapons used together to fight in combat (single task).
Two weapons "used together" does not mean that the two weapons are "used together as a single weapon".
"As a single weapon" is an entirely different statement.
"Two chopsticks used together as a single chopstick" would again involve a weird way of eating with chopsticks.
This proves my point.
You have a very strange sense of logic.. or just very bad at reading and/or understanding the English language.. (possibly a regional dialect barrier going on)
I am not saying it magically becomes 1 chopstick, I am saying they are 'used together' for the single purpose, because 1 is useless without the other
Right, so you are agreeing that "two weapons used together" does not mean "two weapons used together as a single weapon" but two weapons "used together [to some purpose (such as combat)]"
The burden of proof is on you col_impact to actually give us a rule citation saying that the rule "These weapons are used together, using the profile below. " is actually synonymous with "treated as two weapons". And yes, the entire phrase, as taking one section of the phrase so wildly out of context is in fact rules misinterpretation.
"Weapons" is plural. This indicates the rule in itself recognizes two or more weapons. The rule does not say "weapon" or "as a single weapon" which it would have to do for us to recognize just one weapon.
Once again you have engaged in rules misinterpretation. You cannot remove one word from the whole sentence, as it becomes your conjecture and no longer the rules. Please describe why the phrase "These weapons are used together, using the profile below" also means "This counts as two weapons".
You were never given permission to treat them as two weapons.
"These weapons" means 'two or more weapons'. The permission to recognize them as two or more weapons is in the plural usage in the rule itself.
The burden of proof is on you col_impact to actually give us a rule citation saying that the rule "These weapons are used together, using the profile below. " is actually synonymous with "treated as two weapons". And yes, the entire phrase, as taking one section of the phrase so wildly out of context is in fact rules misinterpretation.
"Weapons" is plural. This indicates the rule in itself recognizes two or more weapons. The rule does not say "weapon" or "as a single weapon" which it would have to do for us to recognize just one weapon.
Once again you have engaged in rules misinterpretation. You cannot remove one word from the whole sentence, as it becomes your conjecture and no longer the rules. Please describe why the phrase "These weapons are used together, using the profile below" also means "This counts as two weapons".
You were never given permission to treat them as two weapons.
"These weapons" means 'two or more weapons'. The permission to recognize them as two or more weapons is in the plural usage in the rule itself.
Once again, rules misinterpretation by taking words outside of context. Please give us a page citation (the rulebook or codex) to where "These weapons are used together, using the profile below" as "counts as two weapons". And if you insist, please state where in the rules "these weapons" suddenly become equal to "Two or more weapons". You seem so adamant on us finding such a definition for "used together", yet have no problem claiming this with no proof.
col_impact wrote: Right, so you are agreeing that "two weapons used together" does not mean "two weapons used together as a single weapon"
Not what I am actually saying at all. I am saying that you cannot use a chopstick on its own, so using 2 chopsticks doesn't give you any benefit when two is what is required for their use.
But the also the rule in question isn't Two Weapons used together
its 'these weapons used together, use the following profile'
In which case I question your understanding of the English language, as you are from a region of the world that while it uses 'English' it uses their own version of the dialect that has some vast variations to the original that the rules have been printed in. I.e. completely changing the spelling and pronunciation of words
Now to me for your argument to work for me the rule would of read
'these weapons when used together, each use the follow profile' that would be a clear indication of being used as two separate weapons, not the Chopstick scenario where you need two to be off use
"These weapons" is not a rule-recognized key word.
Neither is "doubly apply the profile".
Neither of these are basic rules and do not apply to the wording of a relic which is specific to the relic itself.
Ceann wrote: "These weapons" is not a rule-recognized key word.
Neither is "doubly apply the profile".
"Weapon" is a key word. Plural uses are recognized by the rules. So "weapons" equals "two or more weapon(s)".
"Doubly apply the profile" is simply my way of describing the application of the same profile to two weapons. This occurs when a model is equipped with two chainswords for example. It's perfectly allowable in the rules. Call it what you want.
"Profile" is a key word. The only rule we have for profiles (except for the rules describing the profile's component terms) is "every weapon has a profile"
Ceann wrote: "These weapons" is not a rule-recognized key word.
Neither is "doubly apply the profile".
Weapon is a key word. Plural uses are recognized by the rules. So "weapons" equals "two or more weapon(s)".
"Doubly apply the profile" is simply my way of describing the application of the same profile to two weapons. This occurs when a model is equipped with two chainswords for example. It's perfectly allowable in the rules. Call it what you want.
Again, please stop taking things out of context. Please show where the entire sentence has a rules precedent for meaning "count as two or more weapons". By what you're doing, I can say that the term "Weapons" contain the word "Weapon" and thus it must mean a singular weapon. Include the entire sentence please.
Ceann wrote:He doesn't need to disprove your argument because you don't actually have one. Looking at the word together and applying it meets all the rules requirements, I even outlined this line by line.
I also do not need to disprove a statement I do not read. Someone still does not understand what "ignore" means.
I was not necessarily making disruptive comments, but more acting as a witness on how someone has operated previously. I did nothing to control their habits, before or now. If one finds it problematic or disruptive, then maybe one should look at one's self as to the possibilities.
If the Ignored One finds my comments so disruptive, than maybe he should ignore me. It would save many of these threads a couple more headaches.
JNAProductions wrote: Except there is no way to determine whether "Used together" means as one weapon or as two.
So, therefore, we look to precedence, which indicates one weapon unless specifically stated as two. This has no such statement.
Which precedence are you talking about? All the precedence I have seen explicitly mentions "count as a single weapon" or some such when not meaning two weapons.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: Again, please stop taking things out of context. Please show where the entire sentence has a rules precedent for meaning "count as two or more weapons". By what you're doing, I can say that the term "Weapons" contain the word "Weapon" and thus it must mean a singular weapon. Include the entire sentence please.
You are being puerile. The plural usage is definitive here. There is nothing that changes "weapons" plural to singular in the sentence.
First off, if you're gonna edit my posts, at least put the correct people with the proper quotes.
Second, my "weapons to weapon" example was to illustrate how taking things out of context can change the meaning. I merely omitted one letter, you omitted 2/3rds of the sentence.
Please again, give us an actual rules quote stating that the relic is treated as two weapons or the phrase "these weapons are used together, using the profile below" means it has the rule "counts as two weapons".
The Lash Whip and Bonesword is called a "Weapon" in the Profiles section.
At no point is the Lash Whip and Bonesword referred to as weapons in the rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: First off, if you're gonna edit my posts, at least put the correct people with the proper quotes.
Second, my "weapons to weapon" example was to illustrate how taking things out of context can change the meaning. I merely omitted one letter, you omitted 2/3rds of the sentence.
Please again, give us an actual rules quote stating that the relic is treated as two weapons or the phrase "these weapons are used together, using the profile below" means it has the rule "counts as two weapons".
There is no need for me to prove that weapons "counts as two or more weapons". Weapons means two or more weapons. It's the plural usage.
The rules recognize "two or more weapons". There needs to be a statement to the effect of "counts as a single weapon" for the rules to be treating "weapons" as "one weapon".
The Lash Whip and Bonesword is called a "Weapon" in the Profiles section.
At no point is the Lash Whip and Bonesword referred to as weapons in the rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: First off, if you're gonna edit my posts, at least put the correct people with the proper quotes.
Second, my "weapons to weapon" example was to illustrate how taking things out of context can change the meaning. I merely omitted one letter, you omitted 2/3rds of the sentence.
Please again, give us an actual rules quote stating that the relic is treated as two weapons or the phrase "these weapons are used together, using the profile below" means it has the rule "counts as two weapons".
There is no need for me to prove that weapons "counts as two or more weapons". Weapons means two or more weapons. It's the plural usage.
The rules recognize "two or more weapons". There needs to be a statement to the effect of "counts as a single weapon" for the rules to be treating "weapons" as "one weapon".
You keep stating "The rules recognize" but can provide no page quotes. Again, please back up your claim. We are arguing that the relic counts as one, which is it's base state. You are arguing it has a special rule counting it as two weapons, which means you must provide actual proof of this.
So once again, please do not take words out of context, and give us a page quote where it says that sentence means, in rules terms "counts as two weapons".
You keep stating "The rules recognize" but can provide no page quotes. Again, please back up your claim. We are arguing that the relic counts as one, which is it's base state. You are arguing it has a special rule counting it as two weapons, which means you must provide actual proof of this.
So once again, please do not take words out of context, and give us a page quote where it says that sentence means, in rules terms "counts as two weapons".
First, we do not know whether we are dealing with one relic. We only know that there is a single entry line. A single entry line can refer to more than one relic. But that's besides the point because we care only about the number of weapons.
"These weapons" is plural. So the rule recognizes "two or more weapons". Are you denying the plural use here?
The rule that grants a +1A only cares that there are two melee weapons. The plural establishes that there are two or more weapons. No where is this plural state of things taken away.
You keep stating "The rules recognize" but can provide no page quotes. Again, please back up your claim. We are arguing that the relic counts as one, which is it's base state. You are arguing it has a special rule counting it as two weapons, which means you must provide actual proof of this.
So once again, please do not take words out of context, and give us a page quote where it says that sentence means, in rules terms "counts as two weapons".
First, we do not know whether we are dealing with one relic. We only know that there is a single entry line. A single entry line can refer to more than one relic. But that's besides the point because we care only about the number of weapons.
"These weapons" is plural. So the rule recognizes "two or more weapons". Are you denying the plural use here?
1.) Nowhere in the rules did a single entry line ever refer to more than 1 relic. Hence for this to be true the relic must have a special rules exception ("advanced rules" as you call it). Once again you assume so without providing evidence of this, either of a previous relic which assumed this without the words "counts as (insert numerical designation of the amount of an item)" or of a rule stating this. 2.) Yes I do deny the plural use here, as unless they're either stated in separate entries, listed as separate entries on Guilliman's profile, or has a rule spelling out "counts as two weapons", it has no bearing on the rules, just like how you claim "used together" has no meaning either.
1.) Nowhere in the rules did a single entry line ever refer to more than 1 relic. Hence for this to be true the relic must have a special rules exception ("advanced rules" as you call it). Once again you assume so without providing evidence of this, either of a previous relic which assumed this without the words "counts as (insert numerical designation of the amount of an item)" or of a rule stating this.
Cypher's pistols are two relics and have a single entry line.
Spoiler:
MYSTERIOUS RELICS
Cypher’s Pistols:
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: 2.) Yes I do deny the plural use here, as unless they're either stated in separate entries, listed as separate entries on Guilliman's profile, or has a rule spelling out "counts as two weapons", it has no bearing on the rules, just like how you claim "used together" has no meaning either.
"These weapons" is language in the rule statement itself and not in the fluff. Weapon is a key word recognized in the rules. So we have plural instances of a rule-recognized key word.
Feel free to keep going with your puerile argument. It makes your counter-argument look like its grasping for straws. Keep at it.
Summary of my argument . . .
Spoiler:
The rules refer to "the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" in the plural separably as "these weapons". Plural.
"Used together" does not mean that the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion count as a single weapon.
They are called out as "these weapons" and when they are used together they are still considered weapons and not as a single weapon. No rule designates them as counting as a single weapon so they remain two weapons.
"Used together" means simply that they are used at the same time in combat.
The profiles reference "this weapon" and so must reference the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion separably since the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion collectively are referred to as 'weapons' and as 'relics' and never as weapon or relic.
The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons".
Moreover, the Hand is explicitly discussed as being separably a 'weapon' and able to be used as both a melee and as a ranged weapon.
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
Because the Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon, this proves that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself, and it disproves any argument that there is somehow a 'combined weapon profile'.
If there was some 'combined weapon' then the Hand of Dominion could not itself be a melee weapon. The melee profile provided would have been used to give the combined weapon the melee type and not the Hand of Dominion.
Since the Hand is definitively a melee weapon, this means that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet has been separably applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
This in turn means that both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are melee weapons.
This in turn means that we satisfy the rule that grants an a model an additional attack for having two or more melee weapons.
The plural establishes that there are two or more weapons. No where is this plural state of things taken away.
The plural establishes that there is a sword and fist on the model, and states that they are used together..
It doesn't state that they both use the profile
Kinda like chopsticks are used together, they are plural but only single use
Weapons is a key word. So we have two weapons.
Profile is a key word too.
Every weapon has a profile is a rule in the BRB.
I don't see a rule that says "these weapons" count as a single weapon, do you?
We also don't see a rule that says "these weapons" can be taken out of context as well as "count as two or more weapons". Again please provide citation.
1.) Nowhere in the rules did a single entry line ever refer to more than 1 relic. Hence for this to be true the relic must have a special rules exception ("advanced rules" as you call it). Once again you assume so without providing evidence of this, either of a previous relic which assumed this without the words "counts as (insert numerical designation of the amount of an item)" or of a rule stating this.
Cypher's pistols are two relics and have a single entry line.
Spoiler:
MYSTERIOUS RELICS Cypher’s Pistols:
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: 2.) Yes I do deny the plural use here, as unless they're either stated in separate entries, listed as separate entries on Guilliman's profile, or has a rule spelling out "counts as two weapons", it has no bearing on the rules, just like how you claim "used together" has no meaning either.
"These weapons" is language in the rule statement itself and not in the fluff. Weapon is a key word recognized in the rules. So we have plural instances of a rule-recognized key word.
Feel free to keep going with your puerile argument. It makes your counter-argument look like its grasping for straws. Keep at it.
You might wanna quote the rules past just the heading. The rules themselves state that they are a Bolt Pistol and a Plasma Pistol, not "these weapons". In addition, it follows up by saying "weapon profileS" The only one grasping at straws is you, since each of your argument's rebuttles come in the form of edited quotes.
EDIT: Also please do not insult me while giving me rebuttles. The mods do understand what the word "puerile" means and the context of which it's being used in.
col_impact wrote: Cypher's pistols are two relics and have a single entry line.
And also have separate profiles listed and rules for using both,
Which the Sward and Hand do not...
It is one of the arguments that has been used against you many times
Deal with the point being made.
So does one entry line correspond always to one relic?
I proved one entry line can correspond to more than one relic. The case of the entry line of "Cyphers Pistols" proved his statement wrong.
We actually said that one entry equals one relic unless permission is given. You sort of left the latter half of that off. Cypher's Pistols explicitly has two profiles and lists names for two weapons, whereas Guilliman's doesn't even reference the sword (even in the fluff of the entry, the only mention of the sword is in the name. I'm starting to think that the relic only refers to The Hand and that the sword is ceremonial).
So does one entry line correspond always to one relic?
I proved one entry line can correspond to more than one relic. The case of the entry line of "Cyphers Pistols" proved his statement wrong.
Yes it is a single relic, that has rules for two weapons and states they are two weapons
While is sword and hand once again is a single relic, that has a single melee profile. with no direct mention that they are two weapons.
Same with Gauntlets of Ultramar, Single relic, consists of two weapons, states it as such
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: (even in the fluff of the entry, the only mention of the sword is in the name. I'm starting to think that the relic only refers to The Hand and that the sword is ceremonial).
I made that point a few pages back, describing the sword is a catalyst for the profile
You might wanna quote the rules past just the heading. The rules themselves state that they are a Bolt Pistol and a Plasma Pistol, not "these weapons". In addition, it follows up by saying "weapon profileS" The only one grasping at straws is you, since each of your argument's rebuttles come in the form of edited quotes.
Right, so the single entry listing is for two relics corresponding to two weapons and two profiles.
Right, so the single entry listing is for two relics corresponding to two weapons and two profiles.
No its still a single Relic, that consists of two weapons and provides rules for the use of two weapons
You still seem to have issues with understanding what is being written.
Actually I do agree it's two different relics, but only because the relic entry itself gives the permission (stating two names and giving two profiles).
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: (even in the fluff of the entry, the only mention of the sword is in the name. I'm starting to think that the relic only refers to The Hand and that the sword is ceremonial).
I made that point a few pages back, describing the sword is a catalyst for the profile
If that is true, the rule statement would have been "this weapon" instead of "these weapons".
Weapon is a key word, so making a plural of a key word is requiring the player to address multiple instances of 'weapon'.
So does one entry line correspond always to one relic?
I proved one entry line can correspond to more than one relic. The case of the entry line of "Cyphers Pistols" proved his statement wrong.
Yes it is a single relic, that has rules for two weapons and states they are two weapons
While is sword and hand once again is a single relic, that has a single melee profile. with no direct mention that they are two weapons.
Same with Gauntlets of Ultramar, Single relic, consists of two weapons, states it as such[/quotes]
Cypher's pistols are two relics.
Also, no where is there any rule that a single entry line corresponds to a single relic. You are imagining that.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: (even in the fluff of the entry, the only mention of the sword is in the name. I'm starting to think that the relic only refers to The Hand and that the sword is ceremonial).
I made that point a few pages back, describing the sword is a catalyst for the profile
If that is true, the rule statement would have been "this weapon" instead of "these weapons".
Weapon is a key word, so making a plural of a key word is requiring the player to address multiple instances of 'weapon'.
Once again, please cite the it in the rules. You're avoiding this question aren't you?
Right, so the single entry listing is for two relics corresponding to two weapons and two profiles.
No its still a single Relic, that consists of two weapons and provides rules for the use of two weapons
You still seem to have issues with understanding what is being written.
Actually I do agree it's two different relics, but only because the relic entry itself gives the permission (stating two names and giving two profiles).
So a single entry line does not necessarily mean one relic, correct?
JNAProductions wrote: Right, referring, of course, to the one melee profile and the one ranged profile.
You've proved nothing, Col.
Weapon (a key word) is cited in the plural in "these weapons". The plural means there are two or more instances of weapon.
Are you denying this?
Summary of my argument . . .
Spoiler:
The rules refer to "the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" in the plural separably as "these weapons". Plural.
"Used together" does not mean that the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion count as a single weapon.
They are called out as "these weapons" and when they are used together they are still considered weapons and not as a single weapon. No rule designates them as counting as a single weapon so they remain two weapons.
"Used together" means simply that they are used at the same time in combat.
The profiles reference "this weapon" and so must reference the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion separably since the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion collectively are referred to as 'weapons' and as 'relics' and never as weapon or relic.
The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons".
Moreover, the Hand is explicitly discussed as being separably a 'weapon' and able to be used as both a melee and as a ranged weapon.
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
Because the Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon, this proves that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself, and it disproves any argument that there is somehow a 'combined weapon profile'.
If there was some 'combined weapon' then the Hand of Dominion could not itself be a melee weapon. The melee profile provided would have been used to give the combined weapon the melee type and not the Hand of Dominion.
Since the Hand is definitively a melee weapon, this means that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet has been separably applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
This in turn means that both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are melee weapons.
This in turn means that we satisfy the rule that grants an a model an additional attack for having two or more melee weapons.
Sure. There's a ranged weapon and a melee weapon. The ranged weapon is the fist alone, the melee is the sword and fist used together, as indicated by "used together" being in the rules.
Right, so the single entry listing is for two relics corresponding to two weapons and two profiles.
No its still a single Relic, that consists of two weapons and provides rules for the use of two weapons
You still seem to have issues with understanding what is being written.
Actually I do agree it's two different relics, but only because the relic entry itself gives the permission (stating two names and giving two profiles).
So a single entry line does not necessarily mean one relic, correct?
Burden of proof is on your argument to prove it right. My proof is simply you stating it, with absolutely no rules quote or page numbers to back it up.
Also again we stated that one entry equals one relic unless permission is given. Your arguments have consistently quotemined us and cherry picked words to make your point.
JNAProductions wrote: Right, referring, of course, to the one melee profile and the one ranged profile.
You've proved nothing, Col.
Weapon (a key word) is cited in the plural in "these weapons". The plural means there are two or more instances of weapon.
Are you denying this?
Summary of my argument . . .
Spoiler:
The rules refer to "the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" in the plural separably as "these weapons". Plural.
"Used together" does not mean that the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion count as a single weapon.
They are called out as "these weapons" and when they are used together they are still considered weapons and not as a single weapon. No rule designates them as counting as a single weapon so they remain two weapons.
"Used together" means simply that they are used at the same time in combat.
The profiles reference "this weapon" and so must reference the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion separably since the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion collectively are referred to as 'weapons' and as 'relics' and never as weapon or relic.
The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons".
Moreover, the Hand is explicitly discussed as being separably a 'weapon' and able to be used as both a melee and as a ranged weapon.
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
Because the Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon, this proves that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself, and it disproves any argument that there is somehow a 'combined weapon profile'.
If there was some 'combined weapon' then the Hand of Dominion could not itself be a melee weapon. The melee profile provided would have been used to give the combined weapon the melee type and not the Hand of Dominion.
Since the Hand is definitively a melee weapon, this means that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet has been separably applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
This in turn means that both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are melee weapons.
This in turn means that we satisfy the rule that grants an a model an additional attack for having two or more melee weapons.
Yes we are actually denying this, because your arguments have not provided evidence (in the form of a quote from rules or a page number) to back up this interpretation other than saying "the rules recognizes this".
Burden of proof is on your argument to prove it right. My proof is simply you stating it, with absolutely no rules quote or page numbers to back it up.
Also again we stated that one entry equals one relic unless permission is given. Your arguments have consistently quotemined us and cherry picked words to make your point.
You have it backwards. The rules statement says "these weapons". You have to prove it's actually singular rather than the plural that is stated.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: Sure. There's a ranged weapon and a melee weapon. The ranged weapon is the fist alone, the melee is the sword and fist used together, as indicated by "used together" being in the rules.
You know, that bit you keep ignoring.
Cool so you agree we have weapons in the plural.
Interesting guess on your part however on how that works out.
So the ranged weapon is called "the Hand of Dominion".
And the melee weapon is called "the Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominon".
How is it that the "Hand of Dominion" got to be itself a melee weapon?
Spoiler:
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
Burden of proof is on your argument to prove it right. My proof is simply you stating it, with absolutely no rules quote or page numbers to back it up.
Also again we stated that one entry equals one relic unless permission is given. Your arguments have consistently quotemined us and cherry picked words to make your point.
You have it backwards. The rules statement says "these weapons". You have to prove it's actually singular rather than the plural that is stated.
Actually you're the ones backwards. You insist on a meaning for those words in context of the rules, but provided no evidence other than saying "Weapon is a keyword" and "it's plural". Fun Fact, "keywords" isn't a thing in the warhammer rulebook. In fact the word does not appear at all when I did a search of the ebook version. There are Names, Special Rules, Types and sections, but no Keywords. Hence why you cannot take "These weapons" out of context of the whole sentence and instill it's own meaning unless you can back it up. This isn't MTG.
Actually you're the ones backwards. You insist on a meaning for those words in context of the rules, but provided no evidence other than saying "Weapon is a keyword" and "it's plural". Fun Fact, "keywords" isn't a thing in the warhammer rulebook. In fact the word does not appear at all when I did a search of the ebook version. There are Names, Special Rules, Types and sections, but no Keywords. Hence why you cannot take "These weapons" out of context of the whole sentence and instill it's own meaning unless you can back it up. This isn't MTG.
Still waiting for you to prove that "these weapons" is singular.
"These weapons" might certainly be plural, however all weapon/weapons attack using a profile, the profile dictates how weapon/weapons attack.
Units do not have "a grenade" they have "grenades" however they cannot throw two in a turn, or dual wield grenades.
There is no rule that says two weapons cannot share a profile.
Twin linked weapons are two weapons that use one profile. BRB 174 - These weapons are grafted to the same targeting system...
"OH NO ""THESE WEAPONS"""", LETS DUPLICATE THE PROFILE, forget the rest of the sentence"
BRB 167 Interceptor - If this rule is used, the weapon cannot be fired in the next turn, but the firing model can shoot a different weapon if it has one.
Well I guess the Icarus Array on the Dunecrawler can't fire. He has WEAPONS afterall, so if he uses his interceptor weapon he cannot fire on his turn because it doesn't have a weapon it has weapons.
The word being plural or singular is irrelevant and does not provide justification to duplicate the profile. Many examples of weapons exist that do not do this. As you can see the pluralization is nonsensical, pluralization is not a rule, it is following proper English. YOUR JOB AS A PLAYER is to INTERPRET what TOGETHER means, not IGNORE ITS PRESENCE.
The relic tells us to use the weapons together, on the below profile.
Not separately on the below profile.
Actually you're the ones backwards. You insist on a meaning for those words in context of the rules, but provided no evidence other than saying "Weapon is a keyword" and "it's plural". Fun Fact, "keywords" isn't a thing in the warhammer rulebook. In fact the word does not appear at all when I did a search of the ebook version. There are Names, Special Rules, Types and sections, but no Keywords. Hence why you cannot take "These weapons" out of context of the whole sentence and instill it's own meaning unless you can back it up. This isn't MTG.
Still waiting for you to prove that "these weapons" is singular.
I proved that "these weapons" have no meaning on their own, because nothing in the rulebook specifically refers to the term "these weapons". I can only provide proof of nothing by pointing to the fact that it is nothing. The burden is on you to prove that "these weapons are used together, using the profile below" indicates it is equivalent to "counts as two weapons".
Ceann wrote: Like I am really questioning your intelligence at this point.
"These weapons" might certainly be plural, however all weapon/weapons attack using a profile, the profile dictates how weapon/weapons attack.
Units do not have "a grenade" they have "grenades" however they cannot throw two in a turn, or dual wield grenades.
There is no rule that says two weapons cannot share a profile.
Twin linked weapons are two weapons that use one profile. BRB 174 - These weapons are grafted to the same targeting system...
"OH NO ""THESE WEAPONS"""", LETS DUPLICATE THE PROFILE, forget the rest of the sentence"
BRB 167 Interceptor - If this rule is used, the weapon cannot be fired in the next turn, but the firing model can shoot a different weapon if it has one.
Well I guess the Icarus Array on the Dunecrawler can't fire. He has WEAPONS afterall, so if he uses his interceptor weapon he cannot fire on his turn because it doesn't have a weapon it has weapons.
The word being plural or singular is irrelevant and does not provide justification to duplicate the profile. Many examples of weapons exist that do not do this. As you can see the pluralization is nonsensical, pluralization is not a rule, it is following proper English. YOUR JOB AS A PLAYER is to INTERPRET what TOGETHER means, not IGNORE ITS PRESENCE.
The relic tells us to use the weapons together, on the below profile.
Not separately on the below profile.
Then the special rules of said profile go ahead and tell us to use that single, "used together" weapon, aka "this weapon" for either Whirling Flame or Touch of the Emperor.
Ceann wrote: Twin linked weapons are two weapons that use one profile. BRB 174 - These weapons are grafted to the same targeting system...
"OH NO ""THESE WEAPONS"""", LETS DUPLICATE THE PROFILE, forget the rest of the sentence"
Why are you quoting the fluff for twin-linked? Fluff is not to be considered part of rules statements.
An example twin-linked weapon is a twin-linked autocannon. Singular.
Spoiler:
Twin-linked weapons don’t get more shots than normal ones, but they give you a better chance of hitting with them. If a shooting weapon has the twin-linked special rule, or is described in a model’s wargear entry as twin-linked, it re-rolls all failed To Hit rolls.
The rule also uses weapon in the singular.
When a rule statement uses "weapons" it means weapons in the plural.
Ceann wrote: Like I am really questioning your intelligence at this point.
"These weapons" might certainly be plural, however all weapon/weapons attack using a profile, the profile dictates how weapon/weapons attack.
Units do not have "a grenade" they have "grenades" however they cannot throw two in a turn, or dual wield grenades.
There is no rule that says two weapons cannot share a profile.
Twin linked weapons are two weapons that use one profile. BRB 174 - These weapons are grafted to the same targeting system...
"OH NO ""THESE WEAPONS"""", LETS DUPLICATE THE PROFILE, forget the rest of the sentence"
BRB 167 Interceptor - If this rule is used, the weapon cannot be fired in the next turn, but the firing model can shoot a different weapon if it has one.
Well I guess the Icarus Array on the Dunecrawler can't fire. He has WEAPONS afterall, so if he uses his interceptor weapon he cannot fire on his turn because it doesn't have a weapon it has weapons.
The word being plural or singular is irrelevant and does not provide justification to duplicate the profile. Many examples of weapons exist that do not do this. As you can see the pluralization is nonsensical, pluralization is not a rule, it is following proper English. YOUR JOB AS A PLAYER is to INTERPRET what TOGETHER means, not IGNORE ITS PRESENCE.
The relic tells us to use the weapons together, on the below profile.
Not separately on the below profile.
Then the special rules of said profile go ahead and tell us to use that single, "used together" weapon, aka "this weapon" for either Whirling Flame or Touch of the Emperor.
Man I miss Nosferatu in times like this....
You are missing a rule that says "these weapons" count as a single weapon.
Actually you're the ones backwards. You insist on a meaning for those words in context of the rules, but provided no evidence other than saying "Weapon is a keyword" and "it's plural". Fun Fact, "keywords" isn't a thing in the warhammer rulebook. In fact the word does not appear at all when I did a search of the ebook version. There are Names, Special Rules, Types and sections, but no Keywords. Hence why you cannot take "These weapons" out of context of the whole sentence and instill it's own meaning unless you can back it up. This isn't MTG.
Still waiting for you to prove that "these weapons" is singular.
I proved that "these weapons" have no meaning on their own, because nothing in the rulebook specifically refers to the term "these weapons". I can only provide proof of nothing by pointing to the fact that it is nothing. The burden is on you to prove that "these weapons are used together, using the profile below" indicates it is equivalent to "counts as two weapons".
Well they are point out kinda like you did with the twinned link (actually exactly the same)
That latter in the rules it refers to it as a single weapon
'these weapons used together' now makes them a single weapon and does not give a +1 atk
A twin-linked autocannon is referred to in the singular and acts in the rules as a singular weapon. Any notion of 'weapons' is in the fluff as I made clear. Try to keep up with points proven.
"Used together" does not mean "make them a single weapon". You are making that up.
Summary of my argument . . .
Spoiler:
The rules refer to "the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" in the plural separably as "these weapons". Plural.
"Used together" does not mean that the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion count as a single weapon.
They are called out as "these weapons" and when they are used together they are still considered weapons and not as a single weapon. No rule designates them as counting as a single weapon so they remain two weapons.
"Used together" means simply that they are used at the same time in combat.
The profiles reference "this weapon" and so must reference the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion separably since the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion collectively are referred to as 'weapons' and as 'relics' and never as weapon or relic.
The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons".
Moreover, the Hand is explicitly discussed as being separably a 'weapon' and able to be used as both a melee and as a ranged weapon.
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
Because the Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon, this proves that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself, and it disproves any argument that there is somehow a 'combined weapon profile'.
If there was some 'combined weapon' then the Hand of Dominion could not itself be a melee weapon. The melee profile provided would have been used to give the combined weapon the melee type and not the Hand of Dominion.
Since the Hand is definitively a melee weapon, this means that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet has been separably applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
This in turn means that both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are melee weapons.
This in turn means that we satisfy the rule that grants an a model an additional attack for having two or more melee weapons.
Nope I don't. But that wasn't my argument. That was the argument you set up for me so I would be a strawman.
My argument was "These weapons are used together, using the profile below" is not the same as "counts as two weapons" because you have not provided a rule citation other than telling me "Weapons is a keyword" (when Keywords don't exist and hence is meaningless in the context you are using it in) and "it's plural" ( a plural of something meaningless is still meaningless).
Once again, please stop cherry picking my words and taking them out of context.
Nope I don't. But that wasn't my argument. That was the argument you set up for me so I would be a strawman.
My argument was "These weapons are used together, using the profile below" is not the same as "counts as two weapons" because you have not provided a rule citation other than telling me "Weapons is a keyword" (when Keywords don't exist and hence is meaningless in the context you are using it in) and "it's plural" ( a plural of something meaningless is still meaningless).
Once again, please stop cherry picking my words and taking them out of context.
In the sentence . . .
"These weapons are used together, using the profile below"
Ceann wrote: Twin linked weapons are two weapons that use one profile. BRB 174 - These weapons are grafted to the same targeting system...
"OH NO ""THESE WEAPONS"""", LETS DUPLICATE THE PROFILE, forget the rest of the sentence"
Why are you quoting the fluff for twin-linked? Fluff is not to be considered part of rules statements.
An example twin-linked weapon is a twin-linked autocannon. Singular.
Spoiler:
Twin-linked weapons don’t get more shots than normal ones, but they give you a better chance of hitting with them. If a shooting weapon has the twin-linked special rule, or is described in a model’s wargear entry as twin-linked, it re-rolls all failed To Hit rolls.
The rule also uses weapon in the singular.
When a rule statement uses "weapons" it means weapons in the plural.
Ceann wrote: Like I am really questioning your intelligence at this point.
"These weapons" might certainly be plural, however all weapon/weapons attack using a profile, the profile dictates how weapon/weapons attack.
Units do not have "a grenade" they have "grenades" however they cannot throw two in a turn, or dual wield grenades.
There is no rule that says two weapons cannot share a profile.
Twin linked weapons are two weapons that use one profile. BRB 174 - These weapons are grafted to the same targeting system...
"OH NO ""THESE WEAPONS"""", LETS DUPLICATE THE PROFILE, forget the rest of the sentence"
BRB 167 Interceptor - If this rule is used, the weapon cannot be fired in the next turn, but the firing model can shoot a different weapon if it has one.
Well I guess the Icarus Array on the Dunecrawler can't fire. He has WEAPONS afterall, so if he uses his interceptor weapon he cannot fire on his turn because it doesn't have a weapon it has weapons.
The word being plural or singular is irrelevant and does not provide justification to duplicate the profile. Many examples of weapons exist that do not do this. As you can see the pluralization is nonsensical, pluralization is not a rule, it is following proper English. YOUR JOB AS A PLAYER is to INTERPRET what TOGETHER means, not IGNORE ITS PRESENCE.
The relic tells us to use the weapons together, on the below profile.
Not separately on the below profile.
Then the special rules of said profile go ahead and tell us to use that single, "used together" weapon, aka "this weapon" for either Whirling Flame or Touch of the Emperor.
Man I miss Nosferatu in times like this....
You are missing a rule that says "these weapons are used together, using the profile below" count as a single weapon.
Actually you're the ones backwards. You insist on a meaning for those words in context of the rules, but provided no evidence other than saying "Weapon is a keyword" and "it's plural". Fun Fact, "keywords" isn't a thing in the warhammer rulebook. In fact the word does not appear at all when I did a search of the ebook version. There are Names, Special Rules, Types and sections, but no Keywords. Hence why you cannot take "These weapons" out of context of the whole sentence and instill it's own meaning unless you can back it up. This isn't MTG.
Still waiting for you to prove that "these weapons" is singular.
I proved that "these weapons" have no meaning on their own, because nothing in the rulebook specifically refers to the term "these weapons". I can only provide proof of nothing by pointing to the fact that it is nothing. The burden is on you to prove that "these weapons are used together, using the profile below" indicates it is equivalent to "counts as two weapons".
"These weapons" is plural. Do you deny that?
There, fixed it for you since GW does not write their rules in a bubble, nor do they expect you to only use two words out of a nine sentence rule.
But like I have already posted, your insistence to focus only only said two words as the key to +1 attack is an assumption on your part with no RAW to back it up and thus is your RAI of the rule in question. And like I have also said, the other side does not have a RAW leg to stand on either due to the wording of the rule, but their RAI does stand up to scrutiny much better then your own considering you have taken the stance as lawyer, judge, and jury with your stance.
Nope I don't. But that wasn't my argument. That was the argument you set up for me so I would be a strawman.
My argument was "These weapons are used together, using the profile below" is not the same as "counts as two weapons" because you have not provided a rule citation other than telling me "Weapons is a keyword" (when Keywords don't exist and hence is meaningless in the context you are using it in) and "it's plural" ( a plural of something meaningless is still meaningless).
Once again, please stop cherry picking my words and taking them out of context.
In the sentence . . .
"These weapons are used together, using the profile below"
Weapons is plural. Do you deny that?
The word "weapons" is a plural word. I do not deny that. However, again, that is not my argument, nor does it have any bearing on the argument at hand because you have failed to prove "weapon" is a keyword, nor prove what a "keyword" means in 40k since it has none.
GodDamUser wrote: I love that his entire argument is based on the RAI that if the hand has a caveat stating it is a Melee weapon then the sword must be one as well
When the sword could be interrupted as being the catalyst item to give the special rules to the melee weapon that is the hand
And he deflects to two words of a nine sentence rule as his proof while also completely ignoring the fact that the special rules refer to a single weapon in the profile when choosing to attack. His defense was that it means either weapon, again another RAI assumption.
GodDamUser wrote: I love that his entire argument is based on the RAI that if the hand has a caveat stating it is a Melee weapon then the sword must be one as well
When the sword could be interrupted as being the catalyst item to give the special rules to the melee weapon that is the hand
GodDamUser wrote: I love that his entire argument is based on the RAI that if the hand has a caveat stating it is a Melee weapon then the sword must be one as well
When the sword could be interrupted as being the catalyst item to give the special rules to the melee weapon that is the hand
And he deflects to two words of a nine sentence rule as his proof while also completely ignoring the fact that the special rules refer to a single weapon in the profile when choosing to attack. His defense was that it means either weapon, again another RAI assumption.
My argument points to the critical absence of a rules statement that says "counts as a single weapon".
In the absence of that statement, the RAW leads to +1A.
Summary of my argument . . .
Spoiler:
The rules refer to "the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" in the plural separably as "these weapons". Plural.
"Used together" does not mean that the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion count as a single weapon.
They are called out as "these weapons" and when they are used together they are still considered weapons and not as a single weapon. No rule designates them as counting as a single weapon so they remain two weapons.
"Used together" means simply that they are used at the same time in combat.
The profiles reference "this weapon" and so must reference the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion separably since the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion collectively are referred to as 'weapons' and as 'relics' and never as weapon or relic.
The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons".
Moreover, the Hand is explicitly discussed as being separably a 'weapon' and able to be used as both a melee and as a ranged weapon.
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
Because the Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon, this proves that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself, and it disproves any argument that there is somehow a 'combined weapon profile'.
If there was some 'combined weapon' then the Hand of Dominion could not itself be a melee weapon. The melee profile provided would have been used to give the combined weapon the melee type and not the Hand of Dominion.
Since the Hand is definitively a melee weapon, this means that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet has been separably applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
This in turn means that both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are melee weapons.
This in turn means that we satisfy the rule that grants an a model an additional attack for having two or more melee weapons.
GodDamUser wrote: I love that his entire argument is based on the RAI that if the hand has a caveat stating it is a Melee weapon then the sword must be one as well
When the sword could be interrupted as being the catalyst item to give the special rules to the melee weapon that is the hand
The funny part is with the sword only referenced in the name, you could take it out of the relic entirely and it would affect nothing. Even the fluff description for the relic only talks about the hand. I'm guessing the original draft of Guilliman's rules only had him have the gauntlet (or maybe a pair), then the sword was added in later because they didn't want to make him Marneus 2.0 or something.
Col, since according to you he has two weapons that have a "doubly" profile of the one given and since you also say that "this weapon" of the special rules Touch of the Emperor and Whirling Flame means that both weapons have those special rules, is it also your stance that he can split his attacks between "these weapons" and thus be able to attack with both Touch of the Emperor and Whirling Flame?
GodDamUser wrote: I love that his entire argument is based on the RAI that if the hand has a caveat stating it is a Melee weapon then the sword must be one as well
When the sword could be interrupted as being the catalyst item to give the special rules to the melee weapon that is the hand
And he deflects to two words of a nine sentence rule as his proof while also completely ignoring the fact that the special rules refer to a single weapon in the profile when choosing to attack. His defense was that it means either weapon, again another RAI assumption.
Also that every other instance of a similar occurrence with a relic item clearly states if they get a extra atk or are two separate weapons.
It is basically 5 different arguments showing why its wrong Vs 1 that is purely based on a single word
If this was a scientific paper it would of failed the peer review.
GodDamUser wrote: I love that his entire argument is based on the RAI that if the hand has a caveat stating it is a Melee weapon then the sword must be one as well
When the sword could be interrupted as being the catalyst item to give the special rules to the melee weapon that is the hand
And he deflects to two words of a nine sentence rule as his proof while also completely ignoring the fact that the special rules refer to a single weapon in the profile when choosing to attack. His defense was that it means either weapon, again another RAI assumption.
Also that every other instance of a similar occurrence with a relic item clearly states if they get a extra atk or are two separate weapons.
It is basically 5 different arguments showing why its wrong Vs 1 that is purely based on a single word
If this was a scientific paper it would of failed the peer review.
In the greater scheme of YMDC, it doesn't hold a candle to the flaming idiocy that has been spewed here in the past with rules arguments hinging on much less then the RAI of two words as this one happens to be based upon.
"These weapons are used together, using the profile below"
Weapons is plural. Do you deny that?
The word "weapons" is a plural word. I do not deny that. However, again, that is not my argument, nor does it have any bearing on the argument at hand because you have failed to prove "weapon" is a keyword, nor prove what a "keyword" means in 40k since it has none.
Cool, so you accept the plural.
That means the statement recognizes 'two or more weapons'. Do you deny that?
"These weapons are used together, using the profile below"
Weapons is plural. Do you deny that?
The word "weapons" is a plural word. I do not deny that. However, again, that is not my argument, nor does it have any bearing on the argument at hand because you have failed to prove "weapon" is a keyword, nor prove what a "keyword" means in 40k since it has none.
Cool, so you accept the plural.
That means the statement recognizes 'two or more weapons'. Do you deny that?
Yup I deny that. Again, "weapons" is not a plural keyword. It is a word, but not a keyword. This one fact seems to elude your arguments. The statement recognizes that "these weapons are used together, using the profile below". Since there is only one profile, no rule that says "treat this as two weapons", no separating name for two or more weapons, and no references to the sword existing at all in the rules (or in the fluff of the relic), I must conclude that there is only one weapon.
You have still yet to provide us with any evidence to the contrary other than two words out of a 9 word sentence (that's not even 1/3rd of the whole sentence either) taken out of context.
Brother Ramses wrote: Col, since according to you he has two weapons that have a "doubly" profile of the one given and since you also say that "this weapon" of the special rules Touch of the Emperor and Whirling Flame means that both weapons have those special rules, is it also your stance that he can split his attacks between "these weapons" and thus be able to attack with both Touch of the Emperor and Whirling Flame?
Splitting attacks is not allowed.
Spoiler:
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.
That means the statement recognizes 'two or more weapons'. Do you deny that?
Yup I deny that. Again, "weapons" is not a plural keyword. It is a word, but not a keyword. This one fact seems to elude your arguments. The statement recognizes that "these weapons are used together, using the profile below". Since there is only one profile, no rule that says "treat this as two weapons", no separating name for two or more weapons, and no references to the sword existing at all in the rules (or in the fluff of the relic), I must conclude that there is only one weapon.
You have still yet to provide us with any evidence to the contrary other than two words out of a 9 word sentence (that's not even 1/3rd of the whole sentence either) taken out of context.
So you don't accept the plural? Does "weapons" mean "one weapon" or does "weapons" mean "two or more weapons"?
Brother Ramses wrote: Col, since according to you he has two weapons that have a "doubly" profile of the one given and since you also say that "this weapon" of the special rules Touch of the Emperor and Whirling Flame means that both weapons have those special rules, is it also your stance that he can split his attacks between "these weapons" and thus be able to attack with both Touch of the Emperor and Whirling Flame?
Splitting attacks is not allowed.
Spoiler:
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.
That means the statement recognizes 'two or more weapons'. Do you deny that?
Yup I deny that. Again, "weapons" is not a plural keyword. It is a word, but not a keyword. This one fact seems to elude your arguments. The statement recognizes that "these weapons are used together, using the profile below". Since there is only one profile, no rule that says "treat this as two weapons", no separating name for two or more weapons, and no references to the sword existing at all in the rules (or in the fluff of the relic), I must conclude that there is only one weapon.
You have still yet to provide us with any evidence to the contrary other than two words out of a 9 word sentence (that's not even 1/3rd of the whole sentence either) taken out of context.
So you don't accept the plural? Does "weapons" mean "one weapon" or does "weapons" mean "two or more weapons"?
Like I said, I accept that "weapons" is a plural word. I do not accept that two words taken outside the context of their sentence is equal to a "counts as two weapons" rule.
Again, please stop trying to quote mine and cherry pick words. It's already bad enough your argument grossly misinterpreted the rules (again, keywords don't exist, that's a MTG thing), don't do the same to our counter-arguments as well. Please give actual page quotes for your arguments.
So you don't accept the plural? Does "weapons" mean "one weapon" or does "weapons" mean "two or more weapons"?
Like I said, I accept that "weapons" is a plural word. I do not accept that two words taken outside the context of their sentence is equal to a "counts as two weapons" rule.
Again, please stop trying to quote mine and cherry pick words. It's already bad enough your argument grossly misinterpreted the rules (again, keywords don't exist, that's a MTG thing), don't do the same to our counter-arguments as well. Please give actual page quotes for your arguments.
In the sentence . .
"These weapons are used together, using the profile below."
Are "these weapons" being used in the singular to refer to 'one weapon' or in the plural to refer to 'two or more weapons'?
So you don't accept the plural? Does "weapons" mean "one weapon" or does "weapons" mean "two or more weapons"?
Like I said, I accept that "weapons" is a plural word. I do not accept that two words taken outside the context of their sentence is equal to a "counts as two weapons" rule.
Again, please stop trying to quote mine and cherry pick words. It's already bad enough your argument grossly misinterpreted the rules (again, keywords don't exist, that's a MTG thing), don't do the same to our counter-arguments as well. Please give actual page quotes for your arguments.
In the sentence . .
These weapons are used together, using the profile below.
Are "these weapons" being used in the singular to refer to 'one weapon' or in the plural to refer to 'two or more weapons'?
In English, (which has no bearing on the rules) in that sentence is being used to refer to plural weapons being used as a singular weapon profile (note the lack of an "s" on profile).
In game terms, "these weapons" is meaningless on it's own, as it is taken outside of it's rule. The Sentence "These weapons are used together, using the profile below" in it's entirety means "these count as one weapon with a singular profile".
Please refer to Tenet #6 of YMDC as to why I gave you two answers.
These weapons are used together, using the profile below.
Are "these weapons" being used in the singular to refer to 'one weapon' or in the plural to refer to 'two or more weapons'?
In English, (which has no bearing on the rules) in that sentence is being used to refer to plural weapons being used as a singular weapon profile (note the lack of an "s" on profile).
In game terms, "these weapons" is meaningless on it's own, as it is taken outside of it's rule.
'Weapon' is a defined and indexed term in the BRB. Do you deny this?
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: The Sentence "These weapons are used together, using the profile below" in it's entirety means "these count as one weapon with a singular profile".
Please refer to Tenet #6 of YMDC as to why I gave you two answers.
How are you coming up with 'count as one weapon' from "these weapons are used together, using the profile below"? A guess?
Summary of my argument . . .
Spoiler:
The rules refer to "the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" in the plural separably as "these weapons". Plural.
"Used together" does not mean that the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion count as a single weapon.
They are called out as "these weapons" and when they are used together they are still considered weapons and not as a single weapon. No rule designates them as counting as a single weapon so they remain two weapons.
"Used together" means simply that they are used at the same time in combat.
The profiles reference "this weapon" and so must reference the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion separably since the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion collectively are referred to as 'weapons' and as 'relics' and never as weapon or relic.
The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons".
Moreover, the Hand is explicitly discussed as being separably a 'weapon' and able to be used as both a melee and as a ranged weapon.
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
Because the Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon, this proves that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself, and it disproves any argument that there is somehow a 'combined weapon profile'.
If there was some 'combined weapon' then the Hand of Dominion could not itself be a melee weapon. The melee profile provided would have been used to give the combined weapon the melee type and not the Hand of Dominion.
Since the Hand is definitively a melee weapon, this means that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet has been separably applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
This in turn means that both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are melee weapons.
This in turn means that we satisfy the rule that grants an a model an additional attack for having two or more melee weapons.
So you don't accept the plural? Does "weapons" mean "one weapon" or does "weapons" mean "two or more weapons"?
Like I said, I accept that "weapons" is a plural word. I do not accept that two words taken outside the context of their sentence is equal to a "counts as two weapons" rule.
Again, please stop trying to quote mine and cherry pick words. It's already bad enough your argument grossly misinterpreted the rules (again, keywords don't exist, that's a MTG thing), don't do the same to our counter-arguments as well. Please give actual page quotes for your arguments.
In the sentence . .
"These weapons are used together, using the profile below."
Are "these weapons" being used in the singular to refer to 'one weapon' or in the plural to refer to 'two or more weapons'?
No.
As you might know, "these" is a pronoun. It refers to preceeding words and avoids repetition. Used together with the word "weapons" it clearly references the preceeding mention of the model's two visible weapons which also happen to be the relic name.
Funny aside - while WEAPON has a definition in the BRB, GW does not highlight defined Terms reliably fir clarity and does use the same word for the common English meaning.
"These weapons are used together, using the profile below."
actually reads
"The Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion are used together, using the profile below."
This is the sentence that defines the weapon profile. Before we execute this instruction, the models weapons are undefined and unusable. After we execute it the model's weapons are defined as one melee weapon.
These weapons are used together, using the profile below.
Are "these weapons" being used in the singular to refer to 'one weapon' or in the plural to refer to 'two or more weapons'?
In English, (which has no bearing on the rules) in that sentence is being used to refer to plural weapons being used as a singular weapon profile (note the lack of an "s" on profile).
In game terms, "these weapons" is meaningless on it's own, as it is taken outside of it's rule.
'Weapon' is a defined and indexed term in the BRB. Do you deny this?
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: The Sentence "These weapons are used together, using the profile below" in it's entirety means "these count as one weapon with a singular profile".
Please refer to Tenet #6 of YMDC as to why I gave you two answers.
How are you coming up with 'count as one weapon' from "these weapons are used together, using the profile below"? A guess?
I don't deny that "Weapon" is a defined and indexed term in the BRB. I deny that it is a keyword, which is a nonexistant concept in 40k.
And I came up with "count as one weapon" because the rulebook states that every weapon has a profile, a singular profile is listed, and the rules state that "these weapons are used together, using the profile below". Since the sentence stipulate I have to use both weapons together to obtain the profile (which, mind you, is still singular), I conclude that the profile can only exist when both weapons are used together and it cannot exist separately. I did not stop reading the sentence after the second word and conclude that Guilliman has two weapons with no profiles.
EDIT: Because you keep bringing it up, I feel the need to do so as well:
Our Argument:
Nowhere is it stated under the rules that Guilliman's relic counts as two weapons. Taking two words out of context from a rule invalidates their meaning as rules of the games thereof. The Weapon has one profile.
I'd state that just because something is one way in English (the language) it does not mean the same thing in English (the rules), but that's tenet #6, which your argument also ignores.
EDIT: I am going to bed because it's 2am here and I gotta get to work at 9. However I will be back when the sun rises! Can't miss out on the comedic gold here.
"These weapons are used together, using the profile below"
Weapons is plural. Do you deny that?
The word "weapons" is a plural word. I do not deny that. However, again, that is not my argument, nor does it have any bearing on the argument at hand because you have failed to prove "weapon" is a keyword, nor prove what a "keyword" means in 40k since it has none.
Cool, so you accept the plural.
That means the statement recognizes 'two or more weapons'. Do you deny that?
I am pretty sure not a single person doubts that "these weapons" is plural. You are only laughed out the room when you then reference the BRB of "every weapon has a profile" by ignoring the rest of the rule. Time to take off my snark hat, toss on my professor cap, and take your RAI argument to school.
You would be golden with that assumption if the rule simply stated, "These weapons use the profile below." Boom! I am giving RG +1 attack because you are TOLD via RAW that both weapons use the profile given below. Except it doesn't just say that. Instead it puts a qualifier on using said profile that you then interpret to have no bearing on how you are able to use that profile. You skip over the qualifier completely saying that there is no defined rule in the BRB for "used together" and thus can immediately jump to "every weapon has a profile".
The problem is that without the qualifier you break the relic. If not "used together" you cannot access the profile as thus do not gain the special rules of said profile. Common language dictates that "used together" can either mean that the Hand and sword somehow combine together in some Voltron/Power Rangers way to become one weapon and use the profile (RAI for no bonus attack) OR that the very act of using the Hand in one hand and the sword in the other in close combat, is technically using them together (RAI for a bonus attack) and thus the qualifier is met. You choose the latter because that use of the common language supports your argument (your use of RAI once again).
Your assumption from the beginning is that "these weapons" means two weapons, and "each weapon has a profile" and they are "used together" in close combat by being in separate hands (not the Voltron/Power Rangers method) so thus qualify for access to the the profile each and seperately and therefore both have melee thus creating a bonus attack. Granted the Sword in itself cannot be "used together" for anything to even unlock the profile since it has no profile to even be "used together" with anything in the first place, but that is another thread. But as pointed out, your argurment is flavored and spiced with tons of RAI. Not a RAW argument as you continue to self-proclaim to only yourself in each post you make in the slightest, but one with RAI decisions along every step of the way to reach the conclusion that your have already formed.
However as I have repeated time and time again, the no bonus attack crowd is in the same boat as they are interpreting "used together" to be of the Voltron/Power Rangers variety to unlock the given profile. Granted their only assumption seems to be the definition of "used together" and they do have a set of special rules (Whirling Fire and Touch of the Emperor) defining use of said special rules by a single weapon ala "this weapon" ala Voltron/Power Rangers combined into one method.
"These weapons are used together, using the profile below."
Are "these weapons" being used in the singular to refer to 'one weapon' or in the plural to refer to 'two or more weapons'?
No.
As you might know, "these" is a pronoun.
Incorrect. "These" as used here is a demonstrative adjective.
These is used to refer to the plural 'weapons' as close to the speaker (close in the sense of just mentioned).
Stephanius wrote: It refers to preceeding words and avoids repetition. Used together with the word "weapons" it clearly references the preceeding mention of the model's two visible weapons which also happen to be the relic name.
We don't know whether we are dealing with one relic or two. All we know is that we have a single entry line for "the Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion".
Funny aside - while WEAPON has a definition in the BRB, GW does not highlight defined Terms reliably fir clarity and does use the same word for the common English meaning.
The funny thing is that you are guessing that the English meaning applies instead of the BRB meaning. Since 'weapon' is charged with BRB meaning, you are going to have to prove your case that the BRB doesn't apply here.
"These weapons are used together, using the profile below."
actually reads
"The Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion are used together, using the profile below."
You can't transpose those two sentences unless the Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion are weapons.
You can't drop that information. So it would read.
"The Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion are weapons that are used together, using the profile below"
Stephanius wrote: This is the sentence that defines the weapon profile. Before we execute this instruction, the models weapons are undefined and unusable. After we execute it the model's weapons are defined as one melee weapon.
Incorrect. The Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion have been identified as "these weapons". How are you magically changing that to "one weapon"?
And I came up with "count as one weapon" because the rulebook states that every weapon has a profile, a singular profile is listed, and the rules state that "these weapons are used together, using the profile below". Since the sentence stipulate I have to use both weapons together to obtain the profile (which, mind you, is still singular), I conclude that the profile can only exist when both weapons are used together and it cannot exist separately. I did not stop reading the sentence after the second word and conclude that Guilliman has two weapons with no profiles.
This is a reasonable guess as to what the rules writers intended. But you are supplying your own rules statements here. There is no statement that "these weapons" "count as a single weapon" so your argument is decidedly RAI and not RAW. "Used together" on its own does not change the plural in "these weapons" to the singular hypothesized 'combined' weapon you want to assign the single profile to.
I am pretty sure not a single person doubts that "these weapons" is plural. You are only laughed out the room when you then reference the BRB of "every weapon has a profile" by ignoring the rest of the rule. Time to take off my snark hat, toss on my professor cap, and take your RAI argument to school.
You would be golden with that assumption if the rule simply stated, "These weapons use the profile below." Boom! I am giving RG +1 attack because you are TOLD via RAW that both weapons use the profile given below. Except it doesn't just say that. Instead it puts a qualifier on using said profile that you then interpret to have no bearing on how you are able to use that profile. You skip over the qualifier completely saying that there is no defined rule in the BRB for "used together" and thus can immediately jump to "every weapon has a profile".
The problem is that without the qualifier you break the relic. If not "used together" you cannot access the profile as thus do not gain the special rules of said profile. Common language dictates that "used together" can either mean that the Hand and sword somehow combine together in some Voltron/Power Rangers way to become one weapon and use the profile (RAI for no bonus attack) OR that the very act of using the Hand in one hand and the sword in the other in close combat, is technically using them together (RAI for a bonus attack) and thus the qualifier is met. You choose the latter because that use of the common language supports your argument (your use of RAI once again).
Your assumption from the beginning is that "these weapons" means two weapons, and "each weapon has a profile" and they are "used together" in close combat by being in separate hands (not the Voltron/Power Rangers method) so thus qualify for access to the the profile each and seperately and therefore both have melee thus creating a bonus attack. Granted the Sword in itself cannot be "used together" for anything to even unlock the profile since it has no profile to even be "used together" with anything in the first place, but that is another thread. But as pointed out, your argurment is flavored and spiced with tons of RAI. Not a RAW argument as you continue to self-proclaim to only yourself in each post you make in the slightest, but one with RAI decisions along every step of the way to reach the conclusion that your have already formed.
However as I have repeated time and time again, the no bonus attack crowd is in the same boat as they are interpreting "used together" to be of the Voltron/Power Rangers variety to unlock the given profile. Granted their only assumption seems to be the definition of "used together" and they do have a set of special rules (Whirling Fire and Touch of the Emperor) defining use of said special rules by a single weapon ala "this weapon" ala Voltron/Power Rangers combined into one method.
Thank you for your well-thought out response.
I think you are wrong that "used together" could only mean one of two things. I think it could have many more than just those two meanings. And that's the problem. It's undefined in the rules.
The bottom line though is that the rules don't say anything about "used together" and nothing definitive can be said about "used together" without making a guess as to intent.
So that means a RAW approach basically ignores "used together" as meaningless in terms of the rules themselves.
So we really have two weapons, an unnamed profile, a rule that says "every weapon has a profile", and a set of rules that perfectly allows two weapons to share the same profile.
Based strictly on the rules themselves, we can come to no other conclusion than that we have two melee weapons and therewith +1A.
Summary of my argument . . .
Spoiler:
The rules refer to "the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" in the plural separably as "these weapons". Plural.
"Used together" does not mean that the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion count as a single weapon.
They are called out as "these weapons" and when they are used together they are still considered weapons and not as a single weapon. No rule designates them as counting as a single weapon so they remain two weapons.
"Used together" means simply that they are used at the same time in combat.
The profiles reference "this weapon" and so must reference the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion separably since the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion collectively are referred to as 'weapons' and as 'relics' and never as weapon or relic.
The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons".
Moreover, the Hand is explicitly discussed as being separably a 'weapon' and able to be used as both a melee and as a ranged weapon.
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
Because the Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon, this proves that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself, and it disproves any argument that there is somehow a 'combined weapon profile'.
If there was some 'combined weapon' then the Hand of Dominion could not itself be a melee weapon. The melee profile provided would have been used to give the combined weapon the melee type and not the Hand of Dominion.
Since the Hand is definitively a melee weapon, this means that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet has been separably applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
This in turn means that both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are melee weapons.
This in turn means that we satisfy the rule that grants an a model an additional attack for having two or more melee weapons.
Based strictly on the rules themselves, we can come to no other conclusion than that we have two melee weapons and therewith +1A.
No, just no. That's just based on your conclusion. Simple reading comprehension of the rules is lost to you and you're just to stubborn to admit that.
"These weapons are used together, using the profile below."
What's is there not to understand. It's two weapons, using a singular profile.
Yup, so each weapon has the single profile applied to it. "Every weapon has a profile."
Summary of my argument . . .
Spoiler:
The rules refer to "the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" in the plural separably as "these weapons". Plural.
"Used together" does not mean that the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion count as a single weapon.
They are called out as "these weapons" and when they are used together they are still considered weapons and not as a single weapon. No rule designates them as counting as a single weapon so they remain two weapons.
"Used together" means simply that they are used at the same time in combat.
The profiles reference "this weapon" and so must reference the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion separably since the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion collectively are referred to as 'weapons' and as 'relics' and never as weapon or relic.
The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons".
Moreover, the Hand is explicitly discussed as being separably a 'weapon' and able to be used as both a melee and as a ranged weapon.
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
Because the Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon, this proves that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself, and it disproves any argument that there is somehow a 'combined weapon profile'.
If there was some 'combined weapon' then the Hand of Dominion could not itself be a melee weapon. The melee profile provided would have been used to give the combined weapon the melee type and not the Hand of Dominion.
Since the Hand is definitively a melee weapon, this means that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet has been separably applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
This in turn means that both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are melee weapons.
This in turn means that we satisfy the rule that grants an a model an additional attack for having two or more melee weapons.
"These weapons are used together, using the profile below."
Are "these weapons" being used in the singular to refer to 'one weapon' or in the plural to refer to 'two or more weapons'?
No.
As you might know, "these" is a pronoun.
Incorrect. "These" as used here is a demonstrative adjective.
These is used to refer to the plural 'weapons' as close to the speaker (close in the sense of just mentioned).
Even if you are correct, that changes nothing about the meaning. The just mentioned weapons were the sword and the hand. "These weapons" references sword and hand.
Stephanius wrote: It refers to preceeding words and avoids repetition. Used together with the word "weapons" it clearly references the preceeding mention of the model's two visible weapons which also happen to be the relic name.
We don't know whether we are dealing with one relic or two. All we know is that we have a single entry line for "the Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion".
Which is how we know that it is one (1) relic - since it's one relic entry. One relic CAN be more than one weapon (see. Cyper), but that needs to be explictly stated, which Robby's rules don't.
Funny aside - while WEAPON has a definition in the BRB, GW does not highlight defined Terms reliably fir clarity and does use the same word for the common English meaning.
The funny thing is that you are guessing that the English meaning applies instead of the BRB meaning. Since 'weapon' is charged with BRB meaning, you are going to have to prove your case that the BRB doesn't apply here.
Even if I were to accept this, worst case it would be just as funny as your assertion that it's used as a defined term here. Actually, assuming that it's meant as the defined term here doesn't make any sense. The function of the rule statement is to define how the relic functions as a weapon, both for melee and ranged combat. That is what it does. It defines a melee and a ranged profile. Let me provide an example to illustrate this:
Harlequin Foamswordbla bla bla This weapon is a Close Combat Weapon/Chainsword/purely decorative.
If "This weapon" would already be a definition in the rules, what would it be? We cannot stop reading here, since the instruction isn't complete. X = CCW, where X = Harlequin Foamsword. X alone has no meaning.
Harlequin Foamsword and Foam-Cudgelbla bla bla These weapons are Close Combat Weapons
This is logically identical with:
Harlequin Foamsword and Foam-Cudgel are Close Combat Weapons
Note how the plural is there in the second half of the statement - the definition of the referenced bits of gear.
"These weapons are used together, using the profile below."
actually reads
"The Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion are used together, using the profile below."
You can't transpose those two sentences unless the Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion are weapons.
You can't drop that information. So it would read.
"The Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion are weapons that are used together, using the profile below"
You contradict yourself. You earlier posited that "These" is a demonstrative adjective used to clarifly the reference to something close to the speaker, and then turn that spatial reference to a temporal one by switching it to "just mentioned". You are probably going to try to weasel out here saying that just mentioned - as in previously mentioned - actually here in this super special case means mentioned immediately after the demonstrative adjective, which makes no sense at all. So you did agree that "These weapons" is actually a reference to "The Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion" and therfore it is in fact perfectly clear and acceptable to replace "These weapons" with "The Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Domninion". You might note that doing this does not change the meaning of the sentence as everyone (except you) reads it.
Stephanius wrote: This is the sentence that defines the weapon profile. Before we execute this instruction, the models weapons are undefined and unusable. After we execute it the model's weapons are defined as one melee weapon.
Incorrect. The Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion have been identified as "these weapons". How are you magically changing that to "one weapon"?
It's not magic, it's rules. The relic rule says "The sword and the hand are used together with the profile below". (note the annoying singular "the profile").
If you actually just follow the instruction the rule provides, you have one weapon.
If you strike out words, redefine others, take them out of context and talk really fast and persistently ... you still fail in making it two separately usable defined weapons.
We don't know whether we are dealing with one relic or two. All we know is that we have a single entry line for "the Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion".
Which is how we know that it is one (1) relic - since it's one relic entry. One relic CAN be more than one weapon (see. Cyper), but that needs to be explictly stated, which Robby's rules don't.
Incorrect. All we know is that it is one entry. There is no rule that establishes one entry per relic. If you know of such a rule please present it.
Cypher's example proves that one entry can refer to more than one relic.
Spoiler:
MYSTERIOUS RELICS
Cypher’s Pistols:
Even so, whether we are dealing with one relic or many relics, we really only care about how many weapons we are dealing with when we are dealing with "the Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion".
As far as the number of weapons goes, we know for a fact that we are dealing with two weapons in the case of "the Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion".
Funny aside - while WEAPON has a definition in the BRB, GW does not highlight defined Terms reliably fir clarity and does use the same word for the common English meaning.
The funny thing is that you are guessing that the English meaning applies instead of the BRB meaning. Since 'weapon' is charged with BRB meaning, you are going to have to prove your case that the BRB doesn't apply here.
Even if I were to accept this, worst case it would be just as funny as your assertion that it's used as a defined term here. Actually, assuming that it's meant as the defined term here doesn't make any sense. The function of the rule statement is to define how the relic functions as a weapon, both for melee and ranged combat. That is what it does. It defines a melee and a ranged profile. Let me provide an example to illustrate this:
Harlequin Foamswordbla bla bla This weapon is a Close Combat Weapon/Chainsword/purely decorative.
If "This weapon" would already be a definition in the rules, what would it be? We cannot stop reading here, since the instruction isn't complete. X = CCW, where X = Harlequin Foamsword. X alone has no meaning.
Harlequin Foamsword and Foam-Cudgelbla bla bla These weapons are Close Combat Weapons
This is logically identical with:
Harlequin Foamsword and Foam-Cudgel are Close Combat Weapons
Note how the plural is there in the second half of the statement - the definition of the referenced bits of gear.
The statement beginning "These weapons . . " is not fluff; it's a rule statement, so we aren't talking about 'bits of gear'. The rule statement that begins with "These weapons" has to do with defining"the Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion" as BRB defined terms - two "weapons". If we were dealing with a single weapon the rule statement would read "this weapon".
"These weapons are used together, using the profile below."
actually reads
"The Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion are used together, using the profile below."
You can't transpose those two sentences unless the Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion are weapons.
You can't drop that information. So it would read.
"The Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion are weapons that are used together, using the profile below"
You contradict yourself. You earlier posited that "These" is a demonstrative adjective used to clarifly the reference to something close to the speaker, and then turn that spatial reference to a temporal one by switching it to "just mentioned". You are probably going to try to weasel out here saying that just mentioned - as in previously mentioned - actually here in this super special case means mentioned immediately after the demonstrative adjective, which makes no sense at all. So you did agree that "These weapons" is actually a reference to "The Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion" and therfore it is in fact perfectly clear and acceptable to replace "These weapons" with "The Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Domninion". You might note that doing this does not change the meaning of the sentence as everyone (except you) reads it.
"These weapons" is critical info. It indicates that there are two rule-recognized weapons to deal with. The only way that you can replace "these weapons" with "the Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion" is by accepting that you have two weapons.
Don't try to cover up info by transposing and dropping it out. It's there in the rules. Trying to hide the fact that the rules recognizes two weapons only invalidates your argument.
Stephanius wrote: This is the sentence that defines the weapon profile. Before we execute this instruction, the models weapons are undefined and unusable. After we execute it the model's weapons are defined as one melee weapon.
Incorrect. The Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion have been identified as "these weapons". How are you magically changing that to "one weapon"?
It's not magic, it's rules. The relic rule says "The sword and the hand are used together with the profile below". (note the annoying singular "the profile").
If you actually just follow the instruction the rule provides, you have one weapon.
If you strike out words, redefine others, take them out of context and talk really fast and persistently ... you still fail in making it two separately usable defined weapons.
That's not what the rule statement says.
The rule statement says this . . .
"The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together, using the profile below."
It does not say this . . .
"The sword and the hand are used together with the profile below".
You are leaving out critical info that the Sword and the Hand are weapons.
Why are you trying to hide this info? It's right there in the rule statement.
I guess you have no way around the fact that we are dealing with weapons in the plural when we are dealing with The Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion', and rather than be upfront about it your are going to try and sneak it out of discussion with bad transposition.
You are being disingenuous in your argument and obviously so. Deal with the fact that the rule statement says "these weapons" and stop trying to hide it. Your argument has no validity until you deal with the fact that the Sword and the Hand are weapons. Try again.
Summary of my argument . . .
Spoiler:
The rules refer to "the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" in the plural separably as "these weapons". Plural.
"Used together" does not mean that the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion count as a single weapon.
They are called out as "these weapons" and when they are used together they are still considered weapons and not as a single weapon. No rule designates them as counting as a single weapon so they remain two weapons.
"Used together" means simply that they are used at the same time in combat.
The profiles reference "this weapon" and so must reference the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion separably since the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion collectively are referred to as 'weapons' and as 'relics' and never as weapon or relic.
The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons".
Moreover, the Hand is explicitly discussed as being separably a 'weapon' and able to be used as both a melee and as a ranged weapon.
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
Because the Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon, this proves that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself, and it disproves any argument that there is somehow a 'combined weapon profile'.
If there was some 'combined weapon' then the Hand of Dominion could not itself be a melee weapon. The melee profile provided would have been used to give the combined weapon the melee type and not the Hand of Dominion.
Since the Hand is definitively a melee weapon, this means that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet has been separably applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
This in turn means that both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are melee weapons.
This in turn means that we satisfy the rule that grants an a model an additional attack for having two or more melee weapons.
RAW: "The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together, using the profile below."
Steph: "The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion are used together, using the profile below."
Steph: "The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These things are used together, using the profile below."
Each of these statements has the exact same meaning to everyone in this thread - except for you.
Note how "these statements" references the previously made statements and used instead of repetition. Note how "these quotes" or "these sentences" could be used innstead without changing the meaning.
"These weapons" is NOT used to assign a defined term in the rule statement. How would that even work?
Assume for a second that "These weapons" has declarative power, e.g. defines the sword and hand as weapons, since that is what you are asserting, which would better be expressed by this:
Col: The Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion: These (ARE) weapons.
Not only is that not what the rule says, but it would also be useless, since it takes us no further from seeing a pointy plastic bit to being able to use it in the game. Clearly, "hand + sword = WEAPONS" does not define either bit as a useable weapon in the sense of the rules. They still lack a profile you see. Which is when your baseless assertion takes on hilarity, since you decide that for your reading not only do some words need to be moved, some words need to be ignored - contrary to the overt instruction the rule author put in place.
I assume, your reading would be complete as this:
Col: The Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion: These (ARE) weapons (.WHICH) are used together (signifying nothing, just a filler, ignore please), using the profile below
or tidied up:
Col: The Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion: These (ARE) weapons; (WHICH) are (...), using the profile below
Now, when we look to how the verb ARE is actually positioned in the sentence, we see:
RAW: "The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons ARE used together, using the profile below."
That is critical, since the verb ARE does the defining in the rule. The rule says "These two weapon bits ARE DEFINED AS this one (1) melee weapon".
Surely it just means that he has two weapons, [since it does say these weaponS" and when used together they get all the extra bits, like concussion, whirling flame etc.
So if he cant use one the other just acts as a strength 10 AP1 melee weapon.
Therefore he does get +1 A since it does state multiple weapons, and there is nothing listed to say otherwise.
Ceann wrote: Twin linked weapons are two weapons that use one profile. BRB 174 - These weapons are grafted to the same targeting system...
"OH NO ""THESE WEAPONS"""", LETS DUPLICATE THE PROFILE, forget the rest of the sentence"
Why are you quoting the fluff for twin-linked? Fluff is not to be considered part of rules statements.
An example twin-linked weapon is a twin-linked autocannon. Singular.
Spoiler:
Twin-linked weapons don’t get more shots than normal ones, but they give you a better chance of hitting with them. If a shooting weapon has the twin-linked special rule, or is described in a model’s wargear entry as twin-linked, it re-rolls all failed To Hit rolls.
The rule also uses weapon in the singular.
When a rule statement uses "weapons" it means weapons in the plural.
"Twin-linked weapons"
You agree that weapons is plural right??????????
No. We started reading a sentence and it said "weapons" well since all weapons must have a profile we doubly apply the profile. Hence we have two auto cannons individually. It says Twin-linked weapons don't get more shot's than normal ones, so we will only be firing each of them one time, which is not more than the normal ones. After all singular, just like together isn't a rule so it is meaningless.
We are after all following your precedence for "these weapons" being a rule.
When the rules for RG say "THIS WEAPON" you do not argue that it is singular, you assume it applies to BOTH of your assumed weapons. I am doing the same here.
Based strictly on the rules themselves, we can come to no other conclusion than that we have two melee weapons and therewith +1A.
No, just no. That's just based on your conclusion. Simple reading comprehension of the rules is lost to you and you're just to stubborn to admit that.
"These weapons are used together, using the profile below."
What's is there not to understand. It's two weapons, using a singular profile.
Yup, so each weapon has the single profile applied to it. "Every weapon has a profile."
Summary of my argument . . .
Spoiler:
The rules refer to "the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" in the plural separably as "these weapons". Plural.
"Used together" does not mean that the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion count as a single weapon.
They are called out as "these weapons" and when they are used together they are still considered weapons and not as a single weapon. No rule designates them as counting as a single weapon so they remain two weapons.
"Used together" means simply that they are used at the same time in combat.
The profiles reference "this weapon" and so must reference the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion separably since the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion collectively are referred to as 'weapons' and as 'relics' and never as weapon or relic.
The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons".
Moreover, the Hand is explicitly discussed as being separably a 'weapon' and able to be used as both a melee and as a ranged weapon.
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
Because the Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon, this proves that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself, and it disproves any argument that there is somehow a 'combined weapon profile'.
If there was some 'combined weapon' then the Hand of Dominion could not itself be a melee weapon. The melee profile provided would have been used to give the combined weapon the melee type and not the Hand of Dominion.
Since the Hand is definitively a melee weapon, this means that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet has been separably applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
This in turn means that both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are melee weapons.
This in turn means that we satisfy the rule that grants an a model an additional attack for having two or more melee weapons.
I'm baaaaaaack!
Anyways, it seems your argument's only method of "proof" is to stop reading any other argument after the word "weapons", because your interpretation of his argument, much like that of guilliman's relic, stops exactly after the word "weapons" and ignores the rest of the sentence.
Please understand, reading a part of the sentence does not convey the entire meaning of the sentence. This is especially important in rule debates as if you do not take the entire sentence for it's meaning, you cannot understand how it is written (quite literally, since you took away 2/3rds of what is written), hence your argument can only be RAI.
GodDamUser wrote: I am hungry so lets do a food related break down of the 'these weapons used together'..
Col 'it is a knife and Fork, two items used together but different things"
Everyone else 'they are chop sticks, used togeather as a single item'
I am team Edward
I don't think you have it right.
If you eat something using two chopsticks together, you are simply eating something with two chopsticks.
If you eat something using two chopsticks together as a single utensil, then you are doing something very unusual with the chopsticks, such as binding two chopsticks together to make a fatter chopstick that is easier to grab.
This proves that "used together" does not equal "used together as a single item/weapon"
WAT?
let me break it down for you.. since you seem to need a clear explanation of my simple analogy..
Your argument is that they are a knife and fork, two items used together to eat, but preform different tasks in the eating and one in each hand..
The Chopsticks are used together in unison performing the 1 task, in the one hand (unless you have some cray way of using chopsticks... )
Right, so you are saying that two weapons used together are two weapons used together to fight in combat (single task).
Two weapons "used together" does not mean that the two weapons are "used together as a single weapon"..
When taken with "using the profile below" in the same sentence, it does mean using them together as a single weapon with the profile below. It does not say "each with the profile below", which would indicate that each weapon has the profile below. But go ahead, keep ignoring this like you have since it doesn't seem you have a good reply to it.
I like how he made the thread in the YMDC area. But whenever someone has a different view it's "Lalalalalala, can't hear you over the sound of me thinking about how right I am and everyone else is wrong." It's no use to even come with an argument against him because it's most likely not part of his view of the rules anyway.
According to him, the rest of the sentence after "weapons" does not exist. To him, the "are used together, using the profile below" part, despite being written in the book on hard copy, only exists as our RAI interpretation.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: According to him, the rest of the sentence after "weapons" does not exist. To him, the "are used together, using the profile below" part, despite being written in the book on hard copy, only exists as our RAI interpretation.
Don't forget, he asked for precedence - got shown precendence - then claimed it didn't apply as the examples were not relics.
He was then given examples of relics following the same precedence - doesn't apply as it's RAI.
You can't ask for something and then deny its existence when it's presented to you.
The wheels on the bus go round and round
Round and round
Round and round
The wheels on the bus go round and round
All 'round the town
Sorry, 26 pages of the same arguments again and again and again (copy/pasted too!). If I said he has two weapons and gets +1 attack, and my opponent said no he doesn't, I'd be good with a d6 roll off. You know, the Most Important Rule as defined in the rulebook on pg. 10?
+1 extra attack on a Primarch isn't gonna matter much as he is going to kill just about anything he gets into close combat with.
DarkStarSabre wrote: Don't forget, he asked for precedence - got shown precendence - then claimed it didn't apply as the examples were not relics.
He was then given examples of relics following the same precedence - doesn't apply as it's RAI.
You can't ask for something and then deny its existence when it's presented to you.
Sure one can. It's disingenuous, but one can do it. He demonstrates that often enough.
"These weapons are used together, using the profile below."
Are "these weapons" being used in the singular to refer to 'one weapon' or in the plural to refer to 'two or more weapons'?
No.
As you might know, "these" is a pronoun.
Incorrect. "These" as used here is a demonstrative adjective.
These is used to refer to the plural 'weapons' as close to the speaker (close in the sense of just mentioned).
Stephanius wrote: It refers to preceeding words and avoids repetition. Used together with the word "weapons" it clearly references the preceeding mention of the model's two visible weapons which also happen to be the relic name.
We don't know whether we are dealing with one relic or two. All we know is that we have a single entry line for "the Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion".
Funny aside - while WEAPON has a definition in the BRB, GW does not highlight defined Terms reliably fir clarity and does use the same word for the common English meaning.
The funny thing is that you are guessing that the English meaning applies instead of the BRB meaning. Since 'weapon' is charged with BRB meaning, you are going to have to prove your case that the BRB doesn't apply here.
"These weapons are used together, using the profile below."
actually reads
"The Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion are used together, using the profile below."
You can't transpose those two sentences unless the Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion are weapons.
You can't drop that information. So it would read.
"The Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion are weapons that are used together, using the profile below"
Stephanius wrote: This is the sentence that defines the weapon profile. Before we execute this instruction, the models weapons are undefined and unusable. After we execute it the model's weapons are defined as one melee weapon.
Incorrect. The Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion have been identified as "these weapons". How are you magically changing that to "one weapon"?
And I came up with "count as one weapon" because the rulebook states that every weapon has a profile, a singular profile is listed, and the rules state that "these weapons are used together, using the profile below". Since the sentence stipulate I have to use both weapons together to obtain the profile (which, mind you, is still singular), I conclude that the profile can only exist when both weapons are used together and it cannot exist separately. I did not stop reading the sentence after the second word and conclude that Guilliman has two weapons with no profiles.
This is a reasonable guess as to what the rules writers intended. But you are supplying your own rules statements here. There is no statement that "these weapons" "count as a single weapon" so your argument is decidedly RAI and not RAW. "Used together" on its own does not change the plural in "these weapons" to the singular hypothesized 'combined' weapon you want to assign the single profile to.
I am pretty sure not a single person doubts that "these weapons" is plural. You are only laughed out the room when you then reference the BRB of "every weapon has a profile" by ignoring the rest of the rule. Time to take off my snark hat, toss on my professor cap, and take your RAI argument to school.
You would be golden with that assumption if the rule simply stated, "These weapons use the profile below." Boom! I am giving RG +1 attack because you are TOLD via RAW that both weapons use the profile given below. Except it doesn't just say that. Instead it puts a qualifier on using said profile that you then interpret to have no bearing on how you are able to use that profile. You skip over the qualifier completely saying that there is no defined rule in the BRB for "used together" and thus can immediately jump to "every weapon has a profile".
The problem is that without the qualifier you break the relic. If not "used together" you cannot access the profile as thus do not gain the special rules of said profile. Common language dictates that "used together" can either mean that the Hand and sword somehow combine together in some Voltron/Power Rangers way to become one weapon and use the profile (RAI for no bonus attack) OR that the very act of using the Hand in one hand and the sword in the other in close combat, is technically using them together (RAI for a bonus attack) and thus the qualifier is met. You choose the latter because that use of the common language supports your argument (your use of RAI once again).
Your assumption from the beginning is that "these weapons" means two weapons, and "each weapon has a profile" and they are "used together" in close combat by being in separate hands (not the Voltron/Power Rangers method) so thus qualify for access to the the profile each and seperately and therefore both have melee thus creating a bonus attack. Granted the Sword in itself cannot be "used together" for anything to even unlock the profile since it has no profile to even be "used together" with anything in the first place, but that is another thread. But as pointed out, your argurment is flavored and spiced with tons of RAI. Not a RAW argument as you continue to self-proclaim to only yourself in each post you make in the slightest, but one with RAI decisions along every step of the way to reach the conclusion that your have already formed.
However as I have repeated time and time again, the no bonus attack crowd is in the same boat as they are interpreting "used together" to be of the Voltron/Power Rangers variety to unlock the given profile. Granted their only assumption seems to be the definition of "used together" and they do have a set of special rules (Whirling Fire and Touch of the Emperor) defining use of said special rules by a single weapon ala "this weapon" ala Voltron/Power Rangers combined into one method.
Thank you for your well-thought out response.
I think you are wrong that "used together" could only mean one of two things. I think it could have many more than just those two meanings. And that's the problem. It's undefined in the rules. This is you admitting to RAI.
The bottom line though is that the rules don't say anything about "used together" and nothing definitive can be said about "used together" without making a guess as to intent. This is you admitting RAI again.
So that means a RAW approach basically ignores "used together" as meaningless in terms of the rules themselves. And yet again, you using RAI because RAW is Rules As Written which means you don't ignore the Rules As Written when it is convenient for your argument.
So we really have two weapons, an unnamed profile, a rule that says "every weapon has a profile", and a set of rules that perfectly allows two weapons to share the same profile.
Based strictly on the rules themselves, we can come to no other conclusion than that we have two melee weapons and therewith +1A.
Summary of my argument . . .
Spoiler:
The rules refer to "the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" in the plural separably as "these weapons". Plural.
"Used together" does not mean that the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion count as a single weapon.
They are called out as "these weapons" and when they are used together they are still considered weapons and not as a single weapon. No rule designates them as counting as a single weapon so they remain two weapons.
"Used together" means simply that they are used at the same time in combat.
The profiles reference "this weapon" and so must reference the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion separably since the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion collectively are referred to as 'weapons' and as 'relics' and never as weapon or relic.
The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons".
Moreover, the Hand is explicitly discussed as being separably a 'weapon' and able to be used as both a melee and as a ranged weapon.
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
Because the Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon, this proves that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself, and it disproves any argument that there is somehow a 'combined weapon profile'.
If there was some 'combined weapon' then the Hand of Dominion could not itself be a melee weapon. The melee profile provided would have been used to give the combined weapon the melee type and not the Hand of Dominion.
Since the Hand is definitively a melee weapon, this means that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet has been separably applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
This in turn means that both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are melee weapons.
This in turn means that we satisfy the rule that grants an a model an additional attack for having two or more melee weapons.
I went ahead and pointed out every instance of you using RAI to try and RAW your way into an extra attack. Your most blatant use above is that you tout RAW as being allowed to ignore something that doesn't fit your narrative. RAW is the Rules As Written which means that you NEED to include it into the reading of the rule and account for it completely in the argument, not just ignore it because it is inconvenient to your stance. Nothing in the notion or definition of RAW allows you to just ignore the wording of a rule. That is against the basic tenet of RAW.
You have made a weak RAI argument for +1 attack and try to cloak it by the vernacular use of RAW in all of your posts. But you can't put lipstick on a pig and call it Katy Perry and you most definitely cannot stamp RAW on a RAI stance to make it RAW.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Just realized something else,
You just said that for purposes of RAW, "used together" is ignored yet in the summary of your argument that you put in everyone of your posts you actually use your interpretation of what "used together" means as support for your argument!
So those that disagree with you and raise "used together" as a RAW argument against the bonus attack are disallowed since it is not a BRB defined rule, but if you use your interpretation of "used together" in the context of your RAW argument it is all fine and dandy.
RAW: "The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together, using the profile below."
Steph: "The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion are used together, using the profile below."
Steph: "The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These things are used together, using the profile below."
Each of these statements has the exact same meaning to everyone in this thread - except for you.
Note how "these statements" references the previously made statements and used instead of repetition. Note how "these quotes" or "these sentences" could be used innstead without changing the meaning.
"These weapons" is NOT used to assign a defined term in the rule statement. How would that even work?
Assume for a second that "These weapons" has declarative power, e.g. defines the sword and hand as weapons, since that is what you are asserting, which would better be expressed by this:
Col: The Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion: These (ARE) weapons.
Not only is that not what the rule says, but it would also be useless, since it takes us no further from seeing a pointy plastic bit to being able to use it in the game. Clearly, "hand + sword = WEAPONS" does not define either bit as a useable weapon in the sense of the rules. They still lack a profile you see. Which is when your baseless assertion takes on hilarity, since you decide that for your reading not only do some words need to be moved, some words need to be ignored - contrary to the overt instruction the rule author put in place.
I assume, your reading would be complete as this:
Col: The Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion: These (ARE) weapons (.WHICH) are used together (signifying nothing, just a filler, ignore please), using the profile below
or tidied up:
Col: The Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion: These (ARE) weapons; (WHICH) are (...), using the profile below
Now, when we look to how the verb ARE is actually positioned in the sentence, we see:
RAW: "The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons ARE used together, using the profile below."
That is critical, since the verb ARE does the defining in the rule. The rule says "These two weapon bits ARE DEFINED AS this one (1) melee weapon".
You are transposing in order to hide information in the rule statement.
If transposing leads to the loss of information it is not valid.
Mortimer and Hatcher: these sexual offenders were hanging out at the playground, exchanging notes.
Mortimer and Hatcher were hanging out at the playground, exchanging notes.
Obviously, 'these X' can carry additional critical info.
If your argument can only handle a statement by dropping out information via transposing, then your argument is not valid.
I find no small amount of amusement from him accusing Stephanius of "hiding information" when he completely ignored every word after "weapons" in every single argument.
I went ahead and pointed out every instance of you using RAI to try and RAW your way into an extra attack. Your most blatant use above is that you tout RAW as being allowed to ignore something that doesn't fit your narrative. RAW is the Rules As Written which means that you NEED to include it into the reading of the rule and account for it completely in the argument, not just ignore it because it is inconvenient to your stance. Nothing in the notion or definition of RAW allows you to just ignore the wording of a rule. That is against the basic tenet of RAW.
You have made a weak RAI argument for +1 attack and try to cloak it by the vernacular use of RAW in all of your posts. But you can't put lipstick on a pig and call it Katy Perry and you most definitely cannot stamp RAW on a RAI stance to make it RAW.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Just realized something else,
You just said that for purposes of RAW, "used together" is ignored yet in the summary of your argument that you put in everyone of your posts you actually use your interpretation of what "used together" means as support for your argument!
So those that disagree with you and raise "used together" as a RAW argument against the bonus attack are disallowed since it is not a BRB defined rule, but if you use your interpretation of "used together" in the context of your RAW argument it is all fine and dandy.
Nice troll dude. Got you 26 pages of fame.
If you can provide me with a Rules As Written substantiated definition of "used together" or a compelling English definition of "used together", I can apply it to my RAW argument. I can't apply rules force to something that is undefined. RAW arguments have no guesses or assumptions about the rules in them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: I find no small amount of amusement from him accusing Stephanius of "hiding information" when he completely ignored every word after "weapons" in every single argument.
Consider:
"The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together, using the profile below."
If you ignore it you cannot use the profile, it is a requirement to define it. You claim it is undefined, then you either define it, or not use the profile, those are your choices.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: I find no small amount of amusement from him accusing Stephanius of "hiding information" when he completely ignored every word after "weapons" in every single argument.
Consider:
"The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together, using the profile below."
How many weapons does "these weapons" refer to?
You know this just proves my point of you ignoring every word after "weapons" right?
Ceann wrote: The rules are clear, together must be explained.
If you ignore it you cannot use the profile, it is a requirement to define it. You claim it is undefined, then you either define it, or not use the profile, those are your choices.
I am not ignoring the phrase. There simply isn't anything with rules force associated with it. So "used together" doesn't change the rule statement.
If you feel that "used together" changes the rule statement, then prove it with a RAW argument based on the rules themselves and/or compelling English usage argument. Answers which involve guesses as to intent are not allowed.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: I find no small amount of amusement from him accusing Stephanius of "hiding information" when he completely ignored every word after "weapons" in every single argument.
Consider:
"The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together, using the profile below."
How many weapons does "these weapons" refer to?
You know this just proves my point of you ignoring every word after "weapons" right?
It's a straightforward question. In light of the sentence, how many weapons does "these weapons" refer to?
Give me a heads up when you actually want to contribute meaningfully to this thread.
Summary of my argument . . .
Spoiler:
The rules refer to "the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" in the plural separably as "these weapons". Plural.
"Used together" does not mean that the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion count as a single weapon.
They are called out as "these weapons" and when they are used together they are still considered weapons and not as a single weapon. No rule designates them as counting as a single weapon so they remain two weapons.
"Used together" means simply that they are used at the same time in combat.
The profiles reference "this weapon" and so must reference the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion separably since the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion collectively are referred to as 'weapons' and as 'relics' and never as weapon or relic.
The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons".
Moreover, the Hand is explicitly discussed as being separably a 'weapon' and able to be used as both a melee and as a ranged weapon.
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
Because the Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon, this proves that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself, and it disproves any argument that there is somehow a 'combined weapon profile'.
If there was some 'combined weapon' then the Hand of Dominion could not itself be a melee weapon. The melee profile provided would have been used to give the combined weapon the melee type and not the Hand of Dominion.
Since the Hand is definitively a melee weapon, this means that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet has been separably applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
This in turn means that both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are melee weapons.
This in turn means that we satisfy the rule that grants an a model an additional attack for having two or more melee weapons.
Ceann wrote: The rules are clear, together must be explained.
If you ignore it you cannot use the profile, it is a requirement to define it. You claim it is undefined, then you either define it, or not use the profile, those are your choices.
I am not ignoring the phrase. There simply isn't anything with rules force associated with it. So "used together" doesn't change the rule statement.
If you feel that "used together" changes the rule statement, then prove it with a RAW argument based on the rules themselves and/or compelling English usage argument. Answers which involve guesses as to intent are not allowed.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: I find no small amount of amusement from him accusing Stephanius of "hiding information" when he completely ignored every word after "weapons" in every single argument.
Consider:
"The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together, using the profile below."
How many weapons does "these weapons" refer to?
You know this just proves my point of you ignoring every word after "weapons" right?
It's a straightforward question. In light of the sentence, how many weapons does "these weapons" refer to?
How come you are unwilling to answer it?
These weapons refers to the two weapons named.
We have a sentence, using the English language.
These are the words in the sentence.
"The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together, using the profile below."
"These weapons" What does this tell us? That there are two weapons. Okay, so what ABOUT these weapons.
"These weapons are used together" What does this tell us? That there are two weapons and that they are used together. What does together mean? It means at the same time. Okay, so HOW do we use weapons together?
"These weapons are used together, using the profile below." What does this tell us? That we have two weapons, they are used together, at the same time, using the below profile.
***fireworks, doge, so amaze, miracles, epiphany****
But the rules say all weapons must have a profile and we have two weapons. Oh no! Whatever will we do.
Don't worry, these weapons use the profile together, so they both have a profile. Oh, thank goodness.
But Ceann, why do Bonelash state they only count as a single handed weapon and this doesn't so obviously its two one handed weapons right???
Well, maybe because Bonelash's are a frigging TAIL and don't use a hand, so it explicitly states it, for obvious reasons as tail's are not hands.
You argued for the IC clause "for all purposes" However if you flip to the index of the BRB, there is no reference to "these weapons" or "doubly apply the profile" or "for all purposes" your translation of the rules based on a single word while simultaneously ignoring another single word IN THE SAME SENTENCE is an argument that defeats itself when presented against itself. By your RAW theory, no new rule can be created, ever, because any new rule has no precedence and can therefore be ignored. Also by your logic we should scour the recent codex's for all circumstance of a rule with no precedence and dictate them useless.
You are OBLIGATED to follow ALL OF THE RULES on an entry, not cherry pick two words and ignore the rest. There is NO RULE "AND QUOTE THE PAGE" that states you can ignore other rules if you don't like them short of special rules superseding basic rules. Your entire argument is predicated upon people attempting to make an argument while ignoring the words "these weapons" which invalidates any argument they make.
In the case of the twin linked weapons you claimed I was wrong, which I obviously am, because it references back to a single weapon. In the case of TL weapons you were citing the reference back.
RG's profile cites back to the profile as THIS WEAPON, you know, the one we are supposed to use TOGETHER, but in this situation you want to ignore it citing back to a single entity.
Your arguments are hypocritical. Your stance on the IC thread is the opposite of your stance now.
Your argument is the same argument I attempted to use when explaining the TL rule but you stated it was wrong.
Your argument cannot be correct for one weapon citing back and incorrect for another citing back.
GodDamUser wrote: I just love how Col's 'contributions' is just posting the same thing over and over again.
I already put in a request for a mod to come and shut this down. At this point no less than five different arguments made by even more people have been made, all of which were ignored by him repeating the same two words over and over again. It's pretty obvious that the only point to this thread is just post padding.
These weapons refers to the two weapons named.
We have a sentence, using the English language.
These are the words in the sentence.
"The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together, using the profile below."
"These weapons" What does this tell us? That there are two weapons. Okay, so what ABOUT these weapons.
"These weapons are used together" What does this tell us? That there are two weapons and that they are used together. What does together mean? It means at the same time. Okay, so HOW do we use weapons together?
"These weapons are used together, using the profile below." What does this tell us? That we have two weapons, they are used together, at the same time, using the below profile.
***fireworks, doge, so amaze, miracles, epiphany****
But the rules say all weapons must have a profile and we have two weapons. Oh no! Whatever will we do.
Don't worry, these weapons use the profile together, so they both have a profile. Oh, thank goodness.
But Ceann, why do Bonelash state they only count as a single handed weapon and this doesn't so obviously its two one handed weapons right???
Well, maybe because Bonelash's are a frigging TAIL and don't use a hand, so it explicitly states it, for obvious reasons as tail's are not hands.
You argued for the IC clause "for all purposes" However if you flip to the index of the BRB, there is no reference to "these weapons" or "doubly apply the profile" or "for all purposes" your translation of the rules based on a single word while simultaneously ignoring another single word IN THE SAME SENTENCE is an argument that defeats itself when presented against itself. By your RAW theory, no new rule can be created, ever, because any new rule has no precedence and can therefore be ignored. Also by your logic we should scour the recent codex's for all circumstance of a rule with no precedence and dictate them useless.
You are OBLIGATED to follow ALL OF THE RULES on an entry, not cherry pick two words and ignore the rest. There is NO RULE "AND QUOTE THE PAGE" that states you can ignore other rules if you don't like them short of special rules superseding basic rules. Your entire argument is predicated upon people attempting to make an argument while ignoring the words "these weapons" which invalidates any argument they make.
In the case of the twin linked weapons you claimed I was wrong, which I obviously am, because it references back to a single weapon. In the case of TL weapons you were citing the reference back.
RG's profile cites back to the profile as THIS WEAPON, you know, the one we are supposed to use TOGETHER, but in this situation you want to ignore it citing back to a single entity.
Your arguments are hypocritical. Your stance on the IC thread is the opposite of your stance now.
Your argument is the same argument I attempted to use when explaining the TL rule but you stated it was wrong.
Your argument cannot be correct for one weapon citing back and incorrect for another citing back.
You are a hypocrite.
I have applied the same standard to everything. We are strictly concerned with what the Rules As Written tell us.
So, following your definition of "used together" I use the two melee weapons 'at the same time' which means I have two melee weapons and therewith satisfy the criteria for +1A. We know the melee weapons are single-handed because the Two-handed special rule is not present.
The unnamed profile on the left side Robute's Relics box refer to "this weapon [singular]" so the profile has to be applied to each [singular] of "these weapons [plural]" or else you violate the plainly stated case agreement in the rule statement and you violate the rule "every weapon has a profile".
The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons".
Summary of argument . . .
Spoiler:
The rules refer to "the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" in the plural separably as "these weapons". Plural.
"Used together" does not mean that the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion count as a single weapon.
They are called out as "these weapons" and when they are used together they are still considered weapons and not as a single weapon. No rule designates them as counting as a single weapon so they remain two weapons.
"Used together" means simply that they are used at the same time in combat.
The profiles reference "this weapon" and so must reference the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion separably since the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion collectively are referred to as 'weapons' and as 'relics' and never as weapon or relic.
The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons".
Moreover, the Hand is explicitly discussed as being separably a 'weapon' and able to be used as both a melee and as a ranged weapon.
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
Because the Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon, this proves that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself, and it disproves any argument that there is somehow a 'combined weapon profile'.
If there was some 'combined weapon' then the Hand of Dominion could not itself be a melee weapon. The melee profile provided would have been used to give the combined weapon the melee type and not the Hand of Dominion.
Since the Hand is definitively a melee weapon, this means that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet has been separably applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
This in turn means that both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are melee weapons.
This in turn means that we satisfy the rule that grants an a model an additional attack for having two or more melee weapons.
Is it a bit ambiguous, yes. Is it something you should roll a dice or flip a coin or discuss with you opponent first? Sure. Is it something you should nerd rage and pull out a dictionary over and argue with people on the internet about? No.
Is it a bit ambiguous, yes. Is it something you should roll a dice or flip a coin or discuss with you opponent first? Sure. Is it something you should nerd rage and pull out a dictionary over and argue with people on the internet about? No.
col_impact wrote: In light of the sentence, how many weapons does "these weapons" refer to?
How come you are unwilling to answer it?
And when the rules state 'used together' what does that mean?
It means two things are used as one. There is one profile. One functional profile.
.....
And four lights.
So you are guessing that, based on the fact that you are provided with one profile, you are supposed 'to count the two weapons as a single weapon'?
There are no rules to support that. "Used together" doesn't mean "count as a one".
Your guess that the rule writers must mean for us to count the two weapons as one since they provided one profile is reasonable, but it's a guess, and so it breaks from a RAW argument.
Let's be clear here. I think your RAI argument is a reasonable one. It is certainly possible that the rule statement has an error of omission. It is certainly possible that the rules writers simply forgot to add the critical line "count as a single weapon [using the profile below]"
However, a Rules As Written argument can't be based on stuff omitted from the page or guesswork. The omission could have been in error or intentional, we don't know. RAW deals with what is written, not conjecture.
When you interpret the rules statements based off what is actually written you come up with two melee weapons and therewith +1A.
The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons".
Is it a bit ambiguous, yes. Is it something you should roll a dice or flip a coin or discuss with you opponent first? Sure. Is it something you should nerd rage and pull out a dictionary over and argue with people on the internet about? No.
The dictionary has been so thoroughly butchered here that Noah Webster is doing a triple-barrel roll in his grave. Just another day in YMDC.
So, following your definition of "used together" I use the two melee weapons 'at the same time' which means I have two melee weapons and therewith satisfy the criteria for +1A. We know the melee weapons are single-handed because the Two-handed special rule is not present.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is the flaw in your entire argument.
When you enter melee combat you are required to choose A WEAPON. Not WEAPONS. WEAPON.
In order to use the profile you are required to use THESE WEAPONS. Remember how crystal clear you pointed out how it is two weapons.
If you do not use THESE WEAPONS TOGETHER, then you are not permitted to use the profile.
Because you are not permitted to use the profile then you only use the "our weapons are useless" rule because you are not making any attack and are thus unable to harm the target.
Now if you choose to use the profile and use the weapons TOGETHER, you are not using a single handed weapon profile, which is a requirement to get +1A.
As you cannot choose a SINGLE "not plural" handed WEAPON "also not plural" to use, you do not get +1A, because you have not met the requirement of using ONE SINGLE HANDED WEAPON.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: The dictionary has been so thoroughly butchered here that Noah Webster is doing a triple-barrel roll in his grave. Just another day in YMDC.
Maybe we should just leave Col_Ignored in his safe space, as he would also be torturing university english departments as well if they cared about reality more than safe spaces.
Or in other words, don't feed the troll. If you set him to ignore, your day becomes a lot more sane.
Ceann wrote: So, following your definition of "used together" I use the two melee weapons 'at the same time' which means I have two melee weapons and therewith satisfy the criteria for +1A. We know the melee weapons are single-handed because the Two-handed special rule is not present.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is the flaw in your entire argument.
When you enter melee combat you are required to choose A WEAPON. Not WEAPONS. WEAPON.
In order to use the profile you are required to use THESE WEAPONS. Remember how crystal clear you pointed out how it is two weapons.
If you do not use THESE WEAPONS TOGETHER, then you are not permitted to use the profile.
Because you are not permitted to use the profile then you only use the "our weapons are useless" rule because you are not making any attack and are thus unable to harm the target.
Now if you choose to use the profile and use the weapons TOGETHER, you are not using a single handed weapon profile, which is a requirement to get +1A.
As you cannot choose a SINGLE "not plural" handed WEAPON "also not plural" to use, you do not get +1A, because you have not met the requirement of using ONE SINGLE HANDED WEAPON.
Remember - "Every weapon has a profile". So the profile is applied such that ever weapon in "these weapons" has a profile. That profile does not say "Two-Handed" so it is a single-handed weapon profile.
"Used together" isn't defined in the rules so it has no bearing as a restriction. "Used together" could mean "getting the bonus attack from having both weapons". We don't know unless we make a guess. So we can't apply a restriction based on "used together".
If you can provide rule-substantiated proof of what "used together" means, I am all ears. I have been waiting patiently for 25 pages for anyone supporting the counter argument to provide it.
Rather than provide a rule-substantiated proof of what "used together" means, many supporters of the counter argument (e.g. Charistoph, MechaEmperor7000, GodDamUser, DarkStarSabre) have chosen to simply make disruptive comments. Resorting to purely disruptive comments only makes you argument look weak.
Summary of my argument . . .
Spoiler:
The rules refer to "the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" in the plural separably as "these weapons". Plural.
"Used together" does not mean that the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion count as a single weapon.
They are called out as "these weapons" and when they are used together they are still considered weapons and not as a single weapon. No rule designates them as counting as a single weapon so they remain two weapons.
"Used together" means simply that they are used at the same time in combat.
The profiles reference "this weapon" and so must reference the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion separably since the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion collectively are referred to as 'weapons' and as 'relics' and never as weapon or relic.
The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons".
Moreover, the Hand is explicitly discussed as being separably a 'weapon' and able to be used as both a melee and as a ranged weapon.
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
Because the Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon, this proves that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself, and it disproves any argument that there is somehow a 'combined weapon profile'.
If there was some 'combined weapon' then the Hand of Dominion could not itself be a melee weapon. The melee profile provided would have been used to give the combined weapon the melee type and not the Hand of Dominion.
Since the Hand is definitively a melee weapon, this means that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet has been separably applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
This in turn means that both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are melee weapons.
This in turn means that we satisfy the rule that grants an a model an additional attack for having two or more melee weapons.
I went ahead and pointed out every instance of you using RAI to try and RAW your way into an extra attack. Your most blatant use above is that you tout RAW as being allowed to ignore something that doesn't fit your narrative. RAW is the Rules As Written which means that you NEED to include it into the reading of the rule and account for it completely in the argument, not just ignore it because it is inconvenient to your stance. Nothing in the notion or definition of RAW allows you to just ignore the wording of a rule. That is against the basic tenet of RAW.
You have made a weak RAI argument for +1 attack and try to cloak it by the vernacular use of RAW in all of your posts. But you can't put lipstick on a pig and call it Katy Perry and you most definitely cannot stamp RAW on a RAI stance to make it RAW.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Just realized something else,
You just said that for purposes of RAW, "used together" is ignored yet in the summary of your argument that you put in everyone of your posts you actually use your interpretation of what "used together" means as support for your argument!
So those that disagree with you and raise "used together" as a RAW argument against the bonus attack are disallowed since it is not a BRB defined rule, but if you use your interpretation of "used together" in the context of your RAW argument it is all fine and dandy.
Nice troll dude. Got you 26 pages of fame.
If you can provide me with a Rules As Written substantiated definition of "used together" or a compelling English definition of "used together", I can apply it to my RAW argument. I can't apply rules force to something that is undefined. RAW arguments have no guesses or assumptions about the rules in them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: I find no small amount of amusement from him accusing Stephanius of "hiding information" when he completely ignored every word after "weapons" in every single argument.
Consider:
"The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together, using the profile below."
How many weapons does "these weapons" refer to?
There is no RAW for every word that GW uses. To insist that every word of a rule somehow must have a RAW definition in the BRB is being pedantic for the sake of trying to justify your argument. If you want to play that game, "these" is not a defined in RAW. Neither is "used" or "below". That is why context matters, which your decision to randomly ignore sections of the rules at your convience. And as I pointed out, you are not even consistent in that as you tell us to ignore it but then use it yourself to say that RG is uses both weapons.
You are like seriously just pulling stuff out of your rear at this point because you can't answer for the RAI you continue to use to support a bonus attack.
Ceann wrote: So, following your definition of "used together" I use the two melee weapons 'at the same time' which means I have two melee weapons and therewith satisfy the criteria for +1A. We know the melee weapons are single-handed because the Two-handed special rule is not present.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is the flaw in your entire argument.
When you enter melee combat you are required to choose A WEAPON. Not WEAPONS. WEAPON.
In order to use the profile you are required to use THESE WEAPONS. Remember how crystal clear you pointed out how it is two weapons.
If you do not use THESE WEAPONS TOGETHER, then you are not permitted to use the profile.
Because you are not permitted to use the profile then you only use the "our weapons are useless" rule because you are not making any attack and are thus unable to harm the target.
Now if you choose to use the profile and use the weapons TOGETHER, you are not using a single handed weapon profile, which is a requirement to get +1A.
As you cannot choose a SINGLE "not plural" handed WEAPON "also not plural" to use, you do not get +1A, because you have not met the requirement of using ONE SINGLE HANDED WEAPON.
"Every weapon has a profile" so the profile is applied such that ever weapon in "these weapons" has a profile. That profile does not say "Two-Handed" so it is a single-handed weapon profile.
"Used together" isn't defined in the rules so it has no bearing as a restriction. "Used together" could mean "getting the bonus attack from having both weapons". We don't know unless we make a guess. So we can't apply a restriction based on "used together".
If you can provide rule-substantiated proof of what "used together" means, I am all ears. I have been waiting patiently for 25 pages for anyone supporting the counter argument to provide it.
Ceann wrote: So, following your definition of "used together" I use the two melee weapons 'at the same time' which means I have two melee weapons and therewith satisfy the criteria for +1A. We know the melee weapons are single-handed because the Two-handed special rule is not present.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is the flaw in your entire argument.
When you enter melee combat you are required to choose A WEAPON. Not WEAPONS. WEAPON. In order to use the profile you are required to use THESE WEAPONS. Remember how crystal clear you pointed out how it is two weapons. If you do not use THESE WEAPONS TOGETHER, then you are not permitted to use the profile.
Because you are not permitted to use the profile then you only use the "our weapons are useless" rule because you are not making any attack and are thus unable to harm the target.
Now if you choose to use the profile and use the weapons TOGETHER, you are not using a single handed weapon profile, which is a requirement to get +1A. As you cannot choose a SINGLE "not plural" handed WEAPON "also not plural" to use, you do not get +1A, because you have not met the requirement of using ONE SINGLE HANDED WEAPON.
I refer to my chopsticks argument, they are clearly 2 of them but are absolutely dependent on each other.
I refer to my chopsticks argument, they are clearly 2 of them but are absolutely dependent on each other.
When chopsticks are used together, do they "count as one chopstick" or are chopsticks used together to some purpose (such as eating)?
When not used together are they an eating utensil or just sticks? When do they actually become an eating utensil? One chopstick is not an eating utensil. But two, when used together, is an eating utensil.
Just pointing out that chinese people usually don't differentiate between "Chopstick" and "a pair of chopsticks". In fact we never refer to "a single chopstick" (unless one goes missing), as when you ask for "a chopstick", it means "give me pair" to the chinese person. If you tried asking for a plural in chinese, they will give you four or more sticks.
Because only a weirdo uses only one of chopstick. And you're a bigger weirdo for owning a set that has an odd number.
I refer to my chopsticks argument, they are clearly 2 of them but are absolutely dependent on each other.
When chopsticks are used together, do they "count as one chopstick" or are chopsticks used together to some purpose (such as eating)?
When not used together are they an eating utensil or just sticks? When do they actually become an eating utensil? One chopstick is not an eating utensil. But two, when used together, is an eating utensil.
Kinda how the Sword of the Emperor is absolutely nothing until it is used together with the Hand of Dominion. Only then, when both are used together, does it actually become something other than absolutely nothing.
But then again, that is strictly based upon the RAI of what "used together" is interpreted to be. You use one RAI and others use another.
I refer to my chopsticks argument, they are clearly 2 of them but are absolutely dependent on each other.
When chopsticks are used together, do they "count as one chopstick" or are chopsticks used together to some purpose (such as eating)?
When not used together are they an eating utensil or just sticks? When do they actually become an eating utensil? One chopstick is not an eating utensil. But two, when used together, is an eating utensil.
You might want to check the dictionary on that one. A chopstick is an eating utensil. Chopsticks are eating utensils.
Spoiler:
chopstick - each of a pair of small, thin, tapered sticks of wood, ivory, or plastic, held together in one hand and used as eating utensils
Summary of argument . . .
Spoiler:
The rules refer to "the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" in the plural separably as "these weapons". Plural.
"Used together" does not mean that the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion count as a single weapon.
They are called out as "these weapons" and when they are used together they are still considered weapons and not as a single weapon. No rule designates them as counting as a single weapon so they remain two weapons.
"Used together" means simply that they are used at the same time in combat.
The profiles reference "this weapon" and so must reference the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion separably since the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion collectively are referred to as 'weapons' and as 'relics' and never as weapon or relic.
The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons".
Moreover, the Hand is explicitly discussed as being separably a 'weapon' and able to be used as both a melee and as a ranged weapon.
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
Because the Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon, this proves that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself, and it disproves any argument that there is somehow a 'combined weapon profile'.
If there was some 'combined weapon' then the Hand of Dominion could not itself be a melee weapon. The melee profile provided would have been used to give the combined weapon the melee type and not the Hand of Dominion.
Since the Hand is definitively a melee weapon, this means that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet has been separably applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
This in turn means that both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are melee weapons.
This in turn means that we satisfy the rule that grants an a model an additional attack for having two or more melee weapons.
I refer to my chopsticks argument, they are clearly 2 of them but are absolutely dependent on each other.
When chopsticks are used together, do they "count as one chopstick" or are chopsticks used together to some purpose (such as eating)?
When not used together are they an eating utensil or just sticks? When do they actually become an eating utensil? One chopstick is not an eating utensil. But two, when used together, is an eating utensil.
Kinda how the Sword of the Emperor is absolutely nothing until it is used together with the Hand of Dominion. Only then, when both are used together, does it actually become something other than absolutely nothing.
But then again, that is strictly based upon the RAI of what "used together" is interpreted to be. You use one RAI and others use another.
If all we have is RAI interpretations of what "used together" means then none of them make the cut for a RAW interpretation.
Summary of argument . . .
Spoiler:
The rules refer to "the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" in the plural separably as "these weapons". Plural.
"Used together" does not mean that the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion count as a single weapon.
They are called out as "these weapons" and when they are used together they are still considered weapons and not as a single weapon. No rule designates them as counting as a single weapon so they remain two weapons.
"Used together" means simply that they are used at the same time in combat.
The profiles reference "this weapon" and so must reference the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion separably since the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion collectively are referred to as 'weapons' and as 'relics' and never as weapon or relic.
The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons".
Moreover, the Hand is explicitly discussed as being separably a 'weapon' and able to be used as both a melee and as a ranged weapon.
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
Because the Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon, this proves that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself, and it disproves any argument that there is somehow a 'combined weapon profile'.
If there was some 'combined weapon' then the Hand of Dominion could not itself be a melee weapon. The melee profile provided would have been used to give the combined weapon the melee type and not the Hand of Dominion.
Since the Hand is definitively a melee weapon, this means that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet has been separably applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
This in turn means that both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are melee weapons.
This in turn means that we satisfy the rule that grants an a model an additional attack for having two or more melee weapons.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ceann wrote: Page 7 BRB - Warriors tend to band TOGETHER... and form a unit.
Here we have a stellar example of a plural, combining into a single unit.
THESE WEAPONS "plural" TOGETHER and use a profile.
Sigh.
Precedence requires that the rule writer has used the term in an identical or near identical situation , , , not in a wildly different situation.
I got a few Mod Alerts on this thread, and I'm not spending the time to sort this out.
What I am seeing is a lot of back and forth sniping, repetition of statements, and what seems to be people talking past each other (so, typical YMDC "thread is done" speech). Since this doesn't seem to be going anywhere, I'm locking the thread.
And MattKing's comment of using this as a warning to new Dakkanaughts is pretty darned funny.
