His fist and sword are two close combat weapons using the same profile but neither are specialist unwieldy. So on the charge would he have 8 attacks and 7 in on going combats?
Actually, I'm not sure about that. He does have two weapons, but their rules are listed together rather than separate. By the way it's written, it could very well be two weapons with functionally identical profiles, meaning that you do have two weapons and therefore +1 attacks.
Until determined though, I'll just play with no bonus attacks because there's just one weapon profile, not two (even if it is shared).
If he has 2 weapons with a single profile and that gets him an extra attack then the lashwhip + bonesword counts as 2 weapons for all tyranids and they can use their other arms to bring a gun.
I.E. there is already a precedent for this. A single profile is a single weapon. It doesn't matter how many arms it takes or different weapons are in different hands.
It's the same as twin linked guns being mounted on both shoulders of a tau suit. It's not 2 guns even though it's modeled as 2 guns. It's 1 gun because it's a single profile.
Kriswall wrote: Does he have two weapons with two profiles, each with the Melee type?
OR...
Does he have two modeled weapons with one combined profile?
I think it's pretty clear that, from a rules perspective, he's not equipped with two weapons with the Melee type.
Actually I think you're wrong on the second part with RAW.
It states on his data slate " These weapons are used together using the same profile below" first thing listed under the type is "Melee".
Furthermore it also states under the hand of dominion "The hand of dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee and ranged weapon in the same turn.
You can't separate them is how I have read it. I think the RAI is for him to basically have 3 attacks with each but you get the bonus of having the individual bonuses on all the attacks.
Shouldn't it be D6 bonus attacks, since he's a primarch with blond hair and all?
(/sarcasm)
Each part of the rules is clear:
- there are no two entries on the equipment list
- the sword and hand share one melee profile
- the weapons are explicitly used TOGETHER with this profile
- the sentence about "also melee" is there so people don't claim you cannot hit people if you shot them
That means that as far as rules go, there is only one weapon, which can also shoot and is explictly free to hit people after being used as a shooting weapon.
There is no bonus attack.
If you feel the model is too weak for the points, go and compare him to a 350pt daemon prince or the almost 700 points Magnus.
If you feel the model is too weak for the points, go and compare him to a 350pt daemon prince or the almost 700 points Magnus.
Out of topic discussion, do you mean compare him to a 350pts Tzeentch Daemon Prince with wings and often have a 2++ rerollable and have 3 chances to roll on StrD power or Tzeentch Treason, and in a Inferno Tetra? Yes, then the 350pts loyalist Primarch is Much Much weaker than it. 650pts Magnus? I agree that he costs too much, but he can fly and garantees can keep StrD as well as controlling opponent's strongest shooty units to shoot themselves, while Guilliman can do nothing but watch helplessly.
Back to the topic, I would agree that Guilliman only have one weapon, because I think there is no where we can find "these are two separate weapons" So he is boned with 6A base, 7A on the charge. That might not be the intension of GW, but due to their lazy rule writting, they make Guilliman even weaker compare to Eldar WK and Flying Daemon Princes, at least before they FAQ it.
Lance845 wrote: If he has 2 weapons with a single profile and that gets him an extra attack then the lashwhip + bonesword counts as 2 weapons for all tyranids and they can use their other arms to bring a gun.
I.E. there is already a precedent for this. A single profile is a single weapon. It doesn't matter how many arms it takes or different weapons are in different hands.
Actually lash whip and Bone Sword do have separate profiles.. In both Codex Tyranids and Codex Genestealer Cult
To resolve this issue in terms of RAW we need to stick precisely to what the rules tell us and not add any of our own rationale to the process.
The rule for granting an additional attack only cares about whether there is 2 or more weapons with the melee type. The rule does not care if the weapons are 'used together'.
Spoiler:
if a model has two or more Melee weapons he gains +1 attack in close combat.
The rules don't care if the melee weapons in question 'share a profile'. Only that there is a plural number of them ("two or more").
Robute definitely has "weapons" plural that have the melee type which can be seen on the profile used for the weapons.
Am I missing something, where multiple weapons available to Guilliman have the melee type?
because absent that, there's no basis to presume that multiple weapon (as presented on the model) give multiple attacks (as noted by the basic rules for multiple melee weapons).
Unusual Suspect wrote: Am I missing something, where multiple weapons available to Guilliman have the melee type?
because absent that, there's no basis to presume that multiple weapon (as presented on the model) give multiple attacks (as noted by the basic rules for multiple melee weapons).
The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion each have the melee type
Unusual Suspect wrote: Am I missing something, where multiple weapons available to Guilliman have the melee type?
because absent that, there's no basis to presume that multiple weapon (as presented on the model) give multiple attacks (as noted by the basic rules for multiple melee weapons).
The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion each have the melee type
As I read it, the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion SHARE the melee type, they don't "each have the melee type".
Were it the latter, they'd grant an extra attack. Were it the former, they'd only grant an extra attack if another weapon (with a profile granting the melee type) were present.
Unusual Suspect wrote: Am I missing something, where multiple weapons available to Guilliman have the melee type?
because absent that, there's no basis to presume that multiple weapon (as presented on the model) give multiple attacks (as noted by the basic rules for multiple melee weapons).
The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion each have the melee type
As I read it, the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion SHARE the melee type, they don't "each have the melee type".
Were it the latter, they'd grant an extra attack. Were it the former, they'd only grant an extra attack if another weapon (with a profile granting the melee type) were present.
How many weapons does Robute have?
Spoiler:
These weapons are used together, using the profile below.
Since the rule uses the plural, I can come to no other conclusion than 2.
Is the Emperor's Sword a melee weapon? yes
Is the Hand of Dominion a melee weapon? yes and also a shooting weapon
Spoiler:
if a model has two or more Melee weapons he gains +1 attack in close combat.
This rule does not care if the melee weapons have unique profiles. The rule only cares that there are two weapons with the melee type. This is unequivocal in the case of Robute.
Consider these two statements:
"These weapons are used together, using the profile below. [profile has melee type]"
"These weapons are used together as a single weapon using the profile below. [profile has melee type]"
These are different statements with different rule consequences. The former leads to 2 CCW. The latter leads to 1 CCW.
Unusual Suspect wrote: I would think "use THE profile below" as a reference to a singular weapon would be sufficient.
You are reading into the statement and making an assumption about what a profile is or what the rules writer means by "used together". In other words, you are forming a Rules As Intended argument.
Robute's Army List Entry is missing the "as a single weapon" that would make your argument a RAW one. This is important to understand.
Unusual Suspect wrote: I would think "use THE profile below" as a reference to a singular weapon would be sufficient.
You are reading into the statement and making an assumption about what a profile is or what the rules write means by "used together". In other words, you are forming a Rules As Intended argument.
Robute's Army List Entry is missing the "as a single weapon" that would make your argument a RAW one. This is important to understand.
Odd, because the rules for the weapon profile are to be taken as "together" and the the weapons taken apart have no rules associated with them.
For the RAW to be otherwise, the rules would have to grant the weapons rules independent of the rules they are granted "together" no?
Unusual Suspect wrote: I would think "use THE profile below" as a reference to a singular weapon would be sufficient.
You are reading into the statement and making an assumption about what a profile is or what the rules write means by "used together". In other words, you are forming a Rules As Intended argument.
Robute's Army List Entry is missing the "as a single weapon" that would make your argument a RAW one. This is important to understand.
Odd, because the rules for the weapon profile are to be taken as "together" and the the weapons taken apart have no rules associated with them.
For the RAW to be otherwise, the rules would have to grant the weapons rules independent of the rules they are granted "together" no?
Again, you are reading into what it means if two melee weapons have the same profile.
1) Robute has two weapons.
2) Every weapon has a profile so each of those weapons references the same profile.
3) That profile has the Melee type so each of those weapons is a melee weapon.
4) They are used together.
Are they used together as a single weapon? You cannot answer that question as yes without reading into information provided.
If you answer yes that is a fine RAI argument but it is definitely not a RAW argument.
The RAW argument leads unequivocally to +1A. It is unequivocal because no where in the Army List Entry are we told to consider Robute's melee weapons as a single weapon.
Unusual Suspect wrote: I would think "use THE profile below" as a reference to a singular weapon would be sufficient.
You are reading into the statement and making an assumption about what a profile is or what the rules write means by "used together". In other words, you are forming a Rules As Intended argument.
Robute's Army List Entry is missing the "as a single weapon" that would make your argument a RAW one. This is important to understand.
Odd, because the rules for the weapon profile are to be taken as "together" and the the weapons taken apart have no rules associated with them.
For the RAW to be otherwise, the rules would have to grant the weapons rules independent of the rules they are granted "together" no?
Again, you are reading into what it means if two melee weapons have the same profile.
1) Robute has two weapons.
2) Every weapon has a profile so each of those weapons references the same profile.
3) That profile has the Melee type so each of those weapons is a melee weapon.
4) They are used together.
Are they used together as a single weapon? You cannot answer that question as yes without reading into information provided.
If you answer yes that is a fine RAI argument but it is definitely not a RAW argument.
See, you're going to have to prove number 2 before its taken for granted.
Without being taken TOGETHER, does any of the potential melee weapons have a weapon profile detailing their melee nature? If taken together, does that allow the those weapons to be taken individually in a way that would grant extra attacks?
Without being taken TOGETHER, does any of the potential melee weapons have a weapon profile detailing their melee nature? If taken together, does that allow the those weapons to be taken individually in a way that would grant extra attacks?
The rule that grants the +1A only cares that there are two or more weapons. It does not care whether they are "used together" or not. Only that there are indeed two or more weapons.
"Used together" would have to mean "used together as a single weapon" for your argument to work. Do you have rules to back this?
That's your problem. You don't have rules to back the claim that "used together" means "used together as a single weapon". This is what relegates your argument to a RAI one.
I am not saying your argument is right or wrong. I am only saying that your argument is not RAW.
Without being taken TOGETHER, does any of the potential melee weapons have a weapon profile detailing their melee nature? If taken together, does that allow the those weapons to be taken individually in a way that would grant extra attacks?
The rule that grants the +1A only cares that there are two or more weapons. It does not care whether they are "used together" or not. Only that there are indeed two or more weapons.
"Used together" would have to mean "used together as a single weapon" for your argument to work. Do you have rules to back this?
That's your problem. You don't have rules to back the claim that "used together" means "used together as a single weapon". This is what relegates your argument to a RAI one.
I am not saying your argument is right or wrong. I am only saying that your argument is not RAW.
The RAW argument is +1A.
The RAW argument requires that a model have "two or more melee weapons."
If a weapon is only treated as a melee weapon when considered together with another, it isn't RAW treated as a melee weapon individually barring some other rule designating it as such.
The rules allowing a weapon to grant +1 A requires it to be a melee weapon: What grants the Melee quality individually, such that each weapon is a Melee weapon sufficient to qualify under the RAW, when it is only the two weapons taken TOGETHER that grants it the Melee weapon quality?
Without being taken TOGETHER, does any of the potential melee weapons have a weapon profile detailing their melee nature? If taken together, does that allow the those weapons to be taken individually in a way that would grant extra attacks?
The rule that grants the +1A only cares that there are two or more weapons. It does not care whether they are "used together" or not. Only that there are indeed two or more weapons.
"Used together" would have to mean "used together as a single weapon" for your argument to work. Do you have rules to back this?
That's your problem. You don't have rules to back the claim that "used together" means "used together as a single weapon". This is what relegates your argument to a RAI one.
I am not saying your argument is right or wrong. I am only saying that your argument is not RAW.
The RAW argument is +1A.
While i agree with you that not having 2x weapons profiles don't means he's not wielding 2x weapons i would like to point that there is some Eldar and Dark Eldar weapons that just show a single profile but grants the extra attack.
But those weapons clearly indicated in their rules entrances they count as a set of 2 weapons and provide an extra attack or just have an special rule that does it ( Demi Klaives, Shardnet & impaler, Chainsabres, Mirrorsowords and Powerblades as example)
Unusual Suspect wrote: What grants the Melee quality individually, such that each weapon is a Melee weapon sufficient to qualify under the RAW, when it is only the two weapons taken TOGETHER that grants it the Melee weapon quality?
Nothing says taking the two weapons together grants the Melee weapon type. You are reading into the rules.
The Army List Entry says:
1) Robute has 2 weapons.
2) Those weapons are used together.
3) Here is a profile to use for them . . . Range (-) S (10) AP (1) Type (Melee, Armourbane, Concussion, Soul Blaze, Touch of the Emperor, Whirling Flame)
We know from the BRB that
4) every weapon has a profile.
Therefore, the profile for the Emperor's Sword (which is one of the weapons) is . . .
Spoiler:
Range (-) S (10) AP (1) Type (Melee, Armourbane, Concussion, Soul Blaze, Touch of the Emperor, Whirling Flame)
and the Hand of Dominion (which is the other weapon) is . . .
Spoiler:
Range (-) S (10) AP (1) Type (Melee, Armourbane, Concussion, Soul Blaze, Touch of the Emperor, Whirling Flame)
Ranged Weapon Profile
Range (24") S 6 AP 2 Type (Assault 3, Rending)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord Perversor wrote: While i agree with you that not having 2x weapons profiles don't means he's not wielding 2x weapons i would like to point that there is some Eldar and Dark Eldar weapons that just show a single profile but grants the extra attack.
But those weapons clearly indicated in their rules entrances they count as a set of 2 weapons and provide an extra attack or just have an special rule that does it ( Demi Klaives, Shardnet & impaler, Chainsabres, Mirrorsowords and Powerblades as example)
So i think RAWRG don't get the extra attack.
It doen't matter what Eldar and Dark Eldar do.
We go off of the rules provided.
RAW he has two weapons and those weapons each reference a profile with the Melee type.
Lance845 wrote: If he has 2 weapons with a single profile and that gets him an extra attack then the lashwhip + bonesword counts as 2 weapons for all tyranids and they can use their other arms to bring a gun.
I.E. there is already a precedent for this. A single profile is a single weapon. It doesn't matter how many arms it takes or different weapons are in different hands.
Actually lash whip and Bone Sword do have separate profiles.. In both Codex Tyranids and Codex Genestealer Cult
There are Lashwhips (used by venomthropes and toxicrenes) Bone Swords (used by many things) and Lashwhip & Bonesword which is used by Hive Tyrants and Warriors and is a single weapon with a single profile.
Lotta fuss here over whether or not Guilliman gets an extra die to destroy his opponents.
I'll weigh in:
"The weapons are used together" suggests that they are treated as a single weapon, unless(Of course) A single lightning claw counts as extra close combat weapons - I have built the Marines from the Betrayal of Calth boxed set and each blade is a separate entity. As per the honorable Col_Impact's reading, that indicates it counts as 3 close combat weapons.
In fact, that means each weapon beyond the first gets the Additional Close Combat weapon! Betrayal at Calth provides lightning claws that provide +5 attacks when used as a pair. WOO!
col_impact wrote: Therefore, the profile for the Emperor's Sword (which is one of the weapons) is . . .
Spoiler:
Range (-) S (10) AP (1) Type (Melee, Armourbane, Concussion, Soul Blaze, Touch of the Emperor, Whirling Flame)
and the Hand of Dominion (which is the other weapon) is . . .
Spoiler:
Range (-) S (10) AP (1) Type (Melee, Armourbane, Concussion, Soul Blaze, Touch of the Emperor, Whirling Flame)
Ranged Weapon Profile Range (24") S 6 AP 2 Type (Assault 3, Rending)
Actually col_impact, I think you (and me earlier) were the ones reading into the rules. We're being told that, when used together, the two weapons have a profile of what you've quoted. We are not explicitly told what they're like when they're not used together. Reading it such that they're two weapons that have the same profile (minus the ranged weapon on the Hand of Dominion) isn't really what it's telling us. It's just telling us what they're like when used together. And when used together, we only have a single weapon with the value of "Melee". Outside of the rule giving the Hand of Dominion a ranged attack, we have no other rules telling us what the weapons are like when used separately. As far as I'm aware, when used separately they'd fall under the category of being an undefined weapon (or is it called an Improvised weapon, not sure) and thus would be counted as a mere Close Combat Weapon with the Melee type. THEORETICALLY (and this may be a stretch, but might not, and would rather see this now debated here) this means you could have Roboute Gulliman fight without selecting to use both weapons together for their combined profile and instead selecting just one of the two weapons, and doing THAT would give the +1 Attack, but then you wouldn't get access to the S10, AP1, Armourbane, Concussive, Soul Blaze, Touch of the Emperor, Whirling Flame goodness.
In any case, we are only given the combined profile that, when combined, is a single weapon with the Melee type. We are not given their individual values, and we can't presume that the combined profile means that they have that profile when used separately.
Lance845 wrote: If he has 2 weapons with a single profile and that gets him an extra attack then the lashwhip + bonesword counts as 2 weapons for all tyranids and they can use their other arms to bring a gun.
I.E. there is already a precedent for this. A single profile is a single weapon. It doesn't matter how many arms it takes or different weapons are in different hands.
Actually lash whip and Bone Sword do have separate profiles.. In both Codex Tyranids and Codex Genestealer Cult
There are Lashwhips (used by venomthropes and toxicrenes) Bone Swords (used by many things) and Lashwhip & Bonesword which is used by Hive Tyrants and Warriors and is a single weapon with a single profile.
Indeed. They are specifically listed as a single Weapon. And there is precedent for this, as I believe Abaddon's Sword and Talon in 4th Edition were both treated as one Weapon:
Abaddon has been gifted the arcane blade Drach'nyen, which contains the bound essence of a writhing warp entity, and wears the Talon of Horus, legendary weapon of the great Warmaster. The effect of these two powerful artefacts means that Abaddon counts as equipped with a Daemon Weapon that doubles his Strength instead of the normal +1, and he may re-roll any failed roll to wound in close combat. * Abaddon has +D6 Attacks from his Daemon Weapon.
And in the 6th Edition codex, they changed it to that the Sword and Talon were two separate Weapons listed with their own profiles.
Yarium wrote:In any case, we are only given the combined profile that, when combined, is a single weapon with the Melee type. We are not given their individual values, and we can't presume that the combined profile means that they have that profile when used separately.
While I haven't seen the datasheet of Guillaman in person, its pretty easy to tell if it is one Weapon or two. If it has a title and a profile, it is one Weapon. Surprisingly, GW has been consistent in this regard. Aside from Pistols and a few things where they state they count as a Power Weapon or Power Fist, Weapons are listed with their own profile. Indeed, most Artifacts these days are listed with their own profile even if their text references the Power Weapon/Fist/etc they are based off of.
The RAI argument is definitely the one asserting they count as two weapons.
"Used together," given one profile, they are one weapon RAW.
Just as "Lashwhip and Bonesword" is its own profile separate from "Lashwhip" alone and "Bonesword" alone - "Lashwhip and Bonesword" specifically does not grant extra attacks.
Jacksmiles wrote: The RAI argument is definitely the one asserting they count as two weapons.
"Used together," given one profile, they are one weapon RAW.
Just as "Lashwhip and Bonesword" is its own profile separate from "Lashwhip" alone and "Bonesword" alone - "Lashwhip and Bonesword" specifically does not grant extra attacks.
Hold on a second, here. The fact that they're given 'one profile' isn't a RAW factor; it's a RAI one. The quote of the rules has nothing to do with profiles. It just says each weapon must be the Melee type.
I also might be crazy here, but don't the Lashwhip and Bonesword specifically state in the rules that they do not count as two weapons? Rending Claws too I think. Something to consider if so.
Jacksmiles wrote: The RAI argument is definitely the one asserting they count as two weapons.
"Used together," given one profile, they are one weapon RAW.
Just as "Lashwhip and Bonesword" is its own profile separate from "Lashwhip" alone and "Bonesword" alone - "Lashwhip and Bonesword" specifically does not grant extra attacks.
Hold on a second, here. The fact that they're given 'one profile' isn't a RAW factor; it's a RAI one. The quote of the rules has nothing to do with profiles. It just says each weapon must be the Melee type.
I also might be crazy here, but don't the Lashwhip and Bonesword specifically state in the rules that they do not count as two weapons? Rending Claws too I think. Something to consider if so.
It is indeed clarified that Lashwhip and Bonesword do not count as two weapons, just as there is clarification in this instance that when RG uses his weapons "together" you use the one (1) profile.
How is this even a debate?
Seems like a desperate grab at a free attack.
While he is modelled with 2 weapons, they act as a single weapon in combat.
This gives them a single profile with the melee rule.
To gain the extra attack you would need to use a 2nd weapon with that profile.
Please do show me where both weapons have a separate profile though?
Or where it mentions he has 2 lots of this in the setup (ie: 2x boneswords, talons etc)
The reason the weapon is strong is because it's a combined profile to summarise both of his weapons working together.
So if they are to be used as 2 seperate weapons, they would need 2 separate profiles.
Also, how do we know the extra attack has not been added to the profile (giving him 6A as standard) when they made his profile?
Long story short, words can be twisted as much as people want.
There is no 2nd weapon profile with melee as a rule.
Without that second profile no extra attack is given.
Even more amusing, a quick look at the rules doesn't even show it as 2 handed, even though it's a fist and a sword clearly modelled in seperate hands.
Long story short, it doesn't need a FAQ atall.
It needs people to stop trying to spin words and just follow the rules.
Not try and create their own from abstract wording or by the look of the actual model.
"Used together," given one profile, they are one weapon RAW.
This little tidbit underscores what you are overlooking.
No where in the rules is it stated that if you are given one profile that you are to consider a listing of weapons as a single weapon. You are making a big assumption, not supported by any rule, that a single profile listed after a listing of weapons indicates the weapons are to be counted as a single weapon. This is why I have continuously pointed out that the RAI argument is supplying with its assumptions an additional line to the effect of "counting as a single weapon" without any support in the rules themselves.
The rules say rather that . . .
"Every weapon has a profile."
So the listing of a single profile after a listing of weapons indicates that the weapons share the single profile.
While I haven't seen the datasheet of Guillaman in person, its pretty easy to tell if it is one Weapon or two. If it has a title and a profile, it is one Weapon.
This is an assumption on your part. Do you have a rule in the BRB stating this? Otherwise, your argument is a perfect example of a RAI argument, where you are basing your argument on what you assume the rules to say rather than what they actually say.
Actually col_impact, I think you (and me earlier) were the ones reading into the rules. We're being told that, when used together, the two weapons have a profile of what you've quoted. We are not explicitly told what they're like when they're not used together. Reading it such that they're two weapons that have the same profile (minus the ranged weapon on the Hand of Dominion) isn't really what it's telling us. It's just telling us what they're like when used together. And when used together, we only have a single weapon with the value of "Melee".
There is no rule telling us that when they are used together we only have a single weapon with the value of "Melee"
Show me the 2nd profile with the melee type.
Wait, it doesn't exist.
Read the rule book please.
It states you need 2 weapons with the melee type to claim a bonus attack.
You have a single profile here so doesn't meet the criteria.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It says they are used together with the following profile.
1 single profile.
Question for you col_impact. I (foolishly) charge Roboute with Jain Zar. She disarms him.
1. Does Roboute "lose" both sword and fist, or just one?
2. If he only loses 1, what profile do you use for the other?
3. Where did you find the profile for your answer on #2?
"Used together," given one profile, they are one weapon RAW.
This little tidbit underscores what you are overlooking.
No where in the rules is it stated that if you are given one profile that you are to consider a listing of weapons as a single weapon. You are making a big assumption, not supported by any rule, that a single profile listed after a listing of weapons indicates the weapons are to be counted as a single weapon. This is why I have continuously pointed out that the RAI argument is supplying with its assumptions an additional line to the effect of "counting as a single weapon" without any support in the rules themselves.
The rules say rather that . . .
"Every weapon has a profile."
So the listing of a single profile after a listing of weapons indicates that the weapons share the single profile.
Bobby G's rules supersede that by saying they are one weapon RAW and use the same profile at the same time. Where a codex and the rulebook conflict, the codex takes precedence.
Rulebook says every melee weapon has a profile Bobby G's rules says his melee weapons are 1 combined profile
Bobby G's rules supersede that by saying they are one weapon RAW and use the same profile at the same time. Where a codex and the rulebook conflict, the codex takes precedence.
Rulebook says every melee weapon has a profile
Bobby G's rules says his melee weapons are 1 combined profile
Thus RAW Bobby G has 1 weapon.
Point out in the rules where the weapons are stated as "counting as one weapon"
1 profile does not mean "count as one weapon". Have I overlooked that in the BRB somewhere. Kindly point out that rule to me.
Okay, I think everyone getting caught up on 1 profile is missing a bit of the point. RAW doesn't talk about profiles and doesn't care about them for purposes of +1A (as quoted in this thread).
Now, let's look at RG's actual rules:
These weapons are used together, using the profile below.
This doesn't actually answer our question one way or the other. I 'use two swords together' if I am dual-wielding but I also 'use two swords together' if I merged them into sword-chucks (yo).
The only other part of the profile is the gun:
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.
Notice here the Hand receives permission to be used both as ranged and melee weapon in the same turn, but this permission is independent of any permission given to the sword. The Hand is treated as an entirely separate item.
You could infer from that then that the Primarch has two weapons that each use the melee profile. This supports Col, but it's a RAI argument.
RAW, the language of "use together" is completely ambiguous.
You seem to miss every valid part of arguments and answer the pointless parts.
As stated by me and others.
1: is jain zar disarms him, what weapon does he lose.
2: it states that all weapons have a profile.
3: please show us where this phantom 2nd profile is.
It's all well and good picking what questions you answer but your missing every valid one and just avoiding them.
Bobby G's rules supersede that by saying they are one weapon RAW and use the same profile at the same time. Where a codex and the rulebook conflict, the codex takes precedence.
Rulebook says every melee weapon has a profile
Bobby G's rules says his melee weapons are 1 combined profile
Thus RAW Bobby G has 1 weapon.
Point out in the rules where the weapons are stated as "counting as one weapon"
1 profile does not mean "count as one weapon". Have I overlooked that in the BRB somewhere. Kindly point out that rule to me.
Happyjew wrote: Question for you col_impact. I (foolishly) charge Roboute with Jain Zar. She disarms him.
1. Does Roboute "lose" both sword and fist, or just one?
2. If he only loses 1, what profile do you use for the other?
3. Where did you find the profile for your answer on #2?
Simple. No where in Robute's rules does it say that his weapons count as a single weapon.
Jain Zar disarms only a weapon, not weapons, so just one weapon would be lost by Robute.
Emperor's Sword has the profile listed on Robute's Army List Entry. Hand of Dominion has the profile listed on Robute's Army List Entry.
Jackal wrote: You seem to miss every valid part of arguments and answer the pointless parts.
As stated by me and others.
1: is jain zar disarms him, what weapon does he lose.
2: it states that all weapons have a profile.
3: please show us where this phantom 2nd profile is.
It's all well and good picking what questions you answer but your missing every valid one and just avoiding them.
He actually answered this one earlier. His argument is that both weapons use the same profile. So if you disarmed one the Primarch would still use that profile for the other.
Audustum wrote: Okay, I think everyone getting caught up on 1 profile is missing a bit of the point. RAW doesn't talk about profiles and doesn't care about them for purposes of +1A (as quoted in this thread).
Now, let's look at RG's actual rules:
These weapons are used together, using the profile below.
This doesn't actually answer our question one way or the other. I 'use two swords together' if I am dual-wielding but I also 'use two swords together' if I merged them into sword-chucks (yo).
The only other part of the profile is the gun:
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.
Notice here the Hand receives permission to be used both as ranged and melee weapon in the same turn, but this permission is independent of any permission given to the sword. The Hand is treated as an entirely separate item.
You could infer from that then that the Primarch has two weapons that each use the melee profile. This supports Col, but it's a RAI argument.
RAW, the language of "use together" is completely ambiguous.
Except rules dispute this.
Every weapon has a profile
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
Since every weapon has a profile, you need to show the second profile for him claim a bonus attack.
Even the special rules refer to the combined weapon as a single weapon. "Any attacks with this weapon...", otherwise it would say with "these" weapons.
Bobby G's rules supersede that by saying they are one weapon RAW and use the same profile at the same time. Where a codex and the rulebook conflict, the codex takes precedence.
Rulebook says every melee weapon has a profile
Bobby G's rules says his melee weapons are 1 combined profile
Thus RAW Bobby G has 1 weapon.
Point out in the rules where the weapons are stated as "counting as one weapon"
1 profile does not mean "count as one weapon". Have I overlooked that in the BRB somewhere. Kindly point out that rule to me.
Uh how many weapons is a Lascannon?
Lascannons also don't say there are two weapons present in their rules text.
Bobby G's rules supersede that by saying they are one weapon RAW and use the same profile at the same time. Where a codex and the rulebook conflict, the codex takes precedence.
Rulebook says every melee weapon has a profile
Bobby G's rules says his melee weapons are 1 combined profile
Thus RAW Bobby G has 1 weapon.
Point out in the rules where the weapons are stated as "counting as one weapon"
1 profile does not mean "count as one weapon". Have I overlooked that in the BRB somewhere. Kindly point out that rule to me.
Uh how many weapons is a Lascannon?
Lascannons also don't say there are two weapons present in their rules text.
Audustum wrote: Okay, I think everyone getting caught up on 1 profile is missing a bit of the point. RAW doesn't talk about profiles and doesn't care about them for purposes of +1A (as quoted in this thread).
Now, let's look at RG's actual rules:
These weapons are used together, using the profile below.
This doesn't actually answer our question one way or the other. I 'use two swords together' if I am dual-wielding but I also 'use two swords together' if I merged them into sword-chucks (yo).
The only other part of the profile is the gun:
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.
Notice here the Hand receives permission to be used both as ranged and melee weapon in the same turn, but this permission is independent of any permission given to the sword. The Hand is treated as an entirely separate item.
You could infer from that then that the Primarch has two weapons that each use the melee profile. This supports Col, but it's a RAI argument.
RAW, the language of "use together" is completely ambiguous.
Except rules dispute this.
Every weapon has a profile
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
Since every weapon has a profile, you need to show the second profile for him claim a bonus attack.
Even the special rules refer to the combined weapon as a single weapon. "Any attacks with this weapon...", otherwise it would say with "these" weapons.
The singular actually helps Col's point, which is that each weapon uses that profile on its own as well as together. Thus, if you attack with either "this weapon" will do X. There's no rule violation here, RAW.
Happyjew wrote: Question for you col_impact. I (foolishly) charge Roboute with Jain Zar. She disarms him.
1. Does Roboute "lose" both sword and fist, or just one?
2. If he only loses 1, what profile do you use for the other?
3. Where did you find the profile for your answer on #2?
Simple. No where in Robute's rules does it say that his weapons count as a single weapon.
Jain Zar disarms only a weapon, not weapons, so just one weapon would be lost by Robute.
Emperor's Sword has the profile listed on Robute's Army List Entry. Hand of Dominion has the profile listed on Robute's Army List Entry.
But only when used together do they have a profile at all. RAW. So if you try to use one over the other, BAM, no profile exists. Meaning you can't use one and claim an extra attack from the existence of the other. RAW.
Bobby G's rules supersede that by saying they are one weapon RAW and use the same profile at the same time. Where a codex and the rulebook conflict, the codex takes precedence.
Rulebook says every melee weapon has a profile
Bobby G's rules says his melee weapons are 1 combined profile
Thus RAW Bobby G has 1 weapon.
Point out in the rules where the weapons are stated as "counting as one weapon"
1 profile does not mean "count as one weapon". Have I overlooked that in the BRB somewhere. Kindly point out that rule to me.
Uh how many weapons is a Lascannon?
Lascannons also don't say there are two weapons present in their rules text.
What about a twin linked one?
Aha!
In all seriousness though, I think twin-linked weapons only talk about being two in the italicized fluffy part, not the plain text ruley part. Could be wrong though.
Happyjew wrote: Question for you col_impact. I (foolishly) charge Roboute with Jain Zar. She disarms him.
1. Does Roboute "lose" both sword and fist, or just one?
2. If he only loses 1, what profile do you use for the other?
3. Where did you find the profile for your answer on #2?
Simple. No where in Robute's rules does it say that his weapons count as a single weapon.
Jain Zar disarms only a weapon, not weapons, so just one weapon would be lost by Robute.
Emperor's Sword has the profile listed on Robute's Army List Entry. Hand of Dominion has the profile listed on Robute's Army List Entry.
But only when used together do they have a profile at all. RAW. So if you try to use one over the other, BAM, no profile exists. Meaning you can't use one and claim an extra attack from the existence of the other. RAW.
Go back to one of my posts. 'Use together' can just as easily mean dual-wielding as 'like one weapon'.
Audustum wrote: Okay, I think everyone getting caught up on 1 profile is missing a bit of the point. RAW doesn't talk about profiles and doesn't care about them for purposes of +1A (as quoted in this thread).
Now, let's look at RG's actual rules:
These weapons are used together, using the profile below.
This doesn't actually answer our question one way or the other. I 'use two swords together' if I am dual-wielding but I also 'use two swords together' if I merged them into sword-chucks (yo).
The only other part of the profile is the gun:
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.
Notice here the Hand receives permission to be used both as ranged and melee weapon in the same turn, but this permission is independent of any permission given to the sword. The Hand is treated as an entirely separate item.
You could infer from that then that the Primarch has two weapons that each use the melee profile. This supports Col, but it's a RAI argument.
RAW, the language of "use together" is completely ambiguous.
Except rules dispute this.
Every weapon has a profile
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
Since every weapon has a profile, you need to show the second profile for him claim a bonus attack.
Even the special rules refer to the combined weapon as a single weapon. "Any attacks with this weapon...", otherwise it would say with "these" weapons.
The singular actually helps Col's point, which is that each weapon uses that profile on its own as well as together. Thus, if you attack with either "this weapon" will do X. There's no rule violation here, RAW.
It doesn't help Col's point, it simply doesn't go against it.
Bobby G's rules supersede that by saying they are one weapon RAW and use the same profile at the same time. Where a codex and the rulebook conflict, the codex takes precedence.
Rulebook says every melee weapon has a profile Bobby G's rules says his melee weapons are 1 combined profile
Thus RAW Bobby G has 1 weapon.
Point out in the rules where the weapons are stated as "counting as one weapon"
1 profile does not mean "count as one weapon". Have I overlooked that in the BRB somewhere. Kindly point out that rule to me.
Uh how many weapons is a Lascannon?
Lascannons also don't say there are two weapons present in their rules text.
What about a twin linked one?
Aha!
In all seriousness though, I think twin-linked weapons only talk about being two in the italicized fluffy part, not the plain text ruley part. Could be wrong though.
Happyjew wrote: Question for you col_impact. I (foolishly) charge Roboute with Jain Zar. She disarms him. 1. Does Roboute "lose" both sword and fist, or just one? 2. If he only loses 1, what profile do you use for the other? 3. Where did you find the profile for your answer on #2?
Simple. No where in Robute's rules does it say that his weapons count as a single weapon.
Jain Zar disarms only a weapon, not weapons, so just one weapon would be lost by Robute.
Emperor's Sword has the profile listed on Robute's Army List Entry. Hand of Dominion has the profile listed on Robute's Army List Entry.
But only when used together do they have a profile at all. RAW. So if you try to use one over the other, BAM, no profile exists. Meaning you can't use one and claim an extra attack from the existence of the other. RAW.
Go back to one of my posts. 'Use together' can just as easily mean dual-wielding as 'like one weapon'.
"Like one weapon" as in "using these together counts as one weapon." This furthers the point that the combined weapons have 1 profile and count as one weapon.
Bobby G's rules supersede that by saying they are one weapon RAW and use the same profile at the same time. Where a codex and the rulebook conflict, the codex takes precedence.
Rulebook says every melee weapon has a profile Bobby G's rules says his melee weapons are 1 combined profile
Thus RAW Bobby G has 1 weapon.
Point out in the rules where the weapons are stated as "counting as one weapon"
1 profile does not mean "count as one weapon". Have I overlooked that in the BRB somewhere. Kindly point out that rule to me.
Uh how many weapons is a Lascannon?
Lascannons also don't say there are two weapons present in their rules text.
What about a twin linked one?
Aha!
In all seriousness though, I think twin-linked weapons only talk about being two in the italicized fluffy part, not the plain text ruley part. Could be wrong though.
Nah it's in the fluffy part, I mean someone could maybe argue for Tau maybe for crisis suits... I mean it won't really get anywhere but that doesn't stop some people.
But this whole argument comes across a bit absurd. I'd play it as if he had two weapons, just without the bonus attack. I really think they should have just given the fist its own profile and kept the bonus attack in mind rather than what seems like this run around to try to get a strong weapon but then try to give it the drawback of it not granting a bonus attack (in a pretty stupid way too). I mean if the fist had its own profile as well he wouldn't be completely locked in combat with the Avatar of Khaine forever due to soulblaze and Bobby G being fearless prevents him from escaping with "our weapons are useles". Not to mention being a mc hinders him further with this as you can't attach a character to him with hit and run to try to escape it. It's somewhat ironic given how the Avatar was the punching bag of the marines for a bit, but Bobby G's rules probably show GW's failure to pay attention to existing rules and mechanics quite well.
As for him being disarmed, wouldn't that mean he'd have no melee weapon profiles and thus get a normal close combat weapon?
Audustum wrote: Okay, I think everyone getting caught up on 1 profile is missing a bit of the point. RAW doesn't talk about profiles and doesn't care about them for purposes of +1A (as quoted in this thread).
Now, let's look at RG's actual rules:
These weapons are used together, using the profile below.
This doesn't actually answer our question one way or the other. I 'use two swords together' if I am dual-wielding but I also 'use two swords together' if I merged them into sword-chucks (yo).
The only other part of the profile is the gun:
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.
Notice here the Hand receives permission to be used both as ranged and melee weapon in the same turn, but this permission is independent of any permission given to the sword. The Hand is treated as an entirely separate item.
You could infer from that then that the Primarch has two weapons that each use the melee profile. This supports Col, but it's a RAI argument.
RAW, the language of "use together" is completely ambiguous.
Except rules dispute this.
Every weapon has a profile
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
Since every weapon has a profile, you need to show the second profile for him claim a bonus attack.
Even the special rules refer to the combined weapon as a single weapon. "Any attacks with this weapon...", otherwise it would say with "these" weapons.
The singular actually helps Col's point, which is that each weapon uses that profile on its own as well as together. Thus, if you attack with either "this weapon" will do X. There's no rule violation here, RAW.
It doesn't help Col's point, it simply doesn't go against it.
Bobby G's rules supersede that by saying they are one weapon RAW and use the same profile at the same time. Where a codex and the rulebook conflict, the codex takes precedence.
Rulebook says every melee weapon has a profile
Bobby G's rules says his melee weapons are 1 combined profile
Thus RAW Bobby G has 1 weapon.
Point out in the rules where the weapons are stated as "counting as one weapon"
1 profile does not mean "count as one weapon". Have I overlooked that in the BRB somewhere. Kindly point out that rule to me.
Uh how many weapons is a Lascannon?
Lascannons also don't say there are two weapons present in their rules text.
What about a twin linked one?
Aha!
In all seriousness though, I think twin-linked weapons only talk about being two in the italicized fluffy part, not the plain text ruley part. Could be wrong though.
Happyjew wrote: Question for you col_impact. I (foolishly) charge Roboute with Jain Zar. She disarms him.
1. Does Roboute "lose" both sword and fist, or just one?
2. If he only loses 1, what profile do you use for the other?
3. Where did you find the profile for your answer on #2?
Simple. No where in Robute's rules does it say that his weapons count as a single weapon.
Jain Zar disarms only a weapon, not weapons, so just one weapon would be lost by Robute.
Emperor's Sword has the profile listed on Robute's Army List Entry. Hand of Dominion has the profile listed on Robute's Army List Entry.
But only when used together do they have a profile at all. RAW. So if you try to use one over the other, BAM, no profile exists. Meaning you can't use one and claim an extra attack from the existence of the other. RAW.
Go back to one of my posts. 'Use together' can just as easily mean dual-wielding as 'like one weapon'.
"Like one weapon" as in "using these together counts as one weapon." This furthers the point that the combined weapons have 1 profile and count as one weapon.
It helps him because it's some evidence that each weapon, individually, has that profile. Hence, 'this weapon'.
I don't see where it says "like one weapon" in the rules portion of the Primarch's rules. Can you give the language around where you're seeing that?
But only when used together do they have a profile at all. RAW. So if you try to use one over the other, BAM, no profile exists.
No where in the rules does it say any of this. You are making this up.
There is a listing of weapons. There is a listing of a profile. Each weapon references that profile. No where does it say that they count together as a single weapon using that profile.
Bobby G's rules supersede that by saying they are one weapon RAW and use the same profile at the same time. Where a codex and the rulebook conflict, the codex takes precedence.
Rulebook says every melee weapon has a profile
Bobby G's rules says his melee weapons are 1 combined profile
Thus RAW Bobby G has 1 weapon.
Point out in the rules where the weapons are stated as "counting as one weapon"
1 profile does not mean "count as one weapon". Have I overlooked that in the BRB somewhere. Kindly point out that rule to me.
Uh how many weapons is a Lascannon?
Lascannons also don't say there are two weapons present in their rules text.
What about a twin linked one?
Aha!
In all seriousness though, I think twin-linked weapons only talk about being two in the italicized fluffy part, not the plain text ruley part. Could be wrong though.
Nah it's in the fluffy part, I mean someone could maybe argue for Tau maybe for crisis suits... I mean it won't really get anywhere but that doesn't stop some people.
But this whole argument comes across a bit absurd. I'd play it as if he had two weapons, just without the bonus attack. I really think they should have just given the fist its own profile and kept the bonus attack in mind rather than what seems like this run around to try to get a strong weapon but then try to give it the drawback of it not granting a bonus attack (in a pretty stupid way too).
I mean if the fist had its own profile as well he wouldn't be completely locked in combat with the Avatar of Khaine forever due to soulblaze and Bobby G being fearless prevents him from escaping with "our weapons are useles". Not to mention being a mc hinders him further with this as you can't attach a character to him with hit and run to try to escape it. It's somewhat ironic given how the Avatar was the punching bag of the marines for a bit, but Bobby G's rules probably show GW's failure to pay attention to existing rules and mechanics quite well.
I agree to a large extent. They also could've just added "Two-Handed" to the profile. I'd say RAI he's not supposed to +1A and that's how I'd play it...it's an interesting point for RAW though.
Course, we already knew they wern't paying attention because we can also turn our Primarch into a Super-Heavy Walker. Then at least he can try to Stomp an avatar!
Bobby G's rules supersede that by saying they are one weapon RAW and use the same profile at the same time. Where a codex and the rulebook conflict, the codex takes precedence.
Rulebook says every melee weapon has a profile
Bobby G's rules says his melee weapons are 1 combined profile
Thus RAW Bobby G has 1 weapon.
Point out in the rules where the weapons are stated as "counting as one weapon"
1 profile does not mean "count as one weapon". Have I overlooked that in the BRB somewhere. Kindly point out that rule to me.
Uh how many weapons is a Lascannon?
Lascannons also don't say there are two weapons present in their rules text.
What about a twin linked one?
Aha!
In all seriousness though, I think twin-linked weapons only talk about being two in the italicized fluffy part, not the plain text ruley part. Could be wrong though.
Nah it's in the fluffy part, I mean someone could maybe argue for Tau maybe for crisis suits... I mean it won't really get anywhere but that doesn't stop some people.
But this whole argument comes across a bit absurd. I'd play it as if he had two weapons, just without the bonus attack. I really think they should have just given the fist its own profile and kept the bonus attack in mind rather than what seems like this run around to try to get a strong weapon but then try to give it the drawback of it not granting a bonus attack (in a pretty stupid way too).
I mean if the fist had its own profile as well he wouldn't be completely locked in combat with the Avatar of Khaine forever due to soulblaze and Bobby G being fearless prevents him from escaping with "our weapons are useles". Not to mention being a mc hinders him further with this as you can't attach a character to him with hit and run to try to escape it. It's somewhat ironic given how the Avatar was the punching bag of the marines for a bit, but Bobby G's rules probably show GW's failure to pay attention to existing rules and mechanics quite well.
I agree to a large extent. They also could've just added "Two-Handed" to the profile. I'd say RAI he's not supposed to +1A and that's how I'd play it...it's an interesting point for RAW though.
Course, we already knew they wern't paying attention because we can also turn our Primarch into a Super-Heavy Walker. Then at least he can try to Stomp an avatar!
Oh I forgot about it, I guess it's kind of funny that the only away around being locked with the Avatar is "the rules just break here keep playing".
Bobby G's rules supersede that by saying they are one weapon RAW and use the same profile at the same time. Where a codex and the rulebook conflict, the codex takes precedence.
Rulebook says every melee weapon has a profile
Bobby G's rules says his melee weapons are 1 combined profile
Thus RAW Bobby G has 1 weapon.
Point out in the rules where the weapons are stated as "counting as one weapon"
1 profile does not mean "count as one weapon". Have I overlooked that in the BRB somewhere. Kindly point out that rule to me.
Uh how many weapons is a Lascannon?
Lascannons also don't say there are two weapons present in their rules text.
What about a twin linked one?
Aha!
In all seriousness though, I think twin-linked weapons only talk about being two in the italicized fluffy part, not the plain text ruley part. Could be wrong though.
Nah it's in the fluffy part, I mean someone could maybe argue for Tau maybe for crisis suits... I mean it won't really get anywhere but that doesn't stop some people.
But this whole argument comes across a bit absurd. I'd play it as if he had two weapons, just without the bonus attack. I really think they should have just given the fist its own profile and kept the bonus attack in mind rather than what seems like this run around to try to get a strong weapon but then try to give it the drawback of it not granting a bonus attack (in a pretty stupid way too).
I mean if the fist had its own profile as well he wouldn't be completely locked in combat with the Avatar of Khaine forever due to soulblaze and Bobby G being fearless prevents him from escaping with "our weapons are useles". Not to mention being a mc hinders him further with this as you can't attach a character to him with hit and run to try to escape it. It's somewhat ironic given how the Avatar was the punching bag of the marines for a bit, but Bobby G's rules probably show GW's failure to pay attention to existing rules and mechanics quite well.
I agree to a large extent. They also could've just added "Two-Handed" to the profile. I'd say RAI he's not supposed to +1A and that's how I'd play it...it's an interesting point for RAW though.
Course, we already knew they wern't paying attention because we can also turn our Primarch into a Super-Heavy Walker. Then at least he can try to Stomp an avatar!
Oh I forgot about it, I guess it's kind of funny that the only away around being locked with the Avatar is "the rules just break here keep playing".
The Avatar finally fits his lore. An engine of destruction that can only be matched by warping reality.
Bobby G's rules supersede that by saying they are one weapon RAW and use the same profile at the same time. Where a codex and the rulebook conflict, the codex takes precedence.
Rulebook says every melee weapon has a profile
Bobby G's rules says his melee weapons are 1 combined profile
Thus RAW Bobby G has 1 weapon.
Point out in the rules where the weapons are stated as "counting as one weapon"
1 profile does not mean "count as one weapon". Have I overlooked that in the BRB somewhere. Kindly point out that rule to me.
Uh how many weapons is a Lascannon?
Lascannons also don't say there are two weapons present in their rules text.
What about a twin linked one?
Aha!
In all seriousness though, I think twin-linked weapons only talk about being two in the italicized fluffy part, not the plain text ruley part. Could be wrong though.
Nah it's in the fluffy part, I mean someone could maybe argue for Tau maybe for crisis suits... I mean it won't really get anywhere but that doesn't stop some people.
But this whole argument comes across a bit absurd. I'd play it as if he had two weapons, just without the bonus attack. I really think they should have just given the fist its own profile and kept the bonus attack in mind rather than what seems like this run around to try to get a strong weapon but then try to give it the drawback of it not granting a bonus attack (in a pretty stupid way too).
I mean if the fist had its own profile as well he wouldn't be completely locked in combat with the Avatar of Khaine forever due to soulblaze and Bobby G being fearless prevents him from escaping with "our weapons are useles". Not to mention being a mc hinders him further with this as you can't attach a character to him with hit and run to try to escape it. It's somewhat ironic given how the Avatar was the punching bag of the marines for a bit, but Bobby G's rules probably show GW's failure to pay attention to existing rules and mechanics quite well.
I agree to a large extent. They also could've just added "Two-Handed" to the profile. I'd say RAI he's not supposed to +1A and that's how I'd play it...it's an interesting point for RAW though.
Course, we already knew they wern't paying attention because we can also turn our Primarch into a Super-Heavy Walker. Then at least he can try to Stomp an avatar!
Oh I forgot about it, I guess it's kind of funny that the only away around being locked with the Avatar is "the rules just break here keep playing".
The Avatar finally fits his lore. An engine of destruction that can only be matched by warping reality.
Honestly I'd just like the Imperium player to just charge calgar into the fight at that point so he can show Bobby G how it's done.
Jackal wrote: Each weapon does not reference that profile though.
They only do so when used together, as his weapon rules state.
So even if we did count it as 2 weapons, jain zar could disarm him of 1 and he couldn't use the profile, as it needs both weapons to be used.
Each weapon does reference the profile. We are told that they are used together but not that they are used together as a single weapon. We are also not told that they only reference the profile when they are used together.
When Jain Zar disarms she doesn't erase a profile from the Army List Entry so the profile is still there for either weapon to reference.
The weapons are used together with the following profile.
Note singular on the profile wording, showing it has 1 profile.
Please also note it says used together.
Meaning without 1 of them you cannot use it atall.
Is something requires bot A and B to work, removing either would prevent this.
It lists him as having the sword and gauntlet, fine.
It then gives a combined profile for them.
Something cannot be a combined profile if it's a singular weapon, that part is common sense.
Can you show me where it states each weapon uses the following profile please?
Or where it states he may use the sword or the fist separately?
col_impact wrote: There is no rule telling us that when they are used together we only have a single weapon with the value of "Melee"
Psst...
I have the actual rules too that were included with the model. I know this image is cut off, but it does say used together. That means, yes, there is a rulling telling us what they are when used together, and that it has a single value of Melee.
More than that, he has 6 freaking attacks base! Do you NEED to give him one more? Is 6 attacks, for 3 hits and 1 D strength hit on average not enough for you?
JNAProductions wrote: More than that, he has 6 freaking attacks base! Do you NEED to give him one more? Is 6 attacks, for 3 hits and 1 D strength hit on average not enough for you?
Power level has no place in a RAW discussion.
If power level is an issue people vote on it at the ITC and at that point it doesn't matter at all what the rules say.
In other words, direct this comment at Frontline Gaming but not at YMDC.
JNAProductions wrote: More than that, he has 6 freaking attacks base! Do you NEED to give him one more? Is 6 attacks, for 3 hits and 1 D strength hit on average not enough for you?
Power level has no place in a RAW discussion.
If power level is an issue people vote on it at the ITC and at that point it doesn't matter at all what the rules say.
In other words, direct this comment at Frontline Gaming but not at YMDC.
Yeah, true. Except the RAW is clear that he has only one weapon-there is one melee profile listed, and one ranged.
Jackal wrote: The weapons are used together with the following profile.
Note singular on the profile wording, showing it has 1 profile.
Please also note it says used together.
Meaning without 1 of them you cannot use it atall.
Is something requires bot A and B to work, removing either would prevent this.
It lists him as having the sword and gauntlet, fine.
It then gives a combined profile for them.
Something cannot be a combined profile if it's a singular weapon, that part is common sense.
Can you show me where it states each weapon uses the following profile please?
Or where it states he may use the sword or the fist separately?
"Used together" does not mean anything by itself. Robute simply uses the two weapons together.
"Used together as a single weapon" would indicate no +1 A.
"Used together using this single profile for the combined weapon" would indicate no +1 A.
A listing of weapons "used together" followed by a listing of a profile means we have 2 weapons with the melee type. Therefore, +1 A.
JNAProductions wrote: More than that, he has 6 freaking attacks base! Do you NEED to give him one more? Is 6 attacks, for 3 hits and 1 D strength hit on average not enough for you?
Power level has no place in a RAW discussion.
If power level is an issue people vote on it at the ITC and at that point it doesn't matter at all what the rules say.
In other words, direct this comment at Frontline Gaming but not at YMDC.
Yeah, true. Except the RAW is clear that he has only one weapon-there is one melee profile listed, and one ranged.
Where does it say in the rules that a single profile listing means a single weapon?
Jackal wrote: It states they are used together using 1 profile.
If it were 2 duplicate profiles it would state: the weapons are used together using the following profiles.
Hence plural on profiles.
However it states profile, showing only 1 profile is used.
If it were 2 entirely seperate weapons there would be 2 profiles, which there is not.
Robute's 2 weapons simply have the exact same Melee profile, just as if he had two chain swords.
Robute's Army List Entry also states . . .
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.
Notice that it does not say this . . .
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 (in conjuction with the Emperor's Sword) and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
So the two weapons are separably usable. In fact, they have to be, or else the Hand of Dominion could not be fired separably as a ranged weapon in the shooting phase.
Jackal wrote: It states they are used together using 1 profile.
If it were 2 duplicate profiles it would state: the weapons are used together using the following profiles.
Hence plural on profiles.
However it states profile, showing only 1 profile is used.
If it were 2 entirely seperate weapons there would be 2 profiles, which there is not.
Robute's 2 weapons simply have the exact same Melee profile, just as if he had two chain swords.
Robute's Army List Entry also states . . .
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.
Notice that it does not say this . . .
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 (in conjuction with the Emperor's Sword) and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
So the two weapons are separably usable. In fact, they have to be, or else the Hand of Dominion could not be fired separably as a ranged weapon in the shooting phase.
That makes no sense at all. Firstly, we are only given permission to use the weapons together with the profile listed.
Secondly, the sentence about being able to use the Hand of Dominion in both the shooting and melee phase would be redundant.
This is my exact argument below! They show the two sharing the same profile stats furthermore saying that the hand has a ranged and can be used in melee indicating its a separate weapon.
Now all this aside the game i played i didnt give him plus one attack nor does he need it but thats besides the question to me it seems like he gets +1 attack.
Jackal wrote: It states they are used together using 1 profile.
If it were 2 duplicate profiles it would state: the weapons are used together using the following profiles.
Hence plural on profiles.
However it states profile, showing only 1 profile is used.
If it were 2 entirely seperate weapons there would be 2 profiles, which there is not.
Robute's 2 weapons simply have the exact same Melee profile, just as if he had two chain swords.
Robute's Army List Entry also states . . .
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.
Notice that it does not say this . . .
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 (in conjuction with the Emperor's Sword) and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
So the two weapons are separably usable. In fact, they have to be, or else the Hand of Dominion could not be fired separably as a ranged weapon in the shooting phase.
Title, followed by fluff and profile. 8 Universal special rules + Chapter Tactics Ultramarines. 3 new unique special rules + Warlord trait.
(hint : no equipment list)
Box "Relics of Ultramar"
The Emperor"s Sword and the Hand of Dominion "These weapons are used together using the profile below"
melee profile + 2 new special rules from the profile
"The hand of dominion can also be used as ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn."
ranged profile
Armour of Fate 3++
Celestine's trick.
I see three permissions there:
1) Use sword AND hand combined to make melee attacks. The profile provided gives them both together the melee type.
(Note that according to BRB p. 40 Melee Type weapons can only be used to make melee attacks)
2) also (*) the hand can be used to make shooting attacks.
(*) meaning besides the just granted permission to use sword and hand together as melee weapon
This permission overrides the aforementioned BRB restriction for weapons with the melee type.
3) making a shooting attack doesn't block the player from using the hand together with the sword in melee
Please demonstrate permission to use the sword or the hand separately for a melee attack.
Title, followed by fluff and profile. 8 Universal special rules + Chapter Tactics Ultramarines. 3 new unique special rules + Warlord trait.
(hint : no equipment list)
Box "Relics of Ultramar"
The Emperor"s Sword and the Hand of Dominion "These weapons are used together using the profile below"
melee profile + 2 new special rules from the profile
"The hand of dominion can also be used as ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn."
ranged profile
Armour of Fate 3++
Celestine's trick.
I see three permissions there:
1) Use sword AND hand combined to make melee attacks. The profile provided gives them both together the melee type.
(Note that according to BRB p. 40 Melee Type weapons can only be used to make melee attacks)
2) also (*) the hand can be used to make shooting attacks.
(*) meaning besides the just granted permission to use sword and hand together as melee weapon
This permission overrides the aforementioned BRB restriction for weapons with the melee type.
3) making a shooting attack doesn't block the player from using the hand together with the sword in melee
Please demonstrate permission to use the sword or the hand separately for a melee attack.
The problem is in your #1. The literal text of the box can be both "used together" as in 'use as one item' or "used together" as in dual-wielding. Both are completely valid readings of that phrase.
Title, followed by fluff and profile. 8 Universal special rules + Chapter Tactics Ultramarines. 3 new unique special rules + Warlord trait.
(hint : no equipment list)
Box "Relics of Ultramar"
The Emperor"s Sword and the Hand of Dominion "These weapons are used together using the profile below"
melee profile + 2 new special rules from the profile
"The hand of dominion can also be used as ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn."
ranged profile
Armour of Fate 3++
Celestine's trick.
I see three permissions there:
1) Use sword AND hand combined to make melee attacks. The profile provided gives them both together the melee type.
(Note that according to BRB p. 40 Melee Type weapons can only be used to make melee attacks)
2) also (*) the hand can be used to make shooting attacks.
(*) meaning besides the just granted permission to use sword and hand together as melee weapon
This permission overrides the aforementioned BRB restriction for weapons with the melee type.
3) making a shooting attack doesn't block the player from using the hand together with the sword in melee
Please demonstrate permission to use the sword or the hand separately for a melee attack.
The problem is in your #1. The literal text of the box can be both "used together" as in 'use as one item' or "used together" as in dual-wielding. Both are completely valid readings of that phrase.
You are missing the point. People are arguing that both hand and sword are separate melee weapons.
Sword and fist are one relic, with one shared entry.
Sword and fist only get the melee weapon profile together.
You cannot use the sword alone, since you have no permission to use the profile without the hand. When using both the sword and the hand to unlock the profile, you have nothing left to grant you a bonus attack.
Title, followed by fluff and profile. 8 Universal special rules + Chapter Tactics Ultramarines. 3 new unique special rules + Warlord trait.
(hint : no equipment list)
Box "Relics of Ultramar"
The Emperor"s Sword and the Hand of Dominion "These weapons are used together using the profile below"
melee profile + 2 new special rules from the profile
"The hand of dominion can also be used as ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn."
ranged profile
Armour of Fate 3++
Celestine's trick.
I see three permissions there:
1) Use sword AND hand combined to make melee attacks. The profile provided gives them both together the melee type.
(Note that according to BRB p. 40 Melee Type weapons can only be used to make melee attacks)
2) also (*) the hand can be used to make shooting attacks.
(*) meaning besides the just granted permission to use sword and hand together as melee weapon
This permission overrides the aforementioned BRB restriction for weapons with the melee type.
3) making a shooting attack doesn't block the player from using the hand together with the sword in melee
Please demonstrate permission to use the sword or the hand separately for a melee attack.
The problem is in your #1. The literal text of the box can be both "used together" as in 'use as one item' or "used together" as in dual-wielding. Both are completely valid readings of that phrase.
You are missing the point. People are arguing that both hand and sword are separate melee weapons.
Sword and fist are one relic, with one shared entry.
Sword and fist only get the melee weapon profile together.
You cannot use the sword alone, since you have no permission to use the profile without the hand. When using both the sword and the hand to unlock the profile, you have nothing left to grant you a bonus attack.
No I think our positions are quite reversed. Just because we have one relic box does not mean that the sword and hand are a single relic, RAW. There's no RAW at all on that. Sharing an entry also does not mean they are one weapon, RAW (see wielding two Chainswords). Whether the sword and fist get the profile separately or together is what people have been debating for several pages now.
Title, followed by fluff and profile. 8 Universal special rules + Chapter Tactics Ultramarines. 3 new unique special rules + Warlord trait.
(hint : no equipment list)
Box "Relics of Ultramar"
The Emperor"s Sword and the Hand of Dominion "These weapons are used together using the profile below"
melee profile + 2 new special rules from the profile
"The hand of dominion can also be used as ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn."
ranged profile
Armour of Fate 3++
Celestine's trick.
I see three permissions there:
1) Use sword AND hand combined to make melee attacks. The profile provided gives them both together the melee type.
(Note that according to BRB p. 40 Melee Type weapons can only be used to make melee attacks)
2) also (*) the hand can be used to make shooting attacks.
(*) meaning besides the just granted permission to use sword and hand together as melee weapon
This permission overrides the aforementioned BRB restriction for weapons with the melee type.
3) making a shooting attack doesn't block the player from using the hand together with the sword in melee
Please demonstrate permission to use the sword or the hand separately for a melee attack.
The problem is in your #1. The literal text of the box can be both "used together" as in 'use as one item' or "used together" as in dual-wielding. Both are completely valid readings of that phrase.
You are missing the point. People are arguing that both hand and sword are separate melee weapons.
Sword and fist are one relic, with one shared entry.
Sword and fist only get the melee weapon profile together.
You cannot use the sword alone, since you have no permission to use the profile without the hand. When using both the sword and the hand to unlock the profile, you have nothing left to grant you a bonus attack.
No I think our positions are quite reversed. Just because we have one relic box does not mean that the sword and hand are a single relic, RAW. There's no RAW at all on that. Sharing an entry also does not mean they are one weapon, RAW (see wielding two Chainswords). Whether the sword and fist get the profile separately or together is what people have been debating for several pages now.
The relic box contains two relics:
1) sword and fist
2) armour
Each of the two relics comes with their special unique RAW, as detailed above. That is actually required, since the relic is new. It isn't defined anywhere but in it's own relic entry.
People have been debating quite detached from the actual RAW, assuming a permission to use the sword or hand separately when reading the permission to shoot with the hand for example.
Going by the discussion thread without reading the dataslate you might get the impression that any of the following would be true:
- Robby G has a list of gear which lists three items: hand, fist and armour. -- FALSE, he has two relics.
- Robby G can make melee attacks with his fist and shoot with it. -- FALSE he can shoot with the fist, but can only make melee attacks combining the sword and the hand.
Automatically Appended Next Post: See, the difference to the "two chainswords" example is that these reference a completely separate bit of rules, which defines a chainsword as a melee weapon.
sword and hand only have a combined definition in Robby G's dataslate. They are not defined separately.
Happyjew wrote: Question for you col_impact. I (foolishly) charge Roboute with Jain Zar. She disarms him.
1. Does Roboute "lose" both sword and fist, or just one?
2. If he only loses 1, what profile do you use for the other?
3. Where did you find the profile for your answer on #2?
Simple. No where in Robute's rules does it say that his weapons count as a single weapon.
Jain Zar disarms only a weapon, not weapons, so just one weapon would be lost by Robute.
Emperor's Sword has the profile listed on Robute's Army List Entry. Hand of Dominion has the profile listed on Robute's Army List Entry.
Now that I'm home I can deal with this.
1. IMO can go either way. However, it is a moot point because...
2. The only profile listed is used when the sword and fist are used together. There is no permission to use that profile with one of the two weapons and not the other.
3. The rule portion for the sword and fist (not the italicized fluff) clearly state the two weapons are used together with one profile. If you are not using both weapons, where is your permission to use the profile in gathering Storm 3?
Title, followed by fluff and profile. 8 Universal special rules + Chapter Tactics Ultramarines. 3 new unique special rules + Warlord trait.
(hint : no equipment list)
Box "Relics of Ultramar"
The Emperor"s Sword and the Hand of Dominion "These weapons are used together using the profile below"
melee profile + 2 new special rules from the profile
"The hand of dominion can also be used as ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn."
ranged profile
Armour of Fate 3++
Celestine's trick.
I see three permissions there:
1) Use sword AND hand combined to make melee attacks. The profile provided gives them both together the melee type.
(Note that according to BRB p. 40 Melee Type weapons can only be used to make melee attacks)
2) also (*) the hand can be used to make shooting attacks.
(*) meaning besides the just granted permission to use sword and hand together as melee weapon
This permission overrides the aforementioned BRB restriction for weapons with the melee type.
3) making a shooting attack doesn't block the player from using the hand together with the sword in melee
Please demonstrate permission to use the sword or the hand separately for a melee attack.
The problem is in your #1. The literal text of the box can be both "used together" as in 'use as one item' or "used together" as in dual-wielding. Both are completely valid readings of that phrase.
You are missing the point. People are arguing that both hand and sword are separate melee weapons.
Sword and fist are one relic, with one shared entry.
Sword and fist only get the melee weapon profile together.
You cannot use the sword alone, since you have no permission to use the profile without the hand. When using both the sword and the hand to unlock the profile, you have nothing left to grant you a bonus attack.
No I think our positions are quite reversed. Just because we have one relic box does not mean that the sword and hand are a single relic, RAW. There's no RAW at all on that. Sharing an entry also does not mean they are one weapon, RAW (see wielding two Chainswords). Whether the sword and fist get the profile separately or together is what people have been debating for several pages now.
The relic box contains two relics:
1) sword and fist
2) armour
Each of the two relics comes with their special unique RAW, as detailed above. That is actually required, since the relic is new. It isn't defined anywhere but in it's own relic entry.
People have been debating quite detached from the actual RAW, assuming a permission to use the sword or hand separately when reading the permission to shoot with the hand for example.
Going by the discussion thread without reading the dataslate you might get the impression that any of the following would be true:
- Robby G has a list of gear which lists three items: hand, fist and armour. -- FALSE, he has two relics.
- Robby G can make melee attacks with his fist and shoot with it. -- FALSE he can shoot with the fist, but can only make melee attacks combining the sword and the hand.
Automatically Appended Next Post: See, the difference to the "two chainswords" example is that these reference a completely separate bit of rules, which defines a chainsword as a melee weapon.
sword and hand only have a combined definition in Robby G's dataslate. They are not defined separately.
No, you're jumping ahead of where the debate is. The other side is saying the box contains three relics, not two. You are assuming the box refers only to the sword and fist being used 'together' in some fashion, but there isn't RAW for that. The box simply says "Sword and Hammer" and "used together", but it doesn't say how. There's nothing in RAW to say that if the Sword and Hand had identical stats they couldn't share an entry box. If there is, quote it. You'll end the debate most likely, but it's just not there so far as I or anyone else has been able to determine.
If I had Sword and Sword B and dual-wielded them, you could give me an entry that says "Sword A and Sword B, which Audustum uses together by dual-wielding". If I'd fused them into sword-chucks, you could give me one that says "Sword and Sword B, which Audustum uses together as one weapon". The box would be labelled "Sword A and Sword B" in either case. So just on the text we have, it's actually not clear HOW the Primarch is using these weapons.
As i pointed before just check some Eldar or Dark Eldar weapons along the text for Marneus fists.
Chainsabres, Mirrorswords, Shardnet and impaler and also the Gauntlets of Ultramar rules, explain when they are a pair and are wielded as 2x Different weapons providing an extra attack.
Now check the Lash wip and Boneswords the Razorflail and RG rules they don't provide the explanation the previous weapons does so no extra attack granted.
These weapons are used together, using the profile below
How he uses them is explained in the rules. Now show me the rules for using them separately?
Cheers
Andrew
Robute has two chainswords. These weapons are used together using the profile below:
Chainword Range (-) Strength (User) AP (-) Type (Melee)
In the above scenario, Robute has two weapons with the Melee type. Therefore he gets +1A.
Robute's rules simply tell us that his weapons are 'used together', not that his weapons are 'used together as a single weapon'. 'Used together' by itself has no bearing on the rules whatsoever. He could be using them together as two weapons or counting as a single weapon. We don't know. We just know that he uses them together and it's nothing more than a fluff description when 'used together' is on its own.
Robute's rules also simply provide us with a profile. They do not say that this profile is to be used somehow as combined profile or somehow as a single weapon that the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion count as - there is zero indication that the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion count as a single weapon. There is no statement to the effect that the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion count as a single weapon. So they are two separable weapons that Robute happens to be described as using together.
We know he has two weapons. So as far as we know the profile is simply being provided as a profile that equally describes both in the sense that they are identical, like identical chainswords. A profile that is simply provided after a listing of weapons is simply applied equally to each of the weapons listed, just as if I had listed 2 chainswords.
The Counter argument keeps reading into the information provided. There is nothing on Robute's dataslate to indicate that we are to count the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion as a single weapon. So we don't. Therefore he has two weapons with the Melee type. Therefore he gets +1A.
These weapons are used together, using the profile below
How he uses them is explained in the rules. Now show me the rules for using them separately?
Cheers
Andrew
Robute has two chainswords. These weapons are used together using the profile below:
Chainword Range (-) Strength (User) AP (-) Type (Melee)
In the above scenario, Robute has two weapons with the Melee type. Therefore he gets +1A.
Robute's rules simply tell us that his weapons are 'used together', not that his weapons are 'used together as a single weapon'. 'Used together' by itself has no bearing on the rules whatsoever. He could be using them together as two weapons or counting as a single weapon. We don't know. We just know that he uses them together and it's nothing more than a fluff description when 'used together' is on its own.
Robute's rules also simply provide us with a profile. They do not say that this profile is to be used somehow as combined profile or somehow as a single weapon that the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion count as - there is zero indication that the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion count as a single weapon. There is no statement to the effect that the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion count as a single weapon. So they are two separable weapons that Robute happens to be described as using together.
We know he has two weapons. So as far as we know the profile is simply being provided as a profile that equally describes both in the sense that they are identical, like identical chainswords. A profile that is simply provided after a listing of weapons is simply applied equally to each of the weapons listed, just as if I had listed 2 chainswords.
The Counter argument keeps reading into the information provided. There is nothing on Robute's dataslate to indicate that we are to count the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion as a single weapon. So we don't. Therefore he has two weapons with the Melee type. Therefore he gets +1A.
It doesn't say "each with the profile below", just that you use the profile they give when he fights with the listed weapons. If they had meant for there to be +1 A, it would have been mentioned in the statement or in the profile. It wasn't.
The rule only cares that there is more than one Melee Weapon in order to get the +1A.
Spoiler:
if a model has two or more Melee weapons he gains +1 attack in close combat.
We know Robute has two weapons. We know that the profile associated with the weapons lists Melee type.
The rules simply tell us that the weapons are used together, which on its own does not mean anything.
The weapons could be used together as two weapons or as one weapon. Since its not specified we have to accept it as two weapons since no where in the datasheet are the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion described as a single weapon.
Therefore we have two weapons with the Melee type. Therefore +1A.
col_impact wrote: Robute has two chainswords. These weapons are used together using the profile below:
No he doesn't, you're creating a narrative to fit an agenda.
In the above scenario, Robute has two weapons with the Melee type. Therefore he gets +1A.
Again he doesn't have any wargear at all. While your explanation of how two chainswords work together is factually correct, they do not apply here.
Robute's rules simply tell us that his weapons are 'used together', not that his weapons are 'used together as a single weapon'. 'Used together' by itself has no bearing on the rules whatsoever. He could be using them together as two weapons or counting as a single weapon. We don't know. We just know that he uses them together and it's nothing more than a fluff description when 'used together' is on its own.
I completely disagree with this assertion as it has absolutely no justification behind it. GW is usually quite meticulous in using italics for fluff and plain text for rules, so your conviction that used together is fluff cannot be accepted as there are other examples of weapons being used together to create a separate profile.
Robute's rules also simply provide us with a profile. They do not say that this profile is to be used somehow as combined profile or somehow as a single weapon that the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion count as - there is zero indication that the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion count as a single weapon. There is no statement to the effect that the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion count as a single weapon. So they are two separable weapons that Robute happens to be described as using together.
Again an assertion with no evidence to back it up. Please provide me with evidence that they are two separate weapons for the purpose of melee? Where is the wargear listings to show two separate weapons and profiles, where each acts as a separate entity? I concede that there is no statement that the Sword and Hand is a single weapon, however there is no statement that they count as two weapons. That is an assumption by you with no evidence.
We know he has two weapons. So as far as we know the profile is simply being provided as a profile that equally describes both in the sense that they are identical, like identical chainswords. A profile that is simply provided after a listing of weapons is simply applied equally to each of the weapons listed, just as if I had listed 2 chainswords.
As I pointed out that this is simply unknowable from the rules provided. You have made assumptions that are not supported by the evidence. The only evidence is the "use together = profile"
The Counter argument keeps reading into the information provided. There is nothing on Robute's dataslate to indicate that we are to count the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion as a single weapon. So we don't. Therefore he has two weapons with the Melee type. Therefore he gets +1A.
And as this is a permissive ruleset and there is nothing to indicate that the Sword and Hand are two weapons we cannot claim that they are. In order to access the profile listed they have to be used together, we have no permission to use them separately in the melee phase.
Now, let's compare and contrast all that to Calgar's Gauntlets of Ultramar
Each Gauntlet of Ultramar can be used as a Melee weapon with the Melee weapon profile below. The combined pair can also be fired as a ranged weapon, using the ranged weapon profile below.
The problem with the above is, only Calgar is only listed with 1 Gauntlets of Ultramar, not 2 Gauntlets of Ultramar or 4. Sure, the model has two, but means little in the rules. If I modeled a 4-armed Calgar (2 mechanical arms ala the Techmarines), would that mean he'd have to be Disarmed 3 times to lose an Attack Bonus for +1 Melee Weapon?
A Weapon can be called "Chicken & Dumplings", but until you have the phrase recognizing it as two Weapons, it is still one single Weapon. That's the whole point of using the entries. The title is only used to distinguish it from other Weapons and to specify it in its own rules, everything else is pure Fluff.
Again an assertion with no evidence to back it up. Please provide me with evidence that they are two separate weapons for the purpose of melee? Where is the wargear listings to show two separate weapons and profiles, where each acts as a separate entity? I concede that there is no statement that the Sword and Hand is a single weapon, however there is no statement that they count as two weapons. That is an assumption by you with no evidence.
It's a bit laughable for you to claim that two weapons are not two weapons unless the rules contain a statement that they count as two weapons. By default two weapons are two weapons unless a rule changes that.
But, if you insist, there is proof aplenty!
The datasheet uses the plural, weapons.
Spoiler:
These weapons are used together, using the profile below.
That right there is incontrovertible evidence that we are dealing with more than one weapon when discussing the Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
Further we know that the profile is applied to each weapon separably.
Spoiler:
Touch of the Emperor: Any attacks with this weapon with a To Hit roll of 6 are resolved at Strength D rather than Strength 10.
The only way to resolve this issue of case agreement based on the information we have between 'weapons' (above) and 'this weapon' is to treat the profile as applied to the Emperor's Sword and also to the Hand of Dominion, otherwise the Touch of the Emperor would refer to 'these weapons [the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominon].'
Even further, we know the Hand of Dominion is described as separably both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon. Notice the rules are not describing 'the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion' as a weapon but 'the Hand of Dominion' as a weapon.
Spoiler:
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
Even though I did not require proof that two weapons are indeed two weapons, the rules provide ample incontrovertible evidence of the fact that we are indeed dealing with two weapons.
Lance845 wrote: If he has 2 weapons with a single profile and that gets him an extra attack then the lashwhip + bonesword counts as 2 weapons for all tyranids and they can use their other arms to bring a gun.
I.E. there is already a precedent for this. A single profile is a single weapon. It doesn't matter how many arms it takes or different weapons are in different hands.
It's the same as twin linked guns being mounted on both shoulders of a tau suit. It's not 2 guns even though it's modeled as 2 guns. It's 1 gun because it's a single profile.
Tyranids actually have specific rules relating to weapons and bonus attacks and the weapon profiles state whether they get the bonus attack or not.
Guilliman uses a SINGLE profile for both weapons. It does not state he gets a bonus attack. It does not state he counts as having two close combat weapons.
It is a single profile ergo a single weapon for purposes of determining otherwise.
Also, don't try to use Tyranids as justification for things like this. They have explicit rules regarding close combat weapons and paired arms (else you could legitimately try to claim some of the larger creatures get +3 attacks for 3 extra ccw) - also, a lashwhip and bonesword do not grant the bonus attack for 2 ccw.
Rules state that Tyranids must fight with two pairs of close combat weapons for a bonus attack. - that counts as one.
Again an assertion with no evidence to back it up. Please provide me with evidence that they are two separate weapons for the purpose of melee? Where is the wargear listings to show two separate weapons and profiles, where each acts as a separate entity? I concede that there is no statement that the Sword and Hand is a single weapon, however there is no statement that they count as two weapons. That is an assumption by you with no evidence.
The datasheet uses the plural, weapons.
Spoiler:
These weapons are used together, using the profile below.
That right there is incontrovertible evidence that we are dealing with more than one weapon when discussing the Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
No it isn't. GW is littered with weapons that are used as pairs but not actually two weapons. IIRC there was a GK upgrade that was two swords, but were not counted as two weapons until a later faq. So no, for the purposes of the rules this is not proof of two weapons.
Further we know that the profile is applied to each weapon separably.
Spoiler:
Touch of the Emperor: Any attacks with this weapon with a To Hit roll of 6 are resolved at Strength D rather than Strength 10.
The only way to resolve this issue of case agreement based on the information we have between 'weapons' (above) and 'this weapon' is to treat the profile as applied to the Emperor's Sword and also to the hand of Dominion.
Huge leap of faith here, no, we do not know that the profile is applied to each weapon separately. Nor does the rule in question provide it. This relic requires both halves to access the profile. You can provide no justification from the evidence at hand for that.
Even further, we know the Hand of Dominion is described as separably both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon.
Spoiler:
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
Even though I did not require proof that two weapons are indeed two weapons, the rules provide ample incontrovertible evidence of the fact that we are indeed dealing with two weapons.
Therefore, +1A.
An Ork flamer is described as both a melee and ranged weapon, but cant be used as both, that description could easily be a reminder that the Hand works in a completely different way. But the fact remains that the Sword and Hand, is not described as two individual weapons and require both halves to create a single profile. Until such time as you can show that each weapon has a separate, quantifiable profile as an individual entity/artefact then they cannot operate as two weapons to gain a +1A.
AndrewCMade in gb
Huge leap of faith here, no, we do not know that the profile is applied to each weapon separately. Nor does the rule in question provide it. This relic requires both halves to access the profile. You can provide no justification from the evidence at hand for that.
See my post above, it is list under relics as Emps sword and hand of dominion.
AndrewC wrote: Until such time as you can show that each weapon has a separate, quantifiable profile as an individual entity/artefact then they cannot operate as two weapons to gain a +1A.
First, we are not dealing with an individual artefact but 'relics' so please re-read the rules in question since your argument is failing at a fundamental level of reading comprehension.
The Emperor's Sword and also to the Hand of Dominion are referred to as 'weapons' and the profile is applied with rules referencing 'this weapon'.
Per case agreement and the absence of any rule stating that the weapons are counting as a single weapon we can come to no other conclusion than that we are dealing with two weapons and that the profile is separably applied.
Up until the time that you can show that these weapons are counting as a single weapon, the 'weapons' are operating as 'weapons' and not as a 'weapon' [no duh] and so gain a +1A.
In other words, the burden of proof is squarely on you, not me. The rule says 'weapons'. Prove it's actually a 'weapon'.
AndrewC wrote: Until such time as you can show that each weapon has a separate, quantifiable profile as an individual entity/artefact then they cannot operate as two weapons to gain a +1A.
First, we are not dealing with an individual artefact but 'relics' so please re-read the rules in question since your argument is failing at a fundamental level of reading comprehension.
The Emperor's Sword and also to the Hand of Dominion are referred to as 'weapons' and the profile is applied with rules referencing 'this weapon'.
Per case agreement and the absence of any rule stating that the weapons are counting as a single weapon we can come to no other conclusion than that we are dealing with two weapons and that the profile is separably applied.
Up until the time that you can show that these weapons are counting as a single weapon, the 'weapons' are operating as 'weapons' and not as a 'weapon' [no duh] and so gain a +1A.
In other words, the burden of proof is squarely on you, not me. The rule says 'weapons'. Prove it's actually a 'weapon'.
I'm still waiting for you to show permission you are allowed to use the profile when not using the sword and fist together.
In your mind maybe.
However, it would list that they both use the profile below.
Rather than stating they are combined to the following profile.
Currently you have no actual proof it functions as 2 seperate weapons.
It's also laughable to think they would give a weapon a combined profile, yet allow them to use the profile twice.
So your saying that exact same profile applies separately to the sword and the fist right?
Why wouldn't they have 2 seperate profiles, 1 for each?
You know, like for every other model.
Also, to use that profile twice would require 2 sets of sword and fist.
If a profile is for combined weapons, it uses both.
To use that profile again would require another set of weapons.
Unlike the Burna example, the fist side of the weapon is given permission to fire and be used in CC.
However, the weapon profile states it's both the sword and fist being used.
So if they didn't allow it to be used as both, you wouldn't be able to use the profile atall in CC if you shot with it.
Quite simply, show me where it states that it's 2 weapons and where they both have that profile separately.
And also where it states the weapons can be used separately.
If he is disarmed, he loses both.
Even if we say it's 2 weapons, losing either will prevent it's use.
You can't say that a combined profile can lose 1 side of it, yet still function exactly the same.
I'm still waiting for you to show permission you are allowed to use the profile when not using the sword and fist together.
So?
Why does this even matter?
So what if the sword and fist are used together?
Used together does not mean that the weapons count as a single weapon.
They are considered weapons and when they are used together they are still considered weapons and not as a single weapon.
The profiles reference 'this weapon' and so must reference the Sword and Fist separably since the Sword and Fist collectively is referred to as 'weapons' and as 'relics' and never as weapon or relic.
Moreover, the Hand is explicitly discussed as being separably a 'weapon' and able to be used as both a melee and as a ranged weapon.
Therefore, we have two melee weapons when they are used together.
This rule is then fully satisfied.
Spoiler:
if a model has two or more Melee weapons he gains +1 attack in close combat.
Therefore, +1 A.
If you feel otherwise, prove that we are dealing with 'weapon' when we are dealing with the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion. The rules call them 'relics' and 'weapons' so you have your work cut out for you. Good luck.
As single weapons they have no profile atall.
It cannot be a combined profile if you are only using 1 weapon.
The rules refer to the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion as 'weapons' (and as 'relics').
The profile is never described as a combined profile. You made that up.
The weapons are never described as counting as a single weapon.
The profiles refer to 'this weapon'. Due to case agreement with 'weapons' this requires that the profile is separably applied to the Sword of the the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion.
You are given no permission to seperate them at any point, nor are they given profiles for seperate use.
I don't need to separate them. The profile is separably applied by case agreement entirely internal to the datasheet itself. Moreover, the Hand of Dominion is considered separable for melee and ranged attacks.
When Robute attacks and uses them together he has two melee weapons he is using together and he is not counting that as one. That's all I need for +1A. Whether or not they are seperable is not mentioned as a requirement for the rule to apply.
Jackal wrote: It matters because the rules state it's a profile for the weapons combined.
As single weapons they have no profile atall.
It cannot be a combined profile if you are only using 1 weapon.
You are given no permission to seperate them at any point, nor are they given profiles for seperate use.
The idea that they both use that profile separately is just laughable as it ignores the chunk of text stating they are used together.
Not once does it mention they can be used separately.
The fact that you keep saying it's a single weapon is laughable when it doesn't say that once.. anywhere.. What it DOES say is emperor's sword AND the hand of dominion. And it also states together , meaning more then one, use the profile below.
Jackal wrote: It matters because the rules state it's a profile for the weapons combined.
As single weapons they have no profile atall. It cannot be a combined profile if you are only using 1 weapon.
You are given no permission to seperate them at any point, nor are they given profiles for seperate use.
The idea that they both use that profile separately is just laughable as it ignores the chunk of text stating they are used together.
Not once does it mention they can be used separately.
The fact that you keep saying it's a single weapon is laughable when it doesn't say that once.. anywhere.. What it DOES say is emperor's sword AND the hand of dominion. And it also states together , meaning more then one, use the profile below.
What's laughable is claiming that they're two weapons ruleswise when the only Melee profile provided is when they're used together...
Jackal wrote: It matters because the rules state it's a profile for the weapons combined.
As single weapons they have no profile atall.
It cannot be a combined profile if you are only using 1 weapon.
You are given no permission to seperate them at any point, nor are they given profiles for seperate use.
The idea that they both use that profile separately is just laughable as it ignores the chunk of text stating they are used together.
Not once does it mention they can be used separately.
The fact that you keep saying it's a single weapon is laughable when it doesn't say that once.. anywhere.. What it DOES say is emperor's sword AND the hand of dominion. And it also states together , meaning more then one, use the profile below.
What's laughable is claiming that they're two weapons ruleswise when the only Melee profile provided is when they're used together...
You're making the assumption that when used together this is the profile. When it doesn't say that at all. It says These weapons are used together, <---(Comma indicated a pause in the sentence) using the profile below. Its not one sentence. Please tell me where it says otherwise.......
You've been shown multiple times where it says that they're used together with the listed profile, I'm not making any assumptions. Its what the rules clearly state.
What's laughable is claiming that they're two weapons ruleswise when the only Melee profile provided is when they're used together...
The Hand of Dominion is explicitly called out as 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.
The only way that is possible is if the profile has been separably applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
Otherwise, instead of referring to the Hand of Dominion it would refer to the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion, thusly . . .
Spoiler:
The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
This completely refutes your argument.
And, we have completely proved our argument. Robute has two melee weapons. Therefore, +1A.
Ghaz wrote: You've been shown multiple times where it says that they're used together with the listed profile, I'm not making any assumptions. Its what the rules clearly state.
What we've been shown is assumptions of the wording. Let's break down the sentence since you're stuck on the wording.
These weapons (<--Plural indicating more than one) are used( two weapons are being used) together("together implying more than one) , using the profile below (two weapons have the same stats)
along with the fact that the relics of ultramar indicate Emperor's sword AND hand of dominion
Two relics not one.....
Ghaz wrote: You've been shown multiple times where it says that they're used together with the listed profile, I'm not making any assumptions. Its what the rules clearly state.
What we've been shown is assumptions of the wording. Let's break down the sentence since you're stuck on the wording.
These weapons (<--Plural indicating more than one) are used( two weapons are being used) together("together implying more than one) , using the profile below (two weapons have the same stats)
along with the fact that the relics of ultramar indicate Emperor's sword AND hand of dominion
Two relics not one.....
Moreover, the Hand of Dominion is explicitly called out as a melee weapon. That is only possible if the profile is separably applied to the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
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
MattKing wrote:Only in this forum can we reach the perfectly logical conclusion that a man armed with a powerfist and a sword only has one weapon.
Only in GW can you have numerous examples of Weapons that are given the title of "Such & Other" to be used as one single Weapon, then follow it up with Weapons that are listed as "Blanks of Something" while not providing a number of "Blanks" involved.
In most other games, that's already defined in the basic system, such as Firestorm Armada. But in 40K-land, contradictions are the rule.
JNAProductions wrote:Where is the Hand called out as a melee weapon?
Only as part of the Sword Relic, from what I've seen.
JNAProductions wrote:Where is the Hand called out as a melee weapon?
Only as part of the Sword Relic, from what I've seen.
Incorrect. Read the rules.
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.
Since the Hand is definitively a melee weapon, this means that the profile 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 think the argument is kind of silly. If you look at his datasheet it says that he has 1 weapon.
The weapon is named "The Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" it does not have a seperate entry for each, so where do you get that he even has two melee weapons?
If you want to do RAW he has ONE weapon named ""The Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion". There is no other entry under the Relics of Ultramar section that lists any other second melee weapon. It just has one melee weapon with a really really long name. In order to assume he has two weapons you have to make an assumption that the title of the weapon including the "and" states he has two weapons but that is just an interpretation of the title the name of the weapon is irrelevant.
It says "The Hand of Dominion can ALSO be used as a ranged weapon using the profile below. However RAW it does not actually have a profile for "The Hand of Dominon" as a melee weapon, one doesnt exist, just one melee weapon profile for some weapon with a really long name and then a profile for his ranged weapon.
The argument has been made that you have to make a RAI assumption to extrapolate that he has two weapons used together, but you also have to make a RAI assumption to think he has two in the first place.
Therefore RAW he only has one melee weapon with a misleading name and a profile that says "these weapons" for some strange reason.
If for example you flip over to Cyphers page in the same book, his profile for his pistols states he has "carry's a bolt pistol and a plasma pistol" and THEN goes on to provide a profile for each. I do not think any precedent has been set that would allow us to construe that the profile provided for RG is two weapons there is nothing worded in such a degree that designates that using RAW. Using RAI to make a RAW argument is baseless.
JNAProductions wrote: Except that it's used in conjunction with the Sword, as one profile.
Edit: Show me the hand's SOLO profile.
No mention is made of the Sword when the Hand of Dominion is definitively called a melee weapon that can also be used as a ranged weapon.
The burden of proving that the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion counts as a single weapon is on you. sir!
My argument has been proved.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ceann wrote: I think the argument is kind of silly. If you look at his datasheet it says that he has 1 weapon.
The weapon is named "The Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" it does not have a seperate entry for each, so where do you get that he even has two melee weapons?
If you want to do RAW he has ONE weapon named ""The Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion". There is no other entry under the Relics of Ultramar section that lists any other second melee weapon. It just has one melee weapon with a really really long name. In order to assume he has two weapons you have to make an assumption that the title of the weapon including the "and" states he has two weapons but that is just an interpretation of the title the name of the weapon is irrelevant.
It says "The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon using the profile below. However RAW it does not actually have a profile, one doesnt exist, just one melee weapon profile for some weapon with a really long name and then a profile for his ranged weapon.
The argument has been made that you have to make a RAI assumption to extrapolate that he has two weapons used together, but you also have to make a RAI assumption to think he has two in the first place.
Therefore RAW he only has one melee weapon with a misleading name and a profile that says "these weapons" for some strange reason.
The "Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" are referred to as weapons and as relics.
How can you possibly argue that RAW it is one weapon when there is no mention at all that the two weapons count as one weapon?
JNAProductions wrote: You can't say your argument has been proved without providing proof.
There is one-count it, one-melee profile, and one ranged profile. That would indicate that there is one melee weapon and one ranged weapon.
So I ask again-what is the Hand's melee profile? It has to have one, if they are, in fact, two weapons.
At this point I need to check reading comprehension.
Read this . . .
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.
How can I argue RAW? I have the datasheet in front of me that comes with the Triumvirate. It in fact doesn't even have a list of wargear for RG.
It has 3 entrys.
One for his armor.
One for a ranged weapon called "The Hand of Dominon"
One for a melee weapon called "The Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion"
You have to make an RAI assumption that he has a melee weapon called "The Hand of Dominion" in order to even make an argument that he has two melee weapons in the first place. You can only read the entry for "The Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" and reverse extrapolate he has two weapons based on the wording. AGAIN if you flip over to Cyphers page there is an example of his pistols where it says he has "weapon 1 AND weapon 2" and then provides a profile for both.
Please provide an example of precedence that you can use to construe he has two weapons one from profile, RAW.
If you read the abilities, whirling flame says THIS weapon, not THESE weapons, it would be required to say THESE in order for the ability to apply to two weapons.
You have to read it, get to the part where it says "these are used together" in order to come to assumption he has two, but then you use the fact that "used together" is an assumption as the argument.
JNAProductions wrote: You can't say your argument has been proved without providing proof.
There is one-count it, one-melee profile, and one ranged profile. That would indicate that there is one melee weapon and one ranged weapon.
So I ask again-what is the Hand's melee profile? It has to have one, if they are, in fact, two weapons.
At this point I need to check reading comprehension.
Read this . . .
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.
Is the Hand of Dominion a melee weapon?
When used in conjunction with the Sword, yes, it is. It uses the single melee profile listed in the datasheet.
Edit: If you want to prove me wrong, show me the Hand's melee profile.
Ceann wrote: How can I argue RAW? I have the datasheet in front of me that comes with the Triumvirate. It in fact doesn't even have a list of wargear for RG.
It has 3 entrys.
One for his armor.
One for a ranged weapon called "The Hand of Dominon"
One for a melee weapon called "The Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion"
You have to make an RAI assumption that he has a melee weapon called "The Hand of Dominion" in order to even make an argument that he has two melee weapons in the first place. You can only read the entry for "The Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" and reverse extrapolate he has two weapons based on the wording.
Reading comprehension time.
Spoiler:
The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: these weapons are used together, using the profile below.
Is the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion one weapon or two?
JNAProductions wrote: You can't say your argument has been proved without providing proof.
There is one-count it, one-melee profile, and one ranged profile. That would indicate that there is one melee weapon and one ranged weapon.
So I ask again-what is the Hand's melee profile? It has to have one, if they are, in fact, two weapons.
At this point I need to check reading comprehension.
Read this . . .
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.
Is the Hand of Dominion a melee weapon?
When used in conjunction with the Sword, yes, it is. It uses the single melee profile listed in the datasheet.
Edit: If you want to prove me wrong, show me the Hand's melee profile.
That statement makes no mention of being used in conjunction with the Sword. It states clearly that the Hand of Dominion may be used as a melee weapon.
JNAProductions wrote: They are, according to fluff, two weapons. They are, according to the rules, one weapon with one profile.
Check again. "These weapons" is not in the fluff but in the actual rule section.
Yes and the rules for Whirling Flame says THIS weapon, NOT these weapons.
Touch of the Emperor also says THIS weapon.
Correct.
The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion are "these weapons"(plural).
The profile refers to "This weapon" (singular) which can only mean that the profile is separably applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
Furthermore, the Hand of Dominion is explicitly called out as a melee weapon which can only mean that the profile is separably applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
This in turn means that we have two melee weapons.
Ceann wrote: You have not shown any proof. There is ONE WEAPON profile.
You want to claim that the "these" part says that there are two. But you want to simultaneously ignore the part that says used together.
Either there is ONE weapon or two weapons used together as ONE weapon. There is no extra attack and no other way to read it.
Both of the special rules for it say THIS weapon, not THESE weapons. Which entirely validates "used together" contextually.
There are two weapons.
There is one profile.
Nothing says that the two weapons count as one weapon. One profile does not mean "counts as one weapon".
The profile is the same for both weapons and is applied to both.
The rules affirm this when it explicitly calls out the Hand of Dominion as 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.
It would have to be written as "The Emperor’s Sword, and the Hand of Dominion" with a comma after sword in order to be considered two separate entities.
Again, BOTH special rules say THIS weapon.
You want to use "THESE" as a way to extrapolate that one profile is two weapons but the rest of that same statement says "are used together, using the below profile.
So YOU need to answer the question.
Do we have one weapon? Or two weapons that count as one weapon? You cannot cherry pick part of the sentence and use "these" to justify an extra attack while disregarding that it says to use them as one.
It would have to be written as "The Emperor’s Sword, and the Hand of Dominion" with a comma after sword in order to be considered two separate entities.
Again, BOTH special rules say THIS weapon.
You want to use "THESE" as a way to extrapolate that one profile is two weapons but the rest of that same statement says "are used together, using the below profile.
So YOU need to answer the question.
Do we have one weapon? Or two weapons that count as one weapon? You cannot cherry pick part of the sentence and use "these" to justify an extra attack while disregarding that it says to use them as one.
the profile for the Emperor's Sword (which is one of the weapons) is . . .
Spoiler:
Range (-) S (10) AP (1) Type (Melee, Armourbane, Concussion, Soul Blaze, Touch of the Emperor, Whirling Flame)
and the Hand of Dominion (which is the other weapon) is . . .
Spoiler:
Range (-) S (10) AP (1) Type (Melee, Armourbane, Concussion, Soul Blaze, Touch of the Emperor, Whirling Flame)
Ranged Weapon Profile
Range (24") S 6 AP 2 Type (Assault 3, Rending)
You answered nothing.
There is ONE profile with the name "The Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion"
Again, Cypher has a profile in the same document, and it has two profiles for each of the two weapons he is using under one entry. You have no wargear list for RG to prove his gear is listed as two separate items.
You cannot quote the "these" part to justify two weapons then ignore the rest of the sentence that says "used together using the below profile".
Its a ranged weapon WITHOUT the pistol rule that shoots 24" at AP2.
The Hand of Dominion is explicitly called out as a melee weapon as well.
There is no profile for "The Hand of Dominion".
Whirling Flame says "THIS" weapon.
Touch of the Emperor says "THIS" weapon.
If there were two weapons used seperately it would say THESE weapons, it does not.
Therefore if the THESE weapons listed at the top of the profile is correct and there are two weapons. Then the statement that they are used TOGETHER is also correct. You cannot disassociate part of the sentence from the rest of it to justify getting +1A.
There is ONE profile with the name "The Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion"
Again, Cypher has a profile in the same document, and it has two profiles for each of the two weapons he is using under one entry. You have no wargear list for RG to prove his gear is listed as two separate items.
You cannot quote the "these" part to justify two weapons then ignore the rest of the sentence that says "used together using the below profile".
One profile is provided for two weapons.
There is no line that says that the two weapons count as one weapon; therefore, the profile is applied separably to each of the weapons.
We know this to be the case because the Hand of Dominion is explicitly called out to be 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.
The only way that the Hand of Dominion can be a melee weapon is if the melee profile is separably applied to the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
Whirling Flame says "THIS" weapon.
Touch of the Emperor says "THIS" weapon.
If there were two weapons used seperately it would say THESE weapons, it does not.
Therefore if the THESE weapons listed at the top of the profile is correct and there are two weapons. Then the statement that they are used TOGETHER is also correct. You cannot disassociate part of the sentence from the rest of it to justify getting +1A.
Col_impact is kinda like a religious nut who believes his is the one true religion and every other one is wrong. But really same could be said by both sides here... tis getting really repetitive
His complete reference to a single line in exclusion to everything else, and all other opinions makes me believe he would still argue this point even if GW came out with a FAQ stating otherwise.
Its a ranged weapon WITHOUT the pistol rule that shoots 24" at AP2.
The Hand of Dominion is explicitly called out as a melee weapon as well.
There is no profile for "The Hand of Dominion".
Whirling Flame says "THIS" weapon.
Touch of the Emperor says "THIS" weapon.
If there were two weapons used seperately it would say THESE weapons, it does not.
Therefore if the THESE weapons listed at the top of the profile is correct and there are two weapons. Then the statement that they are used TOGETHER is also correct. You cannot disassociate part of the sentence from the rest of it to justify getting +1A.
"These weapons" refers to the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
The profile is separably applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
"This weapon" (in Whirling Flame or Touch of the Emperor) refers to either the Emperor's Sword or the Hand of the Dominion depending upon which you are talking about. It cannot refer to "the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" collectively since that has been established by the rule as plural. Case agreement.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: Well, I'm done here. Col_Impact, you have proven yourself more stubborn than I. Congratulations?
Col_impact is kinda like a religious nut who believes his is the one true religion and every other one is wrong. But really same could be said by both sides here... tis getting really repetitive
His complete reference to a single line in exclusion to everything else, and all other opinions makes me believe he would still argue this point even if GW came out with a FAQ stating otherwise.
I am just arguing the Rules As Written here.
It is entirely possible that the rules writers intended for a "counts as a single weapon" line to be inculded in the rules. But they didn't include that line. And that's what is key for everyone to see here.
In the absence of a line that says the two weapons count as one weapon, the only way to interpret it according to the Rules As Written is how I have laid it out.
I'm siding with pretty much everyone else here... The rules are against Col, there is no +1A
And with him having a base A stat of 6 why would you even need the extra attack.
With the wording that
'These weapons are used together, using the following profile' (then listing the profile) Clearly reads to me and the majority that it is counted a single weapon rules wise.
The two items are also listed as a single entity. (I made a mention of Lashwhip and Bonesword earlier, but after reading comments I double checked the codex and they were right)
Also when you look at the entire text for the weapon it gives a fluff for only the gauntlet. (while fluff isn't rules it to me at least shows that these are considered a single item, when they were written)
Tell me how did your 360 degree tesla spheres and 3 spyder canoptek harvest turn out?
I was proven right in the case of Tesla Spheres and the Canopek Harvest. In both cases the FAQadded rules rather than clarified existing ones which means that pre-FAQ my RAW argument was correct in both cases.
Its a ranged weapon WITHOUT the pistol rule that shoots 24" at AP2.
The Hand of Dominion is explicitly called out as a melee weapon as well.
There is no profile for "The Hand of Dominion".
Whirling Flame says "THIS" weapon.
Touch of the Emperor says "THIS" weapon.
If there were two weapons used seperately it would say THESE weapons, it does not.
Therefore if the THESE weapons listed at the top of the profile is correct and there are two weapons. Then the statement that they are used TOGETHER is also correct. You cannot disassociate part of the sentence from the rest of it to justify getting +1A.
"These weapons" refers to the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
The profile is separably applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
"This weapon" (in Whirling Flame or Touch of the Emperor) refers to either the Emperor's Sword or the Hand of the Dominion depending upon which you are talking about. It cannot refer to "the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" collectively since that has been established by the rule as plural. Case agreement.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: Well, I'm done here. Col_Impact, you have proven yourself more stubborn than I. Congratulations?
Col_impact is kinda like a religious nut who believes his is the one true religion and every other one is wrong. But really same could be said by both sides here... tis getting really repetitive
His complete reference to a single line in exclusion to everything else, and all other opinions makes me believe he would still argue this point even if GW came out with a FAQ stating otherwise.
I am just arguing the Rules As Written here.
It is entirely possible that the rules writers intended for a "counts as a single weapon" line to be inculded in the rules. But they didn't include that line. And that's what is key for everyone to see here.
In the absence of a line that says the two weapons count as one weapon, the only way to interpret it according to the Rules As Written is how I have laid it out.
No, you have laid out nothing.
Demonstrate ANOTHER incidence of two weapons sharing one weapon profile.
You have to ASSUME there are two weapons based on the title of the profile.
Then there is a statement of "these weapons. Which weapons? There is only one profile.
If we accept that "these weapons" means there are two then we are assuming the SENTENCE containing "these weapons" is correct.
The rest of the statement says " are used together, using the below profile, is also correct. Together means they are used at the same time, if they are used at the same time they are one weapon collectively.
If the rules had a line that said," Use Potato on flying" you could try to figure out what that means RAW. If you want to use RAW on the profiles, it makes NO SENSE, illegibile or nonsensical rules mean nothing. Does it RAW seem to indicate that there are two weapons? Yes, it indicates that. But RAW there are not, just a bunch of language that is unclear.
'These weapons are used together, using the following profile' (then listing the profile) Clearly reads to me and the majority that it is counted a single weapon rules wise.
Majority is wrong here then. The rule makes no mention that the weapons are counted as a single weapon.
If you think otherwise, show me in the rules. It doesn't cut it if you simply feel that it is in there. Prove it.
Col the more I think about your argument... Can I use the same justification to give my carnifex extra attacks for his Crushing Claws, as the name Claws is used as a plural?
Tell me how did your 360 degree tesla spheres and 3 spyder canoptek harvest turn out?
I was proven right in the case of Tesla Spheres and the Canopek Harvest. In both cases the FAQadded rules rather than clarified existing ones which means that pre-FAQ my RAW argument was correct in both cases.
No. In neither case were the rules changed at all. Neither issues were resolved under the ERRATA section. Both are just a question with an answer
I don't have to prove anything. The burden of proof is ON YOU.
All weapons in the game have a profile and explicitly state the name of the weapon on the profile.
The only known profile that exists for "The Hand of Dominion" is a ranged weapon profile.
Just like there is no known profile for "The Emperor's Sword".
There is ONE profile for A WEAPON called "Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion".
The language of that weapon seems to indicate that RAW another weapon melee exists called "Hand of Dominion" but the only profile listed on the datasheet is for a ranged weapon. If we want to use that profile, it does not have the Pistol special rule so it cannot count as a second weapon in assault.
No, you have laid out nothing.
Demonstrate ANOTHER incidence of two weapons sharing one weapon profile.
You have to ASSUME there are two weapons based on the title of the profile.
Then there is a statement of "these weapons. Which weapons? There is only one profile.
If we accept that "these weapons" means there are two then we are assuming the SENTENCE containing "these weapons" is correct.
The rest of the statement says " are used together, using the below profile, is also correct. Together means they are used at the same time, if they are used at the same time they are one weapon collectively.
If the rules had a line that said," Use Potato on flying" you could try to figure out what that means RAW. If you want to use RAW on the profiles, it makes NO SENSE, illegibile or nonsensical rules mean nothing. Does it RAW seem to indicate that there are two weapons? Yes, it indicates that. But RAW there are not, just a bunch of language that is unclear.
"These weapons" is incontrovertibly plural.
"Used together" does not mean "counts as a single weapon. "Used together" simply means "used together" and on its own it means the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are still considered two weapons by the rules.
That's why we wind up with two melee weapons and +1A.
"Used together" does not mean "counts as a single weapon. "Used together" simply means "used together" and on its own it means the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are still considered two weapons by the rules.
That's why we wind up with two melee weapons and +1A.
Well no.. this is the interpretation you are choosing to come up with, which is at odds with everyone else.
I would find if you tried to pull that at a event anyone serious, would pull you up on it and then you would have to argue your point there... In which case good luck on you on getting the result you wanted.
But as I said before he has 6 attacks already, plus and option to just do a spin and hit everyone around him if there happens to be more
No, you have laid out nothing.
Demonstrate ANOTHER incidence of two weapons sharing one weapon profile.
You have to ASSUME there are two weapons based on the title of the profile.
Then there is a statement of "these weapons. Which weapons? There is only one profile.
If we accept that "these weapons" means there are two then we are assuming the SENTENCE containing "these weapons" is correct.
The rest of the statement says " are used together, using the below profile, is also correct. Together means they are used at the same time, if they are used at the same time they are one weapon collectively.
If the rules had a line that said," Use Potato on flying" you could try to figure out what that means RAW. If you want to use RAW on the profiles, it makes NO SENSE, illegibile or nonsensical rules mean nothing. Does it RAW seem to indicate that there are two weapons? Yes, it indicates that. But RAW there are not, just a bunch of language that is unclear.
"These weapons" is incontrovertibly plural.
"Used together" does not mean "counts as a single weapon. "Used together" simply means "used together" and on its own it means the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are still considered two weapons by the rules.
That's why we wind up with two melee weapons and +1A.
Considered two weapons by the rules.
By what rule? Quote the rule for me. What page in the BRB.
It says THESE weapons, WHICH weapons? There is no profile for EITHER of them individually.
Demonstrate your PRECEDENCE of two weapons on one profile using the same profile.
There is ONE profile for A WEAPON called "Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion".
Incorrect. There is one melee profile for the weapons called "the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" so that profile which is for a singular weapon is separably applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
This is confirmed by the Hand of Dominion being explicitly called out later as a melee weapon.
Considered two weapons by the rules.
By what rule? Quote the rule for me. What page in the BRB.
It says THESE weapons, WHICH weapons? There is no profile for EITHER of them individually.
Demonstrate your PRECEDENCE of two weapons on one profile using the same profile.
Spoiler:
The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together, using the profile below.
"These weapons" is plural. I count two weapons in "the Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion". Is there a comprehension error on your part? How are you coming up with one weapon?
You interpret RAW by either precedence set by GW or following the language verbatim. You don't get to interpret the words you like the way you want and then interpret or ignore others.
SHOW ME THE RULE. You said there was a rule, show it to me.
SHOW ME your precedence for deciding that one profile counts as two weapons.
Currently RAW the best you can do is determine that the rules are unclear as they are written. There is NO other circumstance that I am aware of, of two weapons sharing ONE entry on a datasheet and then both using the same exact profile.
The Hand of Dominon might certainly be called out later as a melee weapon, but there is no profile to associate to the weapon. You are just assuming that since the one weapon profile that exists, since it contains the same words somehow means that is the profile it meant. Which means you have to assume that is the correct profile. Once you start assuming you are not following RAW.
Show me the rule, show me the precedence.
As I said Cypher has two weapons on one entry on another page in the same text. It however has a different profile for each weapon within the entry.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I guess you should also now include that since you think that each weapon has the same profile that he also makes up to 12 attacks in melee using Whirling Flame, 6 for each.
You interpret RAW by either precedence set by GW or following the language verbatim. You don't get to interpret the words you like the way you want and then interpret or ignore others.
SHOW ME THE RULE. You said there was a rule, show it to me.
SHOW ME your precedence for deciding that one profile counts as two weapons.
Currently RAW the best you can do is determine that the rules are unclear as they are written. There is NO other circumstance that I am aware of, of two weapons sharing ONE entry on a datasheet and then both using the same exact profile.
The Hand of Dominon might certainly be called out later as a melee weapon, but there is no profile to associate to the weapon. You are just assuming that since the one weapon profile that exists, since it contains the same words somehow means that is the profile it meant. Which means you have to assume that is the correct profile. Once you start assuming you are not following RAW.
Show me the rule, show me the precedence.
"Every weapon has a profile" according to the BRB.
Note that this does no mean that "every weapon has a unique profile". Combat knives, maces, axes and other improvised or primitive weapons all share the same Close Combat Weapon profile in the BRB.
If you list a profile for a single weapon after a listing of weapons then the profile applies to each weapon listed separably as in the case of the aforemention Close Combat Weapon example. Pretty straightforward.
We know this to be the case because the Hand of Dominion is called out explicitly as a melee weapon in the rules, which can only be possible if the profile was separably applied to it. There is no other explanation.
Ceann wrote: As I said Cypher has two weapons on one entry on another page in the same text. It however has a different profile for each weapon within the entry.
The two profiles for Cyphere are for the two unique weapons. The Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion have the same profile for the melee weapon. The Hand of Dominion has an additional ranged weapon profile.
Tell me how did your 360 degree tesla spheres and 3 spyder canoptek harvest turn out?
I was proven right in the case of Tesla Spheres and the Canopek Harvest. In both cases the FAQadded rules rather than clarified existing ones which means that pre-FAQ my RAW argument was correct in both cases.
No. In neither case were the rules changed at all. Neither issues were resolved under the ERRATA section. Both are just a question with an answer
Show me in the Necron codex where the Tesla Sphere is sponson-mounted. There is no way around it except that that is new information, whether or not it is FAQd or Errata-ed. My 270 degree turrent Tesla Sphere pre-FAQ argument wound up being certainly closer (in spirit and in actuality) than your 0 degree hull-mounted argument in light of the FAQ. Lol.
Also, the use of '1 Tomb Spyder' as a model restriction was completely unsupported by the Formation rules, which mention only units pre-FAQ. So post-FAQ, Formations can list models. That's a rule change.
col_impact conveniently 'proves' his argument by refusing to defend the proofs (where is the Hand's melee profile Summer? Where has it gone?).
We've got a combined profile for the two, which suggests they function as a single weapon. Impact says there is no precedence for this whereas half the armoury section of Codex: Tyranids would like to tell him to bugger off and get on his high horse. P.S., there's also relics in Traitor Legions that combined as a single profile and explicitly state they count as a pair of weapons for the purpose of +1 attack whereas this does not.
So TLDR, pay no attention to the crazy man who's managed to get over a third of the threads he himself has started shut down due to them degenerating into a gakshow, accept the profile and move on with your lives.
Thank you all for coming. Impact will be here quoting his proof but not actually answering a god damned question for the next week.
No, they share Close Combat Weapon in their WARGEAR that GIVES THEM the profile. There is no wargear list shown for him to come to the conclusion he has a basic "CCW" profile.
You don't get profiles from nothing. Wargear gives you a profile.
There is no wargear called "The Hand of Dominion" we know that the profile is explicitly calling out something called that name but we don't see a profile for it.
"Which can only be possible of the profile was separably applied to it" this is an assumption, there is nothing in the rules that tells us that explicitly.
The fact of the matter is that the RAW are nonsensical. They do not make any logical sense when taken verbatim, assumptions or RAI is currently required.
DarkStarSabre wrote: We've got a combined profile for the two, which suggests they function as a single weapon.
Your "suggests" argument amounts to a Rules As Intended argument. No where does it say that it's a combined profile or that the two weapons count as a single weapon.
It would seem that most people are going to settle personally with a RAI argument. I will stick with the RAW.
DarkStarSabre wrote: We've got a combined profile for the two, which suggests they function as a single weapon.
Your "suggests" argument amounts to a Rules As Intended argument. No where does it say that it's a combined profile or that the two weapons count as a single weapon.
It would seem that most people are going to settle personally with a RAI argument. I will stick with the RAW.
You have it backwards. Yours is the RAI argument, everyone else is following RAW
Ceann wrote: No, they share Close Combat Weapon in their WARGEAR that GIVES THEM the profile. There is no wargear list shown for him to come to the conclusion he has a basic "CCW" profile.
You don't get profiles from nothing. Wargear gives you a profile.
There is no wargear called "The Hand of Dominion" we know that the profile is explicitly calling out something called that name but we don't see a profile for it.
For Robute we aren't dealing with Wargear. We are dealing with Relics. Pay attention.
DarkStarSabre wrote: We've got a combined profile for the two, which suggests they function as a single weapon.
Your "suggests" argument amounts to a Rules As Intended argument. No where does it say that it's a combined profile or that the two weapons count as a single weapon.
It would seem that most people are going to settle personally with a RAI argument. I will stick with the RAW.
You have it backwards. Yours is the RAI argument, everyone else is following RAW
The rules says "these weapons". There is no mention that these weapons "count as a single weapon".
My argument is RAW because it accepts those two facts which are easily proved by simply reading the rules.
The counter argument is RAI because it wants to read into the text that those weapons "count as a single weapon".
That's what the difference between RAW and RAI in this thread boils down to.
If you feel otherwise, feel free to point to where it says "count as a single weapon".
Ceann wrote: No, they share Close Combat Weapon in their WARGEAR that GIVES THEM the profile. There is no wargear list shown for him to come to the conclusion he has a basic "CCW" profile.
You don't get profiles from nothing. Wargear gives you a profile.
There is no wargear called "The Hand of Dominion" we know that the profile is explicitly calling out something called that name but we don't see a profile for it.
For Robute we aren't dealing with Wargear. We are dealing with Relics. Pay attention.
DarkStarSabre wrote: We've got a combined profile for the two, which suggests they function as a single weapon.
Your "suggests" argument amounts to a Rules As Intended argument. No where does it say that it's a combined profile or that the two weapons count as a single weapon.
It would seem that most people are going to settle personally with a RAI argument. I will stick with the RAW.
You have it backwards. Yours is the RAI argument, everyone else is following RAW
The rules says "these weapons". There is no mention that these weapons "count as a single weapon".
My argument is RAW because it accepts those two facts which are easily proved by simply reading the rules.
The counter argument is RAI because it wants to read into the text that those weapons "count as a single weapon".
That's what the difference between RAW and RAI in this thread boils down to.
If you feel otherwise, feel free to point to where it says "count as a single weapon".
The last 6 pages have been pointing out where is says it's a single weapon. You just don't know how to read
The last 6 pages have been pointing out where is says it's a single weapon. You just don't know how to read
Incorrect. No one in the counter argument has been able to point out where it says that these weapons "count as a single weapon".
If the rules did indeed say that, then this thread would not exist.
But, I get it, you are just being contrarian and trying to get a rise out of me by making obviously wrong claims. I don't think that is working very well for you.
The last 6 pages have been pointing out where is says it's a single weapon. You just don't know how to read
Incorrect. No one in the counter argument has been able to point out where it says that these weapons "count as a single weapon".
If the rules did indeed say that, then this thread would not exist.
But, I get it, you are just being contrarian and trying to get a rise out of me by making obviously wrong claims. I don't think that is working very well for you.
I brought you the rules of Gauntlets of Ultramar, Mirrorswords, Chainsabres and Shardnet & Impaler all those are paired weapons like RG ones but clearly states they either provide an Extra attack or are fielded as 2 weapons with same profile (Gauntlets of Ultramar are 2x Power fist with xxx profile each! )
Also show how Lash whip and Boneswords or Razorflails still are paired like those before but they DO NOT provide the rules to gain that extra attack. RG weapons fall in this category and RAW do not provide that extra attack.
You just refuse to acknowledge it as simple as that.
I brought you the rules of Gauntlets of Ultramar, Mirrorswords, Chainsabres and Shardnet & Impaler all those are paired weapons like RG ones but clearly states they either provide an Extra attack or are fielded as 2 weapons with same profile (Gauntlets of Ultramar are 2x Power fist with xxx profile each! )
Also show how Lash whip and Boneswords or Razorflails still are paired like those before but they DO NOT provide the rules to gain that extra attack. RG weapons fall in this category and RAW do not provide that extra attack.
You just refuse to acknowledge it as simple as that.
Meanwhile, I proved my case.
'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.
The profiles reference 'this weapon' and so must reference the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion separably since the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion collectively are referred to as 'weapons' and as 'relics' and never as weapon or relic.
Moreover, the Hand is explicitly discussed as being separably a 'weapon' and able to be used as both a melee and as a ranged weapon.
Spoiler:
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
Since the Hand is definitively a melee weapon, this means that the profile 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.
col_impact talks a lot about RAW, but disregards the actual rules written for Robby G.
RAW: (1) sword and hand TOGETHER = 1 melee profile
RAW: (2) also (=besides 1) hand = ranged profile
This isn't a jibe, but I'd really like to see an explanation on how the three sentences of RAW in the relic description support the assumption of two separate weapons that just so happen to share the same profile. To me the sentences are quite straightforward and do each have a purpose for the "one weapon" reading.
Again. Feel free to point out in the rules where "the weapons" are stated as "counting as one weapon".
You can't just claim it as a matter of belief. You need to prove your case as I have.
Waiting.
7 pages and we're still waiting for this brick wall that's refusing to have any discussion beyond "you are wrong, my initial interpretation is perfect" to maybe take a step back and discuss the point more. Given the opposition are you sure you're not the one who has made the claim on a matter of belief and are just sticking to your guns out of stubbornness? He doesn't get the +1 attack nor do they have a copy of the same profile each. This I believe is the general consensus on his weapons.
They just use the one profile with the requirement that they are both used together with the same profile. A codex supersedes written rules thus in this case they have 1 profile together meaning they do not have profiles individually. Meaning as far as the rules were written they count as one weapon with the ability to have a ranged attack; which I'll admit again and again is a completely stupid way for them to have written it to deny the bonus attack. As it is clear that's the intention, but the execution is so damn clunky it generates conflicts like this. In fact Bobby G's rules were executed so badly he breaks the game in at least 3 ways and almost demands an FAQ all on his own.
Stephanius wrote: col_impact talks a lot about RAW, but disregards the actual rules written for Robby G.
RAW: (1) sword and hand TOGETHER = 1 melee profile
RAW: (2) also (=besides 1) hand = ranged profile
This isn't a jibe, but I'd really like to see an explanation on how the three sentences of RAW in the relic description support the assumption of two separate weapons that just so happen to share the same profile. To me the sentences are quite straightforward and do each have a purpose for the "one weapon" reading.
Please answer a few questions, just to try to get on the same page.
Spoiler:
The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together, using the profile below.
How many weapons are we dealing with in the case of "the Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion"?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
n0t_u wrote: in this case they have 1 profile together meaning they do not have profiles individually
This rules statement doesn't agree with you.
Spoiler:
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
The Hand of Dominion is here explicitly called out individually as a melee weapon (entirely separate from any mention at all of the Emperor's Sword). How did the Hand of Dominion get to individually become a melee weapon?
n0t_u wrote: in this case they have 1 profile together meaning they do not have profiles individually
This rules statement doesn't agree with you.
Spoiler:
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
The Hand of Dominion is here explicitly called out as a melee weapon. How did it get to become a melee weapon?
Where does it say in the rules that weapons sharing 1 profile count as individual weapons? Show me where it says that and where it says the rulebook takes precedence when the codex and a rulebook have a conflict like this.
You have the basic rule saying that every melee weapon has it's own profile, this seems to be the core of your argument over most of these pages. However Bobby G's rules states those weapons use the same profile together in combat; which is classed an advanced rule. As per the Basic vs Advanced rule on pg 13, Bobby G's weapons supersede the need to have profiles of their own as they're combined and thusly count as 1 weapon for the purposes of combat. As in you'll never get that bonus attack.
n0t_u wrote: in this case they have 1 profile together meaning they do not have profiles individually
This rules statement doesn't agree with you.
Spoiler:
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
The Hand of Dominion is here explicitly called out as a melee weapon. How did it get to become a melee weapon?
Where does it say in the rules that weapons sharing 1 profile count as individual weapons? Show me where it says that and where it says the rulebook takes precedence when the codex and a rulebook have a conflict like this.
There is no requirement that every profile is unique. Only that "every weapon has a profile".
So, nothing says the Emperor's Sword and the the Hand of Dominion cannot individually share the same melee profile.
The Hand of Dominion is definitively a melee weapon. This can only happen if the melee profile was individually applied to it.
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 this spoiler proves that the melee profile was individually applied to the Hand of Dominion.
Are you ignoring that and trying to say without justification that the Hand of Dominion is not a melee weapon? That goes directly against the rules spoiled above. Please address that problem.
n0t_u wrote: in this case they have 1 profile together meaning they do not have profiles individually
This rules statement doesn't agree with you.
Spoiler:
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
The Hand of Dominion is here explicitly called out as a melee weapon. How did it get to become a melee weapon?
Where does it say in the rules that weapons sharing 1 profile count as individual weapons? Show me where it says that and where it says the rulebook takes precedence when the codex and a rulebook have a conflict like this.
There is no requirement that every profile is unique. Only that "every weapon has a profile".
So, nothing says the Emperor's Sword and the the Hand of Dominion cannot individually share the same melee profile.
The Hand of Dominion is definitively a melee weapon. This can only happen if the melee profile was individually applied to it.
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.
Are you trying to say that the Hand of Dominion is not a melee weapon? That goes directly against the rules.
No I'm saying for combat purposes the hand and sword are combined into one profile and thus count as one weapon in that instance. The rule you keep mentioning about every weapon having their own profile is irrelevant to this discussion as Bobby G's rules for it overrides it.
No I'm saying for combat purposes the hand and sword are combined into one profile and thus count as one weapon in that instance.
This rule contradicts you.
Spoiler:
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
The Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon all on its own. The melee profile was individually applied to the Hand of Dominion. This proves that the hand and sword are NOT combined into one profile. But, we knew that already since no where did it say that they were 'combined' or considered to be 'counting as one weapon'.
No I'm saying for combat purposes the hand and sword are combined into one profile and thus count as one weapon in that instance.
This rule contradicts you.
Spoiler:
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
The Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon all on its own.
No it doesn't as it doesn't go against the "used together" part of their profile, simply put if it wasn't mentioned that the hand could be used as a melee weapon in the same turn it would mean that Bobby G would no longer be able to use the weapons together and thusly would be unable to fight every turn he shot in. Hence what I was saying earlier about the extremely poor execution.
Where does it say the profile is applied to the sword and the hand individually? As it states TOGETHER it means TOGETHER not individually.
No I'm saying for combat purposes the hand and sword are combined into one profile and thus count as one weapon in that instance.
This rule contradicts you.
Spoiler:
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
The Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon all on its own.
No it doesn't as it doesn't go against the "used together" part of their profile, simply put if it wasn't mentioned that the hand could be used as a melee weapon in the same turn it would mean that Bobby G would no longer be able to use the weapons together and thusly would be unable to fight every turn he shot in. Hence what I was saying earlier about the extremely poor execution.
How did the Hand of Dominion get to be individually 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.
No I'm saying for combat purposes the hand and sword are combined into one profile and thus count as one weapon in that instance.
This rule contradicts you.
Spoiler:
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
The Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon all on its own.
No it doesn't as it doesn't go against the "used together" part of their profile, simply put if it wasn't mentioned that the hand could be used as a melee weapon in the same turn it would mean that Bobby G would no longer be able to use the weapons together and thusly would be unable to fight every turn he shot in. Hence what I was saying earlier about the extremely poor execution.
How did the Hand of Dominion get to be individually a melee weapon?
The rules say it can quite clearly be used as a melee weapon. What melee profile does it have so that it can be used as a melee weapon?
The one it uses together with the sword as one profile; they do not have their own individual profiles. You know the one that becomes impossible to use if half of it is unable to be used due to poor writing?
You're not really helping your case here.
The rules say it can quite clearly be used as a melee weapon. What melee profile does it have so that it can be used as a melee weapon?
The one it uses together with the sword as one profile; they do not have their own individual profiles. You know the one that becomes impossible to use if half of it is unable to be used due to poor writing?
You're not really helping your case here.
On the contrary, you are proving my case. If you are ignoring chunks of rules as 'poor writing' you aren't adhering to the Rules As Written, are you? I, on the other hand, accept the rule in toto.
If the Hand of Dominion does not have its own individual melee profile then it cannot be used itself as a melee weapon.
That contradicts what this rule says . . .
Spoiler:
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
That says 'the Hand of Dominion' can be used as a melee weapon. Note that it does not say that 'the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion' can be used as a melee weapon which would be required if the profile was applied to the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion as a singular entity, as you claim.
Per the rule statement, the Hand of Dominion can be individually used as a melee weapon. How is this possible?
The rules say it can quite clearly be used as a melee weapon. What melee profile does it have so that it can be used as a melee weapon?
The one it uses together with the sword as one profile; they do not have their own individual profiles. You know the one that becomes impossible to use if half of it is unable to be used due to poor writing? You're not really helping your case here.
On the contrary, you are proving my case.
If the Hand of Dominion does not have its own individual melee profile then it cannot be used itself as a melee weapon.
That contradicts what this rule says . . .
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.
I'm really not.
It says the two are used together, so yeh it's a melee weapon good for it (well technically half of one hence this super fun discussion we're having) but where's its profile for itself and not combined with the sword? It has a ranged profile of it's own, so that's a start right? As they have one melee profile they count as one melee weapon, and that's the entire purpose of this thread. I honestly don't care if they somehow count as separate weapons at any other times as backwards as that train of thought seems; it's very clear that they are one weapon during combat and thus don't generate the bonus attack. So what you need to be trying to prove for your point to work is that both the sword and the hand count as separate during combat. Show exactly where it states they can please.
It says the two are used together, so yeh it's a melee weapon good for it (well technically half of one hence this super fun discussion we're having) but where's its profile for itself and not combined with the sword? It has a ranged profile of it's own, so that's a start right? As they have one melee profile they count as one melee weapon, and that's the entire purpose of this thread. I honestly don't care if they somehow count as separate weapons at any other times as backwards as that train of thought seems; it's very clear that they are one weapon during combat and thus don't generate the bonus attack. So what you need to be trying to prove for your point to work is that both the sword and the hand count as separate during combat. Show exactly where it states they can please.
Spoiler:
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
That says 'the Hand of Dominion' can be used as a melee weapon. Note that it does not say that 'the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion' can be used as a melee weapon which would be required if the profile was applied to 'the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion' as a singular entity, as you claim.
Per the rule statement, the Hand of Dominion can be individually used as a melee weapon. How is this possible?
It says the two are used together, so yeh it's a melee weapon good for it (well technically half of one hence this super fun discussion we're having) but where's its profile for itself and not combined with the sword? It has a ranged profile of it's own, so that's a start right? As they have one melee profile they count as one melee weapon, and that's the entire purpose of this thread. I honestly don't care if they somehow count as separate weapons at any other times as backwards as that train of thought seems; it's very clear that they are one weapon during combat and thus don't generate the bonus attack. So what you need to be trying to prove for your point to work is that both the sword and the hand count as separate during combat. Show exactly where it states they can please.
Spoiler:
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
That says 'the Hand of Dominion' can be used as a melee weapon. Note that it does not say that 'the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion' can be used as a melee weapon which would be required if the profile was applied to the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion as a singular entity, as you claim.
Per the rule statement, the Hand of Dominion can be individually used as a melee weapon. How is this possible?
That line is to cover the ability to also shoot that the hand has. Answer my question rather than deflecting back to something I've mentioned as irrelevant. The profile says they're used together, how are they not used together?
How are they not used together with the one profile in melee?
That line is to cover the ability to also shoot that the hand has.
Answer my question rather than deflecting back to something I've mentioned as irrelevant. The profile says they're used together, how are they not used together?
How are they not used together with the one profile in melee?
The rules say the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are used together, but that does NOT mean that they count as a single weapon. They are still completely individual weapons that happen to be used together by Robute and that happen to have the same melee profile. Profiles are not required to be unique. And there is no rule that says the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion count as a single weapon.
In fact, the rule I have been hammering you over and over about proves that the Hand of Dominion is individually its own melee weapon.
Spoiler:
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
This means the Hand of Dominion has its own melee profile. This means that the melee profile has been individually applied to the Hand of Dominion (and also individually applied to the Emperor's Sword).
It says the two are used together, so yeh it's a melee weapon good for it (well technically half of one hence this super fun discussion we're having) but where's its profile for itself and not combined with the sword? It has a ranged profile of it's own, so that's a start right? As they have one melee profile they count as one melee weapon, and that's the entire purpose of this thread. I honestly don't care if they somehow count as separate weapons at any other times as backwards as that train of thought seems; it's very clear that they are one weapon during combat and thus don't generate the bonus attack. So what you need to be trying to prove for your point to work is that both the sword and the hand count as separate during combat. Show exactly where it states they can please.
Spoiler:
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
That says 'the Hand of Dominion' can be used as a melee weapon. Note that it does not say that 'the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion' can be used as a melee weapon which would be required if the profile was applied to the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion as a singular entity, as you claim.
Per the rule statement, the Hand of Dominion can be individually used as a melee weapon. How is this possible?
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
The "also" is a reference to the preceeding rule on using sword and hand together as a melee weapon. This is clearly what is meant here - using the hand together with the sword as melee weapon.
You assert that the last sentence is permission to use the hand in melee separately, even though the rest of the Sword & Hand relic rules contradicts this.
Please demonstrate how you can use the hand separately and what the "These weapons are used together, using the profile below" is supposed to mean.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
col_impact wrote: ...
This means the Hand of Dominion has its own melee profile. This means that the melee profile has been individually applied to the Hand of Dominion (and also individually applied to the Emperor's Sword).
That is a claim you have to support. Where do you find the Hand's own melee profile? It's not listed in the datasheet.
That line is to cover the ability to also shoot that the hand has.
Answer my question rather than deflecting back to something I've mentioned as irrelevant. The profile says they're used together, how are they not used together?
How are they not used together with the one profile in melee?
The rules say they are used together, but that does not mean that they count as a single weapon. They can still be completely individual weapons that happen to be used together by Robute and that happen to have the same melee profile. Profiles are not required to be unique.
In fact, the rule I have been hammering you over and over about proves that the Hand of Dominion is individually its own melee weapon.
Spoiler:
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
This means the Hand of Dominion has its own melee profile. This means that the melee profile has been individually applied to the Hand of Dominion (and also individually applied to the Emperor's Sword).
They're one profile thus treated as one weapon for melee thus no bonus attack.
I'll try to simplify it as you seem to be getting caught up on that line there.
Say I have blue paint (the sword) and yellow paint (the fist), and together it says they're green. Now green is the only thing I have to use so the two are combined into the one paint. You keep trying to make the point that yellow is its own paint and I'm saying that doesn't matter because we're looking at green paint not blue and yellow paint side by side.
This discussion, again, is NOT are they individual weapons it is ARE they individual at the time of combat so as to generate a bonus attack. Now to go back to my analogy the rules say you mix the two together to make green; I'm asking you to prove your point by saying where it says they aren't mixed. Then you respond with "but yellow is a paint" instead of how they aren't mixed and you've continued to do so for the last 6 pages or so with others.
The "also" is a reference to the preceeding rule on using sword and hand together as a melee weapon. This is clearly what is meant here - using the hand together with the sword as melee weapon.
The Sword and Hand are referred to as "these weapons" (plural). The paragraphs prior to the "also" are referring to "this weapon". The use of the singular can only mean that the profile is individually applied to the Sword and the Hand. This results in the Hand having its own melee profile which happens to be the exact same melee profile as the Sword. The melee profile in question is the one listed in the relics box.
The "also" is a reference to the preceeding rule on using sword and hand together as a melee weapon. This is clearly what is meant here - using the hand together with the sword as melee weapon.
The Sword and Hand are referred to as "these weapons" (plural). The paragraphs prior to the "also" are referring to "this weapon". The use of the singular can only mean that the profile is individually applied to the Sword and the Hand. This results in the Hand having its own melee profile which happens to be the exact same melee profile as the Sword.
If this were the case they would have given them individual profiles.
The "also" is a reference to the preceeding rule on using sword and hand together as a melee weapon. This is clearly what is meant here - using the hand together with the sword as melee weapon.
The Sword and Hand are referred to as "these weapons" (plural). The paragraphs prior to the "also" are referring to "this weapon". The use of the singular can only mean that the profile is individually applied to the Sword and the Hand. This results in the Hand having its own melee profile which happens to be the exact same melee profile as the Sword.
If this were the case they would have given them individual profiles.
They do receive individual melee profiles. They just aren't unique melee profiles. So no need to repeat the same profile twice. It's clear that since the Sword and the Hand are referred to as weapons and the profile refers to "weapon" that the profiles are individually applied to the Sword and the Hand.
After all, there is no rule stating to treat the Sword and the Hand weapons as a single weapon so you have no choice but to apply the same melee profile to each weapon. Simple case agreement leads to no other conclusion possible.
The "also" is a reference to the preceeding rule on using sword and hand together as a melee weapon. This is clearly what is meant here - using the hand together with the sword as melee weapon.
The Sword and Hand are referred to as "these weapons" (plural). The paragraphs prior to the "also" are referring to "this weapon". The use of the singular can only mean that the profile is individually applied to the Sword and the Hand. This results in the Hand having its own melee profile which happens to be the exact same melee profile as the Sword.
If this were the case they would have given them individual profiles.
They do receive individual melee profiles. They just aren't unique melee profiles. So no need to repeat the same profile twice. It's clear that since the Sword and the Hand are referred to as weapons and the profile refers to "weapon" that the profiles are individually applied to the Sword and the Hand.
After all, there is no rule stating to treat the Sword and the Hand weapons as a single weapon so you have no choice but to apply the same melee profile to each weapon.
Except where it says they're used together with the one profile.
Again show where it says their profile is not combined and if you cannot you're merely wasting everyone's time with this incessant stubbornness. I've asked for this for the last 4-5 posts, yet not once have you delivered on it.
Again show where it says their profile is not combined and if you cannot you're merely wasting everyone's time with this incessant stubbornness. I've asked for this for the last 4-5 posts, yet not once have you delivered on it.
You have that backwards. Show me where it says their profile is combined. No where does it say the profile is combined. If you think otherwise, point it out.
Again show where it says their profile is not combined and if you cannot you're merely wasting everyone's time with this incessant stubbornness. I've asked for this for the last 4-5 posts, yet not once have you delivered on it.
You have that backwards. Show me where it says their profile is combined. No where does it say the profile is combined. If you think otherwise, point it out.
So what I'm getting from this is you have no idea and want me to do your homework for you now? It says literally right above the profile that they're used together as that profile.
So what I'm getting from this is you have no idea and want me to do your homework for you now?
Not at all. You are claiming there is a "combined" profile. There is nothing to that effect in the rules. "Used together" does not mean "combine as a single weapon".
So what I'm getting from this is you have no idea and want me to do your homework for you now?
Not at all. You are claiming there is a "combined" profile. There is nothing to that effect in the rules. "Used together" does not mean "combine as a single weapon".
These weapons are used together, using the profile below
Basic reading comprehension will tell you that they are combined. Your point is moot.
Basic reading comprehension will tell you that they are combined. Your point is moot.
Nope. Using together does not mean using together as a single weapon. Simply using two weapons together does not fuse them into a single weapon.
Except this is exactly what happens in the rules when they state they are used together and only give one profile. Why would they have not just split the profile in half? I doubt the fist would have soulblaze on its own so why would they do this? Why wouldn't they just give two profiles?
If they;re suppose to be two separate melee weapons, why not just list them as two melee weapons like they do for EVERYTHING ELSE.
The use of "these weapons" and the absence of "counts as one weapon" makes it obvious that they are indeed two weapons.
Not what I asked. When a unit profile has two melee weapons GW just writes that is has two weapons. If Guilliman is suppose to have two meleee wepoans, why did they not write in his rules that he has two melee weapons.
you have yet to prove that "used together" means "combined as a single weapon".
Waiting.
Do you want to get your own dictionary or should I tell you what together means?
Feel free. You won't find used together meaning 'combine together as a single entity'.
"Used in combination of" added the one profile they thusly become one weapon as far as the rules are concerned. Together is regularly used for combining objects.
1 to produce or organize something using many different things
Initially, they simply put together a series of guidelines.
The exhibition has been put together by a group of young artists.
2 to make something by joining all its parts
Will you help me put this desk together?
The combination of multiple parts to create one thing, this is what that line is getting at.
3 to choose people or things to form a team or group
A team of experts has been put together to examine the effects of global warming.
The subject here is the team, thus when talking about the team as its own object the parts become combined.
"Used in combination of" added the one profile they thusly become one weapon as far as the rules are concerned. Together is regularly used for combining objects.
1 to produce or organize something using many different things
Initially, they simply put together a series of guidelines.
The exhibition has been put together by a group of young artists.
2 to make something by joining all its parts
Will you help me put this desk together?
The combination of multiple parts to create one thing, this is what that line is getting at.
3 to choose people or things to form a team or group
A team of experts has been put together to examine the effects of global warming.
The subject here is the team, thus when talking about the team as its own object the parts become combined.
Those aren't for "used together". Try again. Such silliness.
"Used in combination of" added the one profile they thusly become one weapon as far as the rules are concerned. Together is regularly used for combining objects.
1 to produce or organize something using many different things
Initially, they simply put together a series of guidelines.
The exhibition has been put together by a group of young artists.
2 to make something by joining all its parts
Will you help me put this desk together?
The combination of multiple parts to create one thing, this is what that line is getting at.
3 to choose people or things to form a team or group
A team of experts has been put together to examine the effects of global warming.
The subject here is the team, thus when talking about the team as its own object the parts become combined.
Those aren't for "used together". Try again. Such silliness.
If they;re suppose to be two separate melee weapons, why not just list them as two melee weapons like they do for EVERYTHING ELSE.
The use of "these weapons" and the absence of "counts as one weapon" makes it obvious that they are indeed two weapons.
Not what I asked. When a unit profile has two melee weapons GW just writes that is has two weapons. If Guilliman is suppose to have two meleee wepoans, why did they not write in his rules that he has two melee weapons.
If they;re suppose to be two separate melee weapons, why not just list them as two melee weapons like they do for EVERYTHING ELSE.
The use of "these weapons" and the absence of "counts as one weapon" makes it obvious that they are indeed two weapons.
Not what I asked. When a unit profile has two melee weapons GW just writes that is has two weapons. If Guilliman is suppose to have two meleee wepoans, why did they not write in his rules that he has two melee weapons.
Consult your crystal ball to determine what was on GW's mind. I will stick with what the rules say.
If they;re suppose to be two separate melee weapons, why not just list them as two melee weapons like they do for EVERYTHING ELSE.
The use of "these weapons" and the absence of "counts as one weapon" makes it obvious that they are indeed two weapons.
Not what I asked. When a unit profile has two melee weapons GW just writes that is has two weapons. If Guilliman is suppose to have two meleee wepoans, why did they not write in his rules that he has two melee weapons.
Consult your crystal ball to determine what was on GW's mind. I will stick with what the rules say.
It's a context clue to prove that the rules don't say what you think they say
Obviously if you use a pen together with a pencil they don't necessarily count as a single writing implement. It depends on whether they are wielded singly (in one hand) or dually (each in a hand). And even if its singly in one hand there needs to be the explicit intent to combine their outputs to be a cohesive singular output and not just "using at the same time". Using together most often means that the person happens to be using them at the same time for some one event (like combat).
you have yet to prove that "used together" means "combined as a single weapon".
Waiting.
That is a nice attempt to mislead people into falling into the holes in your logic.
RAW
These weapons are used together, using the profile below
col_impact
These weapons are used together as a single weapon using the profile below
These statements are actually not functionally different, since they lead to the same result - use the profile to resolve the attacks, you have one weapon.
Let me contrast this with what it would have to say to support the separate use:
These weapons are used together, or separately, each using the profile below
Now, if I misunderstood the claim, please clarify what the sentence is supposed to mean.
you have yet to prove that "used together" means "combined as a single weapon".
Waiting.
That is a nice attempt to mislead people into falling into the holes in your logic.
RAW
These weapons are used together, using the profile below
col_impact
These weapons are used together as a single weapon using the profile below
These statements are actually not functionally different, since they lead to the same result - use the profile to resolve the attacks, you have one weapon.
Let me contrast this with what it would have to say to support the separate use:
These weapons are used together, or separately, each using the profile below
Now, if I misunderstood the claim, please clarify what the sentence is supposed to mean.
You are misunderstanding. "Used together" does not mean "used together counting as a single weapon" just like "used together" does not mean "used together jumping jack flash".
"Used together" does not change plural to singular as you would claim.
"Counting as a single weapon" is an entirely distinct rules statement that is absent from the actual rules.
It's a context clue to prove that the rules don't say what you think they say
The rules say what they say. "These weapons" means "weapons" and not "weapon"
Yes it is treating the two modeled weapons as a single weapon, that is what it is saying
The problem is the statement "counts as a single weapon" or some facsimile is no where to be found in the actual rules. "Used together" does not change plural to singular.
It's a context clue to prove that the rules don't say what you think they say
The rules say what they say. "These weapons" means "weapons" and not "weapon"
Yes it is treating the two modeled weapons as a single weapon, that is what it is saying
The problem is the statement "counts as a single weapon" or some facsimile is no where to be found in the actual rules.
It also doesn't say "pair of melee weapons" either. What's your point?
Cause so far all you have going is it referred to weapons in the plural which it is going to do in both situations (since it would be referring to two weapons counting as one)
It also doesn't say "pair of melee weapons" either. What's your point?
Cause so far all you have going is it referred to weapons in the plural which it is going to do in both situations (since it would be referring to two weapons counting as one)
"The Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" is never referred to as one weapon. That's your problem.
To Summarize
Spoiler:
'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.
The profiles reference 'this weapon' and so must reference the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion separably since the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion collectively are referred to as 'weapons' and as 'relics' and never as weapon or relic.
Moreover, the Hand is explicitly discussed as being separably a 'weapon' and able to be used as both a melee and as a ranged weapon.
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
Since the Hand is definitively a melee weapon, this means that the profile has been separably applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
This in turn means that both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are melee weapons.
This in turn means that we satisfy the rule that grants an a model an additional attack for having two or more melee weapons.
It also doesn't say "pair of melee weapons" either. What's your point?
Cause so far all you have going is it referred to weapons in the plural which it is going to do in both situations (since it would be referring to two weapons counting as one)
"The Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" is never referred to as one weapon. That's your problem.
These weapons are used together, using the profile below. We are told to use a single melee profile. That's the same thing.
It also doesn't say "pair of melee weapons" either. What's your point?
Cause so far all you have going is it referred to weapons in the plural which it is going to do in both situations (since it would be referring to two weapons counting as one)
"The Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" is never referred to as one weapon. That's your problem.
These weapons are used together, using the profile below. We are told to use a single melee profile. That's the same thing.
Nope you are simply provided a single melee profile for two weapons. No where does it state to count the two weapons as a single weapon.
Since the Hand of Dominion winds up being individually a melee weapon all on its own we know for sure that the two weapons do not count as a single weapon and that the single melee profile is individually applied to each of the two weapons.
While I haven't seen the datasheet of Guillaman in person, its pretty easy to tell if it is one Weapon or two. If it has a title and a profile, it is one Weapon.
This is an assumption on your part. Do you have a rule in the BRB stating this? Otherwise, your argument is a perfect example of a RAI argument, where you are basing your argument on what you assume the rules to say rather than what they actually say
Yes. Pg 40. Weapon Profiles "Every weapon has a profile"
If they were 2 separate weapons they would have 2 separate profiles. Since every weapon has a profile.
While I haven't seen the datasheet of Guillaman in person, its pretty easy to tell if it is one Weapon or two. If it has a title and a profile, it is one Weapon.
This is an assumption on your part. Do you have a rule in the BRB stating this? Otherwise, your argument is a perfect example of a RAI argument, where you are basing your argument on what you assume the rules to say rather than what they actually say
Yes. Pg 40. Weapon Profiles "Every weapon has a profile"
If they were 2 separate weapons they would have 2 separate profiles. Since every weapon has a profile.
Nope. The profiles don't have to be unique. Two weapons could have the same profile. In this case they have the same melee profile. Much like a lot of make-shift weapons all have the Close Combat Weapon profile.
I am not the one struggling over the meaning of "used together".
Got 7 pages here that are showing otherwise.
So for you there is no other way of using two things together except that they become combined into one thing?
Well there is, there's this magical little thing called syntax. I may be ESL, but judging by these other responses I must be quite on point with my understanding.
Well there is, there's this magical little thing called syntax. I may be ESL, but judging by these other responses I must be quite on point with my understanding.
ESL? Thought so.
"Using together" does not mean combining things into one thing.
Well there is, there's this magical little thing called syntax. I may be ESL, but judging by these other responses I must be quite on point with my understanding.
ESL? Thought so.
"Using together" does not mean combining things into one thing.
I'm aware. However I play card games where syntax is consistently very important to get right and in this case the combined profile means it's combined.
Lance845 wrote: 2 weapons can have the same profile. But then you would have 2 profiles listed.
Does he have one profile listed as
____________________Range____ S___ AP____Type
Sword of the Emperor
and one
____________________Range____ S___ AP____Type
Hand of Dominion
Because if not, it's 1 weapon.
He would need 2 profiles to have 2 weapons.
The melee profile provided is nameless. It is provided for two weapons. One weapon is named Sword of the Emperor. The other weapon is named the Hand of Dominion.
We know for sure that the Hand of Dominion winds up with a melee profile attached to it.
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 means we have two weapons and two profiles. The melee profile is the same for both weapons but the overall profiles are different since the Hand includes a ranged weapon profile.
Well there is, there's this magical little thing called syntax. I may be ESL, but judging by these other responses I must be quite on point with my understanding.
ESL? Thought so.
"Using together" does not mean combining things into one thing.
I'm aware. However I play card games where syntax is consistently very important to get right and in this case the combined profile means it's combined.
Here, semantics is important and not reading into the words on the page. Where does it say "combined"?
Lance845 wrote: 2 weapons can have the same profile. But then you would have 2 profiles listed.
Does he have one profile listed as
____________________Range____ S___ AP____Type
Sword of the Emperor
and one
____________________Range____ S___ AP____Type
Hand of Dominion
Because if not, it's 1 weapon.
He would need 2 profiles to have 2 weapons.
The melee profile provided is nameless. It is provided for two weapons. One weapon is named Sword of the Emperor. The other weapon is named the Hand of Dominion.
That's not how this works as per pg40 and pg49 stating two single handed weapons are required. As they're used together with one profile they may as well be two handed.
Using together is not a rule. Profiles are rules. Without a profile there is no permission to use anything as a weapon at all.
Does the sword and hand have 2 separate profiles?
Is there any rule that says either of them have have a CCW profile? I haven't seen anyone quote that.
The burden of proof is on you to provide the separate profiles. We have direct quotes where there is a single profile which grants rules for RG to make melee attacks with a weapon. We have no second profile that allows him a bonus attack.
You do not have a second profile. You are attempting to assume you have a second profile, but you do not. You have one that has been explicitly stated work for RG in melee.
Lance845 wrote: Using together is not a rule. Profiles are rules. Without a profile there is no permission to use anything as a weapon at all.
Does the sword and hand have 2 separate profiles?
Is there any rule that says either of them have have a CCW profile? I haven't seen anyone quote that.
The burden of proof is on you to provide the separate profiles. We have direct quotes where there is a single profile which grants rules for RG to make melee attacks with a weapon. We have no second profile that allows him a bonus attack.
You do not have a second profile. You are attempting to assume you have a second profile, but you do not. You have one that has been explicitly stated work for RG in melee.
I have two weapons. Nothing says I have one weapon.
Per the rules every weapon has a profile.
I have no other choice but to apply the melee weapon profile to each weapon individually. They wind up with the same melee profile but no rule has a problem with that.
The Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon so it has its own melee profile.
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.
In order for that to have happened, the single melee profile listed must have been applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
I am not the one struggling over the meaning of "used together".
Indeed, your definition for "used together" is "used separately".
That is why I personally cannot follow your logic.
"Used together" can mean "used at the same time in combat".
You are confusing "used together" with "fused together as one"
...
What would "used at the same time in combat" mean rulewise? What are we instructed to do differently than normal procedure, i.e. pick one melee weapon?
Lance845 wrote: Using together is not a rule. Profiles are rules. Without a profile there is no permission to use anything as a weapon at all.
Does the sword and hand have 2 separate profiles?
Is there any rule that says either of them have have a CCW profile? I haven't seen anyone quote that.
The burden of proof is on you to provide the separate profiles. We have direct quotes where there is a single profile which grants rules for RG to make melee attacks with a weapon. We have no second profile that allows him a bonus attack.
You do not have a second profile. You are attempting to assume you have a second profile, but you do not. You have one that has been explicitly stated work for RG in melee.
The Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon so it has its own melee profile.
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.
In order for that to have happened, the single melee profile listed must have been applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
As before this is just a permissive to allow you to shoot and still be able to fight in melee as because both are used as one under one profile if you were unable to use the fist half to complete it Bobby G would be unable to attack. The discussion here is not if the fist is a melee weapon; it is are they separate weapons when Bobby G is in melee so as to produce a bonus attack.
n0t_u wrote: I'll try to simplify it as you seem to be getting caught up on that line there.
Say I have blue paint (the sword) and yellow paint (the fist), and together it says they're green. Now green is the only thing I have to use so the two are combined into the one paint. You keep trying to make the point that yellow is its own paint and I'm saying that doesn't matter because we're looking at green paint not blue and yellow paint side by side.
This discussion, again, is NOT are they individual weapons it is ARE they individual at the time of combat so as to generate a bonus attack. Now to go back to my analogy the rules say you mix the two together to make green; I'm asking you to prove your point by saying where it says they aren't mixed. Then you respond with "but yellow is a paint" instead of how they aren't mixed and you've continued to do so for the last 6 pages or so with others.
What would "used at the same time in combat" mean rulewise? What are we instructed to do differently than normal procedure, i.e. pick one melee weapon?
It would mean that you are dual-wielding, ie eligible for +1A.
What would "used at the same time in combat" mean rulewise? What are we instructed to do differently than normal procedure, i.e. pick one melee weapon?
It would mean that you are dual-wielding, ie eligible for +1A.
pg40 "every Weapon has a profile"
pg49 "models with two single handed weapons get +1 attack"
Where is the second unshared profile?
Lance845 wrote: Using together is not a rule. Profiles are rules. Without a profile there is no permission to use anything as a weapon at all.
Does the sword and hand have 2 separate profiles?
Is there any rule that says either of them have have a CCW profile? I haven't seen anyone quote that.
The burden of proof is on you to provide the separate profiles. We have direct quotes where there is a single profile which grants rules for RG to make melee attacks with a weapon. We have no second profile that allows him a bonus attack.
You do not have a second profile. You are attempting to assume you have a second profile, but you do not. You have one that has been explicitly stated work for RG in melee.
The Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon so it has its own melee profile.
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.
In order for that to have happened, the single melee profile listed must have been applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
As before this is just a permissive to allow you to shoot and still be able to fight in melee as because both are used as one under one profile if you were unable to use the fist half to complete it Bobby G would be unable to attack. The discussion here is not if the fist is a melee weapon; it is are they separate weapons when Bobby G is in melee so as to produce a bonus attack.
n0t_u wrote: I'll try to simplify it as you seem to be getting caught up on that line there.
Say I have blue paint (the sword) and yellow paint (the fist), and together it says they're green. Now green is the only thing I have to use so the two are combined into the one paint. You keep trying to make the point that yellow is its own paint and I'm saying that doesn't matter because we're looking at green paint not blue and yellow paint side by side.
This discussion, again, is NOT are they individual weapons it is ARE they individual at the time of combat so as to generate a bonus attack. Now to go back to my analogy the rules say you mix the two together to make green; I'm asking you to prove your point by saying where it says they aren't mixed. Then you respond with "but yellow is a paint" instead of how they aren't mixed and you've continued to do so for the last 6 pages or so with others.
If the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon then the Emperor's Sword is also a melee weapon.
We know from the rule that Robute has two weapons.
The rule that grants an additional attack only cares that Robute has two melee weapons.
Which he does.
He has an Emperor's Sword and a Hand of Dominion. They are both melee weapons and he has two weapons.
Lance845 wrote: Using together is not a rule. Profiles are rules. Without a profile there is no permission to use anything as a weapon at all.
Does the sword and hand have 2 separate profiles?
Is there any rule that says either of them have have a CCW profile? I haven't seen anyone quote that.
The burden of proof is on you to provide the separate profiles. We have direct quotes where there is a single profile which grants rules for RG to make melee attacks with a weapon. We have no second profile that allows him a bonus attack.
You do not have a second profile. You are attempting to assume you have a second profile, but you do not. You have one that has been explicitly stated work for RG in melee.
The Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon so it has its own melee profile.
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.
In order for that to have happened, the single melee profile listed must have been applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
As before this is just a permissive to allow you to shoot and still be able to fight in melee as because both are used as one under one profile if you were unable to use the fist half to complete it Bobby G would be unable to attack. The discussion here is not if the fist is a melee weapon; it is are they separate weapons when Bobby G is in melee so as to produce a bonus attack.
n0t_u wrote: I'll try to simplify it as you seem to be getting caught up on that line there.
Say I have blue paint (the sword) and yellow paint (the fist), and together it says they're green. Now green is the only thing I have to use so the two are combined into the one paint. You keep trying to make the point that yellow is its own paint and I'm saying that doesn't matter because we're looking at green paint not blue and yellow paint side by side.
This discussion, again, is NOT are they individual weapons it is ARE they individual at the time of combat so as to generate a bonus attack. Now to go back to my analogy the rules say you mix the two together to make green; I'm asking you to prove your point by saying where it says they aren't mixed. Then you respond with "but yellow is a paint" instead of how they aren't mixed and you've continued to do so for the last 6 pages or so with others.
If the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon then the Emperor's Sword is also a melee weapon.
We know from the rule that Robute has two weapons.
The rule that grants an additional attack only cares that Robute has two melee weapons.
Which he does.
He has an Emperor's Sword and a Hand of Dominion. They are both melee weapons and he has two weapons.
He has one profile, you just keep making the assumption they both get it while is states that they have it together. Your argument is based on an assumption masqueraded as a fact.
What would "used at the same time in combat" mean rulewise? What are we instructed to do differently than normal procedure, i.e. pick one melee weapon?
It would mean that you are dual-wielding, ie eligible for +1A.
pg40 "every Weapon has a profile"
pg49 "models with two single handed weapons get +1 attack"
Where is the second unshared profile?
The profile is not shared. The Hand of Dominion is individually a melee weapon. It can only be itself a melee weapon by not sharing a combined profile. Therefore there is no combined profile and the Emperor's Sword also has its own individual melee weapon profile.
He has one profile, you just keep making the assumption they both get it while is states that they have it together. Your argument is based on an assumption masqueraded as a fact.
He has two weapons, correct?
Every weapon has a profile, correct?
So the one profile provided is applied to each weapon. We know this is for certain the case because the Hand of Dominion winds up with a melee profile.
In other words, you don't have permission to fuse the two weapons into a single weapon.
What would "used at the same time in combat" mean rulewise? What are we instructed to do differently than normal procedure, i.e. pick one melee weapon?
It would mean that you are dual-wielding, ie eligible for +1A.
pg40 "every Weapon has a profile"
pg49 "models with two single handed weapons get +1 attack"
Where is the second unshared profile?
The profile is not shared. The Hand of Dominion is individually a melee weapon. It can only be itself a melee weapon by not sharing a combined profile. Therefore there is no combined profile and the Emperor's Sword also has its own individual melee weapon profile.
The +1A rule is satisfied and the +1A is granted.
Again, purely an assumption perhaps an annoying assumption to try to squeeze more power out of Bobby G.
"These weapons are used together, using the profile below"
They don't have the profile individually they only have it while together. Syntax is important, semantics whilst ignoring syntax is merely wishlisting at best.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
col_impact wrote: In other words, you don't have permission to fuse the two weapons into a single weapon.
And thanks for finally proving my point.
You do not have permission to use them separately, they must be used together thus are counted as one weapon and not two for the purposes of combat.
Again, purely an assumption perhaps an annoying assumption to try to squeeze more power out of Bobby G.
"These weapons are used together, using the profile below"
They don't have the profile individually they only have it while together. Syntax is important, semantics whilst ignoring syntax is merely wishlisting at best.
You don't have permission to fuse the two weapons into a single weapon.
So the two weapons are going to wind up each with their own profile even if only one profile is provided.
There is nothing preventing them from individually referring to the same melee profile.
We know for sure that the two weapons wind up with their own individual melee profile because the rules tell us precisely that in the case of the Hand of Dominion.
col_impact wrote: We know for sure that the two weapons wind up with their own individual melee profile because the rules tell us precisely that in the case of the Hand of Dominion.
No they let the shooting half of his melee weapon able to do both so as not to lock him out of combat on turns he has shot. Again assumption.
You do not have permission to use them separately, they must be used together thus are counted as one weapon and not two for the purposes of combat.
You don't have any rules that say they are counted as one weapon.
"Used together" simply means they will be used at the same time in combat, ie dual-wielding.
Used together would mean that if it didn't add "using the following profile below" They count as one melee weapon for combat purposes, stop presenting assumptions as facts.
col_impact wrote: You don't have permission to fuse the two weapons into a single weapon.
So the two weapons are going to wind up each with their own profile even if only one profile is provided.
You do not have permission to use them individually, you're assuming you can. You can't, it's pretty clear.
The rules consider them weapons and do not tell us to count them as a single weapon.
"Used together" simply means they are dual-wielded, which means I attack with them at the same time as two melee weapons
If rules considered them separate weapons it would not say "used together, using the profile below" and give them just one profile. Please stop with the assumptions.
col_impact wrote: We know for sure that the two weapons wind up with their own individual melee profile because the rules tell us precisely that in the case of the Hand of Dominion.
No they let the shooting half of his melee weapon able to do both so as not to lock him out of combat on turns he has shot. Again assumption.
The rule proves that the melee profile is applied to the Hand of Dominion and not to some combined "Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion" single weapon.
Your entire argument is disproven by this quote.
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.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
n0t_u wrote: [
They count as one melee weapon for combat purposes, stop presenting assumptions as facts.
You are projecting onto me.
No where does it day that the weapons count as a single weapon. You are making that up.
col_impact wrote: We know for sure that the two weapons wind up with their own individual melee profile because the rules tell us precisely that in the case of the Hand of Dominion.
No they let the shooting half of his melee weapon able to do both so as not to lock him out of combat on turns he has shot. Again assumption.
The rule proves that the melee profile is applied to the Hand of Dominion and not to some combined "Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion" single weapon.
Your entire argument is disproven by this quote.
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.
For the 4th time it is unphased by that quote.
n0t_u wrote: I'll try to simplify it as you seem to be getting caught up on that line there.
Say I have blue paint (the sword) and yellow paint (the fist), and together it says they're green. Now green is the only thing I have to use so the two are combined into the one paint. You keep trying to make the point that yellow is its own paint and I'm saying that doesn't matter because we're looking at green paint not blue and yellow paint side by side.
This discussion, again, is NOT are they individual weapons it is ARE they individual at the time of combat so as to generate a bonus attack. Now to go back to my analogy the rules say you mix the two together to make green; I'm asking you to prove your point by saying where it says they aren't mixed. Then you respond with "but yellow is a paint" instead of how they aren't mixed and you've continued to do so for the last 6 pages or so with others.
Stop presenting assumptions as fact, your argument has had nothing to stand on for a good 2-4 pages now. The discussion is do they count as two weapons for the purpose of melee; they do not.
If rules considered them separate weapons it would not say "used together, using the profile below" and give them just one profile. Please stop with the assumptions.
The rules refer to them in the plural separably as "these weapons".
"Used together" means simply that they are used at the same time in combat.
This quote proves that the Hand of Dominion is individually 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.
If the Hand of Dominion were a component of some combined weapon, the Hand of Dominion would not be itself a melee weapon.
You argument is thoroughly disproved with the rules.
If rules considered them separate weapons it would not say "used together, using the profile below" and give them just one profile. Please stop with the assumptions.
The rules refer to them in the plural separably as "these weapons".
"Used together" means simply that they are used at the same time in combat.
This quote proves that the Hand of Dominion is individually 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.
If the Hand of Dominion were a component of some combined weapon, the Hand of Dominion would not be itself a melee weapon.
You argument is thoroughly disproved with the rules.
Not in the slightest, why would they only have the one profile to be used when they are used together? The real issue here is you cannot accept being incorrect. There's nothing wrong with it and in fact it helps us learn and grow as people.
Ceann wrote: No, they share Close Combat Weapon in their WARGEAR that GIVES THEM the profile. There is no wargear list shown for him to come to the conclusion he has a basic "CCW" profile.
You don't get profiles from nothing. Wargear gives you a profile.
There is no wargear called "The Hand of Dominion" we know that the profile is explicitly calling out something called that name but we don't see a profile for it.
For Robute we aren't dealing with Wargear. We are dealing with Relics. Pay attention.
You need to pay attention.
In fact, let's give that old chestnut a once over, shall we?
You seem to be stating here that because the Sword and Hand are Relics that the examples being given of similar weapon sets that a Two-As-One (Lashwhip and Bonesword etc) don't count. Because 'Relics are special.' Because they're exceptions, right?
I mean, surely if there were relics that were a paired set of weapons or so on then they would indicate whether or not that was the case, right? And if only it were recent.
Wait.
Traitor Legions - Night Lords - The Claws of the Night Terror
The description specifically mentions that it is a pair of melee weapons and that each one uses the profile given.
And if you want examples of relics that have BOTH a ranged and a melee function?
The Pandemic Staff - which funnily enough gives profiles for both.
Now impact, going by RAW...
The Sword and Hand have a combined profile. One assumes this covers both. There is nothing stating they count as a pair of melee weapons or that they grant +1 attack (as per the Claws of the Night Terror). If anything it's very similar to a Tyranid armed with a Lash Whip and Bonesword - this has its own, combined wargear entry. It does not grant a bonus attack. And though they have individual profiles the fact this exists as a combined profile suggests it behaves differently.
Furthermore, the argument that 'the Hand can be used in melee' falls down pretty flat when you see that the Hand has no melee profile. There is also a precedence for weapons being either used at range or in melee but not both. Ork Burnas 101. But, here's the thing. The Burna has a melee profile too.
So if we really want to follow your asinine logic, looking at everything presented, all that has come before it and how it behaves then this leads us to one of two conclusions.
EITHER - The Hand and Sword have a combined profile (ala Lash Whip and Bonesword) which does not grant an extra attack or indeed count as a pair of melee weapons (it doesn't follow precedent with other examples given - no mention of counting as a pair).
OR - Bobby G can use his Hand's pew pew in combat. Still no bonus attack as it still isn't a pistol.
I mean, let's be real here. Everything can use every weapon in melee. They just count as being armed with a solitary close combat weapon if they do so (unless armed otherwise for assault). Otherwise the assault phase would be real interesting for Fire Warriors and Termagants.
n0t_u wrote: [
For the 4th time it is unphased by that quote.
Your argument requires that the melee profile is applied to some combined weapon.
The fact that the Hand of Dominion is its own melee weapon completely disproves your argument, because that means that the melee profile WAS NOT applied to some combined weapon.
We already knew that there was no combined weapon, since there is no rule telling us to count anything as one weapon, but its good to have rules that reinforce and prove that this is assuredly not the case.
col_impact wrote: We know for sure that the two weapons wind up with their own individual melee profile because the rules tell us precisely that in the case of the Hand of Dominion.
No they let the shooting half of his melee weapon able to do both so as not to lock him out of combat on turns he has shot. Again assumption.
The rule proves that the melee profile is applied to the Hand of Dominion and not to some combined "Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion" single weapon.
Your entire argument is disproven by this quote.
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.
For the 4th time it is unphased by that quote.
n0t_u wrote: I'll try to simplify it as you seem to be getting caught up on that line there.
Say I have blue paint (the sword) and yellow paint (the fist), and together it says they're green. Now green is the only thing I have to use so the two are combined into the one paint. You keep trying to make the point that yellow is its own paint and I'm saying that doesn't matter because we're looking at green paint not blue and yellow paint side by side.
This discussion, again, is NOT are they individual weapons it is ARE they individual at the time of combat so as to generate a bonus attack. Now to go back to my analogy the rules say you mix the two together to make green; I'm asking you to prove your point by saying where it says they aren't mixed. Then you respond with "but yellow is a paint" instead of how they aren't mixed and you've continued to do so for the last 6 pages or so with others.
Stop presenting assumptions as fact, your argument has had nothing to stand on for a good 2-4 pages now. The discussion is do they count as two weapons for the purpose of melee; they do not.
n0t_u wrote: [
They count as one melee weapon for combat purposes, stop presenting assumptions as facts.
You are projecting onto me.
No where does it day that the weapons count as a single weapon. You are making that up.
"used together, using the profile below"
Added with page 40's "all weapons have a profile" quickly disproves that, no need to strawman.
I posted this earlier,
. These weapons (<--Plural indicating more than one) are used( two weapons are being used) together("together implying more than one) , using the profile below (two weapons have the same stats)
along with the fact that the relics of ultramar indicate Emperor's sword AND hand of dominion
Two relics not one.....
Two weapons sharing same stats, therefore +1a GW got lazy end of story.
col_impact wrote: We know for sure that the two weapons wind up with their own individual melee profile because the rules tell us precisely that in the case of the Hand of Dominion.
No they let the shooting half of his melee weapon able to do both so as not to lock him out of combat on turns he has shot. Again assumption.
The rule proves that the melee profile is applied to the Hand of Dominion and not to some combined "Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion" single weapon.
Your entire argument is disproven by this quote.
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.
For the 4th time it is unphased by that quote.
n0t_u wrote: I'll try to simplify it as you seem to be getting caught up on that line there.
Say I have blue paint (the sword) and yellow paint (the fist), and together it says they're green. Now green is the only thing I have to use so the two are combined into the one paint. You keep trying to make the point that yellow is its own paint and I'm saying that doesn't matter because we're looking at green paint not blue and yellow paint side by side.
This discussion, again, is NOT are they individual weapons it is ARE they individual at the time of combat so as to generate a bonus attack. Now to go back to my analogy the rules say you mix the two together to make green; I'm asking you to prove your point by saying where it says they aren't mixed. Then you respond with "but yellow is a paint" instead of how they aren't mixed and you've continued to do so for the last 6 pages or so with others.
Stop presenting assumptions as fact, your argument has had nothing to stand on for a good 2-4 pages now. The discussion is do they count as two weapons for the purpose of melee; they do not.
n0t_u wrote: [
They count as one melee weapon for combat purposes, stop presenting assumptions as facts.
You are projecting onto me.
No where does it day that the weapons count as a single weapon. You are making that up.
"used together, using the profile below"
Added with page 40's "all weapons have a profile" quickly disproves that, no need to strawman.
I posted this earlier,
. These weapons (<--Plural indicating more than one) are used( two weapons are being used) together("together implying more than one) , using the profile below (two weapons have the same stats)
along with the fact that the relics of ultramar indicate Emperor's sword AND hand of dominion
Two relics not one.....
Two weapons sharing same stats, therefore +1a GW got lazy end of story.
See the post on the bottom of the previous page about bonesword and lashwhip.
What would "used at the same time in combat" mean rulewise? What are we instructed to do differently than normal procedure, i.e. pick one melee weapon?
It would mean that you are dual-wielding, ie eligible for +1A.
So you assert it means you are correct without providing the steps to support your assertion.
dual-whielding is not defined in the rules.
The BRB says that regardless of how many weapons a model has, you have to select one weapon with the melee type to use. Additional melee weapons are unused and have no effect, besides - if conditions are met - granting one bonus attack. The conditions are not met by Robby G's gear.
n0t_u wrote: [
For the 4th time it is unphased by that quote.
Your argument requires that the melee profile is applied to some combined weapon.
The fact that the Hand of Dominion is its own melee weapon completely disproves your argument.
Except for when it gives one profile that says they're used together. They should have just given it two handed instead of this run around.
The one profile is simply provided for two weapons. The way in which the Hand of Dominion is described in the rule proves this. There is NO combined weapon.
n0t_u wrote: [
For the 4th time it is unphased by that quote.
Your argument requires that the melee profile is applied to some combined weapon.
The fact that the Hand of Dominion is its own melee weapon completely disproves your argument.
Except for when it gives one profile that says they're used together. They should have just given it two handed instead of this run around.
The one profile is simply provided for two weapons. The way in which the Hand of Dominion is described in the rule proves this. There is NO combined weapon.
What would "used at the same time in combat" mean rulewise? What are we instructed to do differently than normal procedure, i.e. pick one melee weapon?
It would mean that you are dual-wielding, ie eligible for +1A.
So you assert it means you are correct without providing the steps to support your assertion.
dual-whielding is not defined in the rules.
The BRB says that regardless of how many weapons a model has, you have to select one weapon with the melee type to use. Additional melee weapons are unused and have no effect, besides - if conditions are met - granting one bonus attack. The conditions are not met by Robby G's gear.
"Used together" means dual-wielding means you have two melee weapons. Applying a melee weapon profile individually to the two weapons accomplishes that.
n0t_u wrote: [
For the 4th time it is unphased by that quote.
Your argument requires that the melee profile is applied to some combined weapon.
The fact that the Hand of Dominion is its own melee weapon completely disproves your argument.
Except for when it gives one profile that says they're used together. They should have just given it two handed instead of this run around.
The one profile is simply provided for two weapons. The way in which the Hand of Dominion is described in the rule proves this. There is NO combined weapon.
What would "used at the same time in combat" mean rulewise? What are we instructed to do differently than normal procedure, i.e. pick one melee weapon?
It would mean that you are dual-wielding, ie eligible for +1A.
So you assert it means you are correct without providing the steps to support your assertion.
dual-whielding is not defined in the rules.
The BRB says that regardless of how many weapons a model has, you have to select one weapon with the melee type to use. Additional melee weapons are unused and have no effect, besides - if conditions are met - granting one bonus attack. The conditions are not met by Robby G's gear.
"Used together" means dual-wielding means you have two melee weapons. Applying a melee weapon profile individually to the two weapons accomplishes that.
You're assuming it means dual wielding when in this case it does not. They're used together and you're given one melee profile, you need a second melee profile that wasn't a part of those two to be able to claim the bonus attack.
n0t_u wrote: [
For the 4th time it is unphased by that quote.
Your argument requires that the melee profile is applied to some combined weapon.
The fact that the Hand of Dominion is its own melee weapon completely disproves your argument.
Except for when it gives one profile that says they're used together. They should have just given it two handed instead of this run around.
The one profile is simply provided for two weapons. The way in which the Hand of Dominion is described in the rule proves this. There is NO combined weapon.
The relic sword & hand consists of two parts, which when used together, are one melee weapon. One part, can also be used to make shooting attacks. using that part for shooting doesn't prevent using it together with the other part in melee.
n0t_u wrote: [ For the 4th time it is unphased by that quote.
Your argument requires that the melee profile is applied to some combined weapon.
The fact that the Hand of Dominion is its own melee weapon completely disproves your argument.
Except for when it gives one profile that says they're used together. They should have just given it two handed instead of this run around.
The one profile is simply provided for two weapons. The way in which the Hand of Dominion is described in the rule proves this. There is NO combined weapon.
Then why are they presented as a combined weapon?
We're not. It's two weapons using the same stats.
They're not, it says they are used together thus they are treated as one weapon for the purpose of the attack to assume they duel wield you'd need a third weapon not part of that first grouping to attack with as per pg49. GW literally never does this unless they're actually combined and with pg 40's every weapon has a profile that actually means no profile = no weapon. You have the two sharing the one profile not duplicates of the profile.
You're assuming it means dual wielding when in this case it does not. They're used together and you're given one melee profile, you need a second melee profile that wasn't a part of those two to be able to claim the bonus attack.
There are two weapons incontrovertibly. The single melee profile is applied to each weapon individually.
We know this to be the case because the Hand of Dominion has the melee profile applied to it and not some combined weapon. There is absolutely on rules basis for a combined weapon.
n0t_u wrote: [
For the 4th time it is unphased by that quote.
Your argument requires that the melee profile is applied to some combined weapon.
The fact that the Hand of Dominion is its own melee weapon completely disproves your argument.
Except for when it gives one profile that says they're used together. They should have just given it two handed instead of this run around.
The one profile is simply provided for two weapons. The way in which the Hand of Dominion is described in the rule proves this. There is NO combined weapon.
Boneswords and Lash whips also have their own individual profiles as well. The existence of a combined profile indicates that they behave differently from their different counterparts.
You still haven't addressed the facts.
There are other Relics using a single profile that specific state that it counts as a pair of weapons and that EACH uses the profile (this is important because of Jain Zar's disarming strike and other similar rules).
There are other weapons and Relics that function in both range and melee - all of which have seperate profiles for each.
Perhaps you don't understand why the absence of a melee profile is important when presented with that combined profile.
Her name is Jain Zar. She will strip your weapon from you. Without evidence that each weapon uses that profile or that the Hand has its own individual melee profile we can only assume they function together - they are listed together, there is a single profile. Which means the screaming bitch that is Jain Zar will have fun too.
You're assuming it means dual wielding when in this case it does not. They're used together and you're given one melee profile, you need a second melee profile that wasn't a part of those two to be able to claim the bonus attack.
There are two weapons incontrovertibly. The single melee profile is applied to each weapon individually.
We know this to be the case because the Hand of Dominion has the melee profile applied to it and not some combined weapon. There is absolutely on rules basis for a combined weapon.
Your argument is disproven.
My argument is disproven by an assumption you made?
Again prove to me where it allows you to use them individually in melee and not together as its presented?
n0t_u wrote: [
For the 4th time it is unphased by that quote.
Your argument requires that the melee profile is applied to some combined weapon.
The fact that the Hand of Dominion is its own melee weapon completely disproves your argument.
Except for when it gives one profile that says they're used together. They should have just given it two handed instead of this run around.
The one profile is simply provided for two weapons. The way in which the Hand of Dominion is described in the rule proves this. There is NO combined weapon.
Then why are they presented as a combined weapon?
We're not. It's two weapons using the same stats.
They're not, it says they are used together thus they are treated as one weapon for the purpose of the attack to assume they duel wield you'd need a third weapon not part of that first grouping to attack with as per pg49. GW literally never does this unless they're actually combined and with pg 40's every weapon has a profile that actually means no profile = no weapon. You have the two sharing the one profile not duplicates of the profile.
Two weapons being used at once or septate is still two weapons being used. Please point out where it says combined, single or one weapon in that sentence for the stats
n0t_u wrote: [
For the 4th time it is unphased by that quote.
Your argument requires that the melee profile is applied to some combined weapon.
The fact that the Hand of Dominion is its own melee weapon completely disproves your argument.
Except for when it gives one profile that says they're used together. They should have just given it two handed instead of this run around.
The one profile is simply provided for two weapons. The way in which the Hand of Dominion is described in the rule proves this. There is NO combined weapon.
Then why are they presented as a combined weapon?
We're not. It's two weapons using the same stats.
They're not, it says they are used together thus they are treated as one weapon for the purpose of the attack to assume they duel wield you'd need a third weapon not part of that first grouping to attack with as per pg49. GW literally never does this unless they're actually combined and with pg 40's every weapon has a profile that actually means no profile = no weapon. You have the two sharing the one profile not duplicates of the profile.
Two weapons being used at once or septate is still two weapons being used. Please point out where it says combined, single or one weapon in that sentence for the stats
Where they have one profile between the two of them. Please show me where it states they have this profile individually rather than when together.
They're not, it says they are used together thus they are treated as one weapon for the purpose of the attack
You are making this up. That is not what "used together" means by any stretch of the rules.
You are missing a line that says "counts as a single weapon". Quit making stuff up.
If I'm making it up then you should easily be able to show me how you're allowed to use them individually in combat instead of together as it states. Your argument has fallen apart yet you cling on to the sinking tatters still.
You're assuming it means dual wielding when in this case it does not. They're used together and you're given one melee profile, you need a second melee profile that wasn't a part of those two to be able to claim the bonus attack.
There are two weapons incontrovertibly. The single melee profile is applied to each weapon individually.
We know this to be the case because the Hand of Dominion has the melee profile applied to it and not some combined weapon. There is absolutely on rules basis for a combined weapon.
Your argument is disproven.
My argument is disproven by an assumption you made?
Again prove to me where it allows you to use them individually in melee and not together as its presented?
They are "used together" meaning they are individual weapons wielded at the same time in combat.
There is no rule that says they are combined to count as a single weapon.
The rule about the Hand of Dominion proves there is no combined 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.
The Hand of Dominion has the melee weapon type, not some combined weapon.
You're assuming it means dual wielding when in this case it does not. They're used together and you're given one melee profile, you need a second melee profile that wasn't a part of those two to be able to claim the bonus attack.
There are two weapons incontrovertibly. The single melee profile is applied to each weapon individually.
We know this to be the case because the Hand of Dominion has the melee profile applied to it and not some combined weapon. There is absolutely on rules basis for a combined weapon.
Your argument is disproven.
Col_Impact - We all can see where you're coming from on here. There are two separate weapons on the model and therefor, barring a statement that unambiguously claims that you do not get bonus attacks for it, you get bonus attacks.
However, their argument isn't disproven. The vast majority of people think that the interpretation is that you don't get a bonus attack- It's cool that you are sticking to your guns on this and that's fine. If you were facing me, though I disagree, I wouldn't spend a lot of effort stopping you from getting +1 attack on to Guliliman's already devastating profile. It just wouldn't make a difference.
But claiming that their argument is disproven in an argument that is essentially about rules of the English language and implied subjects is a bit disingenuous.
You're assuming it means dual wielding when in this case it does not. They're used together and you're given one melee profile, you need a second melee profile that wasn't a part of those two to be able to claim the bonus attack.
There are two weapons incontrovertibly. The single melee profile is applied to each weapon individually.
We know this to be the case because the Hand of Dominion has the melee profile applied to it and not some combined weapon. There is absolutely on rules basis for a combined weapon.
Your argument is disproven.
My argument is disproven by an assumption you made?
Again prove to me where it allows you to use them individually in melee and not together as its presented?
They are "used together" meaning they are individual weapons wielded at the same time in combat.
There is no rule that says they are combined to count as a single weapon.
The rule about the Hand of Dominion proves there is no combined 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.
The Hand of Dominion has the melee weapon type, not some combined weapon.
They have a combined melee profile however. Why do you keep going back to this same disproven statement like it magically makes your point valid? It states they are used together and by providing only one profile they share it; they do not each have that profile alone only whilst together as a whole.
If I'm making it up then you should easily be able to show me how you're allowed to use them individually in combat instead of together as it states. Your argument has fallen apart yet you cling on to the sinking tatters still.
"Used together" means that the weapons are wielded together at the same time in combat, nothing more. IE Robute has more than one melee weapon.
The single melee profile is applied to the two weapons.
This winds up making two melee weapons and granting +1A.
n0t_u wrote: [
For the 4th time it is unphased by that quote.
Your argument requires that the melee profile is applied to some combined weapon.
The fact that the Hand of Dominion is its own melee weapon completely disproves your argument.
Except for when it gives one profile that says they're used together. They should have just given it two handed instead of this run around.
The one profile is simply provided for two weapons. The way in which the Hand of Dominion is described in the rule proves this. There is NO combined weapon.
Then why are they presented as a combined weapon?
We're not. It's two weapons using the same stats.
They're not, it says they are used together thus they are treated as one weapon for the purpose of the attack to assume they duel wield you'd need a third weapon not part of that first grouping to attack with as per pg49. GW literally never does this unless they're actually combined and with pg 40's every weapon has a profile that actually means no profile = no weapon. You have the two sharing the one profile not duplicates of the profile.
Two weapons being used at once or septate is still two weapons being used. Please point out where it says combined, single or one weapon in that sentence for the stats
Where they have one profile between the two of them. Please show me where it states they have this profile individually rather than when together.
They're not, it says they are used together thus they are treated as one weapon for the purpose of the attack
You are making this up. That is not what "used together" means by any stretch of the rules.
You are missing a line that says "counts as a single weapon". Quit making stuff up.
If I'm making it up then you should easily be able to show me how you're allowed to use them individually in combat instead of together as it states. Your argument has fallen apart yet you cling on to the sinking tatters still.
I broke down the sentence is up to you too prove with stats giving (not your assumptions) they're are a single weapon
If I'm making it up then you should easily be able to show me how you're allowed to use them individually in combat instead of together as it states. Your argument has fallen apart yet you cling on to the sinking tatters still.
"Used together" means that the weapons are wielded together at the same time in combat, nothing more. IE Robute has more than one melee weapon.
The single melee profile is applied to the two weapons.
This winds up making two melee weapons and granting +1A.
Yes that's what I've been saying, the profile is applied to both weapons however only while they are together. Thus they share it and thus the rules stupidly treat them as one weapon as a round about way of designing Bobby G to not get that bonus attack. Thus no +1A. We're getting so close now I think.
n0t_u wrote: [
For the 4th time it is unphased by that quote.
Your argument requires that the melee profile is applied to some combined weapon.
The fact that the Hand of Dominion is its own melee weapon completely disproves your argument.
Except for when it gives one profile that says they're used together. They should have just given it two handed instead of this run around.
The one profile is simply provided for two weapons. The way in which the Hand of Dominion is described in the rule proves this. There is NO combined weapon.
Then why are they presented as a combined weapon?
We're not. It's two weapons using the same stats.
They're not, it says they are used together thus they are treated as one weapon for the purpose of the attack to assume they duel wield you'd need a third weapon not part of that first grouping to attack with as per pg49. GW literally never does this unless they're actually combined and with pg 40's every weapon has a profile that actually means no profile = no weapon. You have the two sharing the one profile not duplicates of the profile.
Two weapons being used at once or septate is still two weapons being used. Please point out where it says combined, single or one weapon in that sentence for the stats
Where they have one profile between the two of them. Please show me where it states they have this profile individually rather than when together.
They're not, it says they are used together thus they are treated as one weapon for the purpose of the attack
You are making this up. That is not what "used together" means by any stretch of the rules.
You are missing a line that says "counts as a single weapon". Quit making stuff up.
If I'm making it up then you should easily be able to show me how you're allowed to use them individually in combat instead of together as it states. Your argument has fallen apart yet you cling on to the sinking tatters still.
I broke down the sentence is up to you too prove with stats giving (not your assumptions) they're are a single weapon
The syntax is that they use the profile below whilst together. As in on their own they have no profile, but only whilst together do they have one. If they had their own profiles they would have been given their own profile and not put together as such. I went over this over the last 3-4 pages.
n0t_u wrote: [
They have a combined melee profile however. Why do you keep going back to this same disproven statement like it magically makes your point valid? It states they are used together and by providing only one profile they share it; they do not each have that profile alone only whilst together as a whole.
You have yet to show that the weapons are combined or count as a single weapon. No rule states this.
I have disproven your combined weapon argument by proving that the Hand of Dominion gets the melee profile and not some combined weapon.
If there was some combined weapon then the Hand of Dominion could not become itself 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, which would not have any individual status in your argument.
n0t_u wrote: [ They have a combined melee profile however. Why do you keep going back to this same disproven statement like it magically makes your point valid? It states they are used together and by providing only one profile they share it; they do not each have that profile alone only whilst together as a whole.
You have yet to show that the weapons are combined or count as a single weapon. No rule states this.
I have disproven your combined weapon argument by proving that the Hand of Dominion gets the melee profile and not some combined weapon.
If there was some combined weapon then the Hand of Dominion could not become itself 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, which would not have any individual status in your argument.
You've yet to have shown me how they can be used individually in melee for the last 4 pages now, I'm still waiting for you to prove that point yet you deflect to mine. You've disproven nothing, you've yet to even prove your own point truly.
There is no combined dual wielding in 40k. As per pg49 if you want that bonus attack you need to prove they are two individual weapons and the most concise manner of doing so is to prove they can be used independently of one another.
You're assuming it means dual wielding when in this case it does not. They're used together and you're given one melee profile, you need a second melee profile that wasn't a part of those two to be able to claim the bonus attack.
There are two weapons incontrovertibly. The single melee profile is applied to each weapon individually.
We know this to be the case because the Hand of Dominion has the melee profile applied to it and not some combined weapon. There is absolutely on rules basis for a combined weapon.
Your argument is disproven.
Col_Impact - We all can see where you're coming from on here. There are two separate weapons on the model and therefor, barring a statement that unambiguously claims that you do not get bonus attacks for it, you get bonus attacks.
However, their argument isn't disproven. The vast majority of people think that the interpretation is that you don't get a bonus attack- It's cool that you are sticking to your guns on this and that's fine. If you were facing me, though I disagree, I wouldn't spend a lot of effort stopping you from getting +1 attack on to Guliliman's already devastating profile. It just wouldn't make a difference.
But claiming that their argument is disproven in an argument that is essentially about rules of the English language and implied subjects is a bit disingenuous.
Thanks for joining in.
I think you should look carefully at this rule statement.
Spoiler:
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
That statement says the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon.
This is key. It effectively proves my argument.
The counter argument is that there is a combined weapon profile. This would mean that the melee weapon type would be assigned to some combined weapon profile and not directly to the Hand of Dominion.
Because the Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon, this proves that the profile was applied individually to the Hand itself, and it disproves any argument that there is a combined weapon profile.
You're assuming it means dual wielding when in this case it does not. They're used together and you're given one melee profile, you need a second melee profile that wasn't a part of those two to be able to claim the bonus attack.
There are two weapons incontrovertibly. The single melee profile is applied to each weapon individually.
We know this to be the case because the Hand of Dominion has the melee profile applied to it and not some combined weapon. There is absolutely on rules basis for a combined weapon.
Your argument is disproven.
Col_Impact - We all can see where you're coming from on here. There are two separate weapons on the model and therefor, barring a statement that unambiguously claims that you do not get bonus attacks for it, you get bonus attacks.
However, their argument isn't disproven. The vast majority of people think that the interpretation is that you don't get a bonus attack- It's cool that you are sticking to your guns on this and that's fine. If you were facing me, though I disagree, I wouldn't spend a lot of effort stopping you from getting +1 attack on to Guliliman's already devastating profile. It just wouldn't make a difference.
But claiming that their argument is disproven in an argument that is essentially about rules of the English language and implied subjects is a bit disingenuous.
Thanks for joining in.
I think you should look carefully at this rule statement.
Spoiler:
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
That statement says the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon.
This is key. It effectively proves my argument.
The counter argument is that there is a combined weapon profile. This would mean that the melee weapon type would be assigned to some combined weapon profile and not directly to the Hand of Dominion.
Because the Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon, this proves that the profile was applied individually to the Hand itself, and it disproves any argument that there is a combined weapon profile.
Prove the fist may be used on its own in combat. 5 pages of waiting now.
You're assuming it means dual wielding when in this case it does not. They're used together and you're given one melee profile, you need a second melee profile that wasn't a part of those two to be able to claim the bonus attack.
There are two weapons incontrovertibly. The single melee profile is applied to each weapon individually.
We know this to be the case because the Hand of Dominion has the melee profile applied to it and not some combined weapon. There is absolutely on rules basis for a combined weapon.
Your argument is disproven.
Col_Impact - We all can see where you're coming from on here. There are two separate weapons on the model and therefor, barring a statement that unambiguously claims that you do not get bonus attacks for it, you get bonus attacks.
However, their argument isn't disproven. The vast majority of people think that the interpretation is that you don't get a bonus attack- It's cool that you are sticking to your guns on this and that's fine. If you were facing me, though I disagree, I wouldn't spend a lot of effort stopping you from getting +1 attack on to Guliliman's already devastating profile. It just wouldn't make a difference.
But claiming that their argument is disproven in an argument that is essentially about rules of the English language and implied subjects is a bit disingenuous.
Thanks for joining in.
I think you should look carefully at this rule statement.
Spoiler:
The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.
That statement says the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon.
This is key. It effectively proves my argument.
The counter argument is that there is a combined weapon profile. This would mean that the melee weapon type would be assigned to some combined weapon profile and not directly to the Hand of Dominion.
Because the Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon, this proves that the profile was applied individually to the Hand itself, and it disproves any argument that there is a combined weapon profile.
Prove the fist may be used on its own in combat. 5 pages of waiting now.
Under it's ranged profile it states it can be used in melee even though it shot. Did the sword shoot?
Yes, then the 350pts loyalist Primarch is Much Much weaker than it. 650pts Magnus? I agree that he costs too much, but he can fly and garantees can keep StrD as well as controlling opponent's strongest shooty units to shoot themselves, while Guilliman can do nothing but watch helplessly.
