Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I DO NOT think it means that you could say "ok, those two sets were one weapon, now i'll fire my other weapon, which is also two sets"
No. The rule just says that if you fire two identical weapons, you fire them as a single twin linked. So you're already firing 2 weapons to make them 1 twin linked weapon. You don't magically get 4 sets of devourers, no matter how cool that sounds.

Dumbthumbs wrote:its moot anyway

Thus the ongoing discussion of minutiae.



Editing to add:
Dumbthumbs ≠ Doomthumbs?

Missed that for a couple posts.

Dumbthumbs wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:The correct way to refute something like that is to provide a page reference. Do you have one?

It DOESN'T say it in the codex anywhere, as far as I can tell. How do I provide a page reference for something like that?
Its on page imaginary, right next to the ground unicorn horn.

So you're claiming that there's a rule but it's not written anywhere? That means there isn't such a rule.

If you're referring to the note in the BRB's summary, you ought to be aware that the Tyranids have had a new codex since then. The new codex does not have this rule and the BRB's summary tells us that the codex takes precendence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dumbthumbs wrote:I think this boils down to RAI. Do you fire a 12 shot burst when you fire the Devtyrant, or do you roll two sets of 6 dice twice?

Why would you fire 12? Is it possible to arm a tyrant with four devourers? No, it isn't. Devourers can only be bought in twin-linked pairs. So a tyrant has 2x twin-linked devourers. There is nothing difficult about this.

Oh, its a rule. Its a rule right there in the summary section. Just because its not in the Tyranid codex does not a contradiction make.
The codex doesnt say it isnt a rule. The codex mentions nothing of it. Thinking about it, it makes sense to me though.

Yes, kirsanth. I received a 1000 year ban for trolling, funny enough.
Even though I think it can be agreed that I am being less agressive than certain unnamed people.

Dumbthumbs wrote:Yes, kirsanth. I received a 1000 year ban for trolling, funny enough.

Oh. . .

Ooops.

That may cause some. . .err. . .issue. My apologies.

Dumbthumbs wrote:Oh, its a rule. Its a rule right there in the summary section. Just because its not in the Tyranid codex does not a contradiction make.

So you are still trolling then..

The rules for the SUMMARY are clear, the idea of a summary is clear, yet you are blindly stating the sky is green.

The summary of the codex states: the codex has rule X
The codex does not have rule X

Guess that means the codex contradicts the summary, doesnt it?

Dumbthumbs wrote:The codex doesnt say it isnt a rule. The codex mentions nothing of it. Thinking about it, it makes sense to me though.

The codex doesnt have to say it isnt a rule, it has to say it IS a rule otherwise the summary is contradicting the codex.

Dumbthumbs wrote:Yes, kirsanth. I received a 1000 year ban for trolling, funny enough.
Even though I think it can be agreed that I am being less agressive than certain unnamed people.

So you received a ban and immediately reregistered as a new user?

Dumbthumbs wrote:Oh, its a rule. Its a rule right there in the summary section. Just because its not in the Tyranid codex does not a contradiction make.
The codex doesnt say it isnt a rule. The codex mentions nothing of it. Thinking about it, it makes sense to me though.

Yes, kirsanth. I received a 1000 year ban for trolling, funny enough.
Even though I think it can be agreed that I am being less agressive than certain unnamed people.

Going to have to go with Nos on this one, with the rule being in the summary it becomes invalid with new codex. The lack of the rule in the tyranid codex invalidates the rule from the summary. These are my thoughts, you may believe different.

On a second note, I do not think the idea behind banning is go make a new account.

See? Nos get's people banned when they don't agree with him.

puma713 wrote:See? Nos get's people banned when they don't agree with him.

Sorry, how did I do that again? Please enlighten me on this.
Or is it lke when you accused me and Gwar! of being the same person? I.e. complete supposition based on nothing more than your own fantasy?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Puma - so if someone calls you a mouthbreather that wouldnt be an insult? Really? Guess you know better than the mods.

No, I called it an insult. I'm just curious what you do in irl when someone insults you and there's no Alert Mod button.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

puma713 wrote:See? Nos get's people banned when they don't agree with him.

Sorry, how did I do that again? Please enlighten me on this.
Or is it lke when you accused me and Gwar! of being the same person? I.e. complete supposition based on nothing more than your own fantasy?

Well, it was based on the constant "reported" remarks you made to the guy. That's fairly strong evidence.

And about the you and Gwar! thing - I admitted to being wrong about some time ago, thank you.

This thread has outlived its useful life.