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.

Gwar! wrote:

Lord_Mortis wrote:If Tyranids do not use ccws, per the "Tyranids do not wield ccw" sentence, then they do not ever gain +1 attack, so there is no reason to include the "As a result" section.

They add the "as a result" part because 99% of the playerbase are utter idiots. Notice how it does not say "The ONLY result".

And if that is the case, then you think they would have also included clear wording that states they do not have to choose which special ccw to use in the current assault phase, so that "99% of the idiot playerbase" wouldn't conclude otherwise. You are saying that 99% of the playerbase are idiots and can't figure out that Tyranids don't get +1 attack, but are at the same time smart enough to see that they don't have to choose which special ccw to use? They used clear wording in the previous two Tyranid books that said they get to use all their ccws. I guess that was in there so that 99% of the people would clearly understand the rule, since they are "utter idiots."

If they wanted the abilities to stack but at the same time did not want Tyranids getting +1 attack, then for the sake of those 99% idiots, why is the "As a result" part not as follows: "As a result, Tyranid models never receive bonus Attacks for fighting with more than one close combat weapon--these bonuses are always included in the creature's profile. In addition, a Tyranid creature can use all of its close combat weapons in an assault and is not limited to using one at a time like most models."

99% of GW Devs are also Utter idiots, hence the Space Wolf Codex

Gwar! wrote:99% of GW Devs are also Utter idiots, hence the Space Wolf Codex

And that is something we can definitely agree on!

Lord_Mortis wrote:If Tyranids do not use ccws, per the "Tyranids do not wield ccw" sentence, then they do not ever gain +1 attack, so there is no reason to include the "As a result" section.

Arguiingthat the rule is redundant is not an argument that it is not a rule in the first place. It is most definitely a rule - you can tell because it has an ingame effect using ingame terms.

GW consistently write redundant rules, normally as a memory aide. For example read pretty much every Bike entry - this repeats that the bonus toughness does not count for instant death, despite this being entirely unecessary as it is spelt out clearly in the BRB.

Which is most definitely a rule, the first sentence under the "Tyranid close combat weapons" heading, or the second sentence? I agree that the second clearly is, but not the first. "Close combat weapon" is not obviously a technical term: how else are you going to refer to the variety of stuff that the 40k races stab each other with? "Wield" also isn't a technical term. The BRB sometimes calls a particular model a "wielder," but never says that any model "wields" a weapon. It's always "uses."

As I said earlier, given the structure of the other paragraphs in that section of the book, the first sentence looks like fluff to me.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Lord_Mortis wrote:If Tyranids do not use ccws, per the "Tyranids do not wield ccw" sentence, then they do not ever gain +1 attack, so there is no reason to include the "As a result" section.

Arguiingthat the rule is redundant is not an argument that it is not a rule in the first place.

I am not arguing that the rule is redundant. I am saying that it is a clarification of what "Tyranids do not wield ccws" actually means as far as in-game goes. The writer is changing the way ccw rules from the BRB interact with Tyranids, and the in-game effects of this are listed in the "As a result" section. The only rule he has apparently changed is that Tyranids do not get +1 attack bonus for having two close combat weapons. All the other rules apparently still apply. You are saying "Tyranids do not wield ccws" means that they don't get +1 attack and that they don't have to choose between ccws. However, the writer of the codex is stating in the "As a result" section that "Tyranids don't wield ccws" means, as far as in-game goes, that they never get +1 attack bonus for having two ccws. Sort of like saying "I got a promotion. As a result, I am going to get paid more, but I have to relocate to another city." The writer explains "Tyranids don't wield ccws" in the "As a result" part as meaning they don't get +1 attack for having two ccws. Nothing more, nothing less.

It is most definitely a rule - you can tell because it has an ingame effect using ingame terms.

The only in-game effects being that Tyranids don't get +1 attack for having two ccws. This is clearly spelled out in the "As a result" part.

You are limiting the sentence without cause.

"as a result" ≠ "the only result is"

kirsanth wrote:You are limiting the sentence without cause.

"as a result" ≠ "the only result is"

But since it is the only result listed, and I am not a mind reader and don't know whether the RAI by the writer meant to include allowing ccws to stack, then I am left with just what the book says is the result.

Lord_Mortis wrote:

kirsanth wrote:You are limiting the sentence without cause.

"as a result" ≠ "the only result is"

But since it is the only result listed, and I am not a mind reader and don't know whether the RAI by the writer meant to include allowing ccws to stack, then I am left with just what the book says is the result.

No, you are not a mind reader. You do, however, speak a version of English. Using said version of English (as well as using English), it is impossible to conclude that it is the only result, thus you use logic and the other rules of the game to determine if there are any other results.

kirsanth wrote:You are limiting the sentence without cause.

"as a result" ≠ "the only result is"

Gwar! wrote:

Lord_Mortis wrote:

kirsanth wrote:You are limiting the sentence without cause.

"as a result" ≠ "the only result is"

But since it is the only result listed, and I am not a mind reader and don't know whether the RAI by the writer meant to include allowing ccws to stack, then I am left with just what the book says is the result.

No, you are not a mind reader. You do, however, speak a version of English. Using said version of English (as well as using English), it is impossible to conclude that it is the only result, thus you use logic and the other rules of the game to determine if there are any other results.

huh?! "as a result" = "the only result is". Why? Because the rules are going out of their way to tell us what the (singular) result is.

I'm starting to believe Gwar is just playing devil's advocate to work out every possible argument for is unofficial FAQ series, haha. If that is the case, the result is I applaud you. [tongue in cheek]

Deuce11 wrote:huh?! "as a result" = "the only result is". Why? Because the rules are going out of their way to tell us what the (singular) result is.

I'm starting to believe Gwar is just playing devil's advocate to work out every possible argument for is unofficial FAQ series, haha. If that is the case, the result is I applaud you. [tongue in cheek]

If it were the only result, it would say so.

Hesperus wrote:Which is most definitely a rule, the first sentence under the "Tyranid close combat weapons" heading, or the second sentence? I agree that the second clearly is, but not the first. "Close combat weapon" is not obviously a technical term: how else are you going to refer to the variety of stuff that the 40k races stab each other with? "Wield" also isn't a technical term. The BRB sometimes calls a particular model a "wielder," but never says that any model "wields" a weapon. It's always "uses."

As I said earlier, given the structure of the other paragraphs in that section of the book, the first sentence looks like fluff to me.

Erm, "Close Combat Weapons" is a defined term in the rulebook (in fact you have both normal and special versions), and they use the term "wield" in the sections dealing with close combat weapons - as the English "wield" means "use". It defines a specific change to the rules in the rulebook, to whit there are different classes of close combat weapons that models must use - instead you are told tyranids do not wield (remember, this means *use*) close combat weapons.

So yes, it is a rule. Very much so.

Also - "As a result" is giving an example, nothing states it is the ONLY result.

With all due respect, comments like these don't further the debate at all. I'm not quoting rules because the book is not in front of me but everyone knows what I am alluding to.
Please mind the tone. Not because there are penalties but because it helps engage better dialogue.

You rule you are talking about only applies to the exact situation of a model being equiped with 2 single handed close combat weapons. Look it up that is the point hence it is nearly impossible to map that onto the Tyranid lay out as they have 4 arms and are equiped with a mixture of single and double-handed weapons totalling up to 4 "weapon slots" (for want of a better phrase).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
nosferatu1001

Just a question if the Tyranids never use close combat weapons (as clearly stated on page 33 of the codex) how can they receive ANY bonuses from them as per Page 42 of the BRB only the wielder gains such bonuses?

By strict RaW the Tyrand Close Combat Weapons are in fact useless.

No additional attacks unless +1 for charging. Only the benefits of being armed with said weapons give them their corresponding abilities.

Sounds like a bunch of whiny people trying to cheese-ball their way for additional attacks or nerf 'nid players.

Yeah its pretty clear,
Like Poisoned Rending claws with implant attack and scything teeth and claws,
You wound on 4+ rerolling 1s to hit, ignore armour and insta kill on a 6,

But its still teeth and claws. Which is the only weapon they have in CC, Everything from Swarmlord to Rippers

Clear according to the book.

Lost Ripper wrote:Yeah its pretty clear,
Like Poisoned Rending claws with implant attack and scything teeth and claws,
You wound on 4+ rerolling 1s to hit, ignore armour and insta kill on a 6,

But its still teeth and claws. Which is the only weapon they have in CC, Everything from Swarmlord to Rippers

Clear according to the book.

Someone buy this guy a pizza!

To those in the 'don't stack' camp:

When it's Lucius the Eternal's turn to attack, do you ask your opponent whether he'll be using his power sword or the lash of torment? The lash is a close combat weapon that confers a particular bonus to Lucius (-1 attack to enemy models in base contact), which makes it a special close combat weapon. Does he have to choose to use the power weapon that negates armor saves, or the lash, which imposes a penalty on enemy models but allows normal armor saves (as it is not a power weapon)? Or does Lucius simply get to make his attacks, ignoring armor saves, and when the enemy swings back they're at -1A?

RAW says he has to pick one or the other, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone play it that way. Nor would I expect anyone too, nor would I rule in an official event that he had to choose.

It's pretty clear to me that Tyranid close combat abilities do stack, and any ambiguity is simply GW being imprecise with their words, as per usual. I highly doubt GW would, in 5th ed. 40k, force something on Tyranid players so complicated as having to choose only one effect from any number of possible options on most of the units in the book, each time they fight in CC.

Until GW tells me otherwise, for official events and tournaments at my store Tyranid close combat abilities will stack. I'm not in the business of hosing players of a new codex over semantics.

-Dis.

disdainful wrote:To those in the 'don't stack' camp:

When it's Lucius the Eternal's turn to attack, do you ask your opponent whether he'll be using his power sword or the lash of torment? The lash is a close combat weapon that confers a particular bonus to Lucius (-1 attack to enemy models in base contact), which makes it a special close combat weapon. Does he have to choose to use the power weapon that negates armor saves, or the lash, which imposes a penalty on enemy models but allows normal armor saves (as it is not a power weapon)? Or does Lucius simply get to make his attacks, ignoring armor saves, and when the enemy swings back they're at -1A?

RAW says he has to pick one or the other, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone play it that way. Nor would I expect anyone too, nor would I rule in an official event that he had to choose.

It's pretty clear to me that Tyranid close combat abilities do stack, and any ambiguity is simply GW being imprecise with their words, as per usual. I highly doubt GW would, in 5th ed. 40k, force something on Tyranid players so complicated as having to choose only one effect from any number of possible options on most of the units in the book, each time they fight in CC.

Until GW tells me otherwise, for official events and tournaments at my store Tyranid close combat abilities will stack. I'm not in the business of hosing players of a new codex over semantics.

-Dis.

Marneus Calgar has two power fists and a power sword. Do you have to choose which one to use? Yes.

This discussion is not about lash whips and bone swords. Its about categories of wargear in the dex. One list falls under the heading Close Combat Weapons. The other list has a category heading Biomorphs. Biormorphs simply confer benefits to the unit. These we all agree 'stack.' However, this may or may not be the case regarding the CCWs. Old codex versions, fluff and RAI are completely unimportant. There is no rule, as far as I can find, that says nids are not bound by the prohibition against benefiting from more than one close combat weapons' special attributes in combat. There is a rule however that says nids do not get +1A for having more than one CCW.

the horse is officially dead.

I spoke with my gaming group. We know how we are going to play it. You all should do the same.

God speed ladies and gentlemen

Deuce11 wrote:Marneus Calgar has two power fists and a power sword.

<nitpick>He only has two weapons, "The Gauntlets of Ultramar" (which is ONE weapon) and a Power Sword (which RaW does nothing )</nitpick>

disdainful wrote:
It's pretty clear to me that Tyranid close combat abilities do stack, and any ambiguity is simply GW being imprecise with their words, as per usual. I highly doubt GW would, in 5th ed. 40k, force something on Tyranid players so complicated as having to choose only one effect from any number of possible options on most of the units in the book, each time they fight in CC.

Until GW tells me otherwise, for official events and tournaments at my store Tyranid close combat abilities will stack. I'm not in the business of hosing players of a new codex over semantics.

-Dis.

Nah No ambiguity (For a Change...)
They attack with teeth and claws,
Whether its Rending teeth with scything Boneswordy Claws,
or Poisoned Gnashing Teeth with Lashwhipy Claws,
Still Teeth and claws.

This is one thing they were clear on.

Deuce
pg 33 tyranid dex says it all

They use Gnashing teeth, claws and talons,
Thats it,
Period,

The citter is modified by what biomorphs are built into his body,
ITs damn clear,
They stack,


Painful to think otherwise when its that clear.

Another thing that some people are overlooking is that every Close Combat weapon in every other codex specifically refers to one of the "special close combat weapons" on page 42 of the BRB.

For example, page 57 of the Space Wolves codex:

"Frost Blade or Axe

.... Regardless of what they look like, all frost blades or frost axes are power weapons that add +1 to the user's strength."

Or, Page 99 of the Space Marine Codex:

"Relic Blade

A Relic Blade counts as a power weapon whose hits are resolved at strength 6."

Close Combat weapons in other codexes are specified to be special close combat weapons because they directly refer to established Special weapons in the BRB.

The closest thing the Tyranids have is the Bonesword. Now, if the Tyranids acted like every other codex, wouldn't it refer to it as a power weapon plus X rule?

Page 83 of the Tyranid Codex:

"Bonesword

No Armor saves may be taken against wounds inflicted in close combat by a Tyranid with a bonesword."

I believe there are assumptions being made on the "don't stack" side of the argument.

When you are talking about Close Combat weapons and whether a weapon is or is not a "special" close combat weapon, don't the rules have to specify if it is a special weapon or not. Assuming that just because it is a "weapon" and it does something "special" doesn't mean it's a "special close combat weapon" as defined in the rules. In fact the only thing in the whole Tyranid codex that even refers to these upgrades as close combat weapons in the header on page 83. That's the whole crux of the argument for the "don't stack" camp.

Here is the bottom line, the Tyranid codex introduces us to something entirely new. It's called "Tyranid Close Combat Weapons" and what defines that is the blurb from page 33 of the Tyranid codex.

"Tyranid creatures do not wield close combat weapons as such, but rather slash at their opponents with their own teeth, claws, and talons. As a result, Tyranid models never receive bonus Attacks for fighting with more than one close combat weapon - these bonuses are always included in the creature's profile."

Tyranids don't wield close combat weapons as defined in the BRB. Each Tyranid Close Combat weapon is defined by what their effects are to the creature. Nothing more nothing less, Tyranids don't get additional attacks, Tyranids don't get to choose what weapon to use where. This is very simple, if a Tyranid has a weapon or a biomorph then those effects carry over to what it does in close combat.

No. Special close combat weapons are simply any weapon which confers a bonus to the user.

However, since tyranids do not wield (and therefore "use") their CCW as CCWs, they are not bound by the special CCW rules - even though they are still special CCWs.

GW could have avoided all of this by simply omitting the CCW heading in the codex and put all of these under the Biomorph heading. I mean, that is what these "CCWs" are right? Biomorphed appendages that enhance their natural attacks.

My argument is that Tyranids don't use "Close Combat Weapons" or "Special Close Combat Weapons". They use "Tyranid Close Combat Weapons", so the heading on that particular page is irrelevant.

Gwar! wrote:f it were the only result, it would say so.

It does say so. "As a result" explains what "Tyranids do not wield ccws" means. It only covers one rule, not two as people are trying to make it. If it wanted to let Tyranids stack their ccws abilities, then it would say so, just like it says they don't get +1 attack.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Also - "As a result" is giving an example, nothing states it is the ONLY result.

Except it is written not as an example, but rather an explanation of what the in-game effects of "Tyranids do not wield ccws" are, which is to deny Tyranids the +1 attack bonus for having 2 ccws.

And it odes not state it is the only result now, does it? Please show that it is the ONLY result of this rule - which none of your posts have yet to do. You are trying to claim it states X when it does not

The rule gives a consequence - they did not write *every* consequence in.

Lord_Mortis

Just a quick question for you how do you propose the RaW works?

Lets assume that Tyranid CCWs are Special CCWs and that Tyranids weild them to thus gain the benefits from them and restrictions. This is your arbument, correct?

Therefore a model with a bonesword, lashwhip and devourer has to choose between his bonesword or lashwhip? Using the rule that means if you have 2 single-handed special CCWs you have to choose between them.

However a model with Scything talons, bonesword and lashwhip can use all 3 as they are not longer armed with just 2 Special CCWs.

Likewise a model with Scything talons and a pair of boneswords doesn't have to choose because either a pair of boneswords is still 2 CCWS (for a total of 3) or it is two-handed.

Trying to map this rule onto the Tyranids simply doesn't work. They have 4 arms and they CCWs normall add up to 4 handed worth of CCWs be that 4 single single handed, 2 double handed or a mixture.

I really don't understand how you think the RaW works?

Additionally you do not know the "handedness" of ANY of the Tyranid weapons - they are never listed as single or two handed. As such you cannot assume that any rule relaitng to single handed weapons applies here.

nosferatu1001 wrote:And it odes not state it is the only result now, does it? Please show that it is the ONLY result of this rule - which none of your posts have yet to do. You are trying to claim it states X when it does not

The rule gives a consequence - they did not write *every* consequence in.

They wrote the only consequence that was affected by "Tyranids do not wield ccws." If they had wanted it to include more, they would have said so. "A result of this" is not the same thing as "As a result."

FlingitNow wrote:Lord_Mortis

Just a quick question for you how do you propose the RaW works?

Lets assume that Tyranid CCWs are Special CCWs and that Tyranids weild them to thus gain the benefits from them and restrictions. This is your arbument, correct?

Therefore a model with a bonesword, lashwhip and devourer has to choose between his bonesword or lashwhip? Using the rule that means if you have 2 single-handed special CCWs you have to choose between them.

However a model with Scything talons, bonesword and lashwhip can use all 3 as they are not longer armed with just 2 Special CCWs.

Likewise a model with Scything talons and a pair of boneswords doesn't have to choose because either a pair of boneswords is still 2 CCWS (for a total of 3) or it is two-handed.

Trying to map this rule onto the Tyranids simply doesn't work. They have 4 arms and they CCWs normall add up to 4 handed worth of CCWs be that 4 single single handed, 2 double handed or a mixture.

I really don't understand how you think the RaW works?

Does a model with 3 close combat weapons have "a" ccw? Yes

Does a model with 3 close combat weapons have 2 ccws? Yes

Does a model with 3 close combat weapons have 3 ccws? Yes

I'm not seeing how a model with 3+ ccws fails to satisfy the "armed with 2 single handed" ccws. Do the rules state they must have exactly 2 close combat weapons before they have to choose?

In your opinion they wrote the only consequence of this is X - Doesnt mean that is what the rule actually says however.

You have not provided why the rule states this is the ONLY consquence, which was what was asked.

LM - how do you know ANY of them are single handed CCW? PLease provide proof.

nosferatu1001 wrote:In your opinion they wrote the only consequence of this is X - Doesnt mean that is what the rule actually says however.

You have not provided why the rule states this is the ONLY consquence, which was what was asked.

Because the writer is explaining what "Tyranids do not wield ccws" means with "As a result." He does not say "A result of this is that Tyranids never get +1 attack for having 2 ccws." He instead lists the only rule from the BRB concerning ccws that is affected. I'm not one who plays games in the manner of "well, it doesn't say I can't do it." I play by what the rules say I can and can not do. If you read it that Tyranid ccws stack and others read it as they don't, then that just proves that the rules are poorly written and too ambiguous and things will only be satisfied with a FAQ by GW.

LM - how do you know ANY of them are single handed CCW? PLease provide proof.

None of the ccws in the BRB are specifically mentioned as being singled handed ccws. Some ccws do say they are doubled handed, like relic blades. So I would say the default is that ccws are single-handed unless otherwise stated in their description.