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.

col_impact wrote:

Ceann wrote:
Hand of Domion does have a 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.

Ceann wrote:


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".

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.



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.

Well, I'm done here. Col_Impact, you have proven yourself more stubborn than I. Congratulations?

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.

This is funny, the circles....


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.

Ceann wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Ceann wrote:
Hand of Domion does have a 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.

"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?

The rules are on my side on this one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

GodDamUser wrote:
This is funny, the circles....


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)

col_impact wrote:
The rules are on my side on this one.

Have they ever been on your side?

Tell me how did your 360 degree tesla spheres and 3 spyder canoptek harvest turn out?

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The rules are on my side on this one.

Have they ever been on your side?

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 FAQ added rules rather than clarified existing ones which means that pre-FAQ my RAW argument was correct in both cases.

col_impact wrote:

Ceann wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Ceann wrote:
Hand of Domion does have a 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.

"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?

The rules are on my side on this one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

GodDamUser wrote:
This is funny, the circles....


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.

GodDamUser wrote:

'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?

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The rules are on my side on this one.

Have they ever been on your side?

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 FAQ added 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.

Ceann wrote:



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.

col_impact wrote:

"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.

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

col_impact wrote:

Ceann wrote:



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.

Ceann wrote:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ceann wrote:


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.

"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?

NO.

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.

Ceann wrote:
NO.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The rules are on my side on this one.

Have they ever been on your side?

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 FAQ added 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.

So, to summarise.

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.

col_impact wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 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".

col_impact wrote:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 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

col_impact wrote:


For Robute we aren't dealing with Wargear. We are dealing with Relics. Pay attention.

lol they are the same thing

 CrownAxe wrote:

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.

everyone has.. you just refuse that argument

GodDamUser wrote:
everyone has.. you just refuse that argument

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.



Summary: