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.

209 votes to 18... I am going to request the mods lock this thread now.

G

Lord_Mortis wrote:Some ccws do say they are doubled handed, like relic blades.

Lolfail.

Lrn2Read please. Nowhere in the Relic Blades rules does it state it is a 2 handed CCW.

Also, Does a model with 3 close combat weapons have a ccw? Yes.

If you speak ENGLISH (aka the Language these book were written in), "as a result" does not mean "as the only result".

Lord_Mortis wrote: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.

as A result....

Still A result

Not "the only" result.

The sentence still does nto say waht you so dearly want it to say.

Lord_Mortis wrote: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.

No, it proves that some people will, seemingly wilfully, miscontrue even clearly written rules. Again, just because some people have a problem reading rules does not make it a valid problem with the rules - the person readin g them can be, and often is, at fault.

Lord_Mortis wrote: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.

So you are making an assumption? I asked for PROOF.

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?

I've noticed you've:

a) Ignored the single handed part.

b) Ignored the English doesn't make sense for more than 2 CCWs, it specifies 2 is never states this rule applies to more than 2.

I expect this to be FAQed and will play by the rules until then (that they gain the benefits for each CCW they are armed with). I imagine most Tournaments will play that way too.

Gwar! wrote:

Lord_Mortis wrote:Some ccws do say they are doubled handed, like relic blades.

Lolfail.

Lrn2Read please. Nowhere in the Relic Blades rules does it state it is a 2 handed CCW.

"Relic blades are two-handed swords or axes....A relic blade counts as a power weapon...."

What is a power weapon? See "Special Close Combat Weapons" on page 42 in the BRB.

If you speak ENGLISH (aka the Language these book were written in), "as a result" does not mean "as the only result".

And if the writer was wanting to change how all the rules apply to Tyranids concerning ccws then he would have listed the changes. Instead, he listed only one.

nosferatu1001 wrote:as A result....

Still A result

Not "the only" result.

The sentence still does nto say waht you so dearly want it to say.

And the same could be said of your view. No sense in repeating the same thing over and over. We will just have to disagree.

So you are making an assumption? I asked for PROOF.

lol. Yeah, that is the same as trying to prove that any ccws, other than powerfists, thunderhammers, and lightning claws, are single handed weapons. So really, since only those 3 are mentioned in the singled handed weapons section, then no other special ccws count as single handed, and therefore aren't bound by the rule about having to choose which special ccw to use in the current assault. Are you saying we have been playing power weapons and such all wrong this whole time?

Good luck with that.

So either all ccws weapons that are not listed as two-handed weapons are single handed weapons, or they aren't single handed weapons at all but something else entirely.

Lord_Mortis wrote:"Relic blades are two-handed swords or axes."

Good Job on Quoting Fluff there.

And if the writer was wanting to change how all the rules apply to Tyranids concerning ccws then he would have listed the changes. Instead, he listed only one.

That is not how the rules work. By your logic, they would need to have a rule forbidding the use of Biochemical Nerve Gas against your Sister if you fail a save.

lol. Yeah, that is the same as trying to prove that any ccws, other than powerfists, thunderhammers, and lightning claws, are single handed weapons. So really, since only those 3 are mentioned in the singled handed weapons section, then no other special ccws count as single handed, and therefore aren't bound by the rule about having to choose which special ccw to use in the current assault. Are you saying we have been playing power weapons and such all wrong this whole time?

There are no defined single-handed weapons and very few (if any) defined double handed weapons. Hence you have to just read the English and look at the models...

Not too tough.

FlingitNow wrote:I've noticed you've:

a) Ignored the single handed part.

No I didn't. That was the whole point of that post. Oh, so maybe I didn't use "single handed" in each sentence until the end, but single handed weapons is what I was addressing.

b) Ignored the English doesn't make sense for more than 2 CCWs, it specifies 2 is never states this rule applies to more than 2.

The rules say 2 different special weapons. A model with 3 different special weapons still has 2 special weapons that are different. It doesn't matter if he has 50 arms and 50 different special weapons. He will always have at least 2 different special weapons. The rules do not say a model with only 2 special weapons has to choose.

I expect this to be FAQed and will play by the rules until then (that they gain the benefits for each CCW they are armed with). I imagine most Tournaments will play that way too.

Well good for you. I don't play in tournaments so that doesn't matter to me. Since when did this game become solely about tournaments?

Well good for you. I don't play in tournaments so that doesn't matter to me. Since when did this game become solely about tournaments?

When did I say it was all about Tournaments? If you are trying to stop a Tyranid player from using his CCWs then you are just being TFG, so for friendly games you're just going to lose friends and for competitive games you'll almost certainly just get ruled against.

So why argue this on an Internet forum?

Mortis is painful to watch them tear you down like a pack of dawgs.

G

LM - they listed one, as the most common example.

Still doesnt mean it isnt AN example. I wil not "agree to disagree" when your point is so clealy wrong - you are trying to misconstrue a sentence to mean something else entirely other than what it is actually statiung.

This is why I said not all debated rules are the rules being unclear, merely the people reading them fail at some critical piece of understanding.

nosferatu1001 wrote:LM - they listed one, as the most common example.

Still doesnt mean it isnt AN example. I wil not "agree to disagree" when your point is so clealy wrong - you are trying to misconstrue a sentence to mean something else entirely other than what it is actually statiung.

This is why I said not all debated rules are the rules being unclear, merely the people reading them fail at some critical piece of understanding.

this one.

QFT.

G

FlingitNow wrote:So why argue this on an Internet forum?

Because I like to make sure I know the rules before playing.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Mortis is painful to watch them tear you down like a pack of dawgs.

G

That's your opinion. If you don't have anything constructive to add, then move along.

nosferatu1001 wrote:LM - they listed one, as the most common example.

Still doesnt mean it isnt AN example. I wil not "agree to disagree" when your point is so clealy wrong - you are trying to misconstrue a sentence to mean something else entirely other than what it is actually statiung.

This is why I said not all debated rules are the rules being unclear, merely the people reading them fail at some critical piece of understanding.

Who are you trying to convince? Me or yourself? I will only be convinced of your way when I see a GW FAQ that agrees with you as I have seen nothing here that would make me change my mind. Of course, the fact that if they do FAQ means that it was ambiguous to begin with.

Of course, the fact that if they do FAQ means that it was ambiguous to begin with.

Not necessarily, and to be honest given the poll responses it seems unlikely this will require an FAQ. Some people (like you evidently) get so scared about a new codex that they have to try to find ways of rules lawyering all the special rules away.

Mortis don't be so hard on yourself, back your own ability to win without having to be TFG to try to gain an advantage by deliberately mis-reading or mis-representing the rules.

Just play by the rules and I have confidence that you'll still have fun and win games. You just need a little more self belief. I hope I've helped

Mortis how much do you want to bet the FAQ proves you wrong? $100, $200, $500? Put your money where your mouth is.

G

LM - I have no desire to convince you, as you seem to wilfully misconstrue a seriously simple sentence into something else. I just wanted to make it clear to any other posters that our positions are not as equally weighted as your post implies.

FAQs do not prove something was ambiguous, more that some people seem intent on deliberalely misreading rules to gain advantage. IN this case the rules are woefully clear, so much so that (and the poll bears this out) I doubt GW will see the need to state the blindingly obvious.

nosferatu1001 wrote:LM - I have no desire to convince you, as you seem to wilfully misconstrue a seriously simple sentence into something else. I just wanted to make it clear to any other posters that our positions are not as equally weighted as your post implies.

FAQs do not prove something was ambiguous, more that some people seem intent on deliberalely misreading rules to gain advantage. IN this case the rules are woefully clear, so much so that (and the poll bears this out) I doubt GW will see the need to state the blindingly obvious.

This.

G

FlingitNow wrote:Some people (like you evidently) get so scared about a new codex that they have to try to find ways of rules lawyering all the special rules away.

Mortis don't be so hard on yourself, back your own ability to win without having to be TFG to try to gain an advantage by deliberately mis-reading or mis-representing the rules.

LOL! Hardly. I had no trouble beating Tyranids when their ccw abilities stacked, so why would that matter now? I'm discussing a rules interpretation. The past two Tyranid books had specific, clear wording that said their abilities stacked. That wording is missing from the current book and has been replaced with a rule that states they do not get +1 attack bonus instead. Lacking that specific wording that was in the previous books, I am not going to make an assumption that that rule still stands, and the arguments here have done nothing to convince me that "Tyranids do not wield ccws = they lose the bonus attack but their ccw abilities stack."

Lord_Mortis wrote:
The past two Tyranid books had specific, clear wording that said their abilities stacked. That wording is missing from the current book and has been replaced with a rule that states they do not get +1 attack bonus instead.

Except that's not what the rule says. It says that they do not wield CCWs. It says that a result of this is that they do not get the bonus attack.

It says that they do not wield CCWs. That is what it says.

+1 to you stubbornly misreading a clear sentence.

Yeah he is way too stubborn to admit it and this thread has gone on and on and on and on with him repeating himself over and over ad nauseum. I think he cannot stand to lose an argument and wants the last word on this subject.

G

I have said my peace and only want address the poll.

The poll is far from indicative. There was no requirement that those polled read the arguments. Many of those who voted may have done so without seeing both sides of the issue and thus the poll fails to show support based on two well argued points.

I don't see how you can read the Nid codex section on their close combat weapons and conclude that they work like special weapons. The particular example that stands out is scything talons. Having two pairs confers re-rolls of all failed to hit rolls. Having one pair lets you reroll to hit rolls that are 1's. How could a nid ever use more than one pair if the talons are actually to be treated as CCWs? Does a pair of scything talons count as one CCW so a nid can then "wield" two pairs? I'm used to rules that are invalidated by new editions of the rules (thornback, symbiote rippers et al), but I don't think so poorly of GW that they would write a useless rule into a brand new codex.

Arschbombe wrote:I'm used to rules that are invalidated by new editions of the rules (thornback, symbiote rippers et al), but I don't think so poorly of GW that they would write a useless rule into a brand new codex.

Bwahahhhaaaa! No offense intended but that was hilarious. One example that immediately came to mind was the Copy/Paste from 4th Edition to Bjorn the Fell-handed that gave him a re-roll to something that does not exist in 5th Edition games.

Let's not also forget the Berserk Charge that never works!

And how Venerable doesn't work either.

Or how even if Berserk Charge worked, Skyclaws and Swiftclaws would never get it.

The list goes on!

Yeah it doth go on and on for sure... Hmmm.

G

Gorkamorka wrote:

Lord_Mortis wrote:
The past two Tyranid books had specific, clear wording that said their abilities stacked. That wording is missing from the current book and has been replaced with a rule that states they do not get +1 attack bonus instead.

Except that's not what the rule says. It says that they do not wield CCWs. It says that a result of this is that they do not get the bonus attack.

It says that they do not wield CCWs. That is what it says.

+1 to you stubbornly misreading a clear sentence.

Except that that is exactly what the rule says, "Tyranid creatures do not wield close combat weapons as such ("...") As a result, tyranid models never recieve bonus Attacks for fighting with more than one close combat weapon" Note the AS SUCH.
Never and nowhere in the entire book does it say that tyranids doesn't fight with close combat, I've checked. I fully agree with Lord Mortis.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Black Blow Fly wrote:Mortis how much do you want to bet the FAQ proves you wrong? $100, $200, $500? Put your money where your mouth is.

G

Dude you are so in the wrong, the FAQ does indeed say that the effects stack, but the FAQ's aren't the rules. They are the GW's own house rules, you are under no obligation to follow them and GW actually says that if you have another interpretation you should use that instead of theirs.

Holy necro, Batman!

+++ Initiate Augury +++

+++ Scrying . . . +++

+++ Scrying . . . +++

+++ Scrap Code Detected +++

+++ Analyzing . . . +++

+++ Analysis Complete +++

+++ Tech Heresy Classification: Thread Necromancy +++

+++ In Nomines Mechanicus Anathema Sit +++

+++ Initiate Communication Ablution Protocol Aleph-Nu-75 +++

+++ Locking Thread +++

+++ Locking . . . +++

+++ Locking . . . +++

+++ Locking . . . +++

+++ Communication Ablution Complete +++

+++ All praise to the Omnissiah +++