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.

Do you like how I used "galore" to drag you in? Anyway, I have an Apocalypse game next weekend with my new bugs and plenty of conflicting rules have been brought up. I will be facing MEQ alongside a veteran Tyranid player, but his grasp of the rules has always proven fuzzy in the past. After discussing tactics, we began to disagree on our individual take on the rules. We decided to consult each source we trusted. He is calling the GW Rules Boys tomorrow and I am asking more intelligent folk. Help us out with some unbiased takes on these circumstances.

1) We discussed if Warriors carrying two of the same ranged weapons counted as twin-linked. One of us felt that since the rule stated two like weapons were twin-linked, it could be done. The other felt that since Warriors could only fire one of two weapons, it could not be done.

2) We discussed Carnifexes out of Synapse. One of us felt that though a Carnifex lacks Brood Telepathy, that fact that he is Fearless means he would automatically pass the test required. The other felt that Instinctive Behaviour was a separate kind of test that would be required regardless.

I think there was something else, but it escapes my mind. Anyway, your thoughts on this matter are appreciated! For the Hive!

1. Tyranid Warriors have to choose two weapon-symbiotes, they can't take two of the same weapon-symbiote (there's a reason you don't see any in the Codex with two).

2. Fearless is irrelevant to being out of Synapse. You take a Leadership test to move, though obviously it will never Fall Back or be Pinned.

You can choose a twin-linked weapon for a warrior, and it counts as both your weapons. See the Nids Codex and the Nids FAQ. Been like this a very long time now. The reason you don't see any in the Codex with two is the model didn't exist. You had to convert it yourself. You still do, really. It can be done with warriors + gaunts, but the warrior boxes alone don't give the options.

Carnifexes that fail the test cannot move. Fearless creatures cannot fall back. That's all that rule does.

Thank you Stelek, my partner and I will have to compromise as we both wrong in some regards.

It happens.

This is a GW game, after all.

Everyone is wrong at least once a gaming session.

Hell the FOW rules are written so well it's like I've entered some Bizarro GW world and I just can't stop f-ing up the rules--they make too much sense!! lol

So really don't worry about making mistakes.

Just don't say 'ok' when you lose 2 falcons in a turn. Man that tosses peoples cookies.

FOW? And after my last couple Eldar matches, obviously the fates shined on whoever scored those two downs.

Flames of War.

Yak, add FOW to the dictionary. lol

Actually at the LVGT last year I lost 4 falcons to single hits each.

Done.

Now add your money to my bank account.

You first.

Stelek, thank you for chiming in with a concise & accurate interpretation of the Warriors & Carnifex rules for the situations presented. Saved me the trouble of trying to keep it from being wordy as I am oft very wordy!

Yeah, there's a reason the model doesn't exist for Tyranid Warriors, and it's the same reason that the Tyranid FAQ on firing twin-linked weapon references only the Tyrant and the Carnifex - because those are some of the only Tyranids that have the option of taking Twin-linked weapon-symbiotes. Indeed, if you read the unit entries for Hive Tyrants, Warriors, and Carnificies, you'll notice that they use different expressions.

"Any Hive Tyrant may have the following biomorphs and weapon-symbiotes at the cost listed. It must choose two from the Weapon-Symbiotes column and no more."

"Each Warrior within that brood must then also choose two weapon-symbiotes at the cost listed, and no more, but these may differ within the brood."

"Carnifexes may have the following Biomorphs and weapon-symbiotes at the cost listed. It must choose two from the weapon-symbiotes column, and no more."

Choosing two from the weapon-symbiotes column is not another way of saying choose two weapon-symbiotes. The former expresses an inclusive disjunct (they could be a different type of weapon-symbiote, they could be the same type, so long as two choices are made), while the latter expresses an exclusive disjunct (they must be a different type of weapon-symbiote for each choice).

Wait. I thought we very specifically established that Warriors could do this. Especially since the FAQ references the firing of a twin-linked weapon as a single weapon, not two.

Rockit, would you like to include your lengthy essay-like explanation? Because it seems Nurglitch and Stelek are saying different things and now I'm confused.

No, we haven't. The FAQ only allows Tyranids that can take twin-linked symbiote-weapons to use them as single weapons - and specifically references the Tyrant and the Carnifex, two units that have the option of taking twin-linked weapon-symbiotes. Seriously, go ahead and read the FAQ for yourself.

Nurglitch wrote:No, we haven't. The FAQ only allows Tyranids that can take twin-linked symbiote-weapons to use them as single weapons - and specifically references the Tyrant and the Carnifex, two units that have the option of taking twin-linked weapon-symbiotes. Seriously, go ahead and read the FAQ for yourself.

The codex does not say 'Tyranids that can take twin-linked symbiote-weapons use them as a single weapon.'

The codex says 'A Tyranid that carries two of the same ranged weapon symbiote counts them as twin-linked.'

Furthermore immediately preceeding that statement the codex says...
'A cretaure with two or more ranged bio-weapons may only choose to fire one of them per Shooting phase unless it is a Monstrous Creature, in which case two weapons may be fired.'

That certainly sounds consistent with an interpretation of 'if you pick two and are not Monstrous you may only fire one, but if you pick two of the same they are twin-linked'.

I also fail to see the intent of the wording in the Warriors, Tyrant & Carnifex entry to require philosophical analytics to properly conform to while building an army list. Is it the game designer's intent that we need to understand Disjunction to properly build an army list?

That's not my stand in this dispute though, it is simply this... 'must then also choose two weapon-symbiotes' & 'It must choose two from the Weapon Symbiotes column' do not refer to two completely different picking mechanisms. In fact for Tyrants & Carnifex models there are specific exclusions to what you cannot pick, but no remarks that you may pick any one choice two times. It is however GAP to be able to pick Scything Talons or TL-Devourers more than once on either of these units. The book even illustrates that with a Carnifex example build.

There is not anything in the 'It must choose two from the Weapon Symbiotes column' which is any more inclusive of picking the same choice two times as the same interpretation of 'choose two weapon-symbiotes'. The only thing indicative of either of those statements is that two choices must be made from a single list. If one item from the list is chosen twice, that is still two choices from one list. Those conditions satisfy the requirements of the Tyrant, Carnifex & Warrior statements equally well.

To beat the horse a bit...

'chose two from the... column'... TL-Devourer & Scything Talons or Scything Talons & Scything Talons or TL-Deathspiter & TL-Deathspitter...
'choose two weapon symbiotes'... Devourer & Devourer or Devourer & Scything Talons or Deathspitter & Devourer...

A Carnifex could choose Rending Claws twice if it wanted & likewise a Warrior could take Scything Talons twice, Ranged Weapon-Symbiotes are no different, they come from the same list of options for their respective units.

If you say the rules are permissive (thus 'it doesn't say you can't' is not valid) then there should not be any picking of the same weapon-symbiote two times for Tyrants, Carnifex or Warriors... it doesn't say you can pick the same one twice. The book however is populated with examples of multiple picks of the same weapon symbiote. That would be all the permission I think we would need to infer that it is ok to do just that.

The logic of disjunction isn't limited to philosophy (or even original to it, as the historical development of mathematical logic demonstrates). It's a simple fact of the way options can be expressed. It's used in math, science, economics, etc. Whatever philosophical significance you might wish to attach to disjunction, the fact is that there is inclusive disjunction and exclusive disjunction and those are fancy names for the rules expressed by certain constructions in English. The former is often represented by the term "and/or" while the latter is most explicitly represented by "either...or...and not both".

Regardless, surely it is the case that, in the case of the English books, we can assume it to be the designer's intent that we can understand grammatically correct (if somewhat stylistically tortured) written English. Part of understanding such English is understanding the difference between:

"Any Hive Tyrant may have the following biomorphs and weapon-symbiotes at the cost listed. It must choose two from the Weapon-Symbiotes column and no more."

And:

"Each Warrior within that brood must then also choose two weapon-symbiotes at the cost listed, and no more, but these may differ within the brood."

These sentences do not indicate completely separate things. Indeed whether inclusive or exclusive, disjunction is disjunction and both sentence indicate a disjunction or compound of alternatives. In the first case it is inclusive; the alternatives do not necessarily exclude each other, you can take the same option twice. In the second case it is exclusive; the alternatives necessarily exclude each other, you cannot take the same option twice.

As you say, the Hive Tyrant and Carnifex unit entries do have exceptions to what weapon-symbiotes can be selected twice. These are exceptions to the general rule that allows picking the weapon-symbiotes twice, by dint of picking any options from a list rather than specifically two options from a list.

Indeed, what makes the construction used in the Hive Tyrant and Carnifex entries inclusively disjunctive is the apparently unspecified quantity of "two" from the Weapon-Symbiotes column. This generality means that you can get either two weapon-symbiotes or one weapon-symbiote twice.

The Tyranid Warrior entry specifies "two weapon-symbiotes" and the thing specified by the quantity is the type-term "weapon-symbiotes". This specificity means that you can get two weapon-symbiotes and excludes the possibility of getting one weapon-symbiote twice.

Hence Carnifex and Hive Tyrant units can choose multiples of weapon-symbiotes, while Tyranid Warriors must take two different weapon-symbiotes.

As we are constantly reminded, the Warhammer 40k rules are permissive. A player requires permission for an action (some actions are commanded by the rules, but we'll leave that for another day). The rules say that we are permitted to take multiples for the Carnifex and Hive Tyrant units, and they do not permit the same for Tyranid Warrior units.

Interestingly these three unit entries are the only examples of choosing multiple weapon-symbiotes in the whole Tyranid Codex. Of these three, only two say that you can pick the same weapon-symbiote twice, the Hive Tyrant and the Carnifex. We know that their entries permit us to choose the same weapon-symbiote twice because those entries say we choose two from the Weapon-Symbiotes column. Similarly we know that the entry for Tyranid Warriors does not permit us to choose the same weapon-symbiote twice because that entry says we must choose two weapon-symbiotes.

Well Nurglitch even after such deep scrutiny, difference of opinion & analysis we put this topic to there is still one test of which way to build the models holds up... that is in the GW Tournament environment.

Let's poll those who have put models equipped in the manner you argue well is not a legal unit configuration and see if GW sponsored judges have allowed them. In the case that they are allowed it would appear to me to be a concession that the wording is not clearly defined enough to exclude units from play that are equipped as such. On the other hand if those units are or have been ruled as not legal for play then the RAW described in the fashion you have win the day.

Would you accept that unless or until a FAQ with a specific ruling is published?

I'd certainly be willing to accept the result as laid out in official GW tournament play.

Can we get anyone who has played or attaempted to play Warriors with Twin-Linked weapons in an official GW Tournament (not club level) to respond with thier experience?

Rockit wrote:Well Nurglitch even after such deep scrutiny, difference of opinion & analysis we put this topic to there is still one test of which way to build the models holds up... that is in the GW Tournament environment.

GW's tournaments have been known to make some strange rulings, disallowing legal options and allowing illegal ones.

Thankfully, I've seen it in local play and in tournament play.

It's simply picking two ranged symbiotes that are the same, and they become twin-linked.

It seems difficult for Nurglitch to grasp, and that's ok.

I can't even read his posts anymore, it's like reading a EULA. Why bother reading it when it's the same as all the others? Full of mysterious legal-like junk that doesn't hold up to the light of day but you click accept and move on anyway.

You know.. I asked this same question last week, and the end all be all kinda fell out like Rockit says..

try it and see.

Ask GW..

because there is NO clearly (for us in the US) written rule.

I plan to equip my Warriors with double Devourers. If I EVER make it to a GW Tourney.. I will worry about it.. but at my FLGS and around the basement table.. it is legal as of last Sunday! (lol)

also, in the Tyranid Codex FAQ on GW site.. they address the carnifex being fearless.. if it is out of Synapse control, and fails the LD test, It will Lurk..

-Porkuslime

weapons symbiotes are still not biomorphs. They have their own catagory and rules. Biomorphs cannot be taken twice. Weapon symbiotes have not such rule, no matter how you abuse grammar. In fact they have rules explaining how "Tyranids" use two of the same weapon symbiote - specifically MC is never mentioned in this.

That I did not miss.

I don't buy the argument that something special in the wording of the warrior entry forbids taking the same weapon twice. The assertion that because the entry specifies "two weapon symbiotes," it necessarily excludes taking two identical weapon symbiotes seems to be begging the question.

(At least as far as actual English usage is concerned; perhaps technical dialects used in certain academic circles may differ, but since neither GW's writers nor the vast majority of their customers/players are members of that discourse community, arguments founded on its particular esoteric technical "rules" of syntax are hardly applicable to said players).

An example follows.

Say I am running a cafeteria line, one where I have imposed some surprisingly draconian rules. Among them can be found the following phrase:

"[...]Each customer must then also choose two pieces of fruit at the cost listed, and no more [...]"

Would any native speaker of any widely-used English dialect claim that the above phrase prohibits my customers from taking two apples, requiring instead that they take, say, an apple and an orange?

Same story with weapon symbiotes; if I am allowed take two, and am not specifically prohibited from taking two that are identical, I can take two identical weapon symbiotes.


P.S. I have to concede that if, in the above example, I had said "two fruits" rather than "two pieces of fruit" it could be construed as prohibiting the taking of two apples... the question is whether one takes "fruits" to mean "pieces of fruit" or "types of fruit," both of which are possible interpretations (at least for English speakers in my region). The latter would forbid taking two apples. I'll admit that anyone taking "weapon symbiotes" to mean "types of weapon symbiote" would interpret the warrior entry as forbidding duplicate weapons on warriors. This may be a reasonable interpretation, but it is by no means semantically required. Thus, that line of argument can, at most, show the rule to be ambiguous, and that only for English speakers for whom "weapon symbiotes" can reasonably be taken to mean "types of weapon symbiote."

P.P.S. Yikes, sorry for the wall of text, everyone.

OK OK OK. Here's the deal. My friend just heard back from GW and everything is completely cleared up with no complication.

1. They very clearly stated the irrelevance of the particular wording as it holds the same meaning, and pointed out that ''A Tyranid with two of the same weapon-symbiotes counts it as twin-linked." They say a Warrior may buy two of the same weapon-symbiote and fire, for they now count as a single twin-linked weapon.

2. This one is easy and agreeable. It is defined in the FAQ, which I had forgotten about. All Tyranids that must test for IB and fail must fall back, unless they are Fearless, then they simply Lurk.

Thank you gentlemen. Sorry to make a fuss!

What do you mean by "heard back from GW"? I hope you don't mean what I think you mean. That would oblige someone to give a very tiresome but entirely necessary explanation.

Short version:

If it's not an official FAQ, it's almost worthless. All it can give us is intent.

If it's unofficial and not even from the guy who wrote the rules, then it's worse than worthless. It cannot even give us intent.

Edit: Wait, now I see that in your original post, you mentioned calling the so-called Rules Boys. That places the answer firmly in the "worse than worthless" category.

Obviously people, and tournament organizers, are free to play with their Tyranids how they wish. However, where we are concerned with what the rules say, the Tyranid book says that we cannot take the same weapon-symbiote twice on a Tyranid Warrior. Fortunately Dire Wombat has addressed this.

Dire Wombat:

I would have to agree that there is nothing special in the wording of the Warrior entry forbids taking the same weapon twice. However, I would not agree there there is nothing in the Warrior entry forbidding players to take the same weapon twice per 'Nid. There is something quite ordinary forbidding players from taking the same weapon twice per 'Nid.

You are, in fact, quite correct, that as far as ordinary use of English in general is concerned, it is reasonable to interpret the reference to "weapon symbiotes" to mean "types of weapon symbiote". And you touch upon a very good point that the construction in question could just as reasonably be interpreted to mean "tokens of weapon symbiotes". The question is: In this particular case is it reasonable to interpret it one way rather than another. What, exactly, necessitates the interpretation that I hold to be correct?

Firstly, there is no esoteric technical "rules" of syntax, unless one finds phrases like "You can have two menu items" and "You can have two items from the menu" to be esoteric formulae with no meaning. My argument is concerned with meaning, and in particular the ordinary meaning of sentences. Hence my argument is semantic (in the sense of being concerned with meaning, rather than the pejorative sense of differently phrased arguments about the same thing).

Secondly, where one wishes to fix the semantics of any sentence, one must be concerned with context. The meaning of a sentence will change depending on the body of text it is embedded in. On a technical note, that is why semantic theories that purport to universally fix the meaning of sentences always fail: the same sentence can be used to express a variety of things, at least as many as it has contexts, and sometimes even more (sentences with two or more meanings are not uncommon...).

So what's all that have to do with whether Tyranid Warriors can duplicate weapon-symbiotes? Well, in the Tyranid Codex we find two kinds of sentence relating to the number and type of weapon-symbiotes a Tyranid unit can take. The first kind (1) is the kind used to express the number and type of weapon-symbiotes that Hive Tyrant and Carnifex units can take. The second kind (2) is the kind used to express the number and type of weapon-symbiotes Tyranid Warriors can take.

Both sentences can be interpreted to express the same thing, that the model in question can have two weapon-symbiotes or one weapon-symbiote twice, if we ignore the context. Such as it is, these three sentences and their related sentences form the context that fixes their meaning. The context is this:

The Hive Tyrant and Carnifex sentences are the same sort of sentence; they have the same grammar, they express the same thing. The Tyranid Warrior sentence is not the same sort of sentence; it has a different grammar than the other two. One of these sentence is not like the other ones, one of these sentences expresses something differently.

Given that it is possible that the Tyranid Warrior sentence can express something different from what the Hive Tyrant and Carnifex sentences do, we have sufficent reason to believe that it means something different.

Given that the Tyranid Warrior sentence uses a different expression from the Hive Tyrant and Carnifex sentences, and we have sufficient reason to believe that it means something different, then we can only reasonably conclude that it means something different in that context!

So what about the oft-cited rule in Codex: Tyranids that a Tyranid with two of the same weapon-symbiotes counts them as twin-linked? Essentially it's irrelevant, and counting it as a reason for Tyranid Warriors to take two of the same weapon-symbiote puts the cart before the horse, so to speak. A model must be able to take two of the same weapon-symbiote before those weapons can count as a single twin-linked weapon of the type.

But hey, that's just what the rules say. Feel free to play it however you like. Rare-earth magnets will let you play it either way (and play it other ways besides).

The way I see this there are only a few parts of the rules that are of interest.

#1:
The Tyrranid warrior entry in the armylist (p37).

In this entry it is clear that a warrior may take 2 ranged weapon-symbiotes but may only fire one.

#2:
The weapon symbiote entry (p30).

In this entry it is stated that a tyrranid that carries two of the same ranged weapon-symbiote counts it as twin linked.


The only real interpretation issue I have is that the warrior entry specifically states you can, if you have two weapons-symbiotes, only fire one.
This is naturally countered by the basic rule that a twin linked weapon counts as one weapon.
The problem as per usual when it comes to GW is that they do not think when they write and thus they put in weapon-symbiote as oposed to ranged weapon.

The RAW of the matter... I dont know, it could go ither way really.

RAI however, while arguable, I would say leans towards twin linked ranged weapon-symbiotes be allowed.

My personal opinion, while uninteresting to many, would be that two ranged weapon-symbiotes become a single twin linked weapon and thus can be fired as such.


Carnifexes out of synapse range:
I dont really see a problem, they follow instinctive behaviour just like any other non synapse brood.

This would meen the player can choose to try to move it or lurk.

If you choose lurk then there is no problem, easy to interpret.

If you choose to try to move you will have to roll the leadership test, if it succedes it moves as normal but if it fails he will have to fall back as if it had failed a morale test.
Please note here that fearless only grants automatic successes to morale tests, not leadership tests and that "falling back as if it had failed a morale test" is not the same as 'having failed a morale test'.

This meens a carnifex as per the codex rules can fall back due to instinctive behaviour.

Now let me just check if the official errata has anything to say on this...

Yep, thought so, erratad.
A fearless creature that fails its instinctive behaviour test lurks.

I'd sure like to see a Carnifex fail and run away.

Haven't yet, but I can have hope.

Actually, the Carnifex thing is in the FAQ:

" A: If a fearless Tyranid is outside synapse range and, wishing to move, fails it's Ld test, it must Lurk instead, as described in the Instrinctive Behavior chart."