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.

Nids DO have weapons. In fact, look at the unit entries in the back of the book. "Biomorphs and weapons" is the category header.

The argument against is that the fluff reason "tyranids do not wield weapons per say" is connoting a rule. The addition of "per say" at the end means that the statement preceding is a qualifier for the statement afterwards. The following statement is that "tyrands cannot claim the additional attack for having two close combat weapons". Therefore it is not referencing the fact they are not weapons as a rule, but as a explanation to why you dont get the 2 CCW bonus. That is how the phrase "per say" functions in the English language.

The problem comes in explaining WHAT is a weapon. This has never been qualified as it has never been an issue. Locally we rule as the arms connote weapons. ST, RC, boneswords, bonesabres. AG and TS are built into the hide (i believe they tried to add the bits for it in some kits, but never explained what is what in any part of the codex).

 zephoid wrote:
Nids DO have weapons. In fact, look at the unit entries in the back of the book. "Biomorphs and weapons" is the category header.

The argument against is that the fluff reason "tyranids do not wield weapons per say" is connoting a rule. The addition of "per say" at the end means that the statement preceding is a qualifier for the statement afterwards. The following statement is that "tyrands cannot claim the additional attack for having two close combat weapons". Therefore it is not referencing the fact they are not weapons as a rule, but as a explanation to why you dont get the 2 CCW bonus. That is how the phrase "per say" functions in the English language.

The problem comes in explaining WHAT is a weapon. This has never been qualified as it has never been an issue. Locally we rule as the arms connote weapons. ST, RC, boneswords, bonesabres, AG and TS are built into the hide (i believe they tried to add the bits for it in some kits, but never explained what is what in any part of the codex).

Wrong about the bonesword and sabers.



This is the swarmlord, Look at it's weapons held in the hands.

Logically, they can be disarmed.

Thus, all nid CCW can be disarmed.

Yeah , Nids clearly have weapons. There's a whole section title CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS with a list of weapons under it.

Then in the FAQ there is a question:

Q: Do Tyranid models combine the effects of multiple Tyranid close combat weapons in an assault? For example, if I have a model that has both Scything Talons and Rending Claws, do I re-roll results of 1To Hit and still have the Rending special rule. (p83)
A: Yes.

Tyranids close combat weapons. At the very least it is open to debate right now, it needs an faq. Of course, some people can just be rude and aggressive about it, but it's not worth trying to have a discussion with people like that.

If tyranids teeth and claws are treated as normal close combat weapons, and disarm make them close combat weapons isn't it just the same thing. So why is an FAQ needed. They are still ap 2 if its a monstrous creature since dissarm doesn't change the type of critter it is.

Like abbadon with two weapons. You disarm him and take his daemon weapon away, he just attacks with his claw.

Disarm is good but not game ending or too great to jump in a combat with just anyone.

Lungpickle wrote:
If tyranids teeth and claws are treated as normal close combat weapons, and disarm make them close combat weapons isn't it just the same thing. So why is an FAQ needed. They are still ap 2 if its a monstrous creature since dissarm doesn't change the type of critter it is.

Like abbadon with two weapons. You disarm him and take his daemon weapon away, he just attacks with his claw.

Disarm is good but not game ending or too great to jump in a combat with just anyone.

Yes, but we are talking of Disarm vs their Special CCW weaponry, such as Bone Swords and the like.

Sure you can disarm a Hive Tyrant, but you'll at least knock away his instant death from the sword or rerolls from scything talons.

A biomorph and say a power sword are two completely different things. If the Exarch power was named Sever then it might make some sense it would work against Tyranids.

Could someone actually provide the phrasing of Disarming Strike?

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Could someone actually provide the phrasing of Disarming Strike?

Word for word:

In any round of a challenge, this model can attempt to temporarily disarm his opponent. If he wishes to do so, both he and his opponent roll a d6 before either makes any To Hit rolls. The model with this power adds 1 to the total if his Weapon Skill is higher than his opponent's.

If the model's total is equal to or higher than his opponent's, nominate one of the opponent's melee weapons - this is treated as a close combat weapon until the end of the phase. If his opponent has no weapons, this ability has no effect.

Tyranid melee biomorphs cannot be melee weapons.

Otherwise a Tyranid couldn't benefit from a Bonesword, Scything Talons, Toxin Sacs, and Rending Claws at the same time(hypothetically)


So no disarming a tyranid.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Tyranid melee biomorphs cannot be melee weapons.

Otherwise a Tyranid couldn't benefit from a Bonesword, Scything Talons, Toxin Sacs, and Rending Claws at the same time(hypothetically)


So no disarming a tyranid.

Well, except for the FAQ saying they can. Pesky rules and all that.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Tyranid melee biomorphs cannot be melee weapons.

Otherwise a Tyranid couldn't benefit from a Bonesword, Scything Talons, Toxin Sacs, and Rending Claws at the same time(hypothetically)


So no disarming a tyranid.

Rending claws can't really be taken on any of those together, however it could be disarmed as it is listed under CLOSE COMBAT WEAPON.

Toxin Sacks grant Poisoned Attacks to all the attacks a user has, not a Poisoned Weapon, so it could be used together. It's listed as a Biomorph, counted as an upgrade to the model rather then attached to a weapon (unike the poison weapon specific plaguesword or Plagueknife)

Bonesword is a weapon, thus it can be disarmed, it is listed under CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS.

Thus, disarm works.

The main issue is a lot of the Tyranid stuff comes in pairs, so presumably the power could only disarm one (or does one pair count as one) Who knows. This could also be applied to some special character gear.

One of the general nid rules before the unit description sections allows you to use all the abilities of the weapons nids are wielding. That is the exception you were looking for that allows you to use all the rules of the weapons a nid creature is wielding.

Edit: that actually is a good point. Can disarm be used against weapons that are described as "a pair". GK falchions, chain sabres, boneswords, ect. I have no idea. You buy both as a pair and their rule fuctions as assuming they are used together, but they are often indicated as two weapons. Thats one for a faq as there is no real yes/no.

Boneswords can be used either individually or in a pair.

Having a pair of weapons at your disposal grants you the +1 Attack bonus for using a second weapon. It wouldn't make sense for the weapon to qualify for the two weapon rule if everything was to treat it as just one weapon, at least not without it being stated as such. In such a case it seems logical for the disarm skill to be able to remove the +1 attack, if nothing more, when used against two weapons of the very same description. It would function that way if you where using it on someone that surrender their bolt gun and pistol for two power swords, though it would be strange to see two power swords seeing you could get the same bonus from keeping your pistol.

Assuming they don't have three or more weapons, of course.

This is the swarmlord, Look at it's weapons held in the hands.

Logically, they can be disarmed.

Thus, all nid CCW can be disarmed.

Is this really a serious point?
Do you own a single nid model?

Each model is made to look like the biomorph is a gun/CCW carried like every other race would, but if you actually look at a model, or that pic, you can see the hand like section is part of the blade.
Nids dont have hands!
They have a biomorph on the end of an arm.

Also, why try and gain a point simply from a pic?
This is a rules discussion, pics have nothing to do with it.




OT: It is a pretty tough one though, because they dont actually function like regular CCW's do.

1: people keep using "wield" alot.
Since people are bringing common sense into it, could someone in theory "wield" their own hand?
Because it usually relates to holding an object, and if such an object is part of your body, then you would not be "wielding" it.

2: While the model gains the rules from the biomorph (rending, re-rolls etc) they can stack them, something normal CCW's cannot do.
Which makes me think its actually more of an upgrade than a CCW.

JinxDragon wrote:
From what I know a pair of weapons grants you the +1 bonus for wielding a second weapon. It wouldn't make sense for the weapon to qualify for the two weapon rule if everything was to treat it as just one weapon. In such a case it seems logical for the disarm skill to be able to remove the +1 attack, if nothing more, when used against duel wielded weapons.

Assuming they don't have three or more weapons, of course.

Except Nids don't ever get that +1 attack, nor do they lose it - if a Carnifex trades both sets of Talons for guns, he loses zero attacks.

Well, how would disarming strike work against a more conventional army's melee weapon that grants bonuses whether you attack with it or not? I believe the Grey Knight's Dreadknight has one.

Nids don't get bonus attacks based on the fact they have a ton of melee weapons available to them?

Bummer for them.

But my post still stands only the outcome is different. If they do not get the +1 attack for a 'pair of' weapons then it can be easily argued they are not 'using two weapons.' If one rule has to treat them as one weapon, then all rules should be treating them as one weapon as well. Unless, of course, those rules specifically state that it is one weapon only for the +1 attack rule and every other rule treats them as two.

JinxDragon wrote:
Nids don't get bonus attacks based on the fact they have a ton of melee weapons available to them?

Bummer for them.

But my post still stands only the outcome is different. If they do not get the +1 attack for having multiple melee equivalent weapons then it is clear they are not 'using two weapons.' If the rules don't grant them any bonus for having a second weapon when they take a 'pair of' weapons, then it is clear. For all rule purposes, the pair is treated as a single weapon.

Well actually a pair of boneswords does grant a bonus compared to one, the leadership test is made on a 3d6 instead of a 2d6. Plus you have Bonesword and Lash Whip, which is 2 biomorphs taken as 1 option.

I like to think that the bonus attacks are already included in the profile, and the reason why they don't lose any attacks for switching cc weapons out for guns is because they have mastered the pistol whip.

A second set of talons allows you to re-roll all fails, not just 1's.
So that functions as a result of using 2 pairs of weapons.


And nope jinx, only way to gain extra attacks for nids is to take crushing claws for D3.
Other than that, they get basic profile attacks, even if you stack them with weapons.

The other funny issue is tyrant guards.

The come with rending claws and talons.
You can swap the talong for lashwhips, or for a single bonesword.
Which leaves you with 2 claw hands, and sword hand, and somehow, nothing in the 4th one.

 Jackal wrote:

2: While the model gains the rules from the biomorph (rending, re-rolls etc) they can stack them, something normal CCW's cannot do.
Which makes me think its actually more of an upgrade than a CCW.

Eldar can run and shoot, something other races can't do. It's just an army specific rule to benefit Tyranids, it doesn't necessarily mean they won't count as combat weapons.

Yeah but any rules that have a specific 'in this case' clause are except from being treated as a standard rule. The pair could still be treated as a single weapon for all rule purposes, only it gains a bonus to the leadership test and nothing more thanks to the exception. Therefore simply having this exception doesn't automatically turn them into two individual weapons.

Of course this still has an issue.

It seems the no +1 attack is an exception rule unique to the nids themselves, blanket across all units regardless of what weapons they are carrying. That does render my whole post moot, as it would also negate the bonus for having two individual weapons. Throwing the whole 'is a pair of weapons the same as two individual weapons' firmly back into the I don't know category.

Nids can use onslaught, which is the same as eldar so moot point.

So because its an army wide rule, its no longer valid?
Can you tell me how you came to that idea please?
Because im at a loss to see how an army wide rule now has no bearing on a ruling to do with CCW's.

I didn't say that it was no longer valid :/ Of course the rule that states that Tyranids do not get the additional attack for multiple combat weapons as it is already included in their profile is valid.

While I can see both sides of this argument, currently RAW says.

BRB pg 50.

Every weapon has a profile. Here are two examples.

___________Range__S__AP__TYPE

Boltgun. 24" 4 5 Rapid Fire

Power Sword -- User 3 Melee


Until anyone can produce a profile for any tyranid biomorph/close combat weapon, then it would not count as a legal target to be "disarmed".

Fragile wrote:
Until anyone can produce a profile for any tyranid biomorph/close combat weapon, then it would not count as a legal target to be "disarmed".

When you use this argument, you claim that Disarming Strike is not supposed to work against any pre-6th Codex. Melee weapons didn't have profiles pre-6th, and only basic (rulebook reference) or really complicated (Codex FAQs) weapons were amended to have profiles.

The problem is not every CCW has a profile - only the 6th edtion codices, and the ones that have been FAQ'd do.

Or is the argument that Dark Eldar cannot be disarmed, unless they have a (demi)klaive, or are using Kheradruakh? Except for those three, there is no statline for any Dark Eldar CCW.

If a model has a "close combat weapon" in the wargear, then it follows the rules on Page 51 for CCW's.

That being
______Range__ S __ AP __ TYPE

CCW____-- ___User__--____ Melee

OK, so where is the profile for a Harlequin's Kiss (for Harlequins taken from C: DE)? What about a Hellglaive?