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.

Snooggums: "I'm laughing about the fact that the second half of your post was about my response to DaIronGob "DIG" as I mentioned in my post. I never said that was your opinion and I was showing him the absurdity of his claim that only one of the weapons fired, but somehow got the one weapon to be twin linked by virtue of carrying the second weapon. The comment about the 4 shot carnifex was to show that his conclusion gave an obvious contradiction to his logic as he believes the guns combine on the Carnifex. you write well but you don't read well."

I read just fine. You can giggle all you like - but my comments stand. I was replying to the fact that *you* (continue to) demonstrate that you are not comprehending what people are telling you. Point in fact - on a Hive Tyrant or Carnifex, having two Venom Cannons or two Barbed Stranglers means that when fired they 'count as' a 'twin linked' weapon.

Snoogums: "I am not denying that a twin linked weapon is a single weapon."

I am. Your statement above is 100% absolutely *WRONG*! Read the Core rules about twin linking - page 30 of the BGB!

(You also need a reading lesson - try Centurian99's article about "How to have an intelligent rules debate." From said article... "Appendix A: Common Argument Mistakes"

A-1. Misquoting a Rule {which you've do repeatedly during this thread}
Exact wording is important. If the exact wording of a rule doesn?t support your premises or conclusion, it?s going to be pretty simple for the opposing side to refute. )

Which is exactly what I'm doing here.

#1 Twin-linked weapons are 2 (two) weapons that "only count as a single weapon being fired". (Page 30 - core rules)

#2 "A Tyranid that carries 2 of the same ranged weapon symbiote counts them (plural - emphasis mine) as twin-linked (singular - emphasis mine)." (Page 30 of the Tyranid codex)

#3 "Warriors with two ranged weapon symbiotes may only fire one per turn" (Page 37 of the Tyranid Codex).

A warrior that buys 2 of any of the following: Barbed Strangler, Deathspitter, Devourer, or Venom Cannon, *MUST* apply both the 'count them as twin linked' rule *AND* the "counts as a single weapon being fired" rule to their matching pair of ranged symbiotes, which clearly satisfies the warrior rule about "may only fire one ranged weapon symbiote per turn". You keep trying to ignore one (or both) of those rules (#1 & #2) in support of your argument about rule #3 - which is wrong. The warrior rule from page 37 *DOES* disallow certain things - if a Warrior bought the "Spinefists (pair)" option {which is already a 'twin-linked weapon' by the spinefists rules} twice, then it would only be able to fire one 'pair' since there are no 'twin-linked twin linked' weapons. It would have two (identical pairs of twin-linked) weapons and the ability to only fire one of them per turn. The same restriction would apply if the warrior in question bought two different ranged weapons. If it had say a Deathspitter and a Devourer, then it could fire one or the other but not both in a single turn. Other than the Spinefists, Rule #3 does NOT prevent a warrior from firing a pair of (identical) ranged weapon symbiotes because Rules #1 and #2 must be applied *BEFORE* those weapons are fired. Example Warrior with two deathspitters counts them as twin-linked which counts them as a single weapon being fired (with re-rolls for failed 'to hit' rolls) which is ok because warriors may only fire one per turn.

This is not rocket science - it's basic deductive logic. And (again) as per Centurian99's well written article, until you can actually disprove the validity of *any* of my logic statements, you haven't got a leg to stand on when it comes to saying that a warrior with a 'twin linked' weapon like deathspitters or devourers for example can't fire - you don't get to ignore rules #1 and/or #2 - which is exactly what you're trying to argue happens. And it's wrong.

Posted By Aronious on 03/30/2006 10:26 PM

From "Leading the Swarm" at http://us.games-workshop.com/games/40k/tyranids/gaming/tactica/2.htm
There is one exception to this rule, and that is a Tyranid Warrior equipped for a shooting role. Because Warriors don?t benefit from taking two guns, I would suggest that all Warriors with guns take a set of rending claws.

For what it is worth, there is a GW opinion from some guy on the US website. Maybe this is an opinion the other guys haven't posted in the other thread.

I might politely suggest you try reading Centurian99's well written article - "How to have an intelligent debate" elsewhere in this same forum.  To quote from it...

Offering up somthing as a rule that is not a rule.
What isn?t a rule? Lots of things seem like rules, but really are not. Here?s some of them:
? Rulezboyz do not create rules. GW doesn't pay someone to be a "Rulezboy," they pay someone to stock shelves, or take phone orders. In their spare time they answer the Rulesboyz e-mail account. They're not experts on the rules. They're often wrong. And if you ask them the same question three or four times, it?s not unheard of to get three or four different answers. If your argument includes any reference to a Rulezboy, you?ve just refuted yourself. Redshirts (i.e. staff at GW stores) fall into this same category.
? Posts from the Eye of Terror (or any other forum on the Internet, for that matter) are not official. They?re interesting and there?s nothing wrong with following them in common practice, but they are not rules, regardless of the alleged source.

Which pretty handily covers your comments above.

I actually see and almost concur with what Loki and Snoog are saying.

But in the long run I would still say that per RaW the actually number of weapons a warrior can shoot has no rule-bearing effect on the twinlinking effect of equipping the warrior with two of the same weapon symbiote.

As much as I disagree with Myrmidon on other points, he is right about the EoT posts. They have no place here.

While unofficial "GW" posts can usually be a good guide to how to actually play the game, they have no place in this forum. Then again, remember that arguments on this forum are many times not how we actually play the game.

Now back to your regularly scheduled slug-fest...

Posted By blue loki on 03/31/2006 9:11 AM
As much as I disagree with Myrmidon on other points, he is right about the EoT posts. They have no place here.

While unofficial "GW" posts can usually be a good guide to how to actually play the game, they have no place in this forum. Then again, remember that arguments on this forum are many times not how we actually play the game.

Now back to your regularly scheduled slug-fest...

Yea these discussions are more for the venting of frustrations over the rule issues that GW tends to NOT want to deal with.

Myrmidon said:

Snooggums: "I'm laughing about the fact that the second half of your post was about my response to DaIronGob "DIG" as I mentioned in my post. I never said that was your opinion and I was showing him the absurdity of his claim that only one of the weapons fired, but somehow got the one weapon to be twin linked by virtue of carrying the second weapon. The comment about the 4 shot carnifex was to show that his conclusion gave an obvious contradiction to his logic as he believes the guns combine on the Carnifex. you write well but you don't read well."

I read just fine. You can giggle all you like - but my comments stand. I was replying to the fact that *you* (continue to) demonstrate that you are not comprehending what people are telling you. Point in fact - on a Hive Tyrant or Carnifex, having two Venom Cannons or two Barbed Stranglers means that when fired they 'count as' a 'twin linked' weapon.

I'm going to say this one more time: I didn't say that I support the Carnifex firing two twin linked Venom Cannons seperately and twin linked even though the wording is vague enough to cause confusion. I was using it as an example to prove DaIronGob's "shoots one Deathspitter but become magically linked" theory was flawed. Stop posting that I did say it as a fact, it is clouding your logic.

I do disagree with your attempt to say two weapons that count as twin linked become one weapon. The twinlinked devourers on a carnifex are literally one twin linked weapon as per the BGB definition because they are a single purchase with twin linked in their name and take one slot. The devourers on a Warrior however are seperate purchases, take different weapon slots, and the Warrior rule says that only one of the two weapons gets to fire. It does not say "may only fire one weapon or twin linked weapon" or "make one shooting attack". I am questioning how the 'counts as' makes the weapon a single weapon, and your quotes aren't doing it because having it 'count as' is not the same as being a single twin linked weapon. Making them twin linked does not imply that they have become a single weapon, just that they act like one when fired. I disagree that they become one weapon before being fired.

The thing with the Carnifex is that he can already buy a twin-linked weapon as a single symbiote slot. That rule does not state that it is a single weapon either. So in essence, by your ruling and thoughts the carnifex could fire one set of twin linked devourers, since they are still two weapons and not one weapon, and not fire anything else. There is nothing, as you said that states that the twin-linked devourers are 'magically' a single weapon.

My above quote wasn't in a rule book. It actually was from the Official Games Workshop Website(insert thunder and lightning effects). I am familiar with the policy, but the quote wasn't really an opinion (my misrepresentation), it was a statement in reference to the discussed rule. It was not in Chapter Approved, but in the Warhammer 40k Tyrynids section.

The quote is from Marshall Jansen, in an article on the official Games Workshop website. The quote was neither from a rulezboy or any forum. It was offered as fact on the official GW website. Per the article from the GW website "warriors get no benefit from a second weapon." It did not state the rule directly, but refers to it. The rules involved have already been stated.

If this still holds no weight, from what blue loki posted above this question has two sides, and since:

P1 warriors can not fire the second ranged symbiote (two symbiotes can't become one), per Codex
P2 twin linking makes it one weapon, per BGB
C1 There is only opinion as an answer since the two rules (and two opinions of the rules) are mutually exclusive.

Can you find a link to that article and post it here please?

 

Nevermind I found it I think:

Last paragraph of FOCUS: SINGLE-MINDED KILLING MACHINES

There is one exception to this rule, and that is a Tyranid Warrior equipped for a shooting role. Because Warriors don?t benefit from taking two guns, I would suggest that all Warriors with guns take a set of rending claws. While scything talons might seem like a better choice (being significantly cheaper), rending claws make the Warriors a real threat should they find themselves in close combat with power-armored foes. Because rending claws don?t rely on Weapon Skill or Strength to do damage, you get a nice dual-role unit, without having to pay for expensive close combat upgrades.

 

From this articele : http://us.games-workshop.com/games/40k/tyranids/gaming/tactica/2.htm

Not a rule but interesting.

So after all this convoluted reasoning defending differing viewpoints, i have to ask:

How do you PLAY it? i'd be curious to see if anyone had the balls to deny the final effect.
Because i have a warrior brood with TL devs, and it would be a cold day in hell that someone told me that the end result wasn't 4 s4 shots re-rolling misses and wounds.
And after all this i have to admit the point of this post appears to have been lost in the discussion.

I'd have no problem letting your Warriors re-roll the to-hit dice.  Even though the rules appear to have this loophole, I don't see it as a game-breaker.

Posted By Thunderkiss on 04/02/2006 10:51 AM
So after all this convoluted reasoning defending differing viewpoints, i have to ask:

How do you PLAY it? i'd be curious to see if anyone had the balls to deny the final effect.
Because i have a warrior brood with TL devs, and it would be a cold day in hell that someone told me that the end result wasn't 4 s4 shots re-rolling misses and wounds.
And after all this i have to admit the point of this post appears to have been lost in the discussion.

That's a pretty poor attitude, "I modeled it so I should get to play with it". I'd let someone do it because it's unclear, although if I questioned it and they responded like that I'd be watching a bit closer for cheating.

As snoog said, just because you can model a figure in a certain way does not mean that it should be legal. Heck, I've seen people with "John Woo" style dual-bolter wielding Marines, but that doesn't mean that they can fire both of them.

Having said that, since the Warriors can legally purchase the weapons as a TL system, I would let you use them. IMO, if you can purchase it, it's probably intended to work.

I don't agree. Tghe way i'm seeing it is that a point was brought up that is fairly convoluted, that hadn't ever been given a second thought til now, and your arguement relies solely on your interperetation.

I interpereted it differently. My warriors have only that weapon on them, tho they paid for 2. It wasn't as if i came up with it to screw someone out of a good game; my option looks very legal, and not just to me it seems.

And again, i refuse to argue the definition of what "is" means here, which many posters here love to do. Counts as a single twin linked weapon is good enough for me.i know, i know, i didn't follow true dakka form and analyze the wording til it didn't make sense anymore, but hey, shoot me, i didn't want to waste my time.

You know what would've been easier? GW making the new nid dex to include a "twin-linked" cost to a certain Symbiote much like they did with the Tau... but nooooo they had to put the word 'is' in there and 'counts as' just to muck with us.

I agree 1000%. You'd think they'd know when they were writing an ambiguous rule and fix it prior. Or just know how to write clearly in the first place.