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.

I giggle a little when these posts get so serious and people start quoting english lessons hehe.

In reality I think the majority of us agree that GW intentions were the effects would stack. However again this is an instance where GW did not clearly state without a doubt (due to others interpretations) how these rules work in harmony with the generic GW rules. This is apparent in several portions of the codex (Mawloc, Pods getting TS, CC Weapons or not, etc..) and my recomendation is to get an idea how it will be played in your area until the FAQ series start to come out. Everyone has made great points but we just seem to interpret this differently. No biggy so lets stay friends and keep er civil

Everyone here has a legitamate argument (someone spell check that for me ) but we wont know 100% until GW gives us their RAI. I will say that I am starting to think GW uses Microsofts buisness model by throwing a beta version on the market then letting everyone else find the holes hehe.

As a side note it is bad form to threaten someone with reporting abuse while in the same post you treat the individual abusively. Also it is bad form to be in the minority of a poll and stating it is a bad poll because most people dont agree with you...or vise versa. Also not a great way to make friends in my opinion or to gain respect in upcoming discussions.

Lord Mortis - erm, no. If you have a special CCW you must use it - the exact opposite of what you just posted.

Page 33: Tyranids NEVER USE CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS

Got that now?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Lord Mortis - erm, no. If you have a special CCW you must use it - the exact opposite of what you just posted.

Page 33: Tyranids NEVER USE CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS

Got that now?

Where in the rules does it say I must use my special CCW?

Tyranids' teeth, claws and talons are their close combat weapons. Page 33 and page 83.

Page 35 BRB, just under the bullets under "Who can fight". Its why people have been talking for a year now about not being able to "turn off" powerfists, you know...

And they never Wield CCW, meaning that the rules about 2 CCW never applies. Page 33

nosferatu1001 wrote:Page 35 BRB, just under the bullets under "Who can fight". Its why people have been talking for a year now about not being able to "turn off" powerfists, you know...

Nope, I don't know, as I don't frequent this forum that often. That said, I do see that one must use their special ccw.

And they never Wield CCW, meaning that the rules about 2 CCW never applies. Page 33

Their teeth, claws, and talons are their ccws. Pages 33 and 83. However they don't get 1+ attack for using 2 ccws, as this bonus has already been included in their profile. That is the rule. No more, no less.

Lord_Mortis wrote:Their teeth, claws, and talons are their ccws. Pages 33 and 83. However they don't get 1+ attack for using 2 ccws, as this bonus has already been included in their profile. That is the rule. No more, no less.

Yes, well done. They are CCW. We know this.

However, as per page 33, “Tyranids do not wield Close Combat Weapons”

How hard is that to grasp?

SO, given that they do not wield Close Combat Weapons, nothing they buy triggers the rules combining the effects of 2 CCW as they never wield the weapon.

Clear now?

Mortis you are basically arguing at this point for the sake of arguing while Gwar is preaching to the gospel here at Dakka. You are trying to pass this off as RAW and if the King of RAW doesn't agree then that really says something.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Mortis you are basically arguing at this point for the sake of arguing while Gwar is preaching to the gospel here at Dakka. You are trying to pass this off as RAW and if the King of RAW doesn't agree then that really says something.

G

Which doesn't mean anything to me. I have been the minority on rules questions in the past when the majority were sure they were playing it correctly, only to have GW release a FAQ later on that supported the minority position. But yeah, we are beating a dead horse at this point, each side firmly entrenched into their particular view.

Lord_Mortis wrote:Which doesn't mean anything to me. I have been the minority on rules questions in the past when the majority were sure they were playing it correctly, only to have GW release a FAQ later on that supported the minority position. But yeah, we are beating a dead horse at this point, each side firmly entrenched into their particular view.

You do realise that GW releasing an FAQ in your favour actually means your view was wrong 90% of the time?

Lord_Mortis wrote:Which doesn't mean anything to me. I have been the minority on rules questions in the past when the majority were sure they were playing it correctly, only to have GW release a FAQ later on that supported the minority position. But yeah, we are beating a dead horse at this point, each side firmly entrenched into their particular view.

Which is usually because they *change the rules* - you cannot account for Deus Ex Machina when reading rules as they currently stand. In fact if you agree with the errata it does mean your initial reading was wrong - as they had to change the rules to fit what you said that means whaty ou said was initially not the rules.

The rules, currently, work this way. I really doubt they will FAQ that really Nids dont get to combine their non-CCW effects.

That is how I feel too. It's seems so obvious to me.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Mortis you are basically arguing at this point for the sake of arguing while Gwar is preaching to the gospel here at Dakka. You are trying to pass this off as RAW and if the King of RAW doesn't agree then that really says something.

G

/facepalm.


Gwar is not the "king of Raw" - he is but another person with an opinion.

Please stop adding to his already over inflated ego by saying things like this.

Mortis has a point - the wording for the Tyranid "CCWs" is similar to that of the other special CCWs.

For instance, power weapons: "Models wounded in close combat by the attacks of a model armed with a power weapon are not allowed armor saves."

Note the distinction in meaning between the former and this 'Models wounded in close combat by attacks from a power weapon are not allowed armor saves.'

Power weapons only give the bonus to the model, and it does not specifically mention that he has to be wielding it, just armed with it.

I have a feeling that as frequently happens, the whole sentence in the Nid codex is getting cut short that describes Nids not using CCWs.

I do not have the Nid Dex, can someone quote the rule in its entirety?

MULTIPLE Mod Alerts on this thread.

Some OT/attack posts have been cleaned up/deleted.

STOP the personal attacks.

DEBATE THE ACTUAL POINTS of the argument, and NOT the personal character of the poster.

This is an OFFICIAL in thread warning.

Beyond this point, if things continue how they were before, there will be consequences.

From page 33 of the new 'dex;

Tyranid creatures do not wield close combat weapons as such, but rather slash at their opponents with their own teeth, claws, and talons. As a result, Tyranid models never receive bonus Attacks for fighting with more than one close combat weapon- these bonuses are always included in the creatures's profile.

So, all this means is that Tyranid creatures do not receive the +1 attack bonus for being armed with more than one ccw. Please note the word, "As a result", meaning because they "do not wield close combat weapons as such", this is why they do not receive the attack bonus. That's all that is written here on page 33.....

Now, let's move on to page 81; there it lists the page as Weapons and Biomorphs. This is further sub-categorized as Ranged Weapons, Close Combat Weapons, and Biomorphs. Listed under the Close Combat Weapons category, there is bonesword, claws and teeth, crushing claws, lash whip, rending claws, and scything talons.

Most of these close combat weapons (with the exception of claws and teeth) confer some sort of special ability for the attacker or penalty to the opponent in close combat; therefore, it would seem to me that these are indeed special close combat weapons as listed in the BRB.

I just do not see anything in this new 'dex that allows special ccw's to stack at all and i've read the thing from top-to-bottom.

Additionally, i think people really need to read the whole entry that is listed on page 33 instead of just part of it. I think it's clear......now, this does not mean I favor that 'nids should be restricted from their weapons stacking. I surely thought they would, however, from what I have read with the BRB and what is listed in this 'dex, I'm not finding anything that is allowing it.....therefore, I agree with Mortis.

Until there is a GW FAQ that clears this up, OR maybe this was meant to be.....who knows, but it would be nice of them to be much less vague with their rules in their future codexes.....

Just my .02 worth here....cheers!

Thank you ThirdUltra. I figured the case was something like this - a quote taken out of context to achieve the desired end result.

Frankly, I do not see any way you could read into the entry on p.33 as saying that they are allowed to stack special weapons.

Don't get me wrong, I figured for sure it would work that way. But the RAW indicates otherwise it would seem.

Anyone got a rule that supports that Tyranid special CCWs stack?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Interesting consequence:

Models with 2 special weapons must decide which to use when it is their turn to attack (p.42 brb). For the lash whip, it reduces Initiative. However, because the selection must be done at the time the model is making its attacks, it seems anything with a higher Initiative than the model with the lash whip will not be effected - they get to attack before the model can choose to use its lash whip.

The term AS A RESULT does not negate the fact that Tyranids don't have close combat weapons, it's just pointing out that as a result OF NOT HAVING CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS they don't receive +1 attack. The rules clearly don't say Tyranids HAVE CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS but don't receive a +1 attack. What you are saying is a redirect.

G

But in fact they do have CCWs - there is a section in the codex called CCWs. Are you arguing they are not allowed to use those items? Certainly if they do not use CCWs then those items can't be used.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The fact is that the phrase "As a result" is used to clarify the previous sentence. Arguing that it has no meaning is outright disingenuous. What other possible meaning could the phrase "As a result" have? The way you are reading it, the phrase has no meaning.

What we do know:

Tyranids don't have close combat weapons and as a result don't get the bonus +1 attack. If Tyranids had close combat then they would get the bonus +1 attack. It's very simple but the confusion stems from the upgrades on page 83 are listed under a heading entitled Close Combat Weapons... But we already know from page 33 that Tyranids don't have close combat weapons. It was a poor choice of wording for the title Close Combat Weapons that appears on page 33. Confusing? Yes indeed but the rules are there.

Here are the options listed under the section beginning on page 83:

Bone Sword (sounds like a close combat weapon and works like one as well)

Claws and Teeth (this is by far the one of most interest, it's another rule stating that Tyranids DON'T have close combat weapons unless armed with claws and teeth... This is the last nail in the proverbial coffin as it says in black and white that only claws and teeth count as close combat weapons)

if we go back to the rules for the bone sword it's clearly stated that a model armed with said bone sword ignores armor saves. Sounds like an upgrade/biomorphic to me. The rules don't state that a bone sword is a close combat weapon.

Crushing Claws (allows a model to gain d3 additional attacks. Sounds like a close combat weapon but by the rules all it does is confer extra attacks)

it's pretty much the same for all the other entries, they might sound like a close combat weapon but in fact they simply add something beneficial.

They aren't ccws and the rules are explicily clear on this issue.

G

Green Blow Fly just to confirm, you are saying that the entries under "Close Combat Weapons" are not Close Combat Weapons?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Tyranids don't have close combat weapons and as a result don't get the bonus +1 attack.

False, Tyranids do not WIELD CCWs. Use proper verbiage as changing the words changes the meaning.

If Tyranids had close combat then they would get the bonus +1 attack. It's very simple but the confusion stems from the upgrades on page 83 are listed under a heading entitled Close Combat Weapons... But we already know from page 33 that Tyranids don't have close combat weapons. It was a poor choice of wording for the title Close Combat Weapons that appears on page 33. Confusing? Yes indeed but the rules are there.

And the change you made from Wield to Have is lending itself to your argument. This entire section is false because they do HAVE CCWs, they just do not WIELD them.

Here are the options listed under the section beginning on page 83:

Bone Sword (sounds like a close combat weapon and works like one as well)

Claws and Teeth (this is by far the one of most interest, it's another rule stating that Tyranids DON'T have close combat weapons unless armed with claws and teeth... This is the last nail in the proverbial coffin as it says in black and white that only claws and teeth count as close combat weapons)

if we go back to the rules for the bone sword it's clearly stated that a model armed with said bone sword ignores armor saves. Sounds like an upgrade/biomorphic to me. The rules don't state that a bone sword is a close combat weapon.

Crushing Claws (allows a model to gain d3 additional attacks. Sounds like a close combat weapon but by the rules all it does is confer extra attacks)

it's pretty much the same for all the other entries, they might sound like a close combat weapon but in fact they simply add something beneficial.

They aren't ccws and the rules are explicily clear on this issue.

So the heading Close Combat Weapons does not mean that the entries that follow are Close Combat Weapons?

Do you understand how this assertion is difficult to reconcile?

No one ever reads my examples. Alright, I'll post it a third time:

puma713 wrote:

Let's say I have Scything Talons and Rending Claws. And let's go with the theory that all Tyranid Close Combat weapons are "special weapons" and therefore, you must choose which one you use. I choose to use the Scything Talons. So, I can re-roll my To hit rolls of 1.

Great. Now, I look at the Rending Claws rule. It simply states, "Close combat attacks made by models with rending claws gain the Rending ability."

Okay, I hit with my scything talons. I reroll my 1's. Now, are those close combat attacks? Yes. Does my model have rending claws, even though he didn't use them? Yes. Can a model with rending claws count their attacks as rending? Yes.

Therefore, my scything talon's attacks are rending. Why? Because I didn't have to use Rending claws to obtain the bonus. I get the bonus simply by having the claws.

Okay, I'll quote my response to that.

Dracos wrote:the wording for the Tyranid "CCWs" is similar to that of the other special CCWs.

For instance, power weapons: "Models wounded in close combat by the attacks of a model armed with a power weapon are not allowed armor saves."

Note the distinction in meaning between the former and this 'Models wounded in close combat by attacks from a power weapon are not allowed armor saves.'

Power weapons only give the bonus to the model, and it does not specifically mention that he has to be wielding it, just armed with it.

Note that the wording in the Tyranid Codex is consistent with that for other special weapons in the BGB. Therefore, if what you are saying is true for Tyranid special ccws, it is also true for everyone else.

So happy I read this. Lord_Mortis, Third_Ultra, as well as others, thank you for standing your ground in the face of populist opinion. The debate was heated. Your talking points actually use RAW. I believe the language as posted in this thread unequivocally show that specific entries are Special CCWs and as such may not be used together. Whether or not this was a GW oversight or intentional is to be seen. The darn FAQ will clear the air in due time.

Strong debate people!

Dracos wrote:Okay, I'll quote my response to that.

Dracos wrote:the wording for the Tyranid "CCWs" is similar to that of the other special CCWs.

For instance, power weapons: "Models wounded in close combat by the attacks of a model armed with a power weapon are not allowed armor saves."

Note the distinction in meaning between the former and this 'Models wounded in close combat by attacks from a power weapon are not allowed armor saves.'

Power weapons only give the bonus to the model, and it does not specifically mention that he has to be wielding it, just armed with it.

Note that the wording in the Tyranid Codex is consistent with that for other special weapons in the BGB. Therefore, if what you are saying is true for Tyranid special ccws, it is also true for everyone else.

Okay, so just so we're on the same page: you're saying that close combat attacks by models with (that have) rending claws don't count their close combat attacks as rending, even though the Codex say they do?

Do my Scything Talon attacks count as close combat attacks? Yes or no? Yes.

Does my Tyranid have Rending Claws? Yes or no? Yes.

Do the Tyranid's close combat attacks therefore count as rending? Yes.

Therefore, are the Tyranid's scything talon attacks rending? No.

I don't get it. What I do get, from your example, is that the marine gets a bonus from having two weapons. The power weapon + the pistol (let's say). The pistol gets the bonus from the power weapon and vice versa. The pistol gives +1 attack to the power weapon just like the power weapon gives "ignores armor saves" to the pistol. The thing is, Tyranids don't benefit from having more than one weapon as they "Don't wield close combat weapons as such. . .". Instead, they get bonuses from both of their weapons. If you want to go with your theory, then the weapons aren't even "in use." The pistol gives the Marine +1 attack to his profile, just like the power weapon makes his close combat attacks ignore armor saves. We're saying the same thing.

Using your logic...
Lets say I have say a power weapon and a power fist.

Since I am equiped with 2 special CCWs, I can choose which to use.

I choose the power weapon, so strike at I. However, since I am still armed with the power fist I can still get the double strength even though I am not using it. Since the power fist rules state only attacks made with the weapon are at I1, I do not get the penalty but I do get the bonus.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Since I reject that scenario, I reject yours as well.

Edit: Although.... I guess I'm talking about RAI in this post..... The above scenario indeed seems to be RAW. Okay, I accept your assertion. Now to model some dudes with power fists and power weapons.......

Except the BRB states you do not get the bonus of any weapon you are not using. The bonus of the Weapon "powerfist" is to double your strength of atacks, ignore armour and strike at I1 - this is clear from their entry. So if you are not using that weapon you cannot claim the bonus for it.

"As a result" can be replaced by "because of this" - thus the first sentence IS a rule, and the second sentence is a consequence of this rule - exactly as i posted a page before.

As Tyranids never wield CC weapons, the requirements to choose which weapon and indeed which require you to use your special weapon are overridden

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except the BRB states you do not get the bonus of any weapon you are not using.

This is not anywhere in the rules. If you find it, please quote the rule that says this.

Hmm, interesting.

I'm definitely of the opinion that 'nid weapons stack, and will be playing that way regardless of this discussion.

This is not anywhere in the rules. If you find it, please quote the rule that says this.

The rule people are thinking of is...

"Two Different Special Weapons.
when it is their turn to attack, these models must choose which weapon to use that turn, but they never get the bonus for using two weapons. (such is the penalty for wielding too many complex weapons!)"

And, having quoted, I leave you to discuss.

Yes, it is in the rules, please do not make blanket denials.

Page 42, "and confer bonuses to the models USING THEM"

If you are not Using the weapon you cannot be enhanced by it.

Okay, there you go. That was the section I missed.

Note that phrase applies equally to Tyranid special weapons, so you only gain the bonuses of the weapon you are using.

Thanks!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually, since tyranids never wield their CCWs, I guess none of their special weapons work since they are not using them...

lol.