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.

The rule "every weapon has a profile" is irrelevant.

You agreed on the IC thread that special rules override basic rules, I can go pull the thread if you wish.

This is a special rule. The case is unprecedented as you said so yourself.

The relic is called The Sword of the Emperor and The Hand of Dominion.

It is not.

The Sword of the Emperor and,
The Hand of Dominion.

You are creating a second relic and item entirely on your own, we are not told to do this.

We are told to use the relic known as "The Sword of the Emperor and The Hand of Dominion" and those weapons are used TOGETHER, on a single profile.
You are not permitted to separate them into individual weapons, separate is an antonym of together. Together means explicitly that you cannot separate them.

When you are in the fight subphase you are required to choose A weapon to attack with. Not two weapons.

The provided profile is permitted only for using the weapons TOGETHER. If you look for an individual weapon or try to separate them into individual weapons, they would not have a profile, because they do not meet the condition of being used together, which is required to use the provided profile. If you want to make an attack with the Sword, then you are not using the Hand, hence you cannot use the profile, it requires them to be used together.

If you use the relic "The Sword of the Emperor and The Hand of Dominion." Then you no longer have another unused melee profile, which would be required to grant you +1A.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And here you go, Page 6 of the other thread.

col_Impact wrote:

When you stick to the logical relationship between Basic and Advanced (override, conflict, precedence) you can come to no other conclusion than that the unit status of the IC is overridden...

...overrides normal rule interactions...


You keep confusing functional relationship with actual relationship. When one rule takes precedence over another rule for (almost) all purposes, it might not matter functionally what the original rule was and so we could functionally treat it as wholly absent...

Do I need to keep going? Obviously Together here overrides the basic rules you keep going on and on about and you have already agreed previously that is the correct position but here you ignore that position and spout on and on about basic rules. Hypocritically.

col_impact wrote:

Ceann wrote:
You applying no rules to "used together" is an assumption.
You are RAI.

There are no Rules As Written for "used together". The only way I can apply a rule for "used together" is if I make up a rule.

If I make up a rule for phrases that have no rules like you are doing then it is RAI.

If I make up no rules for phrases that have no rules like I am doing then it is RAW.

There is technically no rule for "these weapons" in a weapon's wargear entry indicating they are separate weapons either, so by that logic you're also making up rules.

It is at this point where the rest of us are just yelling at a brick wall. Again, I say we just sound off with our votes and let the OP (if he's still watching this thread) and anyone else decide which interpretation people will find most acceptable.

Again, I go with Team Edward (no bonus attack, 1 weapon)

(the other one is Team Jacob).

Ceann wrote:
The rule "every weapon has a profile" is irrelevant.

You agreed on the IC thread that special rules override basic rules, I can go pull the thread if you wish.

This is a special rule. The case is unprecedented as you said so yourself.

What special rule is overriding the "every weapon has a profile" rule? Remember, overrides need to specifically override.

Ceann wrote:

And here you go, Page 6 of the other thread.

col_Impact wrote:

When you stick to the logical relationship between Basic and Advanced (override, conflict, precedence) you can come to no other conclusion than that the unit status of the IC is overridden...

...overrides normal rule interactions...


You keep confusing functional relationship with actual relationship. When one rule takes precedence over another rule for (almost) all purposes, it might not matter functionally what the original rule was and so we could functionally treat it as wholly absent...

Do I need to keep going? Obviously Together here overrides the basic rules you keep going on and on about and you have already agreed previously that is the correct position but here you ignore that position and spout on and on about basic rules. Hypocritically.

Cool, so what is the "used together" rule that you are going to use to override the "every weapon has a profile"? I have found no such rule. Please share.

Ceann wrote:
The relic is called The Sword of the Emperor and The Hand of Dominion.

It is not.

The Sword of the Emperor and,
The Hand of Dominion.

You are creating a second relic and item entirely on your own, we are not told to do this.

Incorrect. We have a single entry line and no idea of how many relics in that entry line. We do not know if that single entry line refers to a 'relic' or 'relics'.

Even so, whether 'relic' or 'relics', what we care about for the purposes of this discussion is how many weapons. With regards to how many weapons, we know we have two.

Ceann wrote:
We are told to use the relic known as "The Sword of the Emperor and The Hand of Dominion" and those weapons are used TOGETHER, on a single profile.
You are not permitted to separate them into individual weapons, separate is an antonym of together. Together means explicitly that you cannot separate them.

When you are in the fight subphase you are required to choose A weapon to attack with. Not two weapons.

The provided profile is permitted only for using the weapons TOGETHER. If you look for an individual weapon or try to separate them into individual weapons, they would not have a profile, because they do not meet the condition of being used together, which is required to use the provided profile. If you want to make an attack with the Sword, then you are not using the Hand, hence you cannot use the profile, it requires them to be used together.

If you use the relic "The Sword of the Emperor and The Hand of Dominion." Then you no longer have another unused melee profile, which would be required to grant you +1A.

You have no idea what "used together" means. Feel free to show me rules telling us what "used together" means and I will happily apply them.

As far as we know, "used together" could mean "equipped so as to get a bonus attack". A model with a pistol and a chainsword could be 'using them together' to get a bonus attack.

We simply do not know what "used together" means. If you don't know what "used together" means then you cannot apply a restriction with it.

In fact, one of the things we do know is that "used together" does not prevent the Hand of Dominion from being considered separably a melee weapon on it's own.



So your guesswork about what "used together" means violates the rules statements we have. Obviously your guess about "used together" is wrong since its proved wrong by the rules statements we have.



Summary of my argument . . .

col_impact wrote:

Ceann wrote:
The rule "every weapon has a profile" is irrelevant.

You agreed on the IC thread that special rules override basic rules, I can go pull the thread if you wish.

This is a special rule. The case is unprecedented as you said so yourself.

What special rule is overriding the "every weapon has a profile" rule? Remember, overrides need to specifically override.

Ceann wrote:
The relic is called The Sword of the Emperor and The Hand of Dominion.

It is not.

The Sword of the Emperor and,
The Hand of Dominion.

You are creating a second relic and item entirely on your own, we are not told to do this.

Incorrect. We have a single entry line and no idea of how many relics in that entry line. We do not know if that single entry line refers to a 'relic' or 'relics'.

Even so, whether 'relic' or 'relics', what we care about for the purposes of this discussion is how many weapons. With regards to how many weapons, we know we have two.

Ceann wrote:
We are told to use the relic known as "The Sword of the Emperor and The Hand of Dominion" and those weapons are used TOGETHER, on a single profile.
You are not permitted to separate them into individual weapons, separate is an antonym of together. Together means explicitly that you cannot separate them.

When you are in the fight subphase you are required to choose A weapon to attack with. Not two weapons.

The provided profile is permitted only for using the weapons TOGETHER. If you look for an individual weapon or try to separate them into individual weapons, they would not have a profile, because they do not meet the condition of being used together, which is required to use the provided profile. If you want to make an attack with the Sword, then you are not using the Hand, hence you cannot use the profile, it requires them to be used together.

If you use the relic "The Sword of the Emperor and The Hand of Dominion." Then you no longer have another unused melee profile, which would be required to grant you +1A.

You have no idea what "used together" means. Feel free to show me rules telling us what "used together" means and I will happily apply them.

As far as we know, "used together" could mean "equipped so as to get a bonus attack". A model with a pistol and a chainsword could be 'using them together' to get a bonus attack.

We simply do not know what "used together" means. If you don't know what "used together" means then you cannot apply a restriction with it.



Summary of my argument . . .

Spoiler:

The rules refer to "the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" in the plural separably as "these weapons". Plural.

"Used together" does not mean that the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion count as a single weapon.

They are called out as "these weapons" and when they are used together they are still considered weapons and not as a single weapon. No rule designates them as counting as a single weapon so they remain two weapons.

"Used together" means simply that they are used at the same time in combat.

The profiles reference "this weapon" and so must reference the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion separably since the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion collectively are referred to as 'weapons' and as 'relics' and never as weapon or relic.

The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons".

Moreover, the Hand is explicitly discussed as being separably a 'weapon' and able to be used as both a melee and as a ranged weapon.

The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.

Because the Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon, this proves that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself, and it disproves any argument that there is somehow a 'combined weapon profile'.

If there was some 'combined weapon' then the Hand of Dominion could not itself be a melee weapon. The melee profile provided would have been used to give the combined weapon the melee type and not the Hand of Dominion.

Since the Hand is definitively a melee weapon, this means that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet has been separably applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.

This in turn means that both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are melee weapons.

This in turn means that we satisfy the rule that grants an a model an additional attack for having two or more melee weapons.

So you are saying that YOU don't know what "together means" other than being an antonym of separate, which is exactly the word you are inventing in the rules to apply a profile to two weapons.
Since you don't know what "together" means you are assuming it means nothing and an assumption is RAI.

Meaning that as I said previously and you ignored, that all interpretations of the profile are then RAI because we have what you call an undefined term. Although I think the English language speaks for itself clearly enough. You call for "these weapons" to be a pluralization allowing you to assume two weapons but when you get to "together" you apparently lost your english book by that point in the same sentence.

You either apply the ENTIRE SENTENCE, or NONE OF IT. You don't get to cherry pick the part you like and ignore the rest.

What special rule is overriding the "every weapon has a profile", the word TOGETHER. It overrides them having SEPARATE profiles.

Not, "Incorrect". We do not have any precedence to assume there are multiple relics, other than the name which is fluff. Every relic, regardless of whether its "this and that" or "Pinocchio's twelve noses" they are ONE relic if they have ONE entry. We do know that we have two weapons, but only one relic, we also know that you have to use them TOGETHER.

Feel free to show me in the rules what "these weapons" means and I will happily apply it. Except it doesn't exist in the BRB.

As far as we know "used together" could mean "using them together under a single profile" A model with a pistol and a chainsword DOES NOT use them together. In close combat he CHOOSES A WEAPON to attack with, which will be the chainsword. The bonus attack from the pistol is granted because of the PISTOL special rule. You don't get to roll an actual attack with it, you single get granted +1A by merit of having it, to the weapon you chose to attack with.

We simply know that you cannot apply "used together" to make weapons "used together" into "used separately".

To your points.

The rules refer to "the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" in the plural separably as "these weapons". Plural.
- Correct

"Used together" does not mean that the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion count as a single weapon.
- Incorrect, there is one profile and it mandates you use them as one profile, together.

They are called out as "these weapons" and when they are used together they are still considered weapons and not as a single weapon. No rule designates them as counting as a single weapon so they remain two weapons.
- Correct

"Used together" means simply that they are used at the same time in combat.
- Correct

The profiles reference "this weapon" and so must reference the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion separably since the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion collectively are referred to as 'weapons' and as 'relics' and never as weapon or relic.
- Incorrect, the weapons are used together, together is the antonym of separate, if we separate anything we are not permitted to use the profile.


The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons".
- Incorrect, the rules tell us they are used together, this overrides "every weapon has a profile". It is not perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon, the rules do not tell us to do this ANYWHERE. The only way to resolve the situation is to follow the rules and use the weapons together.

Moreover, the Hand is explicitly discussed as being separably a 'weapon' and able to be used as both a melee and as a ranged weapon.
- Incorrect, the Hand is explicitly discussed, but it is a permission for it to make a ranged attack by itself, not to create a separate melee weapon. If we separated it as a melee weapon it would not be allowed to use the profile as a melee weapon, choosing it to be the weapon you attack with would then not be attacking with the sword also and breaking the rules for the profile.

Because the Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon, this proves that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself, and it disproves any argument that there is somehow a 'combined weapon profile'.
- Incorrect, the melee profile explicitly states the weapons are used TOGETHER. You cannot separate the profile.

if there was some 'combined weapon' then the Hand of Dominion could not itself be a melee weapon. The melee profile provided would have been used to give the combined weapon the melee type and not the Hand of Dominion.
- Incorrect, the profile states the weapons use the profile together.

Since the Hand is definitively a melee weapon, this means that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet has been separably applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
- Incorrect, Together does not allow you to use the profile by separating.

This in turn means that both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are melee weapons.
- Correct

This in turn means that we satisfy the rule that grants an a model an additional attack for having two or more melee weapons.
- Incorrect, A model is required to have two SINGLE HANDED weapons. You do not have two SINGLE handed weapons. You are REQUIRED in the combat subphase to choose A WEAPON to attack with. As TOGETHER prevents you from SEPERATING the profile into individual weapons, you cannot have two single handed weapons. You have one profile choice that uses both hands.

Please define "can" according to the BRB.
Please define "also" according to the BRB.
Please define "be" according to the BRB.
Please define "used" according to the BRB.
Please define "as" according to the BRB.
Please define "a" according to the BRB.
Please define "ranged" according to the BRB.
Please define "weapon" according to the BRB.
Please define "using" according to the BRB.
Please define "the" according to the BRB.
Please define "profile" according to the BRB.
Please define "it" according to the BRB.
Please define "may" according to the BRB.
Need I go on?
When the BRB does not give a definition, you use basic English.

So according to the rules what does "used together" mean exactly?

It means Col_Impact is always wrong.

Serious question,

according to the rules what does "used together" mean exactly?


Ceann, you act like you have the answer. Do you have the answer?

Ceann wrote:
It means Col_Impact is always wrong.

You are not far off when considering his whole perspective is all about taking one word out of context and ignoring everything else. Being wrong is fairly easy.

 Charistoph wrote:

Ceann wrote:
It means Col_Impact is always wrong.

You are not far off when considering his whole perspective is all about taking one word out of context and ignoring everything else. Being wrong is fairly easy.

Rather than making purely disruptive comments, why don't you prove my argument wrong?

It must be the case that you are coming up short with regards to actually disproving my argument.


Summary of my argument . . .

I am hungry so lets do a food related break down of the 'these weapons used together'..

Col 'it is a knife and Fork, two items used together but different things"

Everyone else 'they are chop sticks, used togeather as a single item'

I am team Edward

col_impact wrote:


Serious question,

according to the rules what does "used together" mean exactly?


Ceann, you act like you have the answer. Do you have the answer?

I opened a dictionary and read the word "together" and applied it with common sense.

You created this elaborate scheme which consisted of ignoring the word "together".

Taking a profile that consisted of two weapons, which is simply the opposite of many profiles of a single weapon with two attacks, this is two weapons with one attack. This isn't rocket science. Then proceeding to invent a method of applying a profile twice because a rule dictated everything must have a profile, but everything already has a profile, followed by a magical adventure into the land of tentative assumptions under the basis you are following rules even though NONE of the words or terms you use even exist in the profile in question.

Instead of just applying one word actually in rules, with common sense.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Ceann wrote:
It means Col_Impact is always wrong.

You are not far off when considering his whole perspective is all about taking one word out of context and ignoring everything else. Being wrong is fairly easy.

Rather than making purely disruptive comments, why don't you prove my argument wrong?

It must be the case that you are coming up short with regards to actually disproving my argument.

He doesn't need to disprove your argument because you don't actually have one. Looking at the word together and applying it meets all the rules requirements, I even outlined this line by line.

Ceann wrote:


I opened a dictionary and read the word "together" and applied it with common sense.

You didn't answer the question.

According to the rules what does "used together" mean exactly?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ceann wrote:


He doesn't need to disprove your argument because you don't actually have one. Looking at the word together and applying it meets all the rules requirements, I even outlined this line by line.

So what is this "together" rule?

What does "can also" mean? Clearly, since there's no rule, you cannot shoot and swing in the same turn.

In reality, "used together" can mean one of two things:

Used together as one-the more likely answer, that has precedence from other weapons.

Used together as a pair of two weapons-the less likely answer, since there's precedent against it.

There is no RAW one way or the other-only RAI. It's not a well written rule.

GodDamUser wrote:
I am hungry so lets do a food related break down of the 'these weapons used together'..

Col 'it is a knife and Fork, two items used together but different things"

Everyone else 'they are chop sticks, used togeather as a single item'

I am team Edward

I don't think you have it right.

If you eat something using two chopsticks together, you are simply eating something with two chopsticks.

If you eat something using two chopsticks together as a single utensil, then you are doing something very unusual with the chopsticks, such as binding two chopsticks together to make a fatter chopstick that is easier to grab.


This proves that "used together" does not equal "used together as a single item/weapon"

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Ceann wrote:
It means Col_Impact is always wrong.

You are not far off when considering his whole perspective is all about taking one word out of context and ignoring everything else. Being wrong is fairly easy.

Rather than making purely disruptive comments, why don't you prove my argument wrong?

It must be the case that you are coming up short with regards to actually disproving my argument.


Summary of my argument . . .

Spoiler:

The rules refer to "the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" in the plural separably as "these weapons". Plural.

"Used together" does not mean that the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion count as a single weapon.

They are called out as "these weapons" and when they are used together they are still considered weapons and not as a single weapon. No rule designates them as counting as a single weapon so they remain two weapons.

"Used together" means simply that they are used at the same time in combat.

The profiles reference "this weapon" and so must reference the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion separably since the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion collectively are referred to as 'weapons' and as 'relics' and never as weapon or relic.

The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon. The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons".

Moreover, the Hand is explicitly discussed as being separably a 'weapon' and able to be used as both a melee and as a ranged weapon.

The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.

Because the Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon, this proves that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself, and it disproves any argument that there is somehow a 'combined weapon profile'.

If there was some 'combined weapon' then the Hand of Dominion could not itself be a melee weapon. The melee profile provided would have been used to give the combined weapon the melee type and not the Hand of Dominion.

Since the Hand is definitively a melee weapon, this means that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet has been separably applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.

This in turn means that both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are melee weapons.

This in turn means that we satisfy the rule that grants an a model an additional attack for having two or more melee weapons.

We kinda disproved your argument a few pages back when we all pointed out you've cut off the entire portion of a sentence of the rules because anything past "These Weapons" would have contradicted your argument. Again you haven't actually provided anything supporting your claim that "These Weapons" actually means, in rule terms, that it's two weapons, only conjecture by english. Yet when we do the same with "used together, using the profile below", your argument insist that the portion of the sentence has no meaning because that wasn't stated directly in the rulebook either.

Breaking it down:

Is "Used Together" defined in the rulebook? No.
Is "These Weapons" defined in the rulebook? No.

Has any other weapon have either of these statements? No.

Is "Used Together" meaning using the two items as one something from the rules or something from plain english? Plain english
Is "These Weapons" indicating a plural of weapons something from the rules or something from plain english? Plain english

The same logic you are using to support your point doesn't work when it is applied to your own point. Otherwise please post a page and paragraph number where the term "These weapons" is equal to "Count as Two Weapons". In addition, you are forcing a false dichotomy by assuming that being used as part of a combination of a melee weapon is mutually exclusive to being used as a melee weapon. Being used as a part of a combination of a melee weapon is still being used as a melee weapon, so the Hand being stated as such isn't definitive proof. In addition, even if it is, it does not prove that the profile stated belongs to the Hand, this is actually a fabrication by you (the quote says may be used as a melee weapon, not that melee weapon with that profile). In fact nothing states what that profile belongs to, other than when the two weapons are "used together". Which is why I ask again, to which weapon does the profile belong to (if they're not a combined profile)? And this time, please answer with an actual page quote and not your own conjecture.

col_impact wrote:

GodDamUser wrote:
I am hungry so lets do a food related break down of the 'these weapons used together'..

Col 'it is a knife and Fork, two items used together but different things"

Everyone else 'they are chop sticks, used togeather as a single item'

I am team Edward

I don't think you have it right.

If you eat something using two chopsticks together, you are simply eating something with two chopsticks.

If you eat something using two chopsticks together as a single utensil, then you are doing something very unusual with the chopsticks, such as binding two chopsticks together to make a fatter chopstick that is easier to grab.


This proves that "used together" does not equal "used together as a single item/weapon"

WAT?


let me break it down for you.. since you seem to need a clear explanation of my simple analogy..

Your argument is that they are a knife and fork, two items used together to eat, but preform different tasks in the eating and one in each hand..

The Chopsticks are used together in unison performing the 1 task, in the one hand (unless you have some cray way of using chopsticks... )

In the context of the Relic in question

I take on the chopstick approach, it is a single item that consists of two parts that is used together to perform the single task

I must remind you all that 40k is a game of permissions. While indeed it doesn't say "used together" is the same as "treated as one weapon", it also doesn't say "these weapons" suddenly split the relic into two things.

Both items are listed under one relic. i.e: one piece of wargear. When given no exceptions either way, we treat it as one piece of wargear, because we were never given permission to treat it as two wargear. Tau Twin-linked Weapons take up two slots, but is treated as one weapon because it's a single Twin-linked weapon, even if realistically it's two guns glued to the same model.

The burden of proof is on you col_impact to actually give us a rule citation saying that the rule "These weapons are used together, using the profile below. " is actually synonymous with "treated as two weapons". And yes, the entire phrase, as taking one section of the phrase so wildly out of context is in fact rules misinterpretation.

GodDamUser wrote:

col_impact wrote:

GodDamUser wrote:
I am hungry so lets do a food related break down of the 'these weapons used together'..

Col 'it is a knife and Fork, two items used together but different things"

Everyone else 'they are chop sticks, used togeather as a single item'

I am team Edward

I don't think you have it right.

If you eat something using two chopsticks together, you are simply eating something with two chopsticks.

If you eat something using two chopsticks together as a single utensil, then you are doing something very unusual with the chopsticks, such as binding two chopsticks together to make a fatter chopstick that is easier to grab.


This proves that "used together" does not equal "used together as a single item/weapon"

WAT?


let me break it down for you.. since you seem to need a clear explanation of my simple analogy..

Your argument is that they are a knife and fork, two items used together to eat, but preform different tasks in the eating and one in each hand..

The Chopsticks are used together in unison performing the 1 task, in the one hand (unless you have some cray way of using chopsticks... )

Right, so you are saying that two weapons used together are two weapons used together to fight in combat (single task).

Two weapons "used together" does not mean that the two weapons are "used together as a single weapon".

"As a single weapon" is an entirely different statement.

"Two chopsticks used together as a single chopstick" would again involve a weird way of eating with chopsticks.

This proves my point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I must remind you all that 40k is a game of permissions. While indeed it doesn't say "used together" is the same as "treated as one weapon", it also doesn't say "these weapons" suddenly split the relic into two things.

Both items are listed under one relic. i.e: one piece of wargear. When given no exceptions either way, we treat it as one piece of wargear, because we were never given permission to treat it as two wargear. Tau Twin-linked Weapons take up two slots, but is treated as one weapon because it's a single Twin-linked weapon, even if realistically it's two guns glued to the same model..

One entry listing does not necessarily mean one relic.

col_impact wrote:
One entry listing does not necessarily mean one relic.

Please provide us with an actual rule stating this. Not a precedent, but an actual rule. Otherwise we will assume that one = one unless given permission within the relic's rule itself.

col_impact wrote:

Right, so you are saying that two weapons used together are two weapons used together to fight in combat (single task).

Two weapons "used together" does not mean that the two weapons are "used together as a single weapon".

"As a single weapon" is an entirely different statement.

"Two chopsticks used together as a single chopstick" would again involve a weird way of eating with chopsticks.

This proves my point.

You have a very strange sense of logic.. or just very bad at reading and/or understanding the English language.. (possibly a regional dialect barrier going on)

I am not saying it magically becomes 1 chopstick, I am saying they are 'used together' for the single purpose, because 1 is useless without the other

 JNAProductions wrote:
What does "can also" mean? Clearly, since there's no rule, you cannot shoot and swing in the same turn.

In reality, "used together" can mean one of two things:

Used together as one-the more likely answer, that has precedence from other weapons.

Used together as a pair of two weapons-the less likely answer, since there's precedent against it.

There is no RAW one way or the other-only RAI. It's not a well written rule.

This has been ignored.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

The burden of proof is on you col_impact to actually give us a rule citation saying that the rule "These weapons are used together, using the profile below. " is actually synonymous with "treated as two weapons". And yes, the entire phrase, as taking one section of the phrase so wildly out of context is in fact rules misinterpretation.

"Weapons" is plural. This indicates the rule in itself recognizes two or more weapons. The rule does not say "weapon" or "as a single weapon" which it would have to do for us to recognize just one weapon.

col_impact wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

The burden of proof is on you col_impact to actually give us a rule citation saying that the rule "These weapons are used together, using the profile below. " is actually synonymous with "treated as two weapons". And yes, the entire phrase, as taking one section of the phrase so wildly out of context is in fact rules misinterpretation.

"Weapons" is plural. This indicates the rule in itself recognizes two or more weapons. The rule does not say "weapon" or "as a single weapon" which it would have to do for us to recognize just one weapon.

Once again you have engaged in rules misinterpretation. You cannot remove one word from the whole sentence, as it becomes your conjecture and no longer the rules. Please describe why the phrase "These weapons are used together, using the profile below" also means "This counts as two weapons".

You were never given permission to treat them as two weapons.

GodDamUser wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Right, so you are saying that two weapons used together are two weapons used together to fight in combat (single task).

Two weapons "used together" does not mean that the two weapons are "used together as a single weapon".

"As a single weapon" is an entirely different statement.

"Two chopsticks used together as a single chopstick" would again involve a weird way of eating with chopsticks.

This proves my point.

You have a very strange sense of logic.. or just very bad at reading and/or understanding the English language.. (possibly a regional dialect barrier going on)

I am not saying it magically becomes 1 chopstick, I am saying they are 'used together' for the single purpose, because 1 is useless without the other

Right, so you are agreeing that "two weapons used together" does not mean "two weapons used together as a single weapon" but two weapons "used together [to some purpose (such as combat)]"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

The burden of proof is on you col_impact to actually give us a rule citation saying that the rule "These weapons are used together, using the profile below. " is actually synonymous with "treated as two weapons". And yes, the entire phrase, as taking one section of the phrase so wildly out of context is in fact rules misinterpretation.

"Weapons" is plural. This indicates the rule in itself recognizes two or more weapons. The rule does not say "weapon" or "as a single weapon" which it would have to do for us to recognize just one weapon.

Once again you have engaged in rules misinterpretation. You cannot remove one word from the whole sentence, as it becomes your conjecture and no longer the rules. Please describe why the phrase "These weapons are used together, using the profile below" also means "This counts as two weapons".

You were never given permission to treat them as two weapons.

"These weapons" means 'two or more weapons'. The permission to recognize them as two or more weapons is in the plural usage in the rule itself.

col_impact wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

The burden of proof is on you col_impact to actually give us a rule citation saying that the rule "These weapons are used together, using the profile below. " is actually synonymous with "treated as two weapons". And yes, the entire phrase, as taking one section of the phrase so wildly out of context is in fact rules misinterpretation.

"Weapons" is plural. This indicates the rule in itself recognizes two or more weapons. The rule does not say "weapon" or "as a single weapon" which it would have to do for us to recognize just one weapon.

Once again you have engaged in rules misinterpretation. You cannot remove one word from the whole sentence, as it becomes your conjecture and no longer the rules. Please describe why the phrase "These weapons are used together, using the profile below" also means "This counts as two weapons".

You were never given permission to treat them as two weapons.

"These weapons" means 'two or more weapons'. The permission to recognize them as two or more weapons is in the plural usage in the rule itself.

Once again, rules misinterpretation by taking words outside of context. Please give us a page citation (the rulebook or codex) to where "These weapons are used together, using the profile below" as "counts as two weapons". And if you insist, please state where in the rules "these weapons" suddenly become equal to "Two or more weapons". You seem so adamant on us finding such a definition for "used together", yet have no problem claiming this with no proof.

col_impact wrote:
Right, so you are agreeing that "two weapons used together" does not mean "two weapons used together as a single weapon"

Not what I am actually saying at all. I am saying that you cannot use a chopstick on its own, so using 2 chopsticks doesn't give you any benefit when two is what is required for their use.

But the also the rule in question isn't Two Weapons used together

its 'these weapons used together, use the following profile'

In which case I question your understanding of the English language, as you are from a region of the world that while it uses 'English' it uses their own version of the dialect that has some vast variations to the original that the rules have been printed in. I.e. completely changing the spelling and pronunciation of words

Now to me for your argument to work for me the rule would of read

'these weapons when used together, each use the follow profile' that would be a clear indication of being used as two separate weapons, not the Chopstick scenario where you need two to be off use

 JNAProductions wrote:
What does "can also" mean? Clearly, since there's no rule, you cannot shoot and swing in the same turn.

In reality, "used together" can mean one of two things:

Used together as one-the more likely answer, that has precedence from other weapons.

Used together as a pair of two weapons-the less likely answer, since there's precedent against it.

There is no RAW one way or the other-only RAI. It's not a well written rule.

This has still been ignored.

Col, what does "Can also" mean, according to the rules?

 JNAProductions wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
What does "can also" mean? Clearly, since there's no rule, you cannot shoot and swing in the same turn.

In reality, "used together" can mean one of two things:

Used together as one-the more likely answer, that has precedence from other weapons.

Used together as a pair of two weapons-the less likely answer, since there's precedent against it.

There is no RAW one way or the other-only RAI. It's not a well written rule.

This has still been ignored.

Col, what does "Can also" mean, according to the rules?

I have no problem with words corresponding with their English usage in the absence of them being rule-recognized key words.

"These weapons" is not a rule-recognized key word.
Neither is "doubly apply the profile".
Neither of these are basic rules and do not apply to the wording of a relic which is specific to the relic itself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
What does "can also" mean? Clearly, since there's no rule, you cannot shoot and swing in the same turn.

In reality, "used together" can mean one of two things:

Used together as one-the more likely answer, that has precedence from other weapons.

Used together as a pair of two weapons-the less likely answer, since there's precedent against it.

There is no RAW one way or the other-only RAI. It's not a well written rule.

This has still been ignored.

Col, what does "Can also" mean, according to the rules?

Yes it has, it means nothing.