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.

Is this topic worth another go around?  I know it?s a bit of an old argument, and it is currently on Yakface?s Dakka FAQ - down near the bottom of page 30 - waiting for the day in which GW resolves to do something about their loosely written rule set, but it is something that bugs me quite a bit, largely because I can?t bring myself to use these configurations in my own games without a more solid rules argument to support their use.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

In the Tyranid codex, the last sentence of the first paragraph on page 30 states:

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

?A Tyranid that carries two of the same ranged weapon symbiote counts them as twin-linked.?

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

On this forum, this one line has been argued to mean either:

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

A) Any 2 identical ranged weapons selected for the same model function as a single weapon which is twin-linked.

B) Both individual ranged weapon symbiotes gain the special rule for twin-linked.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

It isn?t unanimous but it would appear at the very least that the majority of Dakkites find A to be the correct interpretation.  And that?s fine; however, my problem with this issue doesn?t revolve around A vs. B (I?ve read it as A all along even though I secretly wish it were B), my problem is that, to my eyes, people do not appear to be applying A and B consistently, or else are just ignoring it, and I need to understand their line of thinking to see what I?m missing out on.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

And if I have a hang-up with anybody?s line of reasoning, it may be because I see viewpoints A and B as being writable as the following two simple algorithms:

A = 2 x ranged weapon symbiote --> twin-linked ranged weapon symbiote

B = 2 x ranged weapon symbiote --> 2 x twin-linked ranged weapon symbiote

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

Merely choose between A or B, plunk in the name of the ranged weapon symbiote et voila! you have the final output for whenever you pick two of the same weapon for the same model as based upon your beliefs.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

So, first, consider the venom cannon or barbed strangler option using the above algorithms.  If you consider A to be correct, taking 2 of either of these ranged weapon symbiotes would look like this:

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

2 x venom cannon --> twin-linked venom cannon

2 x barbed strangler --> twin-linked barbed strangler

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

Which, after much critical analysis, is basically telling me that I?d be paying way too high a price for what only amounts to a somewhat better than a +1 BS upgrade.  Yippee!  And which is precisely why nobody takes 2 x venom cannons.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

Now consider the twin-linked (TL) devourer ranged weapon symbiote (or, dare I say it, the TL deathspitter).  Arming your Carnifex with 2 of these is considered to be a valid - and hugely popular - option.  If you still think A is correct, I would have thought that you should be left with:

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

2 x TL devourer --> TL TL devourer

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

In this case, the double twin-linked is redundant under the re-roll rule printed on page 5 of the main rulebook - you cannot re-roll a re-roll.  Thus:

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

TL TL devourer --> TL devourer

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

Viewed in this fashion, it looks as though 2 x TL devourer is just about as valid as purchasing a power weapon for a chaplain - you can if you wish but it?s an utter waste of points *.  But, and this is where my problem lies, I cannot recall / have yet to read another viewpoint similar to my own and that makes me feel as though I?m the one in the wrong.  Instead, this option is considered to give your Carnifex(es) 8 S6 shots with re-rolls to hit and to wound.  Which, of course, completely rocks so why, barring the rules, wouldn?t I purchase it?  Coincidentally, if you thought B was the correct viewpoint all along, it would have been:

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

            2 x TL devourer --> 2 x TL TL devourer --> 2 x TL devourer

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

Which does indeed equal 8 S6 shoots with re-rolls to hit and to wound.  Yet the people buying 2 x TL devourers for their Elite Carnifexes don?t actually advocate taking 2 x venom cannons for their HS choices but I can?t see why they?d go for one and not the other.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

Thus, as I am unable to find any provisions within the Tyranid codex or main rulebook that would allow you to ignore or twist the definition of the aforementioned line on page 30 when the army list later presents you with a weapon symbiote choice that has already been upgraded with the twin-linked rule (i.e. TL devourer, TL deathspitter,) I don?t yet understand why Carnifexes are allowed their 8 shots per player turn.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

Help in this matter is greatly appreciated!!!

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

* I disagree with the exact wording on Yakface?s FAQ; it is not that a Carnifex can or cannot be given 2 TL devourers/deathspitters, it is whether or not doing so is of any actual benefit.  Much like purchasing a power weapon for a Chaplain, you can do it, and it gives you +1 A, but it confers no other benefits whatsoever.  Similarly, a Hive Tyrant or Carnifex that purchases 2 TL devourers/deathspitters has at least filled both mandatory weapon requirements.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

Yakface?s text is as follows:

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

?Tyranid Ranged Weapon-Symbiotes (page 30).

Can a carnifex be given two of the "Twin-Linked Devourer/Deathspitter" bioweapons? Thus giving for example, 8 shots twin linked, if given two TL devourers?

If a carnifex is given two venom cannons, or two barbed stranglers, does the creature gain two seperate weapons, each twin linked, or a single weapon that is twin linked? For example, if given two venom cannons, does it get 4 shots twin linked, or 2 shots twin linked??

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

Now consider the twin-linked (TL) devourer ranged weapon symbiote (or, dare I say it, the TL deathspitter). Arming your Carnifex with 2 of these is considered to be a valid - and hugely popular - option. If you still think A is correct, I would have thought that you should be left with:


2 x TL devourer --> TL TL devourer

No.

You are purchasing by default a twin linked weapon. And the rules don't say "purchasing 2 twin linked weapons ....", so purchasing 2 twin linked weapons = 2 separate TL weapons, as opposed to the VC or BS where you are, by default, purchasing 2 single identical weapons, which the rules then mutate into 1 TL weapon.

http://us.games-workshop.com/games/40k/tyranids/painting/carnifex_conversions/1.htm

"...Not one, but two twin-linked Devourers at their maximum Strength mean that you'll be dropping 8 S6 shots that reroll to hit and Wound."

Although it's certainly not official, it is on the GW official site (Take it for what it's worth).

I'll be taking 10 twin devourers in my Godzilla list, and they can kiss my *donkey*if they try to say it's 5 sets of devourers.  If they persist I'll just refer them to  the RAW.

Gazzor

And of course you'll volunteer to take those instinctive behavior tests on each carnifex, per RAW?

Yeah, didn't think so.

Anyways, 2 TL devourers equals 8 shots, of course.  The problem with those rule wordings is when people thought that if they purchased two venom cannons then they would get two TL venom cannons for some reason.

- Oaka

Thunderkiss wrote:

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

?You are purchasing by default a twin linked weapon. And the rules don't say "purchasing 2 twin linked weapons ....", so purchasing 2 twin linked weapons = 2 separate TL weapons, as opposed to the VC or BS where you are, by default, purchasing 2 single identical weapons, which the rules then mutate into 1 TL weapon.?

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

And you?re absolutely correct, the rule on page 30 doesn?t say, ?purchasing 2 twin linked weapons,? it says, ?ranged weapon symbiote.?  And is a devourer not a ranged weapon symbiote, whether it is twin-linked or not?  Your conclusion just doesn?t add up, I?m afraid.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

pinhead wrote:

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

http://us.games-workshop.com/games/40k/tyranids/painting/carnifex_conversions/1.htm

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

While I?m aware of this article, pinhead (first time to use this word without it meaning something derogatory - weird!) I have to consider it inadmissible in YMDC as not being RAW.  I only consider the main rulebook, the codices, Chapter Approved articles, and GW sanctioned FAQs to be official rulings.  Even White Dwarf is suspect; for example, in old Dakka, Bugswarm pointed out to everybody how one issue implied that upgrading a Tyranid critter to have scything talons would also increase the number of shots it could fire, something the codex is quite clearly against.  Furthermore, was it not Ty Finocchiaro who brought us the conversion for a Black Templar Librarian?s familiar, a mistake of such magnitude that the webteam was actually able to spot it and put up a disclaimer.  Bottom line:  He might actually be correct in this matter - I don?t really know - but he is a modeller, not a rules writer.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

Gazzor wrote:

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

?I'll just refer them to  the RAW?

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

Which part, Gazzor?  Having the confidence to refer your opponent to the rulebook whenever they ask of you a legitimate question isn?t quite the same as being able to provide them with a page number or a reference.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

Oaka wrote:

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

?Anyways, 2 TL devourers equals 8 shots, of course.  The problem with those rule wordings is when people thought that if they purchased two venom cannons then they would get two TL venom cannons for some reason.?

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

Nooooooooooo!  You can?t just say, ?of course,? and just end it there all matter-of-factly!  And my problem with the approval of 2 TL devourers providing 8 shots is that it looks as though it does in fact tacitly approve of somebody else taking 2 VCs and claiming each as being twin-linked - there is no other explanation out there which makes sense to me just yet.  It is almost looking as if people are willing to turn a blind eye to this practice just because the Tyranid codex turned out to be a bit of a disappointment in and of itself.

Posted By Thunderkiss on 05/25/2006 9:43 AM
You are purchasing by default a twin linked weapon. And the rules don't say "purchasing 2 twin linked weapons ....",

A twin-linked weapon is still a weapon.

"And you?re absolutely correct, the rule on page 30 doesn?t say, ?purchasing 2 twin linked weapons,? it says, ?ranged weapon symbiote.? And is a devourer not a ranged weapon symbiote, whether it is twin-linked or not? Your conclusion just doesn?t add up, I?m afraid."

Busted. i withdraw the previous statement and offer the following:

"A twin-linked weapon is still a weapon."

Right. a TWIN linked weapon. err sybiote. and the rules tell us how to handle 2 ranged weapon symbiotes on one creature. it does not however tell us we need to do anything to 2 twin linked ranged symbiotes.

The answer to your original question is no, it is not worth bringing up this debate again.

Posted By Thunderkiss on 05/25/2006 8:46 PM
"And you?re absolutely correct, the rule on page 30 doesn?t say, ?purchasing 2 twin linked weapons,? it says, ?ranged weapon symbiote.? And is a devourer not a ranged weapon symbiote, whether it is twin-linked or not? Your conclusion just doesn?t add up, I?m afraid."

Busted. i withdraw the previous statement and offer the following:

"A twin-linked weapon is still a weapon."

Right. a TWIN linked weapon. err sybiote. and the rules tell us how to handle 2 ranged weapon symbiotes on one creature. it does not however tell us we need to do anything to 2 twin linked ranged symbiotes.

A twin-linked devourer is a single weapon symbiote choice on the Carnifex and Hive Tyrant entries, there fore taking two of them would twin link them together according to the logic that creates a single twin linked Vemon Cannon from two Venom Cannon Symbiotes.

blue loki: Just because something has been discussed before and declared decided doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed further when the decision is questioned with a possibly valid point, as raised by the first poster. Dakka's decision of "it happens this way in this case but not in this other one" for Tyranid weapon twin linking is not consistent and should be discussed further.

Posted By snooggums on 05/26/2006 11:51 AM

blue loki: Just because something has been discussed before and declared decided doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed further when the decision is questioned with a possibly valid point

I completely agree, the problem is that the issue never was declared decided. Both arguments on the issue are still valid, but nothing has changed in the RAW since the last time it was argued.

There is no conclusion other than a house rule. Feel free to debate it all over again, but in the end the result will be the same.

 

?The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?. - Einstein

That the issue was not actually declared ?decided? is all too true?.and it bugs the heck out of me which is exactly why I?m looking to explore it once more.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

For all those who missed it the first time around, in Dakka?s previous incarnation, the original argument over what, ?A Tyranid that carries two of the same ranged weapon symbiote counts them as twin-linked,? means went on for quite a few pages before eventually (d)evolving into Hawktel and Bugswarm - who were on opposing sides of the issue - trying to convince one another that they were in the right.  Anyways, I read that entire discussion and came away feeling that, more or less, general Dakka support was behind Bugswarm and the, ?any 2 identical ranged weapons selected for the same model will function as a single weapon which is itself twin-linked,? stance.  Hawktel did say he knew other people who shared his viewpoint but I cannot recall another member actually supporting him.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

In this thread, we can argue the definition of what, ?A Tyranid that carries two of the same ranged weapon symbiote counts them as twin-linked,? means again if we have to, I suppose.  I?m painfully aware of how nothing has changed in the RAW since the last time this topic was argued.  I even have to admit that, after spending a long time poring over page 30 in both the Tyranid codex and the main rulebook, it?s pretty damn hard to pull quotes from the weapon-symbiote rules and the twin-linked rules and present them as an ironclad argument that fully supports my viewpoint - the wordings are just too ambiguous for my liking.  But - and this is a pretty big but - is one of the most basic tenets of a GW game not, ?If in doubt, take the choice that will be perceived as the least advantageous??  And which definition of the aforementioned rule is the most advantageous?  As far as I?m concerned, the burden of proof lies squarely with the crowd which thinks it means they get to fire both VCs as separate twin-linked weapons, not me.  If you wish to discuss this further in this thread, feel free - I?m really quite interested in hearing what people have to say.  Not only that but I?d like to remind some people that house rules mean squat when you enter a tournament setting so, if you do take 2 x TL devourers on your Elite Carnifexes and somebody challenges your 8 shots, what will you say to defend it?  Anyway, to reiterate my first post, my biggest actual concern is not which viewpoint is correct but that people are applying their viewpoint inconsistently and that?s one thing I would definitely like to see changed.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

Since the time of the original thread, just about every second Tyranid list in the 40K Army List forum has down, ?Carnifex w. 2 x TL devourer.?  And does anybody tell the original poster that they?ve just wasted points for no gain whatsoever?  Nope.  Yet how did they come to the conclusion that 8 shots per player turn was allowable by the rules after having had access to posts from the first thread in which only Hawktel seemed to have publicly supported an interpretation that would make this conclusion possible?  I don?t really know.

 It doesn?t help that Yakface, one of the most respected posters on this forum, helped enshrine the use of 2 x TL devourers for Carnifexes with his tactica article.  The configuration even has a little nickname - the Dakkafex.  And, oddly enough, after having presented 2 x TL devourers as a worthy choice, Yakface later lauds the practice of taking a single VC on your HS Carnifexes yet outright dismisses the idea of purchasing 2 of them.  Why is that?  Because it is considered, ?Two Venom Cannons (twin-linked).?

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

I am still under the impression that the majority of people on Dakka believe that a Tyranid armed with two of the same ranged weapons fires treats them as a single twin-linked weapon.  (Am I right?  should we take a poll?)  Yet the only way that I can figure to make it possible to get from this:

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

?A Tyranid that carries two of the same ranged weapon symbiote counts them as twin-linked.?

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

To this:

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

?Anyways, 2 TL devourers equals 8 shots, of course.?

Is if you actually interpret the former quote to mean this:

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

?Both individual ranged weapon symbiotes gain the special rule for twin-linked.?

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

Please revisit my first post for how I worked it out.  Thus, as far as I?m concerned, take your 2 x TL devourers all you want but you?ve just wasted points for no gain whatsoever.  Unless, of course, somebody could let me in on the legerdemain you need to perform that makes 8 shots perfectly legal without violating the belief that 2 of the same type of ranged weapon symbiote equals only one twin-linked weapon.  That?s why I keep stating that people are being inconsistent around this issue.  You?ve typed in the past, ?No, you can?t have both weapons count as twin-linked,? but your current army lists are saying, ?Yes.?  If you seriously believe they act as a single twin-linked weapon, you should drop the use of 2 x TL devourers/deathspitters.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

On the flipside of the issue, as long as you believe that the correct interpretation is, ?both individual ranged weapon symbiotes gain the special rule for twin-linked,? you can use 2 x TL devourers/ deathspitters without fear or hesitation as far as I?m concerned.  But the kicker for me is why these same people aren?t running with this and using Carnifexes with 2 x VCs to take down their opponent?s vehicles?  Quit being so timid!  A Carnifex with VC + BS isn?t so bad but it?s too generalist.  Now, four S10 shots at BS3 with re-rolls to hit?  Even if they can?t penetrate, that would still pretty well mess up any vehicle you rolled against.

Peter,

I am not going to make a counter-RAW argument against the idea that you can take two sets of twin-linked weapons on the same Monstrous Creature and fire them seperately. I don't think it is likely possible. If it is, it would likely be something along the lines of what Thunderkiss posted (i.e. essentially that a "twin-linked Devourer" is not a "ranged weapon symbiote" as listed on page 30 and therefore would not follow the printed restriction on page 30).


The basic premise of my article is not to convince anyone about the legitimacy of the Dakkafex build. In fact, I wasn't the first to come up with the idea or even the name of the beast.

Like it or not, Games Workshop has created a flawed loosey-goosey rules set that often results in players from across the world playing the game in a slightly different manner than other players. Worse still, the lax attitude of the rules and it's designers have created a crutch of "fluff" balance (aka "comp" scores at tournaments) and public disdain for those who question the flaws in the rules (aka "common sense" and "sportsmanship" scores at tournaments).

The net result of all that malarkey is that players make up their own minds about how they think a particular part of the rules should be played. In fact, if enough people decide to play this way, it can be said that the "common sense" of this majority actually changes the way the game is played regardless of what is printed in the rulebooks.

Right or wrong if you take a Dakkafex to a tournament and an opponent complains about it, but a judge (who is as biased as any other player) decrees tha the Dakkafex is legal, then it is legal for that tournament.

Indeed, if enough people talk about the Dakkafex build online, including online tacticas or modeling articles on the Games Workshop page (even though they are not written by games designers), then that concept simply starts to become fact in the minds of many. That prevailing mind set, in essense, becomes the defacto rule of thumb.

Now, I am not saying that I wrote that tactica to try to push the concept of the Dakkafex along into being against what I percieve the RAW say. Instead, I looked at the codex and saw an area that I believe most players read and scratch their heads in confusion. I asked myself: "what do you think most people that read this section of the codex will come away thinking?"

My conclusion based on personal opinion, talking to a few RT judges, and the early rumblings on the internet was that most people were going to play that the Dakkafex was a legal build, regardless of any other factors. Essentially, most people believed that the intent of the author was for only non-twin linked weapons to become twin-linked if taken as a pair on a single creature.

Since I believed that a Dakkafex would be considered legal to the majority of players and in a majority of tournaments I made the simple choice to include it in the Tactica.

If and when GW finally clarifies the Tyranid codex and the Dakkafex is rendered clearly illegal, I will obviously alter my Tactica to reflect this fact.

I hope this clarifies the situation a bit for you, and helps explain why the Dakkafex is in my tactica.

Lets not get into this. Its unsolvable. The Dakka Fex is illigal, but shouldn't be, while the 4 shot Venom cannon is legal, but shouldn't be. All that this ends up being is a agreement the rules as writen suck ass.

That made for some very interesting reading, Yakface.  Now you?ve got me wondering as to whether or not the 2 x TL devourer will in fact be supported in the future - Phil Kelly?s actual intent be damned - simply because the player base ?wishes? it to be so.  (Codex: Tyranids for 5^th edition - Coming Fall 2012!)

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

I agree that you can?t change the opinion of a judge once a tournament is in play (etiquette dictates you ply them with their favourite beverage afterwards and plead your case for the start of the next tournament [as an aside, I?m not used to bringing in a judge to settle anything in a tournament, hence the tone in my last post - I?ve always felt that judges are arbitrators of last resort, to be used if and only if both players can?t come to an amicable agreement or simply won?t dice for it]), nor would I ever ask that there be a caveat at the start of your tactica article, but I must say that where you see a prevailing mindset, I see what appears to be only an, ?everybody else is doing it,? attitude, i.e. they may have found the online Carnifex conversion article, or perhaps they read your article (not that I?m picking on you!), took into consideration the reputation of you and/or Dakka, etc, and thought, ?That guy must know what he?s talking about so it?ll be 2 x TL devourers and no 2 x venom cannons for me,? and didn?t even stop to considered the similarities/differences between those two options in the RAW.  It may not have been part of your basic premise but it is a possible consequence.  (It?s had a few thousand viewings to date and so somebody out there must have liked it and been influenced by it.  I certainly enjoyed reading it.)  Then again, perhaps I?m not getting the right feel of the situation after all; I am technically far too new to the community to suddenly be able to say what any of you really thinks; however, I still hope this thread makes some people pause for thought.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

You have undoubtedly been in touch with a far greater segment of the 40K gaming population than I but, to speak quickly of intent again, the people I consider to make up my playing group - as insular as it may be - has always thought that the author gave the twin-linked rule to the devourer and deathspitter for HTs and Carnifexes because  they are lesser weapon choices and wouldn?t otherwise be an attractive option without some sort of added incentive.  By that line of reasoning, we never afforded these weapons any special treatment when it came time to applying the page 30 rule.  It?ll also probably be the reason why I will keep hammering away at this topic for a little while longer.  (Or until I?m ignored, whichever comes first.)

Also, before I continue any further, I gleefully rescind the comment from my last post that may have given the reader the impression that I might actually care to see another re-hash of what, ?A Tyranid that carries two of the same ranged weapon symbiote?? means; unless you?ve serendipitously discovered any hidden text by accidentally pouring cabbage juice on your rulebook, or found that holding your codex up to the light of the Hunter?s Moon reveals the author?s intent (at last!), there is really nothing more to be said for that argument ? it needs official GW intervention to be properly settled.  I just didn?t want to be the guy who says no to anybody who didn?t have a chance to read the original thread.  Again, the purpose of my thread was never to discuss its meaning; I may have read that original discussion with the preconceived notion that the rule meant that both weapons are treated as a single twin-linked weapon (heck, it never crossed my mind that there even was a second interpretation until I read that thread) but it was in fact the posts from those that shared my view that made me quickly realize that my interpretation is pretty damn hard to support what with the material I have to work with.  I?m not going on a crusade to smite the heathens anytime soon.  Long story short, blue loki is basically correct to point out that both sides are equally valid for the time being.  My point:  There are 2 established sides to this argument but there is a peculiar amount of fence sitting.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

Put another way, if you select one viewpoint and hold it to be true, then ? everything else being equal ? what do you have left?  I?m not overly concerned with viewpoint B; once you buy into that belief, the logic that nets you 8 twin-linked shots with 2 x TL devourer, or 4 twin-linked shots with 2 x VC, flows very easily.  What is coming as a bit of a shock is that viewpoint A now appears to be carrying with it the sentiment that a twin-linked devourer is not some how in fact a ranged weapon symbiote.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

I don?t want to be accused of beating what is now quite likely only the mouldering remains of a once proud horse but I am genuinely not familiar with any line of reasoning which states that a TL variant is not a ranged weapon symbiote.  From the original argument, I remember some commentary about individual biomorphs, and that bit about a TL weapon counting as 2 weapons being fired, but nothing about this.  When I first read Thunderkiss? second post in this very thread and saw that he was serious about it, I was a bit surprised.  Dealing with it now off the top of my head, to support this claim, you?d either have to be able to show what it is that the TL devourer is instead (and how this classification is exclusive from being considered a ranged weapon symbiote) or else you would have to pick at least one of these words: ?ranged;? ?weapon;? and, ?symbiote;? and demonstrate how these don?t apply to a TL variant (zero style points if you choose, ?symbiote.?)  Not to dissuade anybody from a little hard work but that can?t be easy!

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

Isn?t the following so much simpler?:

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

<!--[if !supportLists]-->1)      <!--[endif]-->A devourer/deathspitter, as found under the section Tyranid Weapon-Symbiotes, subsection Ranged Weapon Symbiotes, is a ranged weapon symbiote.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

<!--[if !supportLists]-->2)      <!--[endif]-->A HT?s/Carnifex?s ?TL devourer/deathspitter? option is merely then a ?TL ranged weapon symbiote.?  (Simple substitution)

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

<!--[if !supportLists]-->3)      <!--[endif]-->Page 30, C:T ? ?A Tyranid that carries two of the same ranged weapon symbiote treats them as twin-linked.?  (Emphasis mine of course)

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

To stop and analyze 3, apart from the condition that says they have to be the same, there are no other adjectives present before or after the term ranged weapon symbiote which would have the effect of limiting precisely which types of ranged weapon symbiotes are effected by this rule.  Therefore - and I don?t think I?m reaching here - it applies generally to all ranged weapon symbiotes regardless of whatever adjective (purple, happy, pant-less, or, in this case, twin-linked) the codex later throws in front of that term.  Thus:

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

1. 2 x TL devourer/deathspitter --> 1 x TL TL devourer/deathspitter --> 1 x TL devourer/deathspitter

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

What perplexes me most right now is that I cannot see how TL variants are viewed as anything but ranged weapon symbiotes.  If anybody has the patience to go over this with me, I?d thank them graciously and then go away and disappear for good.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

Hey, maybe the next time Phil Kelly makes a public appearance, instead of pumping him for details surrounding the forthcoming Eldar codex ? or whatever else he?s working on these days - somebody could through him a curveball and pepper him with Codex: Tyranid questions instead?  Maybe he?ll become so perplexed over the apparent loss of interest in the Eldar that, not only will he graciously provide an impromptu FAQ, he?ll also divulge more Eldar information then he was initially willing to speak of just to rebuild audience enthusiasm?  Worth a shot.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

And finally, Hawktel wrote:

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

?The Dakka Fex is illigal, but shouldn't be, while the 4 shot Venom cannon is legal, but shouldn't be?

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

I actually thought I knew what side of the argument you were on, man, but this statement challenges my point about there only being 2 recognized sides to this argument!!!  You?re on your own for this one!

Good points Peter.

I'm also concerned over how this is ruled as I have 3 carnies and 1 tyrant with twin devs x 2...  (Which rock)

If anybody challenges me, I'll just state that by RAW, 2 twin devs firing 8/ 12 is totally legal.  And that the reason I am not sporting 4 twin venom cannon shots on my Gun Fexes is that I am such a nice guy...

The other issue is whether 2 x twin devs counts as 4 weapons or 2.  I would say 2 or else spine gaunts would be unable to fire their guns...

Gazzor

This is a very interesting read (I missed the discussion first time). I must admit I quite like the idea of a HT with 6 shots from 2 venom cannons (ala b).

Here's my newbie interpretation of the rule:

You can not twin-link something that is already twin-linked therefore they count as separate weapons rather than one twin-linked ?twin-linked? weapon.

Following this reasoning: 2x Twin Linked devourers grants 2 separate twin-linked weapons and 2x venom cannon grants one twin-linked weapon.

Now I am a newbie - I'm not sure what RAW is (I'm assuming that that means a pure literal word for word ?reading? of the rules that allows no room for interpretation or thought). I also know of no "fluff" or precedence that I can rely on; however I feel that what I have is a reasonably "fair" interpretation of a very complicated rule set.




P.S. - Let me preface what I?m about to say by saying I'm viewing the game as a hobby and I'm not interested in entering competitions and tournaments; or even playing to win. I play for fun with the understanding that if you don't like the way I've done things - you can have the points and the "win" just play nice let me be happy.

I'm sitting on the fence as far as the "rules are poorly written" argument goes, the game is so damn complicated (a main rule manual plus 15 codecies). It is my opinion that providing "well written" rules would create a regime that would be so restrictive that it is in the best interests of the game that rules be "poorly written?.

This is not an attempt to hijack the thread or start a flame war. I simply felt it was important to provide some insight into how I view the game and therefore how I interpret the rules.

I'm not sure what RAW is

Rules as Written.

Read the Dakka Jargon Glossary in Dakka Discussions. You'll learn a bunch of new terms and acronymns.

Every time I have seen this debate come up since the most recent release of the Nid codex I've asked the same question to the folks arguing either way:

Where, on page 30 of the tyranid codex, does it say that it counts as a single twinlinked weapon?

Every single time I read it it says "...selects two identical weapon symbiotes it counts them as twin linked." (Emphasis mine)

I've yet to successfully see someone prove that the above statement means one single twin-linked version of the weapons and not two independently firing twin-linked versions of the weapon symbiote.

People frequently point to the Twin-Linked section for ranged weapons in the BBB but that is a very shaky correlation IMHO, as p.30 Tyranids doesn't state that the two are converted to a single twin linked version, merely that they now count as twin linked when you buy two.

The RAW I have always pointed my opponent to is just that, find where it says anywhere in the RAW (Specific overrides General, even if the specific is loosey-goosey and vague) that the purchase of two identical weapon symbiotes creates only one resultant twin linked weapon, and not two twin linked independently firing weapons?

I'm interested to see what everyone comes up with, as I have been using a Nidzilla (with Dakkafexes) list in the last six or so local tournaments and the judges have always supported my viewpoint based on the above reasoning.

For me, it's a precedent argument from the Tau codex.  For battlesuits, they have it outlined very well that choosing two of the same weapon system gives you one twin-linked weapon of that type.  Everyone I have spoken to just assumes that they were trying to accomplish the same thing for the Tyranids.

It also doesn't make any sense to purchase a given weapon for X points, but to buy a second weapon for the same X points gives you a free upgrade for both?  GW has said time and time again that weapon costs are subject to the use of them in a given unit.  A venom cannon costing the same as a twin-linked venom cannon for the same unit doesn't make sense.

None of this is really RAW based, but it makes sense and in our area that's how we do it.  Two venom cannons equals one twin-linked venom cannon and two twin-linked devourers equals two twin-linked devourers. 

- Oaka

I agree that there are similar situations, but drawing parallels between codexs not tied by similar theme (IE BTs to SWs to SMs, etc) is a rather dangerous path to trod when you're discussing RAW.

I am also forced to agree that the only interpretation available (IMHO) does tend to depart from GW's standard for point pricing of a unit being scalar to the unit's power (in general, notable exceptions do exist, ie Wraithlords). Two twin-linked venom cannons for 40 or 80 points respectively does seem a bit much considering the rarity of S10 weapons in the WH40k universe... I just don't see any other way to interpret page 30 of the Tyranid codex fairly without making special cases, and stretching the written word of the text itself.

For example, using the RAW of pg.30:

Venom Cannon + Venom Cannon has to equal 2 TL VCs, or...

TL Devourer + TL Devourer = TL Devourer

We know the second case isn't true because it doesn't specify they are made into one twin-linked weapon (without even getting into the recursive twin-linked issue), and we can only assume that the first case has to be true by the wording of the sentence.

It's the nature of the beast when you're dealing with a loosely written permissive rules set that sometimes decides to include poorly written inclusive clauses. I can only logically accept one interpretation of the one sentence upon which this entire debate seems to hang:

If  One "Weapon Symbiote", then "Weapon Symbiote" is unchanged.

If  Two "Weapon Symbiotes", then count "Weapon Symbiotes" as "Twin-Linked"

It's the usage of "them" that is really the crux for me, it's a possessive (?) being used collectively for two seperate objects without implying any conversion or negation of that seperation except for the explicit addition of the value "Twin-Linked"

My vocabulary is probably a bit off but I hope I got my meaning across.

Its a mess. Again that "Them" is the issue. Until its cleared up, or FAQed, as a guy who runs tourny's and plays games with RaW as the final word, Your welcome to bring a quad shot VC Carnifex to the game.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->My hands and limbs don?t hurt so much anymore and I can type again (stupid, bloody driver knocking me off my bike last Monday.)

Gazzor wrote:
?And that the reason I am not sporting 4 twin venom cannon shots on my Gun Fexes is that I am such a nice guy...?

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

This thought already crossed my mind several times:  Gazzor is a nice guy.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

Actually, what I really thought was that people in general might be holding back on using 4 twin-linked VC shots because at it wouldn?t be perceived as taking an overly generous interpretation of a somewhat vague rule.  The fence-sitting I alluded to earlier.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

Meep357 wrote:
?You cannot twin-link something that is already twin-linked therefore they count as separate weapons rather than one twin-linked ?twin-linked? weapon.?

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

I?m cool with ?intent? or ?commonsense? solutions for rules arguments - I use enough of them myself.  My only condition is that there first has to exist an element of doubt somewhere:  Is the rule clearly worded?  If it isn?t, you have pretty much established doubt right away.  If it is BUT the execution of the rule runs into problems when viewed as part of a set of rules, you can also establish doubt fairly easily.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

You can speak of intent when you write about 2 x TL devourers equalling 2 x (2A) shots but what is this intent based upon?  I cannot see the doubt in your line of reasoning because, regardless of whether or not they had a specific scenario in mind when they wrote it, the game designers covered the redundant re-roll eventuality on page 5 of the rulebook.  It now becomes extremely difficult to buy into a argument that relies on convincing the reader that the author meant something else entirely just because they set-up a rules scenario which grants a redundant re-roll.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

And I do play for fun all the time too but the one thing that has always fascinated me about Dakka is how some people enjoy giving the rules a poke and seeing where the logic takes them, even questioning things that you may never have thought could be questioned (like Terminators not having Terminator armour, or Tactical Marine Squads of a certain size being able to take a Rhino AND a Razorback, etc.)  These forums are often very informative but I don?t have to take them seriously.  Not to mention, what you debate online does not necessarily have to be the stance you take when you actually play.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

zeqe wrote:
?I've yet to successfully see someone prove that the above statement means one single twin-linked version of the weapons and not two independently firing twin-linked versions of the weapon symbiote.?

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

But there are people on this board, myself included, who have yet to see someone successfully prove the reverse.  As Hawktel points out, it does all hinge on what, ?them,? means.  Thing is, I don?t want to go there again so I changed the argument this time around to read, ?Just pick a side to be on, everything else is equal.  Now what do you have left??  <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->As stated earlier, my concerns at this point revolve around the belief that they do in fact act as a single twin-linked weapon.

Oaka wrote:
?A venom cannon costing the same as a twin-linked venom cannon for the same unit doesn't make sense.?

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

And I fully agree.  It falls in line with the sentiment, ?if in doubt, take the choice that will be perceived as the least advantageous.?  It sucks to be paying such a ridiculously high-price for twin-linked and thus it is little wonder why people would definitely want each to be twin-linked separately; however, this is drifting back into the original debate - what I?m looking for is a reason why people think it was Phil?s intent to exclude twin-linked variants from the page 30 rule.  Or perhaps somebody could still go the logic route and show that a twin-linked variant isn?t a ranged-weapon symbiote?

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

I was really hoping that our new Spanish FAQs would have the answer but they skirted around the issue and dealt with how many weapons a twin-linked devourer counts as firing instead, never coming to a decisive conclusion about the issue.

< img]  [>< img]  [>< img]  [>Yet another post eaten by dakka's craptastical text editor, but to summarize what I was trying to type in response...

< img]  [>< img]  [>< img]  [> 

< img]  [>< img]  [>< img]  [>< img]  [>< img]  [>< img]  [>The burden of proof falls to the accuser, as the defender can simply state:

< img]  [>< img]  [>< img]  [> 

< img]  [>< img]  [>< img]  [>Nowhere in the Tyranid Codex does it state that the two weapons are combined at any point in the only pertinent rule, from pg 30: < img]  [>< img]  [>< img]  [>"...of the same ranged weapon symbiote counts THEM as twin-linked." (Emphasis mine)

< img]  [>< img]  [>< img]  [>< img]  [>< img]  [>< img]  [> 

< img]  [>< img]  [>< img]  [>I have heard some people try to argue that because the BBB has something inside the TL rule saying that a TL weapon counts as a single weapon for firing that the Nid weapons somehow combine into a single TL weapon... but that's a false correlation, especially since anything with two twin-linked weapons on it, such as Heavy Bolters on a vehicle would also suffer from such an egregious interpretation of something that is not directly correlated.

< img]  [>< img]  [>< img]  [> 

< img]  [>< img]  [>< img]  [>As to why most players don't take two twin-linked venom cannons... I don't do it because it would violate my sense of beardiness... dear god, imagine the carnage... 6 S10 shots a round from a walking tyrant. I can't find any RAW that would make it illegal though.

< img]  [>< img]  [>< img]  [>