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.

Col, since according to you he has two weapons that have a "doubly" profile of the one given and since you also say that "this weapon" of the special rules Touch of the Emperor and Whirling Flame means that both weapons have those special rules, is it also your stance that he can split his attacks between "these weapons" and thus be able to attack with both Touch of the Emperor and Whirling Flame?

 Brother Ramses wrote:

GodDamUser wrote:
I love that his entire argument is based on the RAI that if the hand has a caveat stating it is a Melee weapon then the sword must be one as well

When the sword could be interrupted as being the catalyst item to give the special rules to the melee weapon that is the hand

And he deflects to two words of a nine sentence rule as his proof while also completely ignoring the fact that the special rules refer to a single weapon in the profile when choosing to attack. His defense was that it means either weapon, again another RAI assumption.

Also that every other instance of a similar occurrence with a relic item clearly states if they get a extra atk or are two separate weapons.

It is basically 5 different arguments showing why its wrong Vs 1 that is purely based on a single word

If this was a scientific paper it would of failed the peer review.

GodDamUser wrote:

 Brother Ramses wrote:

GodDamUser wrote:
I love that his entire argument is based on the RAI that if the hand has a caveat stating it is a Melee weapon then the sword must be one as well

When the sword could be interrupted as being the catalyst item to give the special rules to the melee weapon that is the hand

And he deflects to two words of a nine sentence rule as his proof while also completely ignoring the fact that the special rules refer to a single weapon in the profile when choosing to attack. His defense was that it means either weapon, again another RAI assumption.

Also that every other instance of a similar occurrence with a relic item clearly states if they get a extra atk or are two separate weapons.

It is basically 5 different arguments showing why its wrong Vs 1 that is purely based on a single word

If this was a scientific paper it would of failed the peer review.

In the greater scheme of YMDC, it doesn't hold a candle to the flaming idiocy that has been spewed here in the past with rules arguments hinging on much less then the RAI of two words as this one happens to be based upon.

Someone fill me in, since when did "counts as two weapons" became the default for relics?

Cuz I do not see that sentence anywhere in the weapon's rules either.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

col_impact wrote:


In the sentence . . .

"These weapons are used together, using the profile below"

Weapons is plural. Do you deny that?

The word "weapons" is a plural word. I do not deny that. However, again, that is not my argument, nor does it have any bearing on the argument at hand because you have failed to prove "weapon" is a keyword, nor prove what a "keyword" means in 40k since it has none.

Cool, so you accept the plural.

That means the statement recognizes 'two or more weapons'. Do you deny that?

col_impact wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

col_impact wrote:


In the sentence . . .

"These weapons are used together, using the profile below"

Weapons is plural. Do you deny that?

The word "weapons" is a plural word. I do not deny that. However, again, that is not my argument, nor does it have any bearing on the argument at hand because you have failed to prove "weapon" is a keyword, nor prove what a "keyword" means in 40k since it has none.

Cool, so you accept the plural.

That means the statement recognizes 'two or more weapons'. Do you deny that?

Yup I deny that. Again, "weapons" is not a plural keyword. It is a word, but not a keyword. This one fact seems to elude your arguments. The statement recognizes that "these weapons are used together, using the profile below". Since there is only one profile, no rule that says "treat this as two weapons", no separating name for two or more weapons, and no references to the sword existing at all in the rules (or in the fluff of the relic), I must conclude that there is only one weapon.

You have still yet to provide us with any evidence to the contrary other than two words out of a 9 word sentence (that's not even 1/3rd of the whole sentence either) taken out of context.

 Brother Ramses wrote:
Col, since according to you he has two weapons that have a "doubly" profile of the one given and since you also say that "this weapon" of the special rules Touch of the Emperor and Whirling Flame means that both weapons have those special rules, is it also your stance that he can split his attacks between "these weapons" and thus be able to attack with both Touch of the Emperor and Whirling Flame?

Splitting attacks is not allowed.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Cool, so you accept the plural.

That means the statement recognizes 'two or more weapons'. Do you deny that?

Yup I deny that. Again, "weapons" is not a plural keyword. It is a word, but not a keyword. This one fact seems to elude your arguments. The statement recognizes that "these weapons are used together, using the profile below". Since there is only one profile, no rule that says "treat this as two weapons", no separating name for two or more weapons, and no references to the sword existing at all in the rules (or in the fluff of the relic), I must conclude that there is only one weapon.

You have still yet to provide us with any evidence to the contrary other than two words out of a 9 word sentence (that's not even 1/3rd of the whole sentence either) taken out of context.

So you don't accept the plural? Does "weapons" mean "one weapon" or does "weapons" mean "two or more weapons"?

col_impact wrote:

 Brother Ramses wrote:
Col, since according to you he has two weapons that have a "doubly" profile of the one given and since you also say that "this weapon" of the special rules Touch of the Emperor and Whirling Flame means that both weapons have those special rules, is it also your stance that he can split his attacks between "these weapons" and thus be able to attack with both Touch of the Emperor and Whirling Flame?

Splitting attacks is not allowed.

Spoiler:

If a model has more than one Melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with when he comes to strike blows – he cannot mix and match the abilities of several different Melee weapons.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Cool, so you accept the plural.

That means the statement recognizes 'two or more weapons'. Do you deny that?

Yup I deny that. Again, "weapons" is not a plural keyword. It is a word, but not a keyword. This one fact seems to elude your arguments. The statement recognizes that "these weapons are used together, using the profile below". Since there is only one profile, no rule that says "treat this as two weapons", no separating name for two or more weapons, and no references to the sword existing at all in the rules (or in the fluff of the relic), I must conclude that there is only one weapon.

You have still yet to provide us with any evidence to the contrary other than two words out of a 9 word sentence (that's not even 1/3rd of the whole sentence either) taken out of context.

So you don't accept the plural? Does "weapons" mean "one weapon" or does "weapons" mean "two or more weapons"?

Like I said, I accept that "weapons" is a plural word. I do not accept that two words taken outside the context of their sentence is equal to a "counts as two weapons" rule.

Again, please stop trying to quote mine and cherry pick words. It's already bad enough your argument grossly misinterpreted the rules (again, keywords don't exist, that's a MTG thing), don't do the same to our counter-arguments as well. Please give actual page quotes for your arguments.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

col_impact wrote:


So you don't accept the plural? Does "weapons" mean "one weapon" or does "weapons" mean "two or more weapons"?

Like I said, I accept that "weapons" is a plural word. I do not accept that two words taken outside the context of their sentence is equal to a "counts as two weapons" rule.

Again, please stop trying to quote mine and cherry pick words. It's already bad enough your argument grossly misinterpreted the rules (again, keywords don't exist, that's a MTG thing), don't do the same to our counter-arguments as well. Please give actual page quotes for your arguments.

In the sentence . .

"These weapons are used together, using the profile below."

Are "these weapons" being used in the singular to refer to 'one weapon' or in the plural to refer to 'two or more weapons'?

col_impact wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

col_impact wrote:


So you don't accept the plural? Does "weapons" mean "one weapon" or does "weapons" mean "two or more weapons"?

Like I said, I accept that "weapons" is a plural word. I do not accept that two words taken outside the context of their sentence is equal to a "counts as two weapons" rule.

Again, please stop trying to quote mine and cherry pick words. It's already bad enough your argument grossly misinterpreted the rules (again, keywords don't exist, that's a MTG thing), don't do the same to our counter-arguments as well. Please give actual page quotes for your arguments.

In the sentence . .

These weapons are used together, using the profile below.

Are "these weapons" being used in the singular to refer to 'one weapon' or in the plural to refer to 'two or more weapons'?

In English, (which has no bearing on the rules) in that sentence is being used to refer to plural weapons being used as a singular weapon profile (note the lack of an "s" on profile).

In game terms, "these weapons" is meaningless on it's own, as it is taken outside of it's rule. The Sentence "These weapons are used together, using the profile below" in it's entirety means "these count as one weapon with a singular profile".

Please refer to Tenet #6 of YMDC as to why I gave you two answers.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

col_impact wrote:


In the sentence . .

These weapons are used together, using the profile below.

Are "these weapons" being used in the singular to refer to 'one weapon' or in the plural to refer to 'two or more weapons'?

In English, (which has no bearing on the rules) in that sentence is being used to refer to plural weapons being used as a singular weapon profile (note the lack of an "s" on profile).

In game terms, "these weapons" is meaningless on it's own, as it is taken outside of it's rule.

'Weapon' is a defined and indexed term in the BRB. Do you deny this?

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
The Sentence "These weapons are used together, using the profile below" in it's entirety means "these count as one weapon with a singular profile".

Please refer to Tenet #6 of YMDC as to why I gave you two answers.

How are you coming up with 'count as one weapon' from "these weapons are used together, using the profile below"? A guess?



Summary of my argument . . .

col_impact wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

col_impact wrote:


So you don't accept the plural? Does "weapons" mean "one weapon" or does "weapons" mean "two or more weapons"?

Like I said, I accept that "weapons" is a plural word. I do not accept that two words taken outside the context of their sentence is equal to a "counts as two weapons" rule.

Again, please stop trying to quote mine and cherry pick words. It's already bad enough your argument grossly misinterpreted the rules (again, keywords don't exist, that's a MTG thing), don't do the same to our counter-arguments as well. Please give actual page quotes for your arguments.

In the sentence . .

"These weapons are used together, using the profile below."

Are "these weapons" being used in the singular to refer to 'one weapon' or in the plural to refer to 'two or more weapons'?

No.
As you might know, "these" is a pronoun. It refers to preceeding words and avoids repetition. Used together with the word "weapons" it clearly references the preceeding mention of the model's two visible weapons which also happen to be the relic name.

Funny aside - while WEAPON has a definition in the BRB, GW does not highlight defined Terms reliably fir clarity and does use the same word for the common English meaning.

"These weapons are used together, using the profile below."
actually reads

"The Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion are used together, using the profile below."

This is the sentence that defines the weapon profile. Before we execute this instruction, the models weapons are undefined and unusable. After we execute it the model's weapons are defined as one melee weapon.

col_impact wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

col_impact wrote:


In the sentence . .

These weapons are used together, using the profile below.

Are "these weapons" being used in the singular to refer to 'one weapon' or in the plural to refer to 'two or more weapons'?

In English, (which has no bearing on the rules) in that sentence is being used to refer to plural weapons being used as a singular weapon profile (note the lack of an "s" on profile).

In game terms, "these weapons" is meaningless on it's own, as it is taken outside of it's rule.

'Weapon' is a defined and indexed term in the BRB. Do you deny this?

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
The Sentence "These weapons are used together, using the profile below" in it's entirety means "these count as one weapon with a singular profile".

Please refer to Tenet #6 of YMDC as to why I gave you two answers.

How are you coming up with 'count as one weapon' from "these weapons are used together, using the profile below"? A guess?

I don't deny that "Weapon" is a defined and indexed term in the BRB. I deny that it is a keyword, which is a nonexistant concept in 40k.

And I came up with "count as one weapon" because the rulebook states that every weapon has a profile, a singular profile is listed, and the rules state that "these weapons are used together, using the profile below". Since the sentence stipulate I have to use both weapons together to obtain the profile (which, mind you, is still singular), I conclude that the profile can only exist when both weapons are used together and it cannot exist separately. I did not stop reading the sentence after the second word and conclude that Guilliman has two weapons with no profiles.

EDIT: Because you keep bringing it up, I feel the need to do so as well:

Our Argument:

Nowhere is it stated under the rules that Guilliman's relic counts as two weapons.
Taking two words out of context from a rule invalidates their meaning as rules of the games thereof.
The Weapon has one profile.

I'd state that just because something is one way in English (the language) it does not mean the same thing in English (the rules), but that's tenet #6, which your argument also ignores.

EDIT: I am going to bed because it's 2am here and I gotta get to work at 9. However I will be back when the sun rises! Can't miss out on the comedic gold here.

col_impact wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

col_impact wrote:


In the sentence . . .

"These weapons are used together, using the profile below"

Weapons is plural. Do you deny that?

The word "weapons" is a plural word. I do not deny that. However, again, that is not my argument, nor does it have any bearing on the argument at hand because you have failed to prove "weapon" is a keyword, nor prove what a "keyword" means in 40k since it has none.

Cool, so you accept the plural.

That means the statement recognizes 'two or more weapons'. Do you deny that?

I am pretty sure not a single person doubts that "these weapons" is plural. You are only laughed out the room when you then reference the BRB of "every weapon has a profile" by ignoring the rest of the rule. Time to take off my snark hat, toss on my professor cap, and take your RAI argument to school.

You would be golden with that assumption if the rule simply stated, "These weapons use the profile below." Boom! I am giving RG +1 attack because you are TOLD via RAW that both weapons use the profile given below. Except it doesn't just say that. Instead it puts a qualifier on using said profile that you then interpret to have no bearing on how you are able to use that profile. You skip over the qualifier completely saying that there is no defined rule in the BRB for "used together" and thus can immediately jump to "every weapon has a profile".

The problem is that without the qualifier you break the relic. If not "used together" you cannot access the profile as thus do not gain the special rules of said profile. Common language dictates that "used together" can either mean that the Hand and sword somehow combine together in some Voltron/Power Rangers way to become one weapon and use the profile (RAI for no bonus attack) OR that the very act of using the Hand in one hand and the sword in the other in close combat, is technically using them together (RAI for a bonus attack) and thus the qualifier is met. You choose the latter because that use of the common language supports your argument (your use of RAI once again).

Your assumption from the beginning is that "these weapons" means two weapons, and "each weapon has a profile" and they are "used together" in close combat by being in separate hands (not the Voltron/Power Rangers method) so thus qualify for access to the the profile each and seperately and therefore both have melee thus creating a bonus attack. Granted the Sword in itself cannot be "used together" for anything to even unlock the profile since it has no profile to even be "used together" with anything in the first place, but that is another thread. But as pointed out, your argurment is flavored and spiced with tons of RAI. Not a RAW argument as you continue to self-proclaim to only yourself in each post you make in the slightest, but one with RAI decisions along every step of the way to reach the conclusion that your have already formed.

However as I have repeated time and time again, the no bonus attack crowd is in the same boat as they are interpreting "used together" to be of the Voltron/Power Rangers variety to unlock the given profile. Granted their only assumption seems to be the definition of "used together" and they do have a set of special rules (Whirling Fire and Touch of the Emperor) defining use of said special rules by a single weapon ala "this weapon" ala Voltron/Power Rangers combined into one method.

 Stephanius wrote:

col_impact wrote:

In the sentence . .

"These weapons are used together, using the profile below."

Are "these weapons" being used in the singular to refer to 'one weapon' or in the plural to refer to 'two or more weapons'?

No.
As you might know, "these" is a pronoun.

Incorrect. "These" as used here is a demonstrative adjective.

These is used to refer to the plural 'weapons' as close to the speaker (close in the sense of just mentioned).

 Stephanius wrote:
It refers to preceeding words and avoids repetition. Used together with the word "weapons" it clearly references the preceeding mention of the model's two visible weapons which also happen to be the relic name.

We don't know whether we are dealing with one relic or two. All we know is that we have a single entry line for "the Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion".

 Stephanius wrote:

Funny aside - while WEAPON has a definition in the BRB, GW does not highlight defined Terms reliably fir clarity and does use the same word for the common English meaning.

The funny thing is that you are guessing that the English meaning applies instead of the BRB meaning. Since 'weapon' is charged with BRB meaning, you are going to have to prove your case that the BRB doesn't apply here.

 Stephanius wrote:

"These weapons are used together, using the profile below."
actually reads

"The Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion are used together, using the profile below."

You can't transpose those two sentences unless the Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion are weapons.

You can't drop that information. So it would read.

"The Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion are weapons that are used together, using the profile below"

 Stephanius wrote:
This is the sentence that defines the weapon profile. Before we execute this instruction, the models weapons are undefined and unusable. After we execute it the model's weapons are defined as one melee weapon.

Incorrect. The Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion have been identified as "these weapons". How are you magically changing that to "one weapon"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

And I came up with "count as one weapon" because the rulebook states that every weapon has a profile, a singular profile is listed, and the rules state that "these weapons are used together, using the profile below". Since the sentence stipulate I have to use both weapons together to obtain the profile (which, mind you, is still singular), I conclude that the profile can only exist when both weapons are used together and it cannot exist separately. I did not stop reading the sentence after the second word and conclude that Guilliman has two weapons with no profiles.

This is a reasonable guess as to what the rules writers intended. But you are supplying your own rules statements here. There is no statement that "these weapons" "count as a single weapon" so your argument is decidedly RAI and not RAW. "Used together" on its own does not change the plural in "these weapons" to the singular hypothesized 'combined' weapon you want to assign the single profile to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brother Ramses wrote:


I am pretty sure not a single person doubts that "these weapons" is plural. You are only laughed out the room when you then reference the BRB of "every weapon has a profile" by ignoring the rest of the rule. Time to take off my snark hat, toss on my professor cap, and take your RAI argument to school.

You would be golden with that assumption if the rule simply stated, "These weapons use the profile below." Boom! I am giving RG +1 attack because you are TOLD via RAW that both weapons use the profile given below. Except it doesn't just say that. Instead it puts a qualifier on using said profile that you then interpret to have no bearing on how you are able to use that profile. You skip over the qualifier completely saying that there is no defined rule in the BRB for "used together" and thus can immediately jump to "every weapon has a profile".

The problem is that without the qualifier you break the relic. If not "used together" you cannot access the profile as thus do not gain the special rules of said profile. Common language dictates that "used together" can either mean that the Hand and sword somehow combine together in some Voltron/Power Rangers way to become one weapon and use the profile (RAI for no bonus attack) OR that the very act of using the Hand in one hand and the sword in the other in close combat, is technically using them together (RAI for a bonus attack) and thus the qualifier is met. You choose the latter because that use of the common language supports your argument (your use of RAI once again).

Your assumption from the beginning is that "these weapons" means two weapons, and "each weapon has a profile" and they are "used together" in close combat by being in separate hands (not the Voltron/Power Rangers method) so thus qualify for access to the the profile each and seperately and therefore both have melee thus creating a bonus attack. Granted the Sword in itself cannot be "used together" for anything to even unlock the profile since it has no profile to even be "used together" with anything in the first place, but that is another thread. But as pointed out, your argurment is flavored and spiced with tons of RAI. Not a RAW argument as you continue to self-proclaim to only yourself in each post you make in the slightest, but one with RAI decisions along every step of the way to reach the conclusion that your have already formed.

However as I have repeated time and time again, the no bonus attack crowd is in the same boat as they are interpreting "used together" to be of the Voltron/Power Rangers variety to unlock the given profile. Granted their only assumption seems to be the definition of "used together" and they do have a set of special rules (Whirling Fire and Touch of the Emperor) defining use of said special rules by a single weapon ala "this weapon" ala Voltron/Power Rangers combined into one method.

Thank you for your well-thought out response.

I think you are wrong that "used together" could only mean one of two things. I think it could have many more than just those two meanings. And that's the problem. It's undefined in the rules.

The bottom line though is that the rules don't say anything about "used together" and nothing definitive can be said about "used together" without making a guess as to intent.

So that means a RAW approach basically ignores "used together" as meaningless in terms of the rules themselves.


So we really have two weapons, an unnamed profile, a rule that says "every weapon has a profile", and a set of rules that perfectly allows two weapons to share the same profile.

Based strictly on the rules themselves, we can come to no other conclusion than that we have two melee weapons and therewith +1A.



Summary of my argument . . .

col_impact wrote:

Based strictly on the rules themselves, we can come to no other conclusion than that we have two melee weapons and therewith +1A.

No, just no. That's just based on your conclusion. Simple reading comprehension of the rules is lost to you and you're just to stubborn to admit that.

"These weapons are used together, using the profile below."
What's is there not to understand. It's two weapons, using a singular profile.

 The Grumpy Eldar wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Based strictly on the rules themselves, we can come to no other conclusion than that we have two melee weapons and therewith +1A.

No, just no. That's just based on your conclusion. Simple reading comprehension of the rules is lost to you and you're just to stubborn to admit that.

"These weapons are used together, using the profile below."
What's is there not to understand. It's two weapons, using a singular profile.

Yup, so each weapon has the single profile applied to it. "Every weapon has a profile."


Summary of my argument . . .

col_impact wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:

col_impact wrote:

In the sentence . .

"These weapons are used together, using the profile below."

Are "these weapons" being used in the singular to refer to 'one weapon' or in the plural to refer to 'two or more weapons'?

No.
As you might know, "these" is a pronoun.

Incorrect. "These" as used here is a demonstrative adjective.

These is used to refer to the plural 'weapons' as close to the speaker (close in the sense of just mentioned).

Even if you are correct, that changes nothing about the meaning. The just mentioned weapons were the sword and the hand. "These weapons" references sword and hand.

col_impact wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:
It refers to preceeding words and avoids repetition. Used together with the word "weapons" it clearly references the preceeding mention of the model's two visible weapons which also happen to be the relic name.

We don't know whether we are dealing with one relic or two. All we know is that we have a single entry line for "the Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion".

Which is how we know that it is one (1) relic - since it's one relic entry. One relic CAN be more than one weapon (see. Cyper), but that needs to be explictly stated, which Robby's rules don't.

col_impact wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:

Funny aside - while WEAPON has a definition in the BRB, GW does not highlight defined Terms reliably fir clarity and does use the same word for the common English meaning.

The funny thing is that you are guessing that the English meaning applies instead of the BRB meaning. Since 'weapon' is charged with BRB meaning, you are going to have to prove your case that the BRB doesn't apply here.

Even if I were to accept this, worst case it would be just as funny as your assertion that it's used as a defined term here. Actually, assuming that it's meant as the defined term here doesn't make any sense. The function of the rule statement is to define how the relic functions as a weapon, both for melee and ranged combat. That is what it does. It defines a melee and a ranged profile. Let me provide an example to illustrate this:

Harlequin Foamsword bla bla bla This weapon is a Close Combat Weapon/Chainsword/purely decorative.

If "This weapon" would already be a definition in the rules, what would it be? We cannot stop reading here, since the instruction isn't complete. X = CCW, where X = Harlequin Foamsword. X alone has no meaning.

Harlequin Foamsword and Foam-Cudgel bla bla bla These weapons are Close Combat Weapons

This is logically identical with:

Harlequin Foamsword and Foam-Cudgel are Close Combat Weapons

Note how the plural is there in the second half of the statement - the definition of the referenced bits of gear.

col_impact wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:

"These weapons are used together, using the profile below."
actually reads

"The Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion are used together, using the profile below."

You can't transpose those two sentences unless the Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion are weapons.

You can't drop that information. So it would read.

"The Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion are weapons that are used together, using the profile below"

You contradict yourself. You earlier posited that "These" is a demonstrative adjective used to clarifly the reference to something close to the speaker, and then turn that spatial reference to a temporal one by switching it to "just mentioned". You are probably going to try to weasel out here saying that just mentioned - as in previously mentioned - actually here in this super special case means mentioned immediately after the demonstrative adjective, which makes no sense at all. So you did agree that "These weapons" is actually a reference to "The Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion" and therfore it is in fact perfectly clear and acceptable to replace "These weapons" with "The Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Domninion". You might note that doing this does not change the meaning of the sentence as everyone (except you) reads it.

col_impact wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:
This is the sentence that defines the weapon profile. Before we execute this instruction, the models weapons are undefined and unusable. After we execute it the model's weapons are defined as one melee weapon.

Incorrect. The Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion have been identified as "these weapons". How are you magically changing that to "one weapon"?

It's not magic, it's rules. The relic rule says "The sword and the hand are used together with the profile below". (note the annoying singular "the profile").
If you actually just follow the instruction the rule provides, you have one weapon.
If you strike out words, redefine others, take them out of context and talk really fast and persistently ... you still fail in making it two separately usable defined weapons.

 Stephanius wrote:

col_impact wrote:


We don't know whether we are dealing with one relic or two. All we know is that we have a single entry line for "the Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion".

Which is how we know that it is one (1) relic - since it's one relic entry. One relic CAN be more than one weapon (see. Cyper), but that needs to be explictly stated, which Robby's rules don't.

Incorrect. All we know is that it is one entry. There is no rule that establishes one entry per relic. If you know of such a rule please present it.

Cypher's example proves that one entry can refer to more than one relic.



Even so, whether we are dealing with one relic or many relics, we really only care about how many weapons we are dealing with when we are dealing with "the Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion".

As far as the number of weapons goes, we know for a fact that we are dealing with two weapons in the case of "the Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion".

 Stephanius wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:

Funny aside - while WEAPON has a definition in the BRB, GW does not highlight defined Terms reliably fir clarity and does use the same word for the common English meaning.

The funny thing is that you are guessing that the English meaning applies instead of the BRB meaning. Since 'weapon' is charged with BRB meaning, you are going to have to prove your case that the BRB doesn't apply here.

Even if I were to accept this, worst case it would be just as funny as your assertion that it's used as a defined term here. Actually, assuming that it's meant as the defined term here doesn't make any sense. The function of the rule statement is to define how the relic functions as a weapon, both for melee and ranged combat. That is what it does. It defines a melee and a ranged profile. Let me provide an example to illustrate this:

Harlequin Foamsword bla bla bla This weapon is a Close Combat Weapon/Chainsword/purely decorative.

If "This weapon" would already be a definition in the rules, what would it be? We cannot stop reading here, since the instruction isn't complete. X = CCW, where X = Harlequin Foamsword. X alone has no meaning.

Harlequin Foamsword and Foam-Cudgel bla bla bla These weapons are Close Combat Weapons

This is logically identical with:

Harlequin Foamsword and Foam-Cudgel are Close Combat Weapons

Note how the plural is there in the second half of the statement - the definition of the referenced bits of gear.

The statement beginning "These weapons . . " is not fluff; it's a rule statement, so we aren't talking about 'bits of gear'. The rule statement that begins with "These weapons" has to do with defining"the Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion" as BRB defined terms - two "weapons". If we were dealing with a single weapon the rule statement would read "this weapon".

 Stephanius wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:

"These weapons are used together, using the profile below."
actually reads

"The Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion are used together, using the profile below."

You can't transpose those two sentences unless the Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion are weapons.

You can't drop that information. So it would read.

"The Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion are weapons that are used together, using the profile below"

You contradict yourself. You earlier posited that "These" is a demonstrative adjective used to clarifly the reference to something close to the speaker, and then turn that spatial reference to a temporal one by switching it to "just mentioned". You are probably going to try to weasel out here saying that just mentioned - as in previously mentioned - actually here in this super special case means mentioned immediately after the demonstrative adjective, which makes no sense at all. So you did agree that "These weapons" is actually a reference to "The Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion" and therfore it is in fact perfectly clear and acceptable to replace "These weapons" with "The Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Domninion". You might note that doing this does not change the meaning of the sentence as everyone (except you) reads it.

"These weapons" is critical info. It indicates that there are two rule-recognized weapons to deal with. The only way that you can replace "these weapons" with "the Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion" is by accepting that you have two weapons.

Don't try to cover up info by transposing and dropping it out. It's there in the rules. Trying to hide the fact that the rules recognizes two weapons only invalidates your argument.

 Stephanius wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:
This is the sentence that defines the weapon profile. Before we execute this instruction, the models weapons are undefined and unusable. After we execute it the model's weapons are defined as one melee weapon.

Incorrect. The Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion have been identified as "these weapons". How are you magically changing that to "one weapon"?

It's not magic, it's rules. The relic rule says "The sword and the hand are used together with the profile below". (note the annoying singular "the profile").
If you actually just follow the instruction the rule provides, you have one weapon.
If you strike out words, redefine others, take them out of context and talk really fast and persistently ... you still fail in making it two separately usable defined weapons.

That's not what the rule statement says.

The rule statement says this . . .

"The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together, using the profile below."

It does not say this . . .

"The sword and the hand are used together with the profile below".

You are leaving out critical info that the Sword and the Hand are weapons.

Why are you trying to hide this info? It's right there in the rule statement.

I guess you have no way around the fact that we are dealing with weapons in the plural when we are dealing with The Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion', and rather than be upfront about it your are going to try and sneak it out of discussion with bad transposition.

You are being disingenuous in your argument and obviously so. Deal with the fact that the rule statement says "these weapons" and stop trying to hide it. Your argument has no validity until you deal with the fact that the Sword and the Hand are weapons. Try again.



Summary of my argument . . .

Some more hand-waving, I see.

RAW: "The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together, using the profile below."

Steph: "The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion are used together, using the profile below."

Steph: "The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These things are used together, using the profile below."

Each of these statements has the exact same meaning to everyone in this thread - except for you.
Note how "these statements" references the previously made statements and used instead of repetition.
Note how "these quotes" or "these sentences" could be used innstead without changing the meaning.

"These weapons" is NOT used to assign a defined term in the rule statement. How would that even work?

Assume for a second that "These weapons" has declarative power, e.g. defines the sword and hand as weapons, since that is what you are asserting, which would better be expressed by this:

Col: The Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion: These (ARE) weapons.

Not only is that not what the rule says, but it would also be useless, since it takes us no further from seeing a pointy plastic bit to being able to use it in the game. Clearly, "hand + sword = WEAPONS" does not define either bit as a useable weapon in the sense of the rules. They still lack a profile you see. Which is when your baseless assertion takes on hilarity, since you decide that for your reading not only do some words need to be moved, some words need to be ignored - contrary to the overt instruction the rule author put in place.

I assume, your reading would be complete as this:

Col: The Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion: These (ARE) weapons (.WHICH) are used together (signifying nothing, just a filler, ignore please), using the profile below

or tidied up:

Col: The Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion: These (ARE) weapons; (WHICH) are (...), using the profile below

Now, when we look to how the verb ARE is actually positioned in the sentence, we see:

RAW: "The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons ARE used together, using the profile below."

That is critical, since the verb ARE does the defining in the rule. The rule says "These two weapon bits ARE DEFINED AS this one (1) melee weapon".

I think this is getting a bit over complicated.

Surely it just means that he has two weapons, [since it does say these weaponS" and when used together they get all the extra bits, like concussion, whirling flame etc.

So if he cant use one the other just acts as a strength 10 AP1 melee weapon.

Therefore he does get +1 A since it does state multiple weapons, and there is nothing listed to say otherwise.

col_impact wrote:

 The Grumpy Eldar wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Based strictly on the rules themselves, we can come to no other conclusion than that we have two melee weapons and therewith +1A.

No, just no. That's just based on your conclusion. Simple reading comprehension of the rules is lost to you and you're just to stubborn to admit that.

"These weapons are used together, using the profile below."
What's is there not to understand. It's two weapons, using a singular profile.

Yup, so each weapon has the single profile applied to it. "Every weapon has a profile."

col_impact wrote:

Ceann wrote:
Twin linked weapons are two weapons that use one profile. BRB 174 - These weapons are grafted to the same targeting system...
"OH NO ""THESE WEAPONS"""", LETS DUPLICATE THE PROFILE, forget the rest of the sentence"

Why are you quoting the fluff for twin-linked? Fluff is not to be considered part of rules statements.

An example twin-linked weapon is a twin-linked autocannon. Singular.

Spoiler:

Twin-linked weapons don’t get more shots than normal ones, but they give you a better chance of hitting with them. If a shooting weapon has the twin-linked special rule, or is described in a model’s wargear entry as twin-linked, it re-rolls all failed To Hit rolls.

The rule also uses weapon in the singular.

When a rule statement uses "weapons" it means weapons in the plural.

"Twin-linked weapons"

You agree that weapons is plural right??????????

No. We started reading a sentence and it said "weapons" well since all weapons must have a profile we doubly apply the profile. Hence we have two auto cannons individually. It says Twin-linked weapons don't get more shot's than normal ones, so we will only be firing each of them one time, which is not more than the normal ones. After all singular, just like together isn't a rule so it is meaningless.

We are after all following your precedence for "these weapons" being a rule.

When the rules for RG say "THIS WEAPON" you do not argue that it is singular, you assume it applies to BOTH of your assumed weapons. I am doing the same here.

col_impact wrote:

 The Grumpy Eldar wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Based strictly on the rules themselves, we can come to no other conclusion than that we have two melee weapons and therewith +1A.

No, just no. That's just based on your conclusion. Simple reading comprehension of the rules is lost to you and you're just to stubborn to admit that.

"These weapons are used together, using the profile below."
What's is there not to understand. It's two weapons, using a singular profile.

Yup, so each weapon has the single profile applied to it. "Every weapon has a profile."


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.

I'm baaaaaaack!

Anyways, it seems your argument's only method of "proof" is to stop reading any other argument after the word "weapons", because your interpretation of his argument, much like that of guilliman's relic, stops exactly after the word "weapons" and ignores the rest of the sentence.

Please understand, reading a part of the sentence does not convey the entire meaning of the sentence. This is especially important in rule debates as if you do not take the entire sentence for it's meaning, you cannot understand how it is written (quite literally, since you took away 2/3rds of what is written), hence your argument can only be RAI.

col_impact wrote:

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"..

When taken with "using the profile below" in the same sentence, it does mean using them together as a single weapon with the profile below. It does not say "each with the profile below", which would indicate that each weapon has the profile below. But go ahead, keep ignoring this like you have since it doesn't seem you have a good reply to it.

I like how he made the thread in the YMDC area. But whenever someone has a different view it's "Lalalalalala, can't hear you over the sound of me thinking about how right I am and everyone else is wrong." It's no use to even come with an argument against him because it's most likely not part of his view of the rules anyway.

According to him, the rest of the sentence after "weapons" does not exist. To him, the "are used together, using the profile below" part, despite being written in the book on hard copy, only exists as our RAI interpretation.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
According to him, the rest of the sentence after "weapons" does not exist. To him, the "are used together, using the profile below" part, despite being written in the book on hard copy, only exists as our RAI interpretation.

Don't forget, he asked for precedence - got shown precendence - then claimed it didn't apply as the examples were not relics.
He was then given examples of relics following the same precedence - doesn't apply as it's RAI.

You can't ask for something and then deny its existence when it's presented to you.

The wheels on the bus go round and round
Round and round
Round and round
The wheels on the bus go round and round
All 'round the town

Sorry, 26 pages of the same arguments again and again and again (copy/pasted too!). If I said he has two weapons and gets +1 attack, and my opponent said no he doesn't, I'd be good with a d6 roll off. You know, the Most Important Rule as defined in the rulebook on pg. 10?
+1 extra attack on a Primarch isn't gonna matter much as he is going to kill just about anything he gets into close combat with.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:
Don't forget, he asked for precedence - got shown precendence - then claimed it didn't apply as the examples were not relics.
He was then given examples of relics following the same precedence - doesn't apply as it's RAI.

You can't ask for something and then deny its existence when it's presented to you.

Sure one can. It's disingenuous, but one can do it. He demonstrates that often enough.