Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The rules for bone mace (and several similar weapons) say:

Bone Mace says (Page 104 Xenos 2):
"Each time the bearer fights, one (and only one) of its attacks must be made with this weapon."

Now clearly this means you must make one of its attacks with this weapon. Does it also mean you may not make more than one? Really not sure on this and as my friend is building a bunch of Fexen right now it's relevant to how he models them.

1 attack must be with the mace. The others must be with any other CCW the Fex has, or with the basic profile if he doesnt have any other, ie you took 2 biocannons

Just to make sure I understand you, this means he can make a maximum of one attack with the mace? The way I was reading it, it meant that it must make one, but there was no restriction on making more.

Fine by me if that is how it works. It's similar to my Talos then that has the wording "The bearer can make a maximum of one attack with this weapon."

Fragile wrote:
1 attack must be with the mace. The others must be with any other CCW the Fex has, or with the basic profile if he doesnt have any other, ie you took 2 biocannons

https://i.imgur.com/DpQ9YJl.png

You can't. You don't have the basic CCW if you have any other Melee Weapons. Unless the Carnifex has Talons or Claws, it only makes 1 attack with the mace and then can't do anything else.

Drager wrote:
Just to make sure I understand you, this means he can make a maximum of one attack with the mace? The way I was reading it, it meant that it must make one, but there was no restriction on making more.

Fine by me if that is how it works. It's similar to my Talos then that has the wording "The bearer can make a maximum of one attack with this weapon."

It literally says "One (and ONLY one)". It doesn't just say One.

It does say "One (and ONLY one) must..." so one and only one must be made with that weapon. It doesn't say:

"Each time the bearer fights, one of its attacks must (and only one may) be made with this weapon."

Which is how you seem to be reading it. To me that emphasises that the restriction is that one attack must be made given the immediately following verb, I don't see anything that restricts permission to make more attacks with it.

I'm not saying I am definitively correct, but you can see how that reading also makes sense right?

It is a CC weapon. It must be used at least once and then you can use it for as many other attacks as you want. There are no non weapon attacks in a Nid army as anything that can take 4 ranged weapons has a tail.

 Gloomfang wrote:
It is a CC weapon. It must be used at least once and then you can use it for as many other attacks as you want. There are no non weapon attacks in a Nid army as anything that can take 4 ranged weapons has a tail.

Sorry but that is 100% incorrect. A Bone Mace can used to make one attack when the carnifex fights. You can't make all 4 with it.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Gloomfang wrote:
It is a CC weapon. It must be used at least once and then you can use it for as many other attacks as you want. There are no non weapon attacks in a Nid army as anything that can take 4 ranged weapons has a tail.

Sorry but that is 100% incorrect. A Bone Mace can used to make one attack when the carnifex fights. You can't make all 4 with it.

I'm still having trouble seeing that restriction. Can you explain why being told that "one (and ONLY one) must" means that only one may? I might just be being dumb, but I don't understand how you get from one to the other.

Drager wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Gloomfang wrote:
It is a CC weapon. It must be used at least once and then you can use it for as many other attacks as you want. There are no non weapon attacks in a Nid army as anything that can take 4 ranged weapons has a tail.

Sorry but that is 100% incorrect. A Bone Mace can used to make one attack when the carnifex fights. You can't make all 4 with it.

I'm still having trouble seeing that restriction. Can you explain why being told that "one (and ONLY one) must" means that only one may? I might just be being dumb, but I don't understand how you get from one to the other.

What does 'one' mean? What does 'only one' mean? Does either of them mean 'two or more'?

It means one. The term one is followed by must, not may. So it is a different restriction. It is saying you must make one attack with this weapon, but don't have to make more than one attack with this weapon. Essentially it says nothing about what weapon your other attacks may be made with. It simply says one must be made with this weapon. I am fine with being wrong about this, but it is not as obvious as you seem to believe. Can you see that the other reading makes sense? I can kinda see how you get to yours.

Drager wrote:
It means one. What does must mean?

'Must' means the same that it always has (i.e., it's not optional).

Edited my post alot as I had more thoughts.

I agree. Must means not optional. So it is not optional that you make one attack, it doesn't mention other attacks.

Drager wrote:
It means one. The term one is followed by must, not may. So it is a different restriction. It is saying you must make one attack with this weapon, but don't have to make more than one attack with this weapon. Essentially it says nothing about what weapon your other attacks may be made with. It simply says one must be made with this weapon. I am fine with being wrong about this, but it is not as obvious as you seem to believe. Can you see that the other reading makes sense? I can kinda see how you get to yours.

No. It means that you must make one and only one attack with that weapon. If you're making two or more attacks with that weapon, have you made 'only one' attack with that weapon? No.

Must applies to the whole sentence so when applied to the parenthetical it is saying "must make only one attack"

I don't think the sentence says that at all. That would be

"Each time the bearer fights, it must make one (and only one) attack with this weapon."

Which is different in meaning to the actual rule:

"Each time the bearer fights, one (and only one) of its attacks must be made with this weapon."

Does that help you see how I am reading it? I am not asking you to agree with me, just to see if you understand the position.

No. It says only one. It would be completely redundant for them to add the parenthetical if it didn't mean ONLY ONE attack

So the parenthetical isnt an emphasis or clarification? It's a change in the meaning? Interesting take.

So you would agree with my reading if tge parenthetical was absent?

Yes .

Then can you understand how I can read it as a clarification/emphasis? Again not asking you to agree, just if you are familiar with parenthetical emphasis as a construct in language.

Yes I can see where you are coming from. I can also see why some people think the world is flat. Doesn't mean you aren't just flat out wrong.

The parenthetical is a clarification. It's clarifying that that one attack is the only attack that can use the bone saw

Cool, as long as you can see where I am coming from and disagree that is fine. I can see where you are coming from too. For myself, I am genuinely unsure as to the intent, as it's an ambiguous sentence and both intents make sense. They have also used other wording elsewhere to be explicit about only being allowed one attack, without the ambiguity.

I find your reading quite unnatural in the way that I typically use language, but I can also see how you reach that conclusion. I'll probably just always play it however the tyranid player wants to against different tyranid players, until and unless it receives a FAQ. It very well may not receive one if the writers think the intent is clear one way or the other.

EDIT: A slight digression, just out of curiosity, how would you write a rule to mean what I think this one does?

You wouldn't need a special rule at all, or you would say "at least one" instead of specifying an exact amount.