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.

Tyranids don't have any special weapons.

Nope. They have close combat weapons they do not use but instead provide a bonus for simply having them.

It's that simple.

Dracos you are going to have to do a lot better than that to dissuade my discussion.

G

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you understand how this assertion is difficult to reconcile?

Just to clear up one point that has muddied the discussion:

The rule on pg 35 of the BRB states "and use any special close combat attacks they have". Please note that this says attacks, not WEAPONS. So this rule applies to models who have those rare things called close combat attacks, such as the tyranid bioplasm attack. It does not apply to things such as power weapons, power fists etc.

It is critical to use use the correct words in discussions on the RAW as changing a word, such as has, to another word, such as use, causes a great deal of pointless sidetracking in this particular rules debate. Have isnt the same as use/ wield; special weapon isnt the same as special attack; etc etc.

Tyranids do not use close combat weapons does not mean the same thing as tyranids do not have close combat weapons.

If you are discussing RAW or even RAI then it becomes critically important to not paraphrase and change the words used when talking about the rules.



Sliggoth

Tyranids have CCWs but do not wield them.

P.33:
Tyranid creatures do not wield close combat weapons as such, but rather slash at their opponents with their own teeth, claws, and talons. As a result, Tyranid models never receive bonus Attacks for fighting with more than one close combat weapon - these bonuses are always included in the creature's profile.

Saying that they don't have CCWs because they can't wield them is nonsense. There is no contradiction in the new codex in this regards. This rule, as has been stated before, simply points out that the CCWs listed in the codex do not provide the Tyranid model a bonus +1 attack. Unless the selection specifically states otherwise (i.e., Crushing Claws) Tyranid CCW selections do not affect the models Attacks stat line. Furthermore, this does not prohibit the Tyranid model from gaining the benefits of being equipped with a specific CCW.

What P.33 is stating is that, in an assault, a Tyranid model fights with teeth, claws, and talons as represented by their Attacks stat. The CCW selections in the codex are not wielded in the sense that the model is attacking with them. Rather they are providing various effects/bonuses to the Tyranid model's assault.

So yes, they do stack. A Tyranid Warrior armed with Scything Talons and Rending Claws attacks with 'claws, teeth, and talons' (as reflected in their statline), and is allowed to re-roll 1's and gains Rending.

A Carnifex that has Scything Talons and Crushing Claws does not 'wield' either of these. Instead it simply attacks with 'claws, teeth, and talons', but is allowed to re-roll 1's and gains d3 attacks on the charge.

Just my opinion, but I suspect this is how my group with play it out.

-Yad

+1 on they stack since the rules specify benefits for having them and the models are not wielding them.

Nosferatu quite correctly pointed out that in order to gain the benefits of a special weapon, you must be using it.

p.42 brb :"...confer bonuses, and sometimes penalties, to models using them."

Under two special weapons, it tells you that you must choose which one to use:

"these models must choose which weapon to use that turn."

The BRB forces you to choose which special CCW to use, and it states you only get the bonuses of the weapon you are using. There is nothing in the Tyranid codex that opposes this, therefore this rule stands for Tyranids as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Green Blow Fly wrote:
Dracos you are going to have to do a lot better than that to dissuade my discussion.

G

So basically you don't agree with my points, but you are unable to refute them?

/boggle. Talk about reading the rules to achieve a specific result.

No. Tyranids do not wield Close Combat Weapons, as such.

kirsanth wrote:No. Tyranids do not wield Close Combat Weapons, as such.

That is irrelevent. They still use them, and must choose which to use.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you are arguing that Tryanids do not use special CCWs, then they do not get the bonuses from any of their special CCWs because you must be USING them to gain the bonuses.

No, in fact, they do not, as has been posted repeatedly. You apparently do not agree with the Codex, but I am fine with that.
Being that the codex is more specific that the main rules (Tyranids > Models), they do not weild CCWs as such, so merely having them is what is needed.

Wielding them or not is irrelevent to the rules found on p.42.

p.42 Describes USING them, not WIELDING them.

Sorry, but no matter how you slice it if you want your Tryanids to get bonuses from Special CCWs they must be using them.

If they have 2 special CCWs that are different, they must choose which to use. This language is explicit in the BRB, and the phrase about not WIELDING is irrelevent when considering which special CCW to use.

The point is that Tyranids do not need to wield or use them.

They do not use the weapon, they use claws teeth.

Do you know what "wield" means?

This is VERY relevent to the discussion.

You said they do not need to use them, but that is exactly what is required to gain a bonus from a special CCW. Therefore you must be saying that none of the Tyranid special CCWs actually do anything. You want to know what wield means?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/wield

Main Entry: wield
Pronunciation: \ˈwēld\
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English welden to control, from Old English wieldan; akin to Old High German waltan to rule, Latin valēre to be strong, be worth
Date: before 12th century

1 chiefly dialect : to deal successfully with : manage
2 : to handle (as a tool) especially effectively <wield a broom>
3 a : to exert one's authority by means of <wield influence> b : have at one's command or disposal <did not wield appropriate credentials — G. W. Bonham>

— wield·er noun

Note the distinct lack of the term "use".

Wield =/= Use. Wield is a subset of the actions one can do while Using, but they are not interchangeable.

I know people are going to jump down my throat about a dictionary definition, but he brought up proper use of the word, not me...

One thing I can see is perhaps RAI is that the writer intended for us to read Wield as = Use (even though its not actually the same thing). I'm all for RAI arguments that it stacks together, but the language used does not denote that they do.

They are English.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/wield?view=uk

wield

• verb 1 hold and use (a weapon or tool). 2 have and be able to use (power or influence).

— DERIVATIVES wielder noun.

— ORIGIN Old English, govern, subdue, direct.

Wow, interesting that the definition there is so different.

That does lend support to the idea that the writer intended us to read wield as = use.

Point conceded.

* claps hands *

: )

G

All fear the English Language!

There in lies the problem, American English, versus GB's English. One word, two very different meanings.

But given the rulebook is written in actual English, that should be the first place to stop for definitions

When you said GB at 1st I thought you were referring to me then I immediately realized you mean Great Britian. Hee!

G

Yes, England.

I would stand to bet alot of the problems with the system are our own versions of the language.

So let me just ask a question of those in the pro-stacking camp. Pretend for a moment that the only rule listed regarding Tyranid Close Combat Weapons on page 33 was "Tyranid creatures do not wield close combat weapons as such, but rather slash at their opponents with their own teeth, claws, and talons." The '"as a result" part doesn't exist, and really isn't needed in the first place. The question is, what rules from the BRB concerning close combat weapons (normal and special) are overridden by that one sentence in the Tyranid codex (codex overrides brb)? If that was all you had as a rule, that one sentence, what would you conclude?

Lord_Mortis wrote:So let me just ask a question of those in the pro-stacking camp. Pretend for a moment that the only rule listed regarding Tyranid Close Combat Weapons on page 33 was "Tyranid creatures do not wield close combat weapons as such, but rather slash at their opponents with their own teeth, claws, and talons." The '"as a result" part doesn't exist, and really isn't needed in the first place. The question is, what rules from the BRB concerning close combat weapons (normal and special) are overridden by that one sentence in the Tyranid codex (codex overrides brb)? If that was all you had as a rule, that one sentence, what would you conclude?

First of all, it's not codex overrides brb, it's Specific > General.

Secondly, I am in the pro-stacking camp and my reasoning has nothing to do with the "Tyranids do not wield close combat. . ." line. Mine has to do with the simple fact that the wording on the weapons states that simply having the weapon gives them bonuses. The argument gets back to the "Tyranids do not wield" line because it ends up boiling down to that, or has in this thread, anyway.

Wouldn't you agree that boneswords are the Tyranid version of force weapons?

LM - back again?

Not really, given it a) doesnt require a psychic test and b) doesnt use your leadership. It is just an abiltiy that can cause instant death. Unless you believe that EVERY weapon that can cause Instant Death is "a version" of a Force Weapon?

They do not Wield, meaning use, CCW - so at no point do they use their CCW. This overrides the requirement to use any special weapon, or to choose which weapon to use.

Lord_Mortis wrote:Wouldn't you agree that boneswords are the Tyranid version of force weapons?

They are Direswords that are not CCWs.

nosferatu1001 wrote:LM - back again?

Not really, given it a) doesnt require a psychic test and b) doesnt use your leadership. It is just an abiltiy that can cause instant death. Unless you believe that EVERY weapon that can cause Instant Death is "a version" of a Force Weapon?

I didn't say it had to be exactly like a force weapon, just the Tyranids version of it. It ignores armor saves and, if I remember correctly, you roll 2d6 or 3d6 against Ld and if failed, instant death occurs.

They do not Wield, meaning use, CCW - so at no point do they use their CCW. This overrides the requirement to use any special weapon, or to choose which weapon to use.

You are obviously in the camp that the question I asked was directed at. Would you be so kind and answer the question I posed a couple posts back?

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

Lord_Mortis wrote:Wouldn't you agree that boneswords are the Tyranid version of force weapons?

They are Direswords that are not CCWs.

I don't have any of my rulebooks with me at the moment, so you'll have to refresh my memory of what a Diresword is.

Force weapons work on *your own* leadership, whereas the Bonesword works on *their* Leadership. Like a Diresword.

I did answer the question - they never use CCW, any rule requiring them to USE the CCW is therefore overidden.

So you wouldn't have concluded that they didn't get a +1 attack bonus for having 2 or more ccws?

Because what I asked was what rules concerning close combat weapons (normal or special) from the BRB are overridden by that sentence? You only listed one.

A few things. First England and GB are not the same thing. Secondly the wield versus use arguement really bares no fruit when you consider the rule on page 42 being referenced also uses the term wielder as well as use.

weapons that enhance the wielder's combat skills and confer bonuses, and sometimes penalties, to the models using them.

I'd say RaW is pretty clear from everything I've read. The CCWs of the Tyranids are indeed CCWs and as they confer special bonuses they are special CCWs. Whether they are single-handed is up for debate (scything talons are not) for the use one or the other restriction. Also a model with Scything talons, Bonesword and Lash whip is not restricted by this restriction as he has 3 CCWs not 2.

FIGHTING WITH TWO SINGLE-HANDED WEAPONS

Some models are equiped with two single handed weapons...

Two different special weapons

However it is also clear by RaW that the Tyranids never use their CCWs and that they have to use them to gain any benefit as lined out on page 42 (see quote above). Hence by RaW those close combat weapons are entirely useless as the Tyranids cannot use them and therefore cannot gain the benefits from them as there is no rule in the Tyranid codex overriding the rule that you have to use a Special CCW to gain the benefits from it.

However the above makes the rules obvious and RaI is clear that the bonuses do stack why would GW write those bonuses down if they have no value? Certainly the restriction does not apply to most cases as the model is either armed with one two handed weapon (talons) or 3 weapons or 2 of the same weapon and a 3rd weapon etc.