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.

If I have a model with Disarming Strike Exarch power, do they get to try and remove the lash whips or whip coils before their initiative gets dropped to 1?

Can these even be removed as I am not sure if they count as weapons?

Neither are weapons, so Disarming Strike won't do anything. The Tyranids have no melee weapons at all in fact, so Disarming Strike is utterly useless against them.

Correct me if I'm wrong but boneswords are a melee weapon?

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but boneswords are a melee weapon?

We need an FAQ to clarify really, at the moment it can be interpreted either way.

Like all Tyranid "weapons" they are biomorphs that simply give the tyranid creature an ability that modifies either their shooting or melee.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but boneswords are a melee weapon?

no, the codex specifically says they do not wield close combat weapons.

The section says Tyranids do not wield close combat weapons as such instead slashing with their own teeth, claws and talons, they don't get the bonus for additional CCW's as it is included in their profile. It doesn't say anything about them not being treated as combat weapons for the purpose of other rules as far as I can see. It would need a FAQ to clarify if this were to be the case, as it stands the way I read it is they are as vulnerable as anyone else with a combat weapon.

They even have an armory section titled Close Combat Weapons. The description of Claws and Teeth for example is "models with claws and teeth count as having a normal close combat weapon"

The wording for disarming strike says:

"nominate one of the opponent's melee weapons - this is treated as a close combat weapon until the end of the phase. If his opponent has no weapons, this ability has no effect."

The Tyranid rule is specifically to deny the bonus for multiple weapons (as it is included in their profile) it doesn't say anything about disregarding further rules, and in fact says they are to be counted as close combat weapons. Unless GW faq otherwise I see nothing that makes them immune to Disarming Strike.

 shamikebab wrote:
The section says Tyranids do not wield close combat weapons as such instead slashing with their own teeth, claws and talons, they don't get the bonus for additional CCW's as it is included in their profile. It doesn't say anything about them not being treated as combat weapons for the purpose of other rules as far as I can see. It would need a FAQ to clarify if this were to be the case, as it stands the way I read it is they are as vulnerable as anyone else with a combat weapon.

They even have an armory section titled Close Combat Weapons. The description of Claws and Teeth for example is "models with claws and teeth count as having a normal close combat weapon"

The wording for disarming strike says:

"nominate one of the opponent's melee weapons - this is treated as a close combat weapon until the end of the phase. If his opponent has no weapons, this ability has no effect."

The Tyranid rule is specifically to deny the bonus for multiple weapons (as it is included in their profile) it doesn't say anything about disregarding further rules, and in fact says they are to be counted as close combat weapons. Unless GW faq otherwise I see nothing that makes them immune to Disarming Strike.

If they are melee weapons, where are their weapon profiles or at least rules on what the profiles look like? They aren't in the codex (obviously), they aren't in the FAQ and they aren't in the Rulebook. The only thing in the Tyranid codex defined to be an actual, by rules, CCW is the entry "Teeth and Claws" which is a standard CCW. So Disarming Strike on that won't do anything useful against that. Nothing else is defined as an actual melee weapon, just a modifier to the owning creatures Attacks.

Well they're all in a section called Close Combat Weapons!

This is why it needs an FAQ, it's just not clear at the moment.

Apart from the rule stating they do not actually use them

If they do not use them, then disarming strike can do nothing whatsoever to the Tyranid.

It doesn't say they don't use them. It says they don't wield them as such.

Fluffwise there's no difference between Tyranids and say a Terminator powerfist.

It clearly needs to be clarified.

As for not being in the 40k rulebook, I think there's quite a few missing from that list (War Scythes?) and again I can see nowhere where it says anything not listed doesn't count as a weapon.

They do not "wield" them. Meaning use them, in a combat context. If you do not use something, then having it count as a "normal" CCW makes no difference - as the benefits you gain from it were not dependent on you using it in the first place.

Fluffwise there is a lot of difference - a powerfist comes off*, a nid biomorph doesnt. I am not even sure how you could even come to that conclusion, as it is almost exactly the opposite of fluff.

* excpet for some chaos marines. Nasty things

The rule for Disarming Strike says nothing about them wielding or not wielding them it says if they have no weapons.

The rules for Boneswords even say they are wielded.

The section about Tyranid Close Combat Weapons merely states they are not wielded for the purpose of getting bonus attacks for multiple weapons, it doesn't say anything about not treating them as weapons for every other purpose.

This needs a FAQ, using a rule from an old codex and assuming it leads onto affecting a different rule is not RAW.

Hmmm, seems I have opened a can of worms here!

I will add this question to the Eldar FAQ thread on Dakka.

It's already on there

 shamikebab wrote:
Well they're all in a section called Close Combat Weapons!

This is why it needs an FAQ, it's just not clear at the moment.

Is a Heavy Flamer a weapon with the Heavy type? Is an Assault Cannon a weapon with the Assault type?

Turns out, the name isn't as important as the rules. And none of the Tyranid CCW analogues follow the rules for weapons with the Melee type, with the one exception of "Teeth and Claws."

"Every weapon has a profile." Page 50 of the rulebook. If a Bonesword is a weapon, where is it's profile? They didn't give it one in the FAQ bringing Tyranids up to date with 6th, and none of the "Tyranid Close Combat Weapons" are given a profile in the main rulebook like their ranged counterparts.

So I posit that it is, in fact, clear.

So is a Warscythe a weapon?

"A Warscythe is a two-handed close combat weapon."

Necron Codex says yes.

Alternatively, we could look in the Necron FAQ where they give it a profile so we don't have to build it up ourselves from the Close Combat Weapon profile. What with it having special rules to overwrite pretty much every aspect of that profile except being of Melee type.

Chrysis wrote:
"Every weapon has a profile." Page 50 of the rulebook. If a Bonesword is a weapon, where is it's profile? They didn't give it one in the FAQ bringing Tyranids up to date with 6th, and none of the "Tyranid Close Combat Weapons" are given a profile in the main rulebook like their ranged counterparts.

So I posit that it is, in fact, clear.

Wow, way to cherry pick to try and make your army's argument stronger. By this argument, the following Eldar 4th Edition melee weapons were not, in fact, "weapons" because they didn't have a profile:



Here's the melee weapons that were "weapons", courtesy of Rulebook or FAQ:



... Alternatively, old codices have not yet been updated to follow "Every weapon has a profile" properly and new codices have.

To be fair, the Exarch could be "Disarming" the tyranid with the Boneswords by knocking them away so he can only use his teeth/whiphands/blunt sides of swords. Rather then actively knocking them out of their hands.

Theyre biomorphs. they ARE the creatures "hands"

Quark - so, you agree that they arent weapons? You havent actually posted a counter to the rule "every weapon has a profile" , just a disagreement as to whether that is applied to old codexes.

It does not alter that, according to the 6th edition rulebook, NO tyranid biomorph, with the exception of teeth and claws, is a CCW of any type

shamikebab - please do not paraphrase and alter meaning. It does NOT say they do not wield CCW for the purpose of the 2CCW bonus. The inabilty to gain the 2CCW bonus is given as a direct RESULT of them not wielding [which is using, in a combat context, no matter what you say to the contrary) CCW

They do not wield (use) CCW; you can disarm them if you like, but you turn Teeth and Claws (a normal CCW) into... a normal CCW

That is actual RAW

No it's not. it's your interpretation. Stop thinking your view is gospel.

Let's quote the Tyranid Codex a bit shall we?

"The Swarmlord wields four serrated blades"

"A bonesword has a rudimentary sentience of it's own, but is completely slaved to the will of the wielder"

That's a lot of wielding for a race that doesn't wield weapons.

At the beginning of the army list:

"Weapons and Biormorphs - This section details the weapons and biomorph enhancements the models in the unit are armed with"

It IS unclear at the moment, whether you wish it to be or not. The mere fact we are discussing it shows it is unclear. You are stating that the codex saying they don't wield close combat weapons as such means they don't have them at all. I am saying that is an interpretation of that rule. You've looked at a sentence (Tyranids don't wield close combat weapons as such) and added a second sentence (therefore they do not count as having close combat weapons) that does not exist in the codex. if you have a specific page reference where it says this then please share it.

Quark wrote:

Wow, way to cherry pick to try and make your army's argument stronger. By this argument, the following Eldar 4th Edition melee weapons were not, in fact, "weapons" because they didn't have a profile:

Biting Blade - "It is a two-handed close combat weapon that ..."
Chainsabres - "... they count as a single weapon ... " from V1.1 of the update FAQ.
Diresword - "A Diresword is a power weapon."
Harlequin's Kiss - "... counts as a close combat weapon."
Laser Lance (Melee) - "... count as having Strength 6 power weapons."
Scorpion Chainsword - "This is a one-handed weapon that adds ..."
Singing Spear (Melee)
Staff of Ulthamar
Star Lance (Melee) - "It follows the rules for a laser lance, but ..."
The Spear of Twilight
The Sword of Asur - "... is a Diresword ... "
Wraithsword

So of 12 "examples", only 4 do not actually have explicit rules making them at least weapons. The Singing Spear (and by extension Spear of Twilight) are borderline, due to repeated references to the Witchblade and the line "The spear can be used in close combat, but it requires two hands and so the wielder cannot gain the extra attack from an extra hand weapon." There would only be the question of if it was able to gain the attack from an extra hand weapon if it was itself a hand weapon, but that's only implicit. For a codex that old, that's not a bad record for keeping in line with new rules. Especially given, prior to the new Eldar codex, it wasn't really important if it was a weapon or just gave a model's attacks rules.

I'd also like it to be known that while I started with collecting Tyranids, I haven't taken them out of the shoe box since the codex with all the mutation stuff. The 3rd edition book was it? But thank you for jumping to conclusions to fuel your Ad Hominem attack. Especially when it appears you are the one guilty of "cherry-picking" when you made your list of "examples."

shamikebab wrote:No it's not. it's your interpretation. Stop thinking your view is gospel.

No, that is how the rules are written. Fluff may say something different. Notice your lack of a rules argument otherwise so far?

shamikebab wrote:Let's quote the Tyranid Codex a bit shall we?

Lets!

shamikebab wrote:"The Swarmlord wields four serrated blades"

Hmm, distinctive lack in that fluff sentence about those blades being CCW. Can you find the rule stating those blades are close combat weapons, as well as their profile please? Page and graph will suffice - should be a breeze as you have the codex right there?

shamikebab wrote:"A bonesword has a rudimentary sentience of it's own, but is completely slaved to the will of the wielder"

Hmm, distinct lack in that FLUFF sentence that the bonesword is a close combat weapon. Of course I am sure you can find - page and graph will suffice - the phrase that states they are CCW, and the profile they have?

shamikebab wrote:That's a lot of wielding for a race that doesn't wield weapons.

Ah no, that is a lot of wielding of "things" that are not defined as WEAPONS (certainly not CCW, as the rulebook definition of such hasnt been met as yet) for a race that doesnt wield weapons. Spotted a glaring error in your argument so far?

shamikebab wrote:At the beginning of the army list:

"Weapons and Biormorphs - This section details the weapons and biomorph enhancements the models in the unit are armed with"

Yes, because *some* are weapons - the ranged weapons are, as they have a profile. Or are you claiming that ranged weapon existence has some bearing on CCW?

shamikebab wrote:It IS unclear at the moment, whether you wish it to be or not. The mere fact we are discussing it shows it is unclear.

Ah, a classic fallacy. The existence of debate does not prove the merit of the debates existence. In other words - people dont understand rules, even when they are clearly written. Check out half the GW FAQs for proof

shamikebab wrote:You are stating that the codex saying they don't wield close combat weapons as such means they don't have them at all.

Again with your paraphrasing and altering meaning.

I. did. not. say. that

I stated they only have ONE CCW. Claws and Teeth. Which are a normal CCW. Every single Biomorph that effects Close Combat are not, by definition in both the codex AND the BRB, close combat weapons. They just arent. The BRB defines that a weapon(melee or not) will havea profile.

As you disagree that they have CCW, find the Bonesword profile. Page and graph. Or, c oncede that by definition it isnt a CCW

shamikebab wrote: I am saying that is an interpretation of that rule. You've looked at a sentence (Tyranids don't wield close combat weapons as such) and added a second sentence (therefore they do not count as having close combat weapons) that does not exist in the codex. if you have a specific page reference where it says this then please share it.

No, I have not, and yet again you have managed to summarise while changing meaning. Bad habit I suggest you change. The codex states they do not use CCW, as such. So, they do not use them. You only get the bonus (with some rare exceptions, like the DK Great Sword) of a weapon when you actually use it. So, given tyranids never use CCW, yet get a bonus from items such as Rending Claws, that must mean - GASP! - that they are not close combat weapons

To back this up you have the BRB, which states that EVERY weapon has a profile. So, since you claim Boneswords are weapons (for example) - find their profile. Now. Find the profile stating "melee, S:users,..."

Wait, there isnt one? Then that means they arent weapons, and certainly not close combat weapons.

So no, disarming strike will effectively do nothing - as the only CCW they can ever possess are claws and teeth, which are normal CCW.

Chrysis wrote:
So of 12 "examples", only 4 do not actually have explicit rules making them at least weapons. The Singing Spear (and by extension Spear of Twilight) are borderline, due to repeated references to the Witchblade and the line "The spear can be used in close combat, but it requires two hands and so the wielder cannot gain the extra attack from an extra hand weapon." There would only be the question of if it was able to gain the attack from an extra hand weapon if it was itself a hand weapon, but that's only implicit. For a codex that old, that's not a bad record for keeping in line with new rules. Especially given, prior to the new Eldar codex, it wasn't really important if it was a weapon or just gave a model's attacks rules.

You're still cherry picking. You're the one that brought up the book entry, and I just showed that all old codices don't follow that for melee weapons but new codices do. And you're reading "is a weapon" in an entry but ignoring the section called "Close Combat Weapons" in the Tyranid codex. If it's a Close Combat Weapon, why is it not a weapon? If it's wielded and listed under "Weapons", why is it not a weapon?

By your logic, Disarming Strike does not work against any pre-6th codex melee weapon not FAQ'd or in the main rulebook reference section.

Nos - not completely true.
It's possible (and common) for a Nid not to have Claws and Teeth but to use the "default" CCW as they have no CCW.

Carnifexes, Trygons, Old One Eye, and others. Mawlocs have C&T for some reason...

nosferatu1001 wrote:

shamikebab wrote:No it's not. it's your interpretation. Stop thinking your view is gospel.

No, that is how the rules are written. Fluff may say something different. Notice your lack of a rules argument otherwise so far?

shamikebab wrote:Let's quote the Tyranid Codex a bit shall we?

Lets!

shamikebab wrote:"The Swarmlord wields four serrated blades"

Hmm, distinctive lack in that fluff sentence about those blades being CCW. Can you find the rule stating those blades are close combat weapons, as well as their profile please? Page and graph will suffice - should be a breeze as you have the codex right there?

shamikebab wrote:"A bonesword has a rudimentary sentience of it's own, but is completely slaved to the will of the wielder"

Hmm, distinct lack in that FLUFF sentence that the bonesword is a close combat weapon. Of course I am sure you can find - page and graph will suffice - the phrase that states they are CCW, and the profile they have?

shamikebab wrote:That's a lot of wielding for a race that doesn't wield weapons.

Ah no, that is a lot of wielding of "things" that are not defined as WEAPONS (certainly not CCW, as the rulebook definition of such hasnt been met as yet) for a race that doesnt wield weapons. Spotted a glaring error in your argument so far?

shamikebab wrote:At the beginning of the army list:

"Weapons and Biormorphs - This section details the weapons and biomorph enhancements the models in the unit are armed with"

Yes, because *some* are weapons - the ranged weapons are, as they have a profile. Or are you claiming that ranged weapon existence has some bearing on CCW?

shamikebab wrote:It IS unclear at the moment, whether you wish it to be or not. The mere fact we are discussing it shows it is unclear.

Ah, a classic fallacy. The existence of debate does not prove the merit of the debates existence. In other words - people dont understand rules, even when they are clearly written. Check out half the GW FAQs for proof

shamikebab wrote:You are stating that the codex saying they don't wield close combat weapons as such means they don't have them at all.

Again with your paraphrasing and altering meaning.

I. did. not. say. that

I stated they only have ONE CCW. Claws and Teeth. Which are a normal CCW. Every single Biomorph that effects Close Combat are not, by definition in both the codex AND the BRB, close combat weapons. They just arent. The BRB defines that a weapon(melee or not) will havea profile.

As you disagree that they have CCW, find the Bonesword profile. Page and graph. Or, c oncede that by definition it isnt a CCW

shamikebab wrote: I am saying that is an interpretation of that rule. You've looked at a sentence (Tyranids don't wield close combat weapons as such) and added a second sentence (therefore they do not count as having close combat weapons) that does not exist in the codex. if you have a specific page reference where it says this then please share it.

No, I have not, and yet again you have managed to summarise while changing meaning. Bad habit I suggest you change. The codex states they do not use CCW, as such. So, they do not use them. You only get the bonus (with some rare exceptions, like the DK Great Sword) of a weapon when you actually use it. So, given tyranids never use CCW, yet get a bonus from items such as Rending Claws, that must mean - GASP! - that they are not close combat weapons

To back this up you have the BRB, which states that EVERY weapon has a profile. So, since you claim Boneswords are weapons (for example) - find their profile. Now. Find the profile stating "melee, S:users,..."

Wait, there isnt one? Then that means they arent weapons, and certainly not close combat weapons.

So no, disarming strike will effectively do nothing - as the only CCW they can ever possess are claws and teeth, which are normal CCW.

then the only thing we have left is that a tyranid has no weapons other than claws and teef and therefore cannot attack with anything but ccw... I mean according to what you said thats how it should be played right?

we had this same problem when they tried to say that abaddon couldnt join marked squads to his super special secret squirrel mark that makes him different...

stop being a rules lawyer, get off your high horse, and show some respect... you know how its going to be faq'd so give it a rest.

Quark - again, you arent arguing the topic, but a separate one. Secondfly, as you have already been shown, the name isnt as aimportant as the rules. A heavy flamer is an assault weapon. A close combat weapon heading doesnt make everything in there a melee weapon.

Rigeld - I knew there were some in there that didnt get a CCW listed, should be careful with absolutes and GW rules


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WarlordRob wrote:
then the only thing we have left is that a tyranid has no weapons other than claws and teef and therefore cannot attack with anything but ccw... I mean according to what you said thats how it should be played right?

we had this same problem when they tried to say that abaddon couldnt join marked squads to his super special secret squirrel mark that makes him different...

stop being a rules lawyer, get off your high horse, and show some respect... you know how its going to be faq'd so give it a rest.

Wow, you felt the need to quote a huge block of text to do nothing but break the forum rules, lie about what a poster has written and fail to add anything to the thread?

Impressive

It can, indeed, only attack with claws and teeth. [or the default CCW all models have, if not otherwise stated - thanks Rigeld for pointing out the inconsistency in the Nid book there!] It just so happens to gain benefits to those attacks, based on the biomorphs. Are you struggling with that concept? A TWM makes a Wolf Lords close combat attacks stronger, yet it isnt a CCW.

Or, if your claim is that Rending Claws and Scything talons are both CCW, surely then you do not play that a model with both gets to rend AND reroll? Because if they are CCW (They're not, I'm just trying to show the error in your "argument" through example) then how are you gaining the benefits of two CCW at the same time?

This isnt being a rules lawyer. THis is going by the fluff AND the rules. It isnt a high horse to ask someone to follow the tenets, and I showed respect to the poster - more than they did.

I expect it to be faq'd that it is patently absurd to "disarm" a genestealer by it losing its rending claws, or for a trygon to lose scything talons, etc. Of course the history of GW FAQs and Tyranids hasnt been that kind to 'nids, so you never know.

What I do know is what the rules currently say, and that the argument on rules AND fluff is sound. If you have anything to add to the thread, of value, please continue.

I can actually see both sides of this argument (hence the reason I asked in the main thread). I agree it needs a faq. The problem is there is no way to know which way GW will rule. If they go by fluff (and rules) then it is useless against Nids. I'd they continue to show Nids their normal level of love, they will be able to get disarmed (which when your arm is the weapon takes on a whole 'nother meaning).

Oh I agree - they could continue to bash the nids through FAQ, however that would be an explicit rules change, as currently none of the biomorphs are CCW.