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.

 Happyjew wrote:
The problem is not every CCW has a profile - only the 6th edtion codices, and the ones that have been FAQ'd do.

Or is the argument that Dark Eldar cannot be disarmed, unless they have a (demi)klaive, or are using Kheradruakh? Except for those three, there is no statline for any Dark Eldar CCW.

Basic RAW yes.

Most of the weapons in their codex are UPWs that I see. Agoniser, Djin Blade, Electrocorrosive whip, Huskblade... etc. Did you have another example?


Edit... The kiss has a profile. The other one appears to be overlooked atm.

The Kiss has a profile in the Eldar codex. Now, every weapon (at the moment) in the older codices can easily be given a profile (unlike Tyranid CCW).

I'm not arguing that you can disarm Tyranids (I can see it going either way, and I play both armies so either way, Yay?). My argument is that you cannot use "It has no profile therefore it is not a weapon" as a valid reason for why it cannot be disarmed.

zephoid wrote:Nids DO have weapons. In fact, look at the unit entries in the back of the book. "Biomorphs and weapons" is the category header.

Already pointed out that they have weapons. Ranged ones. becuase those pesky rules state that EVERY weapon has a profile - if it has no profile it isnt a weapon, according to the rules.

zephoid wrote:The argument against is that the fluff reason "tyranids do not wield weapons per say" is connoting a rule. The addition of "per say" at the end means that the statement preceding is a qualifier for the statement afterwards.

No, that is not what "per se" means. It means "in itself". Latin. They do not wield close combat weapons "in themselves" [to get the noun right]. It is not a qualifier. THat is just wrong.

zephoid wrote: The following statement is that "tyrands cannot claim the additional attack for having two close combat weapons". Therefore it is not referencing the fact they are not weapons as a rule, but as a explanation to why you dont get the 2 CCW bonus. That is how the phrase "per say" functions in the English language.

Wrong, as already proven. This follows the tenets, as you are just defining a phrase entirely incorrectly. Please do not repeat this incorrect usage

zephoid wrote:The problem comes in explaining WHAT is a weapon.

Easy, as the 6th edition BRB tells you what IS a weapon - only those with a profile. Done.

zephoid wrote: This has never been qualified as it has never been an issue. Locally we rule as the arms connote weapons. ST, RC, boneswords, bonesabres. AG and TS are built into the hide (i believe they tried to add the bits for it in some kits, but never explained what is what in any part of the codex).

Which is fine, as a houserule, however NO nid biomorph counts as a CCW, apart from claws and teeth

Shamikebab -so, given you have no rules argument I assume you will concede the point? You failed to provide a single rules quote, or any citations to back your argument up. As such please note that you are arguing houserules.

Happyjew - of course you can argue that, because the rulebook states that Weapons have profiles that you identify a weapon as being a weapon by looking for a profile. That this makes things complicated for some codexes (and not as badly as some are trying to make out, as was proven by chrysis) is irrelevant.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

zephoid wrote:Nids DO have weapons. In fact, look at the unit entries in the back of the book. "Biomorphs and weapons" is the category header.

Already pointed out that they have weapons. Ranged ones. becuase those pesky rules state that EVERY weapon has a profile - if it has no profile it isnt a weapon, according to the rules.

Out of all the arguments you could pick ... just stop using this one. As we've said multiple times ... no pre-6th Codex has been properly updated to give all melee weapons profiles. If you're arguing that Disarming Strike is not supposed to work against any pre-6th Codices, I'm just going to ignore you and any other argument you could possibly have will then be pointless.

No, it wont be pointless - others will be able to see your lack of an argument, or rules based response. Arguing here isnt juyst for your benefit.

It is also yet more hyuperbole on your part - it works just fine against the majority of 5th ed and previous codexes, as you are able to find a profile for the weapons. You were even shown this by Chrysis, after your failed attempt at claiming 12 Eldar weapons did not have a profile, when only 4 didnt, and of those some were arguable.

So, no, picking the most simple argfument - that the rules define what CCW are, and only Teeth and Claws are CCW - is a VERY good argument to pick

It is also one that neither you, nor Shami et al, have actually been able to counter with any rules.

Disarming strike has, RAW, no effect on Nids. Best you can do is turn a normal CCW into...a normal CCW.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It is also yet more hyuperbole on your part - it works just fine against the majority of 5th ed and previous codexes, as you are able to find a profile for the weapons. You were even shown this by Chrysis, after your failed attempt at claiming 12 Eldar weapons did not have a profile, when only 4 didnt, and of those some were arguable.

Not one of his clarifications had "profiles" - they had rules calling them weapons. Not profiles. Which is the same as Tyranid melee weapons being listed in the "Close Combat Weapons" section of the codex.

This is not hyperbole - if you say it must have a profile to be a melee weapon, then you are claiming a huge percentage of pre-6th Codex gear are not melee weapons.

Quark wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It is also yet more hyuperbole on your part - it works just fine against the majority of 5th ed and previous codexes, as you are able to find a profile for the weapons. You were even shown this by Chrysis, after your failed attempt at claiming 12 Eldar weapons did not have a profile, when only 4 didnt, and of those some were arguable.

Not one of his clarifications had "profiles" - they had rules calling them weapons. Not profiles. Which is the same as Tyranid melee weapons being listed in the "Close Combat Weapons" section of the codex.

This is not hyperbole - if you say it must have a profile to be a melee weapon, then you are claiming a huge percentage of pre-6th Codex gear are not melee weapons.

If they have rules calling them a normal close combat weapon that gives them a profile.
None of the Nid "weapons" have a rule that says that. So again - Disarm works fine against anything that is a CCW, which is the majority of weapons out there - named or not.

A model has CCW if 1) the weapons "don't confer any Strength bonuses, AP values or special rules" or 2) "not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type".

So none of the examples I listed are treated as a CCW with a CCW profile. They all have strength bonuses or special rules. Thus, they have no profile.

Quark wrote:
A model has CCW if 1) the weapons "don't confer any Strength bonuses, AP values or special rules" or 2) "not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type".

So none of the examples I listed are treated as a CCW with a CCW profile. They all have strength bonuses or special rules. Thus, they have no profile.

Biting Blade - a CCW (omg is that a profile?) that does other stuff.
Diresword - a power weapon (profile provided on page 61)
Kiss - counts as a CCW - profile
Laser Lance - power weapon with STR6. Profile.
S. Chainsword - CCW that adds somethnig. Profile.
Star Lance - see Laser Lance.
Sword of Asur - see Diresword.

Again, you're incorrect. At least some of them have a profile. I'm not familiar enough (and don't own) an old Eldar codex to work on the other weapons.

Quark wrote:
A model has CCW if 1) the weapons "don't confer any Strength bonuses, AP values or special rules" or 2) "not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type".

So none of the examples I listed are treated as a CCW with a CCW profile. They all have strength bonuses or special rules. Thus, they have no profile.

Incorrect. They refer back to the BRB for the full profile, by stating such classics as "normal CCW"

You then look up the profile for a "normal CCW" - oh look, it has one. You then find if it has any additional rules - whcih are given in the codex - and find out that this doesnt magically remove the profile.

So, again, do you have an actual, rules based argument that shows that ANY nid weapon, barring of course Claws and Teeth, is a CCW? Anything? Given we have shown that the opposite is true - ONLY claws and teeth are CCW - then disarm does nothing constructive as far as 'nids are concerned.

So no, I think you will find that Chrysis was right to correct your hyperbolic claim that "NONE" of the pre-=6th codexes follow the rule that "every weapon has a profile" as it is, and remains, false.

Sorry I should have taken more time and worded the posts better. I'm trying less to say "Disarming Strike works because" and more to say "Don't spend time on this argument, focus on that one".

Three arguments have been brought up: Profile, Tyranid Wargear, Tyranid Special Rule

1) Profile
Okay, there is contention between the CCW section of the main rulebook ("no special rules") and the Codex ("is a CCW with"), but we know what happens then. So I was wrong about most of the list. Note it's still not a contention in newer codices - all the profiles are there, in the Codex, and any modifiers the old weapon had are turned into special rules in the profile.

Old Diresword: "is a power weapon. In addition, ..."
New Diresword: Does not reference Power Weapon at all. "- User 2 Melee, Soulrazor". Soulrazor takes place of "in addition to".

There are still issues with some weapons not having profiles, though. Particularly with special characters, but even with, for example, Scorpion's chainsword "is a one-handed weapon" - well, okay, but that one doesn't actually say "close combat weapon". And I don't think it's a coincidence that despite wording in the old codex, they're getting profiles in the new codex. And this is why I don't like the "profile" argument. There are clear examples of old codices not following the profile rule, even if it's rarer than I initially thought.

2) Tyranid Wargear
Again, I don't think this is the key argument, but here is the ambiguity. Claws and Teeth is the only one that directly says CCW. But most are in a section called CCW. If it's not a close combat weapon, why is it in a section called Close Combat Weapons? Bone Sabres and Bone Swords both reference being wielded. If you're wielding something, it's not part of you, and can be taken from you.

3) Tyranid Special Rule
I really think this is the heart of the matter, and debating this is where time should be spent.

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.

Well, we have the exceptions for wielding noted. Beyond that, I guess the argument is this. Do we take a strict interpretation of this rule, and say the "as a result" tells you exactly what the rule is supposed to mean? Or do we take a loose interpretation and say "among other things, this means you don't get an extra attack?" And if we take the loose interpretation, are there any unintended consequences?

The inclination is that the loose interpretation wins, because otherwise scything talons don't stack with rending claws. But that was already specifically FAQ'd, so we're left with a new strict interpretation that the Tyranid special rule allows stacking weapon properties without bonus attacks. So, strict interpretation or loose interpretation? Welcome to the Supreme Court!

It'll be interesting to see what will happen with the new Tyranid codex. My guess? A split. Some of the "CCW" become weapons with actual profiles, while others become biomorphs that add rules to the model.

Your "strict" interpretatoin is wrong.

"As a result" does not, in any way, restrict the previous rule to only meaning the following (the lack of bonus attacks) - it gives A result, not ALL results.

THAT is the strict reading. A, single, result is that you dont get bonus from dual CCW. The rule is unchanged elsewhere

As for the profile argument not being valid? It is - as you fail to dissuade anyone as to the validity of it in determining whetehr or not disarming strike has any effect.

Which is the point of this thread.

RAW, disarming stirke cannot yet do anything to nids, and I would definitely argue this is backed up by the fluff as well.

The new nid codex will likely have this much better clarified, however I would be shocked if you lost the ability to stack special rules, like you can now.

Another question that is similar to this, If you tried to use DS on a Dreadknight wielding a greatsword, would it negate the benefit of the weapon considering you don't have to use the weapon in order to gain its benefit? As I see it, the Biomorphs are to be cnsidered nothign more than a SR that modifies the CCW that Tyranids have IE: claws and teeth. Any of the older codexes with weapons that have not been given a clear profile can be given one just by reading the weapons' description Example: "a model weilding this weapon increases it's Strength by +2 and strikes at AP3 = S:+2 AP:3 Melee. The only biomorph I can think of that can be done that way is rending claws ( S:User AP:- Melee, Rending). I think it could go either way honestly. Just another example of an old codex not fitting snugly with 6th edition rules as they weren't written to accommodate them.

Correct, disarming a Dreadknight's sword would do nothing. but disarming his Doomfist would.

Gotta agree with nos on this one but not just due to lack of profiles.

Ignoring the fluff and implications from the names, you cannot use any of the Tyranid biomorphs to make a CC attack(except Claws and Teeth). Purely RAW you will never attack with a bonesword. It does not have that function. All it is, is a piece of nid style gear(biomorphs) that give it bonuses in CC. If some IC had an amulet that gave him +d3 Attacks would you call that a CCW? How about some socks that negated your opponents armor saves in CC, would you call that a CWW? No and no. How about if they were in the CCW section? No, you'd just assume they were there because they provide CC bonuses not because they are close combat weapons.

People are getting to hung up on names and fluff. Functionally they provide only buffs and cannot themselves be used offensively. This is akin to calling a blessing a weapon. Would you try to disarm a psykers blessing? I don't think so.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Correct, disarming a Dreadknight's sword would do nothing. but disarming his Doomfist would.

If that is the case then Disarming Strike wouldn't affect Tyranids at all, as their only close combat weapon is claws and teeth.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Correct, disarming a Dreadknight's sword would do nothing. but disarming his Doomfist would.

Incorrect. The Melee weapon chosen by the player using Disarming Strike is treated as a Close Combat Weapon until the effect ends. So his Nemesis Greatsword would no longer be a Nemesis Greatsword, and thus would no longer give the re-rolls or any of the other benefits.

Incorrect. The Melee weapon chosen by the player using Disarming Strike is treated as a Close Combat Weapon until the effect ends. So his Nemesis Greatsword would no longer be a Nemesis Greatsword, and thus would no longer give the re-rolls or any of the other benefits.

but you don't have to use the GS in close combat to receive its effect. You use the Doomfist to make him attack at S:x2 with the re-roling buff from the GS which doesn't require you to use it as the active weapon, its just a passive given to the model when it's equipped. So DS would only effect the Doomfist, so he would attack then only at normal Strength but still had the re-rolling hits and wounds.

overlordweasel wrote:

Incorrect. The Melee weapon chosen by the player using Disarming Strike is treated as a Close Combat Weapon until the effect ends. So his Nemesis Greatsword would no longer be a Nemesis Greatsword, and thus would no longer give the re-rolls or any of the other benefits.

but you don't have to use the GS in close combat to receive its effect. You use the Doomfist to make him attack at S:x2 with the re-roling buff from the GS which doesn't require you to use it as the active weapon, its just a passive given to the model when it's equipped. So DS would only effect the Doomfist, so he would attack then only at normal Strength but still had the re-rolling hits and wounds.

Doesn't matter. Disarming Strike lets the Eldar player nominate the weapon, so if the Eldar player nominates the Greatsword the Greatsword no longer works. He doesn't have to nominate a weapon you are using, only one you have. And given the Dreadknight is going to be wounding on 2+ anyway (Base S6 right?) and usually inflicting Instant Death (either from Strength alone or from having a force weapon) there's no real reason to nominate the Doomfist when the Greatsword does everything it does + re-rolls.

I think it needs clarification, though I'm more leaning to the side of the Nid looses the benefit of his weapons. They are not Biomorphs under the codex, they are classed under the "Close Combat Weapons" section and as such should be treated as CCWs, they just have the nifty little bonus of not having to be used in combat for their effect to go off, just like a Dreadknight doesnt have to choose to swing with the GS to gain it's re-rolling bonuses. If you look in the Codex, each model has a "weapons and biomorphs" section and whenever the model has a different weapon other than claws and teeth, they don't have CaT too, meaning the Bonesword/RC/CC/ST all replace them as weapons.

A tyranid player still has to choose which weapon to use in CC but until now it didn't matter which was used bc they got both anyways, however with DS it's going to become important which benefit the model will loose. Heck, even fluff wise, the individual weapons are almost all independent creatures of some form of sentience, especially the Bonesword that are attached the the Tyranid host with the exceptions of a few. Besides, if the DS eldar warrior is good enough to remove a weapon from a SM or other Eldar, he could easily be assumed to be able to block/remove a Tyranid's weapon from it's hands.

This is a permissive ruleset, so if the "it doesn't work on nids" side cant show me a rules page RAW setence that blatantly says "These upgrades are not to be considered Weapons, and are not used in combat at all; but instead are passive bonuses to the Tyranids CCW attacks". Until then, I can't find a good foothold to deny the Eldar rule from working on Nids

Well, apart from the rule in the BRB that you have totally ignored..

That pesky rule that states EVERY weapon has a profile

So, until you can find permission to treat Rending Claws as a Weapon, they are not a weapon

Page and graph. Or concede.

overlordweasel wrote:
I think it needs clarification, though I'm more leaning to the side of the Nid looses the benefit of his weapons. They are not Biomorphs under the codex, they are classed under the "Close Combat Weapons" section and as such should be treated as CCWs, they just have the nifty little bonus of not having to be used in combat for their effect to go off, just like a Dreadknight doesnt have to choose to swing with the GS to gain it's re-rolling bonuses. If you look in the Codex, each model has a "weapons and biomorphs" section and whenever the model has a different weapon other than claws and teeth, they don't have CaT too, meaning the Bonesword/RC/CC/ST all replace them as weapons.

A tyranid player still has to choose which weapon to use in CC but until now it didn't matter which was used bc they got both anyways, however with DS it's going to become important which benefit the model will loose. Heck, even fluff wise, the individual weapons are almost all independent creatures of some form of sentience, especially the Bonesword that are attached the the Tyranid host with the exceptions of a few. Besides, if the DS eldar warrior is good enough to remove a weapon from a SM or other Eldar, he could easily be assumed to be able to block/remove a Tyranid's weapon from it's hands.

This is a permissive ruleset, so if the "it doesn't work on nids" side cant show me a rules page RAW setence that blatantly says "These upgrades are not to be considered Weapons, and are not used in combat at all; but instead are passive bonuses to the Tyranids CCW attacks". Until then, I can't find a good foothold to deny the Eldar rule from working on Nids

Actually a nid player does not have the option of deciding what weapon to use... they don't have any aside from claws and teeth to attack with. the others you are reffering to have no Str or AP value you can even make a profile out of. The effects to not say 'when attacking with this weapon...'. They say while the model has item X(bonesword, Talons, Etc) its CC attacks gain Y effect. You are never permitted to attack with them. They may seem like weapons because of names/modeling/fluff.... They may be in the CCW section.... but it is a fact that they do not have weapon types, Str, AP or anything remotely resembling a weapon in their rules for use. IE, you are never permitted to attack with your bonesword... you cannot do it per RAW

You have the permissive rule set idea backwards. You need to find proof they are weapons before you are allowed to consider them such.

Actually a nid player does not have the option of deciding what weapon to use... they don't have any aside from claws and teeth to attack with. the others you are reffering to have no Str or AP value you can even make a profile out of. The effects to not say 'when attacking with this weapon...'. They say while the model has item X(bonesword, Talons, Etc) its CC attacks gain Y effect. You are never permitted to attack with them. They may seem like weapons because of names/modeling/fluff.... They may be in the CCW section.... but it is a fact that they do not have weapon types, Str, AP or anything remotely resembling a weapon in their rules for use. IE, you are never permitted to attack with your bonesword... you cannot do it per RAW

You have the permissive rule set idea backwards. You need to find proof they are weapons before you are allowed to consider them such.

The nid player and every other player that has more than one weapon has the option...it's called "More than one Weapon" pg 51 BRB. Heck in the codex, its specifies that they don't gain the bonus for having 2 CCWs (+1 attack) and that the passive benefits stack, which is a needed exception to having more than weapon, I'll even quote it for the heck of it:

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. However, it's worth remembering that if a model has two or more melee weapons he gains +1 Attacks in close combat.

If they weren't weapons in the first place, why would they bother putting those sentences in? Also to note that ALL of the Nid melee weapons are referred to MANY times as "weapons" and refer to the model striking in CC as "using this weapon". As to profiles, they have them, they are, just like in almost every codex pre 6th edition; they are hidden in the paragraph of text underneath the fluff, were they give the rules of said weapon. Here's some examples right off the top of my hat:

Rending claws: S: User AP: - Melee, Rending
Crushing Claws: S: User AP: - Melee, Crushing (+D3 attacks), Unwieldy*
The Model equipped with this weapon still strikes at I1 regardless of being a Monstrous Creature or Walker.
Lash Whip: S: User AP: - Melee, Lash (Enemy models in btb are counted as I1 until assault phase ends)
Scything Talons: S: User AP: - Melee, Scything (Re-rolls all To Hit rolls of 1 in close combat)*
A Model with two sets of talons instead re-rolls all failed to hit rolls in close combat.
Boneswords: S: User AP: 2 Melee, Bonesword (ID upon failing a LD test after the model suffers one or more unsaved Wounds)*
A Model with a pair of Boneswords increases the LD test to a 3D6 instead

Okay, went ahead and did all of them just to prove my point.

If you could attack with a Bonesword, it would be AP-, not AP2, it doesn't have an AP, it simply ignores armour saves.

so AP: - and the weapon has a passive that ignores armor saves completely, still completely plausible as a profile and a weapon. It's not the first or only CCW that ignores armor saves. That'd probably make more sense anyways as giving it AP2 would also grant it certain bonuses it wouldn't have normally against things like AV, although most tyranids that can take BS are MC and already AP 2 regardless. I think it would only matter in regards to Warriors? It could be anything really, for instance the Necron Warscythe ignored armor saves pre-6th and the FAQ to it's profile turned it into AP1. Would you argue that pre-FAQ that the Cron warscythe was not classified as a weapon as it did not ave a profile per se in the codex? That sounds like a real stretch of the imagination and rules to me.

overlordweasel wrote:
so AP: - and the weapon has a passive that ignores armor saves completely, still completely plausible as a profile and a weapon. It's not the first or only CCW that ignores armor saves. That'd probably make more sense anyways as giving it AP2 would also grant it certain bonuses it wouldn't have normally against things like AV, although most tyranids that can take BS are MC and already AP 2 regardless. I think it would only matter in regards to Warriors? It could be anything really...

I could be anything here because you're now just making things up.

overlordweasel wrote:

for instance the Necron Warscythe ignored armor saves pre-6th and the FAQ to it's profile turned it into AP1. Would you argue that pre-FAQ that the Cron warscythe was not classified as a weapon as it did not ave a profile per se in the codex? That sounds like a real stretch of the imagination and rules to me.

I do not have this codex. Does it state the warscyth is a weapon? Does it say its a CCW? Does it have a str value or modifier? Does it say it's AP anything? Does it have weapon stats at all? Does it list an effect that happens when you hit something with it? Do it's rules give any indicator that it is used to attack?

Well Boneswords and other Tyranid "weapons" do none of these and no FAQ says otherwise.

I do not have this codex. Does it state the warscyth is a weapon? Does it say its a CCW? Does it have a str value or modifier? Does it say it's AP anything? Does it have weapon stats at all? Does it list an effect that happens when you hit something with it? Do it's rules give any indicator that it is used to attack?

Well Boneswords and other Tyranid "weapons" do none of these and no FAQ says otherwise.

outside of the Strength and AP, the codex doess all those things...so you agree that it is a weapon now or don't?
How are you claiming the wargear under the section "CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS" then gives a list, are not actually weapons...it's the same as looking in the BRB and looking under the section "allocating wounds in the assault phase" then claiming there is no existing rules on how to allocate wounds in the assault phase. It makes no logical sense. If that is true than no codex can claim they have any weapons of any kind, as they all have a page for wargear and typically section out a spot that clearly defines "everything in the section is a close combat weapon, treat it as such in addition to its individual rules". So what if you're saying is true, the none of the items listed in that section are considered weapons, profile or not, because as I've already shown you the Tyranid weapons do have profiles; they are just not updated into the same convenient forms I showed previously but DO have rules and even gives themselves exceptions to rules based on the fact they are considered WEAPONS. Tyranid models that have anything other than CaT, which as you say is the only RAW CCW they have, replace CaT with w/e they have. So are you saying that since they have no weapon at all, are they even allowed to strike at all in CC? I'm failing to see the logical process of claiming a list of "weapons" does not count the items listed as weapons in the first place.

The one sentence you and nos seem to not be able to let go is the "All weapons have a profile. But as I recall Codex trumps BRB, so if codex says X is a weapon, then its a weapon, too bad if the BRB contradicts it...

overlordweasel wrote:

The one sentence you and nos seem to not be able to let go is the "All weapons have a profile. But as I recall Codex trumps BRB, so if codex says X is a weapon, then its a weapon, too bad if the BRB contradicts it...

Pity the Tyranid Codex at no point says they're weapons. Point me to one quote, just one, that is from a rule section and says that any of the Tyranid CCWs (except Teeth and Claws) are weapons. And not the section title, because the section title is addressed both in the Tyranid Special Rules section that says Tyranid CCW != Weapon and in the general rule that names are not rules.

The Tyranid CCWs go out of their way to avoid using the word weapon, or any similar verbiage in their actual rules. In the fluff as well for that matter. The only place the word "weapon" is used in connection with the Tyranid CCWs is the section header, in which case we may as well argue that Eldar don't have Wargear they have "Treasures of Vaul" and so they can't be negated by Shield Breaker Rounds.

Is a vehicle in the Heavy Support section of the codex considered a Heavy vehicle? How about one in Fast Attack, is it a Fast vehicle? Do all terrain pieces in the Fortifications section of the rulebook count as Fortifications when determining the cover save they grant? There are good arguments for both sides and genuine ambiguity here, I'd say work it out with your opponent/gaming group/TO until there's an FAQ.

so when you look at pages 86-95, and under every Tyranid listed in the codex they all have a section that says "Weapons and Biomorphs" what do you think that list entails? a bunch of biomorphs and special rules? gnomes in skirts doing funny dances? here's an example:

Hive Tyrant

Weapons and Biomorphs:
Bonded Exoskeleton
Lash whip and bonesword
Scything Talons

Biomorphs have their own section that details and lists all biomorphs and some of them (Wings, Acid Blood, Implant Attack, Acid Maw, Blinding Venom, Chameleonic Skin, Containment Spines, and Frag Spines to be exact) don't even specify themselves as biomorphs, so following your logic they aren't biomorphs at all so what gives them permission to use them? The codex grants them Biomorphs as upgrades, so that doesn't work. Are you following me here so far?

And the codex says they are weapons many times, at the top of pg 81 (even bigger letters "WEAPONS AND BIOMORPHS"). Common sense would say "hey, if it's in this section, it's going to be either a weapon or a biomorph." And that's not even counting the paragraphs below the header that repeatedly calls everything in the section a weapon or biomorph. Then again on page 83, the page i keep referring too, which you still have not refuted in any way with some form of rule or otherwise. And now that I look at the special rules section the first sentence is vague "Tyranid creatures do not wield close combat weapons as such, but...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." The wording leans to both interpretations of either they are weapons or not as the first part of the sentence is arguably just a fluffy response looking to the rest about the way they attack; meaning they don't have guns and swords like a SM would have but instead have symbiotic creatures they use to fight with or just fight with CaT. If they weren't to be classified as weapons in the first place, then the following sentences are redundant UNLESS they were weapons then it would need to be a needed clarification when the model had two sets of weapons. The only thing you have/will convince me off is that it needs a FAQ to clarify bad choices in wording. Never mix rules with fluff, it always mucks it up, but it's to be expected of 40k. Just makes me even more happy that I switched over to Warmahordes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Is a vehicle in the Heavy Support section of the codex considered a Heavy vehicle? How about one in Fast Attack, is it a Fast vehicle? Do all terrain pieces in the Fortifications section of the rulebook count as Fortifications when determining the cover save they grant? There are good arguments for both sides and genuine ambiguity here, I'd say work it out with your opponent/gaming group/TO until there's an FAQ.

No, but all vehicles/Models in the Heavy Support, etc section are all considered Heavy Support, etc. What you are claimign with Tyranids is that a Necron NightScythe isn't a Transport bc nowhere in the vehicles profile other than the section it's labeled under denotes it as a transport, and no transport capacity is not a Transport exclusive factor IE land raiders. If a Wargear section labels a list of items within it as "weapons" everything within that list should be considered a weapon, vague fluffy rules wording or otherwise. And Iagree, it needs a FAQ, solely for a recurring theme of bad wording in most GW codexes...