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.

Per pg 41 the other profile is ignored when making CC attacks with pistols.

Gravmyr wrote:
Per pg 41 the other profile is ignored when making CC attacks with pistols.

Bingo so we know it is there. It is ignored (therefore not used) but still existent therefore the multiple profile rules is triggered.

If you acknowledge it's there are you ignoring it? Simple answer, no by definition.

jokerkd wrote:

there will be a separate line in the weapon’s profile for each, and you can choose which to use each turn.

Yeah i dont know where everyone gets the words "line" and "profile" from........

It still does not specify you cannot choose both or all. Especially when the subject of the sentence is multiple lines.

jokerkd wrote:Peteralmo, they are assault weapons because they can assault after shooting. They do get to attack but without the strength and ap of the rod. It's been explained that either choosing which line to use means you count as only having that line, or it counts as having both and therefore can never shoot because the melee type rule forbids it

Not true. Not every weapon like this just converts to the "free CCW" because they cannot use the melee line of the profile. That is not written anywhere any more than "you choose which line to use".

In addition, just because you choose to use one line in one Phase, does not mean you have to continue using that line for the duration of the Turn. Absolutely NO WHERE does it state this. This is adding a rule that does not exist.

Happyjew wrote:Also I disagree with your interpretation regarding pistols. All pistols have a single profile (unless they have the option to fire different ammunition). I don't know of any pistol that has a shooting and melee profile. As such you can never choose which profile to use - in the shooting phase you have a single profile. Once you get into assault you no longer have a pistol - it is treated as a ccw instead. As such in the assault phase you have a weapon with a single profile.

Actually, they have two. It says it twice. I don't understand why this is so difficult any more than I understand why everyone is choosing to add words to a line.

From the BRB under Close Combat Weapons:
"A pistol can be used as a close combat weapon. If this is done, use the profile given above – the Strength, AP and special rules of the pistol’s shooting profile are ignored."

From the Pistol Weapons:
"A Pistol also counts as a close combat weapon in the Assault phase."

It only ever has one profile reread what you just posted. It only gets a cc profile when making cc attacks with it and you ignore the other profile at that time.

Gravmyr wrote:
It only ever has one profile reread what you just posted. It only gets a cc profile when making cc attacks with it and you ignore the other profile at that time.

Nope it has 2 profiles just the S, AP and special rules of the pistol profile are ignored. Not the entire profile.

Charistoph wrote:
Actually, they have two. It says it twice. I don't understand why this is so difficult any more than I understand why everyone is choosing to add words to a line.

I think that you're ignoring some basic tenants of the english language. There is such a thing as contextual implication, meaning that based on the current context of the conversation/statement/passage a sentence may not be required to explicitly state things in order to convey its meaning. People are adding the words "line" or "phase" because they're contextually implied by both the sentence itself and the rest of the content that is being explained in the surrounding passages.

In this specific example, people have been leaving off the beginning of the sentence, which already uses the word "line:"

"Some weapons can be used in different ways, representing different power settings or types of ammo. Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. When this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon's profile for each, and you can choose which to use each turn."

Here it states that there will be separate (i.e. 2) lines in the weapon's profile (1 line for each). Stating that you choose LOGICALLY IMPLIES that you pick one. It's irrelevant that the number "one" isn't stated and it's irrelevant that there's no other quantitative value in the sentence since contextual implication tells us that it's referring to those separate lines previously mentioned in the same sentence. "Choose which" doesn't mean "choose as many as you want."

It's also worth noting that it is a logical falacy to state that because something isn't explicitly stated then it must be the opposite, i.e. I can't claim that i'm allowed to steal an opponent's turn simply because it never says that I can't. Likewise, you can't claim that you're allowed to choose both profiles simply because it doesn't explicitly forbid it. If that were a requirement for prohibition, then the rulebook would be a million pages to cover every possible scenario. The rules tell you only what you CAN do, not everything you can't do.

We're never instructed to give pistols a second profile, then choose.

Weapons with dual profiles have to give up their Melee option to be used as a CCW by picking one of the non Melee profiles for the turn.

Pistols retain the ability to be used as a CCW when using its one profile. If a player chooses to use it as a CCW, then he is specifically instructed to use the Melee profile, not apply the profile then see if the previous rule then prevents it's use. Counting as a CCW is not tied to any profile.

As Happyjew pointed out, most models with pistols usually have a CCW with them. MT, Skitarii, and maybe cultists and Grotz are the only units that might ONLY be equipped with pistols. Don't have their rules so can't confirm.

Parsalian wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
Actually, they have two. It says it twice. I don't understand why this is so difficult any more than I understand why everyone is choosing to add words to a line.

I think that you're ignoring some basic tenants of the english language. There is such a thing as contextual implication, meaning that based on the current context of the conversation/statement/passage a sentence may not be required to explicitly state things in order to convey its meaning. People are adding the words "line" or "phase" because they're contextually implied by both the sentence itself and the rest of the content that is being explained in the surrounding passages.

In this specific example, people have been leaving off the beginning of the sentence, which already uses the word "line:"

"Some weapons can be used in different ways, representing different power settings or types of ammo. Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. When this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon's profile for each, and you can choose which to use each turn."

Here it states that there will be separate (i.e. 2) lines in the weapon's profile (1 line for each). Stating that you choose LOGICALLY IMPLIES that you pick one. It's irrelevant that the number "one" isn't stated and it's irrelevant that there's no other quantitative value in the sentence since contextual implication tells us that it's referring to those separate lines previously mentioned in the same sentence. "Choose which" doesn't mean "choose as many as you want."

Not entirely true. In most cases where "choose which" is limited to one, there are indications or limits that only one may be chosen. This is not the case here, except where you choose to put it in.

If I say you may have fruit, and you can choose which you want, and I have a selection of apples, oranges, bannanas, or mangos. It doesn't mean you can only have one piece of fruit. Nor does it mean that if you pick an apple, you cannot also pick an orange or a mango. Courtesy would tell you to only take one and ask if you may take more, but that is courtesy talking, not me. If one chose, one could pick one of all four, four of one, or 10 of a mixture of them.

So, too, we have a case where we may choose which to use each turn. Each situation will define the limits of the choice. This paragraph does not provide any explicit limits on its own.

Parsalian wrote:
It's also worth noting that it is a logical falacy to state that because something isn't explicitly stated then it must be the opposite, i.e. I can't claim that i'm allowed to steal an opponent's turn simply because it never says that I can't. Likewise, you can't claim that you're allowed to choose both profiles simply because it doesn't explicitly forbid it. If that were a requirement for prohibition, then the rulebook would be a million pages to cover every possible scenario. The rules tell you only what you CAN do, not everything you can't do.

Also not entirely true. If I am told to do something in one area, and then do something similar in another area, then I feel free to do so within the limits provided. I am using those permissions or requirements as they are stated. I do not recognize a fence when there is none.

Just as a popular movie once stated, "There is no spoon", so too in this case, "there is no limit where you are looking for it".

Charistoph wrote:

Parsalian wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
Actually, they have two. It says it twice. I don't understand why this is so difficult any more than I understand why everyone is choosing to add words to a line.

I think that you're ignoring some basic tenants of the english language. There is such a thing as contextual implication, meaning that based on the current context of the conversation/statement/passage a sentence may not be required to explicitly state things in order to convey its meaning. People are adding the words "line" or "phase" because they're contextually implied by both the sentence itself and the rest of the content that is being explained in the surrounding passages.

In this specific example, people have been leaving off the beginning of the sentence, which already uses the word "line:"

"Some weapons can be used in different ways, representing different power settings or types of ammo. Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. When this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon's profile for each, and you can choose which to use each turn."

Here it states that there will be separate (i.e. 2) lines in the weapon's profile (1 line for each). Stating that you choose LOGICALLY IMPLIES that you pick one. It's irrelevant that the number "one" isn't stated and it's irrelevant that there's no other quantitative value in the sentence since contextual implication tells us that it's referring to those separate lines previously mentioned in the same sentence. "Choose which" doesn't mean "choose as many as you want."

Not entirely true. In most cases where "choose which" is limited to one, there are indications or limits that only one may be chosen. This is not the case here, except where you choose to put it in.

If I say you may have fruit, and you can choose which you want, and I have a selection of apples, oranges, bannanas, or mangos. It doesn't mean you can only have one piece of fruit. Nor does it mean that if you pick an apple, you cannot also pick an orange or a mango. Courtesy would tell you to only take one and ask if you may take more, but that is courtesy talking, not me. If one chose, one could pick one of all four, four of one, or 10 of a mixture of them.

So, too, we have a case where we may choose which to use each turn. Each situation will define the limits of the choice. This paragraph does not provide any explicit limits on its own.

This argument is slightly different. In your example, there is no set number of objects and we're talking about food and social behavior, not spoken language, so the rules are very different. I'd ask you to come up with linguistic examples since they'll actually apply directly. The argument that you could choose 10 of 1 item etc is very different since we're dealing explicitly with two lines of text (the two profiles) from which you can choose. There is only one iteration of each as specified in other rules which limit your use of any weapon during any phase (shooting can only be made from a single weapon once in a shooting phase, and likewise in the assault phase a model can only attack with a weapon the specified number of times in a single iteration). You've ignored both of those stipulations in your example, thereby making it an inapplicable example.

Parsalian wrote:
It's also worth noting that it is a logical falacy to state that because something isn't explicitly stated then it must be the opposite, i.e. I can't claim that i'm allowed to steal an opponent's turn simply because it never says that I can't. Likewise, you can't claim that you're allowed to choose both profiles simply because it doesn't explicitly forbid it. If that were a requirement for prohibition, then the rulebook would be a million pages to cover every possible scenario. The rules tell you only what you CAN do, not everything you can't do.

Also not entirely true. If I am told to do something in one area, and then do something similar in another area, then I feel free to do so within the limits provided. I am using those permissions or requirements as they are stated. I do not recognize a fence when there is none.

Just as a popular movie once stated, "There is no spoon", so too in this case, "there is no limit where you are looking for it".

This example is incredibly vague and I'm not even sure what you're really getting at by saying it. If taken literally, "area" means a specified location, which implicitly tells us that it's been sectioned off (even if not physically) by someone's decision. That's not my addition, that's actually how the term "area" is defined. You do not need a fence to know that two different areas are delineated by context.

I like your quote but I don't think it applies since you've ignored other rules that directly relate to our debate as well as used examples outside of the context which impose separate and unrelated restrictions (social rules vs linguistic rules).

Charistoph wrote:
Not entirely true. In most cases where "choose which" is limited to one, there are indications or limits that only one may be chosen. This is not the case here, except where you choose to put it in.

. We have lines to choose from. (Not profile, which is confusing when reading the rule). So you're still trying to argue that when we are told which lines to use, we as players have the option to use the Shooting Profile or the Melee profile, or both?

Two HUGE flaws in this argument.

Heat Rays / Doomsday Cannons also have dual shooting lines. So when I get to choose which line to use, I'm not restricted from choosing both. I'm still only firing the one weapon, and using one line in its profile doesn't restrict me from using the other. Good luck getting this on to pass in games.

If players do have the option to choose both/all lines in a profile, then why would they ever choose to NOT use both since this removes the penalty for being forced to pick one? You've effectively treated the rule as non existent, so rather than choose to apply it, you're perfectly okay believing that it still allows you to use it as if it weren't there? Nice try, but it's there for a reason and not to loop itself out of being relevant.

Edit: I used the term profile differently than the book.

Parsalian wrote:This argument is slightly different. In your example, there is no set number of objects and we're talking about food and social behavior, not spoken language, so the rules are very different. I'd ask you to come up with linguistic examples since they'll actually apply directly. The argument that you could choose 10 of 1 item etc is very different since we're dealing explicitly with two lines of text (the two profiles) from which you can choose. There is only one iteration of each as specified in other rules which limit your use of any weapon during any phase (shooting can only be made from a single weapon once in a shooting phase, and likewise in the assault phase a model can only attack with a weapon the specified number of times in a single iteration). You've ignored both of those stipulations in your example, thereby making it an inapplicable example.

Only slightly different in the subjects introduced, but the linguistic examples are still pertinent. The point is that line is the tail end of a paragraph which is not limited to just two lines, but covers every instance of a weapon with multiple lines, such as the Missile Launcher, and not just the hybrid weapons.

As I said, in the first statement, there is no limit specified. The limit is provided by other rules, in the case of the fruit example, this is courtesy.

So, too, do the limitations on what you can choose are provided by the phases the weapon is involved in. Nor have I ignored any stipulations from the rules, just those imposed by those misquoting or inadvertently misrepresenting. The concept being promulgated here is this, "You can chose one line to use for the turn". Yet, no where is this stated, and only barely implied. But from this misquote, we get two "rules". 1) You can only choose one line of the profile for the turn. 2) This choice is for the duration of the turn. Yet, that phrase is not the one in the rules.

Nothing in the rules for the Shooting Phase (much less the Shooting Sequence) state that I cannot use a different line of the same weapon in a different phase. No where in the Assault Phase does it state that if I shot with a Weapon, I cannot use the Melee profile in the Fight Sub-Phase.

The phrase that is continuously misquoted does not provide any limits of its own. In fact, if read contextually, it is actually allowing you to choose which line(s) to use each turn instead of specifying a certain order or other limitation.

Parsalian wrote:

Parsalian wrote:
It's also worth noting that it is a logical falacy to state that because something isn't explicitly stated then it must be the opposite, i.e. I can't claim that i'm allowed to steal an opponent's turn simply because it never says that I can't. Likewise, you can't claim that you're allowed to choose both profiles simply because it doesn't explicitly forbid it. If that were a requirement for prohibition, then the rulebook would be a million pages to cover every possible scenario. The rules tell you only what you CAN do, not everything you can't do.

Also not entirely true. If I am told to do something in one area, and then do something similar in another area, then I feel free to do so within the limits provided. I am using those permissions or requirements as they are stated. I do not recognize a fence when there is none.

Just as a popular movie once stated, "There is no spoon", so too in this case, "there is no limit where you are looking for it".

This example is incredibly vague and I'm not even sure what you're really getting at by saying it. If taken literally, "area" means a specified location, which implicitly tells us that it's been sectioned off (even if not physically) by someone's decision. That's not my addition, that's actually how the term "area" is defined. You do not need a fence to know that two different areas are delineated by context.

I like your quote but I don't think it applies since you've ignored other rules that directly relate to our debate as well as used examples outside of the context which impose separate and unrelated restrictions (social rules vs linguistic rules).

In this case, the "areas" were "Phases". In the Shooting Sequence, I may choose a weapon I have not shot yet. There is the limit. In the Fight sub-phase, I may only choose one weapon to fight with. There are the limits.

What you are saying is that one misquoted line (and make no mistake, it has been repeatedly misquoted in this thread) is providing an additional limit, when the actual rule provides no express numerical or quantitative limit. You only see what you choose to see.

Akar wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
Not entirely true. In most cases where "choose which" is limited to one, there are indications or limits that only one may be chosen. This is not the case here, except where you choose to put it in.

Clearly, the singular use of 'Profile' indicates that more than one profile can be chosen? Or is 'Profile' both the individual and plural use of the term?

We've have both a defined set of options, and a specified quantity that are available each turn.

Read the entire paragraph for context to get my point, then. Taking one half of a sentence can totally ruin the intention, especially when people add words to it.

Here is the original:
"Some weapons can be used in different ways, representing different power settings or types of ammo. Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon’s profile for each, and you can choose which to use each turn."

Or here, let me translate it a smidge to show you what I see, as opposed to what people have been misquoting:
"Some weapons can be used in different ways, representing different power settings or types of ammo. Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon’s profile for each, and you can choose which lines to use each turn."

Whereas, what some have been reading it as:
"Some weapons can be used in different ways, representing different power settings or types of ammo. Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon’s profile for each, and you can choose which line to use for the turn."

Now, the bolded sections show the perspectives. Notice how neither one really disrupts the flow of the sentence (flow, not meaning). Yet, one sees it as limiting, and one does not. The limiting interpretation one makes a mockery of weaponry designed for close in shooting and melee combat, and in order to make it work requires granting permissions to consider other lines as non-existent. While the non-limiting version allows one to shoot with Rods, Pistols and other hybrid weapons, and then use them in close combat without any muss or fuss.

 Akar wrote:
We have lines to choose from. (Not profile, which is confusing when reading the rule). So you're still trying to argue that when we are told which lines to use, we as players have the option to use the Shooting Profile or the Melee profile, or both?

Two HUGE flaws in this argument.

Heat Rays / Doomsday Cannons also have dual shooting lines. So when I get to choose which line to use, I'm not restricted from choosing both. I'm still only firing the one weapon, and using one line in its profile doesn't restrict me from using the other. Good luck getting this on to pass in games.

If players do have the option to choose both/all lines in a profile, then why would they ever choose to NOT use both since this removes the penalty for being forced to pick one? You've effectively treated the rule as non existent, so rather than choose to apply it, you're perfectly okay believing that it still allows you to use it as if it weren't there? Nice try, but it's there for a reason and not to loop itself out of being relevant.

The Doomsday Cannon is a poor example, since it actually has rules as to how one of the lines can be used.

But let's use Heat Rays and Missile Launchers as another example since there are no actual issues. Other than enforcing a non-written rule, where is the actual defined limit? The Shooting Phase considers them both different Weapons, after all. This wasn't at issue in the previous edition, since all weapons from a unit fired at the same time, but now, they do not. Most Infantry cannot fire more than one Weapon, so we're mostly looking at Vehicles. So, why not? Other than previous edition perspective?

But considering your statement: "Good luck getting this on to pass in games" means that it has to pass HIWPI muster, which is not why we are here.

Consider this another miss in the GW proofreading abilities if you like. I sure do. The new Shooting Sequence has made a huge mess of numerous aspects of this game.

Charistoph, quite frankly I agree with your interpretation. I have from the start. The point I'm trying to make is that "your interpretation" vs "other people's interpretations" are somewhat different in nature.

The other interpretation isn't actually adding outside limitations since they're implications made via other rules and context of the English language and the preceding paragraph. You're choosing to believe that those implications are not being made (not a judgement, others choose to believe that they are being made).

For the example of the missile launcher, the same rule still applies that you choose one of those lines to use for that turn, since you can't actually fire the weapon multiple times per phase. You choose which line of the profile you want to use and that's what you fire with. You don't then go back and choose a second (or third) line from the profile.

The reason why it is being argued that you can't use a weapon in the shooting phase and then again in the fight sub phase is because of the implication that you can only select one of the possibly multiple lines in the weapon profile for the turn. If that's the case, then you're not able to go back and change it later since it's already been chosen, and therefore would not have the ability to use the other lines of it's profile.

At this point, we're talking about meaning and intent, and it stops being logical and starts becoming speculative since we can't really know what GW was actually thinking or truly intended. We infer what we believe to be the intentions behind the rules, and now obviously here we are at a point where you have a valid point in some of your arguments, but others believe that you're excluding their viewpoint due to disbelief in their inferences. (my god that was a convoluted sentence, sorry...)

Frankly, I think that we've both highlighted the sides of the argument fairly well and there isn't much left to debate since, at this point, it really just comes down to what we believe the intent was -- whether they are implying that you must choose one and only one for the turn, or you must choose for only the particular and immediate action you're taking within this turn.

p.s. I thoroughly enjoy this logic argument, thanks for that!

Parsalian wrote:
Charistoph, quite frankly I agree with your interpretation. I have from the start. The point I'm trying to make is that "your interpretation" vs "other people's interpretations" are somewhat different in nature.

Agreed. I've even said that the only limitation is one they chose to make.

My main wonder on this is threefold:
1) Why limit yourself in such a stupid manner? I can see deliberately limiting yourself in cases like Missile Launchers or the aforementioned Heat Ray. It's a way not to be a from how things used to be. But when you're taking a weapon that is meant to be used in close combat, but won't because you shot it seems stupid, especially when in previous editions, this was not a problem. It's a weird dichotomy.

2) Why people insist on adding words to the rules and treating them as "proof". This is not just interpretations, they have literally stated them as such in this thread (and others I've been involved in).

3) Lack of desire to see it from the other side of the coin and actually think about what is being said. They blindly stick to the misquote as gospel.

Parsalian wrote:
p.s. I thoroughly enjoy this logic argument, thanks for that!

I have no problem keeping it to logic, but not enough is being used in this concept.

------------------

Another interesting point is that Combi-Weapons are specifically listed as not being able to use both lines in a Turn. Since the only wielders of these weapons that could use them that way are Vehicles, why would they need to point it out if it was already covered in the base rules?

Just food for thought.

Charistoph wrote:
"Some weapons can be used in different ways, representing different power settings or types of ammo. Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon’s profile for each, and you can choose which lines to use each turn."

Once you apply this, you defeat any possible reason for the rule to be written in the first place. This DOES change the outcome of the rule by allowing all weapons with multiple lines to use every line in its profile. The result is the same as ignoring the rule. A different interpretation therefore has to be applied or there would be no reason for the rule to exist. This application creates more questions than it solves, the first being 'Why is this rule even here to begin with'. How do you deal with Multiple shooting profiles w/o having this interpretation cave in on itself? If a weapon has multiple Melee lines do I get to choose which lines to use? Why not just say 'Weapons with multiple lines get each line available?' or 'We get to pick which line to use in each phase (and not turn). Why not just make the Rod Profile 12" Str 5, AP2 , Melee so that it IS both at the same time?

Charistoph wrote:
Whereas, what some have been reading it as:
"Some weapons can be used in different ways, representing different power settings or types of ammo. Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon’s profile for each, and you can choose which line to use for the turn."

Here again you speak with authority as if this isn't the correct interpretation, when this is the only interpretation that allows the rule to function without canceling itself out, or granting permission to do what you want to do anyways. It needs to say 'All people read it as this', but since that's not the case the 'Majority' will be in there. When you choose which line to use, the purpose of the rule clarifies itself, by preventing the use/exclusion of any other lines for the duration listed, which is the turn. You're made up your mind on how you want the rules to function. You're straining to make the rule function to meet that conclusion, instead of figuring out what the rule is supposed to do, and then applying it. This 'reading', is the RAW interpretation, its also the simplest which doesn't cause further confusion, and as above, it's plain English. I'd venture to say that translated BRBs fit into this reading as well.

As seen here, many people will play it against the RAW. While it does break the rule, it doesn't break the game. I have seen 1, maybe 2 people who play against the RAW, choose your interpretation. I've mentioned this before, while I have no intention of breaking the RAW, I'll probably end up playing it that way in the end. If I came upon a strict RAW player, he would be absolutely correct, but it makes no difference since NOT being able to use them wont break the game or the rules either. I think most of the people here who've already stated that have walked away.

What makes your explanation tiresome has nothing to do with whether you're right or not. Who HONESTLY wants to listen to that lecture on how you've circumnavigated the rule ANY time someone disagrees with you. That alone makes your argument cave in on itself, because all interest in actually playing the game was just been killed because you had to ram all of that down our throats instead of just asking if you could ignore the RAW like the rest of us. Other options would be to not run Rods, not run Praetorians, or not play at all. ANY of these would be better than listen to you explain, repeatedly, why you think you're right.

 Akar wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
"Some weapons can be used in different ways, representing different power settings or types of ammo. Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon’s profile for each, and you can choose which lines to use each turn."

Once you apply this, you defeat any possible reason for the rule to be written in the first place. This DOES change the outcome of the rule by allowing all weapons with multiple lines to use every line in its profile. The result is the same as ignoring the rule. A different interpretation therefore has to be applied or there would be no reason for the rule to exist. This application creates more questions than it solves, the first being 'Why is this rule even here to begin with'. How do you deal with Multiple shooting profiles w/o having this interpretation cave in on itself? If a weapon has multiple Melee lines do I get to choose which lines to use? Why not just say 'Weapons with multiple lines get each line available?' or 'We get to pick which line to use in each phase (and not turn). Why not just make the Rod Profile 12" Str 5, AP2 , Melee so that it IS both at the same time?

Because in this usage, it is granting permission for you to choose or not, as opposed to defining a limit. If this was not present somewherw, than some would argue you must use all the lines of the profile in order and no other way, or some other argument.

Charistoph wrote:
Whereas, what some have been reading it as:
"Some weapons can be used in different ways, representing different power settings or types of ammo. Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon’s profile for each, and you can choose which line to use for the turn."

Here again you speak with authority as if this isn't the correct interpretation, when this is the only interpretation that allows the rule to function without canceling itself out, or granting permission to do what you want to do anyways. It needs to say 'All people read it as this', but since that's not the case the 'Majority' will be in there. When you choose which line to use, the purpose of the rule clarifies itself, by preventing the use/exclusion of any other lines for the duration listed, which is the turn. You're made up your mind on how you want the rules to function. You're straining to make the rule function to meet that conclusion, instead of figuring out what the rule is supposed to do, and then applying it. This 'reading', is the RAW interpretation, its also the simplest which doesn't cause further confusion, and as above, it's plain English. I'd venture to say that translated BRBs fit into this reading as well.

Well, is it the rule, or an interpretation? Make up your mind.

See, part of my problem with this interpretation is that it implies rules and limits never explicitly written at any point. It relies more on a misquote than the rules. You want to talk about interpretation, that's for your group. I will stick to the actual written limitations.

But, it would be nice if we could see a translation of it, but considering how misquoted the English version has been here, I would wonder.

What makes your explanation tiresome has nothing to do with whether you're right or not. Who HONESTLY wants to listen to that lecture on how you've circumnavigated the rule ANY time someone disagrees with you. That alone makes your argument cave in on itself, because all interest in actually playing the game was just been killed because you had to ram all of that down our throats instead of just asking if you could ignore the RAW like the rest of us. Other options would be to not run Rods, not run Praetorians, or not play at all. ANY of these would be better than listen to you explain, repeatedly, why you think you're right.

Odd. I've stuck to what is written, and went with the simplest interpretation. That is hardly circumnavigating the rules. It doesn't require making up new rules like "if you cannot use a Melee Weapon, you are not considered to have one", which is what half this thread has tried to do.

So why should I or anyone else watch and listen to rules being turned in to a pretzel just so you can deny a Weapon its use for a Phase or two? Especially when it is based on standards of a previous edition? Should we then not allow Rapid Fire weapons to shoot full range if the model moved? Should Slow and Purposeful units move like in Difficult Terrain?

Charistoph wrote:

 Akar wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
"Some weapons can be used in different ways, representing different power settings or types of ammo. Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon’s profile for each, and you can choose which lines to use each turn."

Once you apply this, you defeat any possible reason for the rule to be written in the first place. This DOES change the outcome of the rule by allowing all weapons with multiple lines to use every line in its profile. The result is the same as ignoring the rule. A different interpretation therefore has to be applied or there would be no reason for the rule to exist. This application creates more questions than it solves, the first being 'Why is this rule even here to begin with'. How do you deal with Multiple shooting profiles w/o having this interpretation cave in on itself? If a weapon has multiple Melee lines do I get to choose which lines to use? Why not just say 'Weapons with multiple lines get each line available?' or 'We get to pick which line to use in each phase (and not turn). Why not just make the Rod Profile 12" Str 5, AP2 , Melee so that it IS both at the same time?

Because in this usage, it is granting permission for you to choose or not, as opposed to defining a limit. If this was not present somewherw, than some would argue you must use all the lines of the profile in order and no other way, or some other argument.

Charistoph wrote:
Whereas, what some have been reading it as:
"Some weapons can be used in different ways, representing different power settings or types of ammo. Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon’s profile for each, and you can choose which line to use for the turn."

Here again you speak with authority as if this isn't the correct interpretation, when this is the only interpretation that allows the rule to function without canceling itself out, or granting permission to do what you want to do anyways. It needs to say 'All people read it as this', but since that's not the case the 'Majority' will be in there. When you choose which line to use, the purpose of the rule clarifies itself, by preventing the use/exclusion of any other lines for the duration listed, which is the turn. You're made up your mind on how you want the rules to function. You're straining to make the rule function to meet that conclusion, instead of figuring out what the rule is supposed to do, and then applying it. This 'reading', is the RAW interpretation, its also the simplest which doesn't cause further confusion, and as above, it's plain English. I'd venture to say that translated BRBs fit into this reading as well.

Well, is it the rule, or an interpretation? Make up your mind.

See, part of my problem with this interpretation is that it implies rules and limits never explicitly written at any point. It relies more on a misquote than the rules. You want to talk about interpretation, that's for your group. I will stick to the actual written limitations.

But, it would be nice if we could see a translation of it, but considering how misquoted the English version has been here, I would wonder.

What makes your explanation tiresome has nothing to do with whether you're right or not. Who HONESTLY wants to listen to that lecture on how you've circumnavigated the rule ANY time someone disagrees with you. That alone makes your argument cave in on itself, because all interest in actually playing the game was just been killed because you had to ram all of that down our throats instead of just asking if you could ignore the RAW like the rest of us. Other options would be to not run Rods, not run Praetorians, or not play at all. ANY of these would be better than listen to you explain, repeatedly, why you think you're right.

Odd. I've stuck to what is written, and went with the simplest interpretation. That is hardly circumnavigating the rules. It doesn't require making up new rules like "if you cannot use a Melee Weapon, you are not considered to have one", which is what half this thread has tried to do.

So why should I or anyone else watch and listen to rules being turned in to a pretzel just so you can deny a Weapon its use for a Phase or two? Especially when it is based on standards of a previous edition? Should we then not allow Rapid Fire weapons to shoot full range if the model moved? Should Slow and Purposeful units move like in Difficult Terrain?

No.

The rule as written is clear, and quantitatively states a weapon with a dual profile picks a single fire mode per turn- a quantitative amount of time with measured end and start points during the game, during said time the other profile is unavailable.

You dislike the easily readable clearly worded rule and are trying to circumvent it with faulty reasoning based an a highly alternative interpretation you have come up with of a plainly written rule.

No one is turning the single sentence rule into a pretzel to stop you from shooting something, its not rules lawyering, and is simply the rule as written.

You are rules lawyering and making up interpretations assumptions to ignore the rule and create a scenario where you can gain use of something for an extra phase when normally you would not be able to as per the plainly written rule.

just admit to yourself- not even here in a post-you are wanting the rule to work a certain way that is is not written to work because it is more useful to a certain model with a certain weapon you want to use and are supporting a HYWPI stance because you benefit from it and like it, and then move on.

blaktoof wrote:
The rule as written is clear, and quantitatively states a weapon with a dual profile picks a single fire mode per turn- a quantitative amount of time with measured end and start points during the game, during said time the other profile is unavailable.

Except it literally does not. The portion which describes the action does not provide a quantity. It does not state I cannot use more than one that it says that must use more than one. Nor does it state anywhere that the "other profile" is unavailable.

Quote the actual phrase. Read the phrase. Read the paragraph. The only actual quantities involved there are in the description of the situation, not in the choice.

And this is not just not for dual "profile" weapons, either, this affects weapons with three or more "profiles" as well.

blaktoof wrote:
You dislike the easily readable clearly worded rule and are trying to circumvent it with faulty reasoning based an a highly alternative interpretation you have come up with of a plainly written rule.

If it was a plainly written, than how can I argue against it? Oh, right. It's in the interpretation you present cannot be quoted properly.

blaktoof wrote:
No one is turning the single sentence rule into a pretzel to stop you from shooting something, its not rules lawyering, and is simply the rule as written.

Saying "choose which to use each turn" actually says (not infers, not implies, actually says) "choose which one to use for the turn" is twisting the rule and misquoting. It is not how it is written.

blaktoof wrote:
You are rules lawyering and making up interpretations assumptions to ignore the rule and create a scenario where you can gain use of something for an extra phase when normally you would not be able to as per the plainly written rule.

Ignore? Who said anything about me ignoring a rule? This is an assumption on your part. Much like the assumption some have made that "if I can't use my Melee Weapon, I must not have a Melee Weapon".

I have continued to quote the rule as written, and only added to it once for perspective and example. I have quoted the entire paragraph to give context. I have recognized that it could be interpreted as one way, but never at any point have I actually ignored the written text.

What has been done in this thread is ignore the possibility that phrase in question could include the possibilities of multiple "profiles" of a weapon may be used, saved by a few not blinded by misquoting. That a profile is assumed to be the only profile the weapon has once it is chosen. That even though a model may have a weapon with the Melee Type, that can be ignored to give it the "free" CCW because some would deny its use. You want to talk about assumptions, ignoring rules, and rules lawyering? That there is your evidence since none of it has been properly supported by any written text from the rulebook.

blaktoof wrote:
just admit to yourself- not even here in a post-you are wanting the rule to work a certain way that is is not written to work because it is more useful to a certain model with a certain weapon you want to use and are supporting a HYWPI stance because you benefit from it and like it, and then move on.

No, I cannot, for that would be lying to myself. Especially when continuous misquoting is used as the only "proof". I've gone up and down this rule backwards and forwards looking for the actual defined and written limits since I first learned of this. I'm not looking to make it work a certain way, I'm looking to make it work, period. And I cannot see it work when one has to ignore rule triggers to allow a model to Fight at all. I cannot see it work when one is disallowed from using aspects of its Wargear when it is called upon to use them.

Where I can see it work is when the model is able to choose which to use when that portion of the profile is called upon in the rules and not otherwise forbidden.

so by adding to a rule as written you can add 'context'.

ie

by changing what a rule is you can add 'context'

context in this sense is an alteration of the rule, and not context at all.

there is no ignoring of the possibility of multiple choices, the use of the word which in any country that speaks english on our planet means the choice has to be singular unless the reference choice gives a plural option.

as it gives a singular option of "each" from the multiple profiles it cannot be multiple choices.

as you are unable to discuss the rule without changing it and discussing your altered version that is not a rule, there is no point in discussing the obvious RAW answer to this question with you- by anyone.

blaktoof wrote:
so by adding to a rule as written you can add 'context'.

ie

by changing what a rule is you can add 'context'

context in this sense is an alteration of the rule, and not context at all.

there is no ignoring of the possibility of multiple choices, the use of the word which in any country that speaks english on our planet means the choice has to be singular unless the reference choice gives a plural option.

as it gives a singular option of "each" from the multiple profiles it cannot be multiple choices.

as you are unable to discuss the rule without changing it and discussing your altered version that is not a rule, there is no point in discussing the obvious RAW answer to this question with you- by anyone.

So you play that an Assault Marine that fires his bolt pistol does not get the +1A for having 2 CCWs in the following fight phase? Is that really how you play it?

blaktoof wrote:
so by adding to a rule as written you can add 'context'.

ie

by changing what a rule is you can add 'context'

context in this sense is an alteration of the rule, and not context at all.

So why was this repeatedly done in this thread by others supporting your position? I did once, for perspective only, and I was explicit when I did it. Almost everyone else has quoted their perception, not the actual rule.

blaktoof wrote:
there is no ignoring of the possibility of multiple choices, the use of the word which in any country that speaks english on our planet means the choice has to be singular unless the reference choice gives a plural option.

Not entirely true. When making selections, unless otherwise defined or limited, "all" or "some" is always an option. I do not see a defined limit or quantity in "choose which to use". I do see limits elsewhere, but they do not seem to affect each other directly in the case of hybrid weapons.

blaktoof wrote:
as it gives a singular option of "each" from the multiple profiles it cannot be multiple choices.

The "each" is for the turn, not for the "profiles". And that doesn't always mean that the choice is always in affect for the duration of "each turn". There is no numerical or quantitative word in the middle of "choose which to use" aside from what the reader choose to insert.

blaktoof wrote:
as you are unable to discuss the rule without changing it and discussing your altered version that is not a rule, there is no point in discussing the obvious RAW answer to this question with you- by anyone.

I have not actually altered it once, save the aforementioned perspective position. I have offered a different perspective is all. I have not misrepresented this perspective a single time.

 FlingitNow wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
so by adding to a rule as written you can add 'context'.

ie

by changing what a rule is you can add 'context'

context in this sense is an alteration of the rule, and not context at all.

there is no ignoring of the possibility of multiple choices, the use of the word which in any country that speaks english on our planet means the choice has to be singular unless the reference choice gives a plural option.

as it gives a singular option of "each" from the multiple profiles it cannot be multiple choices.

as you are unable to discuss the rule without changing it and discussing your altered version that is not a rule, there is no point in discussing the obvious RAW answer to this question with you- by anyone.

So you play that an Assault Marine that fires his bolt pistol does not get the +1A for having 2 CCWs in the following fight phase? Is that really how you play it?

Already covered in this thread.

Charistoph wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
as it gives a singular option of "each" from the multiple profiles it cannot be multiple choices.

The "each" is for the turn, not for the "profiles". And that doesn't always mean that the choice is always in affect for the duration of "each turn". There is no numerical or quantitative word in the middle of "choose which to use" aside from what the reader choose to insert.

"Some weapons can be used in different ways, representing different power settings or types of ammo. Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. When this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon's profile for each, and you can choose which to use each turn."

each is used twice.

the first time to denote each profile [singular] for some weapons that can be used in combat as well as shooting.

the second is for each turn.

stating that you have not altered something once, save for this one time when you used it for the basis of your discussion. means you altered it.

you have not offered a different perspective, you offered a perspective of a rule that you changed the wording as written to create a different rule in an attempt to justify something you would like to happen.

As Ghaz stated, the Pistols argument has been covered multiple times, and really needs to stop being referenced. It's a completely different argument.

The Rod of Covenant argument that is meant to be discussed pertains only to the situation in which a model has only 1 possible option for melee weapons. Having two weapons creates a completely different scenario and can not possibly be used as the basis for an argument in this case.

 Ghaz wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
so by adding to a rule as written you can add 'context'.

ie

by changing what a rule is you can add 'context'

context in this sense is an alteration of the rule, and not context at all.

there is no ignoring of the possibility of multiple choices, the use of the word which in any country that speaks english on our planet means the choice has to be singular unless the reference choice gives a plural option.

as it gives a singular option of "each" from the multiple profiles it cannot be multiple choices.

as you are unable to discuss the rule without changing it and discussing your altered version that is not a rule, there is no point in discussing the obvious RAW answer to this question with you- by anyone.

So you play that an Assault Marine that fires his bolt pistol does not get the +1A for having 2 CCWs in the following fight phase? Is that really how you play it?

Already covered in this thread.

Nice try how are you getting +1 attacking without referencing the melee profile which you can't do if you shot the pistol under your interpretation of choosing 1 profile for multi profile weapons.

This is a good example of just how crazy BAD it can really get here .

Fling sorry for the mispeak earlier. I really should only post after my coffee. We know a pistol only has a single profile during all but the Assault phase. During the Assault phase it it can be used as a CC weapon. If it is used as a CC weapon you are told to use the provided profile. At this point in order for the pistol to be able to be used at all you need to be able to ignore the other profile entirely. If you can't you end up with a dual shooting weapon / CC weapon. As we know if that is the case it cannot be used at all. The only way it works is if we take the statement "use the profile given above" to mean for all rules. The same goes for the rule about choosing a profile for each turn. Do you know of a rule that allows you to look at only part of a profile other than this reading?

blaktoof wrote:

"Some weapons can be used in different ways, representing different power settings or types of ammo. Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. When this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon's profile for each, and you can choose which to use each turn."

each is used twice.

the first time to denote each profile [singular] for some weapons that can be used in combat as well as shooting.

Not quite. It is for any weapon that has multiple lines or "profiles". But that "each" is referring to the lines representing each option, not to the limit of the choice.

blaktoof wrote:
stating that you have not altered something once, save for this one time when you used it for the basis of your discussion. means you altered it.

And if you notice, when I said that I did not alter it, I included the caveat. I was demonstrating how it could be read. My main case has been that the choice is not quantified nor limited in this sentence, and it is not unless you choose to perceive it that way. As opposed to those who said that "the rules say, chose 1 profile to use for the duration of the turn", that isn't even worth mentioning.

blaktoof wrote:
you have not offered a different perspective, you offered a perspective of a rule that you changed the wording as written to create a different rule in an attempt to justify something you would like to happen.

Okay, so did I offer a different perspective or not? Which is it? Make up your mind.

But the main perspective I offered is this, the choice is not quantified nor defined in this sentence, just that a choice is available. It is what I have said repeatedly. That perspective does not require the changing of wording, just recognizing what is and is not there.

That is a far sight closer to RAW than adding "one" to the phrase or "for the duration of" that some have been doing this entire thread and others.

Gravmyr wrote:
Do you know of a rule that allows you to look at only part of a profile other than this reading?

The Shooting Sequence is very specific on that. We are to treat each option as a different weapon name for the purposes of selecting a weapon to shoot. So Frag Missiles and Krak Missiles cannot fired from the same unit at the same time, one will have to wait until after the resolution of the other. And in the case of the Rod of the Covenant, the Melee portion of the profile is considered a completely different weapon when you go to shoot.

Melee weapons technically have no specific ruling like this, unless you are willing to share the same concept from the Shooting Sequence that each sub-profile is a different weapon name for these purposes. But there is no specific tie in.

Gravmyr wrote:
Fling sorry for the mispeak earlier. I really should only post after my coffee. We know a pistol only has a single profile during all but the Assault phase. During the Assault phase it it can be used as a CC weapon. If it is used as a CC weapon you are told to use the provided profile. At this point in order for the pistol to be able to be used at all you need to be able to ignore the other profile entirely. If you can't you end up with a dual shooting weapon / CC weapon. As we know if that is the case it cannot be used at all. The only way it works is if we take the statement "use the profile given above" to mean for all rules. The same goes for the rule about choosing a profile for each turn. Do you know of a rule that allows you to look at only part of a profile other than this reading?

also it is a completely different discussion than the thread topic, as in the case of an assault marine with chainsword/pistol[brought up by fling..] the chosen weapon to strike with [and the profile used to make the attack] is the chainsword, not the pistol. The only RAW requirement to get the additional attack from having an additional weapon, is to have an additional weapon. The weapon is still an additional weapon when not being used for its profile. While in the case of the rod of covenant you are using its profile to strike with in assault, so the two are not analogous rules discussions.

Charistoph wrote:

The Shooting Sequence is very specific on that. We are to treat each option as a different weapon name for the purposes of selecting a weapon to shoot. So Frag Missiles and Krak Missiles cannot fired from the same unit at the same time, one will have to wait until after the resolution of the other. And in the case of the Rod of the Covenant, the Melee portion of the profile is considered a completely different weapon when you go to shoot.

Melee weapons technically have no specific ruling like this, unless you are willing to share the same concept from the Shooting Sequence that each sub-profile is a different weapon name for these purposes. But there is no specific tie in.

It is very specific to only modes of fire and ammo. Since a profile for Melee is neither it does not apply. Therefor you have to look at the entire profile in these cases which makes them unusable or use the reading that has been put forth.