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.

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

The last 6 pages have been pointing out where is says it's a single weapon. You just don't know how to read

Incorrect. No one in the counter argument has been able to point out where it says that these weapons "count as a single weapon".

If the rules did indeed say that, then this thread would not exist.

But, I get it, you are just being contrarian and trying to get a rise out of me by making obviously wrong claims. I don't think that is working very well for you.

I brought you the rules of Gauntlets of Ultramar, Mirrorswords, Chainsabres and Shardnet & Impaler all those are paired weapons like RG ones but clearly states they either provide an Extra attack or are fielded as 2 weapons with same profile (Gauntlets of Ultramar are 2x Power fist with xxx profile each! )

Also show how Lash whip and Boneswords or Razorflails still are paired like those before but they DO NOT provide the rules to gain that extra attack. RG weapons fall in this category and RAW do not provide that extra attack.


You just refuse to acknowledge it as simple as that.

Lord Perversor wrote:


I brought you the rules of Gauntlets of Ultramar, Mirrorswords, Chainsabres and Shardnet & Impaler all those are paired weapons like RG ones but clearly states they either provide an Extra attack or are fielded as 2 weapons with same profile (Gauntlets of Ultramar are 2x Power fist with xxx profile each! )

Also show how Lash whip and Boneswords or Razorflails still are paired like those before but they DO NOT provide the rules to gain that extra attack. RG weapons fall in this category and RAW do not provide that extra attack.


You just refuse to acknowledge it as simple as that.

Meanwhile, I proved my case.

'Used together' does not mean that the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion count as a single weapon.

They are called out as "these weapons" and when they are used together they are still considered weapons and not as a single weapon. No rule designates them as counting as a single weapon so they remain two weapons.

The profiles reference 'this weapon' and so must reference the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion separably since the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion collectively are referred to as 'weapons' and as 'relics' and never as weapon or relic.

Moreover, the Hand is explicitly discussed as being separably a 'weapon' and able to be used as both a melee and as a ranged weapon.






Since the Hand is definitively a melee weapon, this means that the profile has been separably applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.

This in turn means that both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are melee weapons.

This in turn means that we satisfy the rule that grants an a model an additional attack for having two or more melee weapons.


The argument is proved.

col_impact talks a lot about RAW, but disregards the actual rules written for Robby G.

RAW: (1) sword and hand TOGETHER = 1 melee profile
RAW: (2) also (=besides 1) hand = ranged profile

This isn't a jibe, but I'd really like to see an explanation on how the three sentences of RAW in the relic description support the assumption of two separate weapons that just so happen to share the same profile. To me the sentences are quite straightforward and do each have a purpose for the "one weapon" reading.

col_impact wrote:

GodDamUser wrote:
everyone has.. you just refuse that argument

Again. Feel free to point out in the rules where "the weapons" are stated as "counting as one weapon".

You can't just claim it as a matter of belief. You need to prove your case as I have.

Waiting.

7 pages and we're still waiting for this brick wall that's refusing to have any discussion beyond "you are wrong, my initial interpretation is perfect" to maybe take a step back and discuss the point more. Given the opposition are you sure you're not the one who has made the claim on a matter of belief and are just sticking to your guns out of stubbornness?
He doesn't get the +1 attack nor do they have a copy of the same profile each. This I believe is the general consensus on his weapons.

They just use the one profile with the requirement that they are both used together with the same profile. A codex supersedes written rules thus in this case they have 1 profile together meaning they do not have profiles individually. Meaning as far as the rules were written they count as one weapon with the ability to have a ranged attack; which I'll admit again and again is a completely stupid way for them to have written it to deny the bonus attack. As it is clear that's the intention, but the execution is so damn clunky it generates conflicts like this. In fact Bobby G's rules were executed so badly he breaks the game in at least 3 ways and almost demands an FAQ all on his own.

 Stephanius wrote:
col_impact talks a lot about RAW, but disregards the actual rules written for Robby G.

RAW: (1) sword and hand TOGETHER = 1 melee profile
RAW: (2) also (=besides 1) hand = ranged profile

This isn't a jibe, but I'd really like to see an explanation on how the three sentences of RAW in the relic description support the assumption of two separate weapons that just so happen to share the same profile. To me the sentences are quite straightforward and do each have a purpose for the "one weapon" reading.

Please answer a few questions, just to try to get on the same page.



How many weapons are we dealing with in the case of "the Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 n0t_u wrote:
in this case they have 1 profile together meaning they do not have profiles individually

This rules statement doesn't agree with you.



The Hand of Dominion is here explicitly called out individually as a melee weapon (entirely separate from any mention at all of the Emperor's Sword). How did the Hand of Dominion get to individually become a melee weapon?

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
in this case they have 1 profile together meaning they do not have profiles individually

This rules statement doesn't agree with you.

Spoiler:

The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.

The Hand of Dominion is here explicitly called out as a melee weapon. How did it get to become a melee weapon?

Where does it say in the rules that weapons sharing 1 profile count as individual weapons? Show me where it says that and where it says the rulebook takes precedence when the codex and a rulebook have a conflict like this.

You have the basic rule saying that every melee weapon has it's own profile, this seems to be the core of your argument over most of these pages. However Bobby G's rules states those weapons use the same profile together in combat; which is classed an advanced rule. As per the Basic vs Advanced rule on pg 13, Bobby G's weapons supersede the need to have profiles of their own as they're combined and thusly count as 1 weapon for the purposes of combat. As in you'll never get that bonus attack.

 n0t_u wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
in this case they have 1 profile together meaning they do not have profiles individually

This rules statement doesn't agree with you.

Spoiler:

The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.

The Hand of Dominion is here explicitly called out as a melee weapon. How did it get to become a melee weapon?

Where does it say in the rules that weapons sharing 1 profile count as individual weapons? Show me where it says that and where it says the rulebook takes precedence when the codex and a rulebook have a conflict like this.

There is no requirement that every profile is unique. Only that "every weapon has a profile".

So, nothing says the Emperor's Sword and the the Hand of Dominion cannot individually share the same melee profile.

The Hand of Dominion is definitively a melee weapon. This can only happen if the melee profile was individually applied to it.



So this spoiler proves that the melee profile was individually applied to the Hand of Dominion.

Are you ignoring that and trying to say without justification that the Hand of Dominion is not a melee weapon? That goes directly against the rules spoiled above. Please address that problem.

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
in this case they have 1 profile together meaning they do not have profiles individually

This rules statement doesn't agree with you.

Spoiler:

The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.

The Hand of Dominion is here explicitly called out as a melee weapon. How did it get to become a melee weapon?

Where does it say in the rules that weapons sharing 1 profile count as individual weapons? Show me where it says that and where it says the rulebook takes precedence when the codex and a rulebook have a conflict like this.

There is no requirement that every profile is unique. Only that "every weapon has a profile".

So, nothing says the Emperor's Sword and the the Hand of Dominion cannot individually share the same melee profile.

The Hand of Dominion is definitively a melee weapon. This can only happen if the melee profile was individually applied to it.

Spoiler:

The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.

Are you trying to say that the Hand of Dominion is not a melee weapon? That goes directly against the rules.

No I'm saying for combat purposes the hand and sword are combined into one profile and thus count as one weapon in that instance. The rule you keep mentioning about every weapon having their own profile is irrelevant to this discussion as Bobby G's rules for it overrides it.

 n0t_u wrote:


No I'm saying for combat purposes the hand and sword are combined into one profile and thus count as one weapon in that instance.

This rule contradicts you.



The Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon all on its own. The melee profile was individually applied to the Hand of Dominion. This proves that the hand and sword are NOT combined into one profile. But, we knew that already since no where did it say that they were 'combined' or considered to be 'counting as one weapon'.

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:


No I'm saying for combat purposes the hand and sword are combined into one profile and thus count as one weapon in that instance.

This rule contradicts you.

Spoiler:

The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.

The Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon all on its own.

No it doesn't as it doesn't go against the "used together" part of their profile, simply put if it wasn't mentioned that the hand could be used as a melee weapon in the same turn it would mean that Bobby G would no longer be able to use the weapons together and thusly would be unable to fight every turn he shot in. Hence what I was saying earlier about the extremely poor execution.

Where does it say the profile is applied to the sword and the hand individually? As it states TOGETHER it means TOGETHER not individually.

 n0t_u wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:


No I'm saying for combat purposes the hand and sword are combined into one profile and thus count as one weapon in that instance.

This rule contradicts you.

Spoiler:

The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.

The Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon all on its own.

No it doesn't as it doesn't go against the "used together" part of their profile, simply put if it wasn't mentioned that the hand could be used as a melee weapon in the same turn it would mean that Bobby G would no longer be able to use the weapons together and thusly would be unable to fight every turn he shot in. Hence what I was saying earlier about the extremely poor execution.

How did the Hand of Dominion get to be individually a melee weapon?

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:


No I'm saying for combat purposes the hand and sword are combined into one profile and thus count as one weapon in that instance.

This rule contradicts you.

Spoiler:

The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.

The Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon all on its own.

No it doesn't as it doesn't go against the "used together" part of their profile, simply put if it wasn't mentioned that the hand could be used as a melee weapon in the same turn it would mean that Bobby G would no longer be able to use the weapons together and thusly would be unable to fight every turn he shot in. Hence what I was saying earlier about the extremely poor execution.

How did the Hand of Dominion get to be individually a melee weapon?

It didn't.

 n0t_u wrote:


It didn't.

The rules say it can quite clearly be used as a melee weapon. What melee profile does it have so that it can be used as a melee weapon?

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:


It didn't.

The rules say it can quite clearly be used as a melee weapon. What melee profile does it have so that it can be used as a melee weapon?

The one it uses together with the sword as one profile; they do not have their own individual profiles. You know the one that becomes impossible to use if half of it is unable to be used due to poor writing?
You're not really helping your case here.

 n0t_u wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:


It didn't.

The rules say it can quite clearly be used as a melee weapon. What melee profile does it have so that it can be used as a melee weapon?

The one it uses together with the sword as one profile; they do not have their own individual profiles. You know the one that becomes impossible to use if half of it is unable to be used due to poor writing?
You're not really helping your case here.

On the contrary, you are proving my case. If you are ignoring chunks of rules as 'poor writing' you aren't adhering to the Rules As Written, are you? I, on the other hand, accept the rule in toto.

If the Hand of Dominion does not have its own individual melee profile then it cannot be used itself as a melee weapon.

That contradicts what this rule says . . .



That says 'the Hand of Dominion' can be used as a melee weapon. Note that it does not say that 'the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion' can be used as a melee weapon which would be required if the profile was applied to the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion as a singular entity, as you claim.

Per the rule statement, the Hand of Dominion can be individually used as a melee weapon. How is this possible?

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:


It didn't.

The rules say it can quite clearly be used as a melee weapon. What melee profile does it have so that it can be used as a melee weapon?

The one it uses together with the sword as one profile; they do not have their own individual profiles. You know the one that becomes impossible to use if half of it is unable to be used due to poor writing?
You're not really helping your case here.

On the contrary, you are proving my case.

If the Hand of Dominion does not have its own individual melee profile then it cannot be used itself as a melee weapon.

That contradicts what this rule says . . .

The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.

I'm really not.

It says the two are used together, so yeh it's a melee weapon good for it (well technically half of one hence this super fun discussion we're having) but where's its profile for itself and not combined with the sword? It has a ranged profile of it's own, so that's a start right? As they have one melee profile they count as one melee weapon, and that's the entire purpose of this thread. I honestly don't care if they somehow count as separate weapons at any other times as backwards as that train of thought seems; it's very clear that they are one weapon during combat and thus don't generate the bonus attack. So what you need to be trying to prove for your point to work is that both the sword and the hand count as separate during combat. Show exactly where it states they can please.

 n0t_u wrote:


It says the two are used together, so yeh it's a melee weapon good for it (well technically half of one hence this super fun discussion we're having) but where's its profile for itself and not combined with the sword? It has a ranged profile of it's own, so that's a start right? As they have one melee profile they count as one melee weapon, and that's the entire purpose of this thread. I honestly don't care if they somehow count as separate weapons at any other times as backwards as that train of thought seems; it's very clear that they are one weapon during combat and thus don't generate the bonus attack. So what you need to be trying to prove for your point to work is that both the sword and the hand count as separate during combat. Show exactly where it states they can please.

That says 'the Hand of Dominion' can be used as a melee weapon. Note that it does not say that 'the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion' can be used as a melee weapon which would be required if the profile was applied to 'the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion' as a singular entity, as you claim.

Per the rule statement, the Hand of Dominion can be individually used as a melee weapon. How is this possible?

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:


It says the two are used together, so yeh it's a melee weapon good for it (well technically half of one hence this super fun discussion we're having) but where's its profile for itself and not combined with the sword? It has a ranged profile of it's own, so that's a start right? As they have one melee profile they count as one melee weapon, and that's the entire purpose of this thread. I honestly don't care if they somehow count as separate weapons at any other times as backwards as that train of thought seems; it's very clear that they are one weapon during combat and thus don't generate the bonus attack. So what you need to be trying to prove for your point to work is that both the sword and the hand count as separate during combat. Show exactly where it states they can please.

Spoiler:

The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.

That says 'the Hand of Dominion' can be used as a melee weapon. Note that it does not say that 'the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion' can be used as a melee weapon which would be required if the profile was applied to the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion as a singular entity, as you claim.

Per the rule statement, the Hand of Dominion can be individually used as a melee weapon. How is this possible?

That line is to cover the ability to also shoot that the hand has.
Answer my question rather than deflecting back to something I've mentioned as irrelevant. The profile says they're used together, how are they not used together?

How are they not used together with the one profile in melee?

 n0t_u wrote:


That line is to cover the ability to also shoot that the hand has.
Answer my question rather than deflecting back to something I've mentioned as irrelevant. The profile says they're used together, how are they not used together?

How are they not used together with the one profile in melee?

The rules say the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are used together, but that does NOT mean that they count as a single weapon. They are still completely individual weapons that happen to be used together by Robute and that happen to have the same melee profile. Profiles are not required to be unique. And there is no rule that says the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion count as a single weapon.

In fact, the rule I have been hammering you over and over about proves that the Hand of Dominion is individually its own melee weapon.



This means the Hand of Dominion has its own melee profile. This means that the melee profile has been individually applied to the Hand of Dominion (and also individually applied to the Emperor's Sword).

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:


It says the two are used together, so yeh it's a melee weapon good for it (well technically half of one hence this super fun discussion we're having) but where's its profile for itself and not combined with the sword? It has a ranged profile of it's own, so that's a start right? As they have one melee profile they count as one melee weapon, and that's the entire purpose of this thread. I honestly don't care if they somehow count as separate weapons at any other times as backwards as that train of thought seems; it's very clear that they are one weapon during combat and thus don't generate the bonus attack. So what you need to be trying to prove for your point to work is that both the sword and the hand count as separate during combat. Show exactly where it states they can please.

Spoiler:

The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.

That says 'the Hand of Dominion' can be used as a melee weapon. Note that it does not say that 'the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion' can be used as a melee weapon which would be required if the profile was applied to the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion as a singular entity, as you claim.

Per the rule statement, the Hand of Dominion can be individually used as a melee weapon. How is this possible?

The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.

The "also" is a reference to the preceeding rule on using sword and hand together as a melee weapon. This is clearly what is meant here - using the hand together with the sword as melee weapon.

You assert that the last sentence is permission to use the hand in melee separately, even though the rest of the Sword & Hand relic rules contradicts this.
Please demonstrate how you can use the hand separately and what the "These weapons are used together, using the profile below" is supposed to mean.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:
...
This means the Hand of Dominion has its own melee profile. This means that the melee profile has been individually applied to the Hand of Dominion (and also individually applied to the Emperor's Sword).

That is a claim you have to support. Where do you find the Hand's own melee profile? It's not listed in the datasheet.

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:


That line is to cover the ability to also shoot that the hand has.
Answer my question rather than deflecting back to something I've mentioned as irrelevant. The profile says they're used together, how are they not used together?

How are they not used together with the one profile in melee?

The rules say they are used together, but that does not mean that they count as a single weapon. They can still be completely individual weapons that happen to be used together by Robute and that happen to have the same melee profile. Profiles are not required to be unique.

In fact, the rule I have been hammering you over and over about proves that the Hand of Dominion is individually its own melee weapon.

Spoiler:

The Hand of Dominion can also be used as a ranged weapon, using the profile below. It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.

This means the Hand of Dominion has its own melee profile. This means that the melee profile has been individually applied to the Hand of Dominion (and also individually applied to the Emperor's Sword).

They're one profile thus treated as one weapon for melee thus no bonus attack.

I'll try to simplify it as you seem to be getting caught up on that line there.

Say I have blue paint (the sword) and yellow paint (the fist), and together it says they're green. Now green is the only thing I have to use so the two are combined into the one paint. You keep trying to make the point that yellow is its own paint and I'm saying that doesn't matter because we're looking at green paint not blue and yellow paint side by side.

This discussion, again, is NOT are they individual weapons it is ARE they individual at the time of combat so as to generate a bonus attack. Now to go back to my analogy the rules say you mix the two together to make green; I'm asking you to prove your point by saying where it says they aren't mixed. Then you respond with "but yellow is a paint" instead of how they aren't mixed and you've continued to do so for the last 6 pages or so with others.

 Stephanius wrote:


The "also" is a reference to the preceeding rule on using sword and hand together as a melee weapon. This is clearly what is meant here - using the hand together with the sword as melee weapon.

The Sword and Hand are referred to as "these weapons" (plural). The paragraphs prior to the "also" are referring to "this weapon". The use of the singular can only mean that the profile is individually applied to the Sword and the Hand. This results in the Hand having its own melee profile which happens to be the exact same melee profile as the Sword. The melee profile in question is the one listed in the relics box.

col_impact wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:


The "also" is a reference to the preceeding rule on using sword and hand together as a melee weapon. This is clearly what is meant here - using the hand together with the sword as melee weapon.

The Sword and Hand are referred to as "these weapons" (plural). The paragraphs prior to the "also" are referring to "this weapon". The use of the singular can only mean that the profile is individually applied to the Sword and the Hand. This results in the Hand having its own melee profile which happens to be the exact same melee profile as the Sword.

If this were the case they would have given them individual profiles.

 n0t_u wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:


The "also" is a reference to the preceeding rule on using sword and hand together as a melee weapon. This is clearly what is meant here - using the hand together with the sword as melee weapon.

The Sword and Hand are referred to as "these weapons" (plural). The paragraphs prior to the "also" are referring to "this weapon". The use of the singular can only mean that the profile is individually applied to the Sword and the Hand. This results in the Hand having its own melee profile which happens to be the exact same melee profile as the Sword.

If this were the case they would have given them individual profiles.

They do receive individual melee profiles. They just aren't unique melee profiles. So no need to repeat the same profile twice. It's clear that since the Sword and the Hand are referred to as weapons and the profile refers to "weapon" that the profiles are individually applied to the Sword and the Hand.

After all, there is no rule stating to treat the Sword and the Hand weapons as a single weapon so you have no choice but to apply the same melee profile to each weapon. Simple case agreement leads to no other conclusion possible.

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:


The "also" is a reference to the preceeding rule on using sword and hand together as a melee weapon. This is clearly what is meant here - using the hand together with the sword as melee weapon.

The Sword and Hand are referred to as "these weapons" (plural). The paragraphs prior to the "also" are referring to "this weapon". The use of the singular can only mean that the profile is individually applied to the Sword and the Hand. This results in the Hand having its own melee profile which happens to be the exact same melee profile as the Sword.

If this were the case they would have given them individual profiles.

They do receive individual melee profiles. They just aren't unique melee profiles. So no need to repeat the same profile twice. It's clear that since the Sword and the Hand are referred to as weapons and the profile refers to "weapon" that the profiles are individually applied to the Sword and the Hand.

After all, there is no rule stating to treat the Sword and the Hand weapons as a single weapon so you have no choice but to apply the same melee profile to each weapon.

Except where it says they're used together with the one profile.

Again show where it says their profile is not combined and if you cannot you're merely wasting everyone's time with this incessant stubbornness. I've asked for this for the last 4-5 posts, yet not once have you delivered on it.

 n0t_u wrote:


Except where it says they're used together with the one profile.

Does it say that they are used together as a single weapon? It doesn't. That means that they are used together as two weapons.

So the Sword and Hand weapons (plural) are each individually applied the melee weapon profile (singular).


The profile for the Emperor's Sword (which is one of the weapons) is . . .



and the Hand of Dominion (which is the other weapon) is . . .




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 n0t_u wrote:


Again show where it says their profile is not combined and if you cannot you're merely wasting everyone's time with this incessant stubbornness. I've asked for this for the last 4-5 posts, yet not once have you delivered on it.

You have that backwards. Show me where it says their profile is combined. No where does it say the profile is combined. If you think otherwise, point it out.

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:


Except where it says they're used together with the one profile.

Does it say that they are used together as a single weapon? It doesn't. That means that they are used together as two weapons.

So the Sword and Hand weapons (plural) are each individually applied the melee weapon profile (singular).


The profile for the Emperor's Sword (which is one of the weapons) is . . .

Spoiler:

Range (-) S (10) AP (1) Type (Melee, Armourbane, Concussion, Soul Blaze, Touch of the Emperor, Whirling Flame)

and the Hand of Dominion (which is the other weapon) is . . .

Spoiler:

Range (-) S (10) AP (1) Type (Melee, Armourbane, Concussion, Soul Blaze, Touch of the Emperor, Whirling Flame)

Ranged Weapon Profile
Range (24") S 6 AP 2 Type (Assault 3, Rending)

That's RAI, show me some RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:


Again show where it says their profile is not combined and if you cannot you're merely wasting everyone's time with this incessant stubbornness. I've asked for this for the last 4-5 posts, yet not once have you delivered on it.

You have that backwards. Show me where it says their profile is combined. No where does it say the profile is combined. If you think otherwise, point it out.

So what I'm getting from this is you have no idea and want me to do your homework for you now?
It says literally right above the profile that they're used together as that profile.

 n0t_u wrote:

That's RAI, show me some RAW.

Nothing RAI about it. If you follow the case agreement that's how it works out RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 n0t_u wrote:


So what I'm getting from this is you have no idea and want me to do your homework for you now?

Not at all. You are claiming there is a "combined" profile. There is nothing to that effect in the rules. "Used together" does not mean "combine as a single weapon".

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

That's RAI, show me some RAW.

Nothing RAI about it. If you follow the case agreement that's how it works out RAW.

If I follow your posts that's how it comes out according to you, you mean.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

That's RAI, show me some RAW.

Nothing RAI about it. If you follow the case agreement that's how it works out RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 n0t_u wrote:


So what I'm getting from this is you have no idea and want me to do your homework for you now?

Not at all. You are claiming there is a "combined" profile. There is nothing to that effect in the rules. "Used together" does not mean "combine as a single weapon".

These weapons are used together, using the profile below

Basic reading comprehension will tell you that they are combined. Your point is moot.

not_u,

you have yet to prove that "used together" means "combined as a single weapon".

Waiting.