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.

 n0t_u wrote:
[
For the 4th time it is unphased by that quote.

Your argument requires that the melee profile is applied to some combined weapon.

The fact that the Hand of Dominion is its own melee weapon completely disproves your argument, because that means that the melee profile WAS NOT applied to some combined weapon.

We already knew that there was no combined weapon, since there is no rule telling us to count anything as one weapon, but its good to have rules that reinforce and prove that this is assuredly not the case.

 n0t_u wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

col_impact wrote:
We know for sure that the two weapons wind up with their own individual melee profile because the rules tell us precisely that in the case of the Hand of Dominion.

No they let the shooting half of his melee weapon able to do both so as not to lock him out of combat on turns he has shot. Again assumption.

The rule proves that the melee profile is applied to the Hand of Dominion and not to some combined "Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion" single weapon.

Your entire argument is disproven by this quote.

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.

For the 4th time it is unphased by that quote.

 n0t_u wrote:
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.

Stop presenting assumptions as fact, your argument has had nothing to stand on for a good 2-4 pages now. The discussion is do they count as two weapons for the purpose of melee; they do not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
[
They count as one melee weapon for combat purposes, stop presenting assumptions as facts.

You are projecting onto me.


No where does it day that the weapons count as a single weapon. You are making that up.

"used together, using the profile below"
Added with page 40's "all weapons have a profile" quickly disproves that, no need to strawman.

I posted this earlier,

. These weapons (<--Plural indicating more than one) are used( two weapons are being used) together("together implying more than one) , using the profile below (two weapons have the same stats)


along with the fact that the relics of ultramar indicate Emperor's sword AND hand of dominion
Two relics not one.....

Two weapons sharing same stats, therefore +1a GW got lazy end of story.

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
[
For the 4th time it is unphased by that quote.

Your argument requires that the melee profile is applied to some combined weapon.

The fact that the Hand of Dominion is its own melee weapon completely disproves your argument.

Except for when it gives one profile that says they're used together. They should have just given it two handed instead of this run around.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ZooPants wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

col_impact wrote:
We know for sure that the two weapons wind up with their own individual melee profile because the rules tell us precisely that in the case of the Hand of Dominion.

No they let the shooting half of his melee weapon able to do both so as not to lock him out of combat on turns he has shot. Again assumption.

The rule proves that the melee profile is applied to the Hand of Dominion and not to some combined "Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion" single weapon.

Your entire argument is disproven by this quote.

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.

For the 4th time it is unphased by that quote.

 n0t_u wrote:
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.

Stop presenting assumptions as fact, your argument has had nothing to stand on for a good 2-4 pages now. The discussion is do they count as two weapons for the purpose of melee; they do not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
[
They count as one melee weapon for combat purposes, stop presenting assumptions as facts.

You are projecting onto me.


No where does it day that the weapons count as a single weapon. You are making that up.

"used together, using the profile below"
Added with page 40's "all weapons have a profile" quickly disproves that, no need to strawman.

I posted this earlier,

. These weapons (<--Plural indicating more than one) are used( two weapons are being used) together("together implying more than one) , using the profile below (two weapons have the same stats)


along with the fact that the relics of ultramar indicate Emperor's sword AND hand of dominion
Two relics not one.....

Two weapons sharing same stats, therefore +1a GW got lazy end of story.

See the post on the bottom of the previous page about bonesword and lashwhip.

col_impact wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:


What would "used at the same time in combat" mean rulewise? What are we instructed to do differently than normal procedure, i.e. pick one melee weapon?

It would mean that you are dual-wielding, ie eligible for +1A.

So you assert it means you are correct without providing the steps to support your assertion.

dual-whielding is not defined in the rules.

The BRB says that regardless of how many weapons a model has, you have to select one weapon with the melee type to use. Additional melee weapons are unused and have no effect, besides - if conditions are met - granting one bonus attack. The conditions are not met by Robby G's gear.

 n0t_u wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
[
For the 4th time it is unphased by that quote.

Your argument requires that the melee profile is applied to some combined weapon.

The fact that the Hand of Dominion is its own melee weapon completely disproves your argument.

Except for when it gives one profile that says they're used together. They should have just given it two handed instead of this run around.

The one profile is simply provided for two weapons. The way in which the Hand of Dominion is described in the rule proves this. There is NO combined weapon.

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
[
For the 4th time it is unphased by that quote.

Your argument requires that the melee profile is applied to some combined weapon.

The fact that the Hand of Dominion is its own melee weapon completely disproves your argument.

Except for when it gives one profile that says they're used together. They should have just given it two handed instead of this run around.

The one profile is simply provided for two weapons. The way in which the Hand of Dominion is described in the rule proves this. There is NO combined weapon.

Then why are they presented as a combined weapon?

 Stephanius wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:


What would "used at the same time in combat" mean rulewise? What are we instructed to do differently than normal procedure, i.e. pick one melee weapon?

It would mean that you are dual-wielding, ie eligible for +1A.

So you assert it means you are correct without providing the steps to support your assertion.

dual-whielding is not defined in the rules.

The BRB says that regardless of how many weapons a model has, you have to select one weapon with the melee type to use. Additional melee weapons are unused and have no effect, besides - if conditions are met - granting one bonus attack. The conditions are not met by Robby G's gear.

"Used together" means dual-wielding means you have two melee weapons. Applying a melee weapon profile individually to the two weapons accomplishes that.

 n0t_u wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
[
For the 4th time it is unphased by that quote.

Your argument requires that the melee profile is applied to some combined weapon.

The fact that the Hand of Dominion is its own melee weapon completely disproves your argument.

Except for when it gives one profile that says they're used together. They should have just given it two handed instead of this run around.

The one profile is simply provided for two weapons. The way in which the Hand of Dominion is described in the rule proves this. There is NO combined weapon.

Then why are they presented as a combined weapon?

We're not. It's two weapons using the same stats.

col_impact wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:


What would "used at the same time in combat" mean rulewise? What are we instructed to do differently than normal procedure, i.e. pick one melee weapon?

It would mean that you are dual-wielding, ie eligible for +1A.

So you assert it means you are correct without providing the steps to support your assertion.

dual-whielding is not defined in the rules.

The BRB says that regardless of how many weapons a model has, you have to select one weapon with the melee type to use. Additional melee weapons are unused and have no effect, besides - if conditions are met - granting one bonus attack. The conditions are not met by Robby G's gear.

"Used together" means dual-wielding means you have two melee weapons. Applying a melee weapon profile individually to the two weapons accomplishes that.

You're assuming it means dual wielding when in this case it does not. They're used together and you're given one melee profile, you need a second melee profile that wasn't a part of those two to be able to claim the bonus attack.

 n0t_u wrote:


Then why are they presented as a combined weapon?

They aren't. No where is any mention of "combined" or "counting as a single weapon".


They are presented as a dual-wielded weapons. That's what "used together" means. A melee profile is applied to two weapons. This results in +1A.

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
[
For the 4th time it is unphased by that quote.

Your argument requires that the melee profile is applied to some combined weapon.

The fact that the Hand of Dominion is its own melee weapon completely disproves your argument.

Except for when it gives one profile that says they're used together. They should have just given it two handed instead of this run around.

The one profile is simply provided for two weapons. The way in which the Hand of Dominion is described in the rule proves this. There is NO combined weapon.

The relic sword & hand consists of two parts, which when used together, are one melee weapon. One part, can also be used to make shooting attacks. using that part for shooting doesn't prevent using it together with the other part in melee.

ZooPants wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
[
For the 4th time it is unphased by that quote.

Your argument requires that the melee profile is applied to some combined weapon.

The fact that the Hand of Dominion is its own melee weapon completely disproves your argument.

Except for when it gives one profile that says they're used together. They should have just given it two handed instead of this run around.

The one profile is simply provided for two weapons. The way in which the Hand of Dominion is described in the rule proves this. There is NO combined weapon.

Then why are they presented as a combined weapon?

We're not. It's two weapons using the same stats.

They're not, it says they are used together thus they are treated as one weapon for the purpose of the attack to assume they duel wield you'd need a third weapon not part of that first grouping to attack with as per pg49. GW literally never does this unless they're actually combined and with pg 40's every weapon has a profile that actually means no profile = no weapon. You have the two sharing the one profile not duplicates of the profile.

 n0t_u wrote:

You're assuming it means dual wielding when in this case it does not. They're used together and you're given one melee profile, you need a second melee profile that wasn't a part of those two to be able to claim the bonus attack.

There are two weapons incontrovertibly. The single melee profile is applied to each weapon individually.

We know this to be the case because the Hand of Dominion has the melee profile applied to it and not some combined weapon. There is absolutely on rules basis for a combined weapon.

Your argument is disproven.

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:


Then why are they presented as a combined weapon?

They aren't. No where is any mention of "combined" or "counting as a single weapon".


They are presented as a dual-wielded weapons. That's what "used together" means. A melee profile is applied to two weapons. This results in +1A.

They are presented as one profile which pg 40 means one weapon, thus no +1A.

Why is this reading comprehension so damn bad?

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
[
For the 4th time it is unphased by that quote.

Your argument requires that the melee profile is applied to some combined weapon.

The fact that the Hand of Dominion is its own melee weapon completely disproves your argument.

Except for when it gives one profile that says they're used together. They should have just given it two handed instead of this run around.

The one profile is simply provided for two weapons. The way in which the Hand of Dominion is described in the rule proves this. There is NO combined weapon.

Boneswords and Lash whips also have their own individual profiles as well. The existence of a combined profile indicates that they behave differently from their different counterparts.

You still haven't addressed the facts.

There are other Relics using a single profile that specific state that it counts as a pair of weapons and that EACH uses the profile (this is important because of Jain Zar's disarming strike and other similar rules).

There are other weapons and Relics that function in both range and melee - all of which have seperate profiles for each.

Perhaps you don't understand why the absence of a melee profile is important when presented with that combined profile.

Her name is Jain Zar. She will strip your weapon from you. Without evidence that each weapon uses that profile or that the Hand has its own individual melee profile we can only assume they function together - they are listed together, there is a single profile. Which means the screaming bitch that is Jain Zar will have fun too.

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

You're assuming it means dual wielding when in this case it does not. They're used together and you're given one melee profile, you need a second melee profile that wasn't a part of those two to be able to claim the bonus attack.

There are two weapons incontrovertibly. The single melee profile is applied to each weapon individually.

We know this to be the case because the Hand of Dominion has the melee profile applied to it and not some combined weapon. There is absolutely on rules basis for a combined weapon.

Your argument is disproven.

My argument is disproven by an assumption you made?

Again prove to me where it allows you to use them individually in melee and not together as its presented?

 n0t_u wrote:

ZooPants wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
[
For the 4th time it is unphased by that quote.

Your argument requires that the melee profile is applied to some combined weapon.

The fact that the Hand of Dominion is its own melee weapon completely disproves your argument.

Except for when it gives one profile that says they're used together. They should have just given it two handed instead of this run around.

The one profile is simply provided for two weapons. The way in which the Hand of Dominion is described in the rule proves this. There is NO combined weapon.

Then why are they presented as a combined weapon?

We're not. It's two weapons using the same stats.

They're not, it says they are used together thus they are treated as one weapon for the purpose of the attack to assume they duel wield you'd need a third weapon not part of that first grouping to attack with as per pg49. GW literally never does this unless they're actually combined and with pg 40's every weapon has a profile that actually means no profile = no weapon. You have the two sharing the one profile not duplicates of the profile.

Two weapons being used at once or septate is still two weapons being used. Please point out where it says combined, single or one weapon in that sentence for the stats

 n0t_u wrote:

They're not, it says they are used together thus they are treated as one weapon for the purpose of the attack

You are making this up. That is not what "used together" means by any stretch of the rules.

You are missing a line that says "counts as a single weapon". Quit making stuff up.

ZooPants wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

ZooPants wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
[
For the 4th time it is unphased by that quote.

Your argument requires that the melee profile is applied to some combined weapon.

The fact that the Hand of Dominion is its own melee weapon completely disproves your argument.

Except for when it gives one profile that says they're used together. They should have just given it two handed instead of this run around.

The one profile is simply provided for two weapons. The way in which the Hand of Dominion is described in the rule proves this. There is NO combined weapon.

Then why are they presented as a combined weapon?

We're not. It's two weapons using the same stats.

They're not, it says they are used together thus they are treated as one weapon for the purpose of the attack to assume they duel wield you'd need a third weapon not part of that first grouping to attack with as per pg49. GW literally never does this unless they're actually combined and with pg 40's every weapon has a profile that actually means no profile = no weapon. You have the two sharing the one profile not duplicates of the profile.

Two weapons being used at once or septate is still two weapons being used. Please point out where it says combined, single or one weapon in that sentence for the stats

Where they have one profile between the two of them. Please show me where it states they have this profile individually rather than when together.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

They're not, it says they are used together thus they are treated as one weapon for the purpose of the attack

You are making this up. That is not what "used together" means by any stretch of the rules.

You are missing a line that says "counts as a single weapon". Quit making stuff up.

If I'm making it up then you should easily be able to show me how you're allowed to use them individually in combat instead of together as it states. Your argument has fallen apart yet you cling on to the sinking tatters still.

 n0t_u wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

You're assuming it means dual wielding when in this case it does not. They're used together and you're given one melee profile, you need a second melee profile that wasn't a part of those two to be able to claim the bonus attack.

There are two weapons incontrovertibly. The single melee profile is applied to each weapon individually.

We know this to be the case because the Hand of Dominion has the melee profile applied to it and not some combined weapon. There is absolutely on rules basis for a combined weapon.

Your argument is disproven.

My argument is disproven by an assumption you made?

Again prove to me where it allows you to use them individually in melee and not together as its presented?

They are "used together" meaning they are individual weapons wielded at the same time in combat.

There is no rule that says they are combined to count as a single weapon.

The rule about the Hand of Dominion proves there is no combined weapon.



The Hand of Dominion has the melee weapon type, not some combined weapon.

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

You're assuming it means dual wielding when in this case it does not. They're used together and you're given one melee profile, you need a second melee profile that wasn't a part of those two to be able to claim the bonus attack.

There are two weapons incontrovertibly. The single melee profile is applied to each weapon individually.

We know this to be the case because the Hand of Dominion has the melee profile applied to it and not some combined weapon. There is absolutely on rules basis for a combined weapon.

Your argument is disproven.

Col_Impact - We all can see where you're coming from on here. There are two separate weapons on the model and therefor, barring a statement that unambiguously claims that you do not get bonus attacks for it, you get bonus attacks.

However, their argument isn't disproven. The vast majority of people think that the interpretation is that you don't get a bonus attack- It's cool that you are sticking to your guns on this and that's fine. If you were facing me, though I disagree, I wouldn't spend a lot of effort stopping you from getting +1 attack on to Guliliman's already devastating profile. It just wouldn't make a difference.

But claiming that their argument is disproven in an argument that is essentially about rules of the English language and implied subjects is a bit disingenuous.

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

You're assuming it means dual wielding when in this case it does not. They're used together and you're given one melee profile, you need a second melee profile that wasn't a part of those two to be able to claim the bonus attack.

There are two weapons incontrovertibly. The single melee profile is applied to each weapon individually.

We know this to be the case because the Hand of Dominion has the melee profile applied to it and not some combined weapon. There is absolutely on rules basis for a combined weapon.

Your argument is disproven.

My argument is disproven by an assumption you made?

Again prove to me where it allows you to use them individually in melee and not together as its presented?

They are "used together" meaning they are individual weapons wielded at the same time in combat.

There is no rule that says they are combined to count as a single weapon.

The rule about the Hand of Dominion proves there is no combined 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.

The Hand of Dominion has the melee weapon type, not some combined weapon.

They have a combined melee profile however. Why do you keep going back to this same disproven statement like it magically makes your point valid? It states they are used together and by providing only one profile they share it; they do not each have that profile alone only whilst together as a whole.

 n0t_u wrote:


If I'm making it up then you should easily be able to show me how you're allowed to use them individually in combat instead of together as it states. Your argument has fallen apart yet you cling on to the sinking tatters still.

"Used together" means that the weapons are wielded together at the same time in combat, nothing more. IE Robute has more than one melee weapon.

The single melee profile is applied to the two weapons.

This winds up making two melee weapons and granting +1A.

 n0t_u wrote:

ZooPants wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

ZooPants wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
[
For the 4th time it is unphased by that quote.

Your argument requires that the melee profile is applied to some combined weapon.

The fact that the Hand of Dominion is its own melee weapon completely disproves your argument.

Except for when it gives one profile that says they're used together. They should have just given it two handed instead of this run around.

The one profile is simply provided for two weapons. The way in which the Hand of Dominion is described in the rule proves this. There is NO combined weapon.

Then why are they presented as a combined weapon?

We're not. It's two weapons using the same stats.

They're not, it says they are used together thus they are treated as one weapon for the purpose of the attack to assume they duel wield you'd need a third weapon not part of that first grouping to attack with as per pg49. GW literally never does this unless they're actually combined and with pg 40's every weapon has a profile that actually means no profile = no weapon. You have the two sharing the one profile not duplicates of the profile.

Two weapons being used at once or septate is still two weapons being used. Please point out where it says combined, single or one weapon in that sentence for the stats

Where they have one profile between the two of them. Please show me where it states they have this profile individually rather than when together.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

They're not, it says they are used together thus they are treated as one weapon for the purpose of the attack

You are making this up. That is not what "used together" means by any stretch of the rules.

You are missing a line that says "counts as a single weapon". Quit making stuff up.

If I'm making it up then you should easily be able to show me how you're allowed to use them individually in combat instead of together as it states. Your argument has fallen apart yet you cling on to the sinking tatters still.

I broke down the sentence is up to you too prove with stats giving (not your assumptions) they're are a single weapon

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:


If I'm making it up then you should easily be able to show me how you're allowed to use them individually in combat instead of together as it states. Your argument has fallen apart yet you cling on to the sinking tatters still.

"Used together" means that the weapons are wielded together at the same time in combat, nothing more. IE Robute has more than one melee weapon.

The single melee profile is applied to the two weapons.

This winds up making two melee weapons and granting +1A.

Yes that's what I've been saying, the profile is applied to both weapons however only while they are together. Thus they share it and thus the rules stupidly treat them as one weapon as a round about way of designing Bobby G to not get that bonus attack. Thus no +1A. We're getting so close now I think.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ZooPants wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

ZooPants wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

ZooPants wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
[
For the 4th time it is unphased by that quote.

Your argument requires that the melee profile is applied to some combined weapon.

The fact that the Hand of Dominion is its own melee weapon completely disproves your argument.

Except for when it gives one profile that says they're used together. They should have just given it two handed instead of this run around.

The one profile is simply provided for two weapons. The way in which the Hand of Dominion is described in the rule proves this. There is NO combined weapon.

Then why are they presented as a combined weapon?

We're not. It's two weapons using the same stats.

They're not, it says they are used together thus they are treated as one weapon for the purpose of the attack to assume they duel wield you'd need a third weapon not part of that first grouping to attack with as per pg49. GW literally never does this unless they're actually combined and with pg 40's every weapon has a profile that actually means no profile = no weapon. You have the two sharing the one profile not duplicates of the profile.

Two weapons being used at once or septate is still two weapons being used. Please point out where it says combined, single or one weapon in that sentence for the stats

Where they have one profile between the two of them. Please show me where it states they have this profile individually rather than when together.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

They're not, it says they are used together thus they are treated as one weapon for the purpose of the attack

You are making this up. That is not what "used together" means by any stretch of the rules.

You are missing a line that says "counts as a single weapon". Quit making stuff up.

If I'm making it up then you should easily be able to show me how you're allowed to use them individually in combat instead of together as it states. Your argument has fallen apart yet you cling on to the sinking tatters still.

I broke down the sentence is up to you too prove with stats giving (not your assumptions) they're are a single weapon

The syntax is that they use the profile below whilst together. As in on their own they have no profile, but only whilst together do they have one. If they had their own profiles they would have been given their own profile and not put together as such. I went over this over the last 3-4 pages.

 n0t_u wrote:
[
They have a combined melee profile however. Why do you keep going back to this same disproven statement like it magically makes your point valid? It states they are used together and by providing only one profile they share it; they do not each have that profile alone only whilst together as a whole.

You have yet to show that the weapons are combined or count as a single weapon. No rule states this.

I have disproven your combined weapon argument by proving that the Hand of Dominion gets the melee profile and not some combined weapon.

If there was some combined weapon then the Hand of Dominion could not become itself a melee weapon. The melee profile provided would have been used to give the combined weapon the melee type and not the Hand of Dominion, which would not have any individual status in your argument.

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
[
They have a combined melee profile however. Why do you keep going back to this same disproven statement like it magically makes your point valid? It states they are used together and by providing only one profile they share it; they do not each have that profile alone only whilst together as a whole.

You have yet to show that the weapons are combined or count as a single weapon. No rule states this.

I have disproven your combined weapon argument by proving that the Hand of Dominion gets the melee profile and not some combined weapon.

If there was some combined weapon then the Hand of Dominion could not become itself a melee weapon. The melee profile provided would have been used to give the combined weapon the melee type and not the Hand of Dominion, which would not have any individual status in your argument.

You've yet to have shown me how they can be used individually in melee for the last 4 pages now, I'm still waiting for you to prove that point yet you deflect to mine.
You've disproven nothing, you've yet to even prove your own point truly.

There is no combined dual wielding in 40k. As per pg49 if you want that bonus attack you need to prove they are two individual weapons and the most concise manner of doing so is to prove they can be used independently of one another.

Ghorros wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

You're assuming it means dual wielding when in this case it does not. They're used together and you're given one melee profile, you need a second melee profile that wasn't a part of those two to be able to claim the bonus attack.

There are two weapons incontrovertibly. The single melee profile is applied to each weapon individually.

We know this to be the case because the Hand of Dominion has the melee profile applied to it and not some combined weapon. There is absolutely on rules basis for a combined weapon.

Your argument is disproven.

Col_Impact - We all can see where you're coming from on here. There are two separate weapons on the model and therefor, barring a statement that unambiguously claims that you do not get bonus attacks for it, you get bonus attacks.

However, their argument isn't disproven. The vast majority of people think that the interpretation is that you don't get a bonus attack- It's cool that you are sticking to your guns on this and that's fine. If you were facing me, though I disagree, I wouldn't spend a lot of effort stopping you from getting +1 attack on to Guliliman's already devastating profile. It just wouldn't make a difference.

But claiming that their argument is disproven in an argument that is essentially about rules of the English language and implied subjects is a bit disingenuous.

Thanks for joining in.

I think you should look carefully at this rule statement.



That statement says the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon.

This is key. It effectively proves my argument.

The counter argument is that there is a combined weapon profile. This would mean that the melee weapon type would be assigned to some combined weapon profile and not directly to the Hand of Dominion.

Because the Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon, this proves that the profile was applied individually to the Hand itself, and it disproves any argument that there is a combined weapon profile.

col_impact wrote:

Ghorros wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

You're assuming it means dual wielding when in this case it does not. They're used together and you're given one melee profile, you need a second melee profile that wasn't a part of those two to be able to claim the bonus attack.

There are two weapons incontrovertibly. The single melee profile is applied to each weapon individually.

We know this to be the case because the Hand of Dominion has the melee profile applied to it and not some combined weapon. There is absolutely on rules basis for a combined weapon.

Your argument is disproven.

Col_Impact - We all can see where you're coming from on here. There are two separate weapons on the model and therefor, barring a statement that unambiguously claims that you do not get bonus attacks for it, you get bonus attacks.

However, their argument isn't disproven. The vast majority of people think that the interpretation is that you don't get a bonus attack- It's cool that you are sticking to your guns on this and that's fine. If you were facing me, though I disagree, I wouldn't spend a lot of effort stopping you from getting +1 attack on to Guliliman's already devastating profile. It just wouldn't make a difference.

But claiming that their argument is disproven in an argument that is essentially about rules of the English language and implied subjects is a bit disingenuous.

Thanks for joining in.

I think you should look carefully at this rule statement.

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 statement says the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon.

This is key. It effectively proves my argument.

The counter argument is that there is a combined weapon profile. This would mean that the melee weapon type would be assigned to some combined weapon profile and not directly to the Hand of Dominion.

Because the Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon, this proves that the profile was applied individually to the Hand itself, and it disproves any argument that there is a combined weapon profile.

Prove the fist may be used on its own in combat. 5 pages of waiting now.

 n0t_u wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Ghorros wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

You're assuming it means dual wielding when in this case it does not. They're used together and you're given one melee profile, you need a second melee profile that wasn't a part of those two to be able to claim the bonus attack.

There are two weapons incontrovertibly. The single melee profile is applied to each weapon individually.

We know this to be the case because the Hand of Dominion has the melee profile applied to it and not some combined weapon. There is absolutely on rules basis for a combined weapon.

Your argument is disproven.

Col_Impact - We all can see where you're coming from on here. There are two separate weapons on the model and therefor, barring a statement that unambiguously claims that you do not get bonus attacks for it, you get bonus attacks.

However, their argument isn't disproven. The vast majority of people think that the interpretation is that you don't get a bonus attack- It's cool that you are sticking to your guns on this and that's fine. If you were facing me, though I disagree, I wouldn't spend a lot of effort stopping you from getting +1 attack on to Guliliman's already devastating profile. It just wouldn't make a difference.

But claiming that their argument is disproven in an argument that is essentially about rules of the English language and implied subjects is a bit disingenuous.

Thanks for joining in.

I think you should look carefully at this rule statement.

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 statement says the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon.

This is key. It effectively proves my argument.

The counter argument is that there is a combined weapon profile. This would mean that the melee weapon type would be assigned to some combined weapon profile and not directly to the Hand of Dominion.

Because the Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon, this proves that the profile was applied individually to the Hand itself, and it disproves any argument that there is a combined weapon profile.

Prove the fist may be used on its own in combat. 5 pages of waiting now.

Under it's ranged profile it states it can be used in melee even though it shot. Did the sword shoot?