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:


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

The Hand cannot attack on its own, but that is not because the fist is subsumed under some combined weapon (which I have already proved cannot exist per the rules).

Rather, the Hand cannot attack on its own without the other weapon pitching in its attacks at the same time.

The rules say that the two weapons are "used together" so the two weapons attack at the same time.

That means there will be two weapons with a melee weapon profile applied attacking, which will result in +1A.

If the Hand and Sword were not required to be attacking at the same time, the Hand would be perfectly eligible to attack on its own since it is a melee weapon all on its own.

"Used together" effectively means "more than one melee weapon in combat".

ZooPants wrote:

 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?

Which allows it the ability to act as the other half to the melee profile Bobby G has to try to avoid confusion. But this is GW.
If this use together stuff for Bobby G is "duel wielding" then it's like the only case of it happening in 40k as far as I know. Merely this thread is likely power grasping for Bobby G, but I prefer to go with Hanlon's Razor.

So far it seems to pretty much be everyone vs col and now you and I'm wondering what's up with that really. Like maybe the reading interpretation thing is a regional thing or something? I don't know, just that everyone I've asked has come to the same conclustion I've been talking about which is they just don't get the +1A as illogical as it seems since the guy has two weapons physically on his model. I admitted back in the thread that I'd play it as two weapons myself to avoid conflict, however I'd still not grant the +1A as it seems very clear than this jumbled mess was a result of someone derping while trying to get that effect. However this stubborn arguing it like getting tired and as most "discussions" on the internet it'll ultimately come down to whoever has the most disposable time for it; likely col as I'm not heavily invested in this discussion enough to honestly care about what some guy in America does with his Bobby G. However the purpose of this section of the forum is to settle these disputes to avoid the same arguing happening during actual games. So far col has seemed to fail to present how the fist can be used as a separate weapon; like even show me how it can be used as a normal combat weapon and I'll concede the point instantly; I'm not afraid to admit when I'm actually wrong I just like to be actually shown when I am rather than just told so I learn.

As it stands the derpy way these rules work is that you need a second free weapon to claim that +1A, it's pushing pretty hard by giving them one profile rather than individual ones that they're to be used as one group. Now since you can only use one weapon once you'd need a second profile that doesn't have either of these weapons in it to claim that bonus attack annoyingly enough. One thing I've noticed with his line that he's failed to pick up on is that how it mentions the fist can be used as a melee weapon too. As in he could be arguing perhaps that it can be used as a normal ccw as its mentioned as being able to be used as a melee weapon but without a profile on its own. Now while this is good for say the Avatar of Khaine if you really wanted to try it, it still is used in that initial pairing which sadly overrides pg49's "if a model has two single handed weapons it gets +1A". That's why I'm asking him to try to prove if he can get an attack that's not part of that combo so he can easily and without a doubt get that +1A. Sadly though, Bobby G breaks the games in a few ways and I think we'll never have an agreed upon ruling to any of the 3 things he has that break the game at the moment without an official FAQ which I hope is not too far off.

ZooPants wrote:

 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?

We have two permissions :
1) using sword and hand together in melee with one melee profile
2) using the hand to shoot, with clear permission to also use it (together with the sword) in melee.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:


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

The Hand cannot attack on its own, but that is not because the fist is subsumed under some combined weapon (which I have already proved cannot exist per the rules).

Rather, the Hand cannot attack on its own without the other weapon pitching in its attacks at the same time.

The rules say that the two weapons are "used together" so the two weapons attack at the same time.

That means there will be two weapons with a melee weapon profile applied attacking, which will result in +1A.

If the Hand and Sword were not required to be attacking at the same time, the Hand would be perfectly eligible to attack on its own since it is a melee weapon all on its own.

"Used together" effectively means "more than one melee weapon in combat".

Which is utterly illogical.

Let's look at this line by line:

col_impact wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:


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

The Hand cannot attack on its own, but that is not because the fist is subsumed under some combined weapon (which I have already proved cannot exist per the rules).

Multiple examples of combined weapons have been listed.

col_impact wrote:
Rather, the Hand cannot attack on its own without the other weapon pitching in its attacks at the same time.

I agree, the hand isn't an independent melee weapon.

col_impact wrote:
The rules say that the two weapons are "used together" so the two weapons attack at the same time.

Correct, both parts of the relic are used together to make melee attacks with the profile listed below that line

col_impact wrote:

That means there will be two weapons with a melee weapon profile applied attacking, which will result in +1A.

Which contracdicts your earlier statement about the hand not being an independent melee weapon.

col_impact wrote:

If the Hand and Sword were not required to be attacking at the same time, the Hand would be perfectly eligible to attack on its own since it is a melee weapon all on its own.

"Used together" effectively means "more than one melee weapon in combat".

Are you somehow making Robby G. a superheavy walker using superheavy shooting rules for melee weapons?

 n0t_u wrote:

ZooPants wrote:

 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?

Which allows it the ability to act as the other half to the melee profile Bobby G has to try to avoid confusion. But this is GW.
If this use together stuff for Bobby G is "duel wielding" then it's like the only case of it happening in 40k as far as I know. Merely this thread is likely power grasping for Bobby G, but I prefer to go with Hanlon's Razor.

So far it seems to pretty much be everyone vs col and now you and I'm wondering what's up with that really. Like maybe the reading interpretation thing is a regional thing or something? I don't know, just that everyone I've asked has come to the same conclustion I've been talking about which is they just don't get the +1A as illogical as it seems since the guy has two weapons physically on his model. I admitted back in the thread that I'd play it as two weapons myself to avoid conflict, however I'd still not grant the +1A as it seems very clear than this jumbled mess was a result of someone derping while trying to get that effect. However this stubborn arguing it like getting tired and as most "discussions" on the internet it'll ultimately come down to whoever has the most disposable time for it; likely col as I'm not heavily invested in this discussion enough to honestly care about what some guy in America does with his Bobby G. However the purpose of this section of the forum is to settle these disputes to avoid the same arguing happening during actual games. So far col has seemed to fail to present how the fist can be used as a separate weapon; like even show me how it can be used as a normal combat weapon and I'll concede the point instantly; I'm not afraid to admit when I'm actually wrong I just like to be actually shown when I am rather than just told so I learn.

As it stands the derpy way these rules work is that you need a second free weapon to claim that +1A, it's pushing pretty hard by giving them one profile rather than individual ones that they're to be used as one group. Now since you can only use one weapon once you'd need a second profile that doesn't have either of these weapons in it to claim that bonus attack annoyingly enough. One thing I've noticed with his line that he's failed to pick up on is that how it mentions the fist can be used as a melee weapon too. As in he could be arguing perhaps that it can be used as a normal ccw as its mentioned as being able to be used as a melee weapon but without a profile on its own. Now while this is good for say the Avatar of Khaine if you really wanted to try it, it still is used in that initial pairing which sadly overrides pg49's "if a model has two single handed weapons it gets +1A". That's why I'm asking him to try to prove if he can get an attack that's not part of that combo so he can easily and without a doubt get that +1A. Sadly though, Bobby G breaks the games in a few ways and I think we'll never have an agreed upon ruling to any of the 3 things he has that break the game at the moment without an official FAQ which I hope is not too far off.

I didn't just come from know where lol I started this topic

I don't think it's regional, it's how one interprets poorly worded or intended rules from a company notorious for doing so.

My issue is it can be interpreted both ways. I own the model and played it already without the +1 attack. But I can see how it's open to interpretation. I myself will never play it with +1 attack because he definitely does not need it. I hope that I am wrong and GW rules that way. But until then it'll be a gray area in my book

 Stephanius wrote:


We have two permissions :
1) using sword and hand together in melee with one melee profile
2) using the hand to shoot, with clear permission to also use it (together with the sword) in melee.

The one melee profile is applied to each weapon individually.

The net result is two melee weapons. One of those melee weapons (the Hand) has a ranged weapon profile in addition to a melee profile.

Since the Hand is shown in the rules to have its own melee profile there is no 'combined' weapon profile.

The two weapons must attack together in combat since they are "used together" - "used together" effectively means Robute has more than one close combat weapon and gets +1A.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stephanius wrote:

ZooPants wrote:


The Hand cannot attack on its own, but that is not because the fist is subsumed under some combined weapon (which I have already proved cannot exist per the rules).

Multiple examples of combined weapons have been listed.

You misunderstand. I mean some combined weapon cannot exist in Robute's case since the Hand is itself described in the rules as a melee weapon.

If the Hand is itself a melee weapon, then the melee profile was applied to the Hand and not some combined weapon profile which would prevent the Hand from being itself a melee weapon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stephanius wrote:

col_impact wrote:
"Used together" effectively means "more than one melee weapon in combat".

Are you somehow making Robby G. a superheavy walker using superheavy shooting rules for melee weapons?

Another misunderstanding on your part. When a model has more than one melee weapon in combat it merely grants +1A.

col_impact wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:


We have two permissions :
1) using sword and hand together in melee with one melee profile
2) using the hand to shoot, with clear permission to also use it (together with the sword) in melee.

The one melee profile is applied to each weapon individually.

The net result is two melee weapons. One of those melee weapons (the Hand) has a ranged weapon profile in addition to a melee profile.

Since the Hand is shown in the rules to have its own melee profile there is no 'combined' weapon profile.

The two weapons must attack together in combat since they are "used together" - "used together" effectively means Robute has more than one close combat weapon and gets +1A.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stephanius wrote:

ZooPants wrote:


The Hand cannot attack on its own, but that is not because the fist is subsumed under some combined weapon (which I have already proved cannot exist per the rules).

Multiple examples of combined weapons have been listed.

You misunderstand. I mean some combined weapon cannot exist in Robute's case since the Hand is itself described in the rules as a melee weapon.

If the Hand is itself a melee weapon, then the melee profile was applied to the Hand and not some combined weapon profile which would prevent the Hand from being itself a melee weapon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stephanius wrote:

col_impact wrote:
"Used together" effectively means "more than one melee weapon in combat".

Are you somehow making Robby G. a superheavy walker using superheavy shooting rules for melee weapons?

Another misunderstanding on your part. When a model has more than one melee weapon in combat it merely grants +1A.

What is - according to you - the requirement for the more than one weapon bonus attack?

 Stephanius wrote:


What is - according to you - the requirement for the more than one weapon bonus attack?

col_impact wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:


What is - according to you - the requirement for the more than one weapon bonus attack?

Spoiler:

if a model has two or more Melee weapons he gains +1 attack in close combat.

Let me just glue combat knifes all over my marines/models then...

 The Grumpy Eldar wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:


What is - according to you - the requirement for the more than one weapon bonus attack?

Spoiler:

if a model has two or more Melee weapons he gains +1 attack in close combat.

Let me just glue combat knifes all over my marines/models then...

You have to legally give them two melee weapons.

Just gluing stuff on models isn't going to cut it.

The quote is straight out of the BRB.

col_impact wrote:


You have to legally give them two melee weapons.

Just gluing stuff on models isn't going to cut it.

The quote is straight out of the BRB.

You said it in your spoiler. No takesies backsies!

 The Grumpy Eldar wrote:

col_impact wrote:


You have to legally give them two melee weapons.

Just gluing stuff on models isn't going to cut it.

The quote is straight out of the BRB.

You said it in your spoiler. No takesies backsies!

The spoiler is straight out of the BRB.

If you have a problem take it up with the BRB.

Seriously. It's just a joke.

Lets try this another way, despite how illogical the questions seem, because sure as hell 40K does not follow any internal logic at times.

40K is a permissive rules set and unless the rules say otherwise then the default answer is no. Do we agree on that?

Cheers

Andrew

col_impact wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:


What is - according to you - the requirement for the more than one weapon bonus attack?

Spoiler:

if a model has two or more Melee weapons he gains +1 attack in close combat.

I agree, that is excactly what the BRB says. So we need two or more Melee weapons.

Both Weapon and Melee weapon are a defined term in the BRB. That means to count as a Melee weapon a piece of gear has to fulfill the requirements in both definitions.

Each weapon has a profile. Here are two examples:

Boltgun 24" S4 AP5 Rapid Fire
Power Sword - S:User AP3 Melee

BRB p.40

To be considered a Weapon for the rules, a piece of gear is required to have a Weapon Profile.
Each Weapon Profile does includes a Weapon Type.
Weapon Type and Profile together allow us to use the Weapon with the shooting or close combat rules respectively.

As demonstrated by the example with gluing extra knives on to the model, the model itself is irrelevant without the rule support to make it relevant.
That is no different for Robby G. Without rules support for the case that he has two Melee weapons as defined in the BRB, the separately modeled sword and fist are irrelevant.

Let's assume for a moment the RAI is that sword and hand are separate, independent weapons. That would imply that Robby G. can indeed attack with either the Sword or the Hand as desired. While it would be exceedingly boring design to make both weapons have the same profile, it would be possible. It would however be necessary to assign that single profile to both individual weapons. That could easily be done, by saying something along the lines of "Both of the sword and the hand use the profile below" or "sword and hand each use the profile below" .

That is not the case for Robby:
RAW is (Sword and Hand together) = Melee weapon
This is not equivalent to: (sword = Melee weapon AND hand = Melee weapon) dual-whielding FTW!

As explained earlier, there is no method in the rules that describes how to attack with several weapons "together" simulaneously or support for dual-whielding. Which is why those readings of the sentence are useless in a rules discussion. Yes, Robby has two weapons on the model. Both of these together are - per his datasheet - a single Melee weapon as defined in the rules, furthermore the hand can also be used to make shooting attacks.

If Robby has a paddle ball - can he use the ball and the paddle separately?

col_impact wrote:

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

Show us the profile to verify that.

Because all that quote you keep harping does is confirm that the ranged option is not an either/or as it is in the case of certain other weapons such as Ork Burnas.

His entire argument is based on an assumption.
The fact that the title of the one weapon profile he does have, has the words "hand of dominion" in it. He is then attributing that profile to the supposed melee profile of the ranged weapon with that name. We have a profile for Hand of Dominion, a RANGED profile, and it does NOT have the pistol special rule, meaning it CANNOT grant an additional attack. The rules state a ranged weapon must have that rule in order to do so.

He has NO precedence to dictate one profile is two weapons. Every other circumstance of two weapons being in one entry has a profile line for EACH weapon individually. This situation does not follow the standard GW has used. The circumstances where an extra attack is provided it is notated in the profile.

Everyone agrees that it does say "these" but it provides insufficient detail to point exactly what "these" actually are, you have to make an assumption to do that. Once you make an assumption you are no longer making a RAW argument.

The rules for Whirling Flame and Hand of the Emperor say THIS weapon, not these weapons. It collaborates that "used together" means they act as on weapon. You have to prove that "used together" means something else. Because here is the thing within a profile are SPECIAL RULES meaning that they mean something different than normal rules. Instead you choose to disregard the words as nonsensical because they don't fit your line of thought. You are cherry picking which words you want to read and ignore.

If you took this argument into a courthouse and tried to argue that "these" and "also" indicated a specific entity that is not named, you would have insufficient evidence to prove that point, which is the situation as it currently stands, nor do you have any precedence that backs up your interpretation.

Wow. 11 pages and still going strong. Stephanius and Col_impact shouldn't be allowed on opposite sides of an argument as both are willing to repeat the same phrases ad infinitum.

 MattKing wrote:
Wow. 11 pages and still going strong. Stephanius and Col_impact shouldn't be allowed on opposite sides of an argument as both are willing to repeat the same phrases ad infinitum.

I'm trying to figure out if col_impact is actually legally old enough to do anything. The way he's clinging to this sinking ship to the extent of pulling what I can only assume is his backup account to back him up for every ambiguous statement reminds me an awful lot of my younger sister's tenacity when she was like, 5-6 years old.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 MattKing wrote:
Wow. 11 pages and still going strong. Stephanius and Col_impact shouldn't be allowed on opposite sides of an argument as both are willing to repeat the same phrases ad infinitum.

I'm trying to figure out if col_impact is actually legally old enough to do anything. The way he's clinging to this sinking ship to the extent of pulling what I can only assume is his backup account to back him up for every ambiguous statement reminds me an awful lot of my younger sister's tenacity when she was like, 5-6 years old.

So you assume that me zoopants "his back up account" started this thread to argue on his behalf? On top you insult​ him? Grow up. Contribute to discussion with out insults please.

 MattKing wrote:
Wow. 11 pages and still going strong. Stephanius and Col_impact shouldn't be allowed on opposite sides of an argument as both are willing to repeat the same phrases ad infinitum.

Sorry

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 MattKing wrote:
Wow. 11 pages and still going strong. Stephanius and Col_impact shouldn't be allowed on opposite sides of an argument as both are willing to repeat the same phrases ad infinitum.

I'm trying to figure out if col_impact is actually legally old enough to do anything. The way he's clinging to this sinking ship to the extent of pulling what I can only assume is his backup account to back him up for every ambiguous statement reminds me an awful lot of my younger sister's tenacity when she was like, 5-6 years old.

Just because you disagree with the guy is no reason for ad hominem's. Then everyone starts throwing slurs around. For instance, I could openly speculate whether your failure to understand Col's point after 11 pages is reminiscent of children with reading comprehension problems I've met. It gets no one anywhere.

Anyway, he's not alone. Zoo obviously agrees with it and I stated earlier in the thread that, just on RAW, he's offering a completely valid interpretation so far as I can tell. Col and Stephanius think there is enough RAW to prove one side right and vanquish the other, I think the RAW is ambiguous enough neither of them will ever win, but there's definitely people who agree with both of them. Let's respect their opinions.

This has been a fantastic popcorn thread! Thank you!

Just to add my opinion- I think they are two separate weapons that share one stat profile. For all intents and purposes, it's one weapon so no, you do not get an additional close combat attack for two weapons.

But the other side of the argument is just as valid. GW rules writing at its best! Roll a d6.

ZooPants wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 MattKing wrote:
Wow. 11 pages and still going strong. Stephanius and Col_impact shouldn't be allowed on opposite sides of an argument as both are willing to repeat the same phrases ad infinitum.

I'm trying to figure out if col_impact is actually legally old enough to do anything. The way he's clinging to this sinking ship to the extent of pulling what I can only assume is his backup account to back him up for every ambiguous statement reminds me an awful lot of my younger sister's tenacity when she was like, 5-6 years old.

So you assume that me zoopants "his back up account" started this thread to argue on his behalf? On top you insult​ him? Grow up. Contribute to discussion with out insults please.

Oh, you wish for a lack of insults?

SHOW ME THE PROOF.

Show me the occular proof.

We're about 6 pages in and still waiting for the evidence of the Hand of Dominion's melee profile. You also have flip-flopped back and forth, refusing to accept an explanation that applies the very same logistical approach that your supposed confirmations have.

So until we see one of the following:

-A seperate melee profile for the Hand of Dominion (following the precedent set by Relics such as the Pandemic Staff and weapons such as the Ork Burna)
-A statement explicitly stating that The Sword and Hand count as a pair of melee weapons (such as the Claws of the Night Terror) and grant an additional attack

Then all we have is a combined profile for both, which does not grant an additional attack and effectively functions as a single weapon. This isn't a new thing for GW.

Abaddon functioned like this with the previous CSM codex.
Tyranids and GSC have the Lash Whip and Bonesword which functions like this (i.e., single profile counting as a single weapon).
Dark Eldar have Razorflails which operate in a similar manner.

And there are plenty of examples of single choice 'paired' weapons that explicitly state they grant +1 attack and/or count as a pair of melee weapons - The Claws of the Night Terror, Shardnets and Impalers, Demi-Klaives in their dual blade mode as examples.

Nor is the idea of a weapon having TWO profiles - one for melee and one for ranged a new concept.

The Pandemic Staff, Ork Burna and St. Celestine's sword are examples of this. The fact that the Hand states it can be used in melee on the same turn it fires isn't an indicator that it's a melee weapon - it's an indicator that you can shoot AND assault utilising it, unlike, say, the Ork Burna which is either/or.

The single profile matters - the lack of a mention of it being a pair of weapons or the term 'each weapon' in relation to the profile is important.

There are plenty of abilities that make it useless (Eldar Avatars ignoring Soulblaze, units ignore flame attacks, units that can Disarm etc) so it's actually beneficial to you to have the Hand having a seperate melee profile as a Plan B in case of one of those circumstances.

But the absence of this implies that - no - the Hand and Sword function as a single weapon in assault, much like the Lash Whip and Bonesword or DE Razorflails.

You want this without insults?

Answer the god damn question. Show us the proof.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

ZooPants wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 MattKing wrote:
Wow. 11 pages and still going strong. Stephanius and Col_impact shouldn't be allowed on opposite sides of an argument as both are willing to repeat the same phrases ad infinitum.

I'm trying to figure out if col_impact is actually legally old enough to do anything. The way he's clinging to this sinking ship to the extent of pulling what I can only assume is his backup account to back him up for every ambiguous statement reminds me an awful lot of my younger sister's tenacity when she was like, 5-6 years old.

So you assume that me zoopants "his back up account" started this thread to argue on his behalf? On top you insult​ him? Grow up. Contribute to discussion with out insults please.

Oh, you wish for a lack of insults?

SHOW ME THE PROOF.

Show me the occular proof.

We're about 6 pages in and still waiting for the evidence of the Hand of Dominion's melee profile. You also have flip-flopped back and forth, refusing to accept an explanation that applies the very same logistical approach that your supposed confirmations have.

So until we see one of the following:

-A seperate melee profile for the Hand of Dominion (following the precedent set by Relics such as the Pandemic Staff and weapons such as the Ork Burna)
-A statement explicitly stating that The Sword and Hand count as a pair of melee weapons (such as the Claws of the Night Terror) and grant an additional attack

Then all we have is a combined profile for both, which does not grant an additional attack and effectively functions as a single weapon. This isn't a new thing for GW.

Abaddon functioned like this with the previous CSM codex.
Tyranids and GSC have the Lash Whip and Bonesword which functions like this (i.e., single profile counting as a single weapon).
Dark Eldar have Razorflails which operate in a similar manner.

And there are plenty of examples of single choice 'paired' weapons that explicitly state they grant +1 attack and/or count as a pair of melee weapons - The Claws of the Night Terror, Shardnets and Impalers, Demi-Klaives in their dual blade mode as examples.

Nor is the idea of a weapon having TWO profiles - one for melee and one for ranged a new concept.

The Pandemic Staff, Ork Burna and St. Celestine's sword are examples of this. The fact that the Hand states it can be used in melee on the same turn it fires isn't an indicator that it's a melee weapon - it's an indicator that you can shoot AND assault utilising it, unlike, say, the Ork Burna which is either/or.

The single profile matters - the lack of a mention of it being a pair of weapons or the term 'each weapon' in relation to the profile is important.

There are plenty of abilities that make it useless (Eldar Avatars ignoring Soulblaze, units ignore flame attacks, units that can Disarm etc) so it's actually beneficial to you to have the Hand having a seperate melee profile as a Plan B in case of one of those circumstances.

But the absence of this implies that - no - the Hand and Sword function as a single weapon in assault, much like the Lash Whip and Bonesword or DE Razorflails.

You want this without insults?

Answer the god damn question. Show us the proof.

They gave you proof. You just don't like it. They say that one profile works as two separate weapon entries. You want to shut it up, quote some raw that says profiles can't do that.

That proof isn't sufficient for you? That's fine. That's why we have discussions, but just because you disagree doesn't mean they haven't offered any.

Thank you DarkStarSabre! Why can I not manage to be so concise? =]


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Audustum wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

ZooPants wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 MattKing wrote:
Wow. 11 pages and still going strong. Stephanius and Col_impact shouldn't be allowed on opposite sides of an argument as both are willing to repeat the same phrases ad infinitum.

I'm trying to figure out if col_impact is actually legally old enough to do anything. The way he's clinging to this sinking ship to the extent of pulling what I can only assume is his backup account to back him up for every ambiguous statement reminds me an awful lot of my younger sister's tenacity when she was like, 5-6 years old.

So you assume that me zoopants "his back up account" started this thread to argue on his behalf? On top you insult​ him? Grow up. Contribute to discussion with out insults please.

Oh, you wish for a lack of insults?

SHOW ME THE PROOF.

Show me the occular proof.

We're about 6 pages in and still waiting for the evidence of the Hand of Dominion's melee profile. You also have flip-flopped back and forth, refusing to accept an explanation that applies the very same logistical approach that your supposed confirmations have.

So until we see one of the following:

-A seperate melee profile for the Hand of Dominion (following the precedent set by Relics such as the Pandemic Staff and weapons such as the Ork Burna)
-A statement explicitly stating that The Sword and Hand count as a pair of melee weapons (such as the Claws of the Night Terror) and grant an additional attack

Then all we have is a combined profile for both, which does not grant an additional attack and effectively functions as a single weapon. This isn't a new thing for GW.

Abaddon functioned like this with the previous CSM codex.
Tyranids and GSC have the Lash Whip and Bonesword which functions like this (i.e., single profile counting as a single weapon).
Dark Eldar have Razorflails which operate in a similar manner.

And there are plenty of examples of single choice 'paired' weapons that explicitly state they grant +1 attack and/or count as a pair of melee weapons - The Claws of the Night Terror, Shardnets and Impalers, Demi-Klaives in their dual blade mode as examples.

Nor is the idea of a weapon having TWO profiles - one for melee and one for ranged a new concept.

The Pandemic Staff, Ork Burna and St. Celestine's sword are examples of this. The fact that the Hand states it can be used in melee on the same turn it fires isn't an indicator that it's a melee weapon - it's an indicator that you can shoot AND assault utilising it, unlike, say, the Ork Burna which is either/or.

The single profile matters - the lack of a mention of it being a pair of weapons or the term 'each weapon' in relation to the profile is important.

There are plenty of abilities that make it useless (Eldar Avatars ignoring Soulblaze, units ignore flame attacks, units that can Disarm etc) so it's actually beneficial to you to have the Hand having a seperate melee profile as a Plan B in case of one of those circumstances.

But the absence of this implies that - no - the Hand and Sword function as a single weapon in assault, much like the Lash Whip and Bonesword or DE Razorflails.

You want this without insults?

Answer the god damn question. Show us the proof.

They gave you proof. You just don't like it. They say that one profile works as two separate weapon entries. You want to shut it up, quote some raw that says profiles can't do that.

That proof isn't sufficient for you? That's fine. That's why we have discussions, but just because you disagree doesn't mean they haven't offered any.

A claim isn't proof. You need to show arguments for why the statement actually means the direct opposite of what it we uninitiated read it as.

TIL "proof" is making RAI claims ad infinitum.

Audustum wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

ZooPants wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 MattKing wrote:
Wow. 11 pages and still going strong. Stephanius and Col_impact shouldn't be allowed on opposite sides of an argument as both are willing to repeat the same phrases ad infinitum.

I'm trying to figure out if col_impact is actually legally old enough to do anything. The way he's clinging to this sinking ship to the extent of pulling what I can only assume is his backup account to back him up for every ambiguous statement reminds me an awful lot of my younger sister's tenacity when she was like, 5-6 years old.

So you assume that me zoopants "his back up account" started this thread to argue on his behalf? On top you insult​ him? Grow up. Contribute to discussion with out insults please.

Oh, you wish for a lack of insults?

SHOW ME THE PROOF.

Show me the occular proof.

We're about 6 pages in and still waiting for the evidence of the Hand of Dominion's melee profile. You also have flip-flopped back and forth, refusing to accept an explanation that applies the very same logistical approach that your supposed confirmations have.

So until we see one of the following:

-A seperate melee profile for the Hand of Dominion (following the precedent set by Relics such as the Pandemic Staff and weapons such as the Ork Burna)
-A statement explicitly stating that The Sword and Hand count as a pair of melee weapons (such as the Claws of the Night Terror) and grant an additional attack

Then all we have is a combined profile for both, which does not grant an additional attack and effectively functions as a single weapon. This isn't a new thing for GW.

Abaddon functioned like this with the previous CSM codex.
Tyranids and GSC have the Lash Whip and Bonesword which functions like this (i.e., single profile counting as a single weapon).
Dark Eldar have Razorflails which operate in a similar manner.

And there are plenty of examples of single choice 'paired' weapons that explicitly state they grant +1 attack and/or count as a pair of melee weapons - The Claws of the Night Terror, Shardnets and Impalers, Demi-Klaives in their dual blade mode as examples.

Nor is the idea of a weapon having TWO profiles - one for melee and one for ranged a new concept.

The Pandemic Staff, Ork Burna and St. Celestine's sword are examples of this. The fact that the Hand states it can be used in melee on the same turn it fires isn't an indicator that it's a melee weapon - it's an indicator that you can shoot AND assault utilising it, unlike, say, the Ork Burna which is either/or.

The single profile matters - the lack of a mention of it being a pair of weapons or the term 'each weapon' in relation to the profile is important.

There are plenty of abilities that make it useless (Eldar Avatars ignoring Soulblaze, units ignore flame attacks, units that can Disarm etc) so it's actually beneficial to you to have the Hand having a seperate melee profile as a Plan B in case of one of those circumstances.

But the absence of this implies that - no - the Hand and Sword function as a single weapon in assault, much like the Lash Whip and Bonesword or DE Razorflails.

You want this without insults?

Answer the god damn question. Show us the proof.

They gave you proof. You just don't like it. They say that one profile works as two separate weapon entries. You want to shut it up, quote some raw that says profiles can't do that.

That proof isn't sufficient for you? That's fine. That's why we have discussions, but just because you disagree doesn't mean they haven't offered any.

This.

We have you just don't accept it and it seems like he's throwing a tantrum and insulting us.

 Stephanius wrote:
Thank you DarkStarSabre! Why can I not manage to be so concise? =]


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Audustum wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

ZooPants wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 MattKing wrote:
Wow. 11 pages and still going strong. Stephanius and Col_impact shouldn't be allowed on opposite sides of an argument as both are willing to repeat the same phrases ad infinitum.

I'm trying to figure out if col_impact is actually legally old enough to do anything. The way he's clinging to this sinking ship to the extent of pulling what I can only assume is his backup account to back him up for every ambiguous statement reminds me an awful lot of my younger sister's tenacity when she was like, 5-6 years old.

So you assume that me zoopants "his back up account" started this thread to argue on his behalf? On top you insult​ him? Grow up. Contribute to discussion with out insults please.

Oh, you wish for a lack of insults?

SHOW ME THE PROOF.

Show me the occular proof.

We're about 6 pages in and still waiting for the evidence of the Hand of Dominion's melee profile. You also have flip-flopped back and forth, refusing to accept an explanation that applies the very same logistical approach that your supposed confirmations have.

So until we see one of the following:

-A seperate melee profile for the Hand of Dominion (following the precedent set by Relics such as the Pandemic Staff and weapons such as the Ork Burna)
-A statement explicitly stating that The Sword and Hand count as a pair of melee weapons (such as the Claws of the Night Terror) and grant an additional attack

Then all we have is a combined profile for both, which does not grant an additional attack and effectively functions as a single weapon. This isn't a new thing for GW.

Abaddon functioned like this with the previous CSM codex.
Tyranids and GSC have the Lash Whip and Bonesword which functions like this (i.e., single profile counting as a single weapon).
Dark Eldar have Razorflails which operate in a similar manner.

And there are plenty of examples of single choice 'paired' weapons that explicitly state they grant +1 attack and/or count as a pair of melee weapons - The Claws of the Night Terror, Shardnets and Impalers, Demi-Klaives in their dual blade mode as examples.

Nor is the idea of a weapon having TWO profiles - one for melee and one for ranged a new concept.

The Pandemic Staff, Ork Burna and St. Celestine's sword are examples of this. The fact that the Hand states it can be used in melee on the same turn it fires isn't an indicator that it's a melee weapon - it's an indicator that you can shoot AND assault utilising it, unlike, say, the Ork Burna which is either/or.

The single profile matters - the lack of a mention of it being a pair of weapons or the term 'each weapon' in relation to the profile is important.

There are plenty of abilities that make it useless (Eldar Avatars ignoring Soulblaze, units ignore flame attacks, units that can Disarm etc) so it's actually beneficial to you to have the Hand having a seperate melee profile as a Plan B in case of one of those circumstances.

But the absence of this implies that - no - the Hand and Sword function as a single weapon in assault, much like the Lash Whip and Bonesword or DE Razorflails.

You want this without insults?

Answer the god damn question. Show us the proof.

They gave you proof. You just don't like it. They say that one profile works as two separate weapon entries. You want to shut it up, quote some raw that says profiles can't do that.

That proof isn't sufficient for you? That's fine. That's why we have discussions, but just because you disagree doesn't mean they haven't offered any.

A claim isn't proof. You need to show arguments for why the statement actually means the direct opposite of what it we uninitiated read it as.

They did. Again, you're mistaking your disagreement for lack of attempt. The proof isn't sufficient for you? Good. There's a discussion, but you're just gonna drive in circles if you can't make the distinction.

Audustum wrote:

They gave you proof. You just don't like it. They say that one profile works as two separate weapon entries. You want to shut it up, quote some raw that says profiles can't do that.

That proof isn't sufficient for you? That's fine. That's why we have discussions, but just because you disagree doesn't mean they haven't offered any.

You're calling that proof?

The profile does not explicitly state that it is a) two melee weapons (Claws of the Night Terror) or that it b) grants an additional attack (Claws again, Demiklaives, Shardnet and Impaler). Instead it presents a single profile much the same as the Lash Whip and Bonesword or Razorflails do - neither of those grant +1 attack for being two weapons. They are two weapons which mechanically function as one.

He then tries to claim the Hand already has a profile - yes. A ranged profile. That does not include the term 'Melee' or 'Pistol' in its rules.

Every other instance of a single profile working for two weapons either explicitly states they count as two weapons (and/or grant +1 attack) or does not.

Examples that do? Gauntlets of Ultamar, Demi-Klaives, Shardnets and Impalers, Claws of the Night Terror.
Examples that don't? Razorflails, Lash Whip and Bonesword

And guess what - The Hand and Sword do NOT state they count as a pair of melee weapons. They do not have a rule granting +1 attack either.

I guess it's because after all this time, certain basic questions remain unanswered. I asked a question earlier about trying to agree certain base rules. 40k is a permissive rule set. If it doesn't explicitly say you can, then you can't. Does the entry explicitly say that the Sword and the Hand are two weapons for the purpose of obtaining the +1A? No it doesn't. It doesn't give clear explicit profiles for the relics as individual weapons. Does it say that they are a 2 handed weapon? No, neither does it say that they are 2 one handed weapons. It lists a profile that can be accessed when they are used together, so what happens when they are not used together?

This ambiguity of the profile and rules is what is causing this headache, so rather than sitting there and arguing round in circles we have to look at the permissions given, it doesn't say that you can, ergo you can't.

Cheers

Andrew