Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?

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.

**Ceann**

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.

Your argument is stupid. If you want to go by RAW you have to interpret what everything says as a whole instead you and col are cherry picking specific words to make your point you cannot do this while claiming it is RAW.

You can also prove a RAW interpretation by precedence set by other rules. There is no precedence for the claim of how col says this works. NONE. Every other circumstance either has seperate profiles or specifically states it grants another attack. The wording alludes to another weapon but this weapon is not clearly defined so you have to make an assumption as to what it is, which is RAI not RAW. The only know profile for the Hand is a ranged weapon without the pistol rule. Non pistol weapons cannot be used in melee.

**Audustum**

Ceann wrote:
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.

Your argument is stupid. If you want to go by RAW you have to interpret what everything says as a whole instead you and col are cherry picking specific words to make your point you cannot do this while claiming it is RAW.

Excuse me? My position is both interpretations are supported by the RAW and we've reached an impossible ambiguity. You might want to re-read the thread.

You can also prove a RAW interpretation by precedence set by other rules. There is no precedence for the claim of how col says this works. NONE. Every other circumstance either has seperate profiles or specifically states it grants another attack. The wording alludes to another weapon but this weapon is not clearly defined so you have to make an assumption as to what it is, which is RAI not RAW. The only know profile for the Hand is a ranged weapon without the pistol rule. Non pistol weapons cannot be used in melee.

Anything that involves looking at other examples is RAI, not RAW. It's like when lawyers analogize the facts of cases to conform or distinguish from precedent. This is not a RAW argument you are making here; it's RAI.

**Ceann**

That is exactly my point. NO other weapon profile supports the claim that you and col are making. Every other circumstance either has two profiles OR notated they grant +1 attack. The data sheet for RG does neither and has no precedence set to make this leap.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let's also add the fact that the had profile doesn't exist as a melee weapon, only a ranged weapon without the pistol rule so it cannot grant an additional attack.

**Charistoph**

AndrewC wrote:
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

The only ambiguity in the profile is the title of the Weapon. People are using the fluff of "and" to try and make it more than what it is presented as.

Aside from the need for differentiating it from other Weapons, the only purpose of the title of a Weapon is fluff. Attributing anything else to it is giving it more authority than the game gives it. If one can demonstrate otherwise in a general sense, they are welcome to try. Yes, there are some Weapons that state otherwise, but Basic Vs Advanced covers that concept pretty well.

Realistically, though, if the Hand was only meant to be used as a Ranged Weapon, it would have been far better off just leaving it off of the title with the Sword profile.

**col_impact**

Charistoph wrote:

The only ambiguity in the profile is the title of the Weapon. People are using the fluff of "and" to try and make it more than what it is presented as.

Incorrect.

The rules refer to "the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" in the plural separably as "these weapons". Plural. This is supported by the rules and not just the "and" in the title.

"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.

"Used together" means simply that they are used at the same time in combat.

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.

Spoiler:

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

If there was some 'combined weapon' then the Hand of Dominion could not itself be 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.

Since the Hand is definitively a melee weapon, this means that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet 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.

**Lance845**

col_impact wrote:

If the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon then the Emperor's Sword is also a melee weapon.

Show me the actual rule that says that the Sword of the Emperor is also a melee weapon on it's own.

40k is a permission based rules system. nothing can do anything without specifically saying you can. Even when it's dumb that it can/cannot. a 3" wide grenade can blow up 6 levels inside a building because it has permission to do so.

We have a line saying that the sword and hand used together have a single profile. We have a rule that says the hand can be shot as a ranged weapon and still used in conjunction with the sword using the previous profile. What rule gives the sword permission to be used on it's own as a melee weapon?

**Ceann**

Again you have no precedence. None.
This is merely your opinion.
Show your precedence, quote the rule and the line that confirms your stance.

You say the rules support your interpretation but you refuse to quote the rule.

Do so.

**col_impact**

Lance845 wrote:
col_impact wrote:

If the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon then the Emperor's Sword is also a melee weapon.

Show me the actual rule that says that the Sword of the Emperor is also a melee weapon on it's own.

40k is a permission based rules system. nothing can do anything without specifically saying you can. Even when it's dumb that it can/cannot. a 3" wide grenade can blow up 6 levels inside a building because it has permission to do so.

We have a line saying that the sword and hand used together have a single profile. We have a rule that says the hand can be shot as a ranged weapon and still used in conjunction with the sword using the previous profile. What rule gives the sword permission to be used on it's own as a melee weapon?

The Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon,

Spoiler:

this proves that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself and not some 'combined weapon profile'.

If the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself then it was also applied to the Emperor's Sword. We use the evidence of such an application of the melee profile on the Hand to infer directly from the evidence in the rule itself that the same application happens to the Emperor's Sword.

There is really no other way of accounting for the fact evidenced in the rule itself that the Hand is itself a melee weapon than that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was individually applied to the Sword and the Hand.

The rules simply does not state this (which is required for the 'combined profile' theory- or some facsimile thereof)

Spoiler:

**Lance845**

col_impact wrote:

If the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself then it was also applied to the Emperor's Sword.

I see everything you are saying about the hand. But you are ASSUMING that the profile is applied to the sword on it's own. There is no statement that says the sword has that profile by itself. What rule gives the sword permission to use that profile without being used in conjunction with the hand? Where is the swords melee profile?

**col_impact**

Lance845 wrote:
col_impact wrote:

If the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself then it was also applied to the Emperor's Sword.

I see everything you are saying about the hand. But you are ASSUMING that the profile is applied to the sword on it's own. There is no statement that says the sword has that profile by itself. What rule gives the sword permission to use that profile without being used in conjunction with the hand? Where is the swords melee profile?

If the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself then it was also applied to the Emperor's Sword. We use the evidence of such an application of the melee profile on the Hand to infer directly from the evidence in the rule itself that the same application happens to the Emperor's Sword.

There is really no other way of accounting for the fact evidenced in the rule itself that the Hand is itself a melee weapon than that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was individually applied to the Sword and the Hand.

**doctortom**

You didn't address his point - show that the Sword of the Emperor is also a melee weapon on its own.

Your "proof" is lacking - just because there is a statement saying the hand can be used as a ranged weapon as well as in melee in no way proved that the profile is for a single weapon when we are told the weapons are used combined using
the profile

EDIT: It does not state "each weapon" uses the profile below. That is merely how you are trying to interpret it..

**casvalremdeikun**

Per GW, he does not get the bonus.

**Lance845**

col_impact wrote:
Lance845 wrote:
col_impact wrote:

If the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself then it was also applied to the Emperor's Sword.

I see everything you are saying about the hand. But you are ASSUMING that the profile is applied to the sword on it's own. There is no statement that says the sword has that profile by itself. What rule gives the sword permission to use that profile without being used in conjunction with the hand? Where is the swords melee profile?

If the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself then it was also applied to the Emperor's Sword. We use the evidence of such an application of the melee profile on the Hand to infer directly from the evidence in the rule itself that the same application happens to the Emperor's Sword.

There is really no other way of accounting for the fact evidenced in the rule itself that the Hand is itself a melee weapon than that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was individually applied to the Sword and the Hand.

You don't get to assume the profile applies to the sword because that makes sense. That is not how permission based rules work. The sword does not have specific permission to use the profile by itself. You need to proove that the sword, on it's own, has permission to use a profile that says it is a Melee type in order to get an additional attack.

**doctortom**

casvalremdeikun wrote:
Per GW, he does not get the bonus.

Thank you!

**col_impact**

casvalremdeikun wrote:
Per GW, he does not get the bonus.

Post the link please. Hopefully the link is to some officially recognized GW dispenser of FAQ authority so that the matter can at least be considered "draft-FAQed" at this point.

If this is official and coming from the body that is charged with producing FAQs, the GW reply adds in the concept of "combined" or "counts as a single weapon" that is missing in the actual rules.

Since the entity says "at least this is how we play it" then it suggests that this info is not coming from an official FAQ body.

So please provide additional info.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lance845 wrote:

You don't get to assume the profile applies to the sword because that makes sense. That is not how permission based rules work. The sword does not have specific permission to use the profile by itself. You need to proove that the sword, on it's own, has permission to use a profile that says it is a Melee type in order to get an additional attack.

No. My approach was rationally sound. I was making an inference based directly on the evidence and not making an assumption. The evidence provided only allows for one possible resolution of the missing pieces.

**Lance845**

col_impact wrote:

No. My approach was rationally sound. I was making an inference based directly on the evidence and not making an assumption. The evidence provided only allows for one possible resolution of the missing pieces.

Rationality doesn't play a part in a permission based rule set about abstracting fictional genetic monsters wearing fictional materials as armor wielding a flaming sword against enemies with guns that can destroy planets.

The only thing that matters is what you have explicit permission to do and when. You don't get to infer that a rule gets to extend beyond the scope of the permissions it was given. You only get to do what it says you can do. When is the sword given permission to use that profile by itself?

**col_impact**

Lance845 wrote:
col_impact wrote:

No. My approach was rationally sound. I was making an inference based directly on the evidence and not making an assumption. The evidence provided only allows for one possible resolution of the missing pieces.

Rationality doesn't play a part in a permission based rule set about abstracting fictional genetic monsters wearing fictional materials as armor wielding a flaming sword against enemies with guns that can destroy planets.

The only thing that matters is what you have explicit permission to do and when. You don't get to infer that a rule gets to extend beyond the scope of the permissions it was given. You only get to do what it says you can do. When is the sword given permission to use that profile by itself?

Based directly on the rules themselves, "this weapon" in the melee profile can only refer to either the Hand or the Sword, and this proves that the unnamed melee profile provided in Robute's datasheet is applied to the Sword.

"Every weapon has a profile" mandates that the unnamed melee profile is provided both to the Hand and the Sword. The rules don't care that the melee profile is doubly applied and is the same for each weapon.

**Lance845**

col_impact wrote:
Lance845 wrote:
col_impact wrote:

No. My approach was rationally sound. I was making an inference based directly on the evidence and not making an assumption. The evidence provided only allows for one possible resolution of the missing pieces.

Rationality doesn't play a part in a permission based rule set about abstracting fictional genetic monsters wearing fictional materials as armor wielding a flaming sword against enemies with guns that can destroy planets.

The only thing that matters is what you have explicit permission to do and when. You don't get to infer that a rule gets to extend beyond the scope of the permissions it was given. You only get to do what it says you can do. When is the sword given permission to use that profile by itself?

Based directly on the rules themselves, "this weapon" in the melee profile can only refer to either the Hand or the Sword, and this proves that the unnamed melee profile provided in Robute's datasheet is applied to the Sword.

"Every weapon has a profile" mandates that the unnamed melee profile is provided both to the Hand and the Sword. The rules don't care that the melee profile is doubly applied and is the same for each weapon.

No. You make the leap and assume it's the sword. You could just as easily make the same leap that when they say they are used together that the "This weapon" is talking about the hand and sword used together. I.e. When the sword and hand are used together this weapon uses this profile.

Unless it specifically says the sword gets to use that profile then the sword does not get to use that profile. Leaving the sword on it's own profileless. Which means rules wise, it doesn't exist.

**col_impact**

Lance845 wrote:
col_impact wrote:
Lance845 wrote:
col_impact wrote:

No. My approach was rationally sound. I was making an inference based directly on the evidence and not making an assumption. The evidence provided only allows for one possible resolution of the missing pieces.

Rationality doesn't play a part in a permission based rule set about abstracting fictional genetic monsters wearing fictional materials as armor wielding a flaming sword against enemies with guns that can destroy planets.

The only thing that matters is what you have explicit permission to do and when. You don't get to infer that a rule gets to extend beyond the scope of the permissions it was given. You only get to do what it says you can do. When is the sword given permission to use that profile by itself?

Based directly on the rules themselves, "this weapon" in the melee profile can only refer to either the Hand or the Sword, and this proves that the unnamed melee profile provided in Robute's datasheet is applied to the Sword.

"Every weapon has a profile" mandates that the unnamed melee profile is provided both to the Hand and the Sword. The rules don't care that the melee profile is doubly applied and is the same for each weapon.

No. You make the leap and assume it's the sword. You could just as easily make the same leap that when they say they are used together that the "This weapon" is talking about the hand and sword used together. I.e. When the sword and hand are used together this weapon uses this profile.

Unless it specifically says the sword gets to use that profile then the sword does not get to use that profile. Leaving the sword on it's own profileless. Which means rules wise, it doesn't exist.

The rule refers to the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion in the plural as "these weapons" and there is no mention of them being "combined to count as a single weapon". If you make that leap that "this weapon" is talking about the hand and sword used together, you are violating case agreement and adding stuff to the rules that is not there. Also, you wind up being unable to explain how the Hand of Dominion winds up with its own melee profile and must conclude that the rules are somehow in error. Barring a FAQ you can't do that and call your argument a RAW one. "Used together" doesn't convert plural to singular.

My RAW argument sticks to precisely what we have and makes no leaps. Doubly applying a melee profile breaks no rules. For example, a model equipped with two chain swords.

**Stephanius**

"these weapons" in the text isn't equivalent to Weapons as defined in the rules. When confusing references, you arrive at incorrect conclusions.

For some reason I'm reminded of the old duracell commercial.

**Marmatag**

Why do you keep going back to the two chain swords example? It just doesn't fit.

This is abundantly clear in the rules. It's 1 weapon with 2 profiles, that just happens to have 2 different bit sets on the model.

Marneus Calgar is the closest approximation, not "two chain swords."

And seriously, when has "assault 3 rending" ever equated to an attack in melee anyway.

**col_impact**

Stephanius wrote:
"these weapons" in the text isn't equivalent to Weapons as defined in the rules. When confusing references, you arrive at incorrect conclusions.

For some reason I'm reminded of the old duracell commercial.

Per the rules provided,

the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are weapons.

The Hand of Dominion is a weapon

The Emperor's Sword is a weapon

Touch of the Emperor: Any attacks with this weapon with a To Hit roll of 6 are resolved at Strength D rather than Strength 10.

What can "this weapon" refer to?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Marmatag wrote:
Why do you keep going back to the two chain swords example? It just doesn't fit.

This is abundantly clear in the rules. It's 1 weapon with 2 profiles, that just happens to have 2 different bit sets on the model.

Marneus Calgar is the closest approximation, not "two chain swords."

And seriously, when has "assault 3 rending" ever equated to an attack in melee anyway.

Per the rules provided,

the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are weapons and not one weapon.

**doctortom**

col_impact wrote:
Per the rules provided,

the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are weapons and not one weapon.

Weapons used combined with the one profile provided. We've had someone supply GW's answer and you still don't want to accept it. It wasn't something that wasn't there to start with that was added, you were just reading it incorrectly based on assumptions you had. Do you really need to keep arguing against the way GW said to play it?

**col_impact**

doctortom wrote:

Weapons used combined with the one profile provided.

The rules make no mention of "combined pair" or the weapons "counting as a single weapon". That's your problem. You are reading into the rules and making a RAI argument and not a RAW one. You are resorting to 'mind-reading'. I am not resorting to 'mind-reading'.

Please keep in mind that I am not saying you are wrong. I am only saying that you are not arguing from the RAW. Obviously your argument could wind up being confirmed later at some point by a FAQ.

doctortom wrote:

We've had someone supply GW's answer and you still don't want to accept it. It wasn't something that wasn't there to start with that was added, you were just reading it incorrectly based on assumptions you had. Do you really need to keep arguing against the way GW said to play it?

I have no problem accepting GW's answer if it comes officially from a FAQ authority. I asked to person who posted an iPhone screen grab to fill in additional info but they did not respond apparently. Feel free to provide the info that we can take the answer provided as equivalent to a Draft FAQ. We obviously don't want simply a salesperson perspective since that perspective has no weight in this forum per the rules of YMDC.

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop are easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.

**Stephanius**

col_impact wrote:
Stephanius wrote:
"these weapons" in the text isn't equivalent to Weapons as defined in the rules. When confusing references, you arrive at incorrect conclusions.

For some reason I'm reminded of the old duracell commercial.

Per the rules provided,

the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are weapons.

The Hand of Dominion is a weapon

The Emperor's Sword is a weapon

Both are weapons in the fluff and on the model.
Both used together are one Melee Weapon as defined in the BRB.
The hand is also a Ranged weapon as defined in the BRB.
The sword by itself is not a Weapon as defined in the BRB.

col_impact wrote:

Touch of the Emperor: Any attacks with this weapon with a To Hit roll of 6 are resolved at Strength D rather than Strength 10.

What can "this weapon" refer to?

Since this is a new special rule that we see as part of the melee profile for the sword and hand relic, it's obviously referring to the Melee Weapon comprised out of sword and hand used together.

**col_impact**

Stephanius wrote:

Both used together are one Melee Weapon as defined in the BRB.

Cite or quote your reference please. You are making this up.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stephanius wrote:
it's obviously referring to the Melee Weapon comprised out of sword and hand used together.

Interesting bit of 'mind-reading' on your part since the rules provided make no mention at all of a "Melee Weapon comprised out of sword and hand used together."

I will stick to the rules themselves and make no attempts at 'mind reading'.

**Ceann**

You can't ask anyone to cite or reference anything.
You have claimed repeatedly that the rules support your interpretation along with a reverse extrapolation of one profile into two weapons to suit your point.

Provide the rule and the precedent, quit dodging it.

You have no other profile to give you precedence that this works the way you think it does. Every other ambiguous profile either has one for each weapon under the same entry or it has specific words stating it has a +1A. The profile for RG has that nowhere.

He does not have two melee weapons listed under his war gear. You are trying to use a logical argument ignoring the bounds of the rules to state that he has two weapons.

Even IF you were correct, which you arent, you can only use two weapons together if they are categorized the same. So you could only attack with either one, not both. Additionally the ranged profile for the Hand does not have the pistol special rule so it is not eligible for an extra attack.

**Jacksmiles**

col_impact wrote:

I will stick to the rules themselves and make no attempts at 'mind reading'.

Ha. Except that's what your whole argument actually is. You're trying to read the rules-writers' minds and even then coming up with the wrong answer.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ceann wrote:
You can't ask anyone to cite or reference anything.
You have claimed repeatedly that the rules support your interpretation along with a reverse extrapolation of one profile into two weapons to suit your point.

Provide the rule and the precedent, quit dodging it.

It's probably worth noting that this is their style of argument. Claim "that's what it says" and refuse to prove it, only asking to be proven wrong even after repeatedly being proven wrong. Likely better to let this thread die than continue engaging.

**ZooPants**

Ceann wrote:

Additionally the ranged profile for the Hand does not have the pistol special rule so it is not eligible for an extra attack.

No one debating that it's a pistol. We're are trying to show you that it says the hand been be used in melee after making a shooting attack giving merit that it is it's own weapon since everyone is trying to say they're one weapon. The hand shoots not the sword.

**Marmatag**

I don't even get how this is a debate. It is so abundantly clear. Peace out.