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.

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

Oh neat, I was right for those bunch of pages I typed up.

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

Almost like GW tend to follow existing precedent (Lashwhip and Bonesword anyone?).

And yet col_impact still denies it.

Straight from the horse's mouth and he's denying it still. Hoo boy.

 n0t_u wrote:

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

Oh neat, I was right for those bunch of pages I typed up.

Tenet 2

Jacksmiles wrote:

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.

Besides being part of the failure very clearly explained here: https://xkcd.com/386/, I have to wonder about the argumentation style as well.
It's perfectly fine to be contrarian and even to be wrong. Recently I argued for a position on IK Ion shields thinking I'd be right, but finding out in the process that I really wasn't.

There is a clear refusal to work with the actual relic text and fixed terms defined by the BRB and instead something of a ransom letter version out of individual cut bits while leaving out others.
When one side of the argument refuses to engage with the RAW or the arguments of the opposing side, there isn't really a useful rules discussion to be had.
Unless you count the entertainment value of seeing people go back and fourth - seen from a distance with a side of popcorn, that is ;-]

 Stephanius wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

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.

Besides being part of the failure very clearly explained here: https://xkcd.com/386/, I have to wonder about the argumentation style as well.
It's perfectly fine to be contrarian and even to be wrong. Recently I argued for a position on IK Ion shields thinking I'd be right, but finding out in the process that I really wasn't.

There is a clear refusal to work with the actual relic text and fixed terms defined by the BRB and instead something of a ransom letter version out of individual cut bits while leaving out others.
When one side of the argument refuses to engage with the RAW or the arguments of the opposing side, there isn't really a useful rules discussion to be had.
Unless you count the entertainment value of seeing people go back and fourth - seen from a distance with a side of popcorn, that is ;-]

The most amusing part is that he could present a more valid point with a simple post, yet 13 pages after he's too blind in his interpretation that he can't notice it.

Consider:

A) The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together, using the profile below.

B) The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together as a combined weapon using the profile below.

Do these two rules statements mean exactly the same thing or do they differ in meaning?

If they differ in meaning, how do they differ?

col_impact wrote:
Consider:

A) The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together, using the profile below.

B) The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together as a combined weapon using the profile below.

Do these two rules statements mean exactly the same thing or do they differ in meaning?

If they differ in meaning, how do they differ?

These statements are equivalent from a rules perspective, since they instruct us to take the same steps.

Let me be specific.

The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion:

Name of the relic. It doesn't matter if this is 37 rabbits, deamon heart, three donkeys or paddle-ball.

These weapons

I think this is the confusing part for you, since it uses the same word "weapons" to refer to the model's bits as is used as a defined term - or keyword - in the rules. Undeniably the physical model has two melee weapons. That is why it says "these weapons", refering to the two weapons in the name and on the model. A weapon on the model becomes a weapon in the rules - i.e. useable in game - only by being listed in the datasheet and by fulfilling the requirements towards weapons per the rules, namely having a profile and a type so they can function within the rules.

are used together

this explains, that contrary to expectations, "these weapons" do not offer the choice to use the one or the other, which would be the normal case in the rules if you have two separate Melee weapons - like the two chainsword example. That is also the key reason why there is even this sentence here, to bridge from the models two weapon bits to the single Melee weapon that represents them rulewise.

, using the profile below:

here "these weapons" "used together" are assigned a weapon profile, thereby becoming one Melee weapon as defined in the rules.

The instruction provided by this rule is not changed by adding "combined weapon" into it. That would be a tautology.
Combined together = together = combined = not separate. No logical difference.

col_impact wrote:

Tenet 2

Spoiler:

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.

And so are GW FAQs.

 The Grumpy Eldar wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Tenet 2

Spoiler:

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.

And so are GW FAQs.

To be fair, there is a difference between an offical FAQ and a Facebook post from a GW Account.

 Stephanius wrote:

 The Grumpy Eldar wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Tenet 2

Spoiler:

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.

And so are GW FAQs.

To be fair, there is a difference between an offical FAQ and a Facebook post from a GW Account.

True. This argument is never going to be resolved because it's an argument of implied subjects, which the rule in this case most definitely contains.

And the difference between 6 and 7 potentially D attacks is miniscule. If Guilliman is fighting a vehicle, the vehicle is dead with or without that +1 attack. If he's fighting infantry, he is hilariously going to curb-stomp them with or without the +1 attack, but probably will be stuck in combat wasting his 350 points.

Bonus points if he's in combat with 3+ invulnerable save dudes. That fight is going nowhere unless he rolls 6(Or 7) 6s followed by 6(Or 7) 6s.

Guilliman wrecks Knights and Super-Heavies and that's what he's meant to do. Whether he does it with 6 or 7 attacks isn't ultimately meaningful.

I do think it's 6.

 Stephanius wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Consider:

A) The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together, using the profile below.

B) The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together as a combined weapon using the profile below.

Do these two rules statements mean exactly the same thing or do they differ in meaning?

If they differ in meaning, how do they differ?

These statements are equivalent from a rules perspective, since they instruct us to take the same steps.

Let me be specific.

The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion:

Name of the relic. It doesn't matter if this is 37 rabbits, deamon heart, three donkeys or paddle-ball.

These weapons

I think this is the confusing part for you, since it uses the same word "weapons" to refer to the model's bits as is used as a defined term - or keyword - in the rules. Undeniably the physical model has two melee weapons. That is why it says "these weapons", refering to the two weapons in the name and on the model. A weapon on the model becomes a weapon in the rules - i.e. useable in game - only by being listed in the datasheet and by fulfilling the requirements towards weapons per the rules, namely having a profile and a type so they can function within the rules.

are used together

this explains, that contrary to expectations, "these weapons" do not offer the choice to use the one or the other, which would be the normal case in the rules if you have two separate Melee weapons - like the two chainsword example. That is also the key reason why there is even this sentence here, to bridge from the models two weapon bits to the single Melee weapon that represents them rulewise.

, using the profile below:

here "these weapons" "used together" are assigned a weapon profile, thereby becoming one Melee weapon as defined in the rules.

The instruction provided by this rule is not changed by adding "combined weapon" into it. That would be a tautology.
Combined together = together = combined = not separate. No logical difference.

Y'know mate,

I wonder how many times and how many different ways we can say this before he finally understands.

You know, short of printing it out, taping it to a brick and bludgeoning him a few dozen times with said brick.

RULE #1 is BE POLITE.

It is NOT polite to insult another user - attack the points in a post, NOT the poster.

FINAL WARNING.

 Alpharius wrote:
RULE #1 is BE POLITE.

It is NOT polite to insult another user - attack the points in a post, NOT the poster.

FINAL WARNING.

Alpharius! I'm glad you're on because I can finally ask you the question I've been dying to ask:

Are you dead, or is Omegon dead, or did you guys just do the blood thing where you make one of your regular dudes super-powered and Primarch-esque and then Guilliman got confused when he killed him?

Also, are you Cypher? Or is Omegon Cypher? Or are both of you Cypher, but one of you fell to Chaos and so the reason you seem to sometimes help Chaos and sometimes help the Imperium is because one of you is a Traitor and one isn't?

Because if you're both heading to Terra because one person wants to save the Imperium and one wants to destroy it and you're having this 'Enemy at the Gates' moment, then that. Is. Awesome.

col_impact wrote:
Consider:

A) The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together, using the profile below.

B) The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together as a combined weapon using the profile below.

Do these two rules statements mean exactly the same thing or do they differ in meaning?

If they differ in meaning, how do they differ?

They mean the same thing. Note that A) does not say "each using the profile below", it just said "using the profile below" after the comma. They are used together - you use the profile below for using them together.

I think the important thing here is that GW responded, meaning that this will likely be brought up in a future FAQ. Until then, I think we can all agree to simply bring this up with our opponent's ahead of time, and I for one will follow what GW Facebook has stated.

 Yarium wrote:
I think the important thing here is that GW responded, meaning that this will likely be brought up in a future FAQ. Until then, I think we can all agree to simply bring this up with our opponent's ahead of time, and I for one will follow what GW Facebook has stated.

As a fair warning, some of the immediate answers given in the FB FAQ were changed once they were put in to print.

I doubt that this will be the case here, but I have been proven wrong before on this account.

 Stephanius wrote:
here "these weapons" "used together" are assigned a weapon profile, thereby becoming one Melee weapon as defined in the rules.

Thank you for your response. I would like some further clarification from Stephanius and anyone who agrees with Stephanius.

In light of your answer, please provide answers for the following.

A) The Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon. True or false?

B) The Emperor's Sword is a melee weapon. True or false?

C) The Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon. True or false?

A True
B True when used with the Hand of Dominion
C Truen when used with the Emperor's Sword

If the Hand and Sword are not used together, there is no profile to be used. Therefore, they cannot be melee weapons when used by themselves. This is due to the fact you only have permission to use the listed profile, when the Hand and Sword are used together.

col_impact wrote: Thank you for your response. I would like some further clarification from Stephanius and anyone who agrees with Stephanius.

In light of your answer, please provide answers for the following.

A) The Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon. True or false?

B) The Emperor's Sword is a melee weapon. True or false?

C) The Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon. True or false?

 Happyjew wrote:
A True
B True when used with the Hand of Dominion
C Truen when used with the Emperor's Sword

If the Hand and Sword are not used together, there is no profile to be used. Therefore, they cannot be melee weapons when used by themselves. This is due to the fact you only have permission to use the listed profile, when the Hand and Sword are used together.

Basically, what he said. You should know this, though, from the answer to your earlier question

"Consider:
A) The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together, using the profile below.
B) The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together as a combined weapon using the profile below.
Do these two rules statements mean exactly the same thing or do they differ in meaning? "

Those on the side of RAW say "Yes, they mean exactly the same thing", and they'll answer your latest question the same way Happyjew does

col_impact wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:
here "these weapons" "used together" are assigned a weapon profile, thereby becoming one Melee weapon as defined in the rules.

Thank you for your response. I would like some further clarification from Stephanius and anyone who agrees with Stephanius.

In light of your answer, please provide answers for the following.

A) The Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon. True or false?

True

B) The Emperor's Sword is a melee weapon. True or false?

Can not be determined from the information presented

C) The Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon. True or false?

Can not be determined from the information presented

Just to make a clarification here. Col, you have fixated on the one argument to the exclusion of the rest. My interpretation is on the fact that you cannot determine whether it is actually two weapons. On the basis that you cannot determine this without some quite convoluted inferences and assumptions then you have to fall back on the 'Can't unless the rules say you can'

Cheers

Andrew

 Happyjew wrote:
A True
B True when used with the Hand of Dominion
C Truen when used with the Emperor's Sword

If the Hand and Sword are not used together, there is no profile to be used. Therefore, they cannot be melee weapons when used by themselves. This is due to the fact you only have permission to use the listed profile, when the Hand and Sword are used together.

You answered the question oddly by adding a condition, which means, I guess, that you personally have a problem with how the initial question was asked.

Fair enough. Let's roll in your condition so I can understand your personal response better.

I will re-phrase the question for you.

While the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are being used together . . .

A) . . . is the Emperor's Sword a melee weapon, true or false?

B) . . . is the Hand of Dominion a melee weapon, true or false?

C) . . . how many melee weapons does Robute have?

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote: Thank you for your response. I would like some further clarification from Stephanius and anyone who agrees with Stephanius.

In light of your answer, please provide answers for the following.

A) The Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon. True or false?

B) The Emperor's Sword is a melee weapon. True or false?

C) The Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon. True or false?

 Happyjew wrote:
A True
B True when used with the Hand of Dominion
C Truen when used with the Emperor's Sword

If the Hand and Sword are not used together, there is no profile to be used. Therefore, they cannot be melee weapons when used by themselves. This is due to the fact you only have permission to use the listed profile, when the Hand and Sword are used together.

Basically, what he said. You should know this, though, from the answer to your earlier question

"Consider:
A) The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together, using the profile below.
B) The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together as a combined weapon using the profile below.
Do these two rules statements mean exactly the same thing or do they differ in meaning? "

Those on the side of RAW say "Yes, they mean exactly the same thing", and they'll answer your latest question the same way Happyjew does

What Happyjew and doctortom said, with one clarification:
- Both the sword and hand are melee weapons as far as bits and fluff are concerned.
- Neither sword nor hand by themselves are Melee weapons as defined in the BRB rules and the rules for the relic.

 AndrewC wrote:

B) The Emperor's Sword is a melee weapon. True or false?

Can not be determined from the information presented

C) The Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon. True or false?

Can not be determined from the information presented

Just to make a clarification here. Col, you have fixated on the one argument to the exclusion of the rest. My interpretation is on the fact that you cannot determine whether it is actually two weapons. On the basis that you cannot determine this without some quite convoluted inferences and assumptions then you have to fall back on the 'Can't unless the rules say you can'

I find it interesting that you evade an answer on B and C. These are straightforward questions.

Are there some conditions you want to add to your answer?

If you can't come up with any condition under which the Hand of the Emperor for example is a melee weapon, then it seems you should be able to provide a definitive answer that the Hand of Dominion is NOT a melee weapon.

Am I missing something?

col_impact wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
A True
B True when used with the Hand of Dominion
C Truen when used with the Emperor's Sword

If the Hand and Sword are not used together, there is no profile to be used. Therefore, they cannot be melee weapons when used by themselves. This is due to the fact you only have permission to use the listed profile, when the Hand and Sword are used together.

You answered the question oddly by adding a condition, which means, I guess, that you personally have a problem with how the initial question was asked.

Fair enough. Let's roll in your condition so I can understand your personal response better.

I will re-phrase the question for you.

While the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are being used together . . .

A) . . . is the Emperor's Sword a melee weapon, true or false?

B) . . . is the Hand of Dominion a melee weapon, true or false?

C) . . . how many melee weapons does Robute have?

A) False
B) False
C) 1

D) Is "The Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" a melee weapon, true of false?
True.

col_impact wrote:
I find it interesting that you evade an answer on B and C. These are straightforward questions.

Are there some conditions you want to add to your answer?

If you can't come up with any condition under which the Hand of the Emperor for example is a melee weapon, then it seems you should be able to provide a definitive answer that the Hand of Dominion is NOT a melee weapon.

Am I missing something?

Yes, I think you can't see the wood for the trees.

And the answers for B and C are not evasions, you truly can't make the determination if the individual components are actually weapons in their own right. For example you have used the Hand as an defining feature of your argument that it is a melee weapon. But is it? The sentence you quote only states that it can be used as a melee weapon. That it can be used as a ranged weapon. If it were wouldn't the rules say that the Hand is a ranged weapon or that it is a melee weapon that can be used in both phases?

As has been pointed out numerous times in this forum, counts as is not is. But that is not my main point. As I have written earlier, without a clear definition that they are two weapons, that can't overrides can and they do not count as 2 weapons.

Cheers

Andrew

 Stephanius wrote:

col_impact wrote:


While the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are being used together . . .

A) . . . is the Emperor's Sword a melee weapon, true or false?

B) . . . is the Hand of Dominion a melee weapon, true or false?

C) . . . how many melee weapons does Robute have?

A) False
B) False
C) 1

D) Is "The Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" a melee weapon, true of false?
True.

Cool. I appreciate your lack of evasiveness. I also appreciate the additional clarification provided with answer D.

I would like you to examine this rule statement . . .

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

This rule statement appears to me to directly contradict your answer to B. Can you comment on this? I want to know your perspective on this contradiction.

col_impact wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:

B) The Emperor's Sword is a melee weapon. True or false?

Can not be determined from the information presented

C) The Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon. True or false?

Can not be determined from the information presented

Just to make a clarification here. Col, you have fixated on the one argument to the exclusion of the rest. My interpretation is on the fact that you cannot determine whether it is actually two weapons. On the basis that you cannot determine this without some quite convoluted inferences and assumptions then you have to fall back on the 'Can't unless the rules say you can'

I find it interesting that you evade an answer on B and C. These are straightforward questions.

Are there some conditions you want to add to your answer?

If you can't come up with any condition under which the Hand of the Emperor for example is a melee weapon, then it seems you should be able to provide a definitive answer that the Hand of Dominion is NOT a melee weapon.

Am I missing something?

He gave you a straightforward answer and did not evade, as you accuse him of doing. Just like you thought that happyjew answered the conidition oddly. There was no evasion and no answering oddly. We are given the profile for the weapons when used together. We are not given profiles for each weapon used separately, so from a rules standpoint, it is not defined that each one is a melee weapon for the purpose of trying to get the +1 attack. Since we don't have the separate profiles but only the profile when both are used together, you only get to use the profile you are given for when they are used together. The profile given would have to give you the information that you get the bonus attack; others have provides plenty of examples where they do provide the bonus in these cases and plenty where they don't provide a bonus.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:

col_impact wrote:


While the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are being used together . . .

A) . . . is the Emperor's Sword a melee weapon, true or false?

B) . . . is the Hand of Dominion a melee weapon, true or false?

C) . . . how many melee weapons does Robute have?

A) False
B) False
C) 1

D) Is "The Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" a melee weapon, true of false?
True.

Cool. I appreciate your lack of evasiveness. I also appreciate the additional clarification provided with answer D.

I would like you to examine this rule statement . . .

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

This rule statement appears to me to directly contradict your answer to B. Can you comment on this? I want to know your perspective on this contradiction.

No contradiction at all. We are not given a profile for the Hand when used separately. We are only given a profile for the profile when the relics are used together, and it is based on that profile. You can use the hand as a ranged weapon using the profile below, or you can use the hand as part of "The Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" using the profile that is provided for that.

col_impact wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:

B) The Emperor's Sword is a melee weapon. True or false?

Can not be determined from the information presented

C) The Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon. True or false?

Can not be determined from the information presented

Just to make a clarification here. Col, you have fixated on the one argument to the exclusion of the rest. My interpretation is on the fact that you cannot determine whether it is actually two weapons. On the basis that you cannot determine this without some quite convoluted inferences and assumptions then you have to fall back on the 'Can't unless the rules say you can'

I find it interesting that you evade an answer on B and C. These are straightforward questions.

Are there some conditions you want to add to your answer?

If you can't come up with any condition under which the Hand of the Emperor for example is a melee weapon, then it seems you should be able to provide a definitive answer that the Hand of Dominion is NOT a melee weapon.

Am I missing something?

You find it interesting that someone has dodged an answer....

You have never proven that two weapons exist. He has no wargear listing to show he has two weapons. All other instances of two weapons on a single entry contain a profile for each or specifically note they add +1A. You have never proved a precedence for your claim nor provided a rule entry that supports your interpretation.

Additionally you only get an extra attack if you have a ranged weapon with the pistol rule, which it doesnt, or if you can prove that both weapons share the same type which you can't because the types are not noted individually.

 doctortom wrote:


No contradiction at all. We are not given a profile for the Hand when used separately. We are only given a profile for the profile when the relics are used together, and it is based on that profile. You can use the hand as a ranged weapon using the profile below, or you can use the hand as part of "The Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" using the profile that is provided for that.

There is a contradiction. The rule statement says the Hand is a melee weapon. Stephanius said the Hand is not a melee weapon. He clarified earlier that the the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon but that the Hand is not a melee weapon.

Either the rules have a mistake in them or Stephanius' argument contradicts the rules on this point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ceann wrote:


You have never proven that two weapons exist. He has no wargear listing to show he has two weapons.

You have an interesting take . . .

The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together, using the profile below.

How many weapons does "these weapons" refer to?

The rules obviously have mistakes otherwise you would have no poorly worded sections to pick apart with ambiguous arguments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Still dodging on precedence and the rule you have claimed that supports your interpretation.