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 wrote:
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.

I don't think you understand what dodging means.

I take the rule statement I quoted as saying there are two weapons.

When I ask you the question, you say "the rules obviously have mistakes otherwise you would have no poorly worded sections to pick apart with ambiguous arguments", ie you avoid answering the question directly (in other words "dodge").

We seem to have a fundamental disagreement over whether we are going to accept the Rules As Written.

To clarify, I am accepting the Rules As Written.

col_impact wrote:

 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.

Okay, if the Hand is a melee weapon, provide the melee profile for using the Hand by itself. Also, provide the melee profile for using the Sword by itself. As many people have asked you to. If you can't, then you only have the profile for using them together. Using the profile for the two together, the profile would need to tell you if you get a +1 attack for two weapons. Since it doesn't say that, you don't.

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

Or there's a mistake on how you're trying to interpret the rules.

col_impact wrote:
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?

From a rules standpoint, they are treated as one weapon since it doesn't say to treat the profile as two weapons for the purpose of gaining +1 attack. If it's referring to more than one weapon, then by all means provide the profile for attacking with each weapon without using the other to indicate that from a rules standpoint they qualify for +1 attack. How can you prove that we're not dealing with one specialist weapon and one that isn't? You don't get a bonus attack in that case. You have to be able to prove not only that they are two separate weapons, but two weapons that both qualify for allowing you to get a bonus attack when using two weapons.

Still dodging.

You said a rule supported your interpretation of "these" and have still to yet quote that rule. You cannot claim the very lines in question are your proof.

You also have not stated your precedence. There are many other profiles that perform the exact function you are claiming this one does but they specifically notate either an individual profile for each weapon or state they grant an extra attack.

You have not disputed either of these points for pages, you ignore them.

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 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.

Okay, if the Hand is a melee weapon, provide the melee profile for using the Hand by itself. Also, provide the melee profile for using the Sword by itself. As many people have asked you to. If you can't, then you only have the profile for using them together. Using the profile for the two together, the profile would need to tell you if you get a +1 attack for two weapons. Since it doesn't say that, you don't.

Lots of confrontation in your answer. I am looking for straightforward answers.



The rule statement says the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon.

I accept the Rules As Written that the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon.

Do you accept the Rules As Written that the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon?

Col impact jinks again.

Won't quote the rule.
Won't provide precedence.

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:


How many weapons does "these weapons" refer to?

From a rules standpoint, they are treated as one weapon since it doesn't say to treat the profile as two weapons for the purpose of gaining +1 attack. If it's referring to more than one weapon, then by all means provide the profile for attacking with each weapon without using the other to indicate that from a rules standpoint they qualify for +1 attack. How can you prove that we're not dealing with one specialist weapon and one that isn't? You don't get a bonus attack in that case. You have to be able to prove not only that they are two separate weapons, but two weapons that both qualify for allowing you to get a bonus attack when using two weapons.

Again a lot of confrontation in your response. I am asking "how many weapons does 'these weapons' refer to".

I accept the basic grammar in the Rules As Written that "these weapons" is plural.

You seem to be unable to accept that "these weapons" is plural.

We seem to differ on whether or not we are going to accept the Rules As Written.

col_impact wrote:
Do you accept the Rules As Written that the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon?

No, it can be used as a melee weapon, it does not define it as a melee weapon. Which is what the rules require to gain +1A.

As such it cannot be defined as either until such time as more information is available.

Cheers

Andrew

Jink again.

State your rule that proves your interpretation of "these" and not the rule in question.

State your precedence because all other profiles that have two weapons state they do.

Ceann wrote:
Still dodging.

You said a rule supported your interpretation of "these" and have still to yet quote that rule. You cannot claim the very lines in question are your proof.

A rule statement says "these weapons". That's plural usage. I accept the rules usage of the plural and recognition of two weapons.

You, on the other hand, are fighting what the rule statement is saying.

We are fundamentally at odds here. I accept the Rules As Written. You don't. You claim they are mistaken - "the rules obviously have mistakes".

Every other circumstance that the rules perform the action you are claiming these rules do , explicitly state that they do.

You have no precedence for your interpretation. So all you are saying is based on assumptions. You are assuming the single profile is split to match your view when everyone can see it is not.

col_impact wrote:

 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.

The function of this sentence is clearly to override this sentence from page 41 of the BRB:

Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon's profile for each, and you can choose which to use each turn.

RAW GS3 p.128

It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.

I assume you agree that that is the function of the sentence. I my opinion, it should have been written as follows, to be consistent with the rest of the relic's rules:

It may be used as both part of a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.

I understand that you point to "melee weapon" and see that as proof that the hand is a Melee weapon as defined by the BRB or alternatively as a declaration making it so.
However, by lacking a weapon profile, it isn't a Melee weapon as defined in the BRB. If you read it as declaration, it is one we cannot follow, since we cannnot use it without the values a profile provides.
It is a ranged weapon as defined in the BRB though.

Now, since the sentence has a clear purpose - which it fulfills - let's ignore the whole sentence for a moment and focus only on the part that is relevant to your argument.
Let's take the best statement that you could wring from it instead and assume it said:

The Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon.

Would that be sufficient? No, because it would - by not having a weapon profile - violate the requirements placed on weapons, which exist so we can use them within the game rules framework.

Now, change the statement to:

The Hand of Dominon is a Close Combat Weapon.

or

The Hand of Dominion is a master-crafted Power-Fist.

Those examples work, since they refer to pre-defined weapons for which we can refer to the BRB on how to use them within the rules.

col_impact wrote:

...
How many weapons does "these weapons" refer to?

As explained in my previous post, you are confusing "weapons" used colloquially to refer to the bits on the model with "Weapon" or "Melee weapon" as defined by the BRB.

col_impact wrote:

A rule statement says "these weapons". That's plural usage. I accept the rules usage of the plural and recognition of two weapons.

Just to be funny...

You keep stating 'these weapons', but only the fist is mentioned as being able to be used as a melee weapon, as you also like to point out.

There is no mention of the sword itself being a melee weapon.. its only mention of it even being there is 'these weapons' and the relic's name

=D

 Stephanius wrote:
I my opinion, it should have been written as follows, to be consistent with the rest of the relic's rules:

It may be used as both part of a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn.

I understand that you point to "melee weapon" and see that as proof that the hand is a Melee weapon as defined by the BRB or alternatively as a declaration making it so.

So you agree that the rules as stated contradict your argument that the Hand is not a melee weapon, rather that the Hand and Sword is a melee weapon?

Rule statements can have mistakes as we know from past experience with GW rules. I am just pointing out that your argument requires that you deviate at least a tiny bit from the Rules As Written, correct?

He's saying they're written in such a way that they might cause confusion at first glance. Of course, reasonable reading of it in-depth would clear it up. Someone would have to be incredibly stubborn to think otherwise.

 Stephanius wrote:

col_impact wrote:
...
How many weapons does "these weapons" refer to?

As explained in my previous post, you are confusing "weapons" used colloquially to refer to the bits on the model with "Weapon" or "Melee weapon" as defined by the BRB.

You are the one actually confusing things.

Did I ask this?

How many Weapons does "these weapons" refer to?

So again let's re-ask the question . . .

How many weapons does "these weapons" refer to?

Two weapons, in the model and the fluff.

One weapon, according to the actual rules. Take it in its context, Col.

 JNAProductions wrote:
He's saying they're written in such a way that they might cause confusion at first glance. Of course, reasonable reading of it in-depth would clear it up. Someone would have to be incredibly stubborn to think otherwise.

You should put your energy into attacking my argument, rather than veiling personal attacks. It's your argument that needs attention.

Alright. My argument is that he is presented, quite clearly, with two profiles-one melee, one ranged. You are given permission to use the melee weapon in the same turn it's fired as a ranged weapon, since they are the same relic, but nowhere are you told in the rules that there are two weapons.

In the fluff, on the model, in flavor text... Two weapons. That's fine, no is arguing that.

But according to the rules, they work as one.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Two weapons, in the model and the fluff.

One weapon, according to the actual rules. Take it in its context, Col.

The actual rule refers to "these weapon". It's not in the fluff.

The rule makes no mention that the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion is "one weapon" as you claim. If you can find it, point it out. Otherwise, claiming it is "one weapon" is an assumption (based on context) on your part, correct?

Nor does it make any claim that they are two weapons. When presented with a SINGLE MELEE PROFILE, it should be applied to a single weapon, without being explicitly said it applies to more than one.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Nor does it make any claim that they are two weapons. When presented with a SINGLE MELEE PROFILE, it should be applied to a single weapon, without being explicitly said it applies to more than one.

The rule itself says "these weapons" so we know incontrovertibly that the rule is using the plural and not the singular. I can with confidence unequivocally assert that the rule is using the plural here.

You are claiming that when a rule contextually supplies you with a single melee profile then we can safely assume we are actually dealing with one weapon, even though the rule makes no mention of one weapon, correct?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Nor does it make any claim that they are two weapons. When presented with a SINGLE MELEE PROFILE, it should be applied to a single weapon, without being explicitly said it applies to more than one.

Indeed. Only the fluff in the name would even suggest that there was more than one Weapon involved with this Relic.

However, as you said, context for rules afterwards removes any ability for that fluff to be used in regards to this, especially with the precedent of other Weapons that are setup similarly specifically have to set it up. That's even assuming fluff could be rules in the first place. But then, the Ignored One has repeatedly shown a tendency to ignore context provided by words of the rest of the sentence.

Dodging precedence all day.

 Charistoph wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Nor does it make any claim that they are two weapons. When presented with a SINGLE MELEE PROFILE, it should be applied to a single weapon, without being explicitly said it applies to more than one.

Indeed. Only the fluff in the name would even suggest that there was more than one Weapon involved with this Relic.

However, as you said, context for rules afterwards removes any ability for that fluff to be used in regards to this, especially with the precedent of other Weapons that are setup similarly specifically have to set it up. That's even assuming fluff could be rules in the first place. But then, the Ignored One has repeatedly shown a tendency to ignore context provided by words of the rest of the sentence.

The rule statement says "these weapons". It's not in the fluff. Have you actually read the rules in question? Perhaps you should do that first.

col_impact wrote:
The rule statement says "these weapons". It's not in the fluff. Have you actually read the rules in question? Perhaps you should do that first.

I will repeat what I said.. as Col seems to skip over any argument that beats his with his own logic

You keep stating 'these weapons', but only the fist is mentioned as being able to be used as a melee weapon, as you also like to point out.

There is no mention of the sword itself being a melee weapon.. its only mention of it even being there is 'these weapons' and the relic's name, You could argue that obviously a sword is a melee weapon, But Gulliman's good mate Cyper also Carries a sword which isn't a melee weapon

Ceann wrote:
Dodging precedence all day.

Feel free to post precedence that contradicts my argument.

Precedence supports me. Every instance to my knowledge of a combined profile indicates that we are dealing with weapons counting explicitly a single weapon. For example, "the combined pair" for the Gauntlets of Ultramar.

The problem with the case at hand is that there is no explicit statement in the rules themselves that we are dealing with a single weapon. You feel comfortable making that assumption with no explicit rules statement allowing that. I, on the other hand, will stick to the Rules As Written.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

GodDamUser wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The rule statement says "these weapons". It's not in the fluff. Have you actually read the rules in question? Perhaps you should do that first.

I will repeat what I said.. as Col seems to skip over any argument that beats his with his own logic

You keep stating 'these weapons', but only the fist is mentioned as being able to be used as a melee weapon, as you also like to point out.

There is no mention of the sword itself being a melee weapon.. its only mention of it even being there is 'these weapons' and the relic's name, You could argue that obviously a sword is a melee weapon, But Gulliman's good mate Cyper also Carries a sword which isn't a melee weapon

The only way the Hand could be a melee weapon is if the profile provided is doubly applied to the weapons as in the 2 chain swords example, which is perfectly legal according to the rules, and in fact what we have no choice but to do since we are not informed that the Hand and the Sword count as a single weapon.

The profile doubly applied results in the Sword being a melee weapon.

col_impact wrote:

The profile doubly applied would result in the Sword being a melee weapon.

Well no, the Hand has a range profile and can be used as melee, so being a melee weapon on a MC its at Units Str with AP2, But it also has an option to be voltroned with the Sword to become uber weapon

The sword itself doesn't have a profile and isn't a Melee weapon unless you voltron it with the fist, becoming a single item so no extra Atk

col_impact wrote:


Feel free to post precedence that contradicts my argument.

Precedence supports me. Every instance to my knowledge of a combined profile indicates explicitly that we are dealing with a single weapon. For example, "the combined pair" for the Gauntlets of Ultramar.

Every instance?

Every instance?

The Lash Whip and Bonesword say hello and only count as a single weapon - not just because of the Tyranid rules regarding weapon sets but because of the GSC rules as well.
The Talons of the Night Terror (which explicitly state they are a pair of melee weapons) say hello as well.

As for weapons that have seperate profiles for ranged and melee? Ork Burnas and the Pandemic Staff say hi as well.

So, by every instance do you mean apart from the ones which have been given multiple times in this thread and which you have chosen to consistently ignore as they rather awkwardly shoot your argument down with ease.....?

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

col_impact wrote:


Feel free to post precedence that contradicts my argument.

Precedence supports me. Every instance to my knowledge of a combined profile indicates explicitly that we are dealing with a single weapon. For example, "the combined pair" for the Gauntlets of Ultramar.

Every instance?

Every instance?

The Lash Whip and Bonesword say hello and only count as a single weapon - not just because of the Tyranid rules regarding weapon sets but because of the GSC rules as well.
The Talons of the Night Terror (which explicitly state they are a pair of melee weapons) say hello as well.

As for weapons that have seperate profiles for ranged and melee? Ork Burnas and the Pandemic Staff say hi as well.

So, by every instance do you mean apart from the ones which have been given multiple times in this thread and which you have chosen to consistently ignore as they rather awkwardly shoot your argument down with ease.....?

The Tyranid codex refers to them as "one" or "combination" or as a "pair" which is singular. I have already indicated that precedence is explicitly careful about case agreement (e.g "combined pair" for Gauntlets of Ultramar)

There is no such singular usage in the case at hand. And that's your problem. You are supplying the singular usage from inside your head rather than from the printed page of the rules. This is why your argument is RAI and mine is RAW.

The rules we are looking at definitively call out the Hand as a melee weapon. This we know as a fact. You are the one choosing to ignore this fact. I choose not to ignore what the Rules As Written say.

This can only mean that we have a Hand as a melee weapon and the Sword as a melee weapon

col_impact wrote:

This can only mean that we have a Hand as a melee weapon and the Sword as a melee weapon

But there is nothing to say the Sword is a Melee weapon on its own, only that it counts as melee when used with the Fist, that you have well established is a melee weapon

you are the one making presumptions on the rules, for the Sword being Melee in its own right