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.

No, there's actually a good point-where is the Sword called a melee weapon?

GodDamUser wrote:

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

Incorrect. If the Melee profile is applied to the combined pair of the Hand and the Sword then only the Hand and the Sword is a melee weapon. The Hand on its own in that case would not be a melee weapon. But the rules say it is.

You are put in the awkward position where the rules contradict your argument.

If you take a Rules As Written approach you have to accept the fact that the Hand on its own is a melee weapon and go from there. Doubly applying a profile is perfectly allowable so we do that and contradict no rule statements.

When it says these weapons it must obviously be referring to the ranged profile and the melee profile for the hand. As the sword is not mentioned and we have already met the requirement for "these" then we must conclude the sword is merely cosmetic.

Ceann wrote:
When it says these weapons it must obviously be referring to the ranged profile and the melee profile for the hand. As the sword is not mentioned and we have already met the requirement for "these" then we must conclude the sword is merely cosmetic.

Nice try.

col_impact wrote:

 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

Hmm no Gauntlets of Ultramar are properly worded to grant an extra attack.

Each Gauntlet of Ultramar can be used as a Melee weapon with the Melee weapon profile below. The combined pair can also be fired as a ranged weapon, using the ranged weapon profile below

Notice it clearly states each gauntlet it's a different weapon with the same profile (clearly shows 2 weapons )

Also Shrike Raven's Talons are worded in a similar way.
Each Raven’s Talon can be used as a Melee weapon with the following profile.

Yet RG weapons don't say each weapon can be used with an specific profile just says BOTH attack combined as following profile. Notice how RG weapons rules tell you to consider both as a single one for melee purposes on the same way Gauntlets of Ultramar tell you to consider both fist a single shooting weapon instead 2x different ones for shooting.

col_impact wrote:

 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

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.

I'm just throwing my hands against my ears like you here, I'm satisfied with this until the official FAQ finally comes out.
I'll admit you're quite dedicated to your point though.

NO PRECEDENCE


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lord Perversor wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 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

Hmm no Gauntlets of Ultramar are properly worded to grant an extra attack.

Each Gauntlet of Ultramar can be used as a Melee weapon with the Melee weapon profile below. The combined pair can also be fired as a ranged weapon, using the ranged weapon profile below

Notice it clearly states each gauntlet it's a different weapon with the same profile (clearly shows 2 weapons )

Also Shrike Raven's Talons are worded in a similar way.
Each Raven’s Talon can be used as a Melee weapon with the following profile.

Yet RG weapons don't say each weapon can be used with an specific profile just says BOTH attack combined as following profile. Notice how RG weapons rules tell you to consider both as a single one for melee purposes on the same way Gauntlets of Ultramar tell you to consider both fist a single shooting weapon instead 2x different ones for shooting.

col_impact wrote:

Incorrect. If the Melee profile is applied to the combined pair of the Hand and the Sword then only the Hand and the Sword is a melee weapon. The Hand on its own in that case would not be a melee weapon. But the rules say it is.

You are put in the awkward position where the rules contradict your argument.

If you take a Rules As Written approach you have to accept the fact that the Hand on its own is a melee weapon and go from there. Doubly applying a profile is perfectly allowable so we do that and contradict no rule statements.

Well no, you are just being very selective in what you are choosing to argue here..

Facts.
1. The weapons 'used together' make the melee profile listed

2. The Fist is a ranged Weapon that is Also a Melee Weapon

What isn't a Fact is the Sword being a Melee Weapon, only the catalyst to get the special rules in Melee when used with the Fist

Also when you read the special rules for the Relic, it only mentions 'This Weapon'

So we have 1 Melee weapon (the Fist) and then a Catalyst item to make it a better weapon (the Sword), as there is no mention of the Sword being a melee weapon anywhere within the rules any Assumption of such is just that

col_impact wrote:

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.

Show us your PRECEDENCE since you claimed it supports you. You tried to use the gauntlets and got blown out of the water when someone looked it up. I have quoted Cyphers pistols, others have quoted Tyranids and other examples that support we are explicitly told in unambiguous terms that there are two weapons or an extra attack.

You claim it exists prove it.

GodDamUser wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Incorrect. If the Melee profile is applied to the combined pair of the Hand and the Sword then only the Hand and the Sword is a melee weapon. The Hand on its own in that case would not be a melee weapon. But the rules say it is.

You are put in the awkward position where the rules contradict your argument.

If you take a Rules As Written approach you have to accept the fact that the Hand on its own is a melee weapon and go from there. Doubly applying a profile is perfectly allowable so we do that and contradict no rule statements.

Well no, you are just being very selective in what you are choosing to argue here..

Facts.
1. The weapons 'used together' make the melee profile listed

2. The Fist is a ranged Weapon that is Also a Melee Weapon

What isn't a Fact is the Sword being a Melee Weapon, only the catalyst to get the special rules in Melee when used with the Fist

Also when you read the special rules for the Relic, it only mentions 'This Weapon'

So we have 1 Melee weapon (the Fist) and then a Catalyst item to make it a better weapon (the Sword), as there is no mention of the Sword being a melee weapon anywhere within the rules any Assumption of such is just that

"Used together" does not turn plural into singular. There is a missing "as a combined pair" that your are providing that the rules themselves do not provide. Thus, you are breaking from the Rules As Written.

The only way the Fist is a melee weapon is if the melee Profile is doubly applied to each of "these weapons". There is nothing wrong about doubly applying the profile, and if we adhere to the rules exactly and maintain that the rules contain no errors we accept double application as the only way to resolve the Rules As Written.

No precedence still dodging.

The one example you attempted to use, the gauntlets, was proven false, because exactly as I said all similar scenarios are explicit.

col_impact wrote:

"Used together" does not turn plural into singular. There is a missing "as a combined pair" that your are providing that the rules themselves do not provide. Thus, you are breaking from the Rules As Written.

The only way the Fist is a melee weapon is if the melee Profile is doubly applied to each of "these weapons". There is nothing wrong about doubly applying the profile, and if we adhere to the rules exactly and maintain that the rules contain no errors we accept double application as the only way to resolve the Rules As Written.

Well no, 'used together' and 'combined' share a meaning, you are adding 'pair' yourself.

the rule is 'These weapons are used together, using the profile below'

'The Hand of Dominion... It may be used as both a melee and a ranged weapon in the same turn'

So combined they use the Melee profile listed with full special rules, Only the Fist has mention of it being Melee, but doesn't get any special rules for CC as per normal melee weapons

Once again there is no mention of the Sword being a melee weapon, you are the one making it one for your justification of the rules.

Lord Perversor wrote:


Hmm no Gauntlets of Ultramar are properly worded to grant an extra attack.

Each Gauntlet of Ultramar can be used as a Melee weapon with the Melee weapon profile below. The combined pair can also be fired as a ranged weapon, using the ranged weapon profile below

Notice it clearly states each gauntlet it's a different weapon with the same profile (clearly shows 2 weapons )

Also Shrike Raven's Talons are worded in a similar way.
Each Raven’s Talon can be used as a Melee weapon with the following profile.

Yet RG weapons don't say each weapon can be used with an specific profile just says BOTH attack combined as following profile. Notice how RG weapons rules tell you to consider both as a single one for melee purposes on the same way Gauntlets of Ultramar tell you to consider both fist a single shooting weapon instead 2x different ones for shooting.

In order for the RG weapons to become singular they must be explicitly stated as such, which is what "combined pair" does in the case of the Gauntlets of Ultramar.

In the case of RG we are presented with weapons and a single profile. We are also told the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon.

We have two choices -

1) we can guess that the Hand and the Sword is combined pair and apply the single profile to that. The problem with that is that means the Hand is not a melee weapon and the rules tell us that it is.

2) we can doubly apply the profile so that the Hand is a melee weapon and the Sword is a melee weapon. Doubly applying a profile is perfectly allowable in the rules. Doing this, we do not contradict the fact we learn later that the Hand is a melee weapon.

Your argument is based on a guess and goes against stated rules which you need to claim are then in error.

My argument adheres to the Rules As Written, makes no guesses, and doesn't have to handwave away any unexplainable errors in the rules.

My argument isn't necessarily better or worse than yours. It's just a Rules As Written argument, whereas yours isn't.

Perfectly allowable in the rules WHERE.

No precedence.

Ceann wrote:
Perfectly allowable in the rules WHERE.

No precedence.

2 chainswords.

col_impact wrote:

2) we can doubly apply the profile so that the Hand is a melee weapon and the Sword is a melee weapon. Doubly applying a profile is perfectly allowable in the rules. Doing this, we do not contradict the fact we learn later that the Hand is a melee weapon.

Your argument is based on a guess and goes against stated rules which you need to claim are then in error.

My argument adheres to the Rules As Written, makes no guesses, and doen't have to handwave away any unexplainable errors in the rules.

But this is pure RAI as you are presuming that the Sword is a Melee Weapon

Stating a combined pair can fire as a melee weapon grants the profile to both. As you said the word combined isn't there so the profile can't apply to two weapons it wasn't told too.

No precedence.

GodDamUser wrote:

col_impact wrote:

"Used together" does not turn plural into singular. There is a missing "as a combined pair" that your are providing that the rules themselves do not provide. Thus, you are breaking from the Rules As Written.

The only way the Fist is a melee weapon is if the melee Profile is doubly applied to each of "these weapons". There is nothing wrong about doubly applying the profile, and if we adhere to the rules exactly and maintain that the rules contain no errors we accept double application as the only way to resolve the Rules As Written.

Well no, 'used together' and 'combined' share a meaning, you are adding 'pair' yourself.

I guess you don't see your problem. "Combined pair" changes plural to singular. "Used together" does not change plural to singular.

This forces your argument to assume a singular entity when in fact the rule statement itself makes no such proclamation.

Your argument relies on guesswork. Mine doesn't.

GodDamUser wrote:

col_impact wrote:

2) we can doubly apply the profile so that the Hand is a melee weapon and the Sword is a melee weapon. Doubly applying a profile is perfectly allowable in the rules. Doing this, we do not contradict the fact we learn later that the Hand is a melee weapon.

Your argument is based on a guess and goes against stated rules which you need to claim are then in error.

My argument adheres to the Rules As Written, makes no guesses, and doen't have to handwave away any unexplainable errors in the rules.

But this is pure RAI as you are presuming that the Sword is a Melee Weapon

Someone should let Cypher know the sword on his back is a Weapon, too.

Now, where is that Sword profile in the BRB... No, that's Power Sword. No, that's Chainsword. No, that's Force Sword. Can't find it. Argument is crap.

col_impact wrote:

Ceann wrote:
Perfectly allowable in the rules WHERE.

No precedence.

2 chainswords.

He does not have 2 chainswords, nowhere does it say he has two weapons and each individual sword has its own profile it is not sharing a profile with something else which is your claim. All previous instances of two weapons sharing a profile are explicit this one is not, therefore it does not meet the precedent.

YOU need to prove that two weapons can share one profile in one entry. It does not exist. Two chainswords has nothing to do with this. You have yet to prove two weapons exist on one profile.

GodDamUser wrote:

col_impact wrote:

2) we can doubly apply the profile so that the Hand is a melee weapon and the Sword is a melee weapon. Doubly applying a profile is perfectly allowable in the rules. Doing this, we do not contradict the fact we learn later that the Hand is a melee weapon.

Your argument is based on a guess and goes against stated rules which you need to claim are then in error.

My argument adheres to the Rules As Written, makes no guesses, and doen't have to handwave away any unexplainable errors in the rules.

But this is pure RAI as you are presuming that the Sword is a Melee Weapon

Nope. In order to not contradict the fact that the Hand is a melee weapon, we must choose to doubly apply the profile provided. No guesswork involved.

Your argument however is RAI. From the outset you are required to guess/assume (based on precedence and context) and add to the rules "counts as a single weapon" and handwave away the contradiction presented by a Hand that is a melee weapon on its own.

Where does it say the sword is a weapon?

If we're going to be THAT nitpicky, prove that.

col_impact wrote:

GodDamUser wrote:

col_impact wrote:

"Used together" does not turn plural into singular. There is a missing "as a combined pair" that your are providing that the rules themselves do not provide. Thus, you are breaking from the Rules As Written.

The only way the Fist is a melee weapon is if the melee Profile is doubly applied to each of "these weapons". There is nothing wrong about doubly applying the profile, and if we adhere to the rules exactly and maintain that the rules contain no errors we accept double application as the only way to resolve the Rules As Written.

Well no, 'used together' and 'combined' share a meaning, you are adding 'pair' yourself.

I guess you don't see your problem. "Combined pair" changes plural to singular. "Used together" does not change plural to singular.

This forces your argument to assume a singular entity when in fact the rule statement itself makes no such proclamation.

Your argument relies on guesswork. Mine doesn't.

Your guesswork is assuming that two weapons exist and assuming you are free to split the profile. TO WHICH you claim you precedence and you do not it.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Where does it say the sword is a weapon?

If we're going to be THAT nitpicky, prove that.

Sigh.

col_impact wrote:

Nope. In order to not contradict the fact that the Hand is a melee weapon, we must choose to doubly apply the profile provided. No guesswork involved.

The only part of the combined item that is the Emperors Sword and Hand of Domination that has mention of being a Melee Weapon in its own right is the Fist

For your argument to work you need to run on the presumption of both halves of this relic item to be able to use the combined profile individually

Ceann wrote:
Stating a combined pair can fire as a melee weapon grants the profile to both. As you said the word combined isn't there so the profile can't apply to two weapons it wasn't told too.

No precedence.

You proved my point. There is no explicit mention of "a combined pair" or some facsimile that would assign the profile to the combined pair. Thus, we can only follow the path of doubly applying the profile to each of "these weapons".

col_impact wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Where does it say the sword is a weapon?

If we're going to be THAT nitpicky, prove that.

Sigh.

Spoiler:

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

WRONG.

A title of a relic is not identification of anything other than fluff. It essentially says "weapon 1" and then at some point later it says that you use these weapons using the below profile. WHICH weapons, it does not say. The gauntlets say which weapons. Cyphers pistols say which weapons, the Tyranids profiles say which weapons. Every other instance of multiple weapons being on a profile explicitly states which weapon s it is talking about. This profile does not, meaning you could easily assume it is talking about the ranged profile for the hand.

GodDamUser wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Nope. In order to not contradict the fact that the Hand is a melee weapon, we must choose to doubly apply the profile provided. No guesswork involved.

The only part of the combined item that is the Emperors Sword and Hand of Domination that has mention of being a Melee Weapon in its own right is the Fist

For your argument to work you need to run on the presumption of both halves of this relic item to be able to use the combined profile individually

Nope. The only way the Hand is a melee weapon is if the profile is doubly applied to each of these weapons.

If the profile is only applied to the combined pair, as you would have it in your RAI argument, then the Hand does not wind up being a melee weapon.

col_impact wrote:
Nope. The only way the Hand is a melee weapon is if the profile is doubly applied to each of these weapons.

If the profile is only applied to the combined pair, as you would have it in your RAI argument, then the Hand does not wind up being a melee weapon.

Oaky you are goanna have to explain your thinking there..

The rules and I am looking at them right now, Have mention of the Hand of Domination being a Melee Weapon (Therefore it is a Melee Weapon RAW), has a mention of when used with the Emperor's Sword it gets bonuses (RAW). but there is no mention of the sword being a Melee Weapon in its own right (RAW)

What is RAI is saying that the Sword and the Hand get to individually apply the Melee Profile therefore making the 2nd a Melee Weapon in its own right granting +1 Atk

Ceann wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Where does it say the sword is a weapon?

If we're going to be THAT nitpicky, prove that.

Sigh.

Spoiler:

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

WRONG.

A title of a relic is not identification of anything other than fluff. It essentially says "weapon 1" and then at some point later it says that you use these weapons using the below profile. WHICH weapons, it does not say. The gauntlets say which weapons. Cyphers pistols say which weapons, the Tyranids profiles say which weapons. Every other instance of multiple weapons being on a profile explicitly states which weapon s it is talking about. This profile does not, meaning you could easily assume it is talking about the ranged profile for the hand.

Incorrect. We know we have two proper nouns (the Hand of Dominion is later differentiated) and weapons (plural). So my argument rests on the solid foundation of the Rules As Written.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

GodDamUser wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Nope. The only way the Hand is a melee weapon is if the profile is doubly applied to each of these weapons.

If the profile is only applied to the combined pair, as you would have it in your RAI argument, then the Hand does not wind up being a melee weapon.

Oaky you are goanna have to explain your thinking there..

The rules and I am looking at them right now, Have mention of the Hand of Domination being a Melee Weapon (Therefore it is a Melee Weapon RAW), has a mention of when used with the Emperor's Sword it gets bonuses (RAW). but there is no mention of the sword being a Melee Weapon in its own right (RAW)

What is RAI is saying that the Sword and the Hand get to individually apply the Melee Profile therefore making the 2nd a Melee Weapon in its own right granting +1 Atk

As already mentioned . . .

In the case of RG we are presented with weapons and a single profile. We are also informed by the rules that the Hand of Dominion is a melee weapon as if it was established information.

We have two choices -

1) we can guess that the Hand and the Sword is combined pair and apply the single profile to that. The problem with that is that means the Hand is not a melee weapon and the rules tell us that it is.

2) we can doubly apply the profile so that the Hand is a melee weapon and the Sword is a melee weapon. Doubly applying a profile is perfectly allowable in the rules. Doing this, we do not contradict the fact we learn later that the Hand is a melee weapon.

Choosing #1 is a RAI approach. Your argument is that the rules overlooked explicitly stating that the Hand and the Sword are a combined pair and that the later mention of the Hand as a melee weapon is in error.

Choosing #2 is a RAW approach. The Rules As Written leave us no choice but to make this choice. Choosing #1 requires guesswork and handwaving away the rule statement that the Hand is a melee weapon as an error.