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.

col_impact wrote:
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.

Well No..

I am saying the Hand is a Melee Weapon as there is a rule stating that it is, but it doesn't get any bonus rules if used on it own just counts as a Melee Weapon for the purposes of H2H Combat.

I am also saying there is nothing within this relics rules that makes the Sword a Melee Weapon

I am saying when using both halves of this Relic together you get to use the profile listed

There isn't a single piece of guesswork there at all.

Your option 2 relies on the presumption that both halves of this relic are Melee Weapons

GodDamUser wrote:

col_impact wrote:
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.

Well No..

I am saying the Hand is a Melee Weapon as there is a rule stating that it is, but it doesn't get any bonus rules if used on it own just counts as a Melee Weapon for the purposes of H2H Combat.

I am also saying there is nothing within this relics rules that makes the Sword a Melee Weapon

I am saying when using both halves of this Relic together you get to use the profile listed

There isn't a single piece of guesswork there at all.

Your option 2 relies on the presumption that both halves of this relic are Melee Weapons

The rule statement merely describes the Hand as a melee weapon. The rule statement as is cannot declare it as such. For the Hand to be a melee weapon the profile would have to be doubly applied. A double application of the profile is the only way you get the Hand declared as a melee weapon.

Also, you are assuming that the Hand and the Sword are halves of a relic. Where does it actually state this in the rules? As I said already, your argument is making the jump from plural to singular. There is no mention of any singularity in the rules. That there is some singular entity that we apply the single profile to is entirely an assumption on your part. It's not necessarily a wrong assumption, but an assumption nonetheless.

col_impact wrote:

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.

Still wrong. You have NO PRECEDENCE for your #2.

Every other known circumstance for this SAME situation has rules that EXPLICITLY state there are individual weapons that can each attack RAW. Therefore your #2 is and ASSUMPTION with NO PRECEDENCE. You cannot use the very lines in question to validate itself.

col_impact wrote:
The rule statement merely describes the Hand as a melee weapon. The rule statement as is cannot declare it as such. For the Hand to be a melee weapon the profile would have to be doubly applied. A double application of the profile is the only way you get the Hand declared as a melee weapon.

Yes the hand is a Melee weapon as Stated in the rules (not a description). it is a presumption to declare that this would then have to apply to the sword as there is nothing stating that it is also a Melee Weapon

col_impact wrote:
Also, you are assuming that the Hand and the Sword are halves of a relic. Where does it actually state this in the rules? .

So now they are a single item and therefor do not get a extra atk for being 2 close combat weapons as they are only a single item. Its funny because your arguement relies on them being halves of the item as well

GodDamUser wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The rule statement merely describes the Hand as a melee weapon. The rule statement as is cannot declare it as such. For the Hand to be a melee weapon the profile would have to be doubly applied. A double application of the profile is the only way you get the Hand declared as a melee weapon.

Yes the hand is a Melee weapon as Stated in the rules (not a description).

It can only be a melee weapon from the application of the melee profile discussed prior. "The Hand is also a ranged weapon . . ."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

GodDamUser wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Also, you are assuming that the Hand and the Sword are halves of a relic. Where does it actually state this in the rules? .

So now they are a single item and therefor do not get a extra atk for being 2 close combat weapons as they are only a single item. Its funny because your arguement relies on them being halves of the item as well

Nope. All we know from the rule statements is that they are weapons. No rule anywhere makes mention of them as somehow a singularity. That's guesswork on your part.

Well no as I stated it is a Melee Weapon, so counts as a Weapon in H2H but has no special rules associated with it in H2H, So if he also had a pistol or a knife as well on his profile He would get a +1Atk

When used with the 2nd half of the Relic being the Sword it then gets to apply the Profile, and the bonus rules listed.

This is purely going by what is written in the rules. You are relying on the Interpretation/Presumption that the hand Cannot be Melee, without the Sword being Melee. Which there is nothing written there to support that

GodDamUser wrote:
Well no as I stated it is a Melee Weapon, so counts as a Weapon in H2H but has no special rules associated with it in H2H, So if he also had a pistol or a knife as well on his profile He would get a +1Atk

When used with the 2nd half of the Relic being the Sword it then gets to apply the Profile, and the bonus rules listed.

This is purely going by what is written in the rules. You are relying on the Interpretation/Presumption that the hand Cannot be Melee, without the Sword being Melee. Which there is nothing written there to support that

Nope. Your argument begins by assuming the Hand and the Sword are a combined pair. That they count as a single weapon is guesswork on your part. Precedence or context may inform that guess but it's still a guess.

If we take the rules exactly as written we have no choice but to doubly assign the provided profile to "these weapons".


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.

I am saying it gets to use the Profile listed below when used together

Which is exactly what the rules say, and means that that profile is only relevant when they are used together as a single item, and if you go on the read the special rules associated with using it together it uses weapon singular.

So both are separate halves i.e. 'weapons' , But only the Hand as the melee Weapon rule Associated to it, to give it to the Sword is assumption as it isn't stated.

So in the end if you want to use to profile listed there they are a single thing. This is also relevant when you compare it to similar combos like Lashwhip and Bonesword, in which two separate items count as a singular item for the purposes of H2H combat

Still wrong. You have NO PRECEDENCE for your #2.

Every other known circumstance for this SAME situation has rules that EXPLICITLY state there are individual weapons that can each attack RAW. Therefore your #2 is and ASSUMPTION with NO PRECEDENCE. You cannot use the very lines in question to validate itself.

You are NEVER told to split it and make two weapons you only make this assumption because of the later line reference to a weapon.

col_impact wrote:


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.

How does that happen?

We have 2 sections of the Relic Rules

One that focuses on the Melee Aspect of the Relic, that is when using both halves you get these rules and profile,

Then separately you have the hand is a melee weapon that can Shoot in the same turn with the shooting profile

These two are mutually exclusive and not reliant on the other at all (other then the shoot and melee in the same turn)

GodDamUser wrote:
I am saying it gets to use the Profile listed below when used together

Which is exactly what the rules say, and means that that profile is only relevant when they are used together as a single item, and if you go on the read the special rules associated with using it together it uses weapon singular.

So both are separate halves i.e. 'weapons' , But only the Hand as the melee Weapon rule Associated to it, to give it to the Sword is assumption as it isn't stated.

So in the end if you want to use to profile listed there they are a single thing. This is also relevant when you compare it to similar combos like Lashwhip and Bonesword, in which two separate items count as a singular item for the purposes of H2H combat

Maybe I can help nip this circle in the bud. I believe Col is saying your assumption is in the bolded part. Just using plain English, "used together" could mean "used together as dual-weapons" or "used together as a single weapon". He's saying you're making an assumption adding "as a single weapon" instead of "as dual-weapons".

This is why, until official clarification, I think it's an impossible spot, RAW. There's nothing RAW to determine which was meant. There's some RAI we can look at, but not RAW.

GodDamUser wrote:
I am saying it gets to use the Profile listed below when used together

Which is exactly what the rules say, and means that that profile is only relevant when they are used together as a single item, and if you go on the read the special rules associated with using it together it uses weapon singular.

So both are separate halves i.e. 'weapons' , But only the Hand as the melee Weapon rule Associated to it, to give it to the Sword is assumption as it isn't stated.

So in the end if you want to use to profile listed there they are a single thing. This is also relevant when you compare it to similar combos like Lashwhip and Bonesword, in which two separate items count as a singular item for the purposes of H2H combat

There is no statement to the effect that they count as a singular item. You are making that assumption based on precedence. That's the problem with your argument. It adds to the Rules As Written.

If you adhere to the Rules As Written you have two weapons and must doubly apply the single profile provided.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Audustum wrote:

GodDamUser wrote:
I am saying it gets to use the Profile listed below when used together

Which is exactly what the rules say, and means that that profile is only relevant when they are used together as a single item, and if you go on the read the special rules associated with using it together it uses weapon singular.

So both are separate halves i.e. 'weapons' , But only the Hand as the melee Weapon rule Associated to it, to give it to the Sword is assumption as it isn't stated.

So in the end if you want to use to profile listed there they are a single thing. This is also relevant when you compare it to similar combos like Lashwhip and Bonesword, in which two separate items count as a singular item for the purposes of H2H combat

Maybe I can help nip this circle in the bud. I believe Col is saying your assumption is in the bolded part. Just using plain English, "used together" could mean "used together as dual-weapons" or "used together as a single weapon". He's saying you're making an assumption adding "as a single weapon" instead of "as dual-weapons".

This is why, until official clarification, I think it's an impossible spot, RAW. There's nothing RAW to determine which was meant. There's some RAI we can look at, but not RAW.

Thanks for your comments.

I do think my argument is RAW since we are presented with two weapons RAW and a single profile. If we make no assumptions, we simply doubly apply the profile. There is nothing disallowing the double application of the profile.

E.g., RG has 2 chainswords. Use this chainsword profile.

Well 2 Chainswords are 2 separate items

Emperor's Sword and Hand of Domination, is a single relic, If they were listed a separate relics I would go with the +1Atk argument. but it is a single Relic and treat it as such

Still wrong. You have NO PRECEDENCE for your #2.

Every other known circumstance for this SAME situation has rules that EXPLICITLY state there are individual weapons that can each attack RAW. Therefore your #2 is and ASSUMPTION with NO PRECEDENCE. You cannot use the very lines in question to validate itself.

You are never told to apply the profile twice. You take it upon your to assume what it means and then assume the weapons it refers too.

RAW it is just not functional playable, this requires to make RAI assumptions to even play the model.

GodDamUser wrote:
Well 2 Chainswords are 2 separate items

Emperor's Sword and Hand of Domination, is a single relic, If they were listed a separate relics I would go with the +1Atk argument. but it is a single Relic and treat it as such

You are making guess out of nowhere that its a single relic. The box says RELICS OF ULTRAMAR.

On what basis are you arriving at the conclusion that the Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion is a single relic?

col_impact wrote:

GodDamUser wrote:
Well 2 Chainswords are 2 separate items

Emperor's Sword and Hand of Domination, is a single relic, If they were listed a separate relics I would go with the +1Atk argument. but it is a single Relic and treat it as such

You are assuming its a single relic. The box says RELICS OF ULTRAMAR.

Yes because there are Two Relics

1. Emperor's Sword and Hand of Domination
2. Armour of Fate


it is like what was mentioned before with Gloves of Ultramar, in which case it is a single Relic have says plainly that each hand uses the profile (togeather when shooting as a singular), where here it states Together.

When taken as a stand a lone sentence the 'Singular' vs 'Dual' weapon makes sense. But when you factor in the Special rules for the profile all being singular, and looking at all other examples of Dual Weapon Items (not double weapons i.e. 2 chainswords) you see that GW's language is towards the Singular

GodDamUser wrote:

1. Emperor's Sword and Hand of Domination

On what basis are you arriving at the conclusion that the Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion is a single relic? Is there some statement to that effect in the rules?

col_impact wrote:

GodDamUser wrote:

1. Emperor's Sword and Hand of Domination

On what basis are you arriving at the conclusion that the Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion is a single relic?

they are a single entry so a single relic

GodDamUser wrote:

col_impact wrote:

GodDamUser wrote:

1. Emperor's Sword and Hand of Domination

On what basis are you arriving at the conclusion that the Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion is a single relic?

they are a single entry so a single relic

Cypher's pistols has a single entry and they are two relics.

MYSTERIOUS RELICS
Cypher’s Pistols:

col_impact wrote:

GodDamUser wrote:

col_impact wrote:

GodDamUser wrote:

1. Emperor's Sword and Hand of Domination

On what basis are you arriving at the conclusion that the Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion is a single relic?

they are a single entry so a single relic

Cypher's pistols has a single entry and they are two relics.

MYSTERIOUS RELICS
Cypher’s Pistols:

BOOM.

Captain cherry picker who ignores precedence.

EACH of his pistols has IT'S OWN entry.

These pistols are one of the very items that set the precedence that is ABSENT in your claim for RG.

Ceann wrote:

col_impact wrote:


Cypher's pistols has a single entry and they are two relics.

MYSTERIOUS RELICS
Cypher’s Pistols:

BOOM.

Captain cherry picker who ignores precedence.

EACH of his pistols has IT'S OWN entry.

You are confusing entry with profile. "Cypher's Pistols:" is the entry. They are relics.

Yeah, each pistol has its own profile.

The name is IRRELEVANT.

The name could say Cypher’s 12 assault cannons. It is fluff.

The pistols have two weapon profiles, you can't claim RAW while following fluff names. The weapon RG has, has ONE profile, you are NEVER told to use it twice, duplicate it, that it counts as two weapons or any other number of things you assume it to mean.

col_impact wrote:

Ceann wrote:

col_impact wrote:


Cypher's pistols has a single entry and they are two relics.

MYSTERIOUS RELICS
Cypher’s Pistols:

BOOM.

Captain cherry picker who ignores precedence.

EACH of his pistols has IT'S OWN entry.

You are confusing entry with profile. "Cypher's Pistols:" is the entry. They are relics.

They are a Relic,

And have the Individual listing for either half of it.

The reason I count it as a single relic is if it was a normal Relic that could be Acquired by a Commander.. it would be a single item purchase.

Gloves of Ultramar is another Single relic that has two halves

Emperor's Sword and Hand of Domination is a third

The difference between the 3 is that Cypher's Pistols and Gloves of Ultramar has rules very clear written rules for using them as individual items in Close Combat. Where for the Sword and hand you have to try and justify a very ambiguous argument for the Extra Attack that is at odds with every other case of Dual weapons that doesn't explicitly says can are two weapons for CC purposes

You guys aren't following the discussion. We aren't discussing profiles.

GodDamUser made the claim that a single entry = single relic.

Cypher's Pistols entry proves that wrong.

But they also prove you wrong. Each other relic that counts as two weapons CLEARLY STATES, whether by outright saying "This is a pair of weapons" or by having separate profiles.

GodDamUser wrote:


They are a Relic,

And have the Individual listing for either half of it.

You have no basis for this claim.

col_impact wrote:
You guys aren't following the discussion. We aren't discussing profiles.

GodDamUser made the claim that a single entry = single relic.

Cypher's Pistols entry proves that wrong.

no it doesn't, the Pistol's are the Relic so a single thing

it isn't Pistol A

Pistol B


Are they two Weapons Yes, as the rules for this relic clearly states they are
Is it a Single Relic Yes as it is a single Relic Listing

GodDamUser wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Ceann wrote:

col_impact wrote:


Cypher's pistols has a single entry and they are two relics.

MYSTERIOUS RELICS
Cypher’s Pistols:

BOOM.

Captain cherry picker who ignores precedence.

EACH of his pistols has IT'S OWN entry.

You are confusing entry with profile. "Cypher's Pistols:" is the entry. They are relics.

They are a Relic,

And have the Individual listing for either half of it.

The reason I count it as a single relic is if it was a normal Relic that could be Acquired by a Commander.. it would be a single item purchase.

Gloves of Ultramar is another Single relic that has two halves

Emperor's Sword and Hand of Domination is a third

The difference between the 3 is that Cypher's Pistols and Gloves of Ultramar has rules very clear written rules for using them as individual items in Close Combat. Where for the Sword and hand you have to try and justify a very ambiguous argument for the Extra Attack that is at odds with every other case of Dual weapons that doesn't explicitly says can are two weapons for CC purposes

Aka no PRECEDENCE. I will bang this war drum until you provide precedence, you cannot use ambiguous language as justification for itself. As mentioned all other instances are explicitly clear.

 JNAProductions wrote:
But they also prove you wrong. Each other relic that counts as two weapons CLEARLY STATES, whether by outright saying "This is a pair of weapons" or by having separate profiles.

Incorrect. No where in the rules for the Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of the Dominion are they stated as counting as a single weapon (or relic for that matter).

Precedence shows in every case that there is an explicit assertion of a singular weapon, e.g. "a combined pair".