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.
2017/03/31 03:25:28
Subject: Re:Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
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.
LOL. Slow down. Make sure you keep track of the points brought up and who you are addressing.
Also, please don't just spam us with you disruptive comments that aren't adding anything to the discussion. It's against the rules and makes your side of the argument look like its populated with immature posters.
2017/03/31 03:26:17
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
But yeah, With the rules trend of cases of double items clearly stating if they are 2 things, where in this case it isn't I am against the +1Atk
Nothing wrong with your line of reasoning. It just isn't a RAW argument. It certainly is possible and maybe even likely that the rules writers simply forgot to add "as a combined pair". And I could easily see a FAQ upholding that they are "a combined pair".
But if we go strictly off the Rules As Written, we wind up with the profile doubly applied to the two weapons and therewith +1 A.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/31 03:34:06
2017/03/31 03:37:15
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
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".
Dude you are 100% wrong here. In the case of Cypher there are two profiles and it explicitly tells you that you either have two weapons of an extra attack. The issue is you bring up the combined part which you have to have two weapons in the first place to combine. Cyphers relic entry has two profiles one for each weapon, Tyranids have a profile for each weapon, every circumstance where two weapons are under a single entry you either have two profiles or explicit instructions for two weapons or an extra attack.
RG profile has NONE of these.
So you have NO precedence to determine he has two weapons from one relic entry. That is your assumption.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/31 03:38:36
2017/03/31 03:38:36
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
But if we go strictly off the Rules As Written, we wind up with the profile doubly applied to the two weapons and therewith +1 A.
but as pointed out by someone else.. Both of our RAW's are as valid as the other, depending on how you define 'Used Together'
in which case I argue my RAW is more valid when you take greater context into account
2017/03/31 03:44:20
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
But yeah, With the rules trend of cases of double items clearly stating if they are 2 things, where in this case it isn't I am against the +1Atk
Nothing wrong with your line of reasoning. It just isn't a RAW argument. It certainly is possible and maybe even likely that the rules writers simply forgot to add "as a combined pair". And I could easily see a FAQ upholding that they are "a combined pair".
But if we go strictly off the Rules As Written, we wind up with the profile doubly applied to the two weapons and therewith +1 A.
RAW you are not told to doubly apply the profile and there is no precedence set to determine you can. You have previously claimed and alluded to being allowed to do this and you have be dodging this item specifically. The examples you have tried to provide AS precedence have all been shot down.
PROVE you can assume there are two weapons.
The title is fluff.
The sword is never referred to as existing outside of the title and a relic title is not a RAW factor.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/31 03:45:09
2017/03/31 03:47:10
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
But if we go strictly off the Rules As Written, we wind up with the profile doubly applied to the two weapons and therewith +1 A.
but as pointed out by someone else.. Both of our RAW's are as valid as the other, depending on how you define 'Used Together'
in which case I argue my RAW is more valid when you take greater context into account
"Used together" by itself means nothing. That's the problem for your argument. You are adding "counting as a single weapon" or "as a combined pair" to the rules. You are making a guess/assumption based on precedence. That's a RAI argument.
If we take "used together" as is then we have two weapons since "used together" does not in any way shape or form turn a plural into a singular. That's a RAW argument.
It's a false dichotomy though to rank a RAW argument necessarily over a RAI argument, especially in this case where it's reasonable to conclude that they simply forgot to add "as a combined pair".
This is a good case for a FAQ to solve.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/03/31 03:50:57
2017/03/31 03:50:09
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
col_impact wrote: "Used together" by itself means nothing. That's the problem for your argument. You are adding "counting as a single weapon" or "as a combined pair" to the rules. You are making a guess/assumption based on precedence. That's a RAI argument.
If we take "used together" as is then we have two weapons. That's a RAW argument.
But if you reverse what you just said, it is also as true to RAW
I am just also arguing going with the trend GW has had with the rules of dual weapons relics and such, I am certain that I have the RAW and you are the RAI
As the other example can I can think off is Gloves of Ultramar in which case you don't apply the shooting profile twice as they are used together to create a singular
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/03/31 03:53:26
2017/03/31 03:53:05
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
But if we go strictly off the Rules As Written, we wind up with the profile doubly applied to the two weapons and therewith +1 A.
but as pointed out by someone else.. Both of our RAW's are as valid as the other, depending on how you define 'Used Together'
in which case I argue my RAW is more valid when you take greater context into account
"Used together" by itself means nothing. That's the problem for your argument. You are adding "counting as a single weapon" or "as a combined pair" to the rules. You are making a guess/assumption based on precedence. That's a RAI argument.
If we take "used together" as is then we have two weapons. That's a RAW argument.
It is not a RAW argument.
Every case explicitly says which weapons it refers too. This just says "these weapons" it is ambiguous and it actually does NOT allow a RAW interpretation. RAW that is functional in all other similar situations expressly identifies WHICH weapons it is talking about. RAW this profile is illegible.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/31 03:53:43
2017/03/31 03:56:18
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
col_impact wrote: "Used together" by itself means nothing. That's the problem for your argument. You are adding "counting as a single weapon" or "as a combined pair" to the rules. You are making a guess/assumption based on precedence. That's a RAI argument.
If we take "used together" as is then we have two weapons. That's a RAW argument.
But if you reverse what you just said, it is also as true to RAW
I am pretty sure "used together" by itself does not turn plural into singular. That's the problem of your argument, jumping from plural to singular. Mine doesn't have that problem.
I am just also arguing going with the trend GW has had with the rules of dual weapons relics and such, I am certain that I have the RAW and you are the RAI
As the other example can I can think off where they used, 'used together' is Gloves of Ultramar in which case you don't apply the shooting profile twice as they are used together to create a singular
In the case of the Gloves of Ultramar it is stated as a "combined pair". 'Pair' is single. "Used together" doesn't make a singular.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/31 04:03:03
2017/03/31 04:05:41
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
Ceann wrote: You assume it isn't singular. You have no precedence to assume you have two weapons.
Except in the very rule itself it says "these weapons". Hence why my argument is RAW.
To summarize:
Spoiler:
The rules refer to "the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" in the plural separably as "these weapons". Plural.
"Used together" does not mean that the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion count as a single weapon.
They are called out as "these weapons" and when they are used together they are still considered weapons and not as a single weapon. No rule designates them as counting as a single weapon so they remain two weapons.
"Used together" means simply that they are used at the same time in combat.
The profiles reference "this weapon" and so must reference the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion separably since the Emperor's Sword and Hand of Dominion collectively are referred to as 'weapons' and as 'relics' and never as weapon or relic.
Moreover, the Hand is explicitly discussed as being separably a 'weapon' and able to be used as both a melee and as a ranged weapon.
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.
Because the Hand of Dominion is itself a melee weapon, this proves that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet was applied individually to the Hand itself, and it disproves any argument that there is somehow a 'combined weapon profile'.
If there was some 'combined weapon' then the Hand of Dominion could not itself be a melee weapon. The melee profile provided would have been used to give the combined weapon the melee type and not the Hand of Dominion.
Since the Hand is definitively a melee weapon, this means that the melee profile on Robute's datasheet has been separably applied to both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion.
This in turn means that both the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion are melee weapons.
This in turn means that we satisfy the rule that grants an a model an additional attack for having two or more melee weapons.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/03/31 05:41:55
2017/03/31 04:11:11
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
Ceann wrote: You assume it isn't singular. You have no precedence to assume you have two weapons.
Except in the very rule itself it says "these weapons". Hence why my argument is RAW.
Yes and in all circumstances the profiles explicitly tell you WHICH weapons it refers too. This profile does not. I could say it means this chain sword and that lasipistol. Or this meltagun and that power sword, these grenades and a missile launcher. IT DOESN'T specify. Every other multi weapon on a single entry has a profile for each or states that there are two specific weapons.
None of those are on RG leaving you to assume and assuming is RAI.
If you have to make an assumption, even a logical one, is not RAW.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/31 04:12:56
2017/03/31 05:22:21
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
Oh god, this is the Canoptek Harvest debacle all over again
Gotta give it you though Col, your expansive knowledge of the rules, uncanny knack for finding ways to get the most out of them and arguing them extensively while staying cohesive and coherent is very impressive. (Not intended to be sarcastic in any way )
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/31 05:27:24
12,000
2017/03/31 07:15:18
Subject: Re:Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
Oh dear, I go and sleep a few hours and we have another couple of pages on this carousel?
Going by the previous points argued in this thread, I think that the main reason for this going in circles is a failure to differentiate defined terms from general language. By ignoring the requirements made in the definition of terms and ignoring context, it is possible to claim things that are not supported by the rules or cannot be used with the rulesset. At the same time, clearly false claims are thrown out (i.e. sword and hand are not one relic) to muddy the water a bit more. Failure to actually stick to any point or engage with the arguments leaves this going nowhere on the issue and only drags this out for popcorn value.
Stephanius wrote: Oh dear, I go and sleep a few hours and we have another couple of pages on this carousel?
Going by the previous points argued in this thread, I think that the main reason for this going in circles is a failure to differentiate defined terms from general language. By ignoring the requirements made in the definition of terms and ignoring context, it is possible to claim things that are not supported by the rules or cannot be used with the rulesset. At the same time, clearly false claims are thrown out (i.e. sword and hand are not one relic) to muddy the water a bit more. Failure to actually stick to any point or engage with the arguments leaves this going nowhere on the issue and only drags this out for popcorn value.
*looks at who is making those arguments* Yeah, it is standard form for that Ignored One. At least he hasn't lied as far as I can tell, yet. That makes it one of his more intelligent debates he's had.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
2017/03/31 07:58:04
Subject: Re:Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
Stephanius wrote: Oh dear, I go and sleep a few hours and we have another couple of pages on this carousel?
Spoiler:
Well, hardheaded people gonna be hardheaded. It's a simple rule, even with it being cleared by GW staff themselves... But no "It's not a FAQ."
Poor ignorant guardsmen, it be but one of many of the great miracles of the Emperor! The Emperor is magic, like Harry Potter, but more magic! A most real and true SPACE WIZARD! And for the last time... I'm not a space plumber.
17 page thread which has the most obvious answer - Gurly sdoen't get +1 attack - his weapons are used with a single profile.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2017/03/31 12:28:29
Subject: Re:Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
Stephanius wrote: Oh dear, I go and sleep a few hours and we have another couple of pages on this carousel?
Spoiler:
Well, hardheaded people gonna be hardheaded. It's a simple rule, even with it being cleared by GW staff themselves... But no "It's not a FAQ."
Id hardly consider GW PR team to be rules experts or a deciding factor. What they said means nothing unless it's FAQ'd officially.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ceann wrote: You assume it isn't singular. You have no precedence to assume you have two weapons.
The Ultramar explicitly identify each weapon.
Cypher explicitly identifies each weapon.
You assume it is singular when we have shown you 3 examples that it may not be due to poorly written rules.
1. Emperors sword AND the hand of dominion under relics of ultramar
2. The sentence talking about the profile states in mentions weapons plural no singular
3. in the ranged profile it states that hand can be used in melee. It doesnt say the hand and sword.
Again I understand that RAI it can swing both ways but RAW he has two weapons that share one profile and no where does it say they are combined, single or act as one.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/31 12:38:41
2017/03/31 13:19:19
Subject: Re:Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
Stephanius wrote: Oh dear, I go and sleep a few hours and we have another couple of pages on this carousel?
Spoiler:
Well, hardheaded people gonna be hardheaded. It's a simple rule, even with it being cleared by GW staff themselves... But no "It's not a FAQ."
Id hardly consider GW PR team to be rules experts or a deciding factor. What they said means nothing unless it's FAQ'd officially.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ceann wrote: You assume it isn't singular. You have no precedence to assume you have two weapons.
The Ultramar explicitly identify each weapon.
Cypher explicitly identifies each weapon.
You assume it is singular when we have shown you 3 examples that it may not be due to poorly written rules.
1. Emperors sword AND the hand of dominion under relics of ultramar
2. The sentence talking about the profile states in mentions weapons plural no singular
3. in the ranged profile it states that hand can be used in melee. It doesnt say the hand and sword.
That is irrelevant. The title of a relic means nothing, it is fluff. As I have said on repeat from the beginning. All other instances of two weapons on one profile either have two profiles, explicitly name and identify the weapons, or state that +1A is granted. Which includes the Ultramar, Cyphers pistols, Tyranids weapons, the list goes on. There is no precedence to assume you have two weapons and "these weapons" does not tell you what weapons it refers too.
1. His relic entry states none of these things and you cannot use the item name to make an assumption that there are two separate items.
2. WHAT weapons, it doesn't tell you, so you have to make an assumption, once you make as assumption, even a logical one you are doing RAI.
3. It also never says the sword even exists, nothing does besides a title and a title is not a relevant factor for RAW.
2017/03/31 13:29:02
Subject: Re:Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
ZooPants, those statements are either false or misleading. For ease of reading, I'll put rule keywords in BOLD TYPE.
ZooPants wrote: 1. Emperors sword AND the hand of dominion under relics of ultramar
There is one (1) relic entry with the name "The Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominon".
Your statement makes it sound like there are two separate entries which is demonstrably not the case.
(There are also no sword and hand sub-headings within the relic entry.)
ZooPants wrote: 2. The sentence talking about the profile states in mentions weapons plural no singular
That would be weapons as in bits and in the name of the relic, not weapons as in WEAPONS defined in the BRB, which is clear in the context.
If you don't understand the difference between the the word weapon and the defined term WEAPON, you should probably read up on it before participating further.
ZooPants wrote: 3. in the ranged profile it states that hand can be used in melee. It doesnt say the hand and sword.
Yes, but neither does it make the hand useable as a melee weapon. MELEE WEAPON is a weapon type, not a defined WEAPON. The defined term for a generic melee type weapon is CLOSE COMBAT WEAPON.
ZooPants wrote: Again I understand that RAI it can swing both ways but RAW he has two weapons that share one profile and no where does it say they are combined, single or act as one.
It does say together, which is logically equivalent to combined AND logically opposed to separate/individual melee profile assignement claims.
There is no such thing as a defined term "combined" in the rules so there is no justification for insisting on the use of that word over it's synonyms.
Attempts to construct some alternative explanation what combined might mean here (dual-whielding) fall flat on their face since there isn't any such thing in the rules.
Essentially, the +1A argument only works when you ignore tenet #1:
1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate. For more detail on how to actually create a logically supported conclusion, please read this article on how to have an intelligent rules debate.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/03/31 13:31:57
Stephanius wrote: ZooPants, those statements are either false or misleading. For ease of reading, I'll put rule keywords in BOLD TYPE.
ZooPants wrote: 1. Emperors sword AND the hand of dominion under relics of ultramar
There is one (1) relic entry with the name "The Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominon".
Your statement makes it sound like there are two separate entries which is demonstrably not the case.
(There are also no sword and hand sub-headings within the relic entry.)
ZooPants wrote: 2. The sentence talking about the profile states in mentions weapons plural no singular
That would be weapons as in bits and in the name of the relic, not weapons as in WEAPONS defined in the BRB, which is clear in the context.
If you don't understand the difference between the the word weapon and the defined term WEAPON, you should probably read up on it before participating further.
ZooPants wrote: 3. in the ranged profile it states that hand can be used in melee. It doesnt say the hand and sword.
Yes, but neither does it make the hand useable as a melee weapon. MELEE WEAPON is a weapon type, not a defined WEAPON. The defined term for a generic melee type weapon is CLOSE COMBAT WEAPON.
ZooPants wrote: Again I understand that RAI it can swing both ways but RAW he has two weapons that share one profile and no where does it say they are combined, single or act as one.
It does say together, which is logically equivalent to combined AND logically opposed to separate/individual melee profile assignement claims.
There is no such thing as a defined term "combined" in the rules so there is no justification for insisting on the use of that word over it's synonyms.
Attempts to construct some alternative explanation what combined might mean here (dual-whielding) fall flat on their face since there isn't any such thing in the rules.
Essentially, the +1A argument only works when you ignore tenet #1:
1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate. For more detail on how to actually create a logically supported conclusion, please read this article on how to have an intelligent rules debate.
ZooPants, those statements are either false or misleading. For ease of reading, I'll put rule keywords in BOLD TYPE.
ZooPants wrote:
1. Emperors sword AND the hand of dominion under relics of ultramar
There is one (1) relic entry with the name "The Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominon".
Your statement makes it sound like there are two separate entries which is demonstrably not the case.
(There are also no sword and hand sub-headings within the relic entry.)
ZooPants wrote:
2. The sentence talking about the profile states in mentions weapons plural no singular
That would be weapons as in bits and in the name of the relic, not weapons as in WEAPONS defined in the BRB, which is clear in the context.
If you don't understand the difference between the the word weapon and the defined term WEAPON, you should probably read up on it before participating further.
Its not misleading or false at all its whats on the data slate.
I understand what your saying and I agree that it can be viewed as one entry since they bundled it and the stats together under one profile. But the misleading part is they speak of two weapons through out and make mention of them plural. If the intention was to use as one weapon they should have said this weapon and not refereed to it as weapons for sake of fluff and bits in a data slate.
Again let me state I agree that RAI they want this to be one weapon with NO bonus attack.
ZooPants wrote:
3. in the ranged profile it states that hand can be used in melee. It doesnt say the hand and sword.
Yes, but neither does it make the hand useable as a melee weapon. MELEE WEAPON is a weapon type, not a defined WEAPON. The defined term for a generic melee type weapon is CLOSE COMBAT WEAPON.
Again gray area, do i think RAI they are trying to separate gun and hand? Yes. Could they have done a better job of doing that? Yes. Does it leave it open to interpretation? Yes. Since they say in the data slate that these weapons are used together using the profile below meaning two weapons share the same stats. They should have said some thing along the lines as "The emperors sword and the hand of dominion" can still be used in melee etc
ZooPants wrote:
Again I understand that RAI it can swing both ways but RAW he has two weapons that share one profile and no where does it say they are combined, single or act as one.
It does say together, which is logically equivalent to combined AND logically opposed to separate/individual melee profile assignement claims.
There is no such thing as a defined term "combined" in the rules so there is no justification for insisting on the use of that word over it's synonyms.
Attempts to construct some alternative explanation what combined might mean here (dual-whielding) fall flat on their face since there isn't any such thing in the rules.
Essentially, the +1A argument only works when you ignore tenet #1:
Again logically is irrelevant to what is intended vs what is written.
You have your view and I have mine. Nothing is wrong with either other then we happen to disagree. But as i had mention maaaany pages back when i started this thread i do agree he doesnt need the +1 attack nor did I play him with it.
2017/03/31 15:25:22
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
Wishing I was back at the South Atlantic, closer to ice than the sun
And even more entertainment, cos when the FaQ comes out, if it rules that it's only one weapon, somebody will be on here saying that they were right all along and that GW changed the rules.
Cheers
Andrew
I don't care what the flag says, I'm SCOTTISH!!!
Best definition of the word Battleship?
Mr Nobody wrote:
Does a canoe with a machine gun count?
2017/03/31 16:01:07
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
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.
Spoiler:
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.
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?
Just because you see "lots of confrontation" in my answer does not mean the answer is not straightforward. It also doesn't mean you should dodge the issues brought up. Perhaps there's "lots of confrontation" because you are consistently ignoring questions and requests for specific rules (beyond the one about using the Hand as a melee weapon and a ranged weapon). Specifically, show us the profile for the Hand of Dominion by itself. Show us the profile of the Emperor's Sword by itself. You have to show that not only do they count as two weapons, but that they both count as weapons that, when yused together, entitle you to +1 attack. You cannot prove that from your "It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn. " Is the Hand a specialist weapon? Or is the Emperor's Sword a specialist weapon? You've totally ignored so far what kind of weapon the Sword is (if it's indeed treated as a separate weapon). Where's the statement to say that the Emperor's Sword is a melee weapon? Where's the profile that shows it's not a specialist weapon by itself? (Then again, where's the profile to show that the Hand by itself isn't a specialist weapon which keeps the Emperor's Sword from granting +1 attack?) Given that they referred us to a combined profile when using them together, they did not mention if the Hand is a Specialist Weapon - it can be used as a melee weapon but still be a specialist weapon which keeps you from getting +1 attack without a second specialist weapon. You have to show us proof that you have permission to gain the +1 attack. You have yet to demonstrate that you have permission.
2017/03/31 16:57:07
Subject: Re:Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
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.
Spoiler:
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.
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?
Just because you see "lots of confrontation" in my answer does not mean the answer is not straightforward. It also doesn't mean you should dodge the issues brought up. Perhaps there's "lots of confrontation" because you are consistently ignoring questions and requests for specific rules (beyond the one about using the Hand as a melee weapon and a ranged weapon). Specifically, show us the profile for the Hand of Dominion by itself. Show us the profile of the Emperor's Sword by itself. You have to show that not only do they count as two weapons, but that they both count as weapons that, when yused together, entitle you to +1 attack. You cannot prove that from your "It may be used as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon in the same turn. " Is the Hand a specialist weapon? Or is the Emperor's Sword a specialist weapon? You've totally ignored so far what kind of weapon the Sword is (if it's indeed treated as a separate weapon). Where's the statement to say that the Emperor's Sword is a melee weapon? Where's the profile that shows it's not a specialist weapon by itself? (Then again, where's the profile to show that the Hand by itself isn't a specialist weapon which keeps the Emperor's Sword from granting +1 attack?) Given that they referred us to a combined profile when using them together, they did not mention if the Hand is a Specialist Weapon - it can be used as a melee weapon but still be a specialist weapon which keeps you from getting +1 attack without a second specialist weapon. You have to show us proof that you have permission to gain the +1 attack. You have yet to demonstrate that you have permission.
This exactly what I have been saying the entire time. They have demonstrated no precedence to make the assumption that there are two weapons or which weapons that "these" actually are. The provided profile for RG is unplayable RAW, it requires RAI assumptions to even be played with.
2017/03/31 17:25:47
Subject: Re:Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
)
12,000 
1K Vostroyan Firstborn
2K Flylords
600 Pts Orks
3K Ad-Mech 
