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.

 n0t_u wrote:
Don't make fun of the guy, I'm genuinely impressed.

I'm honestly not making fun of anyone.

When you have seen sooooo many of these types of threads, once it becomes apparent that one side or the other will not budge or acknowledge that the other side has a valid position it become entrenched and degenerates much like this one. An established precedent from this is that when GW (eventually) gets round to FaQing the entire mess the 'loosing' side will invariably state that GW changed the rules rather than say they were mistaken in their interpretation.

Which is a shame because there can be a lot that you can learn from these types of discussions.

Cheers

Andrew

Consider:

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

Exactly where in this rule statement are we told that "these weapons" count as a single Weapon?

col_impact wrote:

Consider:

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

Exactly where in this rule statement are we told that "these weapons" count as a single Weapon?

When they are given one profile.

Edit: Every other weapon pair either says "Is used as a pair" or similar language, has two profiles, or is treated as one weapon.

 JNAProductions wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Consider:

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

Exactly where in this rule statement are we told that "these weapons" count as a single Weapon?

When they are given one profile.

Edit: Every other weapon pair either says "Is used as a pair" or similar language, has two profiles, or is treated as one weapon.

Do you have a rule to back up your claim or are you relying solely on an assumption based on precedence?

You know, I'm going to agree, the RAW is ambiguous. While the intent is clear, the EXPLICIT WORDING is not.

So RAW, you cannot tell if it is one weapon or two.

I repeat:

RAW, you cannot tell if it is one weapon or two.

So, we have to move on to RAI, which would follow precedence, of which it supports them being one weapon for the purposes of the rules.

In addition, Col, would you actually play Guilliman as having two weapons? Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

col_impact wrote:

 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".

Sigh.

The precedence is the fact that there are OTHER such 'paired' relics that use a single profile (and weapons) that explicitly state they are either A - a pair (through use of the term 'each') or B - grant an additional attack.

The Gauntlets of Ultramar (Codex Space Marines, Marneus Calgar) - states Each
The Raven's Talons (Codex Space Marines, Captain Shrike) - states Each
Swiftstrike and Murder (Angels of Death Supplement, Raven Guard) - states Each
The Blades of Reason (Codex Dark Angels, Chaplain Asmodai) - Does not grant additional attack or state each though there are 'many' blades
The Khaidesi Haeomvores (Codex Haemonculus Covens supplemnt) - Does not grant the additional attack for 2 or more weapons though clearly plural.
Slaughter and Carnage (Codex Chaos Daemons - Skarbrand) - Explicitly provides 2 profiles for the weapons even though they are one choice.
The Whips of Agony (Codex Chaos Daemons - Daemonic Incursion edition) - Does not grant the additional attack though it is a pair of whips.
The Claws of the Black Hunt (Traitor Legions supplement, Night Lords) - States it is a 'pair of melee weapons' and uses 'Each' terminology regarding the profile.
Cyper's Pistols (Gathering Storm III) - Single choice, explicitly provides 2 profiles for the weapons.

So, what sort of precedence are we looking for?

You can't go 'But those aren't SM relics' because a significant portion of them ARE.


We've examples of relics specifically stating 'Each' and utilising the same weapon profile or providing TWO profiles. In all cases these are 'single choice' combined Relics that function together as a pair. In all cases they either explicitly state they are treated as 2 seperate weapons or provide two seperate profiles to satisfy the requirements for +1 attack for the extra melee weapon.

 JNAProductions wrote:
You know, I'm going to agree, the RAW is ambiguous. While the intent is clear, the EXPLICIT WORDING is not.

So RAW, you cannot tell if it is one weapon or two.

I repeat:

RAW, you cannot tell if it is one weapon or two.

So, we have to move on to RAI, which would follow precedence, of which it supports them being one weapon for the purposes of the rules.

In addition, Col, would you actually play Guilliman as having two weapons? Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

Personally I would rather Gulliman did not have an extra attack. I play Necrons.

I am not arguing for the sake of arguing. I am not arguing to try to get an advantage. I am arguing to try to get at the truth of the matter from a RAW perspective.

The RAW indicates plural and nothing overrides that plural. So if we are truthful about what the rules tell us then we proceed to accept that we are dealing with "weapons."


Is anyone able to point to anything in the rules themselves that overrides the plural "these weapons" with some notion of "counts as a single weapon"? If not, then we accept the rules tell us "weapons."

col_impact wrote:

Consider:

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

Exactly where in this rule statement are we told that "these weapons" count as a single Weapon?

Why does it matter?

I present you with a Space Marine armed with a Power Fist and a Power Sword. Both are listed as melee weapons. Does he get a +1 attack bonus for two weapons? No, because the power fist is a specialist weapon. You need to know the profile of each of the two weapons to know if you can get the bonus atttack if using two of them together. You don't have profiles for the individual weapons. We are given a profile for when they are used together. It does not state that "each" weapon has the profile below, as do the Gauntlets of Ultramar and other things. Please provide the proof that you have two weapons that are eligible for the +1 bonus when used together; merely saying you have two melee weapons is not sufficient proof (as the Powerfist/ Power sword combo proves).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You know, I'm going to agree, the RAW is ambiguous. While the intent is clear, the EXPLICIT WORDING is not.

So RAW, you cannot tell if it is one weapon or two.

I repeat:

RAW, you cannot tell if it is one weapon or two.

So, we have to move on to RAI, which would follow precedence, of which it supports them being one weapon for the purposes of the rules.

In addition, Col, would you actually play Guilliman as having two weapons? Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

Personally I would rather Gulliman did not have an extra attack. I play Necrons.

I am not arguing for the sake of arguing. I am not arguing to try to get an advantage. I am arguing to try to get at the truth of the matter from a RAW perspective.

The RAW indicates plural and nothing overrides that plural. So if we are truthful about what the rules tell us then we proceed to accept that we are dealing with "weapons."


Is anyone able to point to anything in the rules themselves that overrides the plural "these weapons" with some notion of "counts as a single weapon"? If not, then we accept the rules tell us "weapons."

And again, insisting on "weapons" without providing any proof that the weapons involved make the model eligible for the +1 attack bonus if those weapons are used together. Please, provide the proof that the "weapons" qualify for the bonus.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:


The precedence is the fact that there are OTHER such 'paired' relics that use a single profile (and weapons) that explicitly state they are either A - a pair (through use of the term 'each') or B - grant an additional attack.

Right. And this is a case where we have "weapons", "a profile" and NO explicit statement that they are a "pair" or otherwise "counting as single weapon".

The precedent is that the explicit statement is present. So why did the rules writers leave out such a statement in this unprecedented case?

In this case, we simply have "weapons" and a "profile". We also know that the Hand winds up its own melee profile which could be only be possible if the melee profile were doubly applied to the Hand and the Sword and not applied to some hypothetical "combined weapon".

So we go with double application as that's the only way supported solely by RAW.

col_impact wrote:

Right. And this is a case where we have "weapons", "a profile" and NO explicit statement that they are a "pair" or otherwise "counting as single weapon".

The precedent is that the explicit statement is present. So why did the rules writers leave out such a statement in this unprecedented case?

In this case, we simply have "weapons" and a "profile". We also know that the Hand winds up its own melee profile which could be only be possible if the melee profile were doubly applied to the Hand and the Sword and not applied to some hypothetical "combined weapon".

So we go with double application as that's the only way supported solely by RAW.

You are selectively ignoring the examples where there is NOT a statement or permission to grant them an extra attack - such as the Blades of Reason, the Haemovores or the Whips of Agony.

The precedent is there.

You are now choosing to ignore it.

Pay attention.

The way RAW works is that you do exactly what you are told to do. If you cannot do that then you must make assumptions. Once you make an assumption "such as doubly applying the profile" you are making a RAI case. The fact of the matter is that the rules are not up to a RAW standard.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:


You are selectively ignoring the examples where there is NOT a statement or permission to grant them an extra attack

Any statement to grant them an extra attack would be redundant with permission already provided. The rule in the BRB grants the extra attack.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ceann wrote:
Once you make an assumption "such as doubly applying the profile" you are making a RAI case.

Doubly applying the profile is not an assumption. It's completely allowable in the rules.



notice it does NOT say



Since the rule states "these weapons" we have no choice but to come up with a profile for each of "these weapons" since "every weapon has a profile". The rules provide us with an unnamed profile so we have no problem providing "every weapon" of "these weapons" with a profile.

 AndrewC wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
Don't make fun of the guy, I'm genuinely impressed.

I'm honestly not making fun of anyone.

When you have seen sooooo many of these types of threads, once it becomes apparent that one side or the other will not budge or acknowledge that the other side has a valid position it become entrenched and degenerates much like this one. An established precedent from this is that when GW (eventually) gets round to FaQing the entire mess the 'loosing' side will invariably state that GW changed the rules rather than say they were mistaken in their interpretation.

Which is a shame because there can be a lot that you can learn from these types of discussions.

Cheers

Andrew

Ohh I see, I generally have avoided this section.
Yeh it seems like a self limiting shame for people to simply dismiss it like that instead of trying to figure out how it got to that ruling cause that'd probably help them know which way GW would likely swing on later things too. If there's any consistency to it.

col_impact wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:


You are selectively ignoring the examples where there is NOT a statement or permission to grant them an extra attack

Any statement to grant them an extra attack would be redundant with permission already provided. The rule in the BRB grants the extra attack.

Spoiler:

if a model has two or more Melee weapons he gains +1 attack in close combat.

Ok lets start here. In order for a model to have the bonus attack it must have 2 or more Melee weapons, correct?
How do we know if a weapon is a Melee weapon?

 Happyjew wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:


You are selectively ignoring the examples where there is NOT a statement or permission to grant them an extra attack

Any statement to grant them an extra attack would be redundant with permission already provided. The rule in the BRB grants the extra attack.

Spoiler:

if a model has two or more Melee weapons he gains +1 attack in close combat.

Ok lets start here. In order for a model to have the bonus attack it must have 2 or more Melee weapons, correct?
How do we know if a weapon is a Melee weapon?

The weapon has a profile applied with the Melee type, such as this one:

Range (-) Strength (10) AP (1) Type (Melee, Armourbane, Concussion, Soul Blaze, Touch of the Emperor, Whirling Flame)

col_impact wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:


You are selectively ignoring the examples where there is NOT a statement or permission to grant them an extra attack

Any statement to grant them an extra attack would be redundant with permission already provided. The rule in the BRB grants the extra attack.

Spoiler:

if a model has two or more Melee weapons he gains +1 attack in close combat.

Ok lets start here. In order for a model to have the bonus attack it must have 2 or more Melee weapons, correct?
How do we know if a weapon is a Melee weapon?

The weapon has a profile applied with the Melee type, such as this one:

Range (-) Strength (10) AP (1) Type (Melee, Armourbane, Concussion, Soul Blaze, Touch of the Emperor, Whirling Flame)

Are melta bombs melee weapons?

 Happyjew wrote:


Are melta bombs melee weapons?

Yes. Melta bombs are grenades. Grenades that have a profile are Melee weapons by virtue of being grenades.

Further,

Grenades without profiles are not necessarily Melee weapons.

col_impact wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:


You are selectively ignoring the examples where there is NOT a statement or permission to grant them an extra attack

Any statement to grant them an extra attack would be redundant with permission already provided. The rule in the BRB grants the extra attack.

Spoiler:

if a model has two or more Melee weapons he gains +1 attack in close combat.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ceann wrote:
Once you make an assumption "such as doubly applying the profile" you are making a RAI case.

Doubly applying the profile is not an assumption. It's completely allowable in the rules.

Spoiler:

Every weapon has a profile.

notice it does NOT say

Spoiler:

Every Weapon has a profile.

Since the rule states "these weapons" we have no choice but to come up with a profile for each of "these weapons" since "every weapon has a profile". The rules provide us with an unnamed profile so we have no problem providing "every weapon" of "these weapons" with a profile.

Every known profile with two weapons explicitly states and identifies the weapons it is referring too. When this says "these" weapons you are forced to assume what it is referencing, because it does not specifically tell you. Once you make an assumption you are doing RAI. Again, you have no precedence do doubly apply the profile, you are assuming you are supposed too as we are not told to do so anywhere.

col_impact wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:


Are melta bombs melee weapons?

Yes. Melta bombs are grenades. Grenades that have a profile are Melee weapons by virtue of being grenades.

Spoiler:

A model can use such a grenade as a Melee weapon, but can only ever make one attack, regardless of the number of Attacks on its profile or any bonuses.

Further,

Spoiler:

If the weapon’s range contains a ‘-’, it is (unless otherwise stated) a Melee weapon.

Grenades without profiles are not necessarily Melee weapons.

Spoiler:

Some grenades do not have a profile. Any effects that they have will be covered in their special rules. Unless specifically stated otherwise, these grenades cannot be thrown or used as a Melee weapon.

So if a model has a chainsword and melta bombs (and no other melee weapons) does it get a bonus attack?

 Happyjew wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:


Are melta bombs melee weapons?

Yes. Melta bombs are grenades. Grenades that have a profile are Melee weapons by virtue of being grenades.

Spoiler:

A model can use such a grenade as a Melee weapon, but can only ever make one attack, regardless of the number of Attacks on its profile or any bonuses.

Further,

Spoiler:

If the weapon’s range contains a ‘-’, it is (unless otherwise stated) a Melee weapon.

Grenades without profiles are not necessarily Melee weapons.

Spoiler:

Some grenades do not have a profile. Any effects that they have will be covered in their special rules. Unless specifically stated otherwise, these grenades cannot be thrown or used as a Melee weapon.

So if a model has a chainsword and melta bombs (and no other melee weapons) does it get a bonus attack?

No. It would except the grenade rule specifically overrides and makes it so the model can only ever make one attack if the melee profile for the grenade is chosen. So however many normal attacks + 1 bonus attack becomes one attack per grenade rule.



Are we dealing with grenades in the case of Robute? If not, then why would you think the grenade rule applies?

We are never told nor have precedence to doubly assume the profile. It is assumed and assumed is RAI.

col_impact wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:


Are melta bombs melee weapons?

Yes. Melta bombs are grenades. Grenades that have a profile are Melee weapons by virtue of being grenades.

Spoiler:

A model can use such a grenade as a Melee weapon, but can only ever make one attack, regardless of the number of Attacks on its profile or any bonuses.

Further,

Spoiler:

If the weapon’s range contains a ‘-’, it is (unless otherwise stated) a Melee weapon.

Grenades without profiles are not necessarily Melee weapons.

Spoiler:

Some grenades do not have a profile. Any effects that they have will be covered in their special rules. Unless specifically stated otherwise, these grenades cannot be thrown or used as a Melee weapon.

So if a model has a chainsword and melta bombs (and no other melee weapons) does it get a bonus attack?

No. It would except the grenade rule specifically overrides and makes it so the model can only ever make one attack if the melee profile for the grenade is chosen. So however many normal attacks + 1 bonus attack becomes one attack per grenade rule.

Spoiler:

A model can use such a grenade as a Melee weapon, but can only ever make one attack, regardless of the number of Attacks on its profile or any bonuses.

Are we dealing with grenades in the case of Robute? If not, then why would you think the grenade rule applies?

But according to your interpretation in RG rules that marine with Chainsword and Grenade have 2x capable melee weapons and he should get +1 attack on assault due having a 2nd melee weapon (the grenade) ?

Lord Perversor wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:


So if a model has a chainsword and melta bombs (and no other melee weapons) does it get a bonus attack?

No. It would except the grenade rule specifically overrides and makes it so the model can only ever make one attack if the melee profile for the grenade is chosen. So however many normal attacks + 1 bonus attack becomes one attack per grenade rule.

Spoiler:

A model can use such a grenade as a Melee weapon, but can only ever make one attack, regardless of the number of Attacks on its profile or any bonuses.

Are we dealing with grenades in the case of Robute? If not, then why would you think the grenade rule applies?

But according to your interpretation in RG rules that marine with Chainsword and Grenade have 2x capable melee weapons and he should get +1 attack on assault due having a 2nd melee weapon (the grenade) ?

The grenade rule actively takes all the normal attacks and the bonus attack and turns the number of attacks into 1 if the melee profile for the grenade is chosen. The bonus attack and the normal attacks are being overridden.

So the grenade rule obviously leads to an entirely different resolution than a simple case of 2 melee weapons.

I am confused. Are you claiming that one of RG weapons is actually a grenade? That seems to be a totally baseless claim considering there is absolutely nothing on his datasheet to back up that claim. Would you care to clarify how one of RG's weapons is a grenade?

col_impact wrote:

Lord Perversor wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:


So if a model has a chainsword and melta bombs (and no other melee weapons) does it get a bonus attack?

No. It would except the grenade rule specifically overrides and makes it so the model can only ever make one attack if the melee profile for the grenade is chosen. So however many normal attacks + 1 bonus attack becomes one attack per grenade rule.

Spoiler:

A model can use such a grenade as a Melee weapon, but can only ever make one attack, regardless of the number of Attacks on its profile or any bonuses.

Are we dealing with grenades in the case of Robute? If not, then why would you think the grenade rule applies?

But according to your interpretation in RG rules that marine with Chainsword and Grenade have 2x capable melee weapons and he should get +1 attack on assault due having a 2nd melee weapon (the grenade) ?

The grenade rule actively takes all the normal attacks and the bonus attack and turns the number of attacks into 1 if the melee profile for the grenade is chosen. The bonus attack and the normal attacks are being overridden.

So the grenade rule obviously leads to an entirely different resolution than a simple case of 2 melee weapons.

I am confused. Are you claiming that one of RG weapons is actually a grenade? That seems to be a totally baseless claim considering there is absolutely nothing on his datasheet to back up that claim. Would you care to clarify how one of RG's weapons is a grenade?

No i'm saying that according to *your* interpretation of 2 melee weapons if a model equipped with chainsword and grenade choose to attack with the Chainsword gets an extra attack as you ignore the *grenade rule for melee*but Hey! can be used as a melee weapon on the same way you choose to ignore the Sword of the emperor and Hand of dominion rule that tells you both are used as a single weapon.

Lord Perversor wrote:
you choose to ignore the Sword of the emperor and Hand of dominion rule that tells you both are used as a single weapon.

Lord Pervesor, can you point out where exactly is this statement that "both are used as a single weapon"?

Can you point exactly where is this statement? "Doubly apply the profile" or " use this profile twice" I can't find that part.

Ceann wrote:
Can you point exactly where is this statement? "Doubly apply the profile" or " use this profile twice" I can't find that part.

The rule statement refers to "these weapons". The BRB tells us "every weapon has a profile". The rule statement provides us with an unnamed profile. It is perfectly allowable in the rules to apply a single profile to more than one weapon.

The only way to resolve the situation is to apply the unnamed profile such that "every weapon as a profile" for "these weapons".

Ceann wrote:
Can you point exactly where is this statement? "Doubly apply the profile" or " use this profile twice" I can't find that part.

He is literally going to repeat his phrase ad nauseam. He ignores any argument counter to his position. This thread should have been locked 2 mod warnings ago.

Fragile wrote:

Ceann wrote:
Can you point exactly where is this statement? "Doubly apply the profile" or " use this profile twice" I can't find that part.

He is literally going to repeat his phrase ad nauseam. He ignores any argument counter to his position. This thread should have been locked 2 mod warnings ago.

I backed up my argument fully with rules justification. Can you provide a counter argument that is fully backed up with rules justification? If you can, please share.

Already did, you ignored.
Others did, you ignore.

You hinge all your arguments on your interpretation of what words mean and not what the rules say. Then you repeat ad nauseam.

When shown arguments that show your wrong, you completely ignore. On this very page.

This thread became dead once you were the only person arguing for it as you will never admit your wrong and never just let it go.