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.
2017/04/03 08:12:53
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
But what rule tells you to apply the profile listed to both weapons? Unless you have permission to apply it to "these weapons" you may not.
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 has a profile" for "these weapons".
Where do the rules allow you to apply an unnamed profile to a weapon? You seem to insist that "every weapon has a profile" is what gives you permission to apply an unnamed profile to a weapon. You make the claim, you back it up.
Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia
2017/04/03 00:30:17
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
Where do the rules allow you to apply an unnamed profile to a weapon? You seem to insist that "every weapon has a profile" is what gives you permission to apply an unnamed profile to a weapon. You make the claim, you back it up.
The rules say the Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion are "these weapons".
So the Sword of the Emperor is a weapon.
And the Hand of Dominion is also a weapon.
The BRB tells us that "every weapon has a profile".
The rules statement provides us with an unnamed profile.
If we apply the unnamed profile to just the Sword and not the Hand we are left with a weapon without a profile and we are not satisfying "every weapon has a profile".
Only by applying the unnamed profile to the Sword and also the Hand are we able to satisfy "every weapon has a profile". If we do not, then not "every weapon has a profile".
2017/04/03 00:44:59
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
*Head hits table*
20 pages?
20!
For feths sake last month we had a rules discussion that ended with "Legally speaking, Guilliman becomes a super heavy vehicle and then explodes on the titanic chart"
and it went on for 5....
MattKing wrote: For feths sake last month we had a rules discussion that ended with "Legally speaking, Guilliman becomes a super heavy vehicle and then explodes on the titanic chart"
and it went on for 5....
That sounds like a fun read.. link?
2017/04/03 01:02:20
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
Yarium wrote: I'm surprised that no one in that thread pointed out that, when Wrecked, Gulliman's armour might "save" him so that he could explode again next turn
Came up in a separate, concurrent thread.
2017/04/03 04:02:14
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
I'm talking about models in general. If a model has a chainsword (a weapon with the Melee type), and a melta bomb (which according to your interpretation of the rules is a melee weapon), and attacks with the chainsword why would he not get an extra attack? After all, he has two Melee weapons, that are neither Specialist weapons nor Two-handed weapons.
Grenades are a special case - when they are used in assault they have a melee profile chosen. When they are not used in assault they don't have a melee profile chosen. So if I am using a melta bomb in assault then I am using the melta bomb as the weapon I am attacking with (and not the chainsword). This would normally result in the normal number of attacks plus the bonus attack, but the grenade rule turns those attacks into one attack. If I am attacking with the chainsword then I am not assaulting with the melta bomb and so do not have that profile chosen.
Happyjew wrote: I'm just trying to figure out whether or not Roboute has two Melee weapons or not. I am neither for one side nor the other. The one point you've made that I disagree with is that both the Hand and the Sword have the profile listed in Gathering Storm. This is what your argument hinges on. This is what I've asked you to prove to me. Since you seem reluctant to do so . . .
I have been more than forthcoming with my RAW argument. Everything in my argument is substantiated by and proven by rules and makes no assumptions, and it has been posted several times.
In short . . .
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 has a profile" for "these weapons".
Longer form of argument . . .
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.
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 has a profile" for "these weapons".
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.
The key thing for you to focus on is if the rules at any point actually say "count as a single weapon" or anything along those lines. If you cannot find such a statement then you have to accept what the rules actually tell us, which is that we are dealing with "weapons" in the plural. The omission of a line to the effect of "count as a single weapon" could be a mistake on the part of the rule writers, but arguing that there is a mistake in the rules is of course a RAI argument. So, press yourself to accept the omission as is and answer what do the rules standing entirely on their own tell us about the number of melee weapons and therewith whether or not Robute gets a bonus attack.
AndrewC wrote: 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
The "GW just ignored the RAW" or "GW just changed the rules" has been the age old last defiance to those on the losing end of a debate here for as long as I can remember.
Actually, I think the RAI argument that GW just made a mistake and forgot to add the critical line that these weapons "count as a single weapon" is a perfectly reasonable one. If they FAQ later that the weapons are 'a combined pair' then they are adding a line to the rules statement that they forgot to originally add.
The RAW argument that I am discussing has to accept the rules as they are. So until a FAQ comes later to clean up any errors, the rules in this case are dealing with "weapons".
You have no RAW argument. Your continued insistence that the use of "these weapons" constitutes +1 Attack is just as RAI as those that insist that "used together" does not warrant an additional attack. In fact, just like them, everything you have posted in this thread is based on RAI.
2017/04/03 04:25:25
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
You have no RAW argument. Your continued insistence that the use of "these weapons" constitutes +1 Attack is just as RAI as those that insist that "used together" does not warrant an additional attack. In fact, just like them, everything you have posted in this thread is based on RAI.
Incorrect. My argument follows strictly from the rules and makes absolutely no assumptions. If you think otherwise feel free to point to any assumptions I make.
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 has a profile" for "these weapons".
Summarized here:
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 at least 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.
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 has a profile" for "these weapons".
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 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/03 07:35:22
2017/04/03 13:27:02
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
It states "these weapons" it does not tell you what those weapons are.
There is one entry for a weapon and one entry armor. Fact
You are not told there are two melee weapons. Fact
You are not told there are two weapons that share the same type. Fact
There is no precedence that supports your interpretation of "these weapons". Fact. You also admitted this by stating this was a new case without precedence.
As the rules are not EXPLICITLY stating what weapons, or that there are even two melee weapons in the first place we have to make an assumption. We have to assume there are two melee weapons and that the single entry should be split, we are not ever told to double the profile, you are assuming this too. You claim the basic rule states all weapons must have a profile, then the most logical deduction is that a second weapon doesn't exist then, no rule tells us to double a profile.
The RAW are not explicitly clear, meaning RAW they do not function and require RAI.
2017/04/03 15:44:36
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
Ceann wrote: It states "these weapons" it does not tell you what those weapons are.
Contextually speaking, there isn't anything else there except the Sword and the Hand. However, all this is just reinforcing the fluff concept of two weapons in the name.
However, as has been pointed out, only one profile, and a specific direction to use that profile as the combination of both fluff-named weapons, means that we are stuck as considering it as only one Weapon as far as the game is concerned.
In short (and something the Ignored One forgets), "fluff" does not equal "rules".
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.
2017/04/03 16:39:23
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
But what rule tells you to apply the profile listed to both weapons? Unless you have permission to apply it to "these weapons" you may not.
I am not applying the single profile to "these weapons" collectively. The rules only allow for applying it to a weapon. So I apply it to each weapon in "these weapons." The rules have no problem with that.
That's not even remotely true. Where do you have permission to apply the profiles to "each" weapon? You don't have permission to do so like you do with the Gauntlets of Ultramar. "These weapons are used together, using the profile below" only gives you permission to use the singular profile below when using the weapons combined. It doesn't say in any fashion that you apply the profile to each weapon. You don't know what the profile is for each weapon separately - because they use them together. If they have the same profile and you are supposed to apply it to each one, it would say "each with the profile below", or specify how the two sepearate weapons work in melee (as they do for Cypher using his poistols in close combat) or otherwise tell you that you use them together as two weapons. You aren't given a profile for each weapon separately, only the two weapons together. You can't tell if the Hand counts as a specialist weapon by itself, since we don't have that profile. You don't get a bonus attack armed with a power sword and power fist - two melee weapons - something you've tried to ignore or deflect. Other people brought up the pistol and grenade option - it is valid from the stanpoint that you can have two melee weapons, just like having a power fist and power sword, and not get +1 A. You have to have the profile of the Hand and of the Sword by themselves to make sure there is nothing in there to prevent you from getting the bonus attack, and you don't have permission to use the profile for the weapons used together as an individual profile from each weapon.
2017/04/03 20:38:51
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
You have no RAW argument. Your continued insistence that the use of "these weapons" constitutes +1 Attack is just as RAI as those that insist that "used together" does not warrant an additional attack. In fact, just like them, everything you have posted in this thread is based on RAI.
Incorrect. My argument follows strictly from the rules and makes absolutely no assumptions. If you think otherwise feel free to point to any assumptions I make.
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 has a profile" for "these weapons".
Summarized here:
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 at least 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.
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 has a profile" for "these weapons".
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.
I don't need to rehash 20 pagws of people showing you the error of your ways, but here is your most blatant assumption;
Your continued use of "these weapons" without the rest of sent nice for context, you are assuming that it has no merit and thus "these weapons" are the only parts of that sentence to support your argument. The rest of your dribble that follows is assumptions based upon this RAI of the sentence.
But like I said, the no crowd has based their arguments on RAI as well.
2017/04/03 20:39:44
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
MattKing wrote: *Head hits table*
20 pages?
20!
For feths sake last month we had a rules discussion that ended with "Legally speaking, Guilliman becomes a super heavy vehicle and then explodes on the titanic chart"
and it went on for 5....
Yeah, I had the same reaction. I thought this was answered on like page 2.
"Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment." Words to live by.
2017/04/03 22:00:31
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
Ceann wrote: It states "these weapons" it does not tell you what those weapons are.
Incorrect.
Spoiler:
The Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion: These weapons are used together, using the profile below.
"These weapons" can only refer to the entry line "the Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion" which is grammatically a list containing two items. So the "Sword of the Emperor" is a weapon". Also "the Hand of Dominion" is a weapon. Later in the rules, "the Hand of Dominion" is described individually as "a weapon" which further proves that we are dealing with two weapons, a "Sword of the Emperor" and a "Hand of Dominion".
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.
Ceann wrote: There is one entry for a weapon and one entry armor. Fact
Incorrect. All we know is that there is a single entry line for "the Emperor’s Sword and the Hand of Dominion" . A single entry line can refer to multiple items, whether relics, weapons, or suits of armor. That can only be the case here, because the rules refer to "these weapons" after an entry of two proper noun items in a list format (X and Y).
As the rules are not EXPLICITLY stating what weapons, or that there are even two melee weapons in the first place we have to make an assumption. We have to assume there are two melee weapons and that the single entry should be split, we are not ever told to double the profile, you are assuming this too. You claim the basic rule states all weapons must have a profile, then the most logical deduction is that a second weapon doesn't exist then, no rule tells us to double a profile.
The rules provide us with two weapons and a single unnamed profile. There are no rules relating to profiles except for the rule that "every weapon has a profile".
If we start making assumptions that the presentation of a single profile must mean that the rules writers intend for us to treat the two weapons as a single weapon then we have slipped into making a RAI argument.
If we make no assumptions, then we have no choice except to apply the profile in such a way that "every weapon has a profile". If we apply the single unnamed profile to just one of the weapons and not both then we violate the one rule that we know about profiles, that "every weapon has a profile". In order to not violate "every weapon has a profile" then we do what we are allowed by the rules to do - we apply the single unnamed profile to both the Sword and the Hand. So the one rule we have about profiles leads, based on nothing more than the rules themselves, exactly to the resolution where we have two melee weapons. That resolution comes directly from the rules themselves, when we make zero assumptions. Therefore, this way of resolving the rule statements is a RAW argument and not a RAI argument.
Here is the full argument:
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 at least 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.
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 has a profile" for "these weapons".
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 5 times. Last update was at 2017/04/03 22:22:53
2017/04/03 23:03:17
Subject: Re:Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
1st : all weapons must have a profile.. ok everyone agree with this
2nd Sword of the emperor and Hand of dominion , shows a combined profile, this mean this profile only can be used when attacking with both weapons, (to further clarify this if Jain Zar disarm Roboute then you ARE NOT attacking with both weapons so you can't access this profile then as you would be hitting with either Fist or Sword but NOT BOTH. (this is RAW)
3rd If the profile it's for *these weapons combined* and weapons always must have a profile (considering the previous situation) i request AGAIN that you show the individual profile of the Sword and the individual profile of the Hand ( again not the combined one show the rules with the individual profiles of each weapon shown)
As you can't provide proof from the previous statement (unless you assume both weapons have same profile, despite never being told that)
You are the one assuming the little bit of rule that only show permission to use the relic in the shooting phase and the melee phase (check Orks Burnas wich have a similar wording that forces them to use their weapons as either shooting or melee) granting you extra attacks and doubling profiles out of nowhere.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/03 23:06:35
2017/04/03 23:26:58
Subject: Re:Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
2nd Sword of the emperor and Hand of dominion , shows a combined profile,[u] this mean this profile only can be used when attacking with both weapons,
This is entirely an assumption on your part. There are no rules that describe combined profiles or how to handle them. There are no rules to describe what "used together" means. If you feel otherwise, it is up to you to find the rules so that they can enter the discussion.
The only rule we have for profiles is that "every weapon has a profile".
Further, we know that with regards to "the Sword of Dominion and the Hand of the Emperor" we are dealing with "these weapons".
If we assume that we are somehow dealing with a single combined weapon then we go directly against the rules statement "these weapons".
Applying a single profile to some assumed single combined weapons goes directly against the rules. If we do that then we have surely abandoned a RAW approach for a RAI one.
Instead, if we stick to RAW, we make no assumptions and apply the single unnamed profile to "these weapons" such that "every weapon has a profile". The only way to do that is to apply the single profile to both the Sword and also the Hand. The rules allow for applying a single profile to more than one weapon.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/03 23:28:35
2017/04/04 00:01:32
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
BRB page 49 states that you only get +1A with two single handed weapons, but when it comes to the relic, you do not have a choice of two single weapons, you have ONE choice.
Both or none at all. You never have a choice between the Sword and the Fist. You only use the profile for "THESE WEAPONS TOGETHER" not separate.
In order to meet the criteria of having two single weapons you need two weapons that can each be wielded individually and make attacks individually, as the rule states "these weapons" you do not have a choice to count either as a single weapon. The profile requires you to use both at once, not singly, so you do not meet the +1A criteria.
2nd Sword of the emperor and Hand of dominion , shows a combined profile,[u] this mean this profile only can be used when attacking with both weapons,
This is entirely an assumption on your part. There are no rules that describe combined profiles or how to handle them. There are no rules to describe what "used together" means. If you feel otherwise, it is up to you to find the rules so that they can enter the discussion.
The only rule we have for profiles is that "every weapon has a profile".
Further, we know that with regards to "the Sword of Dominion and the Hand of the Emperor" we are dealing with "these weapons".
If we assume that we are somehow dealing with a single combined weapon then we go directly against the rules statement "these weapons".
Applying a single profile to some assumed single combined weapons goes directly against the rules. If we do that then we have surely abandoned a RAW approach for a RAI one.
Instead, if we stick to RAW, we make no assumptions and apply the single unnamed profile to "these weapons" such that "every weapon has a profile". The only way to do that is to apply the single profile to both the Sword and also the Hand. The rules allow for applying a single profile to more than one weapon.
Oh no remember, this is a new case with no precedence, you said so yourself.
So obviously this profile means you can only use the weapons together, at the same time, not individually.
Just like we can "doubly apply the profile" even though those words do not exist anywhere in the BRB or the profile.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/04 00:05:02
2017/04/04 00:15:41
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
Ceann wrote: BRB page 49 states that you only get +1A with two single handed weapons, but when it comes to the relic, you do not have a choice of two single weapons, you have ONE choice.
Both or none at all. You never have a choice between the Sword and the Fist. You only use the profile for "THESE WEAPONS TOGETHER" not separate.
In order to meet the criteria of having two single weapons you need two weapons that can each be wielded individually and make attacks individually, as the rule states "these weapons" you do not have a choice to count either as a single weapon. The profile requires you to use both at once, not singly, so you do not meet the +1A criteria.
Incorrect. In order to meet the +1A criteria you only need to meet the following . . .
Spoiler:
if a model has two or more Melee weapons he gains +1 attack in close combat.
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 has a profile" for "these weapons". This results in two Melee weapons. Two Melee weapons that are "used together" are still two Melee weapons and so satisfy the criteria for +1A.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ceann wrote: Oh no remember, this is a new case with no precedence, you said so yourself.
So obviously this profile means you can only use the weapons together, at the same time, not individually.
Sure, if you go ahead and make up allowances and violate the rules we have ("these weapons", "every weapon has a profile"). Such an approach is a perfect example of a RAI approach, because you are assuming that the weapons "count as a single weapon".
Just like we can "doubly apply the profile" even though those words do not exist anywhere in the BRB or the profile.
This approach is different than the one you talk about above. It's what you do if you strictly follow the rules we have ("these weapons", "every weapon has a profile") and make no assumptions. This approach is a perfect example of a RAW approach and it winds up with two Melee weapons and therewith +1A.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/04/04 00:37:13
2017/04/04 00:43:09
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
Ceann wrote: BRB page 49 states that you only get +1A with two single handed weapons, but when it comes to the relic, you do not have a choice of two single weapons, you have ONE choice.
Both or none at all. You never have a choice between the Sword and the Fist. You only use the profile for "THESE WEAPONS TOGETHER" not separate.
In order to meet the criteria of having two single weapons you need two weapons that can each be wielded individually and make attacks individually, as the rule states "these weapons" you do not have a choice to count either as a single weapon. The profile requires you to use both at once, not singly, so you do not meet the +1A criteria.
Incorrect. In order to meet the +1A criteria you only need to meet the following . . .
Spoiler:
if a model has two or more Melee weapons he gains +1 attack in close combat.
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 has a profile" for "these weapons". This results in two Melee weapons. Two Melee weapons that are "used together" are still two Melee weapons and so satisfy the criteria for +1A.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ceann wrote: Oh no remember, this is a new case with no precedence, you said so yourself.
So obviously this profile means you can only use the weapons together, at the same time, not individually.
Sure, if you go ahead and make up allowances and violate the rules we have ("these weapons", "every weapon has a profile"). Such an approach is a perfect example of a RAI approach, because you are assuming that the weapons "count as a single weapon".
Just like we can "doubly apply the profile" even though those words do not exist anywhere in the BRB or the profile.
This approach is different than the one you talk about above. It's what you do if you strictly follow the rules we have ("these weapons", "every weapon has a profile") and make no assumptions. This approach is a perfect example of a RAW approach and it winds up with two Melee weapons and therewith +1A.
And you are assuming they two seperate weapons, you are not told that, ANYWHERE. Nor is there any place you can reference that allows you doubly apply a profile. You are also not told whether or not they are specialist weapons, you assume there as well.
What does together mean then?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Page 49 states EXPLICITLY that you need two SINGLE handed weapons. If you feel that is incorrect CITE THE RULE.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/04 00:45:54
2017/04/04 13:54:27
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
Ceann wrote: BRB page 49 states that you only get +1A with two single handed weapons, but when it comes to the relic, you do not have a choice of two single weapons, you have ONE choice.
Both or none at all. You never have a choice between the Sword and the Fist. You only use the profile for "THESE WEAPONS TOGETHER" not separate.
In order to meet the criteria of having two single weapons you need two weapons that can each be wielded individually and make attacks individually, as the rule states "these weapons" you do not have a choice to count either as a single weapon. The profile requires you to use both at once, not singly, so you do not meet the +1A criteria.
Incorrect. In order to meet the +1A criteria you only need to meet the following . . .
Spoiler:
if a model has two or more Melee weapons he gains +1 attack in close combat.
You mean like having a power fist and a power sword, two melee weapons, one of which is a specialist weapon? Or do you mean an eviscerator and a ccw, both of which are melee weapons but one is two handed?Or do you mean an assault grenade and ccw, both of which can be used as melee weapons but one of which has restrictions in melee combat? That right there disproves your statement "you only need to meet the following".
Now, where does it specifically state that you use the combined profile for each weapon separately? The "every weapon has a profile" statement is not a statement that says you can assume that it applies to each weapon. We are only told that they are used together, using the profile below. It does not say each weapon uses the profile below. The weapons have a profile, which is what is supplied, when they are used together - as we are instructed. We are not instructed that each weapon goes by that profile, as myself and others have cited precedence for (with Space Marines even) when that is how they wish to handle that.
2017/04/04 14:08:18
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
He also needs to quit citing "every weapon has a profile". That is a BASIC rule, we are dealing with a non-basic rule, which means the TOGETHER part supersedes the basic rule you are quoting.
So please stop quoting a basic rule when it is being contradicted by together.
2017/04/04 15:57:23
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
doctortom wrote: You mean like having a power fist and a power sword, two melee weapons, one of which is a specialist weapon?
To be fair, the Power Fist would count as a second Melee Weapon for a Power Sword, but the Power Sword would not count for the Power Fist. In order for the Specialist Weapon to be used, you have to be fighting with it. Ironically, same applies to the Two-handed Weapon.
As for the Assault Grenade, no Melee profile, the Krak does have one, but apparently, using it is the same as throwing it so only one model would be able to use it, and only against Monstrous Creatures and Vehicles.
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.
2017/04/04 16:41:07
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
doctortom wrote: You mean like having a power fist and a power sword, two melee weapons, one of which is a specialist weapon?
To be fair, the Power Fist would count as a second Melee Weapon for a Power Sword, but the Power Sword would not count for the Power Fist. In order for the Specialist Weapon to be used, you have to be fighting with it. Ironically, same applies to the Two-handed Weapon.
As for the Assault Grenade, no Melee profile, the Krak does have one, but apparently, using it is the same as throwing it so only one model would be able to use it, and only against Monstrous Creatures and Vehicles.
There's still the larger point that you don't automatically get the +1 attack for two melee weapons, unlike what col impact states. You have to know the profiles of each weapon separately to know if there's a +1 attack, or if you're given rules that say you use the weapons together there should be a note there as to whether you get the +1 attack. Gauntlets of Ultramar, where you are told each gauntlet has the profile given, is an example of this where you get the +1 attack. You don't have to assume a profile because you're told specifically each gauntlet has the profile. We aren't told each weapon has the profile here, so the assumption that you apply the profile to each weapon is not valid.
2017/04/04 16:46:41
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
Yarium wrote: I'm surprised that no one in that thread pointed out that, when Wrecked, Gulliman's armour might "save" him so that he could explode again next turn
I like to say he gets wrecked, not slain so armour of fate doesn't work. I'd let him explode; at least you can like imagine it's the armour going critical, but I wouldn't let him do both.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ceann wrote: He also needs to quit citing "every weapon has a profile". That is a BASIC rule, we are dealing with a non-basic rule, which means the TOGETHER part supersedes the basic rule you are quoting.
So please stop quoting a basic rule when it is being contradicted by together.
I said this myself for about 2-3 pages btw.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/04 17:23:42
doctortom wrote:There's still the larger point that you don't automatically get the +1 attack for two melee weapons, unlike what col impact states. You have to know the profiles of each weapon separately to know if there's a +1 attack, or if you're given rules that say you use the weapons together there should be a note there as to whether you get the +1 attack.
And we don't consider the special rules of the other Weapon. For a basic Melee Weapon, all you need is the other Weapon to state "Melee". That's all laid out in More Than One Weapon.
I was merely pointing out that such an example is bad as there are ways around it now that were not available during an Edition or two.
doctortom wrote:Gauntlets of Ultramar, where you are told each gauntlet has the profile given, is an example of this where you get the +1 attack. You don't have to assume a profile because you're told specifically each gauntlet has the profile.
As I pointed out earlier with the Gauntlets, the problem there is that there is no defined quantity of Gauntlets which the rules provide for them. In a way, this is the mirror opposite of the case in question. We have no defined quantity to go by, but we are given permission to use multiples of it.
doctortom wrote:We aren't told each weapon has the profile here, so the assumption that you apply the profile to each weapon is not valid.
To true. In direct opposition of case from the Gauntlets, we have a name with a definite number of articles provided, but they have to be used together to gain that Weapon profile. This is definitely a case of GW writers doing things the hard way.
If the Hand was supposed to be used as a Ranged Weapon, why bother including it as a pair with the Sword at all if they are supposed to only work together? Far simpler and easier to give the Sword one Melee profile and the Hand one Ranged Profile.
Sometimes, I wonder if GW has pools going for how long rule arguments on forums will last and deliberately set up the rules just for this task.
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.
2017/04/04 18:57:49
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
doctortom wrote:There's still the larger point that you don't automatically get the +1 attack for two melee weapons, unlike what col impact states. You have to know the profiles of each weapon separately to know if there's a +1 attack, or if you're given rules that say you use the weapons together there should be a note there as to whether you get the +1 attack.
And we don't consider the special rules of the other Weapon. For a basic Melee Weapon, all you need is the other Weapon to state "Melee". That's all laid out in More Than One Weapon.
I was merely pointing out that such an example is bad as there are ways around it now that were not available during an Edition or two.
doctortom wrote:Gauntlets of Ultramar, where you are told each gauntlet has the profile given, is an example of this where you get the +1 attack. You don't have to assume a profile because you're told specifically each gauntlet has the profile.
As I pointed out earlier with the Gauntlets, the problem there is that there is no defined quantity of Gauntlets which the rules provide for them. In a way, this is the mirror opposite of the case in question. We have no defined quantity to go by, but we are given permission to use multiples of it.
doctortom wrote:We aren't told each weapon has the profile here, so the assumption that you apply the profile to each weapon is not valid.
To true. In direct opposition of case from the Gauntlets, we have a name with a definite number of articles provided, but they have to be used together to gain that Weapon profile. This is definitely a case of GW writers doing things the hard way.
If the Hand was supposed to be used as a Ranged Weapon, why bother including it as a pair with the Sword at all if they are supposed to only work together? Far simpler and easier to give the Sword one Melee profile and the Hand one Ranged Profile.
Sometimes, I wonder if GW has pools going for how long rule arguments on forums will last and deliberately set up the rules just for this task.
There are multiple issues here.
1. We are not told to apply the profile twice.
2. We are not told if the weapons have types that allow an extra attack.
3. We are told that the weapons must be used together.
4. A requirement for gaining an extra attack is having two single handed weapons, we are not permitted to singly apply the profile, as they must be used together not individually.
5. We have no precedence for what "together" means. As it is a part of the rules you have to account for it, making any interpretation of "together" an assumption. Even col. cannot avoid this. And because we have this ambiguous word all interpretations are RAI because no one knows what together actually means, you also cannot ignore that it is there.
I am honestly surprised given the number of games out there, M:TG being a great example, where they have established keywords, rules for those keywords and clauses, that GW should understand the concept clearly of standardized rules language. An example for our previous discussion on IC, if the trigger word "whenever" was used for joining a unit, you could clearly layout the outcome initiated by a specific event.
Instead we deal with ambiguous wording because the writers are probably not possessed of that skillset.
2017/04/04 19:36:59
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
1. We are not told to apply the profile twice.
2. We are not told if the weapons have types that allow an extra attack.
3. We are told that the weapons must be used together.
4. A requirement for gaining an extra attack is having two single handed weapons, we are not permitted to singly apply the profile, as they must be used together not individually.
These are only issues, game-wise, if we are trying to milk the multiple Weapon bonus Attack out of the situation. The name carries two articles, but it is still just one single name with one single Melee profile. If we look at it in that specific light as it is presented, than there are no issues, just with GW's formatting policies (which could fill its own thread).
Ceann wrote: 5. We have no precedence for what "together" means. As it is a part of the rules you have to account for it, making any interpretation of "together" an assumption. Even col. cannot avoid this. And because we have this ambiguous word all interpretations are RAI because no one knows what together actually means, you also cannot ignore that it is there.
We have the precedence provided by the English language. The BRB does not change this nor use it in a different manner, so using it in the standard vernacular is right and proper. Using the "together" to bind the two articles in the Artifact's name as one is RAW, not RAI.
Ceann wrote: I am honestly surprised given the number of games out there, M:TG being a great example, where they have established keywords, rules for those keywords and clauses, that GW should understand the concept clearly of standardized rules language. An example for our previous discussion on IC, if the trigger word "whenever" was used for joining a unit, you could clearly layout the outcome initiated by a specific event.
More importantly, it is used in Age of Sigmar, which means there are rule-writers in Games Workshop who are aware of this technique and have been using it for at least a year and a half before RG's rules were setup.
Again, the latter part is more of a commentary on GW writing practices, not a critique on how to treat the situation.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/04 19:37:52
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.
2017/04/04 20:08:16
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
Ceann wrote: He also needs to quit citing "every weapon has a profile". That is a BASIC rule, we are dealing with a non-basic rule, which means the TOGETHER part supersedes the basic rule you are quoting.
So please stop quoting a basic rule when it is being contradicted by together.
Can you point to a rule defining what "together" means? If you cannot, then how can the "together" part supersede anything?
Ceann wrote: 5. We have no precedence for what "together" means. As it is a part of the rules you have to account for it, making any interpretation of "together" an assumption. Even col. cannot avoid this. And because we have this ambiguous word all interpretations are RAI because no one knows what together actually means, you also cannot ignore that it is there.
We have the precedence provided by the English language. The BRB does not change this nor use it in a different manner, so using it in the standard vernacular is right and proper. Using the "together" to bind the two articles in the Artifact's name as one is RAW, not RAI.
"Used together" does not mean "count as one". You are making that up.
In fact, any rule weight you attribute to "used together" is entirely an assumption on your part. The rules don't recognize "used together" as meaning anything. If you make up some significance to "used together" then you are most assuredly making a RAI argument.
Applying a single profile to more than one weapon is something the rules allow us to do, and in this case must do, in order that "every weapon has a profile" for "these weapons". If you don't apply a profile for each of these weapons then you are breaking the rules.
Ceann wrote: 2. We are not told if the weapons have types that allow an extra attack.
The rules don't need to. So long as it's two melee weapons they will provide an extra attack.
Ceann wrote: 3. We are told that the weapons must be used together.
"Used together" means absolutely nothing in a rules sense.
Ceann wrote: 4. A requirement for gaining an extra attack is having two single handed weapons, we are not permitted to singly apply the profile, as they must be used together not individually.
Incorrect. The requirement is merely two or more melee weapons.
Ceann wrote: 5. We have no precedence for what "together" means. As it is a part of the rules you have to account for it, making any interpretation of "together" an assumption. Even col. cannot avoid this. And because we have this ambiguous word all interpretations are RAI because no one knows what together actually means, you also cannot ignore that it is there.
"Used together" has no rules associated with it so it means nothing according to the rules. If you make up rules for "used together" you are forming a RAI argument.
In short . . .
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 has a profile" for "these weapons". This results in two Melee weapons. Two Melee weapons that are "used together" are still two Melee weapons and so satisfy the criteria for +1A.
Longer summary . . .
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.
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 has a profile" for "these weapons".
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 4 times. Last update was at 2017/04/04 20:31:31
2017/04/04 20:33:25
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
I like how a simple question devolved into 20 pages of people arguing over the linguistic definitions of "these weapons" and "used together".
Since all of you are just yelling at an echo chamber at this point, maybe we should just put it to a vote? Like that whole Team Edward (counts as one weapon) and Team Jacobs (counts as two weapons) thing from the other thread. At least we can see what the majority of the forum goers think rather than some arcane interpretation of linguistics.
EDIT: By the way I'm in the Team Edward Camp (one weapon) as there was a precedent for this kind of bad wording before; the Nemesis Force Falchion in the Grey Knights 5th ed codex had a similar lack of specific wording and, as it turns out, GW intended it to be used as one weapon rather than two (despite constantly refering to it as "a pair of weapons"). Anyone remember that?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/04 20:35:53
Gwar! wrote:Huh, I had no idea Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines posted on Dakka. Hi Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can I have an Autograph!
Kanluwen wrote:
Hell, I'm not that bothered by the Stormraven. Why? Because, as it stands right now, it's "limited use".When it's shoehorned in to the Codex: Space Marines, then yeah. I'll be irked.
When I'm editing alot, you know I have a gakload of homework to (not) do.
