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.
2017/04/04 20:36:26
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.
lol.
ok. "used together" isn't a previously defined term in the BRB. Just like used. and. below. ... the list goes on.
That really explains a lot.
So let's read only defined words now:
These weapons are used together, using the profile below
really reads
brzzz WEAPONS bzz rszs zzrZZzz, zzrsz srs PROFILE
The trick is to ignore the instruction the rule gives us and just focus on the words that fit the narrative we are trying to build!
It can be difficult to ignore the overt instruction in the rule, but with enough practice we'll manage.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: 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?
The precedent you cite disproves your case. "A pair" is singular and so allows it to be counted as a single entity in the rules. "These weapons" in the case of Robute are not called "a pair" and so are unequivocally plural.
ok. "used together" isn't a previously defined term in the BRB. Just like used. and. below. ... the list goes on.
That really explains a lot.
So let's read only defined words now:
These weapons are used together, using the profile below
really reads
brzzz WEAPONS bzz rszs zzrZZzz, zzrsz srs PROFILE
The trick is to ignore the instruction the rule gives us and just focus on the words that fit the narrative we are trying to build!
It can be difficult to ignore the overt instruction in the rule, but with enough practice we'll manage.
Now that you have gotten some sarcasm out of your system, would you please provide us with a rule-based meaning for "used together" that can actually be used in a RAW argument?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/04 20:48:49
2017/04/04 20:49:35
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: 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?
The precedent you cite disproves your case. "A pair" is singular and so allows it to be counted as a single entity in the rules. "These weapons" in the case of Robute are not called "a pair" and so are unequivocally plural.
I'm pointing out that the argument for "Two weapons" in that case was eerily similar to the argument here, as people latched onto the term "Weapons" and since it was plural, they ignored everything else. It didn't help that back then melee weapons didn't have profiles (you were either a close combat weapon, a power weapon, or a power fist, and then got some special rules and that was it). Also I was paraphrasing when I said "a pair". I don't have the book with me but in I do remember them also being refered to as "weapons used as a pair" and so forth.
Funny enough, that argument actually said "A pair" must have meant there were two weapons, since "pair" by english definition can only refer to two things. And yes, I think someone brought "pants" into the argument as well just to make everything three times more confusing.
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.
2017/04/04 20:53:23
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: 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?
The precedent you cite disproves your case. "A pair" is singular and so allows it to be counted as a single entity in the rules. "These weapons" in the case of Robute are not called "a pair" and so are unequivocally plural.
I'm pointing out that the argument for "Two weapons" in that case was eerily similar to the argument here, as people latched onto the term "Weapons" and since it was plural, they ignored everything else. It didn't help that back then melee weapons didn't have profiles (you were either a close combat weapon, a power weapon, or a power fist, and then got some special rules and that was it). Also I was paraphrasing when I said "a pair". I don't have the book with me but in I do remember them also being refered to as "weapons used as a pair" and so forth.
Funny enough, that argument actually said "A pair" must have meant there were two weapons, since "pair" by english definition can only refer to two things. And yes, I think someone brought "pants" into the argument as well just to make everything three times more confusing.
"A pair" is singular, so when that word is present it can be argued that a single provided profile is applied to the "pair".
The problem in the current argument is that we are definitely dealing with the plural. "These weapons" and "every weapon has a profile" leads to two melee weapons.
2017/04/04 20:56:19
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: 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?
The precedent you cite disproves your case. "A pair" is singular and so allows it to be counted as a single entity in the rules. "These weapons" in the case of Robute are not called "a pair" and so are unequivocally plural.
I'm pointing out that the argument for "Two weapons" in that case was eerily similar to the argument here, as people latched onto the term "Weapons" and since it was plural, they ignored everything else. It didn't help that back then melee weapons didn't have profiles (you were either a close combat weapon, a power weapon, or a power fist, and then got some special rules and that was it). Also I was paraphrasing when I said "a pair". I don't have the book with me but in I do remember them also being refered to as "weapons used as a pair" and so forth.
Funny enough, that argument actually said "A pair" must have meant there were two weapons, since "pair" by english definition can only refer to two things. And yes, I think someone brought "pants" into the argument as well just to make everything three times more confusing.
"A pair" is singular, so when that word is present it can be argued that a single provided profile is applied to the "pair".
The problem in the current argument is that we are definitely dealing with the plural. "These weapons" and "every weapon has a profile" leads to two melee weapons.
Then for the sake of the argument, what does selecting a "Pair of lightning claws" count as for the purposes of unit selection?
For everyone else: Note that I'm not trying to bring that dead horse back to life, but just illustrating how cherry picked this argument has become. Again, I choose Team Edward.
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.
2017/04/04 21:08:05
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
Page 49 of the BRB. Not my opinion, the BRB explicitly says you must have two one handed weapons.
There is only ONE Melee profile for RG and these weapons must be used together. The English precedence for together means, at the same time. You cannot choose to ignore the existence of the word in the sentence, THAT, is breaking the rules. As for you quoting basic rules they are irrelevant.
You 100% agreed with me when I used the same argument on the IC thread when people were trying to use basic rules to supersede advanced rules, you doing so now is hypocritical and exactly the opposite of a position you previously advocated for.
Because we do not have a precedence from a rules perspective, we have to assume what together means or use the literal definition of the word, which means at the same time.
So you can only use the weapons at the same time and per page 49 you only get the bonus if you have two single handed weapons. We do not have any singled handled profiles, 0. We have one profile that requires two hands, you cannot apply the profile twice because you do not have 4 hands nor are you told you are allowed too.
Basic rules are irrelevant if a contradiction exists, which one does.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/04 21:45:20
2017/04/04 21:57:03
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
Page 49 of the BRB. Not my opinion, the BRB explicitly says you must have two one handed weapons.
Sure and since the Two-handed special rule is no where to be found then we know for sure we are dealing with single handed weapons.
Did you forget that 'single-handed' is not a rule in itself? Two-handed is the special rule.
Spoiler:
Two-Handed
A model attacking with this weapon never receives +1 Attack for fighting with two Melee weapons.
If the Two-Handed special rule is not present then the melee weapon is single-handed. Melee weapons are single-handed unless the Two-Handed special rule supersedes their single-handedness.
Ceann wrote: There is only ONE Melee profile for RG and these weapons must be used together. The English precedence for together means, at the same time. You cannot choose to ignore the existence of the word in the sentence, THAT, is breaking the rules. As for you quoting basic rules they are irrelevant.
That's fine. If you use two melee weapons 'at the same time' then you are still using two melee weapons and therewith satisfying the criteria for +1A.
Spoiler:
if a model has two or more Melee weapons he gains +1 attack in close combat.
Ceann wrote: Because we do not have a precedence from a rules perspective, we have to assume what together means or use the literal definition of the word, which means at the same time.
So you can only use the weapons at the same time and per page 49 you only get the bonus if you have two single handed weapons. We do not have any singled handled profiles, 0. We have one profile that requires two hands, you cannot apply the profile twice because you do not have 4 hands nor are you told you are allowed too.
Basic rules are irrelevant if a contradiction exists, which one does.
Okay, So I use the two melee weapons 'at the same time' which means I have two melee weapons and therewith satisfy the criteria for +1A. We know the melee weapons are single-handed because the Two-handed special rule is not present.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/04/04 22:02:07
2017/04/04 22:14:58
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
That's fine. If you use two melee weapons 'at the same time' then you are still using two melee weapons and therewith satisfying the criteria for +1A.
Not when given a profile for using the weapons together. One profile, and not a profile that states you apply it to each weapon. Much like lash and bonesword, and other examples that other people have cited that you want to ignore. You have yet to provide proof that you get to apply the profile to each weapon separately. Your "every weapon has a profile" quote doesn't cut it here, as we are given a profile for using the Hand and the Sword - together. It doesn't list +1 attack, so you don't get to take it. Making assumptions that you get to apply the profile to each and then get to take the bonus attack is that, an assumption both unwarranted and false.
2017/04/04 22:16:21
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: 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?
The precedent you cite disproves your case. "A pair" is singular and so allows it to be counted as a single entity in the rules. "These weapons" in the case of Robute are not called "a pair" and so are unequivocally plural.
I'm pointing out that the argument for "Two weapons" in that case was eerily similar to the argument here, as people latched onto the term "Weapons" and since it was plural, they ignored everything else. It didn't help that back then melee weapons didn't have profiles (you were either a close combat weapon, a power weapon, or a power fist, and then got some special rules and that was it). Also I was paraphrasing when I said "a pair". I don't have the book with me but in I do remember them also being refered to as "weapons used as a pair" and so forth.
Funny enough, that argument actually said "A pair" must have meant there were two weapons, since "pair" by english definition can only refer to two things. And yes, I think someone brought "pants" into the argument as well just to make everything three times more confusing.
"A pair" is singular, so when that word is present it can be argued that a single provided profile is applied to the "pair".
The problem in the current argument is that we are definitely dealing with the plural. "These weapons" and "every weapon has a profile" leads to two melee weapons.
So by this post, a "pair of lightning claws" is a single entity with the profile of the thing defined as a pair put over it. So does that mean a "Pair of lightning claws" is functionally identical to a single Lightning Claw and thus only count as one weapon/entity?
See this is where the issue lies; the Falchion, much like Guilliman's weapons, was listed as "a pair of falchions" even in the rules, but functionally it was one weapon (or at least that was what the FAQ implied the intent was) whereas using the same language for a Pair of Lightning Claws results in either you finding no profile for "a pair of lightning claws" or resulting in assuming it's two lightning claws. The difference though is that the Falchion's own special rules says they are used together (which is, again, similar to guilliman's weapons) while no such special distinction was made for the Lightning Claw. In fact, which of Guilliman's Weapons does the profile belong to?
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.
2017/04/04 22:25:32
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
THE PAGE, including PAGE NUMBER. That contradicts page 49.
In order to meet the criteria you need two profiles, for single handed weapons. You cannot use the profile twice because that would require you to have 4 weapons, which he does not. Another requirement is to choose an individual weapon to attack with, which you cannot because you have to use "these weapons together".
I like how you dodged that you were in agreement of advanced rules on another thread but all you do here is resort back to basic ones.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/04 23:00:23
2017/04/04 22:39:52
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
Good to know when the world ends and all of humanity is dust this thread will somehow carry on. copy/pasting the same responses till the heat death of the universe.
So by this post, a "pair of lightning claws" is a single entity with the profile of the thing defined as a pair put over it. So does that mean a "Pair of lightning claws" is functionally identical to a single Lightning Claw and thus only count as one weapon/entity?
Are you actually looking at the rules and profiles involved? The profile says "lightning claw" and not "pair of lightning claws" so there is nothing at all to discuss here.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: See this is where the issue lies; the Falchion, much like Guilliman's weapons, was listed as "a pair of falchions" even in the rules, but functionally it was one weapon (or at least that was what the FAQ implied the intent was) whereas using the same language for a Pair of Lightning Claws results in either you finding no profile for "a pair of lightning claws" or resulting in assuming it's two lightning claws. The difference though is that the Falchion's own special rules says they are used together (which is, again, similar to guilliman's weapons) while no such special distinction was made for the Lightning Claw. In fact, which of Guilliman's Weapons does the profile belong to?
Robute has two weapons and "every weapon has a profile" so the profile has to be applicable to both of his weapons. There is no rule saying Robute has a single weapon so you have no rules justification applying the single profile to some make-believe 'combined weapon'. So Robute has two weapons. This means that if you only apply the profile to one of the weapons - let's say just the Sword - then you have violated the rule that "every weapon has a profile". Nothing prevents you from applying the single unnamed profile to both of Robute's weapons, so you do that.
2017/04/04 23:04:04
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
THE PAGE, including PAGE NUMBER. That contradicts page 49.
In order to meet the criteria you need two profiles, for single handed weapons. You cannot use the profile twice because that would require you to have 4 weapons, which he does not.
I like how you dodged that you were in agreement of advanced rules on another thread but all you do here is resort back to basic ones.
I have no problem with the rule on page 49. Here is the rule.
Spoiler:
• +1 Two Weapons: Engaged models with two single-handed weapons (often a Melee weapon and/or pistol in each hand) get +1 Attack.
Okay, So I use the two melee weapons 'at the same time' which means I have two melee weapons and therewith satisfy the criteria for +1A. We know the melee weapons are single-handed because the Two-handed special rule is not present.
The unnamed profile on the left side Robute's Relics box refer to "this weapon [singular]" so the profile has to be applied to each [singular] of "these weapons [plural]" or else you violate the plainly stated case agreement in the rule statement and you violate the rule "every weapon has a profile".
2017/04/04 23:07:24
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
So by this post, a "pair of lightning claws" is a single entity with the profile of the thing defined as a pair put over it. So does that mean a "Pair of lightning claws" is functionally identical to a single Lightning Claw and thus only count as one weapon/entity?
Are you actually looking at the rules and profiles involved? The profile says "lightning claw" and not "pair of lightning claws" so there is nothing at all to discuss here.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: See this is where the issue lies; the Falchion, much like Guilliman's weapons, was listed as "a pair of falchions" even in the rules, but functionally it was one weapon (or at least that was what the FAQ implied the intent was) whereas using the same language for a Pair of Lightning Claws results in either you finding no profile for "a pair of lightning claws" or resulting in assuming it's two lightning claws. The difference though is that the Falchion's own special rules says they are used together (which is, again, similar to guilliman's weapons) while no such special distinction was made for the Lightning Claw. In fact, which of Guilliman's Weapons does the profile belong to?
Robute has two weapons and "every weapon has a profile" so the profile has to be applicable to both of his weapons. There is no rule saying Robute has a single weapon so you have no rules justification applying the single profile to some make-believe 'combined weapon'. So Robute has two weapons. This means that if you only apply the profile to one of the weapons - let's say just the Sword - then you have violated the rule that "every weapon has a profile". Nothing prevents you from applying the single unnamed profile to both of Robute's weapons, so you do that.
To the first: No in fact. I got that purely by what you told me, hence the quotes and "so by this post".
To the second: See here is where your logic breaks down. You insist that if the profile is applied to a single weapon (in this case the sword) then it violates the rule "every weapon has a profile". But you also deny that both weapons are represented by the single profile (and thus count as one weapon) by saying that they're clearly different weapons and every weapon has a profile. Are you saying that they in fact have the exact same profile and that Roboute Gulliman is carrying two identical weapons?
Another thing is I assume that the Sword and Glove are both listed under "weapons" in Roboute Guilliman's profile. If not (and it's listed like an Artifact) then they are technically not two separate instances of weapons, or even separate instances of wargear (this is a legit question, I don't own that book yet).
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.
2017/04/04 23:10:11
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
Every weapon has a profile is ignored.
It is a basic rule, this is not basic rules.
These weapons are used TOGETHER. You cannot apply the profile to them individually or you are breaking the rule of these weapons together.
You cannot ignore together.
The profile on the left side of Robute's Relics box is for a single weapon. Unless you can prove that "together" means "counts as a single weapon" then the player has no choice but to apply the single profile to each single weapon in "these weapons".
2017/04/04 23:14:14
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
To the first: No in fact. I got that purely by what you told me, hence the quotes and "so by this post".
Any argument you make should start and end with the rules. Merely tripping people up from stray word choice in their argument doesn't actually advance any points. I have already shown how Lightning Claws isn't an example of anything by pointing to the actual rules. So it's case closed, correct?
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: To the second: See here is where your logic breaks down. You insist that if the profile is applied to a single weapon (in this case the sword) then it violates the rule "every weapon has a profile". But you also deny that both weapons are represented by the single profile (and thus count as one weapon) by saying that they're clearly different weapons and every weapon has a profile. Are you saying that they in fact have the exact same profile and that Roboute Gulliman is carrying two identical weapons?
The rules tell us that Robute has "these weapons" and provides us with one melee profile. This can only mean that Robute is carrying two weapons with the exact same melee profile. The Hand is further described as also having a ranged weapon profile. So the Hand and the Sword are not exactly the same weapon since the Hand has two profiles.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: RAW is unclear. You CANNOT tell for sure, by RAW, whether there's one weapon or two.
But, RAI is clear. There is a precedent for this. There is one.
The rule statement says "these weapons". Based on that statement alone we know Robute has two or more weapons.
If you feel there is some applicable precedent, feel free to post it. So far there has been no applicable precedent.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/04 23:21:53
2017/04/04 23:21:09
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
JNAProductions wrote: Gauntlets of Ultramar.
Lash whip and bonesword.
Need I go on, with what has already been posted?
As I have already said, in both of those cases the weapons are explicitly deemed 'counted as a single weapon' before the single profile is applied.
Robute's case is unprecedented. There is nothing to make "these weapons" count as a single weapon.
Summary of my 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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/04 23:28:59
2017/04/04 23:32:40
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
To the first: No in fact. I got that purely by what you told me, hence the quotes and "so by this post".
Any argument you make should start and end with the rules. Merely tripping people up from stray word choice in their argument doesn't actually advance any points. I have already shown how Lightning Claws isn't an example of anything by pointing to the actual rules. So it's case closed, correct?
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: To the second: See here is where your logic breaks down. You insist that if the profile is applied to a single weapon (in this case the sword) then it violates the rule "every weapon has a profile". But you also deny that both weapons are represented by the single profile (and thus count as one weapon) by saying that they're clearly different weapons and every weapon has a profile. Are you saying that they in fact have the exact same profile and that Roboute Gulliman is carrying two identical weapons?
The rules tell us that Robute has "these weapons" and provides us with one melee profile. This can only mean that Robute is carrying two weapons with the exact same melee profile. The Hand is further described as also having a ranged weapon profile. So the Hand and the Sword are not exactly the same weapon.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: RAW is unclear. You CANNOT tell for sure, by RAW, whether there's one weapon or two.
But, RAI is clear. There is a precedent for this. There is one.
The rule statement says "these weapons". Based on that statement alone we know Robute has two or more weapons.
If you feel there is some applicable precedent, feel free to post it. So far there has been no applicable precedent.
Again, the 5th edition Falchion Example was a precedent. It was listed as a "Pair of" in the wargear section of any model that could take it, but was treated as a single weapon. I tried pointing this out with the actual rules (Page 91 of the 5th edition Grey Knights Codex and the 5th edition Grey Knight FAQs for examples of the Falchion listed as a Wargear Choice. Page 97 of the 6th Edition Chaos Codex for an example of a pair of lightning claws) but you chose to dodge them after I pointed out a flaw in the logic (specifically the equally listed Lightning Claws in a character's wargear choices is NOT treated as a single weapon, and the only thing the two had different is that the Falchion's own rules stated it had to be wielded as a pair, or in it's words "Wielder of a pair of these". Pg 54 of the 5th edition Grey Knight Codex), hence me using your quotes to illustrate your own point to you. Me bringing them up was the start, you provided the filling, and here be the end.
On the second part: What you revealed is curious to me. It says "these weapons" and gave the hand a different profile for shooting. Did it ever say that they were both melee weapons? Also since you must have exact words, exactly where does it say both weapons have the exact same profile? Otherwise, I asked again, which weapon does the profile belong to?
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.
2017/04/04 23:37:40
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
JNAProductions wrote: Gauntlets of Ultramar.
Lash whip and bonesword.
Need I go on, with what has already been posted?
As I have already said, in both of those cases the weapons are explicitly deemed 'counted as a single weapon' before the single profile is applied.
Robute's case is unprecedented. There is nothing to make "these weapons" count as a single weapon.
Except there is, they are used TOGETHER. You keep ignoring that the word exists. The opposite of together is SEPARATELY. You keep saying APPLY THE PROFILE TO EACH. You cannot because that means they are no longer TOGETHER which is a word that is actually in the rules.
You are right in this case it is unprecedented. It means you have a single profile, to use two weapons, at the same time. The rules for TWO weapons require you to pick a profile when attacking for an INDIVIDUAL weapon to get the +1A. Together means you CANNOT separate these into individual weapons, because they are TOGETHER.
We are not forced to use the "every weapon has a profile" basic rule, because every weapon DOES have a profile, they use it TOGETHER. Not independently, TOGETHER.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/04 23:39:45
2017/04/04 23:50:03
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
I had to call up someone to show me the actual profile for the weapons and lo and behind.
They not only have the same profile, but have one Entry.
Also being used as a Melee Weapon and being used as part of a combination weapon are not mutually exclusive, Using the Hand alongside the sword as a single weapon is still using it as a melee weapon. Trying to imply otherwise is a false dichotomy (i.e: implying that there is only two options when there is, in fact, more).
Finally, you keep asking for a precedent. We not only gave you two, but now we must ask you for one. Give us a Precedent of a weapon listed under a single entry (that is, one bolded name in it's place under artifacts or the armoury) where it's counted as two different weapons without explicitly stating so (as in it does not contain the phrase "counts as two weapons" or any variations thereof).
EDIT: Also JNAProductions brought up the Lashwhip and Boneswords and yes, they are explicitly referred to as one weapon. But only in the Tyranid Codex. There is no such qualifier in the Genestealer Cult Codex.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/04 23:57:55
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.
2017/04/04 23:58:23
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
Again, the 5th edition Falchion Example was a precedent. It was listed as a "Pair of" in the wargear section of any model that could take it, but was treated as a single weapon. I tried pointing this out with the actual rules (Page 91 of the 5th edition Grey Knights Codex and the 5th edition Grey Knight FAQs for examples of the Falchion listed as a Wargear Choice. Page 97 of the 6th Edition Chaos Codex for an example of a pair of lightning claws) but you chose to dodge them after I pointed out a flaw in the logic (specifically the equally listed Lightning Claws in a character's wargear choices is NOT treated as a single weapon, and the only thing the two had different is that the Falchion's own rules stated it had to be wielded as a pair, or in it's words "Wielder of a pair of these". Pg 54 of the 5th edition Grey Knight Codex), hence me using your quotes to illustrate your own point to you. Me bringing them up was the start, you provided the filling, and here be the end.
And you have advanced zero points since the profile says Lightning Claw. It's important to check the rules.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: On the second part: What you revealed is curious to me. It says "these weapons" and gave the hand a different profile for shooting. Did it ever say that they were both melee weapons? Also since you must have exact words, exactly where does it say both weapons have the exact same profile? Otherwise, I asked again, which weapon does the profile belong to?
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.
This rules statement can only be true if the Hand has both the melee profile on the left side and the range profile on the right side applied to it. The only way the Hand could be itself a melee weapon is if the profile on the left side is applied to each of "these weapons" such that "every weapon has a profile".
2017/04/05 00:03:50
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
Except there is, they are used TOGETHER. You keep ignoring that the word exists. The opposite of together is SEPARATELY. You keep saying APPLY THE PROFILE TO EACH. You cannot because that means they are no longer TOGETHER which is a word that is actually in the rules.
You are right in this case it is unprecedented. It means you have a single profile, to use two weapons, at the same time. The rules for TWO weapons require you to pick a profile when attacking for an INDIVIDUAL weapon to get the +1A. Together means you CANNOT separate these into individual weapons, because they are TOGETHER.
We are not forced to use the "every weapon has a profile" basic rule, because every weapon DOES have a profile, they use it TOGETHER. Not independently, TOGETHER.
You MUST choose A WEAPON in the attack subphase. A WEAPON, not TWO weapons A WEAPON.
There is NO PROFILE for the Hand or the Sword individually, there is only one profile and they must be used TOGETHER. If you are using them TOGETHER you have no free extra weapon to give you +1A.
2017/04/05 00:08:47
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
Again, the 5th edition Falchion Example was a precedent. It was listed as a "Pair of" in the wargear section of any model that could take it, but was treated as a single weapon. I tried pointing this out with the actual rules (Page 91 of the 5th edition Grey Knights Codex and the 5th edition Grey Knight FAQs for examples of the Falchion listed as a Wargear Choice. Page 97 of the 6th Edition Chaos Codex for an example of a pair of lightning claws) but you chose to dodge them after I pointed out a flaw in the logic (specifically the equally listed Lightning Claws in a character's wargear choices is NOT treated as a single weapon, and the only thing the two had different is that the Falchion's own rules stated it had to be wielded as a pair, or in it's words "Wielder of a pair of these". Pg 54 of the 5th edition Grey Knight Codex), hence me using your quotes to illustrate your own point to you. Me bringing them up was the start, you provided the filling, and here be the end.
And you have advanced zero points since the profile says Lightning Claw. It's important to check the rules.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: On the second part: What you revealed is curious to me. It says "these weapons" and gave the hand a different profile for shooting. Did it ever say that they were both melee weapons? Also since you must have exact words, exactly where does it say both weapons have the exact same profile? Otherwise, I asked again, which weapon does the profile belong to?
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.
This rules statement can only be true if the Hand has both the melee profile on the left side and the range profile on the right side applied to it. The only way the Hand could be itself a melee weapon is if the profile on the left side is applied to each of "these weapons" such that "every weapon has a profile".
And again you chose to completely ignore my argument in favour of cherry picking my words. I even provided the page numbers and edition this time as well as context as to why I decided to not reference the rules for one of my many posts. Not to mention you chose to again completely ignore our questions since you cannot answer them.
Also please stop quoting "These Weapons" as if that's the only words there. The full sentence is "These Weapons are used Together, using the profile below". Quoting only one part of the rule is still misrepresenting that rule.
And if your answer is that the profile applies to the hand, then please tell me where to find the profile for the sword. Like an actual rule, not interpretation via elimination. I'm also waiting for that example of two weapons sharing the same profile entry without an explicit rule stating so as well.
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.
2017/04/05 00:13:49
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
Except there is, they are used TOGETHER. You keep ignoring that the word exists. The opposite of together is SEPARATELY. You keep saying APPLY THE PROFILE TO EACH. You cannot because that means they are no longer TOGETHER which is a word that is actually in the rules.
You are right in this case it is unprecedented. It means you have a single profile, to use two weapons, at the same time. The rules for TWO weapons require you to pick a profile when attacking for an INDIVIDUAL weapon to get the +1A. Together means you CANNOT separate these into individual weapons, because they are TOGETHER.
"Used together" doesn't mean anything in terms of rules. It could refer simply to getting the +1A bonus for having two or more weapons. Unless you can point to some rules to apply we have no choice but to apply no rules for "used together".
Ceann wrote: We are not forced to use the "every weapon has a profile" basic rule, because every weapon DOES have a profile, they use it TOGETHER. Not independently, TOGETHER.
First, "these weapons" are not "a weapon" so providing one profile for "these weapons" will mean that every weapon DOES NOT have a profile and therefore violate the rule "every weapon has a profile". The unnamed profile on the left side of Robute's Relics box has to provide that profile for each weapon in "these weapons".
Second, the unnamed profile refers to "this weapon [singular]" and so cannot be applied to "these weapons [plural]" but must be applied to each weapon in "these weapons"
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/05 00:15:18
2017/04/05 00:15:17
Subject: Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?
