Does Robute Guilliman have two close combat weapons for counting attacks in CC?

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.

**MechaEmperor7000**

col_impact wrote:
GodDamUser wrote:
col_impact wrote:
Cypher's pistols are two relics and have a single entry line.

And also have separate profiles listed and rules for using both,

Which the Sward and Hand do not...

It is one of the arguments that has been used against you many times

Deal with the point being made.

So does one entry line correspond always to one relic?

I proved one entry line can correspond to more than one relic. The case of the entry line of "Cyphers Pistols" proved his statement wrong.

We actually said that one entry equals one relic unless permission is given. You sort of left the latter half of that off. Cypher's Pistols explicitly has two profiles and lists names for two weapons, whereas Guilliman's doesn't even reference the sword (even in the fluff of the entry, the only mention of the sword is in the name. I'm starting to think that the relic only refers to The Hand and that the sword is ceremonial).

**GodDamUser**

col_impact wrote:

Deal with the point being made.

So does one entry line correspond always to one relic?

I proved one entry line can correspond to more than one relic. The case of the entry line of "Cyphers Pistols" proved his statement wrong.

Yes it is a single relic, that has rules for two weapons and states they are two weapons

While is sword and hand once again is a single relic, that has a single melee profile. with no direct mention that they are two weapons.

Same with Gauntlets of Ultramar, Single relic, consists of two weapons, states it as such

Automatically Appended Next Post:

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
(even in the fluff of the entry, the only mention of the sword is in the name. I'm starting to think that the relic only refers to The Hand and that the sword is ceremonial).

I made that point a few pages back, describing the sword is a catalyst for the profile

**col_impact**

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

You might wanna quote the rules past just the heading. The rules themselves state that they are a Bolt Pistol and a Plasma Pistol, not "these weapons". In addition, it follows up by saying "weapon profileS" The only one grasping at straws is you, since each of your argument's rebuttles come in the form of edited quotes.

Right, so the single entry listing is for two relics corresponding to two weapons and two profiles.

**GodDamUser**

col_impact wrote:

Right, so the single entry listing is for two relics corresponding to two weapons and two profiles.

No its still a single Relic, that consists of two weapons and provides rules for the use of two weapons

You still seem to have issues with understanding what is being written.

**MechaEmperor7000**

GodDamUser wrote:
col_impact wrote:

Right, so the single entry listing is for two relics corresponding to two weapons and two profiles.

No its still a single Relic, that consists of two weapons and provides rules for the use of two weapons

You still seem to have issues with understanding what is being written.

Actually I do agree it's two different relics, but only because the relic entry itself gives the permission (stating two names and giving two profiles).

**col_impact**

GodDamUser wrote:
col_impact wrote:

Deal with the point being made.

So does one entry line correspond always to one relic?

I proved one entry line can correspond to more than one relic. The case of the entry line of "Cyphers Pistols" proved his statement wrong.

Yes it is a single relic, that has rules for two weapons and states they are two weapons

While is sword and hand once again is a single relic, that has a single melee profile. with no direct mention that they are two weapons.

Same with Gauntlets of Ultramar, Single relic, consists of two weapons, states it as such

Cypher's pistols are two relics.

Also, no where is there any rule that a single entry line corresponds to a single relic. You are imagining that.

GodDamUser wrote:
MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
(even in the fluff of the entry, the only mention of the sword is in the name. I'm starting to think that the relic only refers to The Hand and that the sword is ceremonial).

I made that point a few pages back, describing the sword is a catalyst for the profile

If that is true, the rule statement would have been "this weapon" instead of "these weapons".

Weapon is a key word, so making a plural of a key word is requiring the player to address multiple instances of 'weapon'.

**MechaEmperor7000**

col_impact wrote:
GodDamUser wrote:
col_impact wrote:

Deal with the point being made.

So does one entry line correspond always to one relic?

I proved one entry line can correspond to more than one relic. The case of the entry line of "Cyphers Pistols" proved his statement wrong.

Yes it is a single relic, that has rules for two weapons and states they are two weapons

While is sword and hand once again is a single relic, that has a single melee profile. with no direct mention that they are two weapons.

Same with Gauntlets of Ultramar, Single relic, consists of two weapons, states it as such[/quotes]

Cypher's pistols are two relics.

Also, no where is there any rule that a single entry line corresponds to a single relic. You are imagining that.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
(even in the fluff of the entry, the only mention of the sword is in the name. I'm starting to think that the relic only refers to The Hand and that the sword is ceremonial).

I made that point a few pages back, describing the sword is a catalyst for the profile

If that is true, the rule statement would have been "this weapon" instead of "these weapons".

Weapon is a key word, so making a plural of a key word is requiring the player to address multiple instances of 'weapon'.

Once again, please cite the it in the rules. You're avoiding this question aren't you?

**col_impact**

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

Once again, please cite the it in the rules. You're avoiding this question aren't you?

Not avoiding any question.

Weapon (a key word) is cited in the plural in "these weapons". The plural means there are two or more instances of weapon.

I have provided proof in the rule itself.

Prove it wrong.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
GodDamUser wrote:
col_impact wrote:

Right, so the single entry listing is for two relics corresponding to two weapons and two profiles.

No its still a single Relic, that consists of two weapons and provides rules for the use of two weapons

You still seem to have issues with understanding what is being written.

Actually I do agree it's two different relics, but only because the relic entry itself gives the permission (stating two names and giving two profiles).

So a single entry line does not necessarily mean one relic, correct?

**JNAProductions**

Right, referring, of course, to the one melee profile and the one ranged profile.

You've proved nothing, Col.

**col_impact**

JNAProductions wrote:
Right, referring, of course, to the one melee profile and the one ranged profile.

You've proved nothing, Col.

Weapon (a key word) is cited in the plural in "these weapons". The plural means there are two or more instances of weapon.

Are you denying this?

Summary of my argument . . .

Spoiler:

**JNAProductions**

Sure. There's a ranged weapon and a melee weapon. The ranged weapon is the fist alone, the melee is the sword and fist used together, as indicated by "used together" being in the rules.

You know, that bit you keep ignoring.

**MechaEmperor7000**

col_impact wrote:
MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

Once again, please cite the it in the rules. You're avoiding this question aren't you?

Not avoiding any question.

Weapon (a key word) is cited in the plural in "these weapons". The plural means there are two or more instances of weapon.

I have provided proof in the rule itself.

Prove it wrong.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
GodDamUser wrote:
col_impact wrote:

Right, so the single entry listing is for two relics corresponding to two weapons and two profiles.

No its still a single Relic, that consists of two weapons and provides rules for the use of two weapons

You still seem to have issues with understanding what is being written.

Actually I do agree it's two different relics, but only because the relic entry itself gives the permission (stating two names and giving two profiles).

So a single entry line does not necessarily mean one relic, correct?

Burden of proof is on your argument to prove it right. My proof is simply you stating it, with absolutely no rules quote or page numbers to back it up.

Also again we stated that one entry equals one relic unless permission is given. Your arguments have consistently quotemined us and cherry picked words to make your point.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
Right, referring, of course, to the one melee profile and the one ranged profile.

You've proved nothing, Col.

Weapon (a key word) is cited in the plural in "these weapons". The plural means there are two or more instances of weapon.

Are you denying this?

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.

Yes we are actually denying this, because your arguments have not provided evidence (in the form of a quote from rules or a page number) to back up this interpretation other than saying "the rules recognizes this".

**col_impact**

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

Burden of proof is on your argument to prove it right. My proof is simply you stating it, with absolutely no rules quote or page numbers to back it up.

Also again we stated that one entry equals one relic unless permission is given. Your arguments have consistently quotemined us and cherry picked words to make your point.

You have it backwards. The rules statement says "these weapons". You have to prove it's actually singular rather than the plural that is stated.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

JNAProductions wrote:
Sure. There's a ranged weapon and a melee weapon. The ranged weapon is the fist alone, the melee is the sword and fist used together, as indicated by "used together" being in the rules.

You know, that bit you keep ignoring.

Cool so you agree we have weapons in the plural.

Interesting guess on your part however on how that works out.

So the ranged weapon is called "the Hand of Dominion".

And the melee weapon is called "the Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominon".

How is it that the "Hand of Dominion" got to be itself a melee weapon?

Spoiler:

**MechaEmperor7000**

col_impact wrote:
MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

Burden of proof is on your argument to prove it right. My proof is simply you stating it, with absolutely no rules quote or page numbers to back it up.

Also again we stated that one entry equals one relic unless permission is given. Your arguments have consistently quotemined us and cherry picked words to make your point.

You have it backwards. The rules statement says "these weapons". You have to prove it's actually singular rather than the plural that is stated.

Actually you're the ones backwards. You insist on a meaning for those words in context of the rules, but provided no evidence other than saying "Weapon is a keyword" and "it's plural". Fun Fact, "keywords" isn't a thing in the warhammer rulebook. In fact the word does not appear at all when I did a search of the ebook version. There are Names, Special Rules, Types and sections, but no Keywords. Hence why you cannot take "These weapons" out of context of the whole sentence and instill it's own meaning unless you can back it up. This isn't MTG.

**col_impact**

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

Actually you're the ones backwards. You insist on a meaning for those words in context of the rules, but provided no evidence other than saying "Weapon is a keyword" and "it's plural". Fun Fact, "keywords" isn't a thing in the warhammer rulebook. In fact the word does not appear at all when I did a search of the ebook version. There are Names, Special Rules, Types and sections, but no Keywords. Hence why you cannot take "These weapons" out of context of the whole sentence and instill it's own meaning unless you can back it up. This isn't MTG.

Still waiting for you to prove that "these weapons" is singular.

**Ceann**

"These weapons" might certainly be plural, however all weapon/weapons attack using a profile, the profile dictates how weapon/weapons attack.
Units do not have "a grenade" they have "grenades" however they cannot throw two in a turn, or dual wield grenades.
There is no rule that says two weapons cannot share a profile.

Twin linked weapons are two weapons that use one profile. BRB 174 - These weapons are grafted to the same targeting system...
"OH NO ""THESE WEAPONS"""", LETS DUPLICATE THE PROFILE, forget the rest of the sentence"

BRB 167 Interceptor - If this rule is used, the weapon cannot be fired in the next turn, but the firing model can shoot a different weapon if it has one.
Well I guess the Icarus Array on the Dunecrawler can't fire. He has WEAPONS afterall, so if he uses his interceptor weapon he cannot fire on his turn because it doesn't have a weapon it has weapons.

The word being plural or singular is irrelevant and does not provide justification to duplicate the profile. Many examples of weapons exist that do not do this. As you can see the pluralization is nonsensical, pluralization is not a rule, it is following proper English. YOUR JOB AS A PLAYER is to INTERPRET what TOGETHER means, not IGNORE ITS PRESENCE.

The relic tells us to use the weapons together, on the below profile.
Not separately on the below profile.

**MechaEmperor7000**

col_impact wrote:
MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

Actually you're the ones backwards. You insist on a meaning for those words in context of the rules, but provided no evidence other than saying "Weapon is a keyword" and "it's plural". Fun Fact, "keywords" isn't a thing in the warhammer rulebook. In fact the word does not appear at all when I did a search of the ebook version. There are Names, Special Rules, Types and sections, but no Keywords. Hence why you cannot take "These weapons" out of context of the whole sentence and instill it's own meaning unless you can back it up. This isn't MTG.

Still waiting for you to prove that "these weapons" is singular.

I proved that "these weapons" have no meaning on their own, because nothing in the rulebook specifically refers to the term "these weapons". I can only provide proof of nothing by pointing to the fact that it is nothing. The burden is on you to prove that "these weapons are used together, using the profile below" indicates it is equivalent to "counts as two weapons".

**Brother Ramses**

Ceann wrote:
Like I am really questioning your intelligence at this point.

"These weapons" might certainly be plural, however all weapon/weapons attack using a profile, the profile dictates how weapon/weapons attack.
Units do not have "a grenade" they have "grenades" however they cannot throw two in a turn, or dual wield grenades.
There is no rule that says two weapons cannot share a profile.

Twin linked weapons are two weapons that use one profile. BRB 174 - These weapons are grafted to the same targeting system...
"OH NO ""THESE WEAPONS"""", LETS DUPLICATE THE PROFILE, forget the rest of the sentence"

BRB 167 Interceptor - If this rule is used, the weapon cannot be fired in the next turn, but the firing model can shoot a different weapon if it has one.
Well I guess the Icarus Array on the Dunecrawler can't fire. He has WEAPONS afterall, so if he uses his interceptor weapon he cannot fire on his turn because it doesn't have a weapon it has weapons.

The word being plural or singular is irrelevant and does not provide justification to duplicate the profile. Many examples of weapons exist that do not do this. As you can see the pluralization is nonsensical, pluralization is not a rule, it is following proper English. YOUR JOB AS A PLAYER is to INTERPRET what TOGETHER means, not IGNORE ITS PRESENCE.

The relic tells us to use the weapons together, on the below profile.
Not separately on the below profile.

Then the special rules of said profile go ahead and tell us to use that single, "used together" weapon, aka "this weapon" for either Whirling Flame or Touch of the Emperor.

Man I miss Nosferatu in times like this....

**MechaEmperor7000**

Nos was grinding at times, but at least he had logic and a grasp of linguistics.

He was a worthy opponent.

**col_impact**

Ceann wrote:
Twin linked weapons are two weapons that use one profile. BRB 174 - These weapons are grafted to the same targeting system...
"OH NO ""THESE WEAPONS"""", LETS DUPLICATE THE PROFILE, forget the rest of the sentence"

Why are you quoting the fluff for twin-linked? Fluff is not to be considered part of rules statements.

An example twin-linked weapon is a twin-linked autocannon. Singular.

Spoiler:

The rule also uses weapon in the singular.

When a rule statement uses "weapons" it means weapons in the plural.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Ramses wrote:
Ceann wrote:
Like I am really questioning your intelligence at this point.

"These weapons" might certainly be plural, however all weapon/weapons attack using a profile, the profile dictates how weapon/weapons attack.
Units do not have "a grenade" they have "grenades" however they cannot throw two in a turn, or dual wield grenades.
There is no rule that says two weapons cannot share a profile.

Twin linked weapons are two weapons that use one profile. BRB 174 - These weapons are grafted to the same targeting system...
"OH NO ""THESE WEAPONS"""", LETS DUPLICATE THE PROFILE, forget the rest of the sentence"

BRB 167 Interceptor - If this rule is used, the weapon cannot be fired in the next turn, but the firing model can shoot a different weapon if it has one.
Well I guess the Icarus Array on the Dunecrawler can't fire. He has WEAPONS afterall, so if he uses his interceptor weapon he cannot fire on his turn because it doesn't have a weapon it has weapons.

The word being plural or singular is irrelevant and does not provide justification to duplicate the profile. Many examples of weapons exist that do not do this. As you can see the pluralization is nonsensical, pluralization is not a rule, it is following proper English. YOUR JOB AS A PLAYER is to INTERPRET what TOGETHER means, not IGNORE ITS PRESENCE.

The relic tells us to use the weapons together, on the below profile.
Not separately on the below profile.

Then the special rules of said profile go ahead and tell us to use that single, "used together" weapon, aka "this weapon" for either Whirling Flame or Touch of the Emperor.

Man I miss Nosferatu in times like this....

You are missing a rule that says "these weapons" count as a single weapon.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
col_impact wrote:
MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

Actually you're the ones backwards. You insist on a meaning for those words in context of the rules, but provided no evidence other than saying "Weapon is a keyword" and "it's plural". Fun Fact, "keywords" isn't a thing in the warhammer rulebook. In fact the word does not appear at all when I did a search of the ebook version. There are Names, Special Rules, Types and sections, but no Keywords. Hence why you cannot take "These weapons" out of context of the whole sentence and instill it's own meaning unless you can back it up. This isn't MTG.

Still waiting for you to prove that "these weapons" is singular.

I proved that "these weapons" have no meaning on their own, because nothing in the rulebook specifically refers to the term "these weapons". I can only provide proof of nothing by pointing to the fact that it is nothing. The burden is on you to prove that "these weapons are used together, using the profile below" indicates it is equivalent to "counts as two weapons".

"These weapons" is plural. Do you deny that?

**GodDamUser**

col_impact wrote:
"These weapons" is plural. Do you deny that?

Well they are point out kinda like you did with the twinned link (actually exactly the same)

That latter in the rules it refers to it as a single weapon

'these weapons used together' now makes them a single weapon and does not give a +1 atk

**col_impact**

Ceann wrote:

The relic tells us to use the weapons together, on the below profile.
Not separately on the below profile.

What is the count of "these weapons" when used together?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

GodDamUser wrote:
col_impact wrote:
"These weapons" is plural. Do you deny that?

Well they are point out kinda like you did with the twinned link (actually exactly the same)

That latter in the rules it refers to it as a single weapon

'these weapons used together' now makes them a single weapon and does not give a +1 atk

A twin-linked autocannon is referred to in the singular and acts in the rules as a singular weapon. Any notion of 'weapons' is in the fluff as I made clear. Try to keep up with points proven.

"Used together" does not mean "make them a single weapon". You are making that up.

Summary of my argument . . .

Spoiler:

**MechaEmperor7000**

col_impact wrote:

"These weapons" is plural. Do you deny that?

Nope I don't. But that wasn't my argument. That was the argument you set up for me so I would be a strawman.

My argument was "These weapons are used together, using the profile below" is not the same as "counts as two weapons" because you have not provided a rule citation other than telling me "Weapons is a keyword" (when Keywords don't exist and hence is meaningless in the context you are using it in) and "it's plural" ( a plural of something meaningless is still meaningless).

Once again, please stop cherry picking my words and taking them out of context.

**col_impact**

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
col_impact wrote:

"These weapons" is plural. Do you deny that?

Nope I don't. But that wasn't my argument. That was the argument you set up for me so I would be a strawman.

My argument was "These weapons are used together, using the profile below" is not the same as "counts as two weapons" because you have not provided a rule citation other than telling me "Weapons is a keyword" (when Keywords don't exist and hence is meaningless in the context you are using it in) and "it's plural" ( a plural of something meaningless is still meaningless).

Once again, please stop cherry picking my words and taking them out of context.

In the sentence . . .

"These weapons are used together, using the profile below"

Weapons is plural. Do you deny that?

**Brother Ramses**

col_impact wrote:
Ceann wrote:
Twin linked weapons are two weapons that use one profile. BRB 174 - These weapons are grafted to the same targeting system...
"OH NO ""THESE WEAPONS"""", LETS DUPLICATE THE PROFILE, forget the rest of the sentence"

Why are you quoting the fluff for twin-linked? Fluff is not to be considered part of rules statements.

An example twin-linked weapon is a twin-linked autocannon. Singular.

Spoiler:

Twin-linked weapons don’t get more shots than normal ones, but they give you a better chance of hitting with them. If a shooting weapon has the twin-linked special rule, or is described in a model’s wargear entry as twin-linked, it re-rolls all failed To Hit rolls.

The rule also uses weapon in the singular.

When a rule statement uses "weapons" it means weapons in the plural.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Ramses wrote:
Ceann wrote:
Like I am really questioning your intelligence at this point.

"These weapons" might certainly be plural, however all weapon/weapons attack using a profile, the profile dictates how weapon/weapons attack.
Units do not have "a grenade" they have "grenades" however they cannot throw two in a turn, or dual wield grenades.
There is no rule that says two weapons cannot share a profile.

Twin linked weapons are two weapons that use one profile. BRB 174 - These weapons are grafted to the same targeting system...
"OH NO ""THESE WEAPONS"""", LETS DUPLICATE THE PROFILE, forget the rest of the sentence"

BRB 167 Interceptor - If this rule is used, the weapon cannot be fired in the next turn, but the firing model can shoot a different weapon if it has one.
Well I guess the Icarus Array on the Dunecrawler can't fire. He has WEAPONS afterall, so if he uses his interceptor weapon he cannot fire on his turn because it doesn't have a weapon it has weapons.

The word being plural or singular is irrelevant and does not provide justification to duplicate the profile. Many examples of weapons exist that do not do this. As you can see the pluralization is nonsensical, pluralization is not a rule, it is following proper English. YOUR JOB AS A PLAYER is to INTERPRET what TOGETHER means, not IGNORE ITS PRESENCE.

The relic tells us to use the weapons together, on the below profile.
Not separately on the below profile.

Then the special rules of said profile go ahead and tell us to use that single, "used together" weapon, aka "this weapon" for either Whirling Flame or Touch of the Emperor.

Man I miss Nosferatu in times like this....

You are missing a rule that says "these weapons are used together, using the profile below" count as a single weapon.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
col_impact wrote:
MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

Actually you're the ones backwards. You insist on a meaning for those words in context of the rules, but provided no evidence other than saying "Weapon is a keyword" and "it's plural". Fun Fact, "keywords" isn't a thing in the warhammer rulebook. In fact the word does not appear at all when I did a search of the ebook version. There are Names, Special Rules, Types and sections, but no Keywords. Hence why you cannot take "These weapons" out of context of the whole sentence and instill it's own meaning unless you can back it up. This isn't MTG.

Still waiting for you to prove that "these weapons" is singular.

I proved that "these weapons" have no meaning on their own, because nothing in the rulebook specifically refers to the term "these weapons". I can only provide proof of nothing by pointing to the fact that it is nothing. The burden is on you to prove that "these weapons are used together, using the profile below" indicates it is equivalent to "counts as two weapons".

"These weapons" is plural. Do you deny that?

There, fixed it for you since GW does not write their rules in a bubble, nor do they expect you to only use two words out of a nine sentence rule.

But like I have already posted, your insistence to focus only only said two words as the key to +1 attack is an assumption on your part with no RAW to back it up and thus is your RAI of the rule in question. And like I have also said, the other side does not have a RAW leg to stand on either due to the wording of the rule, but their RAI does stand up to scrutiny much better then your own considering you have taken the stance as lawyer, judge, and jury with your stance.

**GodDamUser**

I love that his entire argument is based on the RAI that if the hand has a caveat stating it is a Melee weapon then the sword must be one as well

When the sword could be interrupted as being the catalyst item to give the special rules to the melee weapon that is the hand

**MechaEmperor7000**

col_impact wrote:
MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
col_impact wrote:

"These weapons" is plural. Do you deny that?

Nope I don't. But that wasn't my argument. That was the argument you set up for me so I would be a strawman.

My argument was "These weapons are used together, using the profile below" is not the same as "counts as two weapons" because you have not provided a rule citation other than telling me "Weapons is a keyword" (when Keywords don't exist and hence is meaningless in the context you are using it in) and "it's plural" ( a plural of something meaningless is still meaningless).

Once again, please stop cherry picking my words and taking them out of context.

In the sentence . . .

"These weapons are used together, using the profile below"

Weapons is plural. Do you deny that?

The word "weapons" is a plural word. I do not deny that. However, again, that is not my argument, nor does it have any bearing on the argument at hand because you have failed to prove "weapon" is a keyword, nor prove what a "keyword" means in 40k since it has none.

**Brother Ramses**

GodDamUser wrote:
I love that his entire argument is based on the RAI that if the hand has a caveat stating it is a Melee weapon then the sword must be one as well

When the sword could be interrupted as being the catalyst item to give the special rules to the melee weapon that is the hand

And he deflects to two words of a nine sentence rule as his proof while also completely ignoring the fact that the special rules refer to a single weapon in the profile when choosing to attack. His defense was that it means either weapon, again another RAI assumption.

**col_impact**

GodDamUser wrote:
I love that his entire argument is based on the RAI that if the hand has a caveat stating it is a Melee weapon then the sword must be one as well

When the sword could be interrupted as being the catalyst item to give the special rules to the melee weapon that is the hand

What are the names for "these weapons"?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Ramses wrote:
GodDamUser wrote:
I love that his entire argument is based on the RAI that if the hand has a caveat stating it is a Melee weapon then the sword must be one as well

When the sword could be interrupted as being the catalyst item to give the special rules to the melee weapon that is the hand

And he deflects to two words of a nine sentence rule as his proof while also completely ignoring the fact that the special rules refer to a single weapon in the profile when choosing to attack. His defense was that it means either weapon, again another RAI assumption.

My argument points to the critical absence of a rules statement that says "counts as a single weapon".

In the absence of that statement, the RAW leads to +1A.

Summary of my argument . . .

Spoiler:

**MechaEmperor7000**

GodDamUser wrote:
I love that his entire argument is based on the RAI that if the hand has a caveat stating it is a Melee weapon then the sword must be one as well

When the sword could be interrupted as being the catalyst item to give the special rules to the melee weapon that is the hand

The funny part is with the sword only referenced in the name, you could take it out of the relic entirely and it would affect nothing. Even the fluff description for the relic only talks about the hand. I'm guessing the original draft of Guilliman's rules only had him have the gauntlet (or maybe a pair), then the sword was added in later because they didn't want to make him Marneus 2.0 or something.