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.

When this reaches 30 pages a mod should either kill it or tack it to the top as a warning to new dakkanaughts.

col_impact wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:

col_impact wrote:

In the sentence . .

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

Are "these weapons" being used in the singular to refer to 'one weapon' or in the plural to refer to 'two or more weapons'?

No.
As you might know, "these" is a pronoun.

Incorrect. "These" as used here is a demonstrative adjective.

These is used to refer to the plural 'weapons' as close to the speaker (close in the sense of just mentioned).

 Stephanius wrote:
It refers to preceeding words and avoids repetition. Used together with the word "weapons" it clearly references the preceeding mention of the model's two visible weapons which also happen to be the relic name.

We don't know whether we are dealing with one relic or two. All we know is that we have a single entry line for "the Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion".

 Stephanius wrote:

Funny aside - while WEAPON has a definition in the BRB, GW does not highlight defined Terms reliably fir clarity and does use the same word for the common English meaning.

The funny thing is that you are guessing that the English meaning applies instead of the BRB meaning. Since 'weapon' is charged with BRB meaning, you are going to have to prove your case that the BRB doesn't apply here.

 Stephanius wrote:

"These weapons are used together, using the profile below."
actually reads

"The Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion are used together, using the profile below."

You can't transpose those two sentences unless the Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion are weapons.

You can't drop that information. So it would read.

"The Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion are weapons that are used together, using the profile below"

 Stephanius wrote:
This is the sentence that defines the weapon profile. Before we execute this instruction, the models weapons are undefined and unusable. After we execute it the model's weapons are defined as one melee weapon.

Incorrect. The Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion have been identified as "these weapons". How are you magically changing that to "one weapon"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

And I came up with "count as one weapon" because the rulebook states that every weapon has a profile, a singular profile is listed, and the rules state that "these weapons are used together, using the profile below". Since the sentence stipulate I have to use both weapons together to obtain the profile (which, mind you, is still singular), I conclude that the profile can only exist when both weapons are used together and it cannot exist separately. I did not stop reading the sentence after the second word and conclude that Guilliman has two weapons with no profiles.

This is a reasonable guess as to what the rules writers intended. But you are supplying your own rules statements here. There is no statement that "these weapons" "count as a single weapon" so your argument is decidedly RAI and not RAW. "Used together" on its own does not change the plural in "these weapons" to the singular hypothesized 'combined' weapon you want to assign the single profile to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brother Ramses wrote:


I am pretty sure not a single person doubts that "these weapons" is plural. You are only laughed out the room when you then reference the BRB of "every weapon has a profile" by ignoring the rest of the rule. Time to take off my snark hat, toss on my professor cap, and take your RAI argument to school.

You would be golden with that assumption if the rule simply stated, "These weapons use the profile below." Boom! I am giving RG +1 attack because you are TOLD via RAW that both weapons use the profile given below. Except it doesn't just say that. Instead it puts a qualifier on using said profile that you then interpret to have no bearing on how you are able to use that profile. You skip over the qualifier completely saying that there is no defined rule in the BRB for "used together" and thus can immediately jump to "every weapon has a profile".

The problem is that without the qualifier you break the relic. If not "used together" you cannot access the profile as thus do not gain the special rules of said profile. Common language dictates that "used together" can either mean that the Hand and sword somehow combine together in some Voltron/Power Rangers way to become one weapon and use the profile (RAI for no bonus attack) OR that the very act of using the Hand in one hand and the sword in the other in close combat, is technically using them together (RAI for a bonus attack) and thus the qualifier is met. You choose the latter because that use of the common language supports your argument (your use of RAI once again).

Your assumption from the beginning is that "these weapons" means two weapons, and "each weapon has a profile" and they are "used together" in close combat by being in separate hands (not the Voltron/Power Rangers method) so thus qualify for access to the the profile each and seperately and therefore both have melee thus creating a bonus attack. Granted the Sword in itself cannot be "used together" for anything to even unlock the profile since it has no profile to even be "used together" with anything in the first place, but that is another thread. But as pointed out, your argurment is flavored and spiced with tons of RAI. Not a RAW argument as you continue to self-proclaim to only yourself in each post you make in the slightest, but one with RAI decisions along every step of the way to reach the conclusion that your have already formed.

However as I have repeated time and time again, the no bonus attack crowd is in the same boat as they are interpreting "used together" to be of the Voltron/Power Rangers variety to unlock the given profile. Granted their only assumption seems to be the definition of "used together" and they do have a set of special rules (Whirling Fire and Touch of the Emperor) defining use of said special rules by a single weapon ala "this weapon" ala Voltron/Power Rangers combined into one method.

Thank you for your well-thought out response.

I think you are wrong that "used together" could only mean one of two things. I think it could have many more than just those two meanings. And that's the problem. It's undefined in the rules. This is you admitting to RAI.

The bottom line though is that the rules don't say anything about "used together" and nothing definitive can be said about "used together" without making a guess as to intent. This is you admitting RAI again.

So that means a RAW approach basically ignores "used together" as meaningless in terms of the rules themselves. And yet again, you using RAI because RAW is Rules As Written which means you don't ignore the Rules As Written when it is convenient for your argument.


So we really have two weapons, an unnamed profile, a rule that says "every weapon has a profile", and a set of rules that perfectly allows two weapons to share the same profile.

Based strictly on the rules themselves, we can come to no other conclusion than that we have two melee weapons and therewith +1A.



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.

I went ahead and pointed out every instance of you using RAI to try and RAW your way into an extra attack. Your most blatant use above is that you tout RAW as being allowed to ignore something that doesn't fit your narrative. RAW is the Rules As Written which means that you NEED to include it into the reading of the rule and account for it completely in the argument, not just ignore it because it is inconvenient to your stance. Nothing in the notion or definition of RAW allows you to just ignore the wording of a rule. That is against the basic tenet of RAW.

You have made a weak RAI argument for +1 attack and try to cloak it by the vernacular use of RAW in all of your posts. But you can't put lipstick on a pig and call it Katy Perry and you most definitely cannot stamp RAW on a RAI stance to make it RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just realized something else,

You just said that for purposes of RAW, "used together" is ignored yet in the summary of your argument that you put in everyone of your posts you actually use your interpretation of what "used together" means as support for your argument!

So those that disagree with you and raise "used together" as a RAW argument against the bonus attack are disallowed since it is not a BRB defined rule, but if you use your interpretation of "used together" in the context of your RAW argument it is all fine and dandy.

Nice troll dude. Got you 26 pages of fame.

 Stephanius wrote:
Some more hand-waving, I see.

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

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

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

Each of these statements has the exact same meaning to everyone in this thread - except for you.
Note how "these statements" references the previously made statements and used instead of repetition.
Note how "these quotes" or "these sentences" could be used innstead without changing the meaning.

"These weapons" is NOT used to assign a defined term in the rule statement. How would that even work?

Assume for a second that "These weapons" has declarative power, e.g. defines the sword and hand as weapons, since that is what you are asserting, which would better be expressed by this:

Col: The Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion: These (ARE) weapons.

Not only is that not what the rule says, but it would also be useless, since it takes us no further from seeing a pointy plastic bit to being able to use it in the game. Clearly, "hand + sword = WEAPONS" does not define either bit as a useable weapon in the sense of the rules. They still lack a profile you see. Which is when your baseless assertion takes on hilarity, since you decide that for your reading not only do some words need to be moved, some words need to be ignored - contrary to the overt instruction the rule author put in place.

I assume, your reading would be complete as this:

Col: The Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion: These (ARE) weapons (.WHICH) are used together (signifying nothing, just a filler, ignore please), using the profile below

or tidied up:

Col: The Sword of the Emperor and the Hand of Dominion: These (ARE) weapons; (WHICH) are (...), using the profile below

Now, when we look to how the verb ARE is actually positioned in the sentence, we see:

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

That is critical, since the verb ARE does the defining in the rule. The rule says "These two weapon bits ARE DEFINED AS this one (1) melee weapon".

You are transposing in order to hide information in the rule statement.
If transposing leads to the loss of information it is not valid.

Mortimer and Hatcher: these sexual offenders were hanging out at the playground, exchanging notes.

Mortimer and Hatcher were hanging out at the playground, exchanging notes.

Obviously, 'these X' can carry additional critical info.

If your argument can only handle a statement by dropping out information via transposing, then your argument is not valid.

I find no small amount of amusement from him accusing Stephanius of "hiding information" when he completely ignored every word after "weapons" in every single argument.

 Brother Ramses wrote:


I went ahead and pointed out every instance of you using RAI to try and RAW your way into an extra attack. Your most blatant use above is that you tout RAW as being allowed to ignore something that doesn't fit your narrative. RAW is the Rules As Written which means that you NEED to include it into the reading of the rule and account for it completely in the argument, not just ignore it because it is inconvenient to your stance. Nothing in the notion or definition of RAW allows you to just ignore the wording of a rule. That is against the basic tenet of RAW.

You have made a weak RAI argument for +1 attack and try to cloak it by the vernacular use of RAW in all of your posts. But you can't put lipstick on a pig and call it Katy Perry and you most definitely cannot stamp RAW on a RAI stance to make it RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just realized something else,

You just said that for purposes of RAW, "used together" is ignored yet in the summary of your argument that you put in everyone of your posts you actually use your interpretation of what "used together" means as support for your argument!

So those that disagree with you and raise "used together" as a RAW argument against the bonus attack are disallowed since it is not a BRB defined rule, but if you use your interpretation of "used together" in the context of your RAW argument it is all fine and dandy.

Nice troll dude. Got you 26 pages of fame.

If you can provide me with a Rules As Written substantiated definition of "used together" or a compelling English definition of "used together", I can apply it to my RAW argument. I can't apply rules force to something that is undefined. RAW arguments have no guesses or assumptions about the rules in them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I find no small amount of amusement from him accusing Stephanius of "hiding information" when he completely ignored every word after "weapons" in every single argument.

Consider:

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


How many weapons does "these weapons" refer to?

The rules are clear, together must be explained.

If you ignore it you cannot use the profile, it is a requirement to define it. You claim it is undefined, then you either define it, or not use the profile, those are your choices.

All of this for +/- 1 attack

col_impact wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I find no small amount of amusement from him accusing Stephanius of "hiding information" when he completely ignored every word after "weapons" in every single argument.

Consider:

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


How many weapons does "these weapons" refer to?

You know this just proves my point of you ignoring every word after "weapons" right?

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
All of this for +/- 1 attack

I know it has kept me entertained at work

Ceann wrote:
The rules are clear, together must be explained.

If you ignore it you cannot use the profile, it is a requirement to define it. You claim it is undefined, then you either define it, or not use the profile, those are your choices.

I am not ignoring the phrase. There simply isn't anything with rules force associated with it. So "used together" doesn't change the rule statement.

If you feel that "used together" changes the rule statement, then prove it with a RAW argument based on the rules themselves and/or compelling English usage argument. Answers which involve guesses as to intent are not allowed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I find no small amount of amusement from him accusing Stephanius of "hiding information" when he completely ignored every word after "weapons" in every single argument.

Consider:

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


How many weapons does "these weapons" refer to?

You know this just proves my point of you ignoring every word after "weapons" right?

It's a straightforward question. In light of the sentence, how many weapons does "these weapons" refer to?

How come you are unwilling to answer it?

I answered it 1 page back. You ignored it, and I didn't feel like you were worth my time anymore.

Your argument lost all credibility the moment you attacked The Grumpy Eldar by cropping out his argument after he said "Weapons".

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I answered it 1 page back. You ignored it, and I didn't feel like you were worth my time anymore.

Your argument lost all credibility the moment you attacked The Grumpy Eldar by cropping out his argument after he said "Weapons".

Okay, so it looks like you will just be contributing disruptive comments to this thread.

I addressed your answer and pointed out its shortcomings here (https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/720/721816.page#9290240 )

Give me a heads up when you actually want to contribute meaningfully to this thread.



Summary of my argument . . .

Will do. Not like I can do anything since your argument refused to acknowledge anything past "these weapons".

I just love how Col's 'contributions' is just posting the same thing over and over again.

col_impact wrote:

Ceann wrote:
The rules are clear, together must be explained.

If you ignore it you cannot use the profile, it is a requirement to define it. You claim it is undefined, then you either define it, or not use the profile, those are your choices.

I am not ignoring the phrase. There simply isn't anything with rules force associated with it. So "used together" doesn't change the rule statement.

If you feel that "used together" changes the rule statement, then prove it with a RAW argument based on the rules themselves and/or compelling English usage argument. Answers which involve guesses as to intent are not allowed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I find no small amount of amusement from him accusing Stephanius of "hiding information" when he completely ignored every word after "weapons" in every single argument.

Consider:

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


How many weapons does "these weapons" refer to?

You know this just proves my point of you ignoring every word after "weapons" right?

It's a straightforward question. In light of the sentence, how many weapons does "these weapons" refer to?

How come you are unwilling to answer it?

These weapons refers to the two weapons named.
We have a sentence, using the English language.

These are the words in the sentence.

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

"These weapons" What does this tell us? That there are two weapons. Okay, so what ABOUT these weapons.
"These weapons are used together" What does this tell us? That there are two weapons and that they are used together. What does together mean? It means at the same time. Okay, so HOW do we use weapons together?
"These weapons are used together, using the profile below." What does this tell us? That we have two weapons, they are used together, at the same time, using the below profile.

***fireworks, doge, so amaze, miracles, epiphany****

But the rules say all weapons must have a profile and we have two weapons. Oh no! Whatever will we do.
Don't worry, these weapons use the profile together, so they both have a profile. Oh, thank goodness.


But Ceann, why do Bonelash state they only count as a single handed weapon and this doesn't so obviously its two one handed weapons right???
Well, maybe because Bonelash's are a frigging TAIL and don't use a hand, so it explicitly states it, for obvious reasons as tail's are not hands.

You argued for the IC clause "for all purposes" However if you flip to the index of the BRB, there is no reference to "these weapons" or "doubly apply the profile" or "for all purposes" your translation of the rules based on a single word while simultaneously ignoring another single word IN THE SAME SENTENCE is an argument that defeats itself when presented against itself. By your RAW theory, no new rule can be created, ever, because any new rule has no precedence and can therefore be ignored. Also by your logic we should scour the recent codex's for all circumstance of a rule with no precedence and dictate them useless.

You are OBLIGATED to follow ALL OF THE RULES on an entry, not cherry pick two words and ignore the rest. There is NO RULE "AND QUOTE THE PAGE" that states you can ignore other rules if you don't like them short of special rules superseding basic rules. Your entire argument is predicated upon people attempting to make an argument while ignoring the words "these weapons" which invalidates any argument they make.

In the case of the twin linked weapons you claimed I was wrong, which I obviously am, because it references back to a single weapon. In the case of TL weapons you were citing the reference back.
RG's profile cites back to the profile as THIS WEAPON, you know, the one we are supposed to use TOGETHER, but in this situation you want to ignore it citing back to a single entity.

Your arguments are hypocritical. Your stance on the IC thread is the opposite of your stance now.
Your argument is the same argument I attempted to use when explaining the TL rule but you stated it was wrong.
Your argument cannot be correct for one weapon citing back and incorrect for another citing back.

You are a hypocrite.

GodDamUser wrote:
I just love how Col's 'contributions' is just posting the same thing over and over again.

I already put in a request for a mod to come and shut this down. At this point no less than five different arguments made by even more people have been made, all of which were ignored by him repeating the same two words over and over again. It's pretty obvious that the only point to this thread is just post padding.

Ceann wrote:


These weapons refers to the two weapons named.
We have a sentence, using the English language.

These are the words in the sentence.

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

"These weapons" What does this tell us? That there are two weapons. Okay, so what ABOUT these weapons.
"These weapons are used together" What does this tell us? That there are two weapons and that they are used together. What does together mean? It means at the same time. Okay, so HOW do we use weapons together?
"These weapons are used together, using the profile below." What does this tell us? That we have two weapons, they are used together, at the same time, using the below profile.

***fireworks, doge, so amaze, miracles, epiphany****

But the rules say all weapons must have a profile and we have two weapons. Oh no! Whatever will we do.
Don't worry, these weapons use the profile together, so they both have a profile. Oh, thank goodness.


But Ceann, why do Bonelash state they only count as a single handed weapon and this doesn't so obviously its two one handed weapons right???
Well, maybe because Bonelash's are a frigging TAIL and don't use a hand, so it explicitly states it, for obvious reasons as tail's are not hands.

You argued for the IC clause "for all purposes" However if you flip to the index of the BRB, there is no reference to "these weapons" or "doubly apply the profile" or "for all purposes" your translation of the rules based on a single word while simultaneously ignoring another single word IN THE SAME SENTENCE is an argument that defeats itself when presented against itself. By your RAW theory, no new rule can be created, ever, because any new rule has no precedence and can therefore be ignored. Also by your logic we should scour the recent codex's for all circumstance of a rule with no precedence and dictate them useless.

You are OBLIGATED to follow ALL OF THE RULES on an entry, not cherry pick two words and ignore the rest. There is NO RULE "AND QUOTE THE PAGE" that states you can ignore other rules if you don't like them short of special rules superseding basic rules. Your entire argument is predicated upon people attempting to make an argument while ignoring the words "these weapons" which invalidates any argument they make.

In the case of the twin linked weapons you claimed I was wrong, which I obviously am, because it references back to a single weapon. In the case of TL weapons you were citing the reference back.
RG's profile cites back to the profile as THIS WEAPON, you know, the one we are supposed to use TOGETHER, but in this situation you want to ignore it citing back to a single entity.

Your arguments are hypocritical. Your stance on the IC thread is the opposite of your stance now.
Your argument is the same argument I attempted to use when explaining the TL rule but you stated it was wrong.
Your argument cannot be correct for one weapon citing back and incorrect for another citing back.

You are a hypocrite.

I have applied the same standard to everything. We are strictly concerned with what the Rules As Written tell us.

So, following your definition of "used together" 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".

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".

Summary of argument . . .

col_impact wrote:
In light of the sentence, how many weapons does "these weapons" refer to?

How come you are unwilling to answer it?

And when the rules state 'used together' what does that mean?

It means two things are used as one. There is one profile. One functional profile.

.....

And four lights.

GodDamUser wrote:

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
All of this for +/- 1 attack

I know it has kept me entertained at work

26 pages of nonsense nerd arguments....

Is it a bit ambiguous, yes. Is it something you should roll a dice or flip a coin or discuss with you opponent first? Sure. Is it something you should nerd rage and pull out a dictionary over and argue with people on the internet about? No.

 Wingeds wrote:
26 pages of nonsense nerd arguments....

Is it a bit ambiguous, yes. Is it something you should roll a dice or flip a coin or discuss with you opponent first? Sure. Is it something you should nerd rage and pull out a dictionary over and argue with people on the internet about? No.

but isn't that what the internet is for?

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

col_impact wrote:
In light of the sentence, how many weapons does "these weapons" refer to?

How come you are unwilling to answer it?

And when the rules state 'used together' what does that mean?

It means two things are used as one. There is one profile. One functional profile.

.....

And four lights.

So you are guessing that, based on the fact that you are provided with one profile, you are supposed 'to count the two weapons as a single weapon'?

There are no rules to support that. "Used together" doesn't mean "count as a one".

Your guess that the rule writers must mean for us to count the two weapons as one since they provided one profile is reasonable, but it's a guess, and so it breaks from a RAW argument.


Let's be clear here. I think your RAI argument is a reasonable one. It is certainly possible that the rule statement has an error of omission. It is certainly possible that the rules writers simply forgot to add the critical line "count as a single weapon [using the profile below]"

However, a Rules As Written argument can't be based on stuff omitted from the page or guesswork. The omission could have been in error or intentional, we don't know. RAW deals with what is written, not conjecture.

When you interpret the rules statements based off what is actually written you come up with two melee weapons and therewith +1A.

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".

 Wingeds wrote:

GodDamUser wrote:

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
All of this for +/- 1 attack

I know it has kept me entertained at work

26 pages of nonsense nerd arguments....

Is it a bit ambiguous, yes. Is it something you should roll a dice or flip a coin or discuss with you opponent first? Sure. Is it something you should nerd rage and pull out a dictionary over and argue with people on the internet about? No.

The dictionary has been so thoroughly butchered here that Noah Webster is doing a triple-barrel roll in his grave. Just another day in YMDC.

So, following your definition of "used together" 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 is the flaw in your entire argument.

When you enter melee combat you are required to choose A WEAPON. Not WEAPONS. WEAPON.
In order to use the profile you are required to use THESE WEAPONS. Remember how crystal clear you pointed out how it is two weapons.
If you do not use THESE WEAPONS TOGETHER, then you are not permitted to use the profile.

Because you are not permitted to use the profile then you only use the "our weapons are useless" rule because you are not making any attack and are thus unable to harm the target.

Now if you choose to use the profile and use the weapons TOGETHER, you are not using a single handed weapon profile, which is a requirement to get +1A.
As you cannot choose a SINGLE "not plural" handed WEAPON "also not plural" to use, you do not get +1A, because you have not met the requirement of using ONE SINGLE HANDED WEAPON.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
The dictionary has been so thoroughly butchered here that Noah Webster is doing a triple-barrel roll in his grave. Just another day in YMDC.

Maybe we should just leave Col_Ignored in his safe space, as he would also be torturing university english departments as well if they cared about reality more than safe spaces.

Or in other words, don't feed the troll. If you set him to ignore, your day becomes a lot more sane.

Ceann wrote:
So, following your definition of "used together" 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 is the flaw in your entire argument.

When you enter melee combat you are required to choose A WEAPON. Not WEAPONS. WEAPON.
In order to use the profile you are required to use THESE WEAPONS. Remember how crystal clear you pointed out how it is two weapons.
If you do not use THESE WEAPONS TOGETHER, then you are not permitted to use the profile.

Because you are not permitted to use the profile then you only use the "our weapons are useless" rule because you are not making any attack and are thus unable to harm the target.

Now if you choose to use the profile and use the weapons TOGETHER, you are not using a single handed weapon profile, which is a requirement to get +1A.
As you cannot choose a SINGLE "not plural" handed WEAPON "also not plural" to use, you do not get +1A, because you have not met the requirement of using ONE SINGLE HANDED WEAPON.

Remember - "Every weapon has a profile". So the profile is applied such that ever weapon in "these weapons" has a profile. That profile does not say "Two-Handed" so it is a single-handed weapon profile.

"Used together" isn't defined in the rules so it has no bearing as a restriction. "Used together" could mean "getting the bonus attack from having both weapons". We don't know unless we make a guess. So we can't apply a restriction based on "used together".

If you can provide rule-substantiated proof of what "used together" means, I am all ears. I have been waiting patiently for 25 pages for anyone supporting the counter argument to provide it.


Rather than provide a rule-substantiated proof of what "used together" means, many supporters of the counter argument (e.g. Charistoph, MechaEmperor7000, GodDamUser, DarkStarSabre) have chosen to simply make disruptive comments. Resorting to purely disruptive comments only makes you argument look weak.


Summary of my argument . . .

col_impact wrote:

 Brother Ramses wrote:


I went ahead and pointed out every instance of you using RAI to try and RAW your way into an extra attack. Your most blatant use above is that you tout RAW as being allowed to ignore something that doesn't fit your narrative. RAW is the Rules As Written which means that you NEED to include it into the reading of the rule and account for it completely in the argument, not just ignore it because it is inconvenient to your stance. Nothing in the notion or definition of RAW allows you to just ignore the wording of a rule. That is against the basic tenet of RAW.

You have made a weak RAI argument for +1 attack and try to cloak it by the vernacular use of RAW in all of your posts. But you can't put lipstick on a pig and call it Katy Perry and you most definitely cannot stamp RAW on a RAI stance to make it RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just realized something else,

You just said that for purposes of RAW, "used together" is ignored yet in the summary of your argument that you put in everyone of your posts you actually use your interpretation of what "used together" means as support for your argument!

So those that disagree with you and raise "used together" as a RAW argument against the bonus attack are disallowed since it is not a BRB defined rule, but if you use your interpretation of "used together" in the context of your RAW argument it is all fine and dandy.

Nice troll dude. Got you 26 pages of fame.

If you can provide me with a Rules As Written substantiated definition of "used together" or a compelling English definition of "used together", I can apply it to my RAW argument. I can't apply rules force to something that is undefined. RAW arguments have no guesses or assumptions about the rules in them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I find no small amount of amusement from him accusing Stephanius of "hiding information" when he completely ignored every word after "weapons" in every single argument.

Consider:

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


How many weapons does "these weapons" refer to?

There is no RAW for every word that GW uses. To insist that every word of a rule somehow must have a RAW definition in the BRB is being pedantic for the sake of trying to justify your argument. If you want to play that game, "these" is not a defined in RAW. Neither is "used" or "below". That is why context matters, which your decision to randomly ignore sections of the rules at your convience. And as I pointed out, you are not even consistent in that as you tell us to ignore it but then use it yourself to say that RG is uses both weapons.

You are like seriously just pulling stuff out of your rear at this point because you can't answer for the RAI you continue to use to support a bonus attack.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

Ceann wrote:
So, following your definition of "used together" 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 is the flaw in your entire argument.

When you enter melee combat you are required to choose A WEAPON. Not WEAPONS. WEAPON.
In order to use the profile you are required to use THESE WEAPONS. Remember how crystal clear you pointed out how it is two weapons.
If you do not use THESE WEAPONS TOGETHER, then you are not permitted to use the profile.

Because you are not permitted to use the profile then you only use the "our weapons are useless" rule because you are not making any attack and are thus unable to harm the target.

Now if you choose to use the profile and use the weapons TOGETHER, you are not using a single handed weapon profile, which is a requirement to get +1A.
As you cannot choose a SINGLE "not plural" handed WEAPON "also not plural" to use, you do not get +1A, because you have not met the requirement of using ONE SINGLE HANDED WEAPON.

"Every weapon has a profile" so the profile is applied such that ever weapon in "these weapons" has a profile. That profile does not say "Two-Handed" so it is a single-handed weapon profile.

"Used together" isn't defined in the rules so it has no bearing as a restriction. "Used together" could mean "getting the bonus attack from having both weapons". We don't know unless we make a guess. So we can't apply a restriction based on "used together".

If you can provide rule-substantiated proof of what "used together" means, I am all ears. I have been waiting patiently for 25 pages for anyone supporting the counter argument to provide it.

Ceann wrote:
So, following your definition of "used together" 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 is the flaw in your entire argument.

When you enter melee combat you are required to choose A WEAPON. Not WEAPONS. WEAPON.
In order to use the profile you are required to use THESE WEAPONS. Remember how crystal clear you pointed out how it is two weapons.
If you do not use THESE WEAPONS TOGETHER, then you are not permitted to use the profile.

Because you are not permitted to use the profile then you only use the "our weapons are useless" rule because you are not making any attack and are thus unable to harm the target.

Now if you choose to use the profile and use the weapons TOGETHER, you are not using a single handed weapon profile, which is a requirement to get +1A.
As you cannot choose a SINGLE "not plural" handed WEAPON "also not plural" to use, you do not get +1A, because you have not met the requirement of using ONE SINGLE HANDED WEAPON.

I refer to my chopsticks argument, they are clearly 2 of them but are absolutely dependent on each other.

GodDamUser wrote:


I refer to my chopsticks argument, they are clearly 2 of them but are absolutely dependent on each other.

When chopsticks are used together, do they "count as one chopstick" or are chopsticks used together to some purpose (such as eating)?

col_impact wrote:

GodDamUser wrote:


I refer to my chopsticks argument, they are clearly 2 of them but are absolutely dependent on each other.

When chopsticks are used together, do they "count as one chopstick" or are chopsticks used together to some purpose (such as eating)?

they are used together for a purpose.

But are useless alone.
chopsticks can only be used together for eating

col_impact wrote:

GodDamUser wrote:


I refer to my chopsticks argument, they are clearly 2 of them but are absolutely dependent on each other.

When chopsticks are used together, do they "count as one chopstick" or are chopsticks used together to some purpose (such as eating)?

When not used together are they an eating utensil or just sticks? When do they actually become an eating utensil? One chopstick is not an eating utensil. But two, when used together, is an eating utensil.