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.

col_impact wrote:

Not correct at all. Again, the profile defines what the weapon is. In this case 'massive scything talons' is the weapon. So you can only choose 'massive scything talons' as a weapon and no subset of that as a weapon. You only have permission to consider 'massive scything talons' as a weapon and you don't have permission to consider anything else as a weapon. I am sorry but the weapon profile says what it says. If you don't adhere to the weapon profile then you are breaking from the Rules As Written

Again, you do not choose a "profile" to attack with. You choose a weapon. Where do you go to choose a model's weapon? Not its profile. You choose from what it is armed with. Then, after you've chosen your weapons, then you consult their profiles.

Furthermore, you're ignoring the rules of the english language. You cannot choose which rules of the english language to follow and which ones you don't.

Three is an adjective describing the noun pairs, which is further described by the prepositional phrase of, of which talons is the object of the preposition and massive scything are adjectives describing the object. This is grammar. When you choose your weapons, you have [three pairs] of [massive scything talons] and [a] [biostatic rattle] to choose from.

 puma713 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Not correct at all. Again, the profile defines what the weapon is. In this case 'massive scything talons' is the weapon. So you can only choose 'massive scything talons' as a weapon and no subset of that as a weapon. You only have permission to consider 'massive scything talons' as a weapon and you don't have permission to consider anything else as a weapon. I am sorry but the weapon profile says what it says. If you don't adhere to the weapon profile then you are breaking from the Rules As Written

Again, you do not choose a "profile" to attack with. You choose a weapon. Where do you go to choose a model's weapon? Not its profile. You choose from what it is armed with. Then, after you've chosen your weapons, then you consult their profiles.

Furthermore, you're ignoring the rules of the english language. You cannot choose which rules of the english language to follow and which ones you don't.

Three is an adjective describing the noun pairs, which is further described by the prepositional phrase of, of which talons is the object of the preposition and massive scything are adjectives describing the object. This is grammar. When you choose your weapons, you have [three pairs] of [massive scything talons] and [a] [biostatic rattle] to choose from.

The datasheet indicates that you are armed with three pairs of massive scything talons but makes no mention of what is or is not considered a weapon. The weapon profile is what indicates that 'massive scything talons' is the weapon. I have no choice but to recognize 'massive scything talons' as the weapon and I have no permission to recognize anything else as a weapon. 'A pair of massive scything talons' is not a profile and so is not a recognized weapon by the rules. When I go to attack I must choose 'massive scything talons' as the weapon I attack with. I am not able to choose any subset of 'massive scything talons' as a weapon since I lack a profile giving me permission to do so. That is English and that is the Rules As they are Written.

I am 90% sure Orknado is just a sock puppet account of col_impact. Just go read all the threads he's posted in.

 Lance845 wrote:
I am 90% sure Orknado is just a sock puppet account of col_impact. Just go read all the threads he's posted in.

As I said, orknado is a relative of mine.

But what does that have to do with the argument of this thread?

Saying orknado is a sock puppet account is another personal attack.

I suggest you pay attention to your argument rather than attack others personally.

col_impact wrote:

 puma713 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Not correct at all. Again, the profile defines what the weapon is. In this case 'massive scything talons' is the weapon. So you can only choose 'massive scything talons' as a weapon and no subset of that as a weapon. You only have permission to consider 'massive scything talons' as a weapon and you don't have permission to consider anything else as a weapon. I am sorry but the weapon profile says what it says. If you don't adhere to the weapon profile then you are breaking from the Rules As Written

Again, you do not choose a "profile" to attack with. You choose a weapon. Where do you go to choose a model's weapon? Not its profile. You choose from what it is armed with. Then, after you've chosen your weapons, then you consult their profiles.

Furthermore, you're ignoring the rules of the english language. You cannot choose which rules of the english language to follow and which ones you don't.

Three is an adjective describing the noun pairs, which is further described by the prepositional phrase of, of which talons is the object of the preposition and massive scything are adjectives describing the object. This is grammar. When you choose your weapons, you have [three pairs] of [massive scything talons] and [a] [biostatic rattle] to choose from.

The datasheet indicates that you are armed with three pairs of massive scything talons but makes no mention of what is or is not considered a weapon. The weapon profile is what indicates that 'massive scything talons' is the weapon. I have no choice but to recognize 'massive scything talons' as the weapon and I have no permission to recognize anything else as a weapon. 'A pair of massive scything talons' is not a profile and so is not a recognized weapon by the rules. When I go to attack I must choose 'massive scything talons' as the weapon I attack with. I am not able to choose any subset of 'massive scything talons' as a weapon since I lack a profile giving me permission to do so. That is English and that is the Rules As they are Written.

Lets find another Col_Impact quote...
For The Emperor’s Sword and The Hand of Dominion

col_impact wrote:The rules refer to "the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" in the plural separably as "these weapons". Plural.

Talons are WEAPONS plural.

But now you argue the opposite grammatically.
The hypocrisy has no bounds.

Ceann wrote:



Lets find another Col_Impact quote...
For The Emperor’s Sword and The Hand of Dominion

col_impact wrote:The rules refer to "the Emperor's Sword and the Hand of Dominion" in the plural separably as "these weapons". Plural.

Talons are WEAPONS plural.

But now you argue the opposite grammatically.
The hypocrisy has no bounds.

My argument is the opposite of hypocritical. I consistently argue that the rules say what they mean. In the case of Robute Gulliman the profile said 'these weapons'. In the case we are discussing the profile says 'this weapon'.

It would be hypocritical if I considered singular/plural significant in one case but not the other. I am treating them as significant in both cases. Thus, I am not hypocritical.

Before you accuse someone of being hypocritical, make sure you understand what hypocritical means.

I think if a Trygon get +3attack when it can split the pool dice, then it will be able to do the same think in one-to-one melee, but the ambiguity doesn't fit in this case, so, I think first you must split how many attacks go to each pool, for that you must know how many attack has the model, in Trygons it will be 6+1(6base +1 for more than one pair of scything talons), one a this must be made with the prehensile pincer tail's profile.

Woah... I'm gone for a few days and you guys have made this post in to science! O___O
I got to play a few games of 8th a couple days back and I played the rule as only +1 attack. (I didn't wanna take advantage of the rule ambiguity so I played in favor for my opponent) And given 6+1 attacks the Trygon prime was still a beast! I'm certain now that the RAI is meant to be only +1, because 9 attacks would be just friggin overkill for a model like that. Though I still want an actual FAQ to clear this, because the wording of the rule could still go either way and given only RAW I would still say it's +3 attacks.

Also this post was featured on the Dakka Facebook, so I'm glad it has sparked a conversation and hopefully given new light to this rule and others with similar wording.

 Rustyeh wrote:
Woah... I'm gone for a few days and you guys have made this post in to science! O___O
I got to play a few games of 8th a couple days back and I played the rule as only +1 attack. (I didn't wanna take advantage of the rule ambiguity so I played in favor for my opponent) And given 6+1 attacks the Trygon prime was still a beast! I'm certain now that the RAI is meant to be only +1, because 9 attacks would be just friggin overkill for a model like that. Though I still want an actual FAQ to clear this, because the wording of the rule could still go either way and given only RAW I would still say it's +3 attacks.

Also this post was featured on the Dakka Facebook, so I'm glad it has sparked a conversation and hopefully given new light to this rule and others with similar wording.

RAW is actually for +1A. The weapon profile is for 'massive scything talons' and there is no profile for 'pair of massive scything talons' or 'massive scything talon'.

+1A total. Compare to Ork Deff Dread weapons in the same book if you want it to be absolutely clear.

 doctortom wrote:

"Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out" In this case they should have had a disclaimer for not stopping at 1.

I love you for your excellent use of a Monty Python quote.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

 Rustyeh wrote:
Woah... I'm gone for a few days and you guys have made this post in to science! O___O
I got to play a few games of 8th a couple days back and I played the rule as only +1 attack. (I didn't wanna take advantage of the rule ambiguity so I played in favor for my opponent) And given 6+1 attacks the Trygon prime was still a beast! I'm certain now that the RAI is meant to be only +1, because 9 attacks would be just friggin overkill for a model like that. Though I still want an actual FAQ to clear this, because the wording of the rule could still go either way and given only RAW I would still say it's +3 attacks.

Also this post was featured on the Dakka Facebook, so I'm glad it has sparked a conversation and hopefully given new light to this rule and others with similar wording.

RAW is actually for +1A. The weapon profile is for 'massive scything talons'.

I've now read about half the pages of this post, since I last read this. And given how over the top weird Bulls*** you have spouted out, I am not going to take your oppinions into account.
Since time immemorial Tyranid scything talons have always been pairs. In the codex for 6th it is stated that a single weapon profile for "Scything talons" always means 1 pair. Given the Trygons wargear is 3 pairs, meaning 3 individual weapons. Your arguments for "Only one weapon profile blablabla" can get the fudge out of this thread.

 Rustyeh wrote:


I've now read about half the pages of this post, since I last read this. And given how over the top weird Bulls*** you have spouted out, I am not going to take your oppinions into account.
Since time immemorial Tyranid scything talons have always been pairs. In the codex for 6th it is stated that a single weapon profile for "Scything talons" always means 1 pair. Given the Trygons wargear is 3 pairs, meaning 3 individual weapons. Your arguments for "Only one weapon profile blablabla" can get the fudge out of this thread.

You are mistaken about how YMDC works. You need to present an argument with proof. Your feelings and unsupported opinion don't matter.

To throw more fuel in to the fire. In the 7th edition the Trygon and Trygon Prime had 2 pairs of scything talons.

Cometh 8th it got pumped into 3 pairs. Why was there need for it to get pumped to 3 pairs? It makes no sense, if it actually cannot benefit from actually having 3 pairs. 2 pairs of MST would cost 44 points for a model to take. The 3 pairs cost 60 points.
So what this means is you have to pay 16 additional points, to get no extra benefit for owning a third pair. Given how many people here intrepid the rule is it doesn't matter how many pairs you own beyond 2, you only get +1 attack.
I understand this gaming wise as a balancing factor, because a 9 attack Trygon would be just overkill...

But why was it changed from 2 pairs to 3 from 7th to 8th? Why are the Trygon models the only ones able to purchase more than 2 pairs in the whole book? Heck, they are required to buy three pairs, and they dont benefit from the third pair at all. Why not just give them 2 pairs? Why not word the rule so that it clearly only gives +1/+2/+3/+X attacks at all times when fighting? Why not create Trygon specific weapons to have a clear ruling that wouldn't conflict with other models and their weapons? Why word it so ambiguously so these type of circlejerk argument threads need to be created to bring nothing new to the table except more confusion?

Why oh why indeed... All we can do is wait for an official FAQ to clear this, in the mean time I suggest everyone to agree with your opponents on how these types of situations should be cleared in your games and have fun.

 Rustyeh wrote:
To throw more fuel in to the fire. In the 7th edition the Trygon and Trygon Prime had 2 pairs of scything talons.

Cometh 8th it got pumped into 3 pairs. Why was there need for it to get pumped to 3 pairs? It makes no sense, if it actually cannot benefit from actually having 3 pairs. 2 pairs of MST would cost 44 points for a model to take. The 3 pairs cost 60 points.
So what this means is you have to pay 16 additional points, to get no extra benefit for owning a third pair. Given how many people here intrepid the rule is it doesn't matter how many pairs you own beyond 2, you only get +1 attack.
I understand this gaming wise as a balancing factor, because a 9 attack Trygon would be just overkill...

But why was it changed from 2 pairs to 3 from 7th to 8th? Why are the Trygon models the only ones able to purchase more than 2 pairs in the whole book? Heck, they are required to buy three pairs, and they dont benefit from the third pair at all. Why not just give them 2 pairs? Why not word the rule so that it clearly only gives +1/+2/+3/+X attacks at all times when fighting? Why not create Trygon specific weapons to have a clear ruling that wouldn't conflict with other models and their weapons? Why word it so ambiguously so these type of circlejerk argument threads need to be created to bring nothing new to the table except more confusion?

Why oh why indeed... All we can do is wait for an official FAQ to clear this, in the mean time I suggest everyone to agree with your opponents on how these types of situations should be cleared in your games and have fun.

8th edition has nothing to do with 7th edition.

col_impact wrote:

8th edition has nothing to do with 7th edition.

It does and it doesn't. I am merely using it as a reference.

But your argument for having "only a single weapon profile" makes no sense. You have said over and over and over and over that "there is no profile called pair of massive scything talons" The only mention of what weapons a Trygon has in the index is word for word: "A Trygon is a single model armed with a bio-electric pulse, three pairs of massive scything talons and a toxinspike"

How you intrepid this means, the Trygon doesn't have any pairs of scything talons, or scything talons at all for that matter. As there is no point cost or a profile for a weapon called: "three pairs of massive scything talons." So they are non-existent if the RAW is what you have established in your arguments.

Now if we look at the actual RAW and actual Tyranid biology. Tyranid weapons come in pairs. Rending claws = a pair, Crushing Claws = a pair, Boneswords = a pair etc.
One pair = One profile
Three pairs = Three profiles
For the sake of simplicity and room on the physical page of the book there are no individual profiles for all different amounts of weapons, but they are clumped under "Massive scything talons"
"Massive Scything Talons" is a profile for one pair of Massive Scything talons, alas one pair is one weapon.
Given the Trygons datasheet grants it three pairs, it comes equipped with 3 weapons with the same profile and same name. It is only represented with one profile, and not three separate identical profiles for yet again simplicity and saving room on the physical book.

I do not know and frankly I do not care how you have come to an assumption that this would only be one weapon profile that gets "upgrades." Because then that should be applied to other rules as well, if some model has more than one of the same weapon, it should only have one weapon and the rest should be upgrades. Like the Leman Russ for example. It can take two heavy flamers, but as they are identical they should only ever be considered as one weapon, because there is no profile in the book for a weapon called "two heavy flamers" the second one is merely a upgrade for the first one. And the unit can only ever fire one Heavy Flamer, because that is the profile it has.

The thing is you cannot prove a negative. There is no evidence you can present to prove that something does not exist. Only that something does exist. There is no evidence to disprove that a model equipped with 3 wargear is supposed to treat it as 1. Because there is no rule that says you are supposed to. However, there IS a rule that says the model comes equipped with 3 wargear. We can prove that. It should be all the evidence we need.

3 wargear. 3 profiles.

 Lance845 wrote:
The thing is you cannot prove a negative. There is no evidence you can present to prove that something does not exist. Only that something does exist. There is no evidence to disprove that a model equipped with 3 wargear is supposed to treat it as 1. Because there is no rule that says you are supposed to. However, there IS a rule that says the model comes equipped with 3 wargear. We can prove that. It should be all the evidence we need.

3 wargear. 3 profiles.

Exactly this. The profile only includes one of a given wargear / weapon, because it would be a real pain to list all the possible combinations you can include said wargear / weapon in your army.
The amount of profiles is given in the datasheet and the profile itself is the profile for one single wargear / weapon, you just have to multiply it by the amount the model has equiped.

 Lance845 wrote:
The thing is you cannot prove a negative. There is no evidence you can present to prove that something does not exist. Only that something does exist. There is no evidence to disprove that a model equipped with 3 wargear is supposed to treat it as 1. Because there is no rule that says you are supposed to. However, there IS a rule that says the model comes equipped with 3 wargear. We can prove that. It should be all the evidence we need.

3 wargear. 3 profiles.

There are ways to prove a negative. If you take a person to a hole in the ground and you are saying there is no ground there, then you are proving a negative. This is possible in writing where you can quote a passage and highlight a section where someone is assuming something to be.

For example, there was the phrase in 7th Edition when talking about multiple weapon profiles that you "can choose which to choose each turn." I can prove that it does not say "can choose which one to choose each turn" because the word "one" is not present in the proper quote. (highlights for easy viewing).

The real question would be is "pairs" part of the title of the possessed weapons or is indicating another relationship that Twin-linked did in editions previous? If part of the title, then yes, the Weapon isn't carried by model. But if it carries that other relationship that Twin-linked had, then we may actually be looking at 6 actual Weapons possessed by the model if that "pair" is not already defined elsewhere (as it did in the bug's last codex), now isn't THAT scary?

 Rustyeh wrote:

col_impact wrote:

8th edition has nothing to do with 7th edition.

It does and it doesn't. I am merely using it as a reference.

But your argument for having "only a single weapon profile" makes no sense. You have said over and over and over and over that "there is no profile called pair of massive scything talons" The only mention of what weapons a Trygon has in the index is word for word: "A Trygon is a single model armed with a bio-electric pulse, three pairs of massive scything talons and a toxinspike"

How you intrepid this means, the Trygon doesn't have any pairs of scything talons, or scything talons at all for that matter. As there is no point cost or a profile for a weapon called: "three pairs of massive scything talons." So they are non-existent if the RAW is what you have established in your arguments.

Now if we look at the actual RAW and actual Tyranid biology. Tyranid weapons come in pairs. Rending claws = a pair, Crushing Claws = a pair, Boneswords = a pair etc.
One pair = One profile
Three pairs = Three profiles
For the sake of simplicity and room on the physical page of the book there are no individual profiles for all different amounts of weapons, but they are clumped under "Massive scything talons"
"Massive Scything Talons" is a profile for one pair of Massive Scything talons, alas one pair is one weapon.
Given the Trygons datasheet grants it three pairs, it comes equipped with 3 weapons with the same profile and same name. It is only represented with one profile, and not three separate identical profiles for yet again simplicity and saving room on the physical book.

I do not know and frankly I do not care how you have come to an assumption that this would only be one weapon profile that gets "upgrades." Because then that should be applied to other rules as well, if some model has more than one of the same weapon, it should only have one weapon and the rest should be upgrades. Like the Leman Russ for example. It can take two heavy flamers, but as they are identical they should only ever be considered as one weapon, because there is no profile in the book for a weapon called "two heavy flamers" the second one is merely a upgrade for the first one. And the unit can only ever fire one Heavy Flamer, because that is the profile it has.

The profile tells us what is a weapon. A single talon is not a weapon. A pair is not a weapon. Only 'massive scything talons' is recognized by the rules as a weapon.

col_impact wrote:

 Rustyeh wrote:

col_impact wrote:

8th edition has nothing to do with 7th edition.

It does and it doesn't. I am merely using it as a reference.

But your argument for having "only a single weapon profile" makes no sense. You have said over and over and over and over that "there is no profile called pair of massive scything talons" The only mention of what weapons a Trygon has in the index is word for word: "A Trygon is a single model armed with a bio-electric pulse, three pairs of massive scything talons and a toxinspike"

How you intrepid this means, the Trygon doesn't have any pairs of scything talons, or scything talons at all for that matter. As there is no point cost or a profile for a weapon called: "three pairs of massive scything talons." So they are non-existent if the RAW is what you have established in your arguments.

Now if we look at the actual RAW and actual Tyranid biology. Tyranid weapons come in pairs. Rending claws = a pair, Crushing Claws = a pair, Boneswords = a pair etc.
One pair = One profile
Three pairs = Three profiles
For the sake of simplicity and room on the physical page of the book there are no individual profiles for all different amounts of weapons, but they are clumped under "Massive scything talons"
"Massive Scything Talons" is a profile for one pair of Massive Scything talons, alas one pair is one weapon.
Given the Trygons datasheet grants it three pairs, it comes equipped with 3 weapons with the same profile and same name. It is only represented with one profile, and not three separate identical profiles for yet again simplicity and saving room on the physical book.

I do not know and frankly I do not care how you have come to an assumption that this would only be one weapon profile that gets "upgrades." Because then that should be applied to other rules as well, if some model has more than one of the same weapon, it should only have one weapon and the rest should be upgrades. Like the Leman Russ for example. It can take two heavy flamers, but as they are identical they should only ever be considered as one weapon, because there is no profile in the book for a weapon called "two heavy flamers" the second one is merely a upgrade for the first one. And the unit can only ever fire one Heavy Flamer, because that is the profile it has.

The profile tells us what is a weapon. A single talon is not a weapon. A pair is not a weapon. Only 'massive scything talons' is recognized by the rules as a weapon.

Nope.

 Lance845 wrote:
The thing is you cannot prove a negative. There is no evidence you can present to prove that something does not exist. Only that something does exist. There is no evidence to disprove that a model equipped with 3 wargear is supposed to treat it as 1. Because there is no rule that says you are supposed to. However, there IS a rule that says the model comes equipped with 3 wargear. We can prove that. It should be all the evidence we need.

3 wargear. 3 profiles.

There is nothing indicating what is a weapon except for the profile. Pairs is not a weapon. Only 'massive scything talons' is a weapon recognized by the rules.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
The thing is you cannot prove a negative. There is no evidence you can present to prove that something does not exist. Only that something does exist. There is no evidence to disprove that a model equipped with 3 wargear is supposed to treat it as 1. Because there is no rule that says you are supposed to. However, there IS a rule that says the model comes equipped with 3 wargear. We can prove that. It should be all the evidence we need.

3 wargear. 3 profiles.

There are ways to prove a negative. If you take a person to a hole in the ground and you are saying there is no ground there, then you are proving a negative. This is possible in writing where you can quote a passage and highlight a section where someone is assuming something to be.

For example, there was the phrase in 7th Edition when talking about multiple weapon profiles that you "can choose which to choose each turn." I can prove that it does not say "can choose which one to choose each turn" because the word "one" is not present in the proper quote. (highlights for easy viewing).

The real question would be is "pairs" part of the title of the possessed weapons or is indicating another relationship that Twin-linked did in editions previous? If part of the title, then yes, the Weapon isn't carried by model. But if it carries that other relationship that Twin-linked had, then we may actually be looking at 6 actual Weapons possessed by the model if that "pair" is not already defined elsewhere (as it did in the bug's last codex), now isn't THAT scary?

Which is what I have said is the raw. But not the RAI. Rai seems clear. It should be 3.

 Lance845 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Rustyeh wrote:

col_impact wrote:

8th edition has nothing to do with 7th edition.

It does and it doesn't. I am merely using it as a reference.

But your argument for having "only a single weapon profile" makes no sense. You have said over and over and over and over that "there is no profile called pair of massive scything talons" The only mention of what weapons a Trygon has in the index is word for word: "A Trygon is a single model armed with a bio-electric pulse, three pairs of massive scything talons and a toxinspike"

How you intrepid this means, the Trygon doesn't have any pairs of scything talons, or scything talons at all for that matter. As there is no point cost or a profile for a weapon called: "three pairs of massive scything talons." So they are non-existent if the RAW is what you have established in your arguments.

Now if we look at the actual RAW and actual Tyranid biology. Tyranid weapons come in pairs. Rending claws = a pair, Crushing Claws = a pair, Boneswords = a pair etc.
One pair = One profile
Three pairs = Three profiles
For the sake of simplicity and room on the physical page of the book there are no individual profiles for all different amounts of weapons, but they are clumped under "Massive scything talons"
"Massive Scything Talons" is a profile for one pair of Massive Scything talons, alas one pair is one weapon.
Given the Trygons datasheet grants it three pairs, it comes equipped with 3 weapons with the same profile and same name. It is only represented with one profile, and not three separate identical profiles for yet again simplicity and saving room on the physical book.

I do not know and frankly I do not care how you have come to an assumption that this would only be one weapon profile that gets "upgrades." Because then that should be applied to other rules as well, if some model has more than one of the same weapon, it should only have one weapon and the rest should be upgrades. Like the Leman Russ for example. It can take two heavy flamers, but as they are identical they should only ever be considered as one weapon, because there is no profile in the book for a weapon called "two heavy flamers" the second one is merely a upgrade for the first one. And the unit can only ever fire one Heavy Flamer, because that is the profile it has.

The profile tells us what is a weapon. A single talon is not a weapon. A pair is not a weapon. Only 'massive scything talons' is recognized by the rules as a weapon.

Nope.

In YMDC, you need to back up what you claim with support. I am able to point to the weapon profile for 'massive scything talons' for support for my statement. What are you able to point to?

col_impact wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
The thing is you cannot prove a negative. There is no evidence you can present to prove that something does not exist. Only that something does exist. There is no evidence to disprove that a model equipped with 3 wargear is supposed to treat it as 1. Because there is no rule that says you are supposed to. However, there IS a rule that says the model comes equipped with 3 wargear. We can prove that. It should be all the evidence we need.

3 wargear. 3 profiles.

There is nothing indicating what is a weapon except for the profile. Pairs is not a weapon. Only 'massive scything talons' is a weapon recognized by the rules.

Nope.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
The thing is you cannot prove a negative. There is no evidence you can present to prove that something does not exist. Only that something does exist. There is no evidence to disprove that a model equipped with 3 wargear is supposed to treat it as 1. Because there is no rule that says you are supposed to. However, there IS a rule that says the model comes equipped with 3 wargear. We can prove that. It should be all the evidence we need.

3 wargear. 3 profiles.

There are ways to prove a negative. If you take a person to a hole in the ground and you are saying there is no ground there, then you are proving a negative. This is possible in writing where you can quote a passage and highlight a section where someone is assuming something to be.

For example, there was the phrase in 7th Edition when talking about multiple weapon profiles that you "can choose which to choose each turn." I can prove that it does not say "can choose which one to choose each turn" because the word "one" is not present in the proper quote. (highlights for easy viewing).

The real question would be is "pairs" part of the title of the possessed weapons or is indicating another relationship that Twin-linked did in editions previous? If part of the title, then yes, the Weapon isn't carried by model. But if it carries that other relationship that Twin-linked had, then we may actually be looking at 6 actual Weapons possessed by the model if that "pair" is not already defined elsewhere (as it did in the bug's last codex), now isn't THAT scary?

Which is what I have said is the raw. But not the tau. Tau seems clear. It should be 3.

'Pair of massive scything talons' is not recognized as a a weapon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
The thing is you cannot prove a negative. There is no evidence you can present to prove that something does not exist. Only that something does exist. There is no evidence to disprove that a model equipped with 3 wargear is supposed to treat it as 1. Because there is no rule that says you are supposed to. However, there IS a rule that says the model comes equipped with 3 wargear. We can prove that. It should be all the evidence we need.

3 wargear. 3 profiles.

There is nothing indicating what is a weapon except for the profile. Pairs is not a weapon. Only 'massive scything talons' is a weapon recognized by the rules.

Nope.

In YMDC, you need to back up what you claim with support. I am able to point to the weapon profile for 'massive scything talons' for support for my statement. What are you able to point to?

col_impact wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Rustyeh wrote:

col_impact wrote:

8th edition has nothing to do with 7th edition.

It does and it doesn't. I am merely using it as a reference.

But your argument for having "only a single weapon profile" makes no sense. You have said over and over and over and over that "there is no profile called pair of massive scything talons" The only mention of what weapons a Trygon has in the index is word for word: "A Trygon is a single model armed with a bio-electric pulse, three pairs of massive scything talons and a toxinspike"

How you intrepid this means, the Trygon doesn't have any pairs of scything talons, or scything talons at all for that matter. As there is no point cost or a profile for a weapon called: "three pairs of massive scything talons." So they are non-existent if the RAW is what you have established in your arguments.

Now if we look at the actual RAW and actual Tyranid biology. Tyranid weapons come in pairs. Rending claws = a pair, Crushing Claws = a pair, Boneswords = a pair etc.
One pair = One profile
Three pairs = Three profiles
For the sake of simplicity and room on the physical page of the book there are no individual profiles for all different amounts of weapons, but they are clumped under "Massive scything talons"
"Massive Scything Talons" is a profile for one pair of Massive Scything talons, alas one pair is one weapon.
Given the Trygons datasheet grants it three pairs, it comes equipped with 3 weapons with the same profile and same name. It is only represented with one profile, and not three separate identical profiles for yet again simplicity and saving room on the physical book.

I do not know and frankly I do not care how you have come to an assumption that this would only be one weapon profile that gets "upgrades." Because then that should be applied to other rules as well, if some model has more than one of the same weapon, it should only have one weapon and the rest should be upgrades. Like the Leman Russ for example. It can take two heavy flamers, but as they are identical they should only ever be considered as one weapon, because there is no profile in the book for a weapon called "two heavy flamers" the second one is merely a upgrade for the first one. And the unit can only ever fire one Heavy Flamer, because that is the profile it has.

The profile tells us what is a weapon. A single talon is not a weapon. A pair is not a weapon. Only 'massive scything talons' is recognized by the rules as a weapon.

Nope.

In YMDC, you need to back up what you claim with support. I am able to point to the weapon profile for 'massive scything talons' for support for my statement. What are you able to point to?

I have. I won't write it all out again. My answer this this is...

Nope.

 Lance845 wrote:


I have. I won't write it all out again. My answer this this is...

Nope.

Your unsupported opinion means nothing in this thread. But feel free to keep saying 'nope'. It makes your argument look unsupportable.

Meanwhile the actual rules on the page support my argument.

col_impact wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:


I have. I won't write it all out again. My answer this this is...

Nope.

Your unsupported opinion means nothing in this thread. But feel free to keep saying 'nope'. It makes your argument look unsupportable.

Meanwhile the actual rules on the page support my argument.

Nope.

I don't believe that's true. I believe your are making pair a mechanical entity instead of a numerical value. Your entire argument hinges on that being true. But we have no wargear to support that. Only a single self referential line that ALSO functions as a numerical value. We do however have precedence that plural works otherwise and the English language granting pair a value.

So no. Nope. None. You are wrong. Have been. Continue to be. Seemingly always will be since you just parrot the same few lines over and over.

col_impact wrote:

 Rustyeh wrote:

col_impact wrote:

8th edition has nothing to do with 7th edition.

It does and it doesn't. I am merely using it as a reference.

But your argument for having "only a single weapon profile" makes no sense. You have said over and over and over and over that "there is no profile called pair of massive scything talons" The only mention of what weapons a Trygon has in the index is word for word: "A Trygon is a single model armed with a bio-electric pulse, three pairs of massive scything talons and a toxinspike"

How you intrepid this means, the Trygon doesn't have any pairs of scything talons, or scything talons at all for that matter. As there is no point cost or a profile for a weapon called: "three pairs of massive scything talons." So they are non-existent if the RAW is what you have established in your arguments.

Now if we look at the actual RAW and actual Tyranid biology. Tyranid weapons come in pairs. Rending claws = a pair, Crushing Claws = a pair, Boneswords = a pair etc.
One pair = One profile
Three pairs = Three profiles
For the sake of simplicity and room on the physical page of the book there are no individual profiles for all different amounts of weapons, but they are clumped under "Massive scything talons"
"Massive Scything Talons" is a profile for one pair of Massive Scything talons, alas one pair is one weapon.
Given the Trygons datasheet grants it three pairs, it comes equipped with 3 weapons with the same profile and same name. It is only represented with one profile, and not three separate identical profiles for yet again simplicity and saving room on the physical book.

I do not know and frankly I do not care how you have come to an assumption that this would only be one weapon profile that gets "upgrades." Because then that should be applied to other rules as well, if some model has more than one of the same weapon, it should only have one weapon and the rest should be upgrades. Like the Leman Russ for example. It can take two heavy flamers, but as they are identical they should only ever be considered as one weapon, because there is no profile in the book for a weapon called "two heavy flamers" the second one is merely a upgrade for the first one. And the unit can only ever fire one Heavy Flamer, because that is the profile it has.

The profile tells us what is a weapon. A single talon is not a weapon. A pair is not a weapon. Only 'massive scything talons' is recognized by the rules as a weapon.

And the dataset tells us it has 3 separate weapons groups of the massive scathing talons by saying there are 3 of them. And we are told that a model can use its different weapons for different melee attacks, so it can use all 3. The profile doesn't enter into it until after the weapons you are fighting with have been selected. And a pair of massive scathing talons are massive scathing talons, plural, so the profile is used for each one of those three sets of weapons. This meets all requirements whereas yours does not. You deny the opportunity to split attacks between weapons the data sheet clearly indicates the model has. You treat all scathing talons after the first as "equipment" -your word - and not as weapons without providing valid rules support to back that up. Your claim that the profile lumps in all claws has no RAW basis as we are told there are multiple sets, and you wish to ignore that "massive scathing claws" can consist of a pair of claws. 2 of something makes it plural. This means the profile DOES apply to a pair of massive scything claws. Since it is established on the data sheet that there are 3 pairs -3 sets of weapons, lumping them all together as one goes against the RAW that there are 3 sets that can be used in separate attacks.

 doctortom wrote:


And the dataset tells us it has 3 separate weapons groups of the massive scathing talons by saying there are 3 of them. And we are told that a model can use its different weapons for different melee attacks, so it can use all 3. The profile doesn't enter into it until after the weapons you are fighting with have been selected. And a pair of massive scathing talons are massive scathing talons, plural, so the profile is used for each one of those three sets of weapons. This meets all requirements whereas yours does not. You deny the opportunity to split attacks between weapons the data sheet clearly indicates the model has. You treat all scathing talons after the first as "equipment" -your word - and not as weapons without providing valid rules support to back that up. Your claim that the profile lumps in all claws has no RAW basis as we are told there are multiple sets, and you wish to ignore that "massive scathing claws" can consist of a pair of claws. 2 of something makes it plural. This means the profile DOES apply to a pair of massive scything claws. Since it is established on the data sheet that there are 3 pairs -3 sets of weapons, lumping them all together as one goes against the RAW that there are 3 sets that can be used in separate attacks.

There is no profile for a 'pair of massive scything talons' so a pair is not a weapon recognized by the rules. The only weapon recognized by the rules is 'massive scything talons' so that is the only weapon you have.