TYRANIDS - Massive Scything Talons

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.

**blaktoof**

If the bearer has more than 1 pair of massive scything talons it can make +1 attack each time it fights.

Not +1 for each pair , just plus one if it has more.

If the trygon was a centipede and it had 100 paira of this weapon it would get +1 attack, not +100.

Any number of pairs past one is all more than one pair.

**col_impact**

blaktoof wrote:
If the bearer has more than 1 pair of massive scything talons it can make +1 attack each time it fights.

Not +1 for each pair , just plus one if it has more.

If the trygon was a centipede and it had 100 paira of this weapon it would get +1 attack, not +100.

Any number of pairs past one is all more than one pair.

Yup. A 'pair of massive scything talons' is not a weapon. The weapon is 'massive scything talons'. It checks to see if there are additional pairs beyond the first and grants +1A if there is an additional pair beyond the first.

**Charistoph**

blaktoof wrote:
If the bearer has more than 1 pair of massive scything talons it can make +1 attack each time it fights.

Not +1 for each pair , just plus one if it has more.

If the trygon was a centipede and it had 100 paira of this weapon it would get +1 attack, not +100.

Any number of pairs past one is all more than one pair.

That doesn't match the quote given. It's a bonus attack with THIS Weapon. At a minimum, it has three of THIS Weapon that can call it in for a bonus Attack, so it can make 3 Bonus Attacks, one for each Weapon.

In order for it to be as you said, the rule would state, "If the bearer has more than one pair of massive scything talons, it can make 1 additional attack each time it fights."

So, is it an additional attack for the bearer, or for this Weapon?

**Lance845**

blaktoof wrote:
If the bearer has more than 1 pair of massive scything talons it can make +1 attack each time it fights.

Not +1 for each pair , just plus one if it has more.

If the trygon was a centipede and it had 100 paira of this weapon it would get +1 attack, not +100.

Any number of pairs past one is all more than one pair.

That's not what the rule says though.

2 requirements. It fights and it has more than one pair.

1 effect. It can make +1 attack with this weapon. With this weapon being a major keybphrase here.

If the model has multiple weapon profiles, all with the same rule, than +1 attack with each weapon profile.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:
blaktoof wrote:
If the bearer has more than 1 pair of massive scything talons it can make +1 attack each time it fights.

Not +1 for each pair , just plus one if it has more.

If the trygon was a centipede and it had 100 paira of this weapon it would get +1 attack, not +100.

Any number of pairs past one is all more than one pair.

Yup. A 'pair of massive scything talons' is not a weapon. The weapon is 'massive scything talons'. It checks to see if there are additional pairs beyond the first and grants +1A if there is an additional pair beyond the first.

Nope.

**col_impact**

Charistoph wrote:
blaktoof wrote:
If the bearer has more than 1 pair of massive scything talons it can make +1 attack each time it fights.

Not +1 for each pair , just plus one if it has more.

If the trygon was a centipede and it had 100 paira of this weapon it would get +1 attack, not +100.

Any number of pairs past one is all more than one pair.

That doesn't match the quote given. It's a bonus attack with THIS Weapon. At a minimum, it has three of THIS Weapon that can call it in for a bonus Attack, so it can make 3 Bonus Attacks, one for each Weapon.

In order for it to be as you said, the rule would state, "If the bearer has more than one pair of massive scything talons, it can make 1 additional attack each time it fights."

So, is it an additional attack for the bearer, or for this Weapon?

There is no weapon called 'pair of massive scything talons'. The only weapon you have is 'massive scything talons'. How are you justifying that 'it has three of THIS Weapon'? A 'pair' is not a weapon.

Spoiler:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lance845 wrote:
blaktoof wrote:
If the bearer has more than 1 pair of massive scything talons it can make +1 attack each time it fights.

Not +1 for each pair , just plus one if it has more.

If the trygon was a centipede and it had 100 paira of this weapon it would get +1 attack, not +100.

Any number of pairs past one is all more than one pair.

That's not what the rule says though.

2 requirements. It fights and it has more than one pair.

1 effect. It can make +1 attack with this weapon. With this weapon being a major keybphrase here.

If the model has multiple weapon profiles, all with the same rule, than +1 attack with each weapon profile.

The models doesn't have multiple weapon profiles. You are making that up. It has one profile for 'massive scything talons'. The Trygon is armed with a single weapon called 'massive scything talons'

**Lance845**

col_impact wrote:
Charistoph wrote:
blaktoof wrote:
If the bearer has more than 1 pair of massive scything talons it can make +1 attack each time it fights.

Not +1 for each pair , just plus one if it has more.

If the trygon was a centipede and it had 100 paira of this weapon it would get +1 attack, not +100.

Any number of pairs past one is all more than one pair.

That doesn't match the quote given. It's a bonus attack with THIS Weapon. At a minimum, it has three of THIS Weapon that can call it in for a bonus Attack, so it can make 3 Bonus Attacks, one for each Weapon.

In order for it to be as you said, the rule would state, "If the bearer has more than one pair of massive scything talons, it can make 1 additional attack each time it fights."

So, is it an additional attack for the bearer, or for this Weapon?

There is no weapon called 'pair of massive scything talons'. The only weapon you have is 'massive scything talons'. How are you justifying that 'it has three of THIS Weapon'? A 'pair' is not a weapon.

Spoiler:

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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lance845 wrote:
blaktoof wrote:
If the bearer has more than 1 pair of massive scything talons it can make +1 attack each time it fights.

Not +1 for each pair , just plus one if it has more.

If the trygon was a centipede and it had 100 paira of this weapon it would get +1 attack, not +100.

Any number of pairs past one is all more than one pair.

That's not what the rule says though.

2 requirements. It fights and it has more than one pair.

1 effect. It can make +1 attack with this weapon. With this weapon being a major keybphrase here.

If the model has multiple weapon profiles, all with the same rule, than +1 attack with each weapon profile.

The models doesn't have multiple weapon profiles. You are making that up. It has one profile for 'massive scything talons'. The Trygon is armed with a single weapon called 'massive scything talons'

Nope. I think you should read the dataslate where it is clearly armed with 3. Though potentially 6. As per the English language.

**col_impact**

Lance845 wrote:

Nope. I think you should read the dataslate where it is clearly armed with 3. Though potentially 6. As per the English language.

No weapon profile is provided for 'pair of massive scything talons' so a pair isn't a weapon. The profile that you do have is for 'massive scything talons' so you only have a single weapon.

Spoiler:

**Eldarain**

One side thinks it has one weapon. One side thinks it has three. This either ends up with +1 or +3 attacks.

Col_Impact has a relative whose sole interest in Dakka is coming into YMDC threads and backing up his positions in the same writing style and quote formatting.

These are the facts and we can only wait for a FAQ or Errata now.

**col_impact**

Eldarain wrote:
Col_Impact has a relative whose sole interest in Dakka is coming into YMDC threads and backing up his positions in the same writing style and quote formatting.

What exactly are you suggesting? Orknado is free to post whatever he wants to.

Eldarain wrote:
One side thinks it has one weapon. One side thinks it has three. This either ends up with +1 or +3 attacks.

These are the facts and we can only wait for a FAQ or Errata now.

My argument is the one with RAW support. It is also the obvious RAI.

**Lance845**

col_impact wrote:
Eldarain wrote:
Col_Impact has a relative whose sole interest in Dakka is coming into YMDC threads and backing up his positions in the same writing style and quote formatting.

What exactly are you suggesting? Orknado is free to post whatever he wants to.

Seriously? Is this a real question?

Eldarain wrote:
One side thinks it has one weapon. One side thinks it has three. This either ends up with +1 or +3 attacks.

These are the facts and we can only wait for a FAQ or Errata now.

My argument is the one with RAW support. It is also the obvious RAI.

Nope.

**col_impact**

Lance845 wrote:
col_impact wrote:
Eldarain wrote:
Col_Impact has a relative whose sole interest in Dakka is coming into YMDC threads and backing up his positions in the same writing style and quote formatting.

What exactly are you suggesting? Orknado is free to post whatever he wants to.

Seriously? Is this a real question?

Yes. Please clarify what you or Eldarain are suggesting here.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lance845 wrote:
col_impact wrote:

My argument is the one with RAW support. It is also the obvious RAI.

Nope.

The weapon profile says 'massive scything talons'. It does not say 'pair of massive scything talons' or 'massive scything talon'. So my argument is supported by the RAW and yours isn't.

Spoiler:

My argument has been presented with full RAW support and stands on its own merits.

The heart of this debate is the answer to the question 'what counts as a weapon'?

My argument is that the rules literally tell us that answer. The weapon profile is for 'massive scything talons' and refers to itself as 'this weapon'. Therefore, the rules recognize that a plural number of 'massive scything talons' is a single weapon profile.

Lance845 has tried to argue that the use of the plural is a mistake, but that is obviously an argument against the rules as they are written on the page. The rule writers chose to identify a plural number of 'massive scything talons' as a single weapon and we must follow that rule. We must accept the rules as they are written.

Right off the bat we know that any argument that a single 'massive scything talon' is a weapon is false. If a single 'massive scything talon' were a weapon then the weapon profile would be for a 'massive scything talon'. It isn't. The rules tell us that a plural number of massive scything talons is a single weapon instead.

So the argument that a single massive scything talon is a weapon is directly disproven by the rules as they are written.

The other argument, that a 'pair of massive scything talons' is a weapon fails to support itself with rules. A 'pair of massive scything talons' is recognized by the rules as a purchasing entity and as an entity that affects the +1 A rule in the 'massive scything talons' profile, but the rules do not recognize a 'pair of massive scything talons as a weapon profile. If a 'pair of massive scything talons' were to be recognized as a single weapon then a weapon profile would be provided for 'pair of massive scything talons'. No such weapon profile is provided so I am unable to attack with a 'pair of massive scything talons' as a single weapon.

So the argument that a 'pair of massive scything talons' is a single weapon has no justification in the rules as they are written.

The rules only allow me to choose 'massive scything talons' in the plural as a weapon to attack with. The rules do not allow me to choose a single 'massive scything talon' as a weapon nor do they allow me to choose a 'pair of massive scything talons' as a weapon. Neither the single talon nor the pair of talons have weapon profiles.

I can only choose the profile that I am provided with by the rules. I am not allowed to make up profiles. A Trygon is only allowed to attack with a single weapon that represents all of the 'massive scything talons' he is equipped with. A Trygon has no other profiles for his 'massive scything talons' with which to attack. There is no profile for a single 'talon' nor for a 'pair of talons' so the trygon can only attack with his 'massive scything talons' as a single weapon.

As you can see, my argument is directly proven by the RAW.

**JohnnyHell**

12 pages on, I'm still in Camp Plus One Attack.

**Rustyeh**

col_impact wrote:
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.

Spoiler:

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 love it how you completely dismissed my Leman Russ example before, because it was clearly proving you wrong.

I repeat. 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.

I believe you have talked yourself into a corner with this "There is no profile of X name" bullshittery...

**Lance845**

Rustyeh wrote:
col_impact wrote:
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.

Spoiler:

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.

bullshittery...

Yup.

Any argument he cannot refute he refuses to acknowledge.

It's the "Blah blah blah I cannot hear you!" defense.

**BaconCatBug**

New FAQ is New:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/07/02/warhammer-40000-faq-now-available-july2gw-homepage-post-1/

Q. Monstrous scything talons say that if the bearer has more than one pair it can make one additional attack. How many extra attacks does a Trygon, which has three pairs of monstrous scything talons, make?
A. It makes a total of one additional attack.

**Servbot43**

Wow Lance I guess that rule wasn't as "clearly obvious" after all

**col_impact**

Yup. The FAQ has clarified that RAW the Trygon only has the one weapon named 'massive scything talons' and only gets +1A for having additional pairs of massive scything talons beyond the first pair.

This should come as no surprise as the rules literally supported my argument and disproved any others.

And for the record Lance "nope" is not an argument.

Also, it should be pointed out that it was ridiculous the amount of personal attacks I had to endure in this thread for presenting my RAW argument.

I hope the outcome changes people's future conduct.

**JohnnyHell**

It's like reading the rules gave you the answer here or something. Weird.

**Rustyeh**

Glad to see this get cleared officially.

I though from the start that the RAI was +1 attack, because a 9 attack Trygon would just be wrong.
As for the weapon profile bullshittery thats been going on in this thread for the last 10 pages:
col_impact can say anything he wants, he was right that it is +1A, but the way he tried to justify it was just utter nonsense.
It was written poorly in the beginning and it caused all this commotion. Should have just been clarified as "+1 attack in this fight phase" or some other way so it wasn't possible to misinterpret.

**col_impact**

Rustyeh wrote:
Glad to see this get cleared officially. I though from the start that the RAI was +1 attack, because a 9 attack Trygon would just be wrong.
As for the weapon profile bullshittery thats been going on in this thread for the last 10 pages:
col_impact can say anything he wants, he was right that it is +1A, but the way he tried to justify it was just utter nonsense.
It was written poorly in the beginning and it caused all this commotion. Should have just been clarified as "+1 attack in this fight phase" or some other way so it wasn't possible to misinterpret.

The FAQ clarified that 'massive scything talons' is a single weapon. That was my RAW argument all along. I think you need to re-assess how you read the rules if you are going to persist in calling my true argument 'utter nonsense' or 'bullshittery'.

**Dionysodorus**

col_impact wrote:
Rustyeh wrote:
Glad to see this get cleared officially. I though from the start that the RAI was +1 attack, because a 9 attack Trygon would just be wrong.
As for the weapon profile bullshittery thats been going on in this thread for the last 10 pages:
col_impact can say anything he wants, he was right that it is +1A, but the way he tried to justify it was just utter nonsense.
It was written poorly in the beginning and it caused all this commotion. Should have just been clarified as "+1 attack in this fight phase" or some other way so it wasn't possible to misinterpret.

The FAQ clarified that 'massive scything talons' is a single weapon. That was my RAW argument all along. I think you need to re-assess how you read the rules if you are calling my argument 'utter nonsense'.

I don't think I even participated in this thread, but you're just continuing to embarrass yourself. That a FAQ ruling says something does not mean that that's what the RAW said all along. Like, duh? That's basically the whole point of the RAW vs RAI distinction, right?

**Rustyeh**

Welp I am not continuing this shitstorm any longer. Just glad to see it getting cleared. As for this thread....

LOCK IT UP BOYS!

**col_impact**

Dionysodorus wrote:
col_impact wrote:
Rustyeh wrote:
Glad to see this get cleared officially. I though from the start that the RAI was +1 attack, because a 9 attack Trygon would just be wrong.
As for the weapon profile bullshittery thats been going on in this thread for the last 10 pages:
col_impact can say anything he wants, he was right that it is +1A, but the way he tried to justify it was just utter nonsense.
It was written poorly in the beginning and it caused all this commotion. Should have just been clarified as "+1 attack in this fight phase" or some other way so it wasn't possible to misinterpret.

The FAQ clarified that 'massive scything talons' is a single weapon. That was my RAW argument all along. I think you need to re-assess how you read the rules if you are calling my argument 'utter nonsense'.

I don't think I even participated in this thread, but you're just continuing to embarrass yourself. That a FAQ ruling says something does not mean that that's what the RAW said all along. Like, duh? That's basically the whole point of the RAW vs RAI distinction, right?

They didn't issue an errata so the FAQ is an indication that people were simply reading the rule wrong. My argument represents the correct reading of the rule. 'Massive scything talons' is correctly read as a single weapon. So my argument is obviously not 'utter nonsense' as some individuals are even now persisting in claiming.

**Rustyeh**

col_impact wrote:
Dionysodorus wrote:
col_impact wrote:
Rustyeh wrote:
Glad to see this get cleared officially. I though from the start that the RAI was +1 attack, because a 9 attack Trygon would just be wrong.
As for the weapon profile bullshittery thats been going on in this thread for the last 10 pages:
col_impact can say anything he wants, he was right that it is +1A, but the way he tried to justify it was just utter nonsense.
It was written poorly in the beginning and it caused all this commotion. Should have just been clarified as "+1 attack in this fight phase" or some other way so it wasn't possible to misinterpret.

The FAQ clarified that 'massive scything talons' is a single weapon. That was my RAW argument all along. I think you need to re-assess how you read the rules if you are calling my argument 'utter nonsense'.

I don't think I even participated in this thread, but you're just continuing to embarrass yourself. That a FAQ ruling says something does not mean that that's what the RAW said all along. Like, duh? That's basically the whole point of the RAW vs RAI distinction, right?

They didn't issue an errata so the FAQ is an indication that people were simply reading the rule wrong. My argument represents the correct reading of the rule. 'Massive scything talons' is correctly read as a single weapon. So my argument is obviously not 'utter nonsense' as some individuals are even now persisting in claiming.

So which part of "LOCK IT UP!" didn't you get? The case is closed, GW has officially now tackled the issue and given us a clear answer.

Why do you have such an arrogant need to boost your ego, that you still continue to argue about this matter?

The Trygon gets +1A when it fights, as per the FAQ, you don't need to justify your own reading comprehension or anything else here anymore. Go bugger off some place else and stop wasting your energy on an issue that is already cleared.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also given the FAQ it is also wrong if we REALLY TRULY have to keep going at this internet fistfight.

The FAQ goes word to word:

"Q. Monstrous scything talons say that if the bearer has more
than one pair it can make one additional attack. How many
extra attacks does a Trygon, which has three pairs of monstrous
scything talons, make?
A. It makes a total of one additional attack. "

The Trygon and Trygon Prime are both equipped with MASSIVE Scything talons. So this does not resolve anything, since the FAQ is only meant for Monstrous Scything Talons.
Shall we have another 12 pages of fun col_impact? Or will you silence and leave this thread with your bullshittery and utter nonsense?

**puma713**

Glad this is officially resolved.

**col_impact**

Rustyeh wrote:
col_impact wrote:
Dionysodorus wrote:
col_impact wrote:
Rustyeh wrote:
Glad to see this get cleared officially. I though from the start that the RAI was +1 attack, because a 9 attack Trygon would just be wrong.
As for the weapon profile bullshittery thats been going on in this thread for the last 10 pages:
col_impact can say anything he wants, he was right that it is +1A, but the way he tried to justify it was just utter nonsense.
It was written poorly in the beginning and it caused all this commotion. Should have just been clarified as "+1 attack in this fight phase" or some other way so it wasn't possible to misinterpret.

The FAQ clarified that 'massive scything talons' is a single weapon. That was my RAW argument all along. I think you need to re-assess how you read the rules if you are calling my argument 'utter nonsense'.

I don't think I even participated in this thread, but you're just continuing to embarrass yourself. That a FAQ ruling says something does not mean that that's what the RAW said all along. Like, duh? That's basically the whole point of the RAW vs RAI distinction, right?

They didn't issue an errata so the FAQ is an indication that people were simply reading the rule wrong. My argument represents the correct reading of the rule. 'Massive scything talons' is correctly read as a single weapon. So my argument is obviously not 'utter nonsense' as some individuals are even now persisting in claiming.

So which part of "LOCK IT UP!" didn't you get? The case is closed, GW has officially now tackled the issue and given us a clear answer.

Why do you have such an arrogant need to boost your ego, that you still continue to argue about this matter?

The Trygon gets +1A when it fights, as per the FAQ, you don't need to justify your own reading comprehension or anything else here anymore. Go bugger off some place else and stop wasting your energy on an issue that is already cleared.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also given the FAQ it is also wrong if we REALLY TRULY have to keep going at this internet fistfight.

The FAQ goes word to word:

"Q. Monstrous scything talons say that if the bearer has more
than one pair it can make one additional attack. How many
extra attacks does a Trygon, which has three pairs of monstrous
scything talons, make?
A. It makes a total of one additional attack. "

The Trygon and Trygon Prime are both equipped with MASSIVE Scything talons. So this does not resolve anything, since the FAQ is only meant for Monstrous Scything Talons.
Shall we have another 12 pages of fun col_impact? Or will you silence and leave this thread with your bullshittery and utter nonsense?

I think you need to re-assess how you read the rules if you are going to persist in calling my true argument 'utter nonsense' or 'bullshittery'.

**luke1705**

puma713 wrote:
Glad this is officially resolved.

Exalted. Lock this thread

**BaconCatBug**

They outright answered the wrong question.

They answered "Do does a model with 3 pairs of monstrous scything talons get +2 attacks instead of +1".

When the actual question asked is "Does the +1 attack for having 2 or more pairs of scything talons apply to each pair of scything talons that is used to fight in close combat."

Nobody ever thought a trygon should get +2 attacks. They think each pair of scything talons that is used to fight gets +1, which applies to every single tyranid unit that has 2 pairs of scything talons and remains completely unaddressed.

**JohnnyHell**

It really doesn't. Intent is clear at +1 regardless of number of pairs of Scything Talons beyond the first.

**Rustyeh**

col_impact wrote:
Rustyeh wrote:
col_impact wrote:
Dionysodorus wrote:
col_impact wrote:
Rustyeh wrote:
Glad to see this get cleared officially. I though from the start that the RAI was +1 attack, because a 9 attack Trygon would just be wrong.
As for the weapon profile bullshittery thats been going on in this thread for the last 10 pages:
col_impact can say anything he wants, he was right that it is +1A, but the way he tried to justify it was just utter nonsense.
It was written poorly in the beginning and it caused all this commotion. Should have just been clarified as "+1 attack in this fight phase" or some other way so it wasn't possible to misinterpret.

The FAQ clarified that 'massive scything talons' is a single weapon. That was my RAW argument all along. I think you need to re-assess how you read the rules if you are calling my argument 'utter nonsense'.

I don't think I even participated in this thread, but you're just continuing to embarrass yourself. That a FAQ ruling says something does not mean that that's what the RAW said all along. Like, duh? That's basically the whole point of the RAW vs RAI distinction, right?

They didn't issue an errata so the FAQ is an indication that people were simply reading the rule wrong. My argument represents the correct reading of the rule. 'Massive scything talons' is correctly read as a single weapon. So my argument is obviously not 'utter nonsense' as some individuals are even now persisting in claiming.

So which part of "LOCK IT UP!" didn't you get? The case is closed, GW has officially now tackled the issue and given us a clear answer.

Why do you have such an arrogant need to boost your ego, that you still continue to argue about this matter?

The Trygon gets +1A when it fights, as per the FAQ, you don't need to justify your own reading comprehension or anything else here anymore. Go bugger off some place else and stop wasting your energy on an issue that is already cleared.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also given the FAQ it is also wrong if we REALLY TRULY have to keep going at this internet fistfight.

The FAQ goes word to word:

"Q. Monstrous scything talons say that if the bearer has more
than one pair it can make one additional attack. How many
extra attacks does a Trygon, which has three pairs of monstrous
scything talons, make?
A. It makes a total of one additional attack. "

The Trygon and Trygon Prime are both equipped with MASSIVE Scything talons. So this does not resolve anything, since the FAQ is only meant for Monstrous Scything Talons.
Shall we have another 12 pages of fun col_impact? Or will you silence and leave this thread with your bullshittery and utter nonsense?

I think you need to re-assess how you read the rules if you are going to persist in calling my true argument 'utter nonsense' or 'bullshittery'.

I think you need to re-assess how you read the rules if you are going to persist in calling your false argument something else than "utter nonsense" or "bullshittery"

See this crap works both ways. I have staked my claim on how badly you intrepret the rules with my Leman Russ argument, which you haven't yet countered in anyway. In the case of scything talons you happened to achieve the same and in this case correct outcome, through false and dumb intrepreting of the rules. Congratulations on that, but if you keep reading the rules like that for all other similar cases you're gonna have a bad time.