Tyranid warriors with VC's and BS's - Warhammer 40K Fantasy
 

Welcome to Librarium Online!

Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!

Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!


Register Now!

User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 35
  1. #1
    LO Zealot Ironangel256's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Milwaukee WI
    Age
    31
    Posts
    1,883
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    291 (x6)

    Tyranid warriors with VC's and BS's

    This came up on the tyranid forums and I wanted to come here for some clarification. The tyranid codex says, "Only one Tyranid Warrior per brood may take a barbed strangler or venom cannon."

    Now, by this rule would that mean that it is not possible to get twin linked stranglers or venom cannons? My interpretation is that even though you pay for the weapon twice it still counts as a single twin linked weapon which is then allowed.

    Input is appreciated!

    IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT!

    I survived LO Chat thanks to: Karmoon, Rabbit, Process, Tossy and Meish.

  2. Remove Advertisements
    Librarium-Online.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Supreme Evil Overlord Dreachon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    the Netherlands
    Age
    34
    Posts
    4,873
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    189 (x8)

    you need to buy 2 VC in order to get it Twin-linked which is prohibited by the codex.

  4. #3
    LO Zealot Ironangel256's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Milwaukee WI
    Age
    31
    Posts
    1,883
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    291 (x6)

    my problem with that interpretation is that it is hinged entirely on the use of the word "a", in my opinion if they wanted to limit it to non twin linked weapons they would have said, "Only one Tyranid Warrior per brood may take a single barbed strangler or venom cannon."

    I still believe that a twin linked barbed strangler falls under being "a barbed strangler or venom cannon".
    IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT!

    I survived LO Chat thanks to: Karmoon, Rabbit, Process, Tossy and Meish.

  5. #4
    Advocatus Diaboli Rork's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Prowling LO, looking for fresh meat.
    Posts
    4,571
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    476 (x8)

    A "twin-linked venom cannon" is not "a venom cannon". So I'd say you can't - particularly as pg 30 says " A tyranid that carries two of the same weapon...".

    The twin-linking is derived from having two - but "a venom cannon" is singular, so basically...no.


    Having an army and not owning a rulebook is like owning a car with no steering wheel.

    Quote Originally Posted by amishcellphone
    <3 rork. He does all the arguing so I don't have to.

  6. #5
    for good and for awesome! kore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Riverside, CA
    Age
    39
    Posts
    1,492
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    134 (x4)

    Quote Originally Posted by Rork View Post
    A "twin-linked venom cannon" is not "a venom cannon". So I'd say you can't - particularly as pg 30 says " A tyranid that carries two of the same weapon...".

    The twin-linking is derived from having two - but "a venom cannon" is singular, so basically...no.
    This sums it up pretty well. It doesn't mean I like it (the limitation), but it is correct.
    Karmoon: "well.. any kore = good kore" 12:35pm PST 23 May 2007


  7. #6
    Member chosen40k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    94
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    12 (x1)

    The interesting part is that it says only one Warrior may take a BS or VC. It does not say how many BS or VCs that one Warrior may have. So it is possible for one Warrior to have a TL BS or VC.
    When life gives you anything, charge it with Genestealers.

    Alarm clock? Genestealers.
    Your boss? Genestealers.
    The rednecks that cut in front of me at Wal-mart like I didn't have anything better to do than stand in line? Genestealers.

    -40k Online

  8. #7
    Advocatus Diaboli Rork's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Prowling LO, looking for fresh meat.
    Posts
    4,571
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    476 (x8)

    Quote Originally Posted by chosen40k View Post
    The interesting part is that it says only one Warrior may take a BS or VC.
    The words "a venom cannon" are singular. "A venom cannon" does not consist of multiple venom cannons.

    If it said "A single warrior may take venom cannons or barbed stranglers" then you'd have a point. But it doesn't say that.


    Having an army and not owning a rulebook is like owning a car with no steering wheel.

    Quote Originally Posted by amishcellphone
    <3 rork. He does all the arguing so I don't have to.

  9. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Age
    25
    Posts
    804
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputation
    -47 (x0)

    Quote Originally Posted by Rork View Post
    The words "a venom cannon" are singular. "A venom cannon" does not consist of multiple venom cannons.

    If it said "A single warrior may take venom cannons or barbed stranglers" then you'd have a point. But it doesn't say that.
    Technically it would be Venom cannon, but I agree.

  10. #9
    Orks_n_Bugs Bugs_n_Orks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Here and there
    Age
    31
    Posts
    1,388
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    188 (x4)

    As i read the rules it is perfectly legal to take a TLed VC or BS

    Lets say you are picking the equipment for the brood:

    -You give five of them TLed devourers, no problem there.
    -You give the sixth one a VC, still no problem.
    -You give the sixth another VC, is this a violation of the rule?

    The rule states that "Only one Warrior per brood may take a barbed strangler or venom cannon".
    By definition this statement is false when more than one warrior per brood takes a barbed strangler or venom cannon.
    This clearly is not the case, so this is not in violation of the rule.

    Had the rule said either:
    "Only one Warrior per brood may take a barbed strangler or venom cannon, and it may only be equipped with a single barbed strangler or single venom cannon"
    or
    "Only one venom cannon or barbed strangler may be taken per brood"
    then I would agree completely that TL's are not allowed, however this is not the rule. Both of the above examples clearly state a limitation in the number of weapons that may be taken. However, the actual rule does not address this issue, it simply limits the number of Warriors, not weapons.

    The fact that the rule uses the wording "a barbed strangler or venom cannon" simply stems from the fact that you pick VC's and BS's individually, and is not a measure of how many you may take.

    Had the rule pertained to scything talons for example, and been intended to limit you to one pair of talons per brood, it would not have read "Only one Warrior per brood may take a scything talons" it would have read either:
    "Only one Warrior per brood may take scything talons, and it may only be equipped with a single set of scything talons"
    or
    "Only one scything talons may be taken per brood"


    As I see it, it is legal to have a TLed VC or BS or a warrior armed with a VC and a BS, as long as no other warrior in the brood has a VC and/or BS.
    The meat things seek to destroy ourselves. They hunt us as we hunt them but they are weak and uncertain. Bring them understanding of the power of ourselves through our strength and their fear. The inferior flesh will be entirely destroyed, all fragments will be smashed. Ourselves will fight to the last, all weak flesh must be consumed

  11. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Age
    25
    Posts
    804
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputation
    -47 (x0)

    You raise some good points.
    Thinking about it now, it strikes me how it could be interpreted either way.

    Only one warrior per brood may take a VC or BS.
    Only one warrior per brood may be given a VC or BS.

    Both, without emphasis, mean the same thing, but phrased, or though about, slightly differently changes the meaning.


    God the English language is inefficient.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts