Welcome to Librarium Online!
I just noticed that Army Builder will not let me put twin-linked barbed stranglers on my warriors. To my understanding they should be able to get it, since even if you do this, it is still the case that only one warrior in the brood has a barbed strangler or venom cannon... it is just that that one warrior has two. The rules do not say one weapon, but one model.
For once, Army Builder got something right.
It's easily arguable that in the spirit of the rules you're only allowed to take a single Barbed Strangler or Venom Cannon per brood of Warriors. Since you must take two to make them twinlinked, you'll never have either of those twinlinked in a Warrior brood.
By the letter of the rules, the line you quote has a very important word - a. Note the singular form of the word. In order to twin link either of those weapons, you must take a pair.
Yep, it says that you can only take one barbed strangler per brood. So you can't twin link them, going strictly by wording.
Originally Posted by The Paint Monkey
That *may* be the spirit of the rules. I can definitely see them saying "Yeah, that is what we meant," but I do not think it is nearly so obvious as that.Originally Posted by CaluinI definitely disagree here. Read literally, there is no reason you can't do it.Originally Posted by Caluin
"Only one Tyranid Warrior per brood may take a barbed strangler or venom cannon."
The singular indefinite article "a" does NOT mean "only one" in English. It means "one".
A: Uuh... how are we getting to the concert on Friday? I don't have a car. Do you?
B: Yup. Don't sweat it.
A: What is it?
B: Well, actually I've got two - a Mazda and a Honda, but the Mazda only has two seats. Is Linda coming?...
There is nothing wrong with this exchange. For B to answer "No, I do not. I have two cars." would be absurd. And clearly only one person in this conversation has a car.
In most rules defining what something can have the reading is something like:
One trooper may have a heavy weapon.
In the absense of this rule, it would be the case that no trooper may have a heavy weapon. The rule changes that situation to the extent that one trooper may have one heavy weapon. The reason he cannot have two is NOT because of the article "a", it is because the additional question of whether he may have plural heavy weapons falls to the default case - which is no.
In the case of the warriors, however, the default answer is yes, since the VC and BS are just ordinary weapons on the list along with everything else. In the absence of the rule, ALL of the warriors could have them.
Page 30 of the Tyranid Codex, upper left hand corner, last sentence of the first paragraph under Ranged Weapon Symbiotes tells you that when you take two of the same weapon, you count them as Twin Linked.
Note how it says you have to take two of the same weapon.
Page 37 of the Tyranid Codex, foot note #2 underneath the list of avaliable upgrades for Warriors tells you that one warrior may have a barbed strangler or venom cannon.
Note that is does not say that that one warrior may take Barbed Stranglers of Venom Cannons, it says, quite plainly, "A".
To say that the word "a" does not in fact mean "one" is pretty asinine.Originally Posted by www.dictionary.com
This does not really answer the points in my previous post...Originally Posted by CaluinOriginally Posted by CaluinPerhaps because you did not read closely enough? I tried to make it as clear as I could. I thought the conversation example was good. If we have five people in a family, four who own no cars and one who owns two cars, the following statement is clearly true:Originally Posted by Drake Dun
Only one person in the family owns a car.
Although to tell you the truth you have sold me on the "spirit" argument. A warrior with two barbed stranglers seems wrong somehow.
It seems wrong because it's against the rules...seriously, it's obvious.
Remind me to never play against you, Drake. :wacko: