Originally Posted by
nojinx
But is not the restrictive aspect of the relative clause limited to the relationship of the clause to the direct object? Yes, the clause modifies the object, but the nature of the modification in question cannot be derived from the restrictive relationship between the two. It must be drawn from the syntactic meaning of the phrase (direct object + clause) itself, right? The restrictive aspect only identifies the object modified. So, to accept your premise, we have to feel confident that the phrase "a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile..." cannot be interpreted otherwise. So we would need an argument that is based on something in the meaning of the phrase and not on the direct relationship between the object and clause. The relationship is called out, but the meaning is not part of the restrictive association - rather the association gives us a start point to seek the meaning.
Yes, this is true. The grammatical point is unambiguous, but it doesn't take us all the way. In my opinion, the key point (really, the only point) that the grammar clears up is that Foehammer is not two weapons in a single object (a thunder hammer, and a generic "ranged weapon"). The thunder hammer itself is, unambiguously, a ranged weapon. What remains to be determined at that point is what properties that ranged weapon has.
Originally Posted by
nojinx
I did not see a reference to bolters on page 42. Addressing your point, it seems that two types of weapons are cleary called out in the rules: "weapons" and "close combat weapons". Weapons are described on page 27, where we see some defining statements:
"Every weapon has a profile that consists of several elements, for example...", after which a boltgun profile is shown.
I'm referring to the following statements:
"Weapons like chainswords, rifle butts, combat blades, bayonets, etc., do not confer any particular bonus to the model using them."
Of course, if a model is using a two-handed close combat weapon (such as a rifle's butt or a two-handed battle axe), it may not use it together with another weapon."
The most natural way to read these two statements, in my view, is to say that ranged weapons may indeed be used as close combat weapons. A special close combat weapon is simply one that confers a benefit to the model when "used." That is, both bolters and lasguns can be used in close combat, but because neither of them specifically mentions any kind of close combat benefit, they confer none (unless of course we're dealing with a special case such as True Grit).
If it is true that a "weapon" such as a lasgun can be used in close combat, I see no reason why a "close combat weapon" such as a thunder hammer could not be used in ranged combat. As page 27 states, a "weapon" must have a range, a Strength, an AP, and a Type. Most "close combat weapons" have none of those things, so they cannot be "weapons" within the meaning of page 27. But if we came across a close combat weapon that did have each of those things, on what basis would we say it is not a "weapon" within the meaning of page 27? Surely not on the basis that one is either a "close combat weapon" or a "weapon." There is no such exclusivity, as the two quotes I provided above demonstrate.
Originally Posted by
nojinx
So, per the rules, we know that additional characteristics (beyond 'type'), if applicable, are added to the weapon type in the profile. Would this not exclude any description or definition of a weapon's aspect that is not listed as part of its profile (i.e. written into the prose text)?
That is certainly the natural reading, yes. But if that is so, then many weapons have been changed rather drastically in 5th edition. The following are a few examples:
- The Tau cyclic ion blaster, which mentions in the long-form description that rolls to wound of 6 count as AP1 - but makes no mention of this in the weapon profile.
- The eldar singing spear, which mentions in the long-form description that it has Strength 9 against vehicles - but makes no mention of this in the weapon profile.
- The eldar wraithcannon and D-cannon, each of which mention in the long-form description that rolls to wound of 6 inflict Instant Death - but make no mention of this in the weapon profile.
- The space marine cyclone launcher, which mentions in the long-form description that it may be fired together with a storm bolter - but makes no mention of this in the weapon profile.
Each of these four examples (there are others, but I think they make the point) alters the way their weapons "work" (to use page 27's phrase). None of them are mentioned in the weapon profile. Surely we are not to conclude that, because they are not included in the weapon profile, they are to be ignored?