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.

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.
"In addition to its type, a weapon may have some additional characteristics that define the way they work. These are added to the weapon type in the weapon's profile, and include characteristics like 'gets hot!' or 'blast'. A weapon may have any number of these characterstics in addition to its type."

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)?

I'll understand if this is tedious or you think I am missing some obvious point and don't wish to continue. I just have a fascination with these discussions. Cheers.

Quote Originally Posted by HsojVvad View Post
Ok, I didn't feel like reading over 21 pages here. I am a newb with the rules, and never played with or against thunder hamers yet. So here is my question. To use a Thunder Hammer, you strike it in CC at I 1 correct? So if this is the case, here is my question. How can you attack someone with a TH with a Higher I? So if you want to throw the TH with agaisnt a higher I, you can't since you have to go last and if you are the first turn player, you can't throw it until after your opponent has attacked. After your opponent has attacked, you can't throw it because your "firing phase" has passed.

So either it causes you to be I 1 when thrown, but can't be thrown, or it can be thrown but dosn't lower the I.

I know, I am a newb so can someone tell me where in the BRB to look forthe rules please.
Because I is not part of a ranged attack, the change to the I value is irrelevant when using Foehammer as a ranged weapon. Read a few posts before yours and you'll see a good explanation by Nabterayl of what aspects of the TH would be included in the ranged attack.