NightHowler wrote: Rigeld, could you try actually addressing his argument?
Just saying, "you don't understand? cool." is neither constructive, helpful, nor does it do anything but irritate everyone who reads what you write.
Since I said a lot more than that, I don't understand your objection.
His argument was that the weapon does not say "when attacking with this weapon" which almost every other weapon with special attack benefits does say. By not putting the requirement that blows be struck with the weapon, simply having it equipped is enough for the special rule to trigger. So no rules are broken by having the special rule triggered if the weapon is equipped.
There re rules broken - the rule that says a model only has a weapon's special rule while using it. Is attacking with a HC using the HK?
Can you address this? In the 10 pages I have yet to see where you have addressed this critical question.
Have you even read the thread? I've addressed it multiple times.
He (and you) are bringing up the wording as if the wording was relevant. My point is you need permission to use the wording on a weapon's special rule. The permission literally doesn't exist in the rules.
Happyjew wrote: NightHowler, how does a model get special rules from weapons?
In the case of the weapon in question the model gets it by equipping it.
That's not what I asked.
How does a model get special rules from weapons?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Let me rephrase this.
Without referring to the special rule, how does a model receive a special rule from a weapon?
The same way that a Rune Priest gets adamantium will from his runic staff. By equipping it.
"when a model equipped with a harlequins kiss makes its close combat attacks, one of it its attacks will be a kiss of death attack"
Notice that it does not say "...makes its close combat attacks with the harlequin's kiss.." but rather simply says when the model so equipped makes it's attacks.
This is not like any other piece of wargear that I'm aware of.
And yet... you literally referred to one IN THE SAME EXACT POST.
Look - The Kiss isn't some unique, special, one of a kind weapon. It's not a new thing. Please stop pretending it is.
And no, by the rules a Rune Priest doesn't get Adamantium Will unless he's actually using the Runic Staff. Because that's what the rules actually say.
Which is what I've said - repeatedly - throughout this thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
megatrons2nd wrote: "you only get the Special Rules from the one you are using.."
Where is that in the rule book? I can't find it. Nowhere that I can find does it say "the only way to receive a special rule from a weapon is to attack with it".
Please answer the question:
Let's start simple: You need permission to use a rule, correct?
(This assumes a permissive rule set - which 40k must be. If you disagree with this then we'll never come to an agreement and the rules literally don't work.)
NightHowler wrote: Rigeld, could you try actually addressing his argument?
Just saying, "you don't understand? cool." is neither constructive, helpful, nor does it do anything but irritate everyone who reads what you write.
Since I said a lot more than that, I don't understand your objection.
His argument was that the weapon does not say "when attacking with this weapon" which almost every other weapon with special attack benefits does say. By not putting the requirement that blows be struck with the weapon, simply having it equipped is enough for the special rule to trigger. So no rules are broken by having the special rule triggered if the weapon is equipped.
There re rules broken - the rule that says a model only has a weapon's special rule while using it. Is attacking with a HC using the HK?
Can you address this? In the 10 pages I have yet to see where you have addressed this critical question.
Have you even read the thread? I've addressed it multiple times.
He (and you) are bringing up the wording as if the wording was relevant. My point is you need permission to use the wording on a weapon's special rule. The permission literally doesn't exist in the rules.
You don't need to attack with a weapon to use it's special rules unless you've misread something somewhere. Multiple examples have been mentioned in this thread and I can give one example: the Rune Priest's runic weapon. It gives adamantium will. I get this special rule by simply equipping the weapon. I do not need to attack with it. I could charge with my runepriest and use a grenade and still get adamantium will because the rule for adamantium will says that all I need to do is equip the weapon.
Harlequin's Kiss is a little more specific in that it say that you must equip the weapon and then you must attack. But it does not say that you must attack with the Kiss to get the special rule.
Now, if the Kiss also gave Instant Death, I agree, RAW you would not get Instant Death unless you attacked with the Kiss because of this rule:
It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule. Most special rules are given to a model by the relevant Army List Entry or its unit type. That said, a model’s attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using.
But note that the Kiss' special rule is more specific and tells you that you get a special attack added on by simply equipping it - no need to attack with it - just equip it and strike blows.
NightHowler wrote: Rigeld, could you try actually addressing his argument?
Just saying, "you don't understand? cool." is neither constructive, helpful, nor does it do anything but irritate everyone who reads what you write.
Since I said a lot more than that, I don't understand your objection.
His argument was that the weapon does not say "when attacking with this weapon" which almost every other weapon with special attack benefits does say. By not putting the requirement that blows be struck with the weapon, simply having it equipped is enough for the special rule to trigger. So no rules are broken by having the special rule triggered if the weapon is equipped.
There re rules broken - the rule that says a model only has a weapon's special rule while using it. Is attacking with a HC using the HK?
Can you address this? In the 10 pages I have yet to see where you have addressed this critical question.
Have you even read the thread? I've addressed it multiple times.
He (and you) are bringing up the wording as if the wording was relevant. My point is you need permission to use the wording on a weapon's special rule. The permission literally doesn't exist in the rules.
You don't need to attack with a weapon to use it's special rules unless you've misread something somewhere.
Please quote where I've said you must be attacking. Just once would be nice.
Please don't put words in my mouth.
Multiple examples have been mentioned in this thread and I can give one example: the Rune Priest's runic weapon. It gives adamantium will. I get this special rule by simply equipping the weapon. I do not need to attack with it. I could charge with my runepriest and use a grenade and still get adamantium will because the rule for adamantium will says that all I need to do is equip the weapon.
So you haven't read the thread at all then. Thanks for clarifying that.
This has been addressed. As written, no a Rune Priest doesn't get Adamantium Will except when he's using his weapon.
Harlequin's Kiss is a little more specific in that it say that you must equip the weapon and then you must attack. But it does not say that you must attack with the Kiss to get the special rule.
To clarify, Harlequin's Kiss is the weapon, Kiss of Death is the special rule. They are not interchangeable. Don't use them as such.
Now, if the Kiss also gave +1S, I agree, RAW you would not get the +1S unless you attacked with the Kiss because of this rule:
It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule. Most special rules are given to a model by the relevant Army List Entry or its unit type. That said, a model’s attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using.
But note that the Kiss' special rule is more specific and tells you that you get a special attack added on by simply equipping it - no need to attack with it - just equip it and strike blows.
Where, in that rule does it mention gaining a weapon's special rules? As far as I can see, it's just the underlined. Do you agree?
"Wargear is part of an army list entry, and it's not a weapon, so it applies. "
All weapons are wargear. So if wargear rules apply, so do weapon rules. Look at how you purchase them, from the "wargear list"
"You need permission. You admit it doesn't exist. "
It exists, in the first sentence.
The second sentence applies to attacks from weapons. Since you need permission to apply a special rule, and the only rule that allows special rules to apply to attacks is using a weapon, so yeah.... Sure the special rule says a model with it can use it to attack, but as you said permissive rule set, and a rule can't self permit so can't be added to attacks unless it is on a weapon.
"Formation special rules apply because - as I've quoted - there's a rule specifying they apply. "
So you admit, that formation rules can't be used? No permission in the special rules section, and the formation can't self permit, so.....
"Again - so? And this isn't true. The Kiss isn't unique. "
No, the kiss, the embrace, The Staff of Ulthamar, The Spear of Twighlight, and The Shard of Anaris. Which all simply provide a special rule. And are only broken by your interpretation that the "only" way a Special rule can apply to a model from a weapon is when it makes its attacks.
"You're not applying the rule using my interpretation, you're deliberately pretending that it doesn't work to put my argument in a bad light (which is failing). "
No, not pretending, just stating the way I read the rules, and how it conflicts with yours, You read it as Absolutely the only way to get is, and I read it as most, but not always. You also tell us that a rule can't self permit, then use the formation rule to self permit formation benefits.
And no, by the rules a Rune Priest doesn't get Adamantium Will unless he's actually using the Runic Staff.
Actually, the rule for the Runic Weapon specifically tells me how adamantium will is given. It does not say "when attacking with this weapon a Rune Priest has Adamantium Will", instead it says, "when equipped with this weapon a Rune Priest has Adamantium Will." (paraphrasing obviously).
The Kiss has the same wording, "when equipped with this weapon..." and we are NOT told that he has to attack with the weapon to get the bonus attack - just that he has to equip it.
NightHowler wrote: Rigeld, could you try actually addressing his argument?
Just saying, "you don't understand? cool." is neither constructive, helpful, nor does it do anything but irritate everyone who reads what you write.
His argument was that the weapon does not say "when attacking with this weapon" which almost every other weapon with special attack benefits does say. By not putting the requirement that blows be struck with the weapon, simply having it equipped is enough for the special rule to trigger. So no rules are broken by having the special rule triggered if the weapon is equipped.
Can you address this? In the 10 pages I have yet to see where you have addressed this critical question.
The thing is, this has been explained multiple times. I have given the RaW many time so i'll just Quote myself:
How does a Model make use of a Special rule listed on a Weapon's Profile (like Kiss of Death) ? ?
BlackTalos wrote: So, "Kiss of Death" is a special rule with rules already quoted: when equipped, the weapon gives "bonus XYZ". The special rule is listed under "TYPE" of the Harelquin's Kiss.
Rulebook about TYPE:
Special Rules
The type section of a weapon’s profile also includes any special rules that apply to the weapon in question. More information on these can be found either in the special rules section or in the codex or army list entry the weapon is found in.
So, "Kiss of Death" applies ONLY to the weapon in question. Any disagreement against this RaW would need a clear quote to prove the contrary.
It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule. Most special rules are given to a model by the relevant Army List Entry or its unit type. That said, a model’s attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using.
So, you can gain abilities from the weapons (the ones listed in "TYPE") when you "use" those weapon. Any disagreement against this RaW would need a clear quote to prove the contrary.
MORE THAN ONE WEAPON
Unless otherwise stated,(...) If a model has more than one Melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with when he comes to strike blows – he cannot mix and match the abilities of several different Melee weapons.
So, if you have 2 weapons, with 2 abilities, IE Harlequin's Caress, with the ability "Caress of Death" + Harlequin's Kiss, with the ability "Kiss of Death", you must select one of the two weapons, and you only get the Special Rules from the one you are using. Any disagreement against this RaW would need a clear quote to prove the contrary.
Simple conclusion:
When you are using the Harlequin's Caress, with the ability "Caress of Death", you only have the Special Rule "Caress of Death" plus those listed in the Solitaire's profile.
You do not have the Special Rule "Kiss of Death".
If you do not have the special rule "Kiss of Death", why is there an issue about "not being able to follow / breaking the rule" ? You do not have it.
Can you break the "Fear" rule if none of your models have "Fear"?
As for the only other "equipped" item i can think of:
A storm shield confers a 3+ invulnerable save. In addition, a model equipped with a storm shield can never claim the +1 Attack gained for being armed with two Melee weapons in an assault.
Happyjew wrote: NightHowler, how does a model get special rules from weapons?
In the case of the weapon in question the model gets it by equipping it.
That's not what I asked.
How does a model get special rules from weapons?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Let me rephrase this.
Without referring to the special rule, how does a model receive a special rule from a weapon?
The same way that a Rune Priest gets adamantium will from his runic staff. By equipping it.
"when a model equipped with a harlequins kiss makes its close combat attacks, one of it its attacks will be a kiss of death attack"
Notice that it does not say "...makes its close combat attacks with the harlequin's kiss.." but rather simply says when the model so equipped makes it's attacks.
This is not like any other piece of wargear that I'm aware of.
Again, you refuse to answer my question.
Without referencing "Kiss of Death", how do you know the model has the "Kiss of Death" special rule?
And no, by the rules a Rune Priest doesn't get Adamantium Will unless he's actually using the Runic Staff.
Actually, the rule for the Runic Weapon specifically tells me how adamantium will is given. It does not say "when attacking with this weapon a Rune Priest has Adamantium Will", instead it says, "when equipped with this weapon a Rune Priest has Adamantium Will." (paraphrasing obviously).
The Kiss has the same wording, "when equipped with this weapon..." and we are NOT told that he has to attack with the weapon to get the bonus attack - just that he has to equip it.
I haven't ever said you must attack - that's your words.
The actual rules say "using". Is just holding it, "using"?
Happyjew wrote: NightHowler, how does a model get special rules from weapons?
In the case of the weapon in question the model gets it by equipping it.
That's not what I asked.
How does a model get special rules from weapons?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Let me rephrase this.
Without referring to the special rule, how does a model receive a special rule from a weapon?
The same way that a Rune Priest gets adamantium will from his runic staff. By equipping it.
"when a model equipped with a harlequins kiss makes its close combat attacks, one of it its attacks will be a kiss of death attack"
Notice that it does not say "...makes its close combat attacks with the harlequin's kiss.." but rather simply says when the model so equipped makes it's attacks.
This is not like any other piece of wargear that I'm aware of.
Again, you refuse to answer my question.
Without referencing "Kiss of Death", how do you know the model has the "Kiss of Death" special rule?
You can not know what special rules a model has without referencing the special rule in question. We are told by the BRB that some models will have special rules, but we then MUST use the special rules given to know when, where, how, and how often to apply that special rule. Moreover, those special rules are more specific than the rule in the BRB that tells us some models may have special rules, so we know that if the special rule in question deviates from the BRB - because it is more specific - it is given permission to bend, or even break less specific rules.
NightHowler wrote: You can not know what special rules a model has without referencing the special rule in question. We are told by the BRB that some models will have special rules, but we then MUST use the special rules given to know when, where, how, and how often to apply that special rule. Moreover, those special rules are more specific than the rule in the BRB that tells us some models may have special rules, so we know that if the special rule in question deviates from the BRB - because it is more specific - it is given permission to bend, or even break less specific rules.
I'm sorry, but that is incorrect. There is a way to know what special rules models have, and it's even in the Title:
WHAT SPECIAL RULES DO I HAVE? It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule. Most special rules are given to a model by the relevant Army List Entry or its unit type. That said, a model’s attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using.
Most of the more commonly used special rules in Warhammer 40,000 are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list. Many troops have their own unique abilities, which are laid out in their codex or Army List Entry.
Follow the above, and your model will obtain any special rule that is either:
A) Given to a model by the relevant Army List Entry (Found under "Special Rules")
B) Gained special rules because of the weapon it is using.
"Kiss of Death", unfortunately, is listed in the Weapon's "TYPE" and is therefore "B".
When do you use your weapon? When striking blows in CC.
NightHowler wrote: You can not know what special rules a model has without referencing the special rule in question.
So I must reference the Stealth special rule to know if my model has the Stealth special rule?
You are told whether or not the model has stealth usually in the unit entry, but you can also be told he has it by what special rules are on his wargear.
If his wargear tells us, "when equipping this wargear this model has stealth" then he only has stealth if he has that wargear equipped.
If his wargear tells us, "when striking blows with this wargear this model has stealth" then he only has stealth if he has struck blows with that wargear.
If his wargear tells us, "when joined to a unit of X this model has stealth" then he only has stealth if he is joined to a unit of X.
Each of these examples would be more specific than the rule in the BRB that tells us how a model gets a special rule and so would be given permission to break the BRBs restrictions on how a model gets a special rule.
"I haven't ever said you must attack - that's your words.
The actual rules say "using". Is just holding it, "using"? "
Using the rules, how else does a model "use" a weapon?
Also the Actual rules say "That said, a model’s attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using."
See the first half of that sentence telling you it's attacks can gain special rules. You keep focusing on the second half of that sentence. Use the whole thing. Please answer how a models attacks benefit from fearless or FnP. Because well, a weapon obviously only gives special rules to a models attacks. Obviously non attack special rules do absolutely nothing in the game.
megatrons2nd wrote: "I haven't ever said you must attack - that's your words.
The actual rules say "using". Is just holding it, "using"? "
Using the rules, how else does a model "use" a weapon?
Currently it's typically attacking. Which is what I've said.
Also the Actual rules say "That said, a model’s attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using."
See the first half of that sentence telling you it's attacks can gain special rules. You keep focusing on the second half of that sentence. Use the whole thing. Please answer how a models attacks benefit from fearless or FnP. Because well, a weapon obviously only gives special rules to a models attacks.
They don't. I've said - repeatedly, to you - that things like that don't function as likely intended. So calling me out on it doesn't gain you anything.
I am using the whole sentence. Every time.
Please answer the question:
Let's start simple: You need permission to use a rule, correct?
(This assumes a permissive rule set - which 40k must be. If you disagree with this then we'll never come to an agreement and the rules literally don't work.)
megatrons2nd wrote: "I haven't ever said you must attack - that's your words.
The actual rules say "using". Is just holding it, "using"? "
Using the rules, how else does a model "use" a weapon?
Currently it's typically attacking. Which is what I've said.
Also the Actual rules say "That said, a model’s attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using."
See the first half of that sentence telling you it's attacks can gain special rules. You keep focusing on the second half of that sentence. Use the whole thing. Please answer how a models attacks benefit from fearless or FnP. Because well, a weapon obviously only gives special rules to a models attacks.
They don't. I've said - repeatedly, to you - that things like that don't function as likely intended. So calling me out on it doesn't gain you anything.
I am using the whole sentence. Every time.
Please answer the question:
Let's start simple: You need permission to use a rule, correct?
(This assumes a permissive rule set - which 40k must be. If you disagree with this then we'll never come to an agreement and the rules literally don't work.)
Rigeld, I have to ask you which is more likely?
That none of the wargear in 40k works as intended?
or
That you may possibly be reading this rule wrong?
I think the second is more likely, but that's just my opinion.
Nice to know the entire codex boils down to the interaction between two weapon effects. With how passionate some are debating this issue, it must be a game changer, auto win, easy button.
Does this mean we'll be seeing Harlequins in every list now?
"Let's start simple: You need permission to use a rule, correct?
(This assumes a permissive rule set - which 40k must be. If you disagree with this then we'll never come to an agreement and the rules literally don't work.) "
Nice to know the entire codex boils down to the interaction between two weapon effects. With how passionate some are debating this issue, it must be a game changer, auto win, easy button.
Does this mean we'll be seeing Harlequins in every list now?
The rule is not that critical. This is really a YMDC phenomenon. In an actual game the players (even people debating in this thread) would have long ago just rolled for it and kept playing.
That none of the wargear in 40k works as intended?
or
That you may possibly be reading this rule wrong?
I think the second is more likely, but that's just my opinion.
I think your statement that my reading renders all wargear in 40k inoperable is 100% incorrect and therefore any conclusion you can draw from that statement is incorrect.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
megatrons2nd wrote: "Let's start simple: You need permission to use a rule, correct?
(This assumes a permissive rule set - which 40k must be. If you disagree with this then we'll never come to an agreement and the rules literally don't work.) "
Yes you need permission for a rule to work.
Great!
I have permission to apply Special Rules on my Army List entry to my model. Correct?
Nice to know the entire codex boils down to the interaction between two weapon effects. With how passionate some are debating this issue, it must be a game changer, auto win, easy button.
Does this mean we'll be seeing Harlequins in every list now?
The rule is not that critical. This is really a YMDC phenomenon. In an actual game the players (even people debating in this thread) would have long ago just rolled for it and kept playing.
Sure, but I'd be working on a local house rule one way or the other... like I do for every contentious issue like this.
And I'd be arguing just as much that it doesn't "stack" as I am here. But here we have a system to break up arguments - the shop owner decides.
NightHowler wrote: You can not know what special rules a model has without referencing the special rule in question.
So I must reference the Stealth special rule to know if my model has the Stealth special rule?
You are told whether or not the model has stealth usually in the unit entry, but you can also be told he has it by what special rules are on his wargear.
If his wargear tells us, "when equipping this wargear this model has stealth" then he only has stealth if he has that wargear equipped.
If his wargear tells us, "when striking blows with this wargear this model has stealth" then he only has stealth if he has struck blows with that wargear.
If his wargear tells us, "when joined to a unit of X this model has stealth" then he only has stealth if he is joined to a unit of X.
Each of these examples would be more specific than the rule in the BRB that tells us how a model gets a special rule and so would be given permission to break the BRBs restrictions on how a model gets a special rule.
Yet none of these examples references the Stealth special rule. Which according to your claim (You can not know what special rules a model has without referencing the special rule in question.) you must look at the Stealth special rule to see if a model has the Stealth special rule.
NightHowler wrote: You can not know what special rules a model has without referencing the special rule in question.
So I must reference the Stealth special rule to know if my model has the Stealth special rule?
You are told whether or not the model has stealth usually in the unit entry, but you can also be told he has it by what special rules are on his wargear.
If his wargear tells us, "when equipping this wargear this model has stealth" then he only has stealth if he has that wargear equipped.
If his wargear tells us, "when striking blows with this wargear this model has stealth" then he only has stealth if he has struck blows with that wargear.
If his wargear tells us, "when joined to a unit of X this model has stealth" then he only has stealth if he is joined to a unit of X.
Each of these examples would be more specific than the rule in the BRB that tells us how a model gets a special rule and so would be given permission to break the BRBs restrictions on how a model gets a special rule.
Yet none of these examples references the Stealth special rule. Which according to your claim (You can not know what special rules a model has without referencing the special rule in question.) you must look at the Stealth special rule to see if a model has the Stealth special rule.
Sorry, the rule in question was the rule I thought we were talking about - the Harlequin's Kiss.
In general, we know if a model has a special rule either because we are told in the unit entry that it has it, or because we are told by it's wargear that it has it. Is this the answer you were looking for?
That none of the wargear in 40k works as intended?
or
That you may possibly be reading this rule wrong?
I think the second is more likely, but that's just my opinion.
I think your statement that my reading renders all wargear in 40k inoperable is 100% incorrect and therefore any conclusion you can draw from that statement is incorrect.
Well, you're wrong. It's not 100% incorrect. It's only incorrect to the extent that some special rules on wargear are actually directly related to attacks.
So to be 100% correct (because I can see that's very important to you):
Rigeld, I have to ask you which is more likely?
That huge swathes of the wargear in 40k fails to work intended?
Excpet, as proven, that IS NOT how you know what special rules you have
You know what special rules a weapon provides you, when you use that weapon. there is ZERO permission to know special rules outside of that permission
So, in order to know I have the Kiss of Death special rule, whcih is granted by a weapon, I MUST be using the weapon. I know this because it is not listed under my "special rules" in my data sheet, and that the rules for "What special rules do I have" only give two routes. Now, they do NOT say "only", but as they are the only 2 routs given, and the rules are permissive, these are in effect the de facto only routes, unless specifically told otherwise. Formations are an example of being told specifically otherwise
So, does HK tell me otherwise? No!
That means I ONLY have the special rule "Kiss of Death" when USING the weapon. WHen do I USE the weapon? When making attacks in close combat, usually.
Proven. Yes, this has some horrible effects past this, such as reducing some special rules - such as HCs provided hammer of wrath - to uselessness. However, that is utterly irrelevant for the sake of this argument.
NightHowler wrote: Sorry, the rule in question was the rule I thought we were talking about - the Harlequin's Kiss.
In general, we know if a model has a special rule either because we are told in the unit entry that it has it, or because we are told by it's wargear that it has it. Is this the answer you were looking for?
There is quite a large difference (that you seem not to have made) between wargear giving Special Rules, and Special Rules found in a Weapon profile.
If a Weapon has:
"Sword" S-5 AP-2 Melee, Shred, Instant Death, Special Rule 1, Special Rule Z
When does you model have the rules Shred and Instant Death? What about the "Special Rule 1 and Special Rule Z"? When does he follow those rules?
Now please find where "Kiss of Death" is written, and tell me why it would work any differently?
Given how bad GW is at writing internally consistent rules, I don't see why the idea that certain items of wargear don't actually work as intended is that crazy. We have numerous instances of things not working as likely intended given how they were written. See Shrike, etc, etc. "Huge Swathes" is a little dramatic. The majority of wargear items work fine under the rules.
NightHowler wrote: Well, you're wrong. It's not 100% incorrect. It's only incorrect to the extent that some special rules on wargear are actually directly related to attacks.
So to be 100% correct (because I can see that's very important to you):
Rigeld, I have to ask you which is more likely?
That huge swathes of the wargear in 40k fails to work intended?
or
That you may possibly be reading this rule wrong?
You keep saying my argument leads to rules on wargear not working.
That's false. I've explained that - multiple times. Please stop asserting that.
NightHowler wrote: Sorry, the rule in question was the rule I thought we were talking about - the Harlequin's Kiss.
In general, we know if a model has a special rule either because we are told in the unit entry that it has it, or because we are told by it's wargear that it has it. Is this the answer you were looking for?
There is quite a large difference (that you seem not to have made) between wargear giving Special Rules, and Special Rules found in a Weapon profile.
If a Weapon has:
"Sword" S-5 AP-2 Melee, Shred, Instant Death, Special Rule 1, Special Rule Z
When does you model have the rules Shred and Instant Death? What about the "Special Rule 1 and Special Rule Z"? When does he follow those rules?
Now please find where "Kiss of Death" is written, and tell me why it would work any differently?
It would work differently because it is worded differently.
If you look at the wargear section and just read through the different weapons you start to see a trend - they are all pretty specific on when and how special rules are applied:
Armourbane:
If a model has this special rule, or is attacking with a melee weapon that has this special rule...
Blind:
Any unit hit byone or more models or weapons with this special rule...
Concussive:
A model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds from a weapon with this special rule...
Graviton:
The roll needed to wound when firing a weapon with this special rule...
Ignores Cover:
Cover saves cannot be taken against wounds caused by weapons with this special rule...
Instant Death:
If a model suffers an unsaved wound from an attack with this special rule...
It goes on and on. They all specify when the special rule for that wargear comes into play - when a model attacks with a weapon with this rule, suffers a wound from a weapon with this rule, etc., etc.
Now let's look at Harlequin's Kiss, because it is different:
Harlequin's Kiss:
When a model equipped with a harlequins kiss makes its close combat attacks, one of it its attacks will be a kiss of death attack...
It is describing a special attack bonus, like the rules above, but unlike the rules above, WHEN the special rule is triggered is different. It says, "When a model equipped... ...makes it's close combat attacks."
"When equipped" has more in common with some other weapons that I'm a little more familiar with.
Digital Weapons:
A model armed with digital weapons can re-roll a single failed roll to wound...
Storm Shield:
A model armed with a storm shield has a + invulnerable save...
Runic Weapon:
A model equipped with this weapon has the Adamantium Will special rule...
(note that this weapon does not say that it has to be used to get the rule, just equipped - thanks)
I think Digital Weapons are especially similar in the way that they are worded.
nosferatu1001 wrote: ...yet you still ignore that you dont even get to read that phrase until you have the special rule.
And you demonstrably do NOT have that special rule until you use the weapon.
Until you address this flaw in your argument, you have no argument. Youre simply arguing intent.
This is false.
You get the rule when you equip the weapon as described in the rule for the wargear. The rule provided when the weapon is equipped is more specific than the rule you are basing your opinion on and therefore trumps it. You are told in the (more specific rule) that you do not need to use it to gain its benefit because it tells us it triggers "when equipped".
nosferatu1001 wrote: ...yet you still ignore that you dont even get to read that phrase until you have the special rule.
And you demonstrably do NOT have that special rule until you use the weapon.
Until you address this flaw in your argument, you have no argument. Youre simply arguing intent.
This is false.
You get the rule when you equip the weapon as described in the rule for the wargear. The rule provided when the weapon is equipped is more specific than the rule you are basing your opinion on and therefore trumps it. You are told in the (more specific rule) that you do not need to use it to gain its benefit because it tells us it triggers "when equipped".
We've shown a core rule that says a model's attacks gain benefit from a weapon special rule when that weapon is being used. There is NO core rule saying that a model's attacks gain benefit from a weapon special rule when that weapon is not being used.
You have yet to show permission to benefit from the Kiss of Death rule in the first place. We don't care how the Kiss of Death is worded if your attacks aren't benefiting from the rule.
This is the core of the issue.
You are using the way other weapon special rules are worded to infer permission to use Kiss of Death when the BRB hasn't said you can. We are saying that since...
A. This is a permissive rule set
B. We are not given permission to use a weapon special rule when the weapon is not being used
C. We are told specifically that we can't attack with one weapon and use a special rule from another weapon
...we aren't able to benefit from Kiss of Death if not using the Harlequin's Kiss.
So, the question remains... what gives you permission to use the Kiss of Death rule? You're missing this extremely key element. This is a permissive rule set. Not only do you have no permission to gain Kiss of Death when not using a Harlequin's Kiss, but you have an explicit restriction preventing you from gaining Kiss of Death when not using a Harlequin's Kiss.
Do you understand? You're told you can't use the rule... but you're using the rule to override being told you can't use the rule, which you can't do... because you can't use the rule. In other words, if the rule says "A happens if B and C are true" but the general core rules also require D to be true... A only happens if B, C and D are true.
A. Model makes a Kiss of Death attack.
B. Model is equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss
C. Model is attacking
D. Model is using a Harlequin's Kiss during the attack
Cite permission to ignore requirement D. You have yet to do so.
nosferatu1001 wrote: ...yet you still ignore that you dont even get to read that phrase until you have the special rule.
And you demonstrably do NOT have that special rule until you use the weapon.
Until you address this flaw in your argument, you have no argument. Youre simply arguing intent.
This is false.
You get the rule when you equip the weapon as described in the rule for the wargear. The rule provided when the weapon is equipped is more specific than the rule you are basing your opinion on and therefore trumps it. You are told in the (more specific rule) that you do not need to use it to gain its benefit because it tells us it triggers "when equipped".
We've shown a core rule that says a model's attacks gain benefit from a weapon special rule when that weapon is being used. There is NO core rule saying that a model's attacks gain benefit from a weapon special rule when that weapon is not being used.
You have yet to show permission to benefit from the Kiss of Death rule in the first place. We don't care how the Kiss of Death is worded if your attacks aren't benefiting from the rule.
This is the core of the issue.
You are using the way other weapon special rules are worded to infer permission to use Kiss of Death when the BRB hasn't said you can. We are saying that since...
A. This is a permissive rule set
B. We are not given permission to use a weapon special rule when the weapon is not being used
C. We are told specifically that we can't attack with one weapon and use a special rule from another weapon
...we aren't able to benefit from Kiss of Death if not using the Harlequin's Kiss.
So, the question remains... what gives you permission to use the Kiss of Death rule? You're missing this extremely key element. This is a permissive rule set. Not only do you have no permission to gain Kiss of Death when not using a Harlequin's Kiss, but you have an explicit restriction preventing you from gaining Kiss of Death when not using a Harlequin's Kiss.
Do you understand? You're told you can't use the rule... but you're using the rule to override being told you can't use the rule, which you can't do... because you can't use the rule. In other words, if the rule says "A happens if B and C are true" but the general core rules also require D to be true... A only happens if B, C and D are true.
A. Model makes a Kiss of Death attack.
B. Model is equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss
C. Model is attacking
D. Model is using a Harlequin's Kiss during the attack
Cite permission to ignore requirement D. You have yet to do so.
Permission to ignore requirement D is in the wording of the Harlequin's Kiss. It says that if the wargear is equipped you use it's special rule. That wording for the wargear is more specific than the rule from the BRB stating when you can benefit from a special rule and so it trumps it. I have said this before and it is how I address the issue you're saying I haven't addressed.
I agree that it is a permissive rule set. I disagree that a specific rule (Harlequin's Kiss) is not allowed to break a general rule (What Special Rules Do I Have). Because the Harlequin's Kiss is more specific and because it tells us to trigger the special rule when the weapon is equipped and when the model makes close combat attacks, it trumps the requirement that the model attack with the weapon.
Instead of saying I haven't addressed this issue, please say you disagree with (part X) of how I have addressed it.
It's almost like taking statements out of context leads to an incorrect interpretation. Read what I replied to, please.
Have you read what you replied? Nothing in the statement said he was adding his own words in.
No, you can read them when you're told you have them.
For model special rules, it's when the rule is on the army list entry (for example).
For weapons, it's when the weapon is used.
I suppose you have rules support for the first statement? I'm pretty certain I can read the rules whenever I damn well please as I bought them exactly for that purpose.
No, I'm not. I'm making statements about how I'm viewing his argument based on what he's said. I haven't attacked the poster at all - I'm strictly discussing his argument.
Do you have anything of substance to add yet? Maybe a rule proving your assertions correct? You've yet to provide one.
You said he was "just want[ing] to present potential problems by making up rules." That is attacking him not his argument. I've proven and you've admitted that your interpretation is based on ignoring rules. You've claimed you don't have to read rules until another rule tells you to yet you have failed to cite any rules support for that assertation. Also how do you even start reading the rules if you're not allowed to read rules until anotherrule tells you to?
NightHowler wrote: [Permission to ignore requirement D is in the wording of the Harlequin's Kiss. It says that if the wargear is equipped you use it's special rule. That wording for the wargear is more specific than the rule from the BRB stating when you can benefit from a special rule and so it trumps it. I have said this before and it is how I address the issue you're saying I haven't addressed.
Where's the explicit permission required to generate the conflict?
nosferatu1001 wrote: ...yet you still ignore that you dont even get to read that phrase until you have the special rule.
And you demonstrably do NOT have that special rule until you use the weapon.
Until you address this flaw in your argument, you have no argument. Youre simply arguing intent.
This is false.
You get the rule when you equip the weapon as described in the rule for the wargear. The rule provided when the weapon is equipped is more specific than the rule you are basing your opinion on and therefore trumps it. You are told in the (more specific rule) that you do not need to use it to gain its benefit because it tells us it triggers "when equipped".
Incorrect. You do not have the special rule until you are told you have it. There is no conflict with the brb therefore no trump. Don't make unsupported leaps.
This has been proven.
It's almost like taking statements out of context leads to an incorrect interpretation. Read what I replied to, please.
Have you read what you replied? Nothing in the statement said he was adding his own words in.
I'd have to re-read it, but since you refuse to quote with context (for some reason) and I have no reason to defend my statements to you, I'm going to decline that.
No, you can read them when you're told you have them.
For model special rules, it's when the rule is on the army list entry (for example).
For weapons, it's when the weapon is used.
I suppose you have rules support for the first statement? I'm pretty certain I can read the rules whenever I damn well please as I bought them exactly for that purpose.
Welcome to the discussion. Again with the quoting out of context.
No, I'm not. I'm making statements about how I'm viewing his argument based on what he's said. I haven't attacked the poster at all - I'm strictly discussing his argument.
Do you have anything of substance to add yet? Maybe a rule proving your assertions correct? You've yet to provide one.
You said he was "just want[ing] to present potential problems by making up rules." That is attacking him not his argument. I've proven and you've admitted that your interpretation is based on ignoring rules. You've claimed you don't have to read rules until another rule tells you to yet you have failed to cite any rules support for that assertation. Also how do you even start reading the rules if you're not allowed to read rules until anotherrule tells you to?
How is my interpretation based on ignoring rules again? Where did I admit that?
Instead of attacking me, maybe you could attack the argument? Again, why are you applying the Kiss of Death rule when you have no permission to do so? You, again, declined to supply a rule allowing it.
nosferatu1001 wrote: ...yet you still ignore that you dont even get to read that phrase until you have the special rule.
And you demonstrably do NOT have that special rule until you use the weapon.
Until you address this flaw in your argument, you have no argument. Youre simply arguing intent.
This is false.
You get the rule when you equip the weapon as described in the rule for the wargear. The rule provided when the weapon is equipped is more specific than the rule you are basing your opinion on and therefore trumps it. You are told in the (more specific rule) that you do not need to use it to gain its benefit because it tells us it triggers "when equipped".
Incorrect. You do not have the special rule until you are told you have it. There is no conflict with the brb therefore no trump. Don't make unsupported leaps.
This has been proven.
You have the special rule as soon as you equip wargear that tells you that you get a special rule when it's equipped.
You're quoting a general rule and saying that it trumps the specific rule that I am quoting. We know that this is not how its supposed to work. Specific rules trump general rules. This specific rule tells us that as soon as the wargear is equipped and attacks are made (no need to use the weapon is specified) then the rule triggers. That's all the player needs to know to use the rule.
Saying that you must deny the existence of a rule until a different rule has given you permission to read that rule is not in the BRB or any of the supplements I've purchased.
How is my interpretation based on ignoring rules again? Where did I admit that?
Instead of attacking me, maybe you could attack the argument? Again, why are you applying the Kiss of Death rule when you have no permission to do so? You, again, declined to supply a rule allowing it.
I have permission to use the rule, in fact I am forced to use the rule whenever the Solitaire is attacking in CC (or indeed for any model equipped with a HK). The Kiss of Death rule tells us this. You ignore this rule. Why?
How is my interpretation based on ignoring rules again? Where did I admit that?
Instead of attacking me, maybe you could attack the argument? Again, why are you applying the Kiss of Death rule when you have no permission to do so? You, again, declined to supply a rule allowing it.
I have permission to use the rule, in fact I am forced to use the rule whenever the Solitaire is attacking in CC (or indeed for any model equipped with a HK). The Kiss of Death rule tells us this. You ignore this rule. Why?
You do not have the rule until you use the weapon, for a start.
Your continued denial of the existence of this rule is bizarre.
No, that's not the situation. The actual wargear does not state you gain special rule when equipped. The special rule tells you when it activates.
Meaning you go back a step. The actual rules state you only get a special rule from on your sheet or when using a weapon
Show a conflict that doesn't involve your circular logic.
You don't have a special rule until told so by the rule book, or specifically otherwise. Not from within a special rule itself
This is proven. Page and grAoh proving otherwise, or desist.
Sigh
The wargear has a special rule. That special rule says that when the wargear is equipped and the model makes attacks it triggers a Kiss of Death attack. We do not need permission from the BRB to read the special rules on our wargear - we just need the rules from the wargear's description.
If it is equipped and tells us we get a special rule when it's equipped we get to use it's special rules when it's equipped.
How is my interpretation based on ignoring rules again? Where did I admit that?
Instead of attacking me, maybe you could attack the argument? Again, why are you applying the Kiss of Death rule when you have no permission to do so? You, again, declined to supply a rule allowing it.
I have permission to use the rule, in fact I am forced to use the rule whenever the Solitaire is attacking in CC (or indeed for any model equipped with a HK). The Kiss of Death rule tells us this. You ignore this rule. Why?
I'm not ignoring this rule.
A model attacking with Harlequin's Caress doesn't have the Kiss of Death rule, even if he has a Harlequin's Kiss.
How is my interpretation based on ignoring rules again? Where did I admit that?
Instead of attacking me, maybe you could attack the argument? Again, why are you applying the Kiss of Death rule when you have no permission to do so? You, again, declined to supply a rule allowing it.
I have permission to use the rule, in fact I am forced to use the rule whenever the Solitaire is attacking in CC (or indeed for any model equipped with a HK). The Kiss of Death rule tells us this. You ignore this rule. Why?
I'm not ignoring this rule.
A model attacking with Harlequin's Caress doesn't have the Kiss of Death rule, even if he has a Harlequin's Kiss.
No, that's not the situation. The actual wargear does not state you gain special rule when equipped. The special rule tells you when it activates.
Meaning you go back a step. The actual rules state you only get a special rule from on your sheet or when using a weapon
Show a conflict that doesn't involve your circular logic.
You don't have a special rule until told so by the rule book, or specifically otherwise. Not from within a special rule itself
This is proven. Page and grAoh proving otherwise, or desist.
Sigh
The wargear has a special rule. That special rule says that when the wargear is equipped and the model makes attacks it triggers a Kiss of Death attack. We do not need permission from the BRB to read the special rules on our wargear - we just need the rules from the wargear's description.
If it is equipped and tells us we get a special rule when it's equipped we get to use it's special rules when it's equipped.
Correction. The weapon has a special rule. How does a model get special rules from a weapon?
No, that's not the situation. The actual wargear does not state you gain special rule when equipped. The special rule tells you when it activates.
Meaning you go back a step. The actual rules state you only get a special rule from on your sheet or when using a weapon
Show a conflict that doesn't involve your circular logic.
You don't have a special rule until told so by the rule book, or specifically otherwise. Not from within a special rule itself
This is proven. Page and grAoh proving otherwise, or desist.
Sigh
The wargear has a special rule. That special rule says that when the wargear is equipped and the model makes attacks it triggers a Kiss of Death attack. We do not need permission from the BRB to read the special rules on our wargear - we just need the rules from the wargear's description.
If it is equipped and tells us we get a special rule when it's equipped we get to use it's special rules when it's equipped.
Correction. The weapon has a special rule. How does a model get special rules from a weapon?
It's funny you ask, because that piece of wargear tells you how you get the special rule from it. When it's equipped.
NightHowler wrote: It's funny you ask, because that piece of wargear tells you how you get the special rule from it. When it's equipped.
Please stop saying wargear - it's a weapon.
Weapons have specific rules on how their special rules work, correct?
Weapons are found in the wargear section because they are wargear.
This special rule for this piece of wargear says how it works: When a model equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss makes close combat attacks... The trigger for this special rule does not require you to attack with this piece of wargear, unlike almost all the other examples of wargear with similar special rules. Making this piece of wargear different.
nosferatu1001 wrote: ...yet you still ignore that you dont even get to read that phrase until you have the special rule.
And you demonstrably do NOT have that special rule until you use the weapon.
Until you address this flaw in your argument, you have no argument. Youre simply arguing intent.
This is false.
You get the rule when you equip the weapon as described in the rule for the wargear. The rule provided when the weapon is equipped is more specific than the rule you are basing your opinion on and therefore trumps it. You are told in the (more specific rule) that you do not need to use it to gain its benefit because it tells us it triggers "when equipped".
We've shown a core rule that says a model's attacks gain benefit from a weapon special rule when that weapon is being used. There is NO core rule saying that a model's attacks gain benefit from a weapon special rule when that weapon is not being used.
You have yet to show permission to benefit from the Kiss of Death rule in the first place. We don't care how the Kiss of Death is worded if your attacks aren't benefiting from the rule.
This is the core of the issue.
You are using the way other weapon special rules are worded to infer permission to use Kiss of Death when the BRB hasn't said you can. We are saying that since...
A. This is a permissive rule set
B. We are not given permission to use a weapon special rule when the weapon is not being used
C. We are told specifically that we can't attack with one weapon and use a special rule from another weapon
...we aren't able to benefit from Kiss of Death if not using the Harlequin's Kiss.
So, the question remains... what gives you permission to use the Kiss of Death rule? You're missing this extremely key element. This is a permissive rule set. Not only do you have no permission to gain Kiss of Death when not using a Harlequin's Kiss, but you have an explicit restriction preventing you from gaining Kiss of Death when not using a Harlequin's Kiss.
Do you understand? You're told you can't use the rule... but you're using the rule to override being told you can't use the rule, which you can't do... because you can't use the rule. In other words, if the rule says "A happens if B and C are true" but the general core rules also require D to be true... A only happens if B, C and D are true.
A. Model makes a Kiss of Death attack.
B. Model is equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss
C. Model is attacking
D. Model is using a Harlequin's Kiss during the attack
Cite permission to ignore requirement D. You have yet to do so.
Permission to ignore requirement D is in the wording of the Harlequin's Kiss. It says that if the wargear is equipped you use it's special rule. That wording for the wargear is more specific than the rule from the BRB stating when you can benefit from a special rule and so it trumps it. I have said this before and it is how I address the issue you're saying I haven't addressed.
I agree that it is a permissive rule set. I disagree that a specific rule (Harlequin's Kiss) is not allowed to break a general rule (What Special Rules Do I Have). Because the Harlequin's Kiss is more specific and because it tells us to trigger the special rule when the weapon is equipped and when the model makes close combat attacks, it trumps the requirement that the model attack with the weapon.
Instead of saying I haven't addressed this issue, please say you disagree with (part X) of how I have addressed it.
Fair.
I disagree with this part...
The core rulebook tells you that your attacks don't gain the Kiss of Death special rule. Your permission to ignore this restriction requires a special rule you don't have. At the point when you try to decide whether or not your attack gains the Kiss of Death rule, you don't have access to the Kiss of Death rule... so you can't use having it as justification to gaining it.
This is what we mean by circular reasoning.
"You don't have Kiss of Death."
"I do."
"What is telling you that you do?"
"The Kiss of Death rule."
"But you don't have the Kiss of Death rule."
"I do."
"What is telling you that you do?"
"The Kiss of Death rule."
"But you don't have the Kiss of Death rule."
etc, etc
Since the BRB is restricting you from having access to the Kiss of Death rule when not attacking with a Harlequin's Kiss, you'd need specific wording saying "this weapon ability/special rule may be used even when not attacking with a Harlequin's Kiss". Without specific wording like that, there is no real conflict. It doesn't matter what the rule says, because your attacks don't gain the rule unless you're using the Harlequin's Kiss... which you aren't when attacking with the Harlequin's Caress.
This is my core disagreement. Your permission to gain the rule requires that you already have the rule. If you don't have the rule, the rules text doesn't mean anything.
NightHowler wrote: It's funny you ask, because that piece of wargear tells you how you get the special rule from it. When it's equipped.
Please stop saying wargear - it's a weapon.
Weapons have specific rules on how their special rules work, correct?
Weapons are found in the wargear section because they are wargear.
This special rule for this piece of wargear says how it works: When a model equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss makes close combat attacks... The trigger for this special rule does not require you to attack with this piece of wargear, unlike almost all the other examples of wargear with similar special rules. Making this piece of wargear different.
Do weapons have a specific rule addressing how their special rules work, or am I imagining things?
Permission to ignore requirement D is in the wording of the Harlequin's Kiss. It says that if the wargear is equipped you use it's special rule. That wording for the wargear is more specific than the rule from the BRB stating when you can benefit from a special rule and so it trumps it. I have said this before and it is how I address the issue you're saying I haven't addressed.
I agree that it is a permissive rule set. I disagree that a specific rule (Harlequin's Kiss) is not allowed to break a general rule (What Special Rules Do I Have). Because the Harlequin's Kiss is more specific and because it tells us to trigger the special rule when the weapon is equipped and when the model makes close combat attacks, it trumps the requirement that the model attack with the weapon.
Instead of saying I haven't addressed this issue, please say you disagree with (part X) of how I have addressed it.
Fair.
I disagree with this part...
The core rulebook tells you that your attacks don't gain the Kiss of Death special rule. Your permission to ignore this restriction requires a special rule you don't have. At the point when you try to decide whether or not your attack gains the Kiss of Death rule, you don't have access to the Kiss of Death rule... so you can't use having it as justification to gaining it.
This is what we mean by circular reasoning.
"You don't have Kiss of Death."
"I do."
"What is telling you that you do?"
"The Kiss of Death rule."
"But you don't have the Kiss of Death rule."
"I do."
"What is telling you that you do?"
"The Kiss of Death rule."
"But you don't have the Kiss of Death rule."
etc, etc
Since the BRB is restricting you from having access to the Kiss of Death rule when not attacking with a Harlequin's Kiss, you'd need specific wording saying "this weapon ability/special rule may be used even when not attacking with a Harlequin's Kiss". Without specific wording like that, there is no real conflict. It doesn't matter what the rule says, because your attacks don't gain the rule unless you're using the Harlequin's Kiss... which you aren't when attacking with the Harlequin's Caress.
This is my core disagreement. Your permission to gain the rule requires that you already have the rule. If you don't have the rule, the rules text doesn't mean anything.
Kriswall, this is why I like debating with you. You actually read what other people write and reply thoughtfully.
I understand the basis of your argument to be that you cannot use the special rules from more than one weapon because of the more than one weapon rule on page 41 which says, "if a model has more than one melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with when he comes to strike blows - he cannot mix and match the abilities of several different melee weapons." and since the Kiss of Death is one of the Harlequin's Kiss' special abilities, you are not allowed to use it if you have used any other weapon's abilities.
You have a very strong argument and I will admit that you are probably correct. The reason I joined this discussion is because the claim was made earlier in the thread that "you must use the weapon to gain it's abilities", but there are other weapons where this is not the case. Examples have been mentioned earlier but the only one that concerns me is the Rune Priest's Runic Weapon which grant's adamantium will if the model is equipped with the weapon. Adamantium will is not an attack ability, and if the statement "you must use the weapon to gain it's abilities" is true then pieces of wargear like the Runic Weapon would cease to grant their special rules except in the combat phase when using the weapon to strike blows, rendering it useless.
I don't play Eldar and have little interest in whether or not the wargear works this way or not, but I thought that debating it would help me understand whether or not this statement is true: "you must use a weapon to gain it's abilities".
Since you're basing your argument on the More Than One Weapon rule and not on the What Special Rules Do I Have rule, I think I can safely concede that the Harlequin's Kiss will not grant the Kiss of Death special rule if you have used the special rules from a different weapon while maintaining that Runic Weapons grant Ward outside of the assault phase - no need to use the Runic Weapon to gain Adamantium Will since you are not using a different weapon in your opponent's psychic phase and thus not breaking the More Than One Weapon rule.
Please believe me when I say that I haven't been trolling, I've been playing devil's advocate to help me get a grasp on how this argument affects my army.
NightHowler wrote: It's funny you ask, because that piece of wargear tells you how you get the special rule from it. When it's equipped.
Please stop saying wargear - it's a weapon.
Weapons have specific rules on how their special rules work, correct?
Weapons are found in the wargear section because they are wargear.
This special rule for this piece of wargear says how it works: When a model equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss makes close combat attacks... The trigger for this special rule does not require you to attack with this piece of wargear, unlike almost all the other examples of wargear with similar special rules. Making this piece of wargear different.
Do weapons have a specific rule addressing how their special rules work, or am I imagining things?
Weapons have general permission to give the bearer special rules whilst using them, this rule does not state that there is no other ways for weapons to give the bearer special rules. The Harlequins Kiss has specific permission to alter the bearers attacks as long as he is simply equipped. So even if the basic rule said you may ONLY get rules from a weapon if using it, the more specific case of Kiss of Death would over rule that. So again I ask if you are equipped with a Harlequins kiss and making close combat attacks why are you not making a Kiss of Death attack? The rules literally REQUIRE you to do so.
NightHowler wrote: It's funny you ask, because that piece of wargear tells you how you get the special rule from it. When it's equipped.
Please stop saying wargear - it's a weapon.
Weapons have specific rules on how their special rules work, correct?
Weapons are found in the wargear section because they are wargear.
This special rule for this piece of wargear says how it works: When a model equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss makes close combat attacks... The trigger for this special rule does not require you to attack with this piece of wargear, unlike almost all the other examples of wargear with similar special rules. Making this piece of wargear different.
Do weapons have a specific rule addressing how their special rules work, or am I imagining things?
Weapons have general permission to give the bearer special rules whilst using them, this rule does not state that there is no other ways for weapons to give the bearer special rules. The Harlequins Kiss has specific permission to alter the bearers attacks as long as he is simply equipped. So even if the basic rule said you may ONLY get rules from a weapon if using it, the more specific case of Kiss of Death would over rule that. So again I ask if you are equipped with a Harlequins kiss and making close combat attacks why are you not making a Kiss of Death attack? The rules literally REQUIRE you to do so.
The reason it does not grant Kiss of Death is not because you have to use it to gain it's special ability, it's because you have already used the special ability from a different rule and cannot mix the special abilities from more than one weapon. This is from the more than one weapon rule on page 41, which states that you cannot mix abilities from multiple weapons in combat.
I'm afraid they are correct. You cannot use the Harlequin Kiss' Kiss of Death if you have used the special rules from any other weapon in close combat.
The reason it does not grant Kiss of Death is not because you have to use it to gain it's special ability, it's because you have already used the special ability from a different rule and cannot mix the special abilities from more than one weapon. This is from the more than one weapon rule on page 41, which states that you cannot mix abilities from multiple weapons in combat.
I'm afraid they are correct. You cannot use the Harlequin Kiss' Kiss of Death if you have used the special rules from any other weapon in close combat.
The Kiss of Death rule does not care what special rules the user has (even itself) it only cares if someone is attacking in close combat and equipped with a Harlequins Kiss. If you meet those 2 criteria then you must (there is no choice involved) make a Kiss of Death attack. If you meet those criteria and don't make a KoD attack you are breaking the rules. If your interpretatiom requires you break a codex rule (without a more specific exemption) it is incorrect.
The reason it does not grant Kiss of Death is not because you have to use it to gain it's special ability, it's because you have already used the special ability from a different rule and cannot mix the special abilities from more than one weapon. This is from the more than one weapon rule on page 41, which states that you cannot mix abilities from multiple weapons in combat.
I'm afraid they are correct. You cannot use the Harlequin Kiss' Kiss of Death if you have used the special rules from any other weapon in close combat.
The Kiss of Death rule does not care what special rules the user has (even itself) it only cares if someone is attacking in close combat and equipped with a Harlequins Kiss. If you meet those 2 criteria then you must (there is no choice involved) make a Kiss of Death attack. If you meet those criteria and don't make a KoD attack you are breaking the rules. If your interpretatiom requires you break a codex rule (without a more specific exemption) it is incorrect.
While the Kiss of Death special rule does not require you to attack with that weapon to trigger, it is a special ability for one of the two weapons you have, and both weapons have special abilities that you are trying to use. While you do not need to use the weapon to gain the special ability you are not given permission by the rule "Kiss of Death" to break the rule "More Than One Weapon" and so are not allowed to choose more than one ability when attacking with the Harlequin's Kiss and Harlequin's Caress together.
What I find most hilarious about this whole debate is that it can only apply to 1 model. And a Unique model at that.
And given how may attacks the Caress has on the Solitare, the Kiss is almost not needed.
FYI, my opinion is that the Kiss "should" work even if using a different weapon b/c it is only 1 of your atx, however I cannot find a RAW argument that supports this. Even equipped, you are attacking with the Kiss, therefore precluding the ability to use a second weapon
*IF* this ever gets an FAQ, I fully expect it to go the way of the 5th ed Dreadknight, and allow all special rules to apply just because they are equipped. However, until then however, it is up to your opponent/TO to decide.
While the Kiss of Death special rule does not require you to attack with that weapon to trigger, it is a special ability for one of the two weapons you have, and both weapons have special abilities that you are trying to use. While you do not need to use the weapon to gain the special ability you are not given permission by the rule "Kiss of Death" to break the rule "More Than One Weapon" and so are not allowed to choose more than one ability when attacking with the Harlequin's Kiss and Harlequin's Caress together.
Regardless if you are attacking in CC and equipped with a Kiss you MUST make a Kiss of Death attack. We have 2 options here. Either attacking with the caress causes a conflict between a Codex and a BrB rule in which case we know how to resolve that. Or you may never use another CCW if equipped with a Kiss. This is undeniable RaW.
"Please stop saying wargear - it's a weapon.
Weapons have specific rules on how their special rules work, correct? "
All weapons are wargear. If you don't believe me, go look at your army list on how you buy them.
Also stop saying a weapon only gets special rules when it is used, as the attack, and yes it is the attack, gets a special rule from a weapon being used. So every weapon in the game using your interpretation does not provide any special rule to anything except the attack, thus fearless, fnp and every other non attack special rule does literally nothing.
While the Kiss of Death special rule does not require you to attack with that weapon to trigger, it is a special ability for one of the two weapons you have, and both weapons have special abilities that you are trying to use. While you do not need to use the weapon to gain the special ability you are not given permission by the rule "Kiss of Death" to break the rule "More Than One Weapon" and so are not allowed to choose more than one ability when attacking with the Harlequin's Kiss and Harlequin's Caress together.
Regardless if you are attacking in CC and equipped with a Kiss you MUST make a Kiss of Death attack. We have 2 options here. Either attacking with the caress causes a conflict between a Codex and a BrB rule in which case we know how to resolve that. Or you may never use another CCW if equipped with a Kiss. This is undeniable RaW.
If you believe that taking the Harlequin's Kiss means that you are forced to make a Kiss attack then taking it with other special weapons would prevent you from ever making attacks with the other weapon you take (although you would still get the +1 attack for having 2 weapons).
If that's how you would play it, then don't ever take any additional weapons with the Harlequin's Kiss besides perhaps a pistol or close combat weapon.
It is not my belief it is literally what the rules say. If you are equipped with a Harlequins kiss and you are attacking in close combat you must make a Kiss of Death attack. That is not my belief nor my opinion that is just what the rules say. So can we agree that the rules are correct when they say this? Or are the rules wrong?
"I have permission to apply Special Rules on my Army List entry to my model. Correct?"
Yes, from the army list, unit entry, psychic power, scenario special rule, or terrain. These are the listed ways to get a special rule.
Note Detachments, formations, and wargear are not listed. These are assumed to be able to be used.
The detachment "Command Benefits" require you to reference Command Benefits to apply command benefits, so may not be used as you are not allowed to self reference a rule to use a rule.
Also note, that ALL weapons are Wargear, so any statement regarding Wargear also apply to weapons.
The Second sentence under the What Special Rules do I have is "That said, a model's attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it it using." This is the only listed way a model's attacks are allowed to gain a special rule. We do however assume that special rules given to a model work on attacks. When we reference the rule, but then we can't reference the rule to get permission to use the rule, so I guess not.
Permission to ignore requirement D is in the wording of the Harlequin's Kiss. It says that if the wargear is equipped you use it's special rule. That wording for the wargear is more specific than the rule from the BRB stating when you can benefit from a special rule and so it trumps it. I have said this before and it is how I address the issue you're saying I haven't addressed.
I agree that it is a permissive rule set. I disagree that a specific rule (Harlequin's Kiss) is not allowed to break a general rule (What Special Rules Do I Have). Because the Harlequin's Kiss is more specific and because it tells us to trigger the special rule when the weapon is equipped and when the model makes close combat attacks, it trumps the requirement that the model attack with the weapon.
Instead of saying I haven't addressed this issue, please say you disagree with (part X) of how I have addressed it.
Fair.
I disagree with this part...
The core rulebook tells you that your attacks don't gain the Kiss of Death special rule. Your permission to ignore this restriction requires a special rule you don't have. At the point when you try to decide whether or not your attack gains the Kiss of Death rule, you don't have access to the Kiss of Death rule... so you can't use having it as justification to gaining it.
This is what we mean by circular reasoning.
"You don't have Kiss of Death."
"I do."
"What is telling you that you do?"
"The Kiss of Death rule."
"But you don't have the Kiss of Death rule."
"I do."
"What is telling you that you do?"
"The Kiss of Death rule."
"But you don't have the Kiss of Death rule."
etc, etc
Since the BRB is restricting you from having access to the Kiss of Death rule when not attacking with a Harlequin's Kiss, you'd need specific wording saying "this weapon ability/special rule may be used even when not attacking with a Harlequin's Kiss". Without specific wording like that, there is no real conflict. It doesn't matter what the rule says, because your attacks don't gain the rule unless you're using the Harlequin's Kiss... which you aren't when attacking with the Harlequin's Caress.
This is my core disagreement. Your permission to gain the rule requires that you already have the rule. If you don't have the rule, the rules text doesn't mean anything.
Kriswall, this is why I like debating with you. You actually read what other people write and reply thoughtfully.
I understand the basis of your argument to be that you cannot use the special rules from more than one weapon because of the more than one weapon rule on page 41 which says, "if a model has more than one melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with when he comes to strike blows - he cannot mix and match the abilities of several different melee weapons." and since the Kiss of Death is one of the Harlequin's Kiss' special abilities, you are not allowed to use it if you have used any other weapon's abilities.
You have a very strong argument and I will admit that you are probably correct. The reason I joined this discussion is because the claim was made earlier in the thread that "you must use the weapon to gain it's abilities", but there are other weapons where this is not the case. Examples have been mentioned earlier but the only one that concerns me is the Rune Priest's Runic Weapon which grant's adamantium will if the model is equipped with the weapon. Adamantium will is not an attack ability, and if the statement "you must use the weapon to gain it's abilities" is true then pieces of wargear like the Runic Weapon would cease to grant their special rules except in the combat phase when using the weapon to strike blows, rendering it useless.
I don't play Eldar and have little interest in whether or not the wargear works this way or not, but I thought that debating it would help me understand whether or not this statement is true: "you must use a weapon to gain it's abilities".
Since you're basing your argument on the More Than One Weapon rule and not on the What Special Rules Do I Have rule, I think I can safely concede that the Harlequin's Kiss will not grant the Kiss of Death special rule if you have used the special rules from a different weapon while maintaining that Runic Weapons grant Ward outside of the assault phase - no need to use the Runic Weapon to gain Adamantium Will since you are not using a different weapon in your opponent's psychic phase and thus not breaking the More Than One Weapon rule.
Please believe me when I say that I haven't been trolling, I've been playing devil's advocate to help me get a grasp on how this argument affects my army.
Fair, again.
And I think you have it exactly as I think of it. In the case of the Runic Weapon, you would benefit from Adamantium Will at all times EXCEPT when you come to strike blows (fight sub-phase) and are using a different weapon to attack. There is no restriction in the Psychic phase to prevent you from mixing and matching weapon abilities, so you're free to use the Runic Weapon at that point.
Galef wrote: What I find most hilarious about this whole debate is that it can only apply to 1 model. And a Unique model at that.
And given how may attacks the Caress has on the Solitare, the Kiss is almost not needed.
FYI, my opinion is that the Kiss "should" work even if using a different weapon b/c it is only 1 of your atx, however I cannot find a RAW argument that supports this. Even equipped, you are attacking with the Kiss, therefore precluding the ability to use a second weapon
*IF* this ever gets an FAQ, I fully expect it to go the way of the 5th ed Dreadknight, and allow all special rules to apply just because they are equipped. However, until then however, it is up to your opponent/TO to decide.
The thread is mostly about that but many of the codexs have one or two weapons that grants things for equipping them.
This thread is like saying force weapons do not work because force is listed with the weapon so the model cannot ever have the force power until the model strikes with the weapon and then only when striking, but since pyschic phase does not happen then the model may never use force.
Or.
Storm shields only give the 3++ at the models I step, any other time since the model is not using it to strike it may not get a 3++ because it is a weapon and they only get their special abilities when striking.
some people in this thread have invented a fictitious rule that states you may only gain the benefits of special rules that affect the model equipped with a piece of wargear when it strikes with the wargear (weaponit is wargear..), which does not exist anywhere in the rules. Some people have also invented the "you may only use the abilities of wargear when striking, if they are weapons"- which it does not say anywhere. There are many weapons that have special rules that require you to be striking with the weapon ie shred, caress- where the rule actually states something along the lines of "when making strikes with a weapon that has this special rule" as opposed to "when the model attacks in assault" one obviously is depenedent on striking with the weapon and falls under picking 1 weapon to strike with, 1 obviously is an ability of the model and not the weapon. Some people have a hard time dealing with that because the ability of the model, comes from having the weapon not striking with the weapon.
FlingitNow wrote: It is not my belief it is literally what the rules say. If you are equipped with a Harlequins kiss and you are attacking in close combat you must make a Kiss of Death attack. That is not my belief nor my opinion that is just what the rules say. So can we agree that the rules are correct when they say this? Or are the rules wrong?
If you are equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss and you are attacking in close combat AND you are using the Harlequin's kiss, you must make a Kiss of Death attack. THAT is actually what the rules say. We obviously can not agree that what you're saying is correct. The rules also aren't wrong. Again, you're asking us to choose between two incorrect choices. I believe the correct answer is option #3... your interpretation of the rules is flawed and you can't get past the text of the Kiss of Death rule to see that there is a 3rd requirement... using the Harlequin's Kiss.
We're not arguing intent. We're arguing rules as written.
You say...
The Kiss of Death rule does not care what special rules the user has (even itself) it only cares if someone is attacking in close combat and equipped with a Harlequins Kiss.
I want to understand this. It sounds like you're saying that you acknowledge that the model (or its attacks) does not gain the Kiss of Death special rule when not attacking with a Harlequin's Kiss, but that you don't care since you believe special rules don't necessarily need to be gained to be applied and you're going to apply it anyways? Have I missed something?
Can you step me through the exact process that allows the model's attacks to gain the Kiss of Death special rule when NOT attacking with a Harlequin's Kiss? Rules citations would be appreciated. At least one of those citations will have to specifically and unambiguously override the core restriction on gaining a weapon ability from a weapon when not using said weapon.
Galef wrote: What I find most hilarious about this whole debate is that it can only apply to 1 model. And a Unique model at that.
And given how may attacks the Caress has on the Solitare, the Kiss is almost not needed.
FYI, my opinion is that the Kiss "should" work even if using a different weapon b/c it is only 1 of your atx, however I cannot find a RAW argument that supports this. Even equipped, you are attacking with the Kiss, therefore precluding the ability to use a second weapon
*IF* this ever gets an FAQ, I fully expect it to go the way of the 5th ed Dreadknight, and allow all special rules to apply just because they are equipped. However, until then however, it is up to your opponent/TO to decide.
The thread is mostly about that but many of the codexs have one or two weapons that grants things for equipping them.
This thread is like saying force weapons do not work because force is listed with the weapon so the model cannot ever have the force power until the model strikes with the weapon and then only when striking, but since pyschic phase does not happen then the model may never use force.
Or.
Storm shields only give the 3++ at the models I step, any other time since the model is not using it to strike it may not get a 3++ because it is a weapon and they only get their special abilities when striking.
some people in this thread have invented a fictitious rule that states you may only gain the benefits of special rules that affect the model equipped with a piece of wargear when it strikes with the wargear (weaponit is wargear..), which does not exist anywhere in the rules. Some people have also invented the "you may only use the abilities of wargear when striking, if they are weapons"- which it does not say anywhere. There are many weapons that have special rules that require you to be striking with the weapon ie shred, caress- where the rule actually states something along the lines of "when making strikes with a weapon that has this special rule" as opposed to "when the model attacks in assault" one obviously is depenedent on striking with the weapon and falls under picking 1 weapon to strike with, 1 obviously is an ability of the model and not the weapon. Some people have a hard time dealing with that because the ability of the model, comes from having the weapon not striking with the weapon.
etc.
Force works fine.
"Force is ablessing psychic power that targets the psyker and his unit. All of the targets' weapons that have the Force special rule gain the Instant Death special rule until the start of your next Psychic phase."
In the Psychic phase, does a Force Sword have the Force special rule? Yes, it does. Does a model's attacks have the Force special rule? No, they don't. Resolve the psychic power successfully and your Force Sword has the Instant Death special rule. Again, the model's attacks won't gain the Instant Death special rule until the Force Sword is actually used (typically in the fight sub-phase).
Storm Shields work fine.
They aren't weapons, so the wording saying you gain the special rule when the weapon is used doesn't apply. Storm Shields are non-weapon pieces of wargear and so would have their rules "active" at all times. The rules DO tell us when a weapon confers its special rules. The rules DON'T tell us when a non-weapon piece of of wargear confers its special rules, so we rely on the wargear rules text as that is our only guidance.
Also, the rules clearly specify that a model's attacks gain special rules from a weapon when the weapon is being used. We are not told that the model or its attacks gain special rules from a weapon at any other times. This is in the What Rules Do I Have section and has been quoted numerous times.
Lastly, "comes to strike blows" isn't referring to a model's initiative step within the fight sub-phase. It's referring to the entire fight sub-phase.
Small Rulebook, Fight Sub-Phase section, page 48, literally the first paragraph... "With all the assaults launched, it's time to strike blows!" Same wording (strike blows) used in both instances, so I'm calling it the same.
So again, combine all the rules and we know that weapon special rules are gained when the weapon is used and that we can't gain special rules from more than one weapon in the fight sub-phase. Using weapon A and gaining a special rule from weapon B violates these basic rules. If you have not yet gained a special rule, you can't use its rules text to justify gaining it unless the rules text explicitly tells you to ignore the More Than One Weapon basic rule.
I think your comments are incorrect in some places, and in others misleading. I do not think it is intentional.
Finally, Sarah’s Psyker is equipped with a force weapon, so her Psyker also knows Force.
a model does not have the force power unless it is equipped with a force weapon.
oh look Sarah has a model that is equipped with a weapon and gains a psychic power by being simply equipped with it even before she has the chance to decide to use it or not use it, as this is before the game has even begun. You go Sarah!
The logic you are putting forth would then mean that a model does not gain the force power until it can strike with a weapon, because at the time psychic powers are determined (before the game) the model can not be said to be striking with or not with any weapon, as such it would not have force if you believe weapons do not give their abilities for being equipped with them, when it clearly says in the RAW for the ability from the weapon the model gets it for being equipped with it.
also storm shield is clearly listed as a "weapon" in the armoury of all the 7th edition codexes that can select a storm shield as a weapon.
it may not have a weapon profile, but it is clearly by the RAW a weapon.
Terminator Weapons A model wearing Terminator armour may replace his storm bolter with one of the following:
Combi-flamer, -melta or -plasma… 5 pts
Wolf claw… 15 pts
Thunder hammer… 25 pts
A model wearing Terminator armour may replace his power weapon with one of the following:
Storm shield… free
If you are equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss and you are attacking in close combat AND you are using the Harlequin's kiss, you must make a Kiss of Death attack. THAT is actually what the rules say. We obviously can not agree that what you're saying is correct.
Please quote the part of KoD that states you need to be using the HK. I don't see it. I see an irrelevant rule about models gaining special rules when attacking with a weapon. I see another rule that states unequivocally that it is triggered whenever a model is striking blows and equipped with a Kiss.
I have a rule that states "whenever A & B then X". Thus if conditions A & B are met then X happens. I don't need another rule to say "yes really and you may now read the rule". Most Special rules only work if a model has that rule or is in a unit with a model that has that rule. Kiss of Death does not care whohas the KoD rule, ALL it cares about is if a model is attacking in CC and equipped with a Kiss. If those two conditions are met it forces an action on you.
blaktoof wrote: I think your comments are incorrect in some places, and in others misleading. I do not think it is intentional.
Finally, Sarah’s Psyker is equipped with a force weapon, so her Psyker also knows Force.
a model does not have the force power unless it is equipped with a force weapon.
oh look Sarah has a model that is equipped with a weapon and gains a psychic power by being simply equipped with it even before she has the chance to decide to use it or not use it, as this is before the game has even begun. You go Sarah!
The logic you are putting forth would then mean that a model does not gain the force power until it can strike with a weapon, because at the time psychic powers are determined (before the game) the model can not be said to be striking with or not with any weapon, as such it would not have force if you believe weapons do not give their abilities for being equipped with them, when it clearly says in the RAW for the ability from the weapon the model gets it for being equipped with it.
also storm shield is clearly listed as a "weapon" in the armoury of all the 7th edition codexes that can select a storm shield as a weapon.
it may not have a weapon profile, but it is clearly by the RAW a weapon.
Terminator Weapons A model wearing Terminator armour may replace his storm bolter with one of the following:
Combi-flamer, -melta or -plasma… 5 pts
Wolf claw… 15 pts
Thunder hammer… 25 pts
A model wearing Terminator armour may replace his power weapon with one of the following:
Storm shield… free
At best, you could argue that it's a "Terminator Weapon", which is not the same as a Melee Weapon or Ranged Weapon. If the Storm Shield is a Weapon, what is it's type? Melee, Assault, Rapid Fire? Hopefully you see my point. There is a difference between being a core rule set defined "WEAPON" and being listed on a "Insert name of wargear list here" codex list.
At best, you could argue that it's a "Terminator Weapon", which is not the same as a Melee Weapon or Ranged Weapon. If the Storm Shield is a Weapon, what is it's type? Melee, Assault, Rapid Fire? Hopefully you see my point. There is a difference between being a core rule set defined "WEAPON" and being listed on a "Insert name of wargear list here" codex list.
Yeah no weapon type means not a weapon. He's write on Force weapons though. Also Can we now finally agree that Kiss of Death is not wrong? That the rules in the Harlequin codex aren't to be ignored?
No, that's not the situation. The actual wargear does not state you gain special rule when equipped. The special rule tells you when it activates.
Meaning you go back a step. The actual rules state you only get a special rule from on your sheet or when using a weapon
Show a conflict that doesn't involve your circular logic.
You don't have a special rule until told so by the rule book, or specifically otherwise. Not from within a special rule itself
This is proven. Page and grAoh proving otherwise, or desist.
Sigh
The wargear has a special rule. That special rule says that when the wargear is equipped and the model makes attacks it triggers a Kiss of Death attack. We do not need permission from the BRB to read the special rules on our wargear - we just need the rules from the wargear's description.
If it is equipped and tells us we get a special rule when it's equipped we get to use it's special rules when it's equipped.
So in order to gain permission to use your special rule, you're using your special rule. When you have no permission to do so
Gosh, it's almost like circular reasoning is circular. We have a rule telling you how models gain special rules from weapons. Specific override of this rule. Page and graph. By specific, it needs to contain a reference to the "what special rules..." Rule. Oh, and it can't be from a weapons special rule - we KNOW, for a fact, a model doesn't have that rule unless it is using it normally, so don't keep in with your circular logic.
At best, you could argue that it's a "Terminator Weapon", which is not the same as a Melee Weapon or Ranged Weapon. If the Storm Shield is a Weapon, what is it's type? Melee, Assault, Rapid Fire? Hopefully you see my point. There is a difference between being a core rule set defined "WEAPON" and being listed on a "Insert name of wargear list here" codex list.
Yeah no weapon type means not a weapon. He's write on Force weapons though. Also Can we now finally agree that Kiss of Death is not wrong? That the rules in the Harlequin codex aren't to be ignored?
Kiss of Death works fine... assuming your attacks have gained the rule... which they haven't if the model has not chosen to use the Harlequin's Kiss in the fight sub-phase.
Can we also agree that the rules in the core rule book aren't to be ignored? ...because you're ignoring them (Which Special Rules Do I Have and More Than One Weapon, to be specific).
No, that's not the situation. The actual wargear does not state you gain special rule when equipped. The special rule tells you when it activates.
Meaning you go back a step. The actual rules state you only get a special rule from on your sheet or when using a weapon
Show a conflict that doesn't involve your circular logic.
You don't have a special rule until told so by the rule book, or specifically otherwise. Not from within a special rule itself
This is proven. Page and grAoh proving otherwise, or desist.
Sigh
The wargear has a special rule. That special rule says that when the wargear is equipped and the model makes attacks it triggers a Kiss of Death attack. We do not need permission from the BRB to read the special rules on our wargear - we just need the rules from the wargear's description.
If it is equipped and tells us we get a special rule when it's equipped we get to use it's special rules when it's equipped.
So in order to gain permission to use your special rule, you're using your special rule. When you have no permission to do so
Gosh, it's almost like circular reasoning is circular. We have a rule telling you how models gain special rules from weapons. Specific override of this rule. Page and graph. By specific, it needs to contain a reference to the "what special rules..." Rule. Oh, and it can't be from a weapons special rule - we KNOW, for a fact, a model doesn't have that rule unless it is using it normally, so don't keep in with your circular logic.
It has also been repeatedly pointed out that the "most special rules" can include being from a weapon. And that the ONLY reason special rules don't function on a model when given from a weapon is your interpretation that the only way a weapon provides a special rule is when it is attacking.
yeah yeah....you didn't say attacking you said using, which has also been repeatedly pointed out that in the rules the only way to use a weapon is to attack with it.
We also KNOW for a fact that the rule only refers to attacks, so applying the logic to it's full extant, no model may use a special rule to attack with unless it is on a weapon, because the way it is written only attacks may benefit from a weapons special rule, and you can't reference a rule to find out if it can be used unless the What special rules do I have tells you, and the ONLY rules allowed specifically in that paragraph to work on an attack are on weapons. Remember, permissive rule set, and you don't have permission in that section.
No, that's not the situation. The actual wargear does not state you gain special rule when equipped. The special rule tells you when it activates.
Meaning you go back a step. The actual rules state you only get a special rule from on your sheet or when using a weapon
Show a conflict that doesn't involve your circular logic.
You don't have a special rule until told so by the rule book, or specifically otherwise. Not from within a special rule itself
This is proven. Page and grAoh proving otherwise, or desist.
Sigh
The wargear has a special rule. That special rule says that when the wargear is equipped and the model makes attacks it triggers a Kiss of Death attack. We do not need permission from the BRB to read the special rules on our wargear - we just need the rules from the wargear's description.
If it is equipped and tells us we get a special rule when it's equipped we get to use it's special rules when it's equipped.
So in order to gain permission to use your special rule, you're using your special rule. When you have no permission to do so
Gosh, it's almost like circular reasoning is circular. We have a rule telling you how models gain special rules from weapons. Specific override of this rule. Page and graph. By specific, it needs to contain a reference to the "what special rules..." Rule. Oh, and it can't be from a weapons special rule - we KNOW, for a fact, a model doesn't have that rule unless it is using it normally, so don't keep in with your circular logic.
We have a rule that states "whenever A & B then X" why would X not occur when you have A & B? The rule of weapons giving special rules when striking is a simple permission. It is not exclusive nor all inclusive so does not need to be over ridden as it can simply be added to. However none of that is relevant to Kiss of Death. Kiss of Death does not care about whether the model has the Kiss of Death rule or not. All it cares aboutis if a model is equipped with a Harlequins Kiss whilst making close combat attacks.
At best, you could argue that it's a "Terminator Weapon", which is not the same as a Melee Weapon or Ranged Weapon. If the Storm Shield is a Weapon, what is it's type? Melee, Assault, Rapid Fire? Hopefully you see my point. There is a difference between being a core rule set defined "WEAPON" and being listed on a "Insert name of wargear list here" codex list.
Yeah no weapon type means not a weapon. He's write on Force weapons though. Also Can we now finally agree that Kiss of Death is not wrong? That the rules in the Harlequin codex aren't to be ignored?
Kiss of Death works fine... assuming your attacks have gained the rule... which they haven't if the model has not chosen to use the Harlequin's Kiss in the fight sub-phase.
Can we also agree that the rules in the core rule book aren't to be ignored? ...because you're ignoring them (Which Special Rules Do I Have and More Than One Weapon, to be specific).
I'm not ignoring any rules. My attacks don't need the Kiss of Death rule, neither does my weapon nor my model. I'm not ignoring the what special rules do I have rule it is irrelevant. It is a rule that tells us a few ways models can gain special rules. Kiss of Death doesn't care about that. I'm not addressing More than one weapon yet, that comes later.
Can we agree that the kiss of death rule states that when a model equipped with a Harlequins kiss makes close combat attack it must make a Kiss of Death attack?
No, that's not the situation. The actual wargear does not state you gain special rule when equipped. The special rule tells you when it activates.
Meaning you go back a step. The actual rules state you only get a special rule from on your sheet or when using a weapon
Show a conflict that doesn't involve your circular logic.
You don't have a special rule until told so by the rule book, or specifically otherwise. Not from within a special rule itself
This is proven. Page and grAoh proving otherwise, or desist.
Sigh
The wargear has a special rule. That special rule says that when the wargear is equipped and the model makes attacks it triggers a Kiss of Death attack. We do not need permission from the BRB to read the special rules on our wargear - we just need the rules from the wargear's description.
If it is equipped and tells us we get a special rule when it's equipped we get to use it's special rules when it's equipped.
So in order to gain permission to use your special rule, you're using your special rule. When you have no permission to do so
Gosh, it's almost like circular reasoning is circular. We have a rule telling you how models gain special rules from weapons. Specific override of this rule. Page and graph. By specific, it needs to contain a reference to the "what special rules..." Rule. Oh, and it can't be from a weapons special rule - we KNOW, for a fact, a model doesn't have that rule unless it is using it normally, so don't keep in with your circular logic.
We have a rule that states "whenever A & B then X" why would X not occur when you have A & B? The rule of weapons giving special rules when striking is a simple permission. It is not exclusive nor all inclusive so does not need to be over ridden as it can simply be added to. However none of that is relevant to Kiss of Death. Kiss of Death does not care about whether the model has the Kiss of Death rule or not. All it cares aboutis if a model is equipped with a Harlequins Kiss whilst making close combat attacks.
You're ignoring a rule. We actually have two rules that interact to say...
Whenever A then (Whenever B & C then X)
A = Attacking with a Harlequin's Kiss
B = Model is equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss
C = Model is attacking
X = Kiss of Death attack occurs
Strictly speaking, B & C are redundant. If a model is attacking with a Harlequin's Kiss, then he MUST be both attacking and equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss. This wouldn't be the first time GW included redundant rules text. There is no practical need for Kiss of Death to require that a model by attacking and be equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss. By the very nature of the core rules, the only way for a model's attacks to gain the Kiss of Death rule is by using a weapon having the rule in a fight sub-phase. Don't use the weapon? Your attacks don't gain the special rule.
FlingitNow wrote: Can we agree that the kiss of death rule states that when a model equipped with a Harlequins kiss makes close combat attack it must make a Kiss of Death attack?
There is no must at all. You are adding that. If you're not adding 'must', feel free to highlight the word in the below citation.
"When a model equipped with a Harlequin’s Kiss makes its close combat attacks, one of its Attacks will be a Kiss of Death Attack (roll this Attack separately). A Kiss of Death Attack is always resolved at Strength 6 AP2. If a 6 is rolled To Wound with a Kiss of Death Attack, that attack has the Instant Death special rule."
And as we've said quite a few times, unless you're using a Harlequin's Kiss during the fight sub-phase, you will never gain the above rule and the rules text for Kiss of Death will never apply to your attacks.
Also, your position seems to be that your attacks don't need the Kiss of Death rule for it to work. Nor does the weapon. Nor does the model. Your words.
"My attacks don't need the Kiss of Death rule, neither does my weapon nor my model."
If the model doesn't have the rule, and the weapon you're using doesn't have the rule and your attacks don't have the rule... what is your justification for invoking the rule? This is the critical flaw in your position. You have yet to provide a reason for invoking a rule that you seem willing to admit neither model nor weapon nor attacks have.
FlingitNow wrote: Cool please point to the part of Kiss of Death that states A.
As you well know, it's in the core rule book. You know, the book that you're ignoring? It's in the What Special Weapons Do I Have section and is further restricted in the More Than One Weapon section.
Assuming that the rules text of a single, isolated weapon in a single, isolated Codex has all of the necessary rules to actually use it in combat is... well, I don't know the word, but it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the rule set.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FlingitNow wrote: Remembering I am making no claim that the model gains the Kiss of Death rule so any rule about models gaining rules is irrelevant.
Agreed. You brought it up. I was quoting your words and wanted to quote them completely.
The fact that you have paid for a Kiss and have modeled your mini that way (equipped, as in part of that model's equipment) modifies one of your attacks to be S6 AP2. This is regardless of what weapon you are attacking with. That is how we have been playing it around here, trying to decipher RAI.
For example when my Solitare uses Blitz on the charge, he gets 1 attack, rolled separately at S6 AP2, and 11 more with the Caress.
In the context of the rest of the codex this is my best guess. I may be wrong, but until those FAQs start flowing all we have to go on is our interpretations.
Edit: I will be bringing up the relevant rules eluded to many times in this thread to make the case for one or the other. In our discussion we got bogged down with minute details like "equipped vs attacking with" blahbobloblaw. We totally omitted a core rule section "more than one weapon". I think one weapon/special rule or the other is the correct way RAI & RAW.
For example For example when my Solitare uses Blitz on the charge, he either gets:
A)1 attack, rolled separately at S6 AP2, and 11 more S user AP- or,
B)12 attacks using the caress of death special rule.
I guess sometimes RAI can stand for rules as interpreted as well, which can be wrong from time to time. Thanks for setting us straight Dakka!
The rules, however, on how a model's attacks gain special rules is extremely relevant.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
IVII wrote: The fact that you have paid for a Kiss and have modeled your mini that way (equipped, as in part of that model's equipment) modifies one of your attacks to be S6 AP2. This is regardless of what weapon you are attacking with. That is how we have been playing it around here, trying to decipher RAI.
For example when my Solitare uses Blitz on the charge, he gets 1 attack, rolled separately at S6 AP2, and 11 more with the Caress.
In the context of the rest of the codex this is my best guess. I may be wrong, but until those FAQs start flowing all we have to go on is our interpretations.
Your HIWPI and attempt to guess at RAI is appreciated, but not relevant to a discussion on how the rules are actually written.
My group, by contrast, sticks to the More Than One Weapon rule and only allows a model's attacks to gain a weapon special rule if said model is using said weapon.
Has your group looked at the rules, or were you just offering input on how your group has house ruled this?
There is no must at all. You are adding that. If you're not adding 'must', feel free to highlight the word in the below citation.
"When a model equipped with a Harlequin’s Kiss makes its close combat attacks, one of its Attacks will be a Kiss of Death Attack (roll this Attack separately). A Kiss of Death Attack is always resolved at Strength 6 AP2. If a 6 is rolled To Wound with a Kiss of Death Attack, that attack has the Instant Death special rule."
And as we've said quite a few times, unless you're using a Harlequin's Kiss during the fight sub-phase, you will never gain the above rule and the rules text for Kiss of Death will never apply to your attacks.
So is Kiss of Death optional or must one of my attacks be a KoD attack? So while the word must is not present what I said was indeed correct.
Do my model's attacks gain the Kiss of Death rule? No as you've stated they only gain that special rule when using a Harlequins kiss.
Cool so my attacks don't have the rule my model doesn't have the rule. Does the rule care if my model or attacks have the KoD rule? If you believe it does please highlight the part of the rule that states this. All I see is:
When a model equipped with a Harlequin’s Kiss makes its close combat attacks, one of its Attacks will be a Kiss of Death Attack (roll this Attack separately).
So if I have a model equipped with a kiss and making close combat attacks one of those attacks has to be a KoD attack or I am breaking that rule.
There is no must at all. You are adding that. If you're not adding 'must', feel free to highlight the word in the below citation.
"When a model equipped with a Harlequin’s Kiss makes its close combat attacks, one of its Attacks will be a Kiss of Death Attack (roll this Attack separately). A Kiss of Death Attack is always resolved at Strength 6 AP2. If a 6 is rolled To Wound with a Kiss of Death Attack, that attack has the Instant Death special rule."
And as we've said quite a few times, unless you're using a Harlequin's Kiss during the fight sub-phase, you will never gain the above rule and the rules text for Kiss of Death will never apply to your attacks.
So is Kiss of Death optional or must one of my attacks be a KoD attack? So while the word must is not present what I said was indeed correct.
Do my model's attacks gain the Kiss of Death rule? No as you've stated they only gain that special rule when using a Harlequins kiss.
Cool so my attacks don't have the rule my model doesn't have the rule. Does the rule care if my model or attacks have the KoD rule? If you believe it does please highlight the part of the rule that states this. All I see is:
When a model equipped with a Harlequin’s Kiss makes its close combat attacks, one of its Attacks will be a Kiss of Death Attack (roll this Attack separately).
So if I have a model equipped with a kiss and making close combat attacks one of those attacks has to be a KoD attack or I am breaking that rule.
Kiss of Death is mandatory IF your model's attacks have gained the Kiss of Death special rule. Choosing to attack with a model's Harlequin's Kiss is optional.
And of course Kiss of Death cares whether or not the attacks have gained the Kiss of Death special rule. If the attacks haven't, Kiss of Death never comes into play.
You aren't breaking the Kiss of Death rule. The Kiss of Death rule has zero wording on what to do when you have more than one weapon.
You're breaking the More Than One Weapon Rule.
I admire your resolve. You're tenacious. I'd love to have you in my corner in a fight. I appreciate that you doggedly refuse to address the More Than One Weapon rule, but it is what it is. Ignoring a thing doesn't make it go away.
megatrons2nd wrote: "Please stop saying wargear - it's a weapon.
Weapons have specific rules on how their special rules work, correct? "
All weapons are wargear. If you don't believe me, go look at your army list on how you buy them.
Also stop saying a weapon only gets special rules when it is used, as the attack, and yes it is the attack, gets a special rule from a weapon being used. So every weapon in the game using your interpretation does not provide any special rule to anything except the attack, thus fearless, fnp and every other non attack special rule does literally nothing.
Oh my gosh. You've accused me of saying something I've a outright stated in this thread multiple times.
How embarrassing!
megatrons2nd wrote: "Please stop saying wargear - it's a weapon.
Weapons have specific rules on how their special rules work, correct? "
All weapons are wargear. If you don't believe me, go look at your army list on how you buy them.
Also stop saying a weapon only gets special rules when it is used, as the attack, and yes it is the attack, gets a special rule from a weapon being used. So every weapon in the game using your interpretation does not provide any special rule to anything except the attack, thus fearless, fnp and every other non attack special rule does literally nothing.
Oh my gosh. You've accused me of saying something I've a outright stated in this thread multiple times.
How embarrassing!
Oh, good, so you then see that the interpretation you present that ONLY allows a weapon to provide a special rule when it is attacking, sorry being used (even though attacking is a weapons only use in this game) MUST be wrong.
Now that that is covered, how can we proceed?
Obviously, if a rule is simply put on the weapon, and it doesn't state something to the effect of "when attacking with this weapon" or "when a wound is suffered by this weapon", must always function, just like special rules on other pieces of wargear.
megatrons2nd wrote: "Please stop saying wargear - it's a weapon.
Weapons have specific rules on how their special rules work, correct? "
All weapons are wargear. If you don't believe me, go look at your army list on how you buy them.
Also stop saying a weapon only gets special rules when it is used, as the attack, and yes it is the attack, gets a special rule from a weapon being used. So every weapon in the game using your interpretation does not provide any special rule to anything except the attack, thus fearless, fnp and every other non attack special rule does literally nothing.
Oh my gosh. You've accused me of saying something I've a outright stated in this thread multiple times.
How embarrassing!
Oh, good, so you then see that the interpretation you present that ONLY allows a weapon to provide a special rule when it is attacking, sorry being used (even though attacking is a weapons only use in this game) MUST be wrong.
Nope. Please don't put words in my mouth. It's not wrong - it's what the rules literally say. It's obvious, however, that you've not been reading the thread as this has been covered numerous times. It shouldn't be some revelation.
Obviously, if a rule is simply put on the weapon, and it doesn't state something to the effect of "when attacking with this weapon" or "when a wound is suffered by this weapon", must always function, just like special rules on other pieces of wargear.
It must? What rule permits it? Or are you attempting to discuss intent?
megatrons2nd wrote: "Please stop saying wargear - it's a weapon. Weapons have specific rules on how their special rules work, correct? "
All weapons are wargear. If you don't believe me, go look at your army list on how you buy them.
Also stop saying a weapon only gets special rules when it is used, as the attack, and yes it is the attack, gets a special rule from a weapon being used. So every weapon in the game using your interpretation does not provide any special rule to anything except the attack, thus fearless, fnp and every other non attack special rule does literally nothing.
Oh my gosh. You've accused me of saying something I've a outright stated in this thread multiple times. How embarrassing!
Oh, good, so you then see that the interpretation you present that ONLY allows a weapon to provide a special rule when it is attacking, sorry being used (even though attacking is a weapons only use in this game) MUST be wrong.
Nope. Please don't put words in my mouth. It's not wrong - it's what the rules literally say. It's obvious, however, that you've not been reading the thread as this has been covered numerous times. It shouldn't be some revelation.
Obviously, if a rule is simply put on the weapon, and it doesn't state something to the effect of "when attacking with this weapon" or "when a wound is suffered by this weapon", must always function, just like special rules on other pieces of wargear.
It must? What rule permits it? Or are you attempting to discuss intent?
The rule that says what rules does my model have. You see that first sentence? Do you see that most? Do you know what most means? It means it is not the only way, it is just the most common way, and there are other ways to give a model a special rule. You see that second sentence? You see it says attacks, yes. Do you see anything saying that the weapon can only ever give a special rule when it is attacking? Do you see a restriction banning weapons from providing a special rule under the auspices of the first sentence? That first sentence is all inclusive, and allows for me to get a special rule from the pinky of a rat if the special rule tells me I can do it. Though it does not allow me to write rules in on my own.
We can revisit the literal writing again if you like. The literal writing, does not allow for formations, detachments, or any wargear to give a model a special rule. Yep, the Command benefit rule does give a model a special rule, but only when you reference the special rule, so again your interpretation does not allow it to give itself the rules available under it, because you have to reference the rule to get the rule. It's obvious that you are not paying attention to anything but the last half of a single sentence. The literal writing of the second sentence means that attacks can only benefit from special rules attached to a weapon.
Do you see permission in the What Special Rules Do I have section that allows a model to attack with a special rule that effects attacks that is NOT on a weapon? Remember, you can't reference a special rule to get it's effect unless you are given permission to, and none has been given.
The rule that says what rules does my model have. You see that first sentence? Do you see that most? Do you know what most means? It means it is not the only way, it is just the most common way, and there are other ways to give a model a special rule.
Agreed, if you have permission.
You see that second sentence? You see it says attacks, yes. Do you see anything saying that the weapon can only ever give a special rule when it is attacking?
No. I also don't see permission for a weapon to give a special rule other than when it's being used.
Do you see a restriction banning weapons from providing a special rule under the auspices of the first sentence? That first sentence is all inclusive, and allows for me to get a special rule from the pinky of a rat if the special rule tells me I can do it. Though it does not allow me to write rules in on my own.
So, again, how do you know you have the special rule? You use the special rule. How do you know to use the special rule? You use the special rule. Repeat ad infinitum.
We can revisit the literal writing again if you like. The literal writing, does not allow for formations, detachments, or any wargear to give a model a special rule. Yep, the Command benefit rule does give a model a special rule, but only when you reference the special rule, so again your interpretation does not allow it to give itself the rules available under it, because you have to reference the rule to get the rule.
Nope. I quoted the relevant rules for you earlier in the thread. Perhaps you could read them?
It's obvious that you are not paying attention to anything but the last half of a single sentence. The literal writing of the second sentence is that attacks can only benefit from special rules attached to a weapon.
Incorrect. The second sentence does not say that.
Do you see permission in the What Special Rules Do I have section that allows a model to attack with a special rule that effects attacks that is NOT on a weapon? Remember, you can't reference a special rule to get it's effect unless you are given permission to, and none has been given.
We know if a model has a special rule, agreed?
Which means we know what the special rule does, agreed?
We then have permission to apply that model's special rule, agreed?
And there's nothing removing that special rule, correct?
Now, are you arguing intent or not? You have t cited anything other than misrepresentations of what the rules say or put words in my mouth, so I'm just checking.
Fling - if my model has permission to use the kiss of death rule, the special attack becomes non optional.
However, nothing allows me to invoke the special rule KoD UNLESS I am using the weapon. This is a known truth. This is because we are told only two ways to gain special rules, and neither is 'the special rule tells you'
You lack permission, this is proven. As such you may not continue to read the rule and invoke it. This is proven. Your entire argument is unfounded. This is proven
Your continued, dogged refusal to admit your circular reasoning is admirable, but no less flawed.
Kiss of Death is mandatory IF your model's attacks have gained the Kiss of Death special rule.
What rule says this?
The rule book, which states you only have special rules under certain conditions.
Again, show permission to invoke kiss of death. Page and graph. Cannot be within the special rule, that's circular permission, so do not reference it. Do not dissemble, deflect or fail to answer this simple query. If you do, again, you will accept you have no argument.
The rule book, which states you only have special rules under certain conditions.
Again, show permission to invoke kiss of death. Page and graph. Cannot be within the special rule, that's circular permission, so do not reference it. Do not dissemble, deflect or fail to answer this simple query. If you do, again, you will accept you have no argument.
Can you answer the actual question? I didn't ask how you get special rules I asked the question of what rule requires you to have Kiss if Death before you and read/invoke it?
nosferatu1001 wrote: No, answer how you are referencing a special rule, and invoking it, without referencing the special rule itself. Page and graph.
This is the initial permission you must show. Failure to do so, again, is sufficient to show you have no argument.
Show that I must have permission from out side a rule to reference that rule. I am referencing the rule because the situation in which the rule becomes active has occurred. Page 91 of the Harlequin codex, 2nd column, 2nd paragraph. Why must I show any other permission to invoke that rule?
Why do you insist on the circular logic of "you can't prove you invoke the rule as long as we ignore the rules that allow you to invoke the rule". For instance how does know there is and how to follow the Turn Sequence without following the Turns rules? Quote me the rule that allows me to invoke the Turns rules.
So you don't think this is a permissive set? And "what special rules do I have" is a meaningless rule?
You have to have permission to do anything. Show permission to use the rule you quote, not within the rule. That is an actual example of circular logic , unless your poor attempt
Really, you're going back to the debunked Turns argument? That was referenced already, and shown that the game rules reference turns?
So, answer it. Permission to use a special rule your model does not have. Now. No more of your dissembling.
Nope I have permission I've quoted permission. What special rules I have is not a joke title it is about what special rules you have. Does Kiss of Death care about who has it as a special rule? Surely you're claiming a model can not gain a benefit from a special rule it doesn't have? Otherwise PE, tank hunters, stealth etc don't work the way everyone plays them...
As for turns the only reference was from the Turns rules, which according to you we can't use.
As for the last point page 91 Harlequin codex, 2nd column, 2nd paragraph. Got any rules support for your baseless statements yet?
The model doesn't have the rule, so cannot make use of it. Proven.
Your continued refusal to show permission to invoke the rile you don't even have is telling.
If it is proven then prove it. Cite the rules that state "The model doesn't have the rule, so cannot make use of it". Because that severely nerfed Stealth, PE etc.
I've quoted permission for the rule to be used. You claim I can't read that rule. So do we have general permission to read the rules? If so you need a specific exception to that rule for KoD. Or do we have specific rules telling us what rules we can read? If so quote them.
Permission to ignore requirement D is in the wording of the Harlequin's Kiss. It says that if the wargear is equipped you use it's special rule. That wording for the wargear is more specific than the rule from the BRB stating when you can benefit from a special rule and so it trumps it. I have said this before and it is how I address the issue you're saying I haven't addressed.
I agree that it is a permissive rule set. I disagree that a specific rule (Harlequin's Kiss) is not allowed to break a general rule (What Special Rules Do I Have). Because the Harlequin's Kiss is more specific and because it tells us to trigger the special rule when the weapon is equipped and when the model makes close combat attacks, it trumps the requirement that the model attack with the weapon.
Instead of saying I haven't addressed this issue, please say you disagree with (part X) of how I have addressed it.
Fair.
I disagree with this part...
The core rulebook tells you that your attacks don't gain the Kiss of Death special rule. Your permission to ignore this restriction requires a special rule you don't have. At the point when you try to decide whether or not your attack gains the Kiss of Death rule, you don't have access to the Kiss of Death rule... so you can't use having it as justification to gaining it.
This is what we mean by circular reasoning.
"You don't have Kiss of Death."
"I do."
"What is telling you that you do?"
"The Kiss of Death rule."
"But you don't have the Kiss of Death rule."
"I do."
"What is telling you that you do?"
"The Kiss of Death rule."
"But you don't have the Kiss of Death rule."
etc, etc
Since the BRB is restricting you from having access to the Kiss of Death rule when not attacking with a Harlequin's Kiss, you'd need specific wording saying "this weapon ability/special rule may be used even when not attacking with a Harlequin's Kiss". Without specific wording like that, there is no real conflict. It doesn't matter what the rule says, because your attacks don't gain the rule unless you're using the Harlequin's Kiss... which you aren't when attacking with the Harlequin's Caress.
This is my core disagreement. Your permission to gain the rule requires that you already have the rule. If you don't have the rule, the rules text doesn't mean anything.
Kriswall, this is why I like debating with you. You actually read what other people write and reply thoughtfully.
I understand the basis of your argument to be that you cannot use the special rules from more than one weapon because of the more than one weapon rule on page 41 which says, "if a model has more than one melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with when he comes to strike blows - he cannot mix and match the abilities of several different melee weapons." and since the Kiss of Death is one of the Harlequin's Kiss' special abilities, you are not allowed to use it if you have used any other weapon's abilities.
You have a very strong argument and I will admit that you are probably correct. The reason I joined this discussion is because the claim was made earlier in the thread that "you must use the weapon to gain it's abilities", but there are other weapons where this is not the case. Examples have been mentioned earlier but the only one that concerns me is the Rune Priest's Runic Weapon which grant's adamantium will if the model is equipped with the weapon. Adamantium will is not an attack ability, and if the statement "you must use the weapon to gain it's abilities" is true then pieces of wargear like the Runic Weapon would cease to grant their special rules except in the combat phase when using the weapon to strike blows, rendering it useless.
I don't play Eldar and have little interest in whether or not the wargear works this way or not, but I thought that debating it would help me understand whether or not this statement is true: "you must use a weapon to gain it's abilities".
Since you're basing your argument on the More Than One Weapon rule and not on the What Special Rules Do I Have rule, I think I can safely concede that the Harlequin's Kiss will not grant the Kiss of Death special rule if you have used the special rules from a different weapon while maintaining that Runic Weapons grant Ward outside of the assault phase - no need to use the Runic Weapon to gain Adamantium Will since you are not using a different weapon in your opponent's psychic phase and thus not breaking the More Than One Weapon rule.
Please believe me when I say that I haven't been trolling, I've been playing devil's advocate to help me get a grasp on how this argument affects my army.
I think i can agree with the conclusions from this. It would make a lot more sense by RaW and cover the weapons with abilities which apply mainly out of Combat (Eldar weapons and the Runic Staff).
I don't think anyone was ever accused of trolling in this thread, it is just an unclear section of the rules that (for me anyway) needs clarification with some good logic.
So far i am still unsure about weapons such as the Runic staff to have allowance for their rules (Adamantium Will) outside of the Combat phase, but you make a good point. Weapons are part of a model's wargear, so rules similar to a Storm shield should work in the same way.
To try and describe the issue i have in slightly more depth:
A piece of wargear, such as a Storm Shield or others that say "equipped", often have rules allocated to the item.
On the other hand, the weapons we are trying to "make work" have special rules listed inside their profiles.
So a Storm shield does not say:
"Storm Shield" - Model has the "Shield" special rule
where "Shield" would be a 3++, and you would have to "activate" the special rule in some way or another.
No, the Storm shield just has "rules"
The Runic staff, or Harlequin's Kiss, however have a profile, which include a Special rule. And only by "What Special Rules Do I Have" can they activate those abilities, even if these say "equipped".
If these same weapons were:
"Runic Staff" S +2 AP 4 Melee, Force
In addition, a model equipped with a Runic staff has the Adamantium Will special rule.
"Harlequin's Kiss" S User AP - Melee
A model equipped with a HK has the "Kiss of Death" Special rule.
Then i would have absolutely no issue with the model having those rules.
Basically, my reluctance to completely agree with your point is that these rules are listed in the weapon's "TYPE". And rules listed there can only be invoked by the "What Special Rules Do I Have" rule, never by the rule itself (or we have a circular logic, which cannot work)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FlingitNow wrote: It seems likely the intent is for the Solitaire to gain the benefits of the 1 special attack whilst using the caress. However RaW is that he can't. Perhaps the codex will be clearer than the white though I wouldn't hold my breath and a proper FAQ seems even less likely.
By the way FlingIt, just out of curiosity, but you changed your point of view since the 1st page right?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Essentially I assumed you need the special rule to get the benefit of it. What's that saying about assumptions and mothers?
Except that isn't what's been argued. Just your usual twisting of others words to suit your argument
You do no have the special rule KOD. Show permission to invoke the rule, that isn't found within the rule itself. Page and graph. Or don't, as usual, a spend rely on yet more hand waving to ignore basic facts.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Except that isn't what's been argued. Just your usual twisting of others words to suit your argument
You do no have the special rule KOD. Show permission to invoke the rule, that isn't found within the rule itself. Page and graph. Or don't, as usual, a spend rely on yet more hand waving to ignore basic facts.
Why can't I use the KoD rule to tell me when it applies? Have you got any rules to support this stance?
So, Fling, if I take a Harlequin squad from Codex: Eldar, and equip them Harlequin's Kisses, they all get Kiss of Death when making their close combat attacks? After all, they are making cc attacks and equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss.
Happyjew wrote: So, Fling, if I take a Harlequin squad from Codex: Eldar, and equip them Harlequin's Kisses, they all get Kiss of Death when making their close combat attacks? After all, they are making cc attacks and equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Except that isn't what's been argued. Just your usual twisting of others words to suit your argument
You do no have the special rule KOD. Show permission to invoke the rule, that isn't found within the rule itself. Page and graph. Or don't, as usual, a spend rely on yet more hand waving to ignore basic facts.
Why can't I use the KoD rule to tell me when it applies? Have you got any rules to support this stance?
How are you using a. Special rule you don't have? Or one where another model has it that explicitly allows a model without it to use it? Worked that one out yet?
Happyjew wrote: So, Fling, if I take a Harlequin squad from Codex: Eldar, and equip them Harlequin's Kisses, they all get Kiss of Death when making their close combat attacks? After all, they are making cc attacks and equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss.
Yes that appears to be RaW.
Wow. Just Wow. So, to be clear, you're arguing that a model from an entirely different Codex, making an attack with an entirely different weapon (same name though) that doesn't have the Kiss of Death rule in its profile will still get to make a Kiss of Death attack because you think RaW supports weapon special rules to self permit?
For reference, a Codex: Eldar Harlequin's Kiss is "S User, AP -, Melee, Rending".
If I understand what you've just said, your argument is ludicrous.
I would argue (pretty successfully, I think) that Codex: Eldar Harlequins equipped with Harlequin's Kisses DON'T make a Kiss of Death attack when attacking. Why not? Because their attacks NEVER gain that rule. Just like a Solitaire from Codex: Harlequins who isn't attacking with a Harlequin's Kiss. His attacks NEVER gain that rule. The fact that an equipped weapon has a rule is 100% irrelevant if the model's attacks never GAIN the rule.
Please explain your reasoning. Please explain to me how a model attacking with a weapon that doesn't have a special rule benefits from that special rule. You are insistent that it works for Solitaires. Perhaps you can explain how it works with Eldar Harlequins.
How are you using a. Special rule you don't have? Or one where another model has it that explicitly allows a model without it to use it? Worked that one out yet?
So the text of stealth can allow a model without stealth to benefit but the text of kiss of death can't? Wow just wow.
Kiss of death tells me when it applies. It doesn't require me to have the special. It requires that I am attacking in CC whilst equipped with a Harlequins Kiss.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would argue (pretty successfully, I think) that Codex: Eldar Harlequins equipped with Harlequin's Kisses DON'T make a Kiss of Death attack when attacking. Why not? Because their attacks NEVER gain that rule. Just like a Solitaire from Codex: Harlequins who isn't attacking with a Harlequin's Kiss. His attacks NEVER gain that rule. The fact that an equipped weapon has a rule is 100% irrelevant if the model's attacks never GAIN the rule.
That's cool but please mark your posts HYWPI. Or support these debunked assertations with actual rules.
Kiss of Death is clear. It doesn't require me to have the special rule. It requires that I am attacking in CC whilst equipped with a Harlequins Kiss.
How are you using a. Special rule you don't have? Or one where another model has it that explicitly allows a model without it to use it? Worked that one out yet?
So the text of stealth can allow a model without stealth to benefit but the text of kiss of death can't? Wow just wow.
Kiss of death tells me when it applies. It doesn't require me to have the special. It requires that I am attacking in CC whilst equipped with a Harlequins Kiss.
Every Stealth situation I can think of results from a model having Stealth listed in its Army Unit Entry or from a model gaining it from a non-Weapon piece of Wargear.
Your Stealth argument is an entirely different situation and meaningless to this situation. Stealth doesn't confer to a weapon's attacks and isn't gained from a weapon special rule. If you disagree, show me a weapon with the Stealth special rule and we'll discuss it.
You obviously don't understand how models/attacks GAIN special rules. The Stealth rules text doesn't grant the Stealth rule to a model. The fact that Stealth is listed on a model's wargear is what causes the model to gain the Stealth special rule. The obvious restrictions being that during the fight sub-phase, you may only gain special rules from weapons you're using. Same with the shooting sequence. You only gain special rules from weapons you're shooting with. Non-weapon wargear works all the time as the BRB presents no restrictions for them.
How are you using a. Special rule you don't have? Or one where another model has it that explicitly allows a model without it to use it? Worked that one out yet?
So the text of stealth can allow a model without stealth to benefit but the text of kiss of death can't? Wow just wow.
Kiss of death tells me when it applies. It doesn't require me to have the special. It requires that I am attacking in CC whilst equipped with a Harlequins Kiss.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would argue (pretty successfully, I think) that Codex: Eldar Harlequins equipped with Harlequin's Kisses DON'T make a Kiss of Death attack when attacking. Why not? Because their attacks NEVER gain that rule. Just like a Solitaire from Codex: Harlequins who isn't attacking with a Harlequin's Kiss. His attacks NEVER gain that rule. The fact that an equipped weapon has a rule is 100% irrelevant if the model's attacks never GAIN the rule.
That's cool but please mark your posts HYWPI. Or support these debunked assertations with actual rules.
Kiss of Death is clear. It doesn't require me to have the special rule. It requires that I am attacking in CC whilst equipped with a Harlequins Kiss.
So, to be clear, you think that Eldar Harlequins can make Kiss of Death attacks despite the Kiss of Death rule not being present in Codex: Eldar?
How are you using a. Special rule you don't have? Or one where another model has it that explicitly allows a model without it to use it? Worked that one out yet?
So the text of stealth can allow a model without stealth to benefit but the text of kiss of death can't? Wow just wow.
Well, yes. Considering they're worded completely differently and all.
And a model without stealth still never has the stealth rule, they just add +1 to their cover saves if they're in a unit with a model with stealth.
I would argue (pretty successfully, I think) that Codex: Eldar Harlequins equipped with Harlequin's Kisses DON'T make a Kiss of Death attack when attacking. Why not? Because their attacks NEVER gain that rule. Just like a Solitaire from Codex: Harlequins who isn't attacking with a Harlequin's Kiss. His attacks NEVER gain that rule. The fact that an equipped weapon has a rule is 100% irrelevant if the model's attacks never GAIN the rule.
That's cool but please mark your posts HYWPI. Or support these debunked assertations with actual rules.
Kiss of Death is clear. It doesn't require me to have the special rule. It requires that I am attacking in CC whilst equipped with a Harlequins Kiss.
Since you've gone off the deep end and decided that rules in one codex apply to another I'm not sure if you're serious right now or not.
How are you using a. Special rule you don't have? Or one where another model has it that explicitly allows a model without it to use it? Worked that one out yet?
So the text of stealth can allow a model without stealth to benefit but the text of kiss of death can't? Wow just wow.
Kiss of death tells me when it applies. It doesn't require me to have the special. It requires that I am attacking in CC whilst equipped with a Harlequins Kiss.
WOw, just wow. More quote snipping.
You have to be able to reference the rule. A model with stealth in their special rules absolutely HAS that special rule, and can reference (invoke) it. That then allows other models in the unit without the rule to benefit from the rule.
A HK-equipped model absolutely does NOT have the special rule unless and until they attack. Until that point the special rule cannot be invoked, as you need permission from something outside to tell you you can use the special rule. This was proven. I suggest you step back and realise the road youre treading here...
Yet again you cant keep to a single story, yet another new one...any more goal shifting, dissembling to be done?
Permission to ignore requirement D is in the wording of the Harlequin's Kiss. It says that if the wargear is equipped you use it's special rule. That wording for the wargear is more specific than the rule from the BRB stating when you can benefit from a special rule and so it trumps it. I have said this before and it is how I address the issue you're saying I haven't addressed.
I agree that it is a permissive rule set. I disagree that a specific rule (Harlequin's Kiss) is not allowed to break a general rule (What Special Rules Do I Have). Because the Harlequin's Kiss is more specific and because it tells us to trigger the special rule when the weapon is equipped and when the model makes close combat attacks, it trumps the requirement that the model attack with the weapon.
Instead of saying I haven't addressed this issue, please say you disagree with (part X) of how I have addressed it.
Fair.
I disagree with this part...
The core rulebook tells you that your attacks don't gain the Kiss of Death special rule. Your permission to ignore this restriction requires a special rule you don't have. At the point when you try to decide whether or not your attack gains the Kiss of Death rule, you don't have access to the Kiss of Death rule... so you can't use having it as justification to gaining it.
This is what we mean by circular reasoning.
"You don't have Kiss of Death." "I do." "What is telling you that you do?" "The Kiss of Death rule." "But you don't have the Kiss of Death rule." "I do." "What is telling you that you do?" "The Kiss of Death rule." "But you don't have the Kiss of Death rule." etc, etc
Since the BRB is restricting you from having access to the Kiss of Death rule when not attacking with a Harlequin's Kiss, you'd need specific wording saying "this weapon ability/special rule may be used even when not attacking with a Harlequin's Kiss". Without specific wording like that, there is no real conflict. It doesn't matter what the rule says, because your attacks don't gain the rule unless you're using the Harlequin's Kiss... which you aren't when attacking with the Harlequin's Caress.
This is my core disagreement. Your permission to gain the rule requires that you already have the rule. If you don't have the rule, the rules text doesn't mean anything.
Kriswall, this is why I like debating with you. You actually read what other people write and reply thoughtfully.
I understand the basis of your argument to be that you cannot use the special rules from more than one weapon because of the more than one weapon rule on page 41 which says, "if a model has more than one melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with when he comes to strike blows - he cannot mix and match the abilities of several different melee weapons." and since the Kiss of Death is one of the Harlequin's Kiss' special abilities, you are not allowed to use it if you have used any other weapon's abilities.
You have a very strong argument and I will admit that you are probably correct. The reason I joined this discussion is because the claim was made earlier in the thread that "you must use the weapon to gain it's abilities", but there are other weapons where this is not the case. Examples have been mentioned earlier but the only one that concerns me is the Rune Priest's Runic Weapon which grant's adamantium will if the model is equipped with the weapon. Adamantium will is not an attack ability, and if the statement "you must use the weapon to gain it's abilities" is true then pieces of wargear like the Runic Weapon would cease to grant their special rules except in the combat phase when using the weapon to strike blows, rendering it useless.
I don't play Eldar and have little interest in whether or not the wargear works this way or not, but I thought that debating it would help me understand whether or not this statement is true: "you must use a weapon to gain it's abilities".
Since you're basing your argument on the More Than One Weapon rule and not on the What Special Rules Do I Have rule, I think I can safely concede that the Harlequin's Kiss will not grant the Kiss of Death special rule if you have used the special rules from a different weapon while maintaining that Runic Weapons grant Ward outside of the assault phase - no need to use the Runic Weapon to gain Adamantium Will since you are not using a different weapon in your opponent's psychic phase and thus not breaking the More Than One Weapon rule.
Please believe me when I say that I haven't been trolling, I've been playing devil's advocate to help me get a grasp on how this argument affects my army.
I think i can agree with the conclusions from this. It would make a lot more sense by RaW and cover the weapons with abilities which apply mainly out of Combat (Eldar weapons and the Runic Staff). I don't think anyone was ever accused of trolling in this thread, it is just an unclear section of the rules that (for me anyway) needs clarification with some good logic.
So far i am still unsure about weapons such as the Runic staff to have allowance for their rules (Adamantium Will) outside of the Combat phase, but you make a good point. Weapons are part of a model's wargear, so rules similar to a Storm shield should work in the same way.
To try and describe the issue i have in slightly more depth: A piece of wargear, such as a Storm Shield or others that say "equipped", often have rules allocated to the item. On the other hand, the weapons we are trying to "make work" have special rules listed inside their profiles.
So a Storm shield does not say: "Storm Shield" - Model has the "Shield" special rule where "Shield" would be a 3++, and you would have to "activate" the special rule in some way or another.
No, the Storm shield just has "rules"
The Runic staff, or Harlequin's Kiss, however have a profile, which include a Special rule. And only by "What Special Rules Do I Have" can they activate those abilities, even if these say "equipped".
If these same weapons were: "Runic Staff" S +2 AP 4 Melee, Force In addition, a model equipped with a Runic staff has the Adamantium Will special rule.
"Harlequin's Kiss" S User AP - Melee A model equipped with a HK has the "Kiss of Death" Special rule.
Then i would have absolutely no issue with the model having those rules.
Basically, my reluctance to completely agree with your point is that these rules are listed in the weapon's "TYPE". And rules listed there can only be invoked by the "What Special Rules Do I Have" rule, never by the rule itself (or we have a circular logic, which cannot work)
Permission to ignore requirement D is in the wording of the Harlequin's Kiss. It says that if the wargear is equipped you use it's special rule. That wording for the wargear is more specific than the rule from the BRB stating when you can benefit from a special rule and so it trumps it. I have said this before and it is how I address the issue you're saying I haven't addressed.
I agree that it is a permissive rule set. I disagree that a specific rule (Harlequin's Kiss) is not allowed to break a general rule (What Special Rules Do I Have). Because the Harlequin's Kiss is more specific and because it tells us to trigger the special rule when the weapon is equipped and when the model makes close combat attacks, it trumps the requirement that the model attack with the weapon.
Instead of saying I haven't addressed this issue, please say you disagree with (part X) of how I have addressed it.
Fair.
I disagree with this part...
The core rulebook tells you that your attacks don't gain the Kiss of Death special rule. Your permission to ignore this restriction requires a special rule you don't have. At the point when you try to decide whether or not your attack gains the Kiss of Death rule, you don't have access to the Kiss of Death rule... so you can't use having it as justification to gaining it.
This is what we mean by circular reasoning.
"You don't have Kiss of Death."
"I do."
"What is telling you that you do?"
"The Kiss of Death rule."
"But you don't have the Kiss of Death rule."
"I do."
"What is telling you that you do?"
"The Kiss of Death rule."
"But you don't have the Kiss of Death rule."
etc, etc
Since the BRB is restricting you from having access to the Kiss of Death rule when not attacking with a Harlequin's Kiss, you'd need specific wording saying "this weapon ability/special rule may be used even when not attacking with a Harlequin's Kiss". Without specific wording like that, there is no real conflict. It doesn't matter what the rule says, because your attacks don't gain the rule unless you're using the Harlequin's Kiss... which you aren't when attacking with the Harlequin's Caress.
This is my core disagreement. Your permission to gain the rule requires that you already have the rule. If you don't have the rule, the rules text doesn't mean anything.
Kriswall, this is why I like debating with you. You actually read what other people write and reply thoughtfully.
I understand the basis of your argument to be that you cannot use the special rules from more than one weapon because of the more than one weapon rule on page 41 which says, "if a model has more than one melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with when he comes to strike blows - he cannot mix and match the abilities of several different melee weapons." and since the Kiss of Death is one of the Harlequin's Kiss' special abilities, you are not allowed to use it if you have used any other weapon's abilities.
You have a very strong argument and I will admit that you are probably correct. The reason I joined this discussion is because the claim was made earlier in the thread that "you must use the weapon to gain it's abilities", but there are other weapons where this is not the case. Examples have been mentioned earlier but the only one that concerns me is the Rune Priest's Runic Weapon which grant's adamantium will if the model is equipped with the weapon. Adamantium will is not an attack ability, and if the statement "you must use the weapon to gain it's abilities" is true then pieces of wargear like the Runic Weapon would cease to grant their special rules except in the combat phase when using the weapon to strike blows, rendering it useless.
I don't play Eldar and have little interest in whether or not the wargear works this way or not, but I thought that debating it would help me understand whether or not this statement is true: "you must use a weapon to gain it's abilities".
Since you're basing your argument on the More Than One Weapon rule and not on the What Special Rules Do I Have rule, I think I can safely concede that the Harlequin's Kiss will not grant the Kiss of Death special rule if you have used the special rules from a different weapon while maintaining that Runic Weapons grant Ward outside of the assault phase - no need to use the Runic Weapon to gain Adamantium Will since you are not using a different weapon in your opponent's psychic phase and thus not breaking the More Than One Weapon rule.
Please believe me when I say that I haven't been trolling, I've been playing devil's advocate to help me get a grasp on how this argument affects my army.
I think i can agree with the conclusions from this. It would make a lot more sense by RaW and cover the weapons with abilities which apply mainly out of Combat (Eldar weapons and the Runic Staff).
I don't think anyone was ever accused of trolling in this thread, it is just an unclear section of the rules that (for me anyway) needs clarification with some good logic.
So far i am still unsure about weapons such as the Runic staff to have allowance for their rules (Adamantium Will) outside of the Combat phase, but you make a good point. Weapons are part of a model's wargear, so rules similar to a Storm shield should work in the same way.
To try and describe the issue i have in slightly more depth:
A piece of wargear, such as a Storm Shield or others that say "equipped", often have rules allocated to the item.
On the other hand, the weapons we are trying to "make work" have special rules listed inside their profiles.
So a Storm shield does not say:
"Storm Shield" - Model has the "Shield" special rule
where "Shield" would be a 3++, and you would have to "activate" the special rule in some way or another.
No, the Storm shield just has "rules"
The Runic staff, or Harlequin's Kiss, however have a profile, which include a Special rule. And only by "What Special Rules Do I Have" can they activate those abilities, even if these say "equipped".
If these same weapons were:
"Runic Staff" S +2 AP 4 Melee, Force
In addition, a model equipped with a Runic staff has the Adamantium Will special rule.
"Harlequin's Kiss" S User AP - Melee
A model equipped with a HK has the "Kiss of Death" Special rule.
Then i would have absolutely no issue with the model having those rules.
Basically, my reluctance to completely agree with your point is that these rules are listed in the weapon's "TYPE". And rules listed there can only be invoked by the "What Special Rules Do I Have" rule, never by the rule itself (or we have a circular logic, which cannot work)
Mixed feelings.
Kiss of Death is a Special Rule and as such is subject to the What Special Rules Do I Have and More Than One Weapon core rules. If Kiss of Death were instead simply rules text appended to the Harlequin's Kiss directly... we'd be having a different conversation as the rules text wouldn't be a special rule and wouldn't necessarily be subject to the preceding rules. We'd have to decide whether or not a non-special rule bit of rules text was considered to be a weapon ability. If so, we'd still be prohibited from mixing and matching it during the fight sub-phase. I'm inclined to believe that it would be a weapon ability.
On a related note, I'm willing to allow that "using" simply means "holding". My Solitaire has an HC and an HK. He has them in his hands, so he's "using" both. I'm ok with this. "Using" is a little vague. I'm ok with saying that a model or its attacks benefit from a weapon's special rules at all times (unless restrictions apply). What I'm not ok with is mixing and matching special rules from more than one weapon in the fight sub-phase. In essence, the Solitaire has the Kiss of Death special rule active at all times EXCEPT during a fight sub-phase when he chooses to attack with a different weapon. During the fight sub-phase, he loses access to KoD as he is prohibited from mixing and matching weapon abilities from more than one weapon. KoD is useless in pretty much every instance other than a fight sub-phase, so having it active during other times doesn't really do anything.
For the Runic Staff example, the model would gain the Adamantium Will special rule at all times... except during a fight sub-phase where he/she chooses to attack with a weapon other than the Runic Staff. He loses access to this bit of rules text as keeping it would be mixing and matching weapon abilities. Runic Staff is different from the Harlequin's Kiss issue in that its weapon ability is useful outside of a fight sub-phase.
nosferatu1001 wrote: No, answer how you are referencing a special rule, and invoking it, without referencing the special rule itself. Page and graph.
This is the initial permission you must show. Failure to do so, again, is sufficient to show you have no argument.
permission is granted by the rule contained within Kiss of Death which is more specific than the rulebook, in a codex which trumps rulebook, and as it is an advanced rule trumps basic rules.
or do you believe grey knights never can use the force power?
Finally, Sarah’s Psyker is equipped with a force weapon, so her Psyker also knows Force.
obviously the MODEL has the force psychic power by being equipped with it, not by striking with it.
If the model did not gain the force psychic power until the model was striking the model would never be able to know Force as a power, because choosing psychic powers happens before the game begins.
so RAW you can gain abilities from weapons for a model without using the weapon to strike with, there is no RAW to actually prevent this that anyone has been able to quote.
blaktoof wrote: obviously the MODEL has the force psychic power by being equipped with it, not by striking with it.
You do realize that Force on a weapon is different from the Force psychic power, right?
And no - you don't get Force for having a weapon with Force equipped, but simply for having it:
Any Psyker that has one or more weapons with this special rule knows the Force psychic power in addition to any other powers they know:
So the model never has the Force special rule, the model's attacks don't have the Force special rule...
so RAW you can gain abilities from weapons for a model without using the weapon to strike with, there is no RAW to actually prevent this that anyone has been able to quote.
Other than "What Special Rules Do I Have" and "More than One Weapon" you're right...
Too bad those rules prove your assertions wrong.
Really, youre taking an example of how a rule operates over the actual rule? A rule that was quoted directly below the text you just quote snipped?
Thats a new one even for you.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Further to Blaktoof - wrong, no conflict exists (proven) it is not more specific (proven) and codex only beats rulebook whena conflict arises.
So no, rty again. SHow permission to evoke a SR you do not have. Page and graph.
And no - you don't get Force for having a weapon with Force equipped, but simply for having it:
Unfortunately your comments are nothing to do with the actual rules
Finally, Sarah’s Psyker is equipped with a force weapon, so her Psyker also knows Force.
Really? Nothing to do with them?
Any Psyker that has one or more weapons with this special rule knows the Force psychic power in addition to any other powers they know
Or did I make up that direct quote from the actual rules?
Go ahead - tell me I'm wrong again, but this time don't tell me I don't have actual rules support when I've literally, word for word, quoted what I've said.
obviously it is for being equipped with a weapon that has 'force' that you get the Force power, by the rules as written.
Examples != rules. I quoted rules. You quoted an example. So no, your statement is (again) incorrect.
And no - you don't get Force for having a weapon with Force equipped, but simply for having it:
Unfortunately your comments are nothing to do with the actual rules
Finally, Sarah’s Psyker is equipped with a force weapon, so her Psyker also knows Force.
Really? Nothing to do with them?
Any Psyker that has one or more weapons with this special rule knows the Force psychic power in addition to any other powers they know
Or did I make up that direct quote from the actual rules?
Go ahead - tell me I'm wrong again, but this time don't tell me I don't have actual rules support when I've literally, word for word, quoted what I've said.
obviously it is for being equipped with a weapon that has 'force' that you get the Force power, by the rules as written.
Examples != rules. I quoted rules. You quoted an example. So no, your statement is (again) incorrect.
your wrong again.
The passage you stated does not invalidate that the RAW that the model has the Force power because it is equipped with a weapon that has force.
you also have failed to cite any ruling that 'having' an item is different than 'being equipped' with an item to show a conflict within the rules that would make your statement valid over any other one, and why you are trying to ignore RAW for something that says the same thing but does not include the word 'equipped' as that is the crux of your point is an extreme strawman in the land of cherry picking fantasy.
And no - you don't get Force for having a weapon with Force equipped, but simply for having it:
Unfortunately your comments are nothing to do with the actual rules
Finally, Sarah’s Psyker is equipped with a force weapon, so her Psyker also knows Force.
Really? Nothing to do with them?
Any Psyker that has one or more weapons with this special rule knows the Force psychic power in addition to any other powers they know
Or did I make up that direct quote from the actual rules?
Go ahead - tell me I'm wrong again, but this time don't tell me I don't have actual rules support when I've literally, word for word, quoted what I've said.
obviously it is for being equipped with a weapon that has 'force' that you get the Force power, by the rules as written.
Examples != rules. I quoted rules. You quoted an example. So no, your statement is (again) incorrect.
your wrong again.
The passage you stated does not invalidate that the RAW that the model has the Force power because it is equipped with a weapon that has force.
You mean the example? Since when are examples rules?
And again, how am I wrong? Does the rule I quoted say "has" or "equipped"? Which word did I use in my statement?
unless you think pintle mounted weapons do not have a 360 degree of fire, or any numerous examples where they are taking the rules and explaining how to use them in an example.
do you actually think the examples of rules are non rules?
really?
perhaps you can cite where the rules used in examples, or examples are non rules. If you cannot find a rules statement saying examples of rules in the rules section are not rules then you can maybe come up with a RAI if you want you can even add some personal thoughts on why the authors bothered to write things that are rules, but are not rules, in the rules. Would love to hear that explanation.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Really, youre taking an example of how a rule operates over the actual rule? A rule that was quoted directly below the text you just quote snipped?
Thats a new one even for you.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Further to Blaktoof - wrong, no conflict exists (proven) it is not more specific (proven) and codex only beats rulebook whena conflict arises.
So no, rty again. SHow permission to evoke a SR you do not have. Page and graph.
Nos you are breaking forum tenets here by not labelling your post HYWPI. Please do so unless you want to discuss RaW. There is no RaW requiring you to have a separate rule to allow you to use a rule. If a rule tells you how and when it applies that is enough.
Kiss of Death tells you how it applies. Now do you have ANY rules that state you can only invoke special rules a model has. Any rules to support your position at all? Or are you just arguing HYWPI?
The model has access to the Force special rule at all times with the exception being if they are attacking with a weapon that doesn't have Force during the Fight Sub-Phase. Since they can't use the Force Psychic Power during the Fight Sub-Phase, this isn't a practical problem.
So, during the Psychic phase (and all the time really except when attacking with a weapon that doesn't have Force during the Fight Sub-Phase), any psyker equipped with a weapon having the Force special rule gains the Force Psychic Power.
During the Psychic phase, the Psyker may use it's Force Psychic Power to grant Instant Death as an additional Special Rule to all weapons already having the Force special rule in his unit.
Fast forward to the Assault phase, and more specifically, the Fight Sub-Phase. If the Psyker chooses to attack with his Force Weapon, his attacks will gain the Force and Instant Death special rules. Force doesn't really do anything during the Fight Sub-Phase, so we can sort of ignore it. If it makes you feel better, resolve the rule, granting your model the Force Psychic Power... which has no impact on combat. As a special rule, it only has effect outside the Fight Sub-Phase. Instant Death does, and so would be usable.
The rules surrounding Force work just fine and have absolutely nothing to do with the Harlequin's Kiss/More Than One Weapon issue.
Permission to ignore requirement D is in the wording of the Harlequin's Kiss. It says that if the wargear is equipped you use it's special rule. That wording for the wargear is more specific than the rule from the BRB stating when you can benefit from a special rule and so it trumps it. I have said this before and it is how I address the issue you're saying I haven't addressed.
I agree that it is a permissive rule set. I disagree that a specific rule (Harlequin's Kiss) is not allowed to break a general rule (What Special Rules Do I Have). Because the Harlequin's Kiss is more specific and because it tells us to trigger the special rule when the weapon is equipped and when the model makes close combat attacks, it trumps the requirement that the model attack with the weapon.
Instead of saying I haven't addressed this issue, please say you disagree with (part X) of how I have addressed it.
Fair.
I disagree with this part...
The core rulebook tells you that your attacks don't gain the Kiss of Death special rule. Your permission to ignore this restriction requires a special rule you don't have. At the point when you try to decide whether or not your attack gains the Kiss of Death rule, you don't have access to the Kiss of Death rule... so you can't use having it as justification to gaining it.
This is what we mean by circular reasoning.
"You don't have Kiss of Death." "I do." "What is telling you that you do?" "The Kiss of Death rule." "But you don't have the Kiss of Death rule." "I do." "What is telling you that you do?" "The Kiss of Death rule." "But you don't have the Kiss of Death rule." etc, etc
Since the BRB is restricting you from having access to the Kiss of Death rule when not attacking with a Harlequin's Kiss, you'd need specific wording saying "this weapon ability/special rule may be used even when not attacking with a Harlequin's Kiss". Without specific wording like that, there is no real conflict. It doesn't matter what the rule says, because your attacks don't gain the rule unless you're using the Harlequin's Kiss... which you aren't when attacking with the Harlequin's Caress.
This is my core disagreement. Your permission to gain the rule requires that you already have the rule. If you don't have the rule, the rules text doesn't mean anything.
Kriswall, this is why I like debating with you. You actually read what other people write and reply thoughtfully.
I understand the basis of your argument to be that you cannot use the special rules from more than one weapon because of the more than one weapon rule on page 41 which says, "if a model has more than one melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with when he comes to strike blows - he cannot mix and match the abilities of several different melee weapons." and since the Kiss of Death is one of the Harlequin's Kiss' special abilities, you are not allowed to use it if you have used any other weapon's abilities.
You have a very strong argument and I will admit that you are probably correct. The reason I joined this discussion is because the claim was made earlier in the thread that "you must use the weapon to gain it's abilities", but there are other weapons where this is not the case. Examples have been mentioned earlier but the only one that concerns me is the Rune Priest's Runic Weapon which grant's adamantium will if the model is equipped with the weapon. Adamantium will is not an attack ability, and if the statement "you must use the weapon to gain it's abilities" is true then pieces of wargear like the Runic Weapon would cease to grant their special rules except in the combat phase when using the weapon to strike blows, rendering it useless.
I don't play Eldar and have little interest in whether or not the wargear works this way or not, but I thought that debating it would help me understand whether or not this statement is true: "you must use a weapon to gain it's abilities".
Since you're basing your argument on the More Than One Weapon rule and not on the What Special Rules Do I Have rule, I think I can safely concede that the Harlequin's Kiss will not grant the Kiss of Death special rule if you have used the special rules from a different weapon while maintaining that Runic Weapons grant Ward outside of the assault phase - no need to use the Runic Weapon to gain Adamantium Will since you are not using a different weapon in your opponent's psychic phase and thus not breaking the More Than One Weapon rule.
Please believe me when I say that I haven't been trolling, I've been playing devil's advocate to help me get a grasp on how this argument affects my army.
I think i can agree with the conclusions from this. It would make a lot more sense by RaW and cover the weapons with abilities which apply mainly out of Combat (Eldar weapons and the Runic Staff). I don't think anyone was ever accused of trolling in this thread, it is just an unclear section of the rules that (for me anyway) needs clarification with some good logic.
So far i am still unsure about weapons such as the Runic staff to have allowance for their rules (Adamantium Will) outside of the Combat phase, but you make a good point. Weapons are part of a model's wargear, so rules similar to a Storm shield should work in the same way.
To try and describe the issue i have in slightly more depth: A piece of wargear, such as a Storm Shield or others that say "equipped", often have rules allocated to the item. On the other hand, the weapons we are trying to "make work" have special rules listed inside their profiles.
So a Storm shield does not say: "Storm Shield" - Model has the "Shield" special rule where "Shield" would be a 3++, and you would have to "activate" the special rule in some way or another.
No, the Storm shield just has "rules"
The Runic staff, or Harlequin's Kiss, however have a profile, which include a Special rule. And only by "What Special Rules Do I Have" can they activate those abilities, even if these say "equipped".
If these same weapons were: "Runic Staff" S +2 AP 4 Melee, Force In addition, a model equipped with a Runic staff has the Adamantium Will special rule.
"Harlequin's Kiss" S User AP - Melee A model equipped with a HK has the "Kiss of Death" Special rule.
Then i would have absolutely no issue with the model having those rules.
Basically, my reluctance to completely agree with your point is that these rules are listed in the weapon's "TYPE". And rules listed there can only be invoked by the "What Special Rules Do I Have" rule, never by the rule itself (or we have a circular logic, which cannot work)
Mixed feelings.
Kiss of Death is a Special Rule and as such is subject to the What Special Rules Do I Have and More Than One Weapon core rules. If Kiss of Death were instead simply rules text appended to the Harlequin's Kiss directly... we'd be having a different conversation as the rules text wouldn't be a special rule and wouldn't necessarily be subject to the preceding rules. We'd have to decide whether or not a non-special rule bit of rules text was considered to be a weapon ability. If so, we'd still be prohibited from mixing and matching it during the fight sub-phase. I'm inclined to believe that it would be a weapon ability.
On a related note, I'm willing to allow that "using" simply means "holding". My Solitaire has an HC and an HK. He has them in his hands, so he's "using" both. I'm ok with this. "Using" is a little vague. I'm ok with saying that a model or its attacks benefit from a weapon's special rules at all times (unless restrictions apply). What I'm not ok with is mixing and matching special rules from more than one weapon in the fight sub-phase. In essence, the Solitaire has the Kiss of Death special rule active at all times EXCEPT during a fight sub-phase when he chooses to attack with a different weapon. During the fight sub-phase, he loses access to KoD as he is prohibited from mixing and matching weapon abilities from more than one weapon. KoD is useless in pretty much every instance other than a fight sub-phase, so having it active during other times doesn't really do anything.
For the Runic Staff example, the model would gain the Adamantium Will special rule at all times... except during a fight sub-phase where he/she chooses to attack with a weapon other than the Runic Staff. He loses access to this bit of rules text as keeping it would be mixing and matching weapon abilities. Runic Staff is different from the Harlequin's Kiss issue in that its weapon ability is useful outside of a fight sub-phase.
It's a good explanation, but i struggle to find what RaW your are using to support the reasoning?
As in, HIWPI i kinda said ages ago that you would of course get Kiss of Death and Caress both in combat. The current (massive) debate is about by a pure RaW setting.
Both you and Nighthowler seem to have agreed upon, for example, the Runic Staff granting it's power anytime (out of combat).
[Snip]
Sorry. Read and re-read the first comment in the text above and i think i understand what is implied:
"Kiss of Death", as a Special Rule, is "always in existence" and it's method of activation comes from "equipping the weapon", as described the rule. Which would apply in as a constant, but then "More Than One Weapon" denies its usage in combat, as you are selecting the Caress.
Permission to ignore requirement D is in the wording of the Harlequin's Kiss. It says that if the wargear is equipped you use it's special rule. That wording for the wargear is more specific than the rule from the BRB stating when you can benefit from a special rule and so it trumps it. I have said this before and it is how I address the issue you're saying I haven't addressed.
I agree that it is a permissive rule set. I disagree that a specific rule (Harlequin's Kiss) is not allowed to break a general rule (What Special Rules Do I Have). Because the Harlequin's Kiss is more specific and because it tells us to trigger the special rule when the weapon is equipped and when the model makes close combat attacks, it trumps the requirement that the model attack with the weapon.
Instead of saying I haven't addressed this issue, please say you disagree with (part X) of how I have addressed it.
Fair.
I disagree with this part...
The core rulebook tells you that your attacks don't gain the Kiss of Death special rule. Your permission to ignore this restriction requires a special rule you don't have. At the point when you try to decide whether or not your attack gains the Kiss of Death rule, you don't have access to the Kiss of Death rule... so you can't use having it as justification to gaining it.
This is what we mean by circular reasoning.
"You don't have Kiss of Death."
"I do."
"What is telling you that you do?"
"The Kiss of Death rule."
"But you don't have the Kiss of Death rule."
"I do."
"What is telling you that you do?"
"The Kiss of Death rule."
"But you don't have the Kiss of Death rule."
etc, etc
Since the BRB is restricting you from having access to the Kiss of Death rule when not attacking with a Harlequin's Kiss, you'd need specific wording saying "this weapon ability/special rule may be used even when not attacking with a Harlequin's Kiss". Without specific wording like that, there is no real conflict. It doesn't matter what the rule says, because your attacks don't gain the rule unless you're using the Harlequin's Kiss... which you aren't when attacking with the Harlequin's Caress.
This is my core disagreement. Your permission to gain the rule requires that you already have the rule. If you don't have the rule, the rules text doesn't mean anything.
Kriswall, this is why I like debating with you. You actually read what other people write and reply thoughtfully.
I understand the basis of your argument to be that you cannot use the special rules from more than one weapon because of the more than one weapon rule on page 41 which says, "if a model has more than one melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with when he comes to strike blows - he cannot mix and match the abilities of several different melee weapons." and since the Kiss of Death is one of the Harlequin's Kiss' special abilities, you are not allowed to use it if you have used any other weapon's abilities.
You have a very strong argument and I will admit that you are probably correct. The reason I joined this discussion is because the claim was made earlier in the thread that "you must use the weapon to gain it's abilities", but there are other weapons where this is not the case. Examples have been mentioned earlier but the only one that concerns me is the Rune Priest's Runic Weapon which grant's adamantium will if the model is equipped with the weapon. Adamantium will is not an attack ability, and if the statement "you must use the weapon to gain it's abilities" is true then pieces of wargear like the Runic Weapon would cease to grant their special rules except in the combat phase when using the weapon to strike blows, rendering it useless.
I don't play Eldar and have little interest in whether or not the wargear works this way or not, but I thought that debating it would help me understand whether or not this statement is true: "you must use a weapon to gain it's abilities".
Since you're basing your argument on the More Than One Weapon rule and not on the What Special Rules Do I Have rule, I think I can safely concede that the Harlequin's Kiss will not grant the Kiss of Death special rule if you have used the special rules from a different weapon while maintaining that Runic Weapons grant Ward outside of the assault phase - no need to use the Runic Weapon to gain Adamantium Will since you are not using a different weapon in your opponent's psychic phase and thus not breaking the More Than One Weapon rule.
Please believe me when I say that I haven't been trolling, I've been playing devil's advocate to help me get a grasp on how this argument affects my army.
I think i can agree with the conclusions from this. It would make a lot more sense by RaW and cover the weapons with abilities which apply mainly out of Combat (Eldar weapons and the Runic Staff).
I don't think anyone was ever accused of trolling in this thread, it is just an unclear section of the rules that (for me anyway) needs clarification with some good logic.
So far i am still unsure about weapons such as the Runic staff to have allowance for their rules (Adamantium Will) outside of the Combat phase, but you make a good point. Weapons are part of a model's wargear, so rules similar to a Storm shield should work in the same way.
To try and describe the issue i have in slightly more depth:
A piece of wargear, such as a Storm Shield or others that say "equipped", often have rules allocated to the item.
On the other hand, the weapons we are trying to "make work" have special rules listed inside their profiles.
So a Storm shield does not say:
"Storm Shield" - Model has the "Shield" special rule
where "Shield" would be a 3++, and you would have to "activate" the special rule in some way or another.
No, the Storm shield just has "rules"
The Runic staff, or Harlequin's Kiss, however have a profile, which include a Special rule. And only by "What Special Rules Do I Have" can they activate those abilities, even if these say "equipped".
If these same weapons were:
"Runic Staff" S +2 AP 4 Melee, Force
In addition, a model equipped with a Runic staff has the Adamantium Will special rule.
"Harlequin's Kiss" S User AP - Melee
A model equipped with a HK has the "Kiss of Death" Special rule.
Then i would have absolutely no issue with the model having those rules.
Basically, my reluctance to completely agree with your point is that these rules are listed in the weapon's "TYPE". And rules listed there can only be invoked by the "What Special Rules Do I Have" rule, never by the rule itself (or we have a circular logic, which cannot work)
Mixed feelings.
Kiss of Death is a Special Rule and as such is subject to the What Special Rules Do I Have and More Than One Weapon core rules. If Kiss of Death were instead simply rules text appended to the Harlequin's Kiss directly... we'd be having a different conversation as the rules text wouldn't be a special rule and wouldn't necessarily be subject to the preceding rules. We'd have to decide whether or not a non-special rule bit of rules text was considered to be a weapon ability. If so, we'd still be prohibited from mixing and matching it during the fight sub-phase. I'm inclined to believe that it would be a weapon ability.
On a related note, I'm willing to allow that "using" simply means "holding". My Solitaire has an HC and an HK. He has them in his hands, so he's "using" both. I'm ok with this. "Using" is a little vague. I'm ok with saying that a model or its attacks benefit from a weapon's special rules at all times (unless restrictions apply). What I'm not ok with is mixing and matching special rules from more than one weapon in the fight sub-phase. In essence, the Solitaire has the Kiss of Death special rule active at all times EXCEPT during a fight sub-phase when he chooses to attack with a different weapon. During the fight sub-phase, he loses access to KoD as he is prohibited from mixing and matching weapon abilities from more than one weapon. KoD is useless in pretty much every instance other than a fight sub-phase, so having it active during other times doesn't really do anything.
For the Runic Staff example, the model would gain the Adamantium Will special rule at all times... except during a fight sub-phase where he/she chooses to attack with a weapon other than the Runic Staff. He loses access to this bit of rules text as keeping it would be mixing and matching weapon abilities. Runic Staff is different from the Harlequin's Kiss issue in that its weapon ability is useful outside of a fight sub-phase.
It's a good explanation, but i struggle to find what RaW your are using to support the reasoning?
As in, HIWPI i kinda said ages ago that you would of course get Kiss of Death and Caress both in combat. The current (massive) debate is about by a pure RaW setting.
Both you and Nighthowler seem to have agreed upon, for example, the Runic Staff granting it's power anytime (out of combat).
[Snip]
Sorry. Read and re-read the first comment in the text above and i think i understand what is implied:
"Kiss of Death", as a Special Rule, is "always in existence" and it's method of activation comes from "equipping the weapon", as described the rule. Which would apply in as a constant, but then "More Than One Weapon" denies its usage in combat, as you are selecting the Caress.
Getting more confused though.... lol
Yes, it is confusing and a little non intuitive... but that's GW rules for you. But I think you have it. The Solitaire benefits from Kiss of Death at all times UNLESS he's using a different weapon in the Fight Sub-Phase, at which point More Than One Weapon kicks in and restricts him from using Kiss of Death.
I'm honestly not sure what's so hard to understand about this. The rules are designed to only allow you to FIGHT with one weapon at a time. You can either fight with the Caress or with the Kiss. Not both. More Than One Weapon says you can never fight with both. I think FlingitNow has it in his head that the More Than One Weapon rule doesn't count somehow, or that he's allowed to ignore it. He doesn't seem to understand that you can't use the wording in a rule you don't currently access to in order to justify having access to it.
Happyjew wrote: So, Fling, a model from Codex: Eldar with a Harlequin's Kiss gets Kiss of Death? Yes or no?
Didn't I already answer this? Just go read the relevant rules and it should be clear.
I just wanted to make sure you're OK with a model using a rule that neither the model, its weapons nor its wargear has.
Well if the model is equipped with a Harlequins Kiss and making close combat attacks what does Kiss of Death say happens? Does Kiss of Death care if you have the Kiss of Death rule if so please cite the rule that states this. Many people have repeatedly made this insubstantiated claim yet they have refused to supply any rules to support their stance.
Happyjew wrote: So, Fling, a model from Codex: Eldar with a Harlequin's Kiss gets Kiss of Death? Yes or no?
Didn't I already answer this? Just go read the relevant rules and it should be clear.
I just wanted to make sure you're OK with a model using a rule that neither the model, its weapons nor its wargear has.
Well if the model is equipped with a Harlequins Kiss and making close combat attacks what does Kiss of Death say happens? Does Kiss of Death care if you have the Kiss of Death rule if so please cite the rule that states this. Many people have repeatedly made this insubstantiated claim yet they have refused to supply any rules to support their stance.
Fling, I'm curious about your stance on something.
If you take the position that the Harlequin's Kiss' special rule, Kiss of Death, is always used every time attacks are made if the weapon is equipped, are you then also saying that if you equip the Harlequin's Kiss and the Harlequin's Caress together that you would be disallowed from using the Caress' special rules since you have no choice but to use the Kiss' special rule?
The reason I ask is because the More Than One Weapon rule says you cannot mix and match attacks from more than one weapon (you have to pick one and stick with it), so assuming that you are correct and you MUST use the Kiss' special rule, then what would allow you to also use the Caress' special rule (knowing that you can't use the rules from more than one weapon)?
So the fact that the rule exists, means I can invoke it at any time? This leads to madness.
Mephrit Dynasty Cohort. "All units (except fortifications) must have the Necrons Faction." When I plop my Necron army on the table vs an Eldar player... I'll simply invoke that rule and declare his army illegal. Is that RAW?
I'm sure there's other absurd examples of this.
You can't just read a rule out of context and follow it's instructions. You have to be told by another rule when to invoke a rule. Otherwise the whole system falls to madness.
Zimko wrote: So the fact that the rule exists, means I can invoke it at any time? This leads to madness.
Mephrit Dynasty Cohort. "All units (except fortifications) must have the Necrons Faction." When I plop my Necron army on the table vs an Eldar player... I'll simply invoke that rule and declare his army illegal. Is that RAW?
nosferatu1001 wrote: Really, youre taking an example of how a rule operates over the actual rule? A rule that was quoted directly below the text you just quote snipped?
Thats a new one even for you.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Further to Blaktoof - wrong, no conflict exists (proven) it is not more specific (proven) and codex only beats rulebook whena conflict arises.
So no, rty again. SHow permission to evoke a SR you do not have. Page and graph.
Nos you are breaking forum tenets here by not labelling your post HYWPI. Please do so unless you want to discuss RaW. There is no RaW requiring you to have a separate rule to allow you to use a rule. If a rule tells you how and when it applies that is enough.
Kiss of Death tells you how it applies. Now do you have ANY rules that state you can only invoke special rules a model has. Any rules to support your position at all? Or are you just arguing HYWPI?
No, I'm arguing raw. The rules have been given, you just pretend they don't apply. Because your circular illogic is circular. As ever, worthless to continue arguing.
Not sure if I'm too late to the party but here's my two cents:
firstly HIWPI and RAI for me is that he can use the kiss with the caress.... however this is a RAW argument so here goes:
first way of looking at it) This game is classified as a permissive ruleset and that means that rules affects are what is said and not what is implied, this therefore means that when the kiss rule comes into play it does not say it can be used in conjuction with the caress apart from the 'equipped part' which just implies that you get you get the kiss attack and since it doesn't actually say "this attack is made regardlesss of which weapon is being used etc" means that it because it is a 'weapon' and not 'wargear' that it's ability doesn't come into play when not using the kiss
second way of looking at it) the weapon does not confer the special rule to the character, therefore when melee comes and he chooses caress, no KoD is on the character therefore he does not gain 1 seperate attack
Here's my 2ć - there are some very intelligent eloquent people here posting in this thread. If you are expecting ironclad rules from GW it is not going to happen any time soon plus Phil Kelly more than likely wrote these rules. Remember when dark eldar first got an invulnerable save for their vehicles... A lot of people said it just didn't work. In regards to this discussion I think most of us know the intent and that's how I'll play it. Sometimes it's fun to argue and this is a hobby though so believe me when I say I understand from both sides of the fence where everyone is coming from in regards to this new rule. At the end of the day it's not worth getting out of sorts if you understand my drift.
No, I'm arguing raw. The rules have been given, you just pretend they don't apply. Because your circular illogic is circular. As ever, worthless to continue arguing.
You keep saying circular logic. I do not think circular logic means what you think it means.
I say the rule applies because the rule tells me it applies. This is not circular logic.
You say the rule doesn't apply. You prove by saying as the rule doesn't apply we can't use it to determine whether the rule applies and no other rule tells us it applies therefore it doesn't. That is circular logic as you are using your conclusion as a premise. I am not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fling, I'm curious about your stance on something.
If you take the position that the Harlequin's Kiss' special rule, Kiss of Death, is always used every time attacks are made if the weapon is equipped, are you then also saying that if you equip the Harlequin's Kiss and the Harlequin's Caress together that you would be disallowed from using the Caress' special rules since you have no choice but to use the Kiss' special rule?
The reason I ask is because the More Than One Weapon rule says you cannot mix and match attacks from more than one weapon (you have to pick one and stick with it), so assuming that you are correct and you MUST use the Kiss' special rule, then what would allow you to also use the Caress' special rule (knowing that you can't use the rules from more than one weapon)?
The more than 1 weapon says 2 things, firstly you choose which weapon to use and secondly that only the rules of one weapon can effect your attacks.
So if we have a HK and a Caress we are force to break one of those rules (either by not having a choice, or by using 2 weapons abilities). So we are forced into a conflict of codex vs rulebook and we have rules to determine how to resolve that.
No, I'm arguing raw. The rules have been given, you just pretend they don't apply. Because your circular illogic is circular. As ever, worthless to continue arguing.
You keep saying circular logic. I do not think circular logic means what you think it means.
I say the rule applies because the rule tells me it applies. This is not circular logic.
You say the rule doesn't apply. You prove by saying as the rule doesn't apply we can't use it to determine whether the rule applies and no other rule tells us it applies therefore it doesn't. That is circular logic as you are using your conclusion as a premise. I am not.
You are using a rule that you are told EXPLICITLY that your attacks don't gain to justify your attacks gaining the rule.
I have the rule because the rule I don't have says I have the rule. But if you don't have it, how can you do what it tells you to do? Because it told me to have it.
Think of it this way. You are looking at a door. The door is closed. Behind the door is a note that says "Open the door". You have to do what notes tell you to do. If the door is closed, and you can't currently see the note, what is your justification for opening the door? You have none. The door should remain closed. You're opening the door and then telling us you did so because the note you found inside told you to.
Fling, I'm curious about your stance on something.
If you take the position that the Harlequin's Kiss' special rule, Kiss of Death, is always used every time attacks are made if the weapon is equipped, are you then also saying that if you equip the Harlequin's Kiss and the Harlequin's Caress together that you would be disallowed from using the Caress' special rules since you have no choice but to use the Kiss' special rule?
The reason I ask is because the More Than One Weapon rule says you cannot mix and match attacks from more than one weapon (you have to pick one and stick with it), so assuming that you are correct and you MUST use the Kiss' special rule, then what would allow you to also use the Caress' special rule (knowing that you can't use the rules from more than one weapon)?
The more than 1 weapon says 2 things, firstly you choose which weapon to use and secondly that only the rules of one weapon can effect your attacks.
So if we have a HK and a Caress we are force to break one of those rules (either by not having a choice, or by using 2 weapons abilities). So we are forced into a conflict of codex vs rulebook and we have rules to determine how to resolve that.
Except that nothing in the Caress tells you that you must use it's rules (it's worded completely differently from the Kiss). So even if you are correct about the Kiss - that you are forced to use it's attacks - you have no rules that allow you to also use a second weapon's special rules as well.
In other words, even if you are correct that you have no choice but to use the Kiss, with the Caress you do have a choice and there are no rules that allow you to chose a second weapon's special rules. You're not breaking any rules if you play it your way, you're just never allowed to use the Caress' special rules if you play it your way.
You are using a rule that you are told EXPLICITLY that your attacks don't gain to justify your attacks gaining the rule.
So you agree one rule says I don't gain the rule and the other says I do? Is that correct?
I have the rule because the rule I don't have says I have the rule. But if you don't have it, how can you do what it tells you to do? Because it told me to have it.
Yes a rule can tell you when it applies. I don't understand why this is baffling to you.
Think of it this way. You are looking at a door. The door is closed. Behind the door is a note that says "Open the door". You have to do what notes tell you to do. If the door is closed, and you can't currently see the note, what is your justification for opening the door? You have none. The door should remain closed. You're opening the door and then telling us you did so because the note you found inside told you to.
Cool but if before hand I read the sign and knew it was there (like in this instance we have all read the KoD rule) then I know I can open the door. So I'm opening the door because we both know that note is in there and have agreed what that note says before I get to the door.
So do you have a non-circular argument that results in KoD not applying when it says it applies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Except that nothing in the Caress tells you that you must use it's rules (it's worded completely differently from the Kiss). So even if you are correct about the Kiss - that you are forced to use it's attacks - you have no rules that allow you to also use a second weapon's special rules as well.
In other words, even if you are correct that you have no choice but to use the Kiss, with the Caress you do have a choice and there are no rules that allow you to chose a second weapon's special rules. You're not breaking any rules if you play it your way, you're just never allowed to use the Caress' special rules if you play it your way.
If you don't have the choice of which weapon you are using you are breaking rules. I already covered this in the post you are responding to. So I don't understand the point you're trying to make?
Think of it this way. You are looking at a door. The door is closed. Behind the door is a note that says "Open the door". You have to do what notes tell you to do. If the door is closed, and you can't currently see the note, what is your justification for opening the door? You have none. The door should remain closed. You're opening the door and then telling us you did so because the note you found inside told you to.
Cool but if before hand I read the sign and knew it was there (like in this instance we have all read the KoD rule) then I know I can open the door. So I'm opening the door because we both know that note is in there and have agreed what that note says before I get to the door.
So do you have a non-circular argument that results in KoD not applying when it says it applies.
Let me rephrase since you obviously missed my point.
You are standing at a door. The door is closed. Behind the door is a note telling you to open the door. You can only follow notes currently in your hand, and you must pick up any note you see. Now, what is your justification for opening the door? You don't have a note telling you to do so.
Or better yet, you are standing in front of a locked and closed door. Behind the door is a key. You know the key exists and you've seen the key in the past. Does having prior knowledge of the key enable you to open the door? Of course not. Does prior knowledge of the Kiss of Death special rule enable your attacks to gain it? Again, no. The core rules say no.
Guys - I think trying to argue using reason is doomed to failure. After all, theyve jumped ther shark by saying that codex Eldar harliquins would gain the KoD rule.
Fling - your circular logic is, 40k you need permission. You accepted this. There is no permission to have the rule, except that found within the rule. Excpet until you have the rule, you have no permisison to invoke the rule.. That is what you are missing - there is no initial permission, granted by "What special rules..." OR some other source, that lets you a) acknowledge KoD or b) invo9ke it.
Absolutely nothing you can say will alter those facts. This isnt a matter of interpretaiton, this is simply a case where you are flat out, provably wrong.
Except that nothing in the Caress tells you that you must use it's rules (it's worded completely differently from the Kiss). So even if you are correct about the Kiss - that you are forced to use it's attacks - you have no rules that allow you to also use a second weapon's special rules as well.
In other words, even if you are correct that you have no choice but to use the Kiss, with the Caress you do have a choice and there are no rules that allow you to chose a second weapon's special rules. You're not breaking any rules if you play it your way, you're just never allowed to use the Caress' special rules if you play it your way.
If you don't have the choice of which weapon you are using you are breaking rules. I already covered this in the post you are responding to. So I don't understand the point you're trying to make?
Please be patient with me if I have a hard time following how you've broken any rules.
If I'm not mistaken, you're saying that:
1) You have no choice but to use the special rules from the Kiss because of how it is worded
2) You are told by the more More Than One Weapon rule that you must choose a weapon
3) Because you're not allowed to choose you're breaking a rule?
More Than One Weapon If a model has more than one Melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with when he comes to strike blows- he cannot mix and match the abilities of several different melee weapons.
The way this rule is worded, it is telling us that the reason we must choose is because we are not allowed to mix the abilities of several weapons. So telling me that you're breaking the rule that tells me you to choose by only using the Kiss' ability is an invalid argument. If the Kiss' ability is mandatory then you do not need to choose because which weapon's ability you will use has already been decided for you.
If I have misunderstood something somewhere, please let me know.
FlingitNow wrote: Yes but you still must choose. If there is no choice that rule is broken.
Yes, you must choose.
And you have no option but to choose to attack with the Kiss.
No rules are broken.
This word "choose" you keep using. I do not think it means what you think it means.
That is not choosing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nosferatu1001 wrote: Guys - I think trying to argue using reason is doomed to failure. After all, theyve jumped ther shark by saying that codex Eldar harliquins would gain the KoD rule.
Fling - your circular logic is, 40k you need permission. You accepted this. There is no permission to have the rule, except that found within the rule. Excpet until you have the rule, you have no permisison to invoke the rule.. That is what you are missing - there is no initial permission, granted by "What special rules..." OR some other source, that lets you a) acknowledge KoD or b) invo9ke it.
Absolutely nothing you can say will alter those facts. This isnt a matter of interpretaiton, this is simply a case where you are flat out, provably wrong.
There is permission in the rule. We know this because the rule tells us. We don't need another rule telling us that we can invoke the rule or the same is true of the turn sequence. Your circular logic is circular.
FlingitNow wrote: Yes but you still must choose. If there is no choice that rule is broken.
Yes, you must choose.
And you have no option but to choose to attack with the Kiss.
No rules are broken.
This word "choose" you keep using. I do not think it means what you think it means.
That is not choosing.
Yes it is.
You have a choice between yellow and blue. If you choose yellow you lose and restart. You choose blue.
You have a choice between breaking a rule and not breaking a rule. You choose to not break a rule.
It's still a choice. Or are you implying that "choice" means more than selecting from different options? I mean, you could perfectly well choose to select the Caress, but that'd break a rule.
FlingitNow wrote: Yes but you still must choose. If there is no choice that rule is broken.
Yes, you must choose.
And you have no option but to choose to attack with the Kiss.
No rules are broken.
This word "choose" you keep using. I do not think it means what you think it means.
That is not choosing.
Yes it is.
You have a choice between yellow and blue. If you choose yellow you lose and restart. You choose blue.
You have a choice between breaking a rule and not breaking a rule. You choose to not break a rule.
It's still a choice. Or are you implying that "choice" means more than selecting from different options? I mean, you could perfectly well choose to select the Caress, but that'd break a rule.
Cool so I will choose caress. That forces a rule break of either a codex rule or a BrB rule. Which one wins?
FlingitNow wrote: Yes but you still must choose. If there is no choice that rule is broken.
Yes, you must choose.
And you have no option but to choose to attack with the Kiss.
No rules are broken.
This word "choose" you keep using. I do not think it means what you think it means.
That is not choosing.
I love the Princess Bride reference BTW. But I do not accept excuses. I'm simply going to have to find myself a new giant.
So if the argument comes down to a debate about the meaning of the English word choose - whether it means to decide based on your own free will or whether it may also mean to be forced to decide - then an answer can not be found on this forum since one of the tenets of YMDC is not to debate English language.
But for what it's worth, the phrase "forced to choose" includes a valid use of the word choose, and the sentence does not stop at choose a weapon - it goes on to say that you must choose because you are not allowed to mix weapon rules.
What's more, is that this problem only arises with your interpretation of the rules for the Harlequin's Kiss. If you read the rules for the Kiss as only taking effect if the Kiss is the chosen weapon then there is no rule broken - since you have chosen to read the rules for the Caress, you never read the rule for the Kiss that says it takes effect if the weapon is equipped and attacks are made.
FlingitNow wrote: Yes but you still must choose. If there is no choice that rule is broken.
Yes, you must choose.
And you have no option but to choose to attack with the Kiss.
No rules are broken.
This word "choose" you keep using. I do not think it means what you think it means.
That is not choosing.
Yes it is.
You have a choice between yellow and blue. If you choose yellow you lose and restart. You choose blue.
You have a choice between breaking a rule and not breaking a rule. You choose to not break a rule.
It's still a choice. Or are you implying that "choice" means more than selecting from different options? I mean, you could perfectly well choose to select the Caress, but that'd break a rule.
Cool so I will choose caress. That forces a rule break of either a codex rule or a BrB rule. Which one wins?
You do realize that "conflict" is not the same as "break", right?
By saying you can choose Caress and "break" the BRB rule, you have to generate a conflict with the BRB rule.
What rule is allowing you to use the abilities of multiple weapons? KoD isn't - it just dictates what happens if you attack with a HK.
You do realize that "conflict" is not the same as "break", right?
By saying you can choose Caress and "break" the BRB rule, you have to generate a conflict with the BRB rule.
What rule is allowing you to use the abilities of multiple weapons? KoD isn't - it just dictates what happens if you attack and have a HK.
Fixed the underlined for you. So we agree I have a choice that requires multiple options. There are 2 in this case I choose caress what happens? If I can't choose caress what choice do I have other than the Kiss. Having 1 option is not a choice.
You do realize that "conflict" is not the same as "break", right?
By saying you can choose Caress and "break" the BRB rule, you have to generate a conflict with the BRB rule.
What rule is allowing you to use the abilities of multiple weapons? KoD isn't - it just dictates what happens if you attack and have a HK.
Fixed the underlined for you. So we agree I have a choice that requires multiple options. There are 2 in this case I choose caress what happens? If I can't choose caress what choice do I have other than the Kiss. Having 1 option is not a choice.
Wrong.
You have 2 choices. One breaks a rule. That doesn't mean it's not an option you can select - it's just a bad idea to break rules (because it's cheating).
You do realize that "conflict" is not the same as "break", right?
By saying you can choose Caress and "break" the BRB rule, you have to generate a conflict with the BRB rule.
What rule is allowing you to use the abilities of multiple weapons? KoD isn't - it just dictates what happens if you attack and have a HK.
Fixed the underlined for you. So we agree I have a choice that requires multiple options. There are 2 in this case I choose caress what happens? If I can't choose caress what choice do I have other than the Kiss. Having 1 option is not a choice.
If you choose Caress, your attacks gain the Caress of Death special rule, but do not gain the Kiss of Death special rule as that would violate the mixing and matching weapon abilities restriction. As neither the model nor the attacks have the Kiss of Death special rule, you have zero obligation to follow the rule.
This is how the rules are written.
You persistently fail to show permission to use the Kiss of Death special rule during a fight sub-phase where neither the model nor its attacks have the rule.
If you choose Caress, your attacks gain the Caress of Death special rule, but do not gain the Kiss of Death special rule as that would violate the mixing and matching weapon abilities restriction. As neither the model nor the attacks have the Kiss of Death special rule, you have zero obligation to follow the rule.
Well claiming you have zero obligation to follow rules is a bizarre statement in a RaW argument. You always have to follow you rules. Doing this breaks a codex rule.
This is how the rules are written.
No the rules aren't written with zero obligation to follow them.
You persistently fail to show permission to use the Kiss of Death special rule during a fight sub-phase where neither the model nor its attacks have the rule.
Page 91, column 2, paragraph 2 in the Harlequin Codex. Nothing in KoD cares about what special rules a model/weapon or attack has. Unless you can quote it? Why do you refuse to support your statements with rules, whilst ignoring rules posted and claiming they ddon't apply to you because you're special.
If you choose Caress, your attacks gain the Caress of Death special rule, but do not gain the Kiss of Death special rule as that would violate the mixing and matching weapon abilities restriction. As neither the model nor the attacks have the Kiss of Death special rule, you have zero obligation to follow the rule.
Well claiming you have zero obligation to follow rules is a bizarre statement in a RaW argument. You always have to follow you rules. Doing this breaks a codex rule.
This is how the rules are written.
No the rules aren't written with zero obligation to follow them.
You persistently fail to show permission to use the Kiss of Death special rule during a fight sub-phase where neither the model nor its attacks have the rule.
Page 91, column 2, paragraph 2 in the Harlequin Codex. Nothing in KoD cares about what special rules a model/weapon or attack has. Unless you can quote it? Why do you refuse to support your statements with rules, whilst ignoring rules posted and claiming they ddon't apply to you because you're special.
Whether your interpretation of that rule is correct or not, absolutely nothing in the rules for the Harlequin's Caress allows you to use if after you've been forced to use the rules for the Harlequin's Kiss.
The best you can argue is that the rules are broken. You can NOT argue that you are allowed to use the Caress and ALSO use the Kiss, because while you may be forced to use the Kiss (most people here seem to disagree with that interpretation) nothing in the rules for the Caress say that you are forced to use it - ergo, you can ONLY use the Kiss.
If you choose Caress, your attacks gain the Caress of Death special rule, but do not gain the Kiss of Death special rule as that would violate the mixing and matching weapon abilities restriction. As neither the model nor the attacks have the Kiss of Death special rule, you have zero obligation to follow the rule.
Well claiming you have zero obligation to follow rules is a bizarre statement in a RaW argument. You always have to follow you rules. Doing this breaks a codex rule.
This is how the rules are written.
No the rules aren't written with zero obligation to follow them.
You persistently fail to show permission to use the Kiss of Death special rule during a fight sub-phase where neither the model nor its attacks have the rule.
Page 91, column 2, paragraph 2 in the Harlequin Codex. Nothing in KoD cares about what special rules a model/weapon or attack has. Unless you can quote it? Why do you refuse to support your statements with rules, whilst ignoring rules posted and claiming they ddon't apply to you because you're special.
Whether your interpretation of that rule is correct or not, absolutely nothing in the rules for the Harlequin's Caress allows you to use if after you've been forced to use the rules for the Harlequin's Kiss.
The best you can argue is that the rules are broken. You can NOT argue that you are allowed to use the Caress and ALSO use the Kiss, because while you may be forced to use the Kiss (most people here seem to disagree with that interpretation) nothing in the rules for the Caress say that you are forced to use it - ergo, you can ONLY use the Kiss.
actually you can argue that you can choose to use the caress and also have kiss of death.
You choose to strike with the caress, and use the rules for striking with that weapon. No RaW anywhere says your other wargear that affects what the model does changes, and ignoring to follow the rules for Kiss of Death which affect the model when the model makes its close combat attacks and not the harlequin kiss weapon when striking is ignoring a specific, codex rule. There is no rules conflict preventing you from choosing caress, and there are no rules stating you may not benefit from kiss of death as it effects the models attacks, and not the attacks from that weapon. Ignoring kiss of death when a model makes its attacks with any weapon, or even if they model chooses not to select a weapon and attack using its profile- is breaking the rules for Kiss of Death.
Did the model make close combat attacks?
If the answer is yes then the model was eligible to make a Kiss of Death attack.
it is not like a model with a power weapon and a thunderhammer and claiming it can make sx2 attacks with concussive at initiative because all the weapons have those combined rules, because those rules state that they are specific to striking with those specific weapons, not to the model making its attacks. Such a model could pick 1 weapon to attack with and would have any ability/special rule that the model has that affects its attacks plus the abilities of the 1 weapon the model chooses to attack with. There is no actual rule that states it does not gain an abilities that affect the model from the other weapon, there is only a rule stating it does not gain the abilities of striking with that weapon. Kiss of death is not an ability based on striking with a harlequins kiss. Shred on lightning claws however would be.
FlingitNow... play this however you want. You obviously don't understand the core concepts surrounding how and when a model's attacks gain special rules from a model's weapons. You also obviously don't understand the core concepts surrounding a model with more than one weapon and how that relates to a model's attacks gaining special rules from weapons.
To any level-headed and open-minded readers of this thread...
A Solitaire may choose to attack with either his Harlequin's Caress or his Harlequin's Kiss during a Fight Sub-Phase.
If he chooses to attack with the Harlequin's Caress, his attacks gain the Caress of Death special rule, but do not gain the Kiss of Death special rule as that would be mixing and matching weapon abilities, which is strictly forbidden.
If he chooses to attack with the Harlequin's Kiss, his attacks gain the Kiss of Death special rule, but do not gain the Caress of Death special rule as that would be mixing and matching weapon abilities, which is strictly forbidden.
The restriction on mixing and matching weapon abilities can be found in the "More Than One Weapon" rules section.
The above is 100% fully supported by the rules as written, citations for which can be found throughout this thread, but which are mainly found in the "More Than One Weapon" and "What Special Rules Do I Have?" sections. If GW's true intent was to allow both abilities to work simultaneously, they have made a mistake. As written, a model's attacks can never gain both special rules. It is certainly possible that we'll see an FAQ or Errata at some point overriding the core restriction on using more than one weapon, but I'm inclined to doubt it. I see no compelling evidence that this was GW's intent. I see a combat oriented model with two weapons that give the choice between one guaranteed AP 2 attack at S 5 and multiple, but possibly zero, AP 2 attacks at S 3.
HIWPI: I would play this exactly as the rules dictate. Attack, pick one weapon and gain the rules from that weapon. No mixing and matching of weapon abilities.
blaktoof wrote: Such a model could pick 1 weapon to attack with and would have any ability/special rule that the model has that affects its attacks plus the abilities of the 1 weapon the model chooses to attack with. There is no actual rule that states it does not gain an abilities that affect the model from the other weapon, there is only a rule stating it does not gain the abilities of striking with that weapon. Kiss of death is not an ability based on striking with a harlequins kiss. Shred on lightning claws however would be.
Are you using the special rules on Harlequin's Kiss while attacking with Harlequin's Caress?
The above is 100% fully supported by the rules as written, citations for which can be found throughout this thread, but which are mainly found in the "More Than One Weapon" and "What Special Rules Do I Have?" sections.
You obviously don't understand the concept of circular logic and how it is a logical fallacy. You clearly refuse to read the Kiss of Death rule and apply the rules there and believe you have the power to pick and choose which rules apply to you with literally no support.
RaW if you have a Harlequins Kiss and are attacking in close combat you make a Kiss of death attack. No ifs buts or maybes. This is undeniable RaW.
HIWPI: I would only apply KoD to model's who's Harlequins Kiss has the Kiss of Death rule. Whilst this is not the RaW it seems obvious the intent, as applying special rules from one vodex to units from another without explicit permission seems unlikely to be the intent.
The above is 100% fully supported by the rules as written, citations for which can be found throughout this thread, but which are mainly found in the "More Than One Weapon" and "What Special Rules Do I Have?" sections.
You obviously don't understand the concept of circular logic and how it is a logical fallacy. You clearly refuse to read the Kiss of Death rule and apply the rules there and believe you have the power to pick and choose which rules apply to you with literally no support.
Proven incorrect multiple times. Mark your post "HYWPI" as you are not discussing rules as written.
FlingitNow wrote:RaW if you have a Harlequins Kiss and are attacking in close combat you make a Kiss of death attack. No ifs buts or maybes. This is undeniable RaW.
Incorrect, as proven multiple times throughout the thread. This is undeniable by anyone able to read the "more than one weapon" rule and "hat special rules do I ahve" rule and actually apply them to this situation.
[quote=FlingitNowHIWPI: I would only apply KoD to model's who's Harlequins Kiss has the Kiss of Death rule. Whilst this is not the RaW it seems obvious the intent, as applying special rules from one vodex to units from another without explicit permission seems unlikely to be the intent.
This is again wher eyou jump the shark in claiming a model from one codex is affected by the special rules of an entirely different codex. Proof of how untenable your argument is.
FlingitNow... play this however you want. You obviously don't understand the core concepts surrounding how and when a model's attacks gain special rules from a model's weapons. You also obviously don't understand the core concepts surrounding a model with more than one weapon and how that relates to a model's attacks gaining special rules from weapons.
To any level-headed and open-minded readers of this thread...
A Solitaire may choose to attack with either his Harlequin's Caress or his Harlequin's Kiss during a Fight Sub-Phase.
If he chooses to attack with the Harlequin's Caress, his attacks gain the Caress of Death special rule, but do not gain the Kiss of Death special rule as that would be mixing and matching weapon abilities, which is strictly forbidden.
If he chooses to attack with the Harlequin's Kiss, his attacks gain the Kiss of Death special rule, but do not gain the Caress of Death special rule as that would be mixing and matching weapon abilities, which is strictly forbidden.
The restriction on mixing and matching weapon abilities can be found in the "More Than One Weapon" rules section.
The above is 100% fully supported by the rules as written, citations for which can be found throughout this thread, but which are mainly found in the "More Than One Weapon" and "What Special Rules Do I Have?" sections. If GW's true intent was to allow both abilities to work simultaneously, they have made a mistake. As written, a model's attacks can never gain both special rules. It is certainly possible that we'll see an FAQ or Errata at some point overriding the core restriction on using more than one weapon, but I'm inclined to doubt it. I see no compelling evidence that this was GW's intent. I see a combat oriented model with two weapons that give the choice between one guaranteed AP 2 attack at S 5 and multiple, but possibly zero, AP 2 attacks at S 3.
HIWPI: I would play this exactly as the rules dictate. Attack, pick one weapon and gain the rules from that weapon. No mixing and matching of weapon abilities.
I don't think i'd agree with your HIWPI.
Sure, the RaW has been discussed, and you have a good conclusion of it, but for HIWPI i think that the "equipped" terminology, versus the more common "when making attacks with this weapon" would point to at least a significant intent for the weapon to grant a Rule as a constant (As the wording is so very similar to Storm shields and other).
The single-handed nature of the weapons would even further my belief that whoever wrote the Rules thought both should apply, but (as usual really) forgot to dust up his / her knowledge of the RaW and how Special Rules on weapons cannot mix and match.
nosferatu1001 wrote: I dont think its even that clear cut an intent argument; remember the broohahah over the NGS giving its bonus to a doomfist when it was FAQ'd?
If GW wanted to make it that no matter what, you got a KoD attack, they would have been *much* more explicit about it.
I don't see many ways of doing it, apart from: A) referencing the Caress ("may also do this attack while attacking with caress" / "with other weapons") B) separating the rule from the item (making "Harlequin's Kiss" equipment rather than a weapon)
because unless you do the above, however you might write the rules for the Kiss of Death, it will always be a weapon ability. As such it would be too convoluted to make it work (completely). Which leads me to think the the current wording is probably as close as it will get (just as the NGS was never changed, just FAQed)
C) Special rule "Kiss of Death" - if a harlequin is equipped with a Harlequins Kiss, then in addition to their normal attacks they make... (insert KoD SR text here)
This explicitly means it is nothing to do with using the weapon, and as it is part of the dataslate the unit always has the special rule. Easy.
There are many ways their intention could have been made more explicit. I do not believe that a difference in terminologyu used (equipped vs making attacks with) is sufficient.
C) Special rule "Kiss of Death" - if a harlequin is equipped with a Harlequins Kiss, then in addition to their normal attacks they make... (insert KoD SR text here)
This explicitly means it is nothing to do with using the weapon, and as it is part of the dataslate the unit always has the special rule. Easy.
There are many ways their intention could have been made more explicit. I do not believe that a difference in terminologyu used (equipped vs making attacks with) is sufficient.
Keep in mind that would require the entire Troupe and the Solitaire to have those rules (all 3 Kisses), when only models with the weapons are making use of them.
To that extent: when has GW ever given Units rules that are Equipment (Weapons) specific?
So for that RaI, keeping the rules associated with the Weapons (allowing any model to equip a Harlequin's Kiss to get the Special Rule) is what is limiting the rule-writing.
As such, I don't think there are "many ways" to do this, even if i agree that it should have been more explicit if that was the intent.
Proven incorrect multiple times. Mark your post "HYWPI" as you are not discussing rules as written.
It has not been proven incorrect, your circular logical fallacies prove nothing. The rules are very clear.
Incorrect, as proven multiple times throughout the thread. This is undeniable by anyone able to read the "more than one weapon" rule and "hat special rules do I ahve" rule and actually apply them to this situation.
What special do I have is irrelevant as proven so why deliberately say that when you know it is untrue? As for more than 1 weapon rule we have 1 rule that says I can't use KoD and 1 rule that says I must. One is in the BrB the other in the codex so which wins?
C) Special rule "Kiss of Death" - if a harlequin is equipped with a Harlequins Kiss, then in addition to their normal attacks they make... (insert KoD SR text here)
This explicitly means it is nothing to do with using the weapon, and as it is part of the dataslate the unit always has the special rule. Easy.
There are many ways their intention could have been made more explicit. I do not believe that a difference in terminologyu used (equipped vs making attacks with) is sufficient.
That wording would give them an extra attack. So if you changed it to make one of their attacks KoD oh yes you're back at the original wording...
Yes, the rules are clear. Youre using a special rule you dont even have as a model, just because the special rule says you can use it. Totally ignoring that the rulebook doesnt let you mix and match from two different weapons, youre prooposing exactly that this is allowed. The mind boggles at how you can ignore such a simple rule.
Hell, youre even proposing that a unit from an entirely different codex would gain KoD. Because "Fling logic" says so.
Your argument is done. If you hadnt spotted, the conclusions have been made, we're now discussing whether this was their likely intent. And, in case it wasnt abundantly clear, my "C" was a quick paraphrase of how they may wanted to word it and note the positioning, whcih your response shows you totally missed, is different to where the rule currently is. Because these things matter.
blaktoof wrote: actually you can argue that you can choose to use the caress and also have kiss of death.
You choose to strike with the caress, and use the rules for striking with that weapon. No RaW anywhere says your other wargear that affects what the model does changes, and ignoring to follow the rules for Kiss of Death which affect the model when the model makes its close combat attacks and not the harlequin kiss weapon when striking is ignoring a specific, codex rule. There is no rules conflict preventing you from choosing caress, and there are no rules stating you may not benefit from kiss of death as it effects the models attacks, and not the attacks from that weapon. Ignoring kiss of death when a model makes its attacks with any weapon, or even if they model chooses not to select a weapon and attack using its profile- is breaking the rules for Kiss of Death.
Did the model make close combat attacks?
If the answer is yes then the model was eligible to make a Kiss of Death attack.
it is not like a model with a power weapon and a thunderhammer and claiming it can make sx2 attacks with concussive at initiative because all the weapons have those combined rules, because those rules state that they are specific to striking with those specific weapons, not to the model making its attacks. Such a model could pick 1 weapon to attack with and would have any ability/special rule that the model has that affects its attacks plus the abilities of the 1 weapon the model chooses to attack with. There is no actual rule that states it does not gain an abilities that affect the model from the other weapon, there is only a rule stating it does not gain the abilities of striking with that weapon. Kiss of death is not an ability based on striking with a harlequins kiss. Shred on lightning claws however would be.
Let me ask you this: if the Kiss had +1S and the Caress had +2S, would you get +3S?
What if the Kiss had Shred and the Caress had Armorbane? Would you get both Shred AND Armorbane?
The reason I ask is because that is exactly what you are claiming you can do when you claim you can use the special rules from both weapons together.
If not, then where do you draw the line? Do you only allow the Kiss' Kiss of Death special rule and not Shred? How does that work, and what rules would you use to justify it?
Edited to explain that I understand you're saying you wouldn't get the bonuses to S, but "shred" and "armorbane" are both found under TYPE under the weapon's description, the same place "kiss of death" is found.
Well, just look at the Command Benefits Rule for a moment.
Done?
Do you see that Command benefits gives itself permission to provide rules to models in a formation?
Okay, so using the "circular rules argument" Formations/detachments can not gain rules through the "command benefits rule" because go back to the door/key analogy, or the ad infintum thing.
How does wargear provide a rule to models? The wargear doesn't have a rule allowing it anywhere in the main rulebook, and it is not part of the listed ways for a model to gain a special rule.
Next, how does a model's attacks gain special rules, without referencing a special rule? There are no rules granting a special rule to an attack aside from the route of weapons.
megatrons2nd wrote: Well, just look at the Command Benefits Rule for a moment.
Done?
Do you see that Command benefits gives itself permission to provide rules to models in a formation?
Okay, so using the "circular rules argument" Formations/detachments can not gain rules through the "command benefits rule" because go back to the door/key analogy, or the ad infintum thing.
No. Seriously.
Creating your army shows you have permission to use Formations/Detachments.
When investigating those rules, it shows you have permission to use Command benefits.
There's no circle there. "Why do you get to use Command Benefits?" "Because the Formation rules say so." "Where is your permission to use the Formation rules?" "In the Build Your Army section." Done.
See? No loop.
How does wargear provide a rule to models? The wargear doesn't have a rule allowing it anywhere in the main rulebook, and it is not part of the listed ways for a model to gain a special rule.
It's part of the Army List, so your statement is false.
Because it's part of the Army List, we see what that wargear does.
Next, how does a model's attacks gain special rules, without referencing a special rule? There are no rules granting a special rule to an attack aside from the route of weapons.
megatrons2nd wrote: Well, just look at the Command Benefits Rule for a moment.
Done?
Do you see that Command benefits gives itself permission to provide rules to models in a formation?
Okay, so using the "circular rules argument" Formations/detachments can not gain rules through the "command benefits rule" because go back to the door/key analogy, or the ad infintum thing.
How does wargear provide a rule to models? The wargear doesn't have a rule allowing it anywhere in the main rulebook, and it is not part of the listed ways for a model to gain a special rule.
Next, how does a model's attacks gain special rules, without referencing a special rule? There are no rules granting a special rule to an attack aside from the route of weapons.
No, the first example is incorrect, the second not supported enough.
Command benefits are gained because the Rulebook says so:
COMMAND BENEFITS
This section of the Detachment lists any special rules or benefits that apply to some or all
of the models in that Detachment.
As to how Wargear provides a rule, sure, you have to read the Wargear "Rule" to apply them.
This does not work for weapons (even though they are Wargear).
Why?
Because weapons have their own rules, defined in the Rulebook. How they work, what their profile means, and specifically:
Special Rules
The type section of a weapon’s profile also includes any special rules that apply to the weapon in question.
If you followed the thread entirely, and you are aware of the "More Than One Weapon" and "What Special Rules Do I Have?" rules, then you would know that any special rules listed on a weapon will only "be active" if the weapon is being used.
Otherwise:
NightHowler wrote: Let me ask you this: if the Kiss had +1S and the Caress had +2S, would you get +3S?
What if the Kiss had Shred and the Caress had Armorbane? Would you get both Shred AND Armorbane?
The reason I ask is because that is exactly what you are claiming you can do when you claim you can use the special rules from both weapons together.
If not, then where do you draw the line? Do you only allow the Kiss' Kiss of Death special rule and not Shred? How does that work, and what rules would you use to justify it?
Edited to explain that I understand you're saying you wouldn't get the bonuses to S, but "shred" and "armorbane" are both found under TYPE under the weapon's description, the same place "kiss of death" is found.
I'm still struggling to grasp the concept of the rule still applying (by RaW) outside of combat (like the Runic Staff).
For which, just as has been said for using any piece of Wargear: You must follow the Wargear's rules at all times, even though nothing in the BrB gives permission to, correct?
IE: You must follow the "Storm Shield" Rules because they say "when equipped"
Similarly, you must follow the "Kiss of Death" or "Adamantium Will" simply because the Weapon is mentioning "when equipped".
This is then negated by the "use" of the weapon while in combat.
Well by RAW it doesnt apply; thats the problem here.
You dont have the special rule until you use the weapon. Whether that is a rule that is strictly close combat only, or is wider like AW or the Blizzard Shield, is irrelevant.
No, i think the argument was quite convincing (for me anyway):
If you disagree, then where is the permission to follow the Rules for the "Storm Shield" piece of Wargear?
Why would a Runic Staff or Harlequin's Kiss not follow the same permission?
Permission to ignore requirement D is in the wording of the Harlequin's Kiss. It says that if the wargear is equipped you use it's special rule. That wording for the wargear is more specific than the rule from the BRB stating when you can benefit from a special rule and so it trumps it. I have said this before and it is how I address the issue you're saying I haven't addressed.
I agree that it is a permissive rule set. I disagree that a specific rule (Harlequin's Kiss) is not allowed to break a general rule (What Special Rules Do I Have). Because the Harlequin's Kiss is more specific and because it tells us to trigger the special rule when the weapon is equipped and when the model makes close combat attacks, it trumps the requirement that the model attack with the weapon.
Instead of saying I haven't addressed this issue, please say you disagree with (part X) of how I have addressed it.
Fair.
I disagree with this part...
The core rulebook tells you that your attacks don't gain the Kiss of Death special rule. Your permission to ignore this restriction requires a special rule you don't have. At the point when you try to decide whether or not your attack gains the Kiss of Death rule, you don't have access to the Kiss of Death rule... so you can't use having it as justification to gaining it.
This is what we mean by circular reasoning.
"You don't have Kiss of Death."
"I do."
"What is telling you that you do?"
"The Kiss of Death rule."
"But you don't have the Kiss of Death rule."
"I do."
"What is telling you that you do?"
"The Kiss of Death rule."
"But you don't have the Kiss of Death rule."
etc, etc
Since the BRB is restricting you from having access to the Kiss of Death rule when not attacking with a Harlequin's Kiss, you'd need specific wording saying "this weapon ability/special rule may be used even when not attacking with a Harlequin's Kiss". Without specific wording like that, there is no real conflict. It doesn't matter what the rule says, because your attacks don't gain the rule unless you're using the Harlequin's Kiss... which you aren't when attacking with the Harlequin's Caress.
This is my core disagreement. Your permission to gain the rule requires that you already have the rule. If you don't have the rule, the rules text doesn't mean anything.
Kriswall, this is why I like debating with you. You actually read what other people write and reply thoughtfully.
I understand the basis of your argument to be that you cannot use the special rules from more than one weapon because of the more than one weapon rule on page 41 which says, "if a model has more than one melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with when he comes to strike blows - he cannot mix and match the abilities of several different melee weapons." and since the Kiss of Death is one of the Harlequin's Kiss' special abilities, you are not allowed to use it if you have used any other weapon's abilities.
You have a very strong argument and I will admit that you are probably correct. The reason I joined this discussion is because the claim was made earlier in the thread that "you must use the weapon to gain it's abilities", but there are other weapons where this is not the case. Examples have been mentioned earlier but the only one that concerns me is the Rune Priest's Runic Weapon which grant's adamantium will if the model is equipped with the weapon. Adamantium will is not an attack ability, and if the statement "you must use the weapon to gain it's abilities" is true then pieces of wargear like the Runic Weapon would cease to grant their special rules except in the combat phase when using the weapon to strike blows, rendering it useless.
I don't play Eldar and have little interest in whether or not the wargear works this way or not, but I thought that debating it would help me understand whether or not this statement is true: "you must use a weapon to gain it's abilities".
Since you're basing your argument on the More Than One Weapon rule and not on the What Special Rules Do I Have rule, I think I can safely concede that the Harlequin's Kiss will not grant the Kiss of Death special rule if you have used the special rules from a different weapon while maintaining that Runic Weapons grant Ward outside of the assault phase - no need to use the Runic Weapon to gain Adamantium Will since you are not using a different weapon in your opponent's psychic phase and thus not breaking the More Than One Weapon rule.
Please believe me when I say that I haven't been trolling, I've been playing devil's advocate to help me get a grasp on how this argument affects my army.
Fair, again.
And I think you have it exactly as I think of it. In the case of the Runic Weapon, you would benefit from Adamantium Will at all times EXCEPT when you come to strike blows (fight sub-phase) and are using a different weapon to attack. There is no restriction in the Psychic phase to prevent you from mixing and matching weapon abilities, so you're free to use the Runic Weapon at that point.
BlackTalos wrote: No, i think the argument was quite convincing (for me anyway):
If you disagree, then where is the permission to follow the Rules for the "Storm Shield" piece of Wargear?
Why would a Runic Staff or Harlequin's Kiss not follow the same permission?
A Storm Shield isn't a weapon, it's wargear. Simply by having it in your Army List you have permission to use its rules (What Special Rules Do I Have).
Runic Staff/HK are weapons. Weapons have a specific requirement to use their special rules (What Special Rules Do I Have) which is over and above normal Wargear.
BlackTalos wrote: No, i think the argument was quite convincing (for me anyway):
If you disagree, then where is the permission to follow the Rules for the "Storm Shield" piece of Wargear?
Why would a Runic Staff or Harlequin's Kiss not follow the same permission?
A Storm Shield isn't a weapon, it's wargear. Simply by having it in your Army List you have permission to use its rules (What Special Rules Do I Have).
Runic Staff/HK are weapons. Weapons have a specific requirement to use their special rules (What Special Rules Do I Have) which is over and above normal Wargear.
The statement, "weapons have a specific requirement to use their special rules... ...which is over and above normal wargear" is inaccurate, or rather, it is incomplete.
The What Special Rules Do I Have paragraph says, and I quote,
That said, a model's attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using.
Emphasis added to draw your attention to the fact that only attacks require the weapon to be used to gain special rules.
Any other benefits that the weapon grants have no such requirement.
BlackTalos wrote: No, i think the argument was quite convincing (for me anyway):
If you disagree, then where is the permission to follow the Rules for the "Storm Shield" piece of Wargear? Why would a Runic Staff or Harlequin's Kiss not follow the same permission?
A Storm Shield isn't a weapon, it's wargear. Simply by having it in your Army List you have permission to use its rules (What Special Rules Do I Have). Runic Staff/HK are weapons. Weapons have a specific requirement to use their special rules (What Special Rules Do I Have) which is over and above normal Wargear.
The statement, "weapons have a specific requirement to use their special rules... ...which is over and above normal wargear" is inaccurate, or rather, it is incomplete.
The What Special Rules Do I Have paragraph says, and I quote,
That said, a model's attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using.
Emphasis added to draw your attention to the fact that only attacks require the weapon to be used to gain special rules.
Any other benefits that the weapon grants have no such requirement.
I would agree with this also, but where does: "Simply by having it in your Army List you have permission to use its rules (What Special Rules Do I Have)" say so specifically?
This?
Most special rules are given to a model by the relevant Army List Entry or its unit type.
The Storm shield is just as much part of the Army List Entry as the Runic Staff or the Harlequin's Kiss...
All 3 are "Wargear", and the second part of the rule "a model's attacks" does not exclude this?
It's not inaccurate - the only time a weapon bestowing special rules is mentioned is to a model's attacks. It's not mentioned that a weapon (again, different from normal wargear) can bestow special rules like normal wargear.
rigeld2 wrote: It's not inaccurate - the only time a weapon bestowing special rules is mentioned is to a model's attacks. It's not mentioned that a weapon (again, different from normal wargear) can bestow special rules like normal wargear.
You're assuming that the description of how to acquire special rules given in the What Special Rules Do I Have paragraphs are exhaustive. You're assuming that they are also exclusive. It's actually a loosely written guide to help you understand special rules, not a precisely written, exhaustive, and exclusive ruleset for how to tell what you have. Look at how it's written:
What Special Rules Do I Have It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule.
From the opening sentence, we are told that you have a special rule if you are told you have it: ie - it's listed on your wargear, it's in your detachment special rules, your codex or FAQ tells you you have it. But for the sake of understanding better, let's read on...
Most special rules are given to a model by the relevant army list Entry or its unit type. That said, a model's attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using.
Nothing here says "these are the only ways to get rules". In fact it starts with "MOST special rules..." letting us know right from the very start that there are other ways to get rules as well. But again, let's continue reading...
Similarly a model might get special rules as the result of psychic powers, scenario special rules or being hunkered down in a particular type of terrain. Where this is the case, the rule that governs the psychic power, scenario or terrain type in question will make this abundantly clear.
Again, does this sound like an all exclusive, totally exhaustive ruleset for how to acquire special rules to you? It sure doesn't to me. Especially with the use of words like "Might" it sounds like a loose guide explaining that the special rules, and how I get them, should be explained in more detail elsewhere.
So to BOLDLY claim that the ONLY time a model EVER gets special rules from its weapon is when it uses it to attack is inaccurate.
Let's look at the opening sentence one last time. I think it's the most informative sentence in the whole section:
It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule.
Where is it stated otherwise? On the weapon. Do I have to attack for it to state otherwise? No. Are there any restrictions on it? Yes, but only when using more than one weapon.
Just out of interest - assuming the weapon rules only apply when in use - how do people play the shield on the SW dread? It has a combat profile along with the invul save.
Does that mean you don't get the save unless you use the weapon in combat and cant use it outside of combat?
Massaen wrote: Just out of interest - assuming the weapon rules only apply when in use - how do people play the shield on the SW dread? It has a combat profile along with the invul save.
Does that mean you don't get the save unless you use the weapon in combat and cant use it outside of combat?
Let me quote the More Than One Weapon rule for you:
More Than One Weapon If a model has more than one melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with when he comes to strike blows - he cannot mix and match the abilities of several different Melee weapons.
The Blizzard Shield gives the special rule "Shield" which is not an attack ability. The Blizzard Shield does have a weapon profile S-user AP-2, so it is a weapon. Unfortunately I have to say that RAW make it look like you can't use the shield ability unless you attack with it.
There is some question since "Shield" is not an attack ability that it may still be active, but that position is difficult to defend.
HIWPI: Shield works since it's not an attack ability
RAW: You probably can't use the shield in close combat at the initiative step you use your axe.
Thanks! It's nice to get a considered and courteous response! I agree it's a funny one (much like Eldrads staff or yriels spear)
The shield and these other examples are imo very clear intent wise. The kiss/caress combo only appears on 1 model which is unique... It could be implied that it was intended to work but I think I have to agree RAW that you can't combine them
NightHowler wrote: So to BOLDLY claim that the ONLY time a model EVER gets special rules from its weapon is when it uses it to attack is inaccurate.
You need permission for a model to get a special rule from a weapon. Correct?
The only permission I read in the rule book that deals with weapons has to do with a model's attacks. Correct?
Where is it stated otherwise? On the weapon. Do I have to attack for it to state otherwise? No. Are there any restrictions on it? Yes, but only when using more than one weapon.
Incorrect - you have no permission for a weapon to apply any special rules other than when it's attacking.
NightHowler wrote: So to BOLDLY claim that the ONLY time a model EVER gets special rules from its weapon is when it uses it to attack is inaccurate.
You need permission for a model to get a special rule from a weapon. Correct?
The only permission I read in the rule book that deals with weapons has to do with a model's attacks. Correct?
Where is it stated otherwise? On the weapon. Do I have to attack for it to state otherwise? No. Are there any restrictions on it? Yes, but only when using more than one weapon.
Incorrect - you have no permission for a weapon to apply any special rules other than when it's attacking.
You don't have a special rule unless stated otherwise.
NightHowler wrote: So to BOLDLY claim that the ONLY time a model EVER gets special rules from its weapon is when it uses it to attack is inaccurate.
You need permission for a model to get a special rule from a weapon. Correct?
The only permission I read in the rule book that deals with weapons has to do with a model's attacks. Correct?
Where is it stated otherwise? On the weapon. Do I have to attack for it to state otherwise? No. Are there any restrictions on it? Yes, but only when using more than one weapon.
Incorrect - you have no permission for a weapon to apply any special rules other than when it's attacking.
You don't have a special rule unless stated otherwise.
I buy a weapon.
It states otherwise.
You're creating problems that don't exist.
So where's the permission for a weapon to bestow a special rule? Please cite it.
NightHowler wrote: So to BOLDLY claim that the ONLY time a model EVER gets special rules from its weapon is when it uses it to attack is inaccurate.
You need permission for a model to get a special rule from a weapon. Correct?
The only permission I read in the rule book that deals with weapons has to do with a model's attacks. Correct?
Where is it stated otherwise? On the weapon. Do I have to attack for it to state otherwise? No. Are there any restrictions on it? Yes, but only when using more than one weapon.
Incorrect - you have no permission for a weapon to apply any special rules other than when it's attacking.
You don't have a special rule unless stated otherwise.
I buy a weapon.
It states otherwise.
You're creating problems that don't exist.
So where's the permission for a weapon to bestow a special rule? Please cite it.
Page 91, 2nd Column, 2nd paragraph Harlequin codex. Can we move on now? You keep asking for a citation that has been repeatedly provided yet refuse to support your arguments with relevant rules. This is most unhelpful, could you please in future either cite relevant rules, clearly markyour posts as HYWPI or post in a different thread as this approach is conducive to healthy discussion.
rigeld2 wrote:
So where's the permission for a weapon to bestow a special rule? Please cite it.
Page 91, 2nd Column, 2nd paragraph Harlequin codex. Can we move on now?
No. The citation includes nothing like permission for *a weapon* to *bestow a special rule*. The citation assumes a weapon can bestow a special rule.
In the future, please cite relevant rules instead of a rule that requires an assumption. In addition, please answer the questions that have been posed to you, directly.
NightHowler wrote: So to BOLDLY claim that the ONLY time a model EVER gets special rules from its weapon is when it uses it to attack is inaccurate.
You need permission for a model to get a special rule from a weapon. Correct?
The only permission I read in the rule book that deals with weapons has to do with a model's attacks. Correct?
Where is it stated otherwise? On the weapon. Do I have to attack for it to state otherwise? No. Are there any restrictions on it? Yes, but only when using more than one weapon.
Incorrect - you have no permission for a weapon to apply any special rules other than when it's attacking.
You don't have a special rule unless stated otherwise.
I buy a weapon.
It states otherwise.
You're creating problems that don't exist.
So where's the permission for a weapon to bestow a special rule? Please cite it.
Page 91, 2nd Column, 2nd paragraph Harlequin codex. Can we move on now? You keep asking for a citation that has been repeatedly provided yet refuse to support your arguments with relevant rules. This is most unhelpful, could you please in future either cite relevant rules, clearly markyour posts as HYWPI or post in a different thread as this approach is conducive to healthy discussion.
He didn't ask about the Kiss of Death rule. He asked for a citation showing general permission for A weapon to bestow A special rule. Generally speaking, and ignoring the Kiss of Death situation for now, what rules govern how and when a weapon bestows its special rules to a model or it's attacks? This is what is being asked for.
So where's the permission for a weapon to bestow a special rule? Please cite it.
Let me ask you a question and I think if you can answer it, you'll find that answer very enlightening:
Where's the permission for a piece of wargear to bestow a special rule?
You do realize that "wargear" and "weapon" are not interchangeable, right?
I buy my weapons from the Wargear section of my codex. They are in fact wargear that I can use to attack with. War + gear? War? Gear for War? Do you get it? If I bought it from a seperate section called "weapons" and not from a section called "wargear" I might be inclined to entertain your claim, but I don't.
Your claim that weapons are not wargear is just that. Your claim. Unfounded as it is.
So where's the permission for a weapon to bestow a special rule? Please cite it.
Let me ask you a question and I think if you can answer it, you'll find that answer very enlightening:
Where's the permission for a piece of wargear to bestow a special rule?
You do realize that "wargear" and "weapon" are not interchangeable, right?
I buy my weapons from the Wargear section of my codex. They are in fact wargear that I can use to attack with. War + gear? War? Gear for War? Do you get it? If I bought it from a seperate section called "weapons" and not from a section called "wargear" I might be inclined to entertain your claim, but I don't.
Your claim that weapons are not wargear is just that. Your claim. Unfounded as it is.
Weapons are certainly Wargear. They are routinely listed in the Wargear section of a unit's army list entry. Weapons are a special kind of Wargear that have additional rules surrounding how and when they grant special rules to models/attacks.
So where's the permission for a weapon to bestow a special rule? Please cite it.
Let me ask you a question and I think if you can answer it, you'll find that answer very enlightening:
Where's the permission for a piece of wargear to bestow a special rule?
You do realize that "wargear" and "weapon" are not interchangeable, right?
I buy my weapons from the Wargear section of my codex. They are in fact wargear that I can use to attack with. War + gear? War? Gear for War? Do you get it? If I bought it from a seperate section called "weapons" and not from a section called "wargear" I might be inclined to entertain your claim, but I don't.
Your claim that weapons are not wargear is just that. Your claim. Unfounded as it is.
Weapons are wargear. I didn't say otherwise. I did, however, say that they are not interchangeable - which they aren't (Storm Shields and Power Armor don't have Weapon profiles for example).
Weapons have specific rules on how they bestow special rules.
No. The citation includes nothing like permission for *a weapon* to *bestow a special rule*. The citation assumes a weapon can bestow a special rule.
In the future, please cite relevant rules instead of a rule that requires an assumption. In addition, please answer the questions that have been posed to you, directly.
Sorry I thought you were after a relevant rule (one that applies to this situation). In that case in general "what special rules do I have" contains the general permissions for weapons to give special rules there are other examples where specific permission exists for certain weapons to give special rules for instance the Kiss of death rule.
NightHowler wrote: So to BOLDLY claim that the ONLY time a model EVER gets special rules from its weapon is when it uses it to attack is inaccurate.
You need permission for a model to get a special rule from a weapon. Correct?
The only permission I read in the rule book that deals with weapons has to do with a model's attacks. Correct?
Where is it stated otherwise? On the weapon. Do I have to attack for it to state otherwise? No. Are there any restrictions on it? Yes, but only when using more than one weapon.
Incorrect - you have no permission for a weapon to apply any special rules other than when it's attacking.
But if a weapon has a special rule that grants a benefit merely from having it equipped (or bearing it), you are then given specific permission to utilize that special rule even when not "using" that weapon in combat. I personally believe this falls under the "Advanced Rule vs Basic Rule" conflict resolution. A special rule overrides a basic rule. The basic rule is, you can't gain special rules from two different melee weapons in combat when striking. The special rule for some of these weapons states you gain the benefit simply by having the piece of wargear, no need to actually use it. Since it specifically states that a model gains a benefit simply by equipping or bearing the weapon, you are not utilizing the benefit just "when striking" as you alway have that benefit.
For example, the Blade of Blood has the Bloodlust special rule which states the bearer of the weapon gains the Rampage special rule. That means that by equipping the Blade of Blood, that model now has the Rampage special rule. It has Rampage thru all stages of the game, not just when it strikes. When a weapon has a benefit that is granted simply by equipping it, that model gains that benefit throughout the game, not just when it strikes (however, those benefits may not actually do anything UNTIL the model strikes, but that's not relevent to the rule).
So where's the permission for a weapon to bestow a special rule? Please cite it.
Let me ask you a question and I think if you can answer it, you'll find that answer very enlightening:
Where's the permission for a piece of wargear to bestow a special rule?
You do realize that "wargear" and "weapon" are not interchangeable, right?
I buy my weapons from the Wargear section of my codex. They are in fact wargear that I can use to attack with. War + gear? War? Gear for War? Do you get it? If I bought it from a seperate section called "weapons" and not from a section called "wargear" I might be inclined to entertain your claim, but I don't.
Your claim that weapons are not wargear is just that. Your claim. Unfounded as it is.
Weapons are wargear. I didn't say otherwise. I did, however, say that they are not interchangeable - which they aren't (Storm Shields and Power Armor don't have Weapon profiles for example).
Weapons have specific rules on how they bestow special rules.
And are also governed by the rules covering wargear.
No. The citation includes nothing like permission for *a weapon* to *bestow a special rule*. The citation assumes a weapon can bestow a special rule.
In the future, please cite relevant rules instead of a rule that requires an assumption. In addition, please answer the questions that have been posed to you, directly.
Sorry I thought you were after a relevant rule (one that applies to this situation).
So you weren't following the conversation?
In that case in general "what special rules do I have" contains the general permissions for weapons to give special rules
Are you sure? The only reference to "weapons" in that paragraph is how weapons bestow special rules on a model's attacks.
Weapons are wargear. I didn't say otherwise. I did, however, say that they are not interchangeable - which they aren't (Storm Shields and Power Armor don't have Weapon profiles for example).
Weapons have specific rules on how they bestow special rules.
You still haven't answered my question.
Where's the permission for a piece of wargear to bestow a special rule?
I'd like a page number at least if you're able to find it.
NightHowler wrote: So to BOLDLY claim that the ONLY time a model EVER gets special rules from its weapon is when it uses it to attack is inaccurate.
You need permission for a model to get a special rule from a weapon. Correct?
The only permission I read in the rule book that deals with weapons has to do with a model's attacks. Correct?
Where is it stated otherwise? On the weapon. Do I have to attack for it to state otherwise? No. Are there any restrictions on it? Yes, but only when using more than one weapon.
Incorrect - you have no permission for a weapon to apply any special rules other than when it's attacking.
But if a weapon has a special rule that grants a benefit merely from having it equipped (or bearing it), you are then given specific permission to utilize that special rule even when not "using" that weapon in combat. I personally believe this falls under the "Advanced Rule vs Basic Rule" conflict resolution. A special rule overrides a basic rule. The basic rule is, you can't gain special rules from two different melee weapons in combat when striking. The special rule for some of these weapons states you gain the benefit simply by having the piece of wargear, no need to actually use it. Since it specifically states that a model gains a benefit simply by equipping or bearing the weapon, you are not utilizing the benefit just "when striking" as you alway have that benefit.
Again, can you cite a single rule that allows a weapon to bestow special rules outside of to a model's attacks?
I'm seriously asking.
For example, the Blade of Blood has the Bloodlust special rule which states the bearer of the weapon gains the Rampage special rule. That means that by equipping the Blade of Blood, that model now has the Rampage special rule. It has Rampage thru all stages of the game, not just when it strikes. When a weapon has a benefit that is granted simply by equipping it, that model gains that benefit throughout the game, not just when it strikes (however, those benefits may not actually do anything UNTIL the model strikes, but that's not relevent to the rule).
That might be the intent - and I'd play it that way. That isn't what the rules actually say.
Weapons are wargear. I didn't say otherwise. I did, however, say that they are not interchangeable - which they aren't (Storm Shields and Power Armor don't have Weapon profiles for example).
Weapons have specific rules on how they bestow special rules.
You still haven't answered my question.
Where's the permission for a piece of wargear to bestow a special rule?
I'd like a page number at least if you're able to find it.
I have answered that question. Multiple times in fact. And you've replied to it.
So instead of asking for something I've already provided, perhaps you could get to your point?
I have answered that question. Multiple times in fact. And you've replied to it.
So instead of asking for something I've already provided, perhaps you could get to your point?
No you haven't.
I want you to quote me the rule that specifically says you get special rules from wargear.
I have answered that question. Multiple times in fact. And you've replied to it.
So instead of asking for something I've already provided, perhaps you could get to your point?
No you haven't.
I want you to quote me the rule that specifically says you get special rules from wargear.
Not a paraphrase, a quote.
Then we're done. Because I have provided that. And I refuse to interact with someone who is refusing to actually read what's being said, and refuses to cite rules support for their statements.
To hopefully stop this Wargear vs. Weapon debate...
Weapons are a form of Wargear.
Wargear items that have Special Rules grant those Special Rules to their owning models AT ALL TIMES unless restrictions are present. Weapons, on the other hand, only grant special rules to a model or its attacks when being used. "Used" is never defined in the rules, but I'm willing to allow the most vague and broad definition of "the model has the weapon".
There is a restriction present preventing Weapons from granting Special Rules to a model or its attacks during a Fight Sub-Phase where another Weapon is being used. This is the More Than One Weapon rule.
The net result is that non-Weapon Wargear works ALL THE TIME while Weapon Wargear works ALL THE TIME outside of the Fight Sub-Phase and only when being used to attack DURING the Fight Sub-Phase.
Examples:
1. A Runic Staff grants Adamantium Will AT ALL TIMES unless the owning model is using another Weapon during the Fight Sub-Phase.
2. A Harlequin's Kiss grants Kiss of Death AT ALL TIMES unless the owning model is using another Weapon during the Fight Sub-Phase.
FlingitNow's entire argument is predicated upon a model's attacks being allowed to gain a special rule from a weapon during the Fight Sub-Phase when not being used... a situation the core rules forbid. As he has no specific wording overriding this restriction (i.e. 'you can use the Kiss of Death attack even when not attacking with your Harlequin's Kiss'), we are forced to say his position is wrong.
Then we're done. Because I have provided that. And I refuse to interact with someone who is refusing to actually read what's being said, and refuses to cite rules support for their statements.
Lol. You mean we're done because you can't quote anything specifically stating that wargear gives you a special rule. You can find where it says Army List Entry, or Unit Type, but nowhere does it say Wargear.
The reason it doesn't is because they expect you to be smart enough to understand that you would read the special rule on the wargear and apply it without being told you had to do that. Weapons are wargear and just like any other wargear they come with special rules, some of which do not require you to attack or use the weapon for those rules to trigger.
To hopefully stop this Wargear vs. Weapon debate...
Weapons are a form of Wargear.
Wargear items that have Special Rules grant those Special Rules to their owning models AT ALL TIMES unless restrictions are present. Weapons, on the other hand, only grant special rules to a model or its attacks when being used. "Used" is never defined in the rules, but I'm willing to allow the most vague and broad definition of "the model has the weapon".
There is a restriction present preventing Weapons from granting Special Rules to a model or its attacks during a Fight Sub-Phase where another Weapon is being used. This is the More Than One Weapon rule.
The net result is that non-Weapon Wargear works ALL THE TIME while Weapon Wargear works ALL THE TIME outside of the Fight Sub-Phase and only when being used to attack DURING the Fight Sub-Phase.
Examples:
1. A Runic Staff grants Adamantium Will AT ALL TIMES unless the owning model is using another Weapon during the Fight Sub-Phase.
2. A Harlequin's Kiss grants Kiss of Death AT ALL TIMES unless the owning model is using another Weapon during the Fight Sub-Phase.
FlingitNow's entire argument is predicated upon a model's attacks being allowed to gain a special rule from a weapon during the Fight Sub-Phase when not being used... a situation the core rules forbid. As he has no specific wording overriding this restriction (i.e. 'you can use the Kiss of Death attack even when not attacking with your Harlequin's Kiss'), we are forced to say his position is wrong.
By this logic, a model using a weapon with the Specialist Weapon USR can NEVER gain +1 attack if it has multiple weapons with the Specialist Weapon USR, because the off-hand weapon is not being used, therefore, the Specialist Weapon USR can't be invoked.
No. The citation includes nothing like permission for *a weapon* to *bestow a special rule*. The citation assumes a weapon can bestow a special rule.
In the future, please cite relevant rules instead of a rule that requires an assumption. In addition, please answer the questions that have been posed to you, directly.
Sorry I thought you were after a relevant rule (one that applies to this situation).
So you weren't following the conversation?
In that case in general "what special rules do I have" contains the general permissions for weapons to give special rules
Are you sure? The only reference to "weapons" in that paragraph is how weapons bestow special rules on a model's attacks.
Nope there is more there (for instance unless otherwise stated).
ClassicCarraway wrote: By this logic, a model using a weapon with the Specialist Weapon USR can NEVER gain +1 attack if it has multiple weapons with the Specialist Weapon USR, because the off-hand weapon is not being used, therefore, the Specialist Weapon USR can't be invoked.
Correct. As has been covered multiple times in this thread.
Then we're done. Because I have provided that. And I refuse to interact with someone who is refusing to actually read what's being said, and refuses to cite rules support for their statements.
Lol. You mean we're done because you can't quote anything specifically stating that wargear gives you a special rule. You can find where it says Army List Entry, or Unit Type, but nowhere does it say Wargear.
The reason it doesn't is because they expect you to be smart enough to understand that you would read the special rule on the wargear and apply it without being told you had to do that. Weapons are wargear and just like any other wargear they come with special rules, some of which do not require you to attack or use the weapon for those rules to trigger.
Yeah QED, I think we're done. RaW is clear, made up rules based on circular logic is not RaW no matter how much some people want it to be.
ClassicCarraway wrote: By this logic, a model using a weapon with the Specialist Weapon USR can NEVER gain +1 attack if it has multiple weapons with the Specialist Weapon USR, because the off-hand weapon is not being used, therefore, the Specialist Weapon USR can't be invoked.
Correct. As has been covered multiple times in this thread.
This is just one of multiple possible ludicrous scenarios that develop if you misread the rules this way.
To hopefully stop this Wargear vs. Weapon debate...
Weapons are a form of Wargear.
Wargear items that have Special Rules grant those Special Rules to their owning models AT ALL TIMES unless restrictions are present. Weapons, on the other hand, only grant special rules to a model or its attacks when being used. "Used" is never defined in the rules, but I'm willing to allow the most vague and broad definition of "the model has the weapon".
There is a restriction present preventing Weapons from granting Special Rules to a model or its attacks during a Fight Sub-Phase where another Weapon is being used. This is the More Than One Weapon rule.
The net result is that non-Weapon Wargear works ALL THE TIME while Weapon Wargear works ALL THE TIME outside of the Fight Sub-Phase and only when being used to attack DURING the Fight Sub-Phase.
Examples:
1. A Runic Staff grants Adamantium Will AT ALL TIMES unless the owning model is using another Weapon during the Fight Sub-Phase.
2. A Harlequin's Kiss grants Kiss of Death AT ALL TIMES unless the owning model is using another Weapon during the Fight Sub-Phase.
FlingitNow's entire argument is predicated upon a model's attacks being allowed to gain a special rule from a weapon during the Fight Sub-Phase when not being used... a situation the core rules forbid. As he has no specific wording overriding this restriction (i.e. 'you can use the Kiss of Death attack even when not attacking with your Harlequin's Kiss'), we are forced to say his position is wrong.
By this logic, a model using a weapon with the Specialist Weapon USR can NEVER gain +1 attack if it has multiple weapons with the Specialist Weapon USR, because the off-hand weapon is not being used, therefore, the Specialist Weapon USR can't be invoked.
Specialist Weapon works absolutely fine. Say I'm equipped with a Lightning Claw and a Power Fist. I choose to attack with the Lightning Claw. I gain the Specialist Weapon special rule from the Lightning Claw, but DO NOT gain it from the Power Fist as that would be mixing and matching weapon abilities. When I look at the rule (gained from my Lightning Claw), I am told that "A model fighting with this weapon (the Lightning Claw) does not receive +1 Attack for fighting with two weapons unless it is armed with two or more Melee weapons with the Specialist Weapon rule". Is my model armed with two or more Melee weapons with the Specialist Weapon rule. Yes. The Lightning Claw has the rule and the Power Fist has the rule and my model is armed with both. Remember, there is a huge difference between a weapon having a rule and attacks made by a model gaining special rules from a weapon.
To hopefully stop this Wargear vs. Weapon debate...
Weapons are a form of Wargear.
Wargear items that have Special Rules grant those Special Rules to their owning models AT ALL TIMES unless restrictions are present. Weapons, on the other hand, only grant special rules to a model or its attacks when being used. "Used" is never defined in the rules, but I'm willing to allow the most vague and broad definition of "the model has the weapon".
There is a restriction present preventing Weapons from granting Special Rules to a model or its attacks during a Fight Sub-Phase where another Weapon is being used. This is the More Than One Weapon rule.
The net result is that non-Weapon Wargear works ALL THE TIME while Weapon Wargear works ALL THE TIME outside of the Fight Sub-Phase and only when being used to attack DURING the Fight Sub-Phase.
Examples:
1. A Runic Staff grants Adamantium Will AT ALL TIMES unless the owning model is using another Weapon during the Fight Sub-Phase.
2. A Harlequin's Kiss grants Kiss of Death AT ALL TIMES unless the owning model is using another Weapon during the Fight Sub-Phase.
FlingitNow's entire argument is predicated upon a model's attacks being allowed to gain a special rule from a weapon during the Fight Sub-Phase when not being used... a situation the core rules forbid. As he has no specific wording overriding this restriction (i.e. 'you can use the Kiss of Death attack even when not attacking with your Harlequin's Kiss'), we are forced to say his position is wrong.
By this logic, a model using a weapon with the Specialist Weapon USR can NEVER gain +1 attack if it has multiple weapons with the Specialist Weapon USR, because the off-hand weapon is not being used, therefore, the Specialist Weapon USR can't be invoked.
Specialist Weapon works absolutely fine. Say I'm equipped with a Lightning Claw and a Power Fist. I choose to attack with the Lightning Claw. I gain the Specialist Weapon special rule from the Lightning Claw, but DO NOT gain it from the Power Fist as that would be mixing and matching weapon abilities. When I look at the rule (gained from my Lightning Claw), I am told that "A model fighting with this weapon (the Lightning Claw) does not receive +1 Attack for fighting with two weapons unless it is armed with two or more Melee weapons with the Specialist Weapon rule". Is my model armed with two or more Melee weapons with the Specialist Weapon rule. Yes. The Lightning Claw has the rule and the Power Fist has the rule and my model is armed with both. Remember, there is a huge difference between a weapon having a rule and attacks made by a model gaining special rules from a weapon.
Kriswall, you are correct.
But with Rigeld's interpretation of the rules, your second weapon doesn't have the "Specialist Weapon" special rule unless you attack with it and since you cannot mix attacks from more than one weapon, you would never be able to "use" the second weapon and so never "activate" the special rule on it (the most important of which in this case is "specialist weapon"). So, according to his interpretation, you can never get the +1 attack from having 2 specialist weapons because only 1 will ever have a special rule you can use.
NightHowler wrote: So to BOLDLY claim that the ONLY time a model EVER gets special rules from its weapon is when it uses it to attack is inaccurate.
You need permission for a model to get a special rule from a weapon. Correct?
The only permission I read in the rule book that deals with weapons has to do with a model's attacks. Correct?
Where is it stated otherwise? On the weapon. Do I have to attack for it to state otherwise? No. Are there any restrictions on it? Yes, but only when using more than one weapon.
Incorrect - you have no permission for a weapon to apply any special rules other than when it's attacking.
But if a weapon has a special rule that grants a benefit merely from having it equipped (or bearing it), you are then given specific permission to utilize that special rule even when not "using" that weapon in combat. I personally believe this falls under the "Advanced Rule vs Basic Rule" conflict resolution. A special rule overrides a basic rule. The basic rule is, you can't gain special rules from two different melee weapons in combat when striking. The special rule for some of these weapons states you gain the benefit simply by having the piece of wargear, no need to actually use it. Since it specifically states that a model gains a benefit simply by equipping or bearing the weapon, you are not utilizing the benefit just "when striking" as you alway have that benefit.
Again, can you cite a single rule that allows a weapon to bestow special rules outside of to a model's attacks?
I'm seriously asking.
I did cite a rule that allows a weapon to bestow a special rule outside of a model's attacks. I cited the EXACT rule for the Blade of Blood that specifically grants a USR to a model that bears the weapon. Numerous people have cited the EXACT rule for Harlequin's Kiss that grants a special benefit if the weapon is equipped. If the weapon's special rule specifically states a model gains a rule simply by equiping, bearing, or carrying said weapon, that model gains the rule/benefits described because we are specifically told they do. This overrides the basic rule about multiple weapons because there is a conflict between the Advanced rule and the Basic rule.
Are we now given permission to ignore special rules that are on equipped wargear now? By not applying the rule for the Harlequin's Kiss to a model equipped with it, you are breaking the rule because you are specifically told to apply it if the weapon is equipped.
A newer example for this is the new Colossal special rule on the BT with the 2-handed axe. That rule specifically states that a model carrying the weapon piles in and strikes at Initiative Step 1. Why use vastly different wording than Unwieldy (which states a model attacking with) for the Colossal rule unless it means that the rule applies even if you are not attacking with that weapon?
To hopefully stop this Wargear vs. Weapon debate...
Weapons are a form of Wargear.
Wargear items that have Special Rules grant those Special Rules to their owning models AT ALL TIMES unless restrictions are present. Weapons, on the other hand, only grant special rules to a model or its attacks when being used. "Used" is never defined in the rules, but I'm willing to allow the most vague and broad definition of "the model has the weapon".
There is a restriction present preventing Weapons from granting Special Rules to a model or its attacks during a Fight Sub-Phase where another Weapon is being used. This is the More Than One Weapon rule.
The net result is that non-Weapon Wargear works ALL THE TIME while Weapon Wargear works ALL THE TIME outside of the Fight Sub-Phase and only when being used to attack DURING the Fight Sub-Phase.
Examples:
1. A Runic Staff grants Adamantium Will AT ALL TIMES unless the owning model is using another Weapon during the Fight Sub-Phase.
2. A Harlequin's Kiss grants Kiss of Death AT ALL TIMES unless the owning model is using another Weapon during the Fight Sub-Phase.
FlingitNow's entire argument is predicated upon a model's attacks being allowed to gain a special rule from a weapon during the Fight Sub-Phase when not being used... a situation the core rules forbid. As he has no specific wording overriding this restriction (i.e. 'you can use the Kiss of Death attack even when not attacking with your Harlequin's Kiss'), we are forced to say his position is wrong.
By this logic, a model using a weapon with the Specialist Weapon USR can NEVER gain +1 attack if it has multiple weapons with the Specialist Weapon USR, because the off-hand weapon is not being used, therefore, the Specialist Weapon USR can't be invoked.
Specialist Weapon works absolutely fine. Say I'm equipped with a Lightning Claw and a Power Fist. I choose to attack with the Lightning Claw. I gain the Specialist Weapon special rule from the Lightning Claw, but DO NOT gain it from the Power Fist as that would be mixing and matching weapon abilities. When I look at the rule (gained from my Lightning Claw), I am told that "A model fighting with this weapon (the Lightning Claw) does not receive +1 Attack for fighting with two weapons unless it is armed with two or more Melee weapons with the Specialist Weapon rule". Is my model armed with two or more Melee weapons with the Specialist Weapon rule. Yes. The Lightning Claw has the rule and the Power Fist has the rule and my model is armed with both. Remember, there is a huge difference between a weapon having a rule and attacks made by a model gaining special rules from a weapon.
Kriswall, you are correct.
But with Rigeld's interpretation of the rules, your second weapon doesn't have the "Specialist Weapon" special rule unless you attack with it and since you cannot mix attacks from more than one weapon, you would never be able to "use" the second weapon and so never "activate" the special rule on it (the most important of which in this case is "specialist weapon"). So, according to his interpretation, you can never get the +1 attack from having 2 specialist weapons because only 1 will ever have a special rule you can use.
The second weapon always HAS the special rule, it just doesn't confer that rule to the model's attacks. That, I think, is why his interpretation is flawed. There is a huge difference between a weapon having a special rule (i.e. having it written in the weapon's profile) and conferring said rule to a model or its attacks. In the case of Specialist Weapon and my example above, we are never asking the Power Fist to confer Specialist Weapon to the model or its attacks. The instance of Specialist Weapon gained from the Lightning Claw is simply confirming that a second weapon (the Power Fist) has the Specialist Weapon special rule written on its profile.
ClassicCarraway wrote: I did cite a rule that allows a weapon to bestow a special rule outside of a model's attacks.
No. You cited what a single special rule does. What you're saying is this:
"What permission do you have to use the Rampage special rule?"
"Bloodlust gives it to me."
"What gives you Bloodlust?"
"Bloodlust."
"No, I mean what rule allows you to use Bloodlust?"
"Bloodlust."
That's not an argument. That's an assertion without support.
A newer example for this is the new Colossal special rule on the BT with the 2-handed axe. That rule specifically states that a model carrying the weapon piles in and strikes at Initiative Step 1. Why use vastly different wording than Unwieldy (which states a model attacking with) for the Colossal rule unless it means that the rule applies even if you are not attacking with that weapon?
Because GW has no idea what the rules they write actually mean?
ClassicCarraway wrote: I did cite a rule that allows a weapon to bestow a special rule outside of a model's attacks.
No. You cited what a single special rule does. What you're saying is this:
"What permission do you have to use the Rampage special rule?"
"Bloodlust gives it to me."
"What gives you Bloodlust?"
"Bloodlust."
"No, I mean what rule allows you to use Bloodlust?"
"Bloodlust."
That's not an argument. That's an assertion without support.
A newer example for this is the new Colossal special rule on the BT with the 2-handed axe. That rule specifically states that a model carrying the weapon piles in and strikes at Initiative Step 1. Why use vastly different wording than Unwieldy (which states a model attacking with) for the Colossal rule unless it means that the rule applies even if you are not attacking with that weapon?
Because GW has no idea what the rules they write actually mean?
Where does it specifically state that a weapon's special rules ONLY apply if attacking with said special weapon? A special rule is just that, a rule that can override a basic rule. A weapon can have a special rule that grants another rule to the model, and it doesn't have to be when attacking. Multiple examples have been provided. The special rule will actually cover the specfics as to how to apply it. Where is it stated that I can ignore a special rule on an equipped weapon that specifically states the rule applies if its equipped?
Harlequin's Kiss specifically tells us we have permission to do something if its equipped. By stating I can't based on a basic rule, you are breaking the game rules because we are specifically told that advanced rules override basic rules. Advanced vs. Basic,Specific vs. General, however you want to look at it, the BRB limitation does not override a special rule. Its not like the special rule is worded unclearly, quite the opposite, its very specific.
Question: In 40K (7th edition), does a model have to use it's weapon to gain access to the special rules attached to that weapon.
Premise 1:40K rulebook, p156 "...unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule."
Premise 2: 40K rulebook, p41 "Special Rules: The type section of a weapon's profile also includes any special rules that apply to the weapon in question."
Premise 3:40K rulebook, p41 "More Than One Weapon: If a model has more than one Melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with when he comes to strike blows - he cannot mix and match the abilities of several different Melee weapons."
Premise 4:40K rulebook, p156 "That said, a model's attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using.
Premise 1 tells us that we do not have special rules unless we are told that we have them. Premise 2 tells us that we can find special rules on weapons under the type section. Premise 3 is the only restriction on the special rules found on weapons telling us that we cannot mix and match special rules when attacking with that model's weapons. Premise 4 tells us that a model's attacks can gain special rules as well - but this is only referring to attacks and does not appear to restrict the other "non-attack" special rules found on the weapon given Premise 2.
Conclusion: There are two types of special rules found on weapons - those that affect attacks and those that do not. The ones that affect attacks can only be used when attacking and can only be taken from one weapon. The ones that do not affect attacks can be mixed and matched and do not require the weapon to be used to be accessed by the model.
i think this is important to this topic. What constitute mix and match abilities? Kriswall said it pretty well and i think he is right but i want to explore a bit more.
When does the mix and match rules comes into play? Will the logical flow goes like this during the sub phase:
1. All weapons and its abilities comes into play.
2. player must choice one weapon to be in "use"
3. mix and match rules comes in to block out all rules that INTERFERE with the weapon in use.
Since most weapons have something that interfere with the weapon in use, but KoD does not. of cause i am cherry picking on how i interpret "use". i also interpret the missing area in the rule on when and where abilities comes into play I am also putting a framework around what is "mix and match".
After all, why the hell not. is fun to explore.
adding:
Kriswell are using the common and logical way to define mix and match. But what if mix and match is define as you can't use 2 attack with power sword and 1 attack with power fist. instead of blocking out the whole text in the non weapon in use. if that the case, you are "using" all melee weapons and all weapons abilities are in "use". So i didn't mix and match my attacks. kisses are in "use" and therefore kicks in after and didn't constitute to be mix and match.
NightHowler wrote: Question: In 40K (7th edition), does a model have to use it's weapon to gain access to the special rules attached to that weapon.
Premise 1:40K rulebook, p156 "...unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule."
Premise 2: 40K rulebook, p41 "Special Rules: The type section of a weapon's profile also includes any special rules that apply to the weapon in question."
Premise 3:40K rulebook, p41 "More Than One Weapon: If a model has more than one Melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with when he comes to strike blows - he cannot mix and match the abilities of several different Melee weapons."
Premise 4:40K rulebook, p156 "That said, a model's attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using.
Premise 1 tells us that we do not have special rules unless we are told that we have them. Premise 2 tells us that we can find special rules on weapons under the type section. Premise 3 is the only restriction on the special rules found on weapons telling us that we cannot mix and match special rules when attacking with that model's weapons. Premise 4 tells us that a model's attacks can gain special rules as well - but this is only referring to attacks and does not appear to restrict the other "non-attack" special rules found on the weapon given Premise 2.
Conclusion: There are two types of special rules found on weapons - those that affect attacks and those that do no. The ones that affect attacks can only be used when attacking and can only be taken from one weapon. The ones that do not affect attacks can be mixed and matched and do not require the weapon to be used to be accessed by the model.
So, what you are saying is that since "Kiss of Death" affects attacks, it can only be used when the model is attacking with a Harlequin's Kiss?
NightHowler wrote: Question: In 40K (7th edition), does a model have to use it's weapon to gain access to the special rules attached to that weapon.
Premise 1:40K rulebook, p156 "...unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule."
Premise 2: 40K rulebook, p41 "Special Rules: The type section of a weapon's profile also includes any special rules that apply to the weapon in question."
Premise 3:40K rulebook, p41 "More Than One Weapon: If a model has more than one Melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with when he comes to strike blows - he cannot mix and match the abilities of several different Melee weapons."
Premise 4:40K rulebook, p156 "That said, a model's attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using.
Premise 1 tells us that we do not have special rules unless we are told that we have them. Premise 2 tells us that we can find special rules on weapons under the type section. Premise 3 is the only restriction on the special rules found on weapons telling us that we cannot mix and match special rules when attacking with that model's weapons. Premise 4 tells us that a model's attacks can gain special rules as well - but this is only referring to attacks and does not appear to restrict the other "non-attack" special rules found on the weapon given Premise 2.
Conclusion: There are two types of special rules found on weapons - those that affect attacks and those that do no. The ones that affect attacks can only be used when attacking and can only be taken from one weapon. The ones that do not affect attacks can be mixed and matched and do not require the weapon to be used to be accessed by the model.
So, what you are saying is that since "Kiss of Death" affects attacks, it can only be used when the model is attacking with a Harlequin's Kiss?
Happyjew wrote: So, what you are saying is that since "Kiss of Death" affects attacks, it can only be used when the model is attacking with a Harlequin's Kiss?
Yes
Just wanted to make sure. With the exception of a few members, I've lost track of who is arguing for which side.
Though I still do like the interpretation that allows my non-Harlequin Codex Harlequins to benefit from a special rule that they do not have access to.
No. You cited what a single special rule does. What you're saying is this:
"What permission do you have to use the Rampage special rule?"
"Bloodlust gives it to me."
"What gives you Bloodlust?"
"Bloodlust."
"No, I mean what rule allows you to use Bloodlust?"
"Bloodlust."
That's not an argument. That's an assertion without support.
Please provide the rule that states bloodlust can not tell you when it applies. This is your circular logic. You prove bloodlust doesn't apply because you assume bloodlust doesn't apply and therefore you can't use bloodlust to tell you it applies. When your conclusion is one of your premises you are using circular logic.
So explain why bloodlust can't tell you when it applies without using circular logic but using, you know, actual rules.
Yeah, "It doesn't say I can't!" has always been a good, rules based argument.
Which is what you're saying. "Nothing says Bloodlust can't tell me when it applies, so it does! Also, Codex: Eldar dudes get free upgrades because Codex: Harlequins exists!"
rigeld2 wrote: Yeah, "It doesn't say I can't!" has always been a good, rules based argument.
Which is what you're saying. "Nothing says Bloodlust can't tell me when it applies, so it does! Also, Codex: Eldar dudes get free upgrades because Codex: Harlequins exists!"
No bloodlust tells us it applies. Without circular logic can you explain why bloodlust doesn't apply, remembering bloodlust is an advanced codex rule.
What I'm saying is literally what the rules say. Unless you have some actual rules? Any at all that support your stance?
i thought harlequins were apart of the eldar, is there something i missed or is it a sub codex? i have never played eldar so i apologize for my ignorance
rigeld2 wrote: Yeah, "It doesn't say I can't!" has always been a good, rules based argument.
Which is what you're saying. "Nothing says Bloodlust can't tell me when it applies, so it does! Also, Codex: Eldar dudes get free upgrades because Codex: Harlequins exists!"
No bloodlust tells us it applies. Without circular logic can you explain why bloodlust doesn't apply, remembering bloodlust is an advanced codex rule.
Absolutely I can.
Please explain how you know you have the special rule Bloodlust, remembering that you do not have a special rule unless stated otherwise.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
the clone wrote: i thought harlequins were apart of the eldar, is there something i missed or is it a sub codex? i have never played eldar so i apologize for my ignorance
They have their own codex now, in addition to the Dark Eldar/Eldar units.
the clone wrote: i thought harlequins were apart of the eldar, is there something i missed or is it a sub codex? i have never played eldar so i apologize for my ignorance
They have their own codex now, in addition to the Dark Eldar/Eldar units.
Slight correction. They've been removed from Dark Eldar.
More Than One Weapon: If a model has more than one Melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with when he comes to strike blows - he cannot mix and match the abilities of several different Melee weapons."
a lot of people in this thread latch on to the last part of this statement "he cannot mix and match the abilities of several different Melee weapons."
and ignore the context.
If a model has more than one Melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with when he comes to strike blows
If a model chooses to strike with a weapon the model normally gains only the benefit of the special rules of that weapon because at the time of writing the BRB [keep in mind this is a basic rule in the BRB] if a weapon had a special rule the rule specfically states "when striking with a weapon that has shred player may do x" or "when striking with a weapon that armorbane, player may do y"
At the time of writing you would not be able to say you have 4 attacks and attack 3 times with a powerfist and 1 time with a bolt pistol - something you could do in previous editions.
the rule in question can easily be read as "you must choose one weapon to strike with, you may not benefit from abilities that require you to strike with other weapons"
Kiss of Death, colossal, the khorne bloodbath thing do not require you to strike with the weapon to benefit from their rule as per their specific advanced [wargear are advanced rules]. There is no conflict with picking a different weapon to those and still having the benefit of the rule, as you are not required to strike with the weapon to benefit from the rule. In fact there is no rule anywhere that states you may only benefit from the special rules of wargear/equipped items/weappns when striking with them. Some rules specifically state they only work when striking with the weapon [shred, armorbane, etc] and obviously fall under "hey you are not striking with that, therefore you cannot benefit from that"
Also if people want to latch onto the anecdote so much of
- he cannot mix and match the abilities of several different Melee weapons
and ignore the first part which is a rule when stating it they are going to have a hard time showing when the model cannot benefit, also theres the whole specific versus general, basic versus advanced rule...etc
and then of course if you want to take that completely verbatim any female model, or possibly female player can ignore it as it states "he" and not "she" for the people being anal retentive in this thread.
Therefore by the RaW female models may mix and match abilities as there is no rule preventing she/her from doing so
Thanks, Blaktoof. Excellently said. I tried to say it like 10 pages ago and it just got glossed over, unfortunately.
You would think after 18 pages of circular logic and arguing people would realize there's two camps and just agree to disagree. YMDC needs moderation so badly.
FlingitNow's entire argument is predicated upon a model's attacks being allowed to gain a special rule from a weapon during the Fight Sub-Phase when not being used... a situation the core rules forbid. As he has no specific wording overriding this restriction (i.e. 'you can use the Kiss of Death attack even when not attacking with your Harlequin's Kiss'), we are forced to say his position is wrong.
The wording for the Harlequin's Kiss overrides the core rule book. Its just being ignored because it doesn't fit with how weapons generally work.
"When a model equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss makes its close combat attacks, one of its attacks will be a Kiss of Death attack..." I bolded the text for emphasis
Your interpretation would break the rule for the weapon because it requires you to ignore the bolded text,
Despite the desire to ignore Basic versus Advanced it would apply. There is nothing that states there has to be a specific wording or permission granted to override the core rule. It does state that "Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules." The rule for an Harlequins kiss is an advanced rule and will override the core rule book. Its rule of "When a model equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss makes its close combat attacks, one of its attacks will be a Kiss of Death attack..." tells you exactly how to handle the situation, there is only confusion when you ignore parts of the Kiss's rule.
The solitaire is equipped with a kiss. When the solitaire makes its close combat attacks one will be a Kiss of Death. The rule provides no options for how the Kiss works. You are not choosing it. It happens of the basis of it being equipped, and will happen regardless of what is chosen. Per the rule, the model isn't making a kiss of death attack with the Harlequin's Kiss, but one of the model's attacks becomes a kiss of death. This will happen regardless of what the core rule book states because this is an advanced rule.
FlingitNow's entire argument is predicated upon a model's attacks being allowed to gain a special rule from a weapon during the Fight Sub-Phase when not being used... a situation the core rules forbid. As he has no specific wording overriding this restriction (i.e. 'you can use the Kiss of Death attack even when not attacking with your Harlequin's Kiss'), we are forced to say his position is wrong.
The wording for the Harlequin's Kiss overrides the core rule book. Its just being ignored because it doesn't fit with how weapons generally work.
"When a model equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss makes its close combat attacks, one of its attacks will be a Kiss of Death attack..." I bolded the text for emphasis
Your interpretation would break the rule for the weapon because it requires you to ignore the bolded text,
Despite the desire to ignore Basic versus Advanced it would apply. There is nothing that states there has to be a specific wording or permission granted to override the core rule. It does state that "Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules." The rule for an Harlequins kiss is an advanced rule and will override the core rule book. Its rule of "When a model equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss makes its close combat attacks, one of its attacks will be a Kiss of Death attack..." tells you exactly how to handle the situation, there is only confusion when you ignore parts of the Kiss's rule.
The solitaire is equipped with a kiss. When the solitaire makes its close combat attacks one will be a Kiss of Death. The rule provides no options for how the Kiss works. You are not choosing it. It happens of the basis of it being equipped, and will happen regardless of what is chosen. Per the rule, the model isn't making a kiss of death attack with the Harlequin's Kiss, but one of the model's attacks becomes a kiss of death. This will happen regardless of what the core rule book states because this is an advanced rule.
I'm swithchin' sides. That has got to be the best arguement for the Kiss. Basically a Solitaire can choose to use the Caress, but then HAS to have one if his attacks be the Kiss
FlingitNow's entire argument is predicated upon a model's attacks being allowed to gain a special rule from a weapon during the Fight Sub-Phase when not being used... a situation the core rules forbid. As he has no specific wording overriding this restriction (i.e. 'you can use the Kiss of Death attack even when not attacking with your Harlequin's Kiss'), we are forced to say his position is wrong.
The wording for the Harlequin's Kiss overrides the core rule book. Its just being ignored because it doesn't fit with how weapons generally work.
"When a model equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss makes its close combat attacks, one of its attacks will be a Kiss of Death attack..." I bolded the text for emphasis
Your interpretation would break the rule for the weapon because it requires you to ignore the bolded text,
Despite the desire to ignore Basic versus Advanced it would apply. There is nothing that states there has to be a specific wording or permission granted to override the core rule. It does state that "Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules." The rule for an Harlequins kiss is an advanced rule and will override the core rule book. Its rule of "When a model equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss makes its close combat attacks, one of its attacks will be a Kiss of Death attack..." tells you exactly how to handle the situation, there is only confusion when you ignore parts of the Kiss's rule.
The solitaire is equipped with a kiss. When the solitaire makes its close combat attacks one will be a Kiss of Death. The rule provides no options for how the Kiss works. You are not choosing it. It happens of the basis of it being equipped, and will happen regardless of what is chosen. Per the rule, the model isn't making a kiss of death attack with the Harlequin's Kiss, but one of the model's attacks becomes a kiss of death. This will happen regardless of what the core rule book states because this is an advanced rule.
I'm swithchin' sides. That has got to be the best arguement for the Kiss. Basically a Solitaire can choose to use the Caress, but then HAS to have one if his attacks be the Kiss
Good times. So, it makes ZERO difference to you guys that the model's attacks don't have access to the Kiss of Death rule? By your own argument, and the simple fact that the rule exists at all, Codex: Eldar Harlequins armed with Harlequin's Kiss weapons get to make Kiss of Death attacks. Doesn't matter that the Kiss of Death rule isn't even in Codex: Eldar. The simple fact that the rule exists MUST mean it's applied EVERYWHERE and ALL THE TIME, regardless of whether or not the models/attacks have the rule. Understood.
Maybe you can help me then. I play Tau Empire primarily. Are there any rules in other codexes I should know about that my models have but that I'm not aware of? Per my understanding, the model doesn't actually need to have access to the rule... the rule just needs to exist.
Oh wait... here's one. Illuminor Szeras would normally have it, but since the rule doesn't specify that I need to have Illuminor Szeras in my army, it must be self permitting and as such requires me to buff a friendly unit of Warriors of Immortals. Anyone who plays Necrons can thank me for pointing this out.
"Mechanical Augmentation: At the start of the game, before forces have deployed, nominate one friendly unit of Necron Warriors or Immortals. All models in the nominated unit receive an upgrade for the duration of the game – roll a D6 and consult the following table to determine which upgrade they all have:
1-2 Hardened Carapace: The unit is Toughness 5.
3-4 Improved Optics: The unit is Ballistic Skill 5.
5-6 Enhanced Servomotors: The unit is Strength 5."
In all seriousness... who here actually thinks I can use Mechanical Augmentation without having Illuminor Szeras in my army? Special rules don't self permit. You need to gain the rule SOMEHOW. I would gain Mechanical Augmentation by taking Illuminor Szeras in my army. My Solitaire's attacks would gain Kiss of Death by using a Harlequin's Kiss in the Fight Sub-Phase. No Illuminor Szeras, no Mechanical Augmentation. No using a Harlequin's Kiss in the Fight Sub-Phase, no Kiss of Death.
Kriswall wrote: Good times. So, it makes ZERO difference to you guys that the model's attacks don't have access to the Kiss of Death rule? By your own argument, and the simple fact that the rule exists at all, Codex: Eldar Harlequins armed with Harlequin's Kiss weapons get to make Kiss of Death attacks. Doesn't matter that the Kiss of Death rule isn't even in Codex: Eldar. The simple fact that the rule exists MUST mean it's applied EVERYWHERE and ALL THE TIME, regardless of whether or not the models/attacks have the rule. Understood.
I call shenanigans. I never inferred, stated, or implied that Codex: Eldar Harlequins would have the Kiss of Death rule. My argument is entirely based on using the rule provided for an item to determine how it works. Codex: Eldar Harlequins have their own rules which would be used. There isn't a rule that states "The simple fact that the rule exists MUST mean it's applied EVERYWHERE and ALL THE TIME, regardless of whether or not the models/attacks have the rule" An entry for an item or unit generally provides the necessary information for how the item functions. Codex Harlequins have a different rule for vehicle holo-fields than Codex: Eldar, the different rules are not cumulative. Eldar use the rules listed in their codex, and harlequins use the rule provided in their own codex.
Kriswall wrote: Maybe you can help me then. I play Tau Empire primarily. Are there any rules in other codexes I should know about that my models have but that I'm not aware of? Per my understanding, the model doesn't actually need to have access to the rule... the rule just needs to exist.
Oh wait... here's one. Illuminor Szeras would normally have it, but since the rule doesn't specify that I need to have Illuminor Szeras in my army, it must be self permitting and as such requires me to buff a friendly unit of Warriors of Immortals. Anyone who plays Necrons can thank me for pointing this out.
"Mechanical Augmentation: At the start of the game, before forces have deployed, nominate one friendly unit of Necron Warriors or Immortals. All models in the nominated unit receive an upgrade for the duration of the game – roll a D6 and consult the following table to determine which upgrade they all have:
1-2 Hardened Carapace: The unit is Toughness 5.
3-4 Improved Optics: The unit is Ballistic Skill 5.
5-6 Enhanced Servomotors: The unit is Strength 5."
In all seriousness... who here actually thinks I can use Mechanical Augmentation without having Illuminor Szeras in my army? Special rules don't self permit. You need to gain the rule SOMEHOW. I would gain Mechanical Augmentation by taking Illuminor Szeras in my army. My Solitaire's attacks would gain Kiss of Death by using a Harlequin's Kiss in the Fight Sub-Phase. No Illuminor Szeras, no Mechanical Augmentation. No using a Harlequin's Kiss in the Fight Sub-Phase, no Kiss of Death.
If you have questions about how the Eldar. Necron, or Tau codexes work I would recommend starting a separate thread. This one is related to the Harlequin's Kiss listed in Codex Harlequin.
Trystis wrote: "When a model equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss makes its close combat attacks, one of its attacks will be a Kiss of Death attack..." The solitaire is equipped with a kiss. When the solitaire makes its close combat attacks one will be a Kiss of Death. The rule provides no options for how the Kiss works. You are not choosing it. It happens of the basis of it being equipped, and will happen regardless of what is chosen. Per the rule, the model isn't making a kiss of death attack with the Harlequin's Kiss, but one of the model's attacks becomes a kiss of death. This will happen regardless of what the core rule book states because this is an advanced rule.
None of your post disproved this as the proper way to interpret the rule, and generally seemed to be designed to distract from my point rather than counter it.
Kriswall wrote: Good times. So, it makes ZERO difference to you guys that the model's attacks don't have access to the Kiss of Death rule? By your own argument, and the simple fact that the rule exists at all, Codex: Eldar Harlequins armed with Harlequin's Kiss weapons get to make Kiss of Death attacks. Doesn't matter that the Kiss of Death rule isn't even in Codex: Eldar. The simple fact that the rule exists MUST mean it's applied EVERYWHERE and ALL THE TIME, regardless of whether or not the models/attacks have the rule. Understood.
I call shenanigans. I never inferred, stated, or implied that Codex: Eldar Harlequins would have the Kiss of Death rule. My argument is entirely based on using the rule provided for an item to determine how it works. Codex: Eldar Harlequins have their own rules which would be used. There isn't a rule that states "The simple fact that the rule exists MUST mean it's applied EVERYWHERE and ALL THE TIME, regardless of whether or not the models/attacks have the rule" An entry for an item or unit generally provides the necessary information for how the item functions. Codex Harlequins have a different rule for vehicle holo-fields than Codex: Eldar, the different rules are not cumulative. Eldar use the rules listed in their codex, and harlequins use the rule provided in their own codex.
Kriswall wrote: Maybe you can help me then. I play Tau Empire primarily. Are there any rules in other codexes I should know about that my models have but that I'm not aware of? Per my understanding, the model doesn't actually need to have access to the rule... the rule just needs to exist.
Oh wait... here's one. Illuminor Szeras would normally have it, but since the rule doesn't specify that I need to have Illuminor Szeras in my army, it must be self permitting and as such requires me to buff a friendly unit of Warriors of Immortals. Anyone who plays Necrons can thank me for pointing this out.
"Mechanical Augmentation: At the start of the game, before forces have deployed, nominate one friendly unit of Necron Warriors or Immortals. All models in the nominated unit receive an upgrade for the duration of the game – roll a D6 and consult the following table to determine which upgrade they all have:
1-2 Hardened Carapace: The unit is Toughness 5.
3-4 Improved Optics: The unit is Ballistic Skill 5.
5-6 Enhanced Servomotors: The unit is Strength 5."
In all seriousness... who here actually thinks I can use Mechanical Augmentation without having Illuminor Szeras in my army? Special rules don't self permit. You need to gain the rule SOMEHOW. I would gain Mechanical Augmentation by taking Illuminor Szeras in my army. My Solitaire's attacks would gain Kiss of Death by using a Harlequin's Kiss in the Fight Sub-Phase. No Illuminor Szeras, no Mechanical Augmentation. No using a Harlequin's Kiss in the Fight Sub-Phase, no Kiss of Death.
If you have questions about how the Eldar. Necron, or Tau codexes work I would recommend starting a separate thread. This one is related to the Harlequin's Kiss listed in Codex Harlequin.
Trystis wrote: "When a model equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss makes its close combat attacks, one of its attacks will be a Kiss of Death attack..." The solitaire is equipped with a kiss. When the solitaire makes its close combat attacks one will be a Kiss of Death. The rule provides no options for how the Kiss works. You are not choosing it. It happens of the basis of it being equipped, and will happen regardless of what is chosen. Per the rule, the model isn't making a kiss of death attack with the Harlequin's Kiss, but one of the model's attacks becomes a kiss of death. This will happen regardless of what the core rule book states because this is an advanced rule.
None of your post disproved this as the proper way to interpret the rule, and generally seemed to be designed to distract from my point rather than counter it.
OK then... presumably the model or its attacks need to have the Kiss of Death rule for it to function, correct? Codex: Eldar Harlequins definitely can't benefit from the rule since they can never have gained it, what with it not even being in the Codex.
How, EXACTLY, in your mind, does the Solitaire OR his attacks gain the Kiss of Death special rule during a Fight Sub-Phase in which the Solitaire has chosen to attack with a Harlequin's Caress? Keep in mind that you can't read and implement the Kiss of Death special rule until you've demonstrated that the Solitaire or his attacks have gained the rule somehow. What is telling you to even read and resolve the Kiss of Death rule when you aren't attacking with a Harlequin's Kiss? This question has yet to be answered. The answer CANNOT be in the text of the Kiss of Death rule itself. You can't answer the question "Why does the model have Kiss of Death?" with "Because the model has Kiss of Death.".
Here... I'll start...
1. Why does a Solitaire have the Deep Strike special rule? Because it is listed on his army unit entry under special rules and the rules tell me a model can gain special rules from an army unit entry.
2. Why, during a Fight Sub-Phase and when attacking with a Harlequin's Caress, does a Solitaire's attacks have the Caress of Death special rule? Because the core rules tell me the Solitaire's attacks can gain special rules from a weapon he is using in combat.
3. Why, during a Fight Sub-Phase and when attacking with a Harlequin's Caress, does a Solitaire's attacks have the Kiss of Death special rule? ???
You need to answer that last question. Remember, you haven't yet shown that you even have the rule, so I don't care about when and where you'd make a "Kiss of Death attack". I'm first trying to establish why you think the Solitaire's attacks have the special rule when he's not using the weapon in combat. We aren't debating how the rule works. This thread, at its core, is about whether or not the attacks of a model who ISN'T attacking with a specific weapon gains special rules from that weapon in combat.
Example... A Space Marine Captain, armed with Lightning Claw and Power Fist, makes an attack. He chooses to attack with the Power Fist. I don't need to read Shred and determine whether or not it applies because the Captain's attacks NEVER GAINED the Shred special rule. The text of the rule is IRRELEVANT as the attacks don't have the rule. He didn't use the Lightning Claw in combat and so his attacks don't gain the rule.
This is key.
It does not matter what special rules a weapon has. It matters what special rules a model's attacks have.
You need to demonstrate that the Solitaire's attacks have the Kiss of Death special rule. We all know the Harlequin's Kiss does. It's right there in the profile. BUT, until you demonstrate that the attacks gain the special rule, you can't read and resolve it.
"When a model equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss makes ITS close combat attacks, one of its attacks WILL BE a Kiss of Death attack..."
That doesn't say, "When a model attacks WITH the Kiss"
----------------------------
There are 2 ways to interpret this rule:
Either:
A model with the Kiss HAS to use it, there is no choice, you WILL use the Kiss. Meaning the 2 weapon rule would always prevent a Solitare from using the Caress (so why bother having it?)
OR:
The Kiss rule overrides the BRB, by allowing its rules to be used just by being equipped.
Since those on either side of this debate will not concede to the other, clearly there can be no consensus and you will have to discuss this with each of your opponents and any TOs
1. Why does a Solitaire have the Deep Strike special rule? Because it is listed on his army unit entry under special rules and the rules tell me a model can gain special rules from an army unit entry.
2. Why, during a Fight Sub-Phase and when attacking with a Harlequin's Caress, does a Solitaire's attacks have the Caress of Death special rule? Because the core rules tell me the Solitaire's attacks can gain special rules from a weapon he is using in combat.
3. Why, during a Fight Sub-Phase and when attacking with a Harlequin's Caress, does a Solitaire's attacks have the Kiss of Death special rule? ???
1. The solitaire doesn't have the Kiss of Death rule. Thats actually not relevant.
2 and 3. When you have two weapons you must choose, this part still is true. In the case of Cegorach's rose you could either chose to use it and gain its additional benefits, or the Caress and gain its benefit. You wouldn't be able to claim all of the special rules of both.
The kiss of death is different though, because its rule requires a different method of action. You can't ignore its wording just because it doesn't fit comfortably in the core rule book. In this case core rules do not apply because the Harlequin's kiss has an advanced rule that states how it works. "When a model equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss makes its close combat attacks, one of its attacks will be a Kiss of Death attack..." In this case it converts one of the solitaire's attacks to a kiss of death based of the necessary function of being "equipped". This happens regardless of the weapon that the solitaire chose to use. This is RAW.
It does not matter what special rules a weapon has. It matters what special rules a model's attacks have.
You need to demonstrate that the Solitaire's attacks have the Kiss of Death special rule. We all know the Harlequin's Kiss does. It's right there in the profile. BUT, until you demonstrate that the attacks gain the special rule, you can't read and resolve it.
The demonstration of how the solitaire's attacks have a kiss of death rule is provided by the wording of the rule it self:
"When a model equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss (like solitaire is) makes its close combat attacks (when the solitaire makes its close combat attack), one of its (the solitaire's) attacks will be a Kiss of Death attack..."
I.E. When a solitaire (harlequin's kiss equipped standard) makes its attack one of them will be a kiss of death attack.
1. Why does a Solitaire have the Deep Strike special rule? Because it is listed on his army unit entry under special rules and the rules tell me a model can gain special rules from an army unit entry.
2. Why, during a Fight Sub-Phase and when attacking with a Harlequin's Caress, does a Solitaire's attacks have the Caress of Death special rule? Because the core rules tell me the Solitaire's attacks can gain special rules from a weapon he is using in combat.
3. Why, during a Fight Sub-Phase and when attacking with a Harlequin's Caress, does a Solitaire's attacks have the Kiss of Death special rule? ???
1. The solitaire doesn't have the Kiss of Death rule. Thats actually not relevant.
2 and 3. When you have two weapons you must choose, this part still is true. In the case of Cegorach's rose you could either chose to use it and gain its additional benefits, or the Caress and gain its benefit. You wouldn't be able to claim all of the special rules of both.
The kiss of death is different though, because its rule requires a different method of action. You can't ignore its wording just because it doesn't fit comfortably in the core rule book. In this case core rules do not apply because the Harlequin's kiss has an advanced rule that states how it works. "When a model equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss makes its close combat attacks, one of its attacks will be a Kiss of Death attack..." In this case it converts one of the solitaire's attacks to a kiss of death based of the necessary function of being "equipped". This happens regardless of the weapon that the solitaire chose to use. This is RAW.
It does not matter what special rules a weapon has. It matters what special rules a model's attacks have.
You need to demonstrate that the Solitaire's attacks have the Kiss of Death special rule. We all know the Harlequin's Kiss does. It's right there in the profile. BUT, until you demonstrate that the attacks gain the special rule, you can't read and resolve it.
The demonstration of how the solitaire's attacks have a kiss of death rule is provided by the wording of the rule it self:
"When a model equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss (like solitaire is) makes its close combat attacks (when the solitaire makes its close combat attack), one of its (the solitaire's) attacks will be a Kiss of Death attack..."
I.E. When a solitaire (harlequin's kiss equipped standard) makes its attack one of them will be a kiss of death attack.
No, no, no. You're fixated on what the rule DOES. I'm questioning why you think you have the rule in the first place. Like... you wouldn't have a Space Marine Captain make a Kiss of Death attack. You'd never even bother to see if he's equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss because his attacks never gain the Kiss of Death special rule. At what point does the Solitaire's attacks gain the Kiss of Death special rule?
The reason its not in his profile is because he cannot make that S6AP2 attack if he doesn't have the Harlequins kiss. The rule is clearly stating that the model that has the kiss may utilize this one special attack when attacking. This doesn't specify that you must use the Harlies Kiss.
Honestly, all throughout 7'thGW has been very clear with their rules, and rules that allow special circumstances(such as the kiss). They need to errata it so people will stop crying that it exists.
No, no, no. You're fixated on what the rule DOES. I'm questioning why you think you have the rule in the first place. Like... you wouldn't have a Space Marine Captain make a Kiss of Death attack. You'd never even bother to see if he's equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss because his attacks never gain the Kiss of Death special rule. At what point does the Solitaire's attacks gain the Kiss of Death special rule?
I haven't discussed what the rule does at all. Not even a little. The Kiss of Death "does" make an attack instant death on the roll of a 6 to wound.
The solitaire never has the Kiss of Death rule as I have repeatedly indicated. One of his attacks becomes a Kiss of Death attack. There is no need for me to see if he is equipped with it. That isn't a required step, or even a step that exists. Why would a Space Marine Captain be able to make a Kiss of Death attack? Is he equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss from the Codex: Harlequin? Does it say any where on his information that he has one? Did you purchase one for him somehow? No, then one of his attack would not be converted to a Kiss of Death as the rule requires a Harlequin's Kiss to be equipped. Is the solitaire equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss from the Codex: Harlequin? It's listed under wargear with the rest of his equipment. Then one of his attacks will be a Kiss of Death when he is close combat automatically, per the rule for that item.
The attempts to interpret this differently all have required that you ignore some aspect of an advanced rule in order to dogmatically apply a basic rule.
No, no, no. You're fixated on what the rule DOES. I'm questioning why you think you have the rule in the first place. Like... you wouldn't have a Space Marine Captain make a Kiss of Death attack. You'd never even bother to see if he's equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss because his attacks never gain the Kiss of Death special rule. At what point does the Solitaire's attacks gain the Kiss of Death special rule?
I haven't discussed what the rule does at all. Not even a little. The Kiss of Death "does" make an attack instant death on the roll of a 6 to wound.
The solitaire never has the Kiss of Death rule as I have repeatedly indicated. One of his attacks becomes a Kiss of Death attack. There is no need for me to see if he is equipped with it. That isn't a required step, or even a step that exists. Why would a Space Marine Captain be able to make a Kiss of Death attack? Is he equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss from the Codex: Harlequin? Does it say any where on his information that he has one? Did you purchase one for him somehow? No, then he one of his attack would not be converted to a Kiss of Death. Is the solitaire equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss from the Codex: Harlequin? It's listed under wargear with the rest of his equipment. Then one of his attacks will be a Kiss of Death when he is close combat automatically, per the rule for that item.
The attempts to interpret this differently all have required that you ignore some aspect of an advanced rule in order to dogmatically apply a basic rule.
Again, we know WHAT the rule does. Why does the Solitaire's attacks have the rule? When do the attacks gain the rule? They have to. You can't use rules you don't have. What mechanism are you using to cause the Solitaire's attacks to gain this rule? If your contention is that the Kiss of Death text auto permits itself, then you have to also obey the no mixing and matching which would forbid you from ever attacking with the Harlequin's Caress.
So which is more likely... you can pick which weapon to attack with, but only get to use that weapon's rules...
OR
Special rules can self permit and the Solitaire can NEVER attack with the Harlequin's Caress?
No, no, no. You're fixated on what the rule DOES. I'm questioning why you think you have the rule in the first place. Like... you wouldn't have a Space Marine Captain make a Kiss of Death attack. You'd never even bother to see if he's equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss because his attacks never gain the Kiss of Death special rule. At what point does the Solitaire's attacks gain the Kiss of Death special rule?
I haven't discussed what the rule does at all. Not even a little. The Kiss of Death "does" make an attack instant death on the roll of a 6 to wound.
The solitaire never has the Kiss of Death rule as I have repeatedly indicated. One of his attacks becomes a Kiss of Death attack. There is no need for me to see if he is equipped with it. That isn't a required step, or even a step that exists. Why would a Space Marine Captain be able to make a Kiss of Death attack? Is he equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss from the Codex: Harlequin? Does it say any where on his information that he has one? Did you purchase one for him somehow? No, then he one of his attack would not be converted to a Kiss of Death. Is the solitaire equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss from the Codex: Harlequin? It's listed under wargear with the rest of his equipment. Then one of his attacks will be a Kiss of Death when he is close combat automatically, per the rule for that item.
The attempts to interpret this differently all have required that you ignore some aspect of an advanced rule in order to dogmatically apply a basic rule.
Again, we know WHAT the rule does. Why does the Solitaire's attacks have the rule? When do the attacks gain the rule? They have to. You can't use rules you don't have. What mechanism are you using to cause the Solitaire's attacks to gain this rule? If your contention is that the Kiss of Death text auto permits itself, then you have to also obey the no mixing and matching which would forbid you from ever attacking with the Harlequin's Caress.
So which is more likely... you can pick which weapon to attack with, but only get to use that weapon's rules...
OR
Special rules can self permit and the Solitaire can NEVER attack with the Harlequin's Caress?
As mentioned in my previous post that you may of failed to notice.
The Harlequin's Kiss has the Kiss of Death rule.
The model equipped with Harlequin's Kiss has to follow the rules for the Harlequin's Kiss.
That rule states that when in close combat of the attacks will be a Kiss of Death attack.
I can chose to use the Caress because nothing restricts me from choosing it, after its chosen the Kiss's rules will still take effect because its rules require it too. I don't need to obey the "the no mixing and matching" rule as it is a basic rule because that is overridden by the advanced rule provided by the Harlequin's Kiss.
"When a model equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss (like solitaire is) makes its close combat attacks (when the solitaire makes its close combat attack), one of its (the solitaire's) attacks will be a Kiss of Death attack..."
It doesn't restrict my choice in any way, so I can chose any weapon I want.
The rule for the kiss provides what is necessary for it to occur - That a Harlequin's Kiss is equipped It doesn't require it to be used
When it takes effect - When a model makes it close combat attack How the special rule is applied - One the model's attack will be a Kiss of Death The attack doesn't need to be made with the Kiss. Thats something that is being interjected based off a basic rule that has been shown multiple times not to apply because of the phrasing of the advanced rule.
No, no, no. You're fixated on what the rule DOES. I'm questioning why you think you have the rule in the first place. Like... you wouldn't have a Space Marine Captain make a Kiss of Death attack. You'd never even bother to see if he's equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss because his attacks never gain the Kiss of Death special rule. At what point does the Solitaire's attacks gain the Kiss of Death special rule?
I haven't discussed what the rule does at all. Not even a little. The Kiss of Death "does" make an attack instant death on the roll of a 6 to wound.
The solitaire never has the Kiss of Death rule as I have repeatedly indicated. One of his attacks becomes a Kiss of Death attack. There is no need for me to see if he is equipped with it. That isn't a required step, or even a step that exists. Why would a Space Marine Captain be able to make a Kiss of Death attack? Is he equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss from the Codex: Harlequin? Does it say any where on his information that he has one? Did you purchase one for him somehow? No, then he one of his attack would not be converted to a Kiss of Death. Is the solitaire equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss from the Codex: Harlequin? It's listed under wargear with the rest of his equipment. Then one of his attacks will be a Kiss of Death when he is close combat automatically, per the rule for that item.
The attempts to interpret this differently all have required that you ignore some aspect of an advanced rule in order to dogmatically apply a basic rule.
Again, we know WHAT the rule does. Why does the Solitaire's attacks have the rule? When do the attacks gain the rule? They have to. You can't use rules you don't have. What mechanism are you using to cause the Solitaire's attacks to gain this rule? If your contention is that the Kiss of Death text auto permits itself, then you have to also obey the no mixing and matching which would forbid you from ever attacking with the Harlequin's Caress.
So which is more likely... you can pick which weapon to attack with, but only get to use that weapon's rules...
OR
Special rules can self permit and the Solitaire can NEVER attack with the Harlequin's Caress?
As mentioned in my previous post that you may of failed to notice.
The Harlequin's Kiss has the Kiss of Death rule.
The model equipped with Harlequin's Kiss has to follow the rules for the Harlequin's Kiss.
That rule states that when in close combat of the attacks will be a Kiss of Death attack.
I don't need to obey the "the no mixing and matching" rule as it is a basic rule because that is overridden by the advanced rule provided by the Harlequin's Kiss.
"When a model equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss (like solitaire is) makes its close combat attacks (when the solitaire makes its close combat attack), one of its (the solitaire's) attacks will be a Kiss of Death attack..."
The rule for the kiss provides what is necessary for it to occur - That a Harlequin's Kiss is equipped When it takes effect - When a model makes it close combat attack How the special rule is applied - One the attack will be a Kiss of Death
So, you're unable to show any evidence that the Solitaire's attacks gain the special rule? I know what it does. You don't have to keep quoting me the rules text. I don't see that the attacks ever gain the rule. If I attack with the Harlequin's Kiss, my attacks get the Kiss of Death rule. If I don't attack with the Harlequin's Kiss... why are my attacks getting the Kiss of Death rule.
We all know WHAT it does. How and why are you invoking it?
Back to the Captain Power Fist/Lightning Claw example. Do you understand that when the Captain attacks with the Power Fist that he's not ever gaining the Shred rule from the Lightning Claw? You seem to think he gains all the rules, but can't use Shred since he's not attacking with a weapon with the Shred rule. That's not it at all. He can't use Shred because his attacks never gained it. This is a subtle, but extremely important difference.
There is a difference between not being able to use a rule because you haven't fulfilled its requirements and not having the rule.
NauticalKendall wrote: He has that rule on his attacks because of a war gear option. his attacks gain that rule when he attacks.
Hit attacks gain that rule when he attacks with that weapon... which he is not doing. So, again, why does the Solitaire gain that rule?
It doesn't say that. You are once again ignoring the kiss's rule.
It says:
"When a model equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss makes its close combat attacks, one of its attacks will be a Kiss of Death attack..."
That means that a model equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss will make a Kiss of Death attack when in close combat. You are interjecting any thing beyond that.
NauticalKendall wrote: He has that rule on his attacks because of a war gear option. his attacks gain that rule when he attacks.
Hit attacks gain that rule when he attacks with that weapon... which he is not doing. So, again, why does the Solitaire gain that rule?
It doesn't say that. You are once again ignoring the kiss's rule.
It says:
"When a model equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss makes its close combat attacks, one of its attacks will be a Kiss of Death attack..."
That means that a model equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss will make a Kiss of Death attack when in close combat. You are interjecting any thing beyond that.
at this point I believe he's just being difficult for difficulties sake.
So, you're unable to show any evidence that the Solitaire's attacks gain the special rule? I know what it does. You don't have to keep quoting me the rules text. I don't see that the attacks ever gain the rule. If I attack with the Harlequin's Kiss, my attacks get the Kiss of Death rule. If I don't attack with the Harlequin's Kiss... why are my attacks getting the Kiss of Death rule.
We all know WHAT it does. How and why are you invoking it?
Back to the Captain Power Fist/Lightning Claw example. Do you understand that when the Captain attacks with the Power Fist that he's not ever gaining the Shred rule from the Lightning Claw? You seem to think he gains all the rules, but can't use Shred since he's not attacking with a weapon with the Shred rule. That's not it at all. He can't use Shred because his attacks never gained it. This is a subtle, but extremely important difference.
There is a difference between not being able to use a rule because you haven't fulfilled its requirements and not having the rule.
I keep quoting the rule text because you are blatantly ignoring it
If you attack with the Caress you still get the kiss of death because it the Kiss is still equipped. Again, the solitaire doesn't have the rule. The Kiss does. That rule will make one of the solitaires attacks a Kiss of Death because it is equipped.
.
The rules for power fist and lighting claws are phrased differently than the Kiss. Because of that they don't work the same way, and are not a valid comparison.
So, you're unable to show any evidence that the Solitaire's attacks gain the special rule? I know what it does. You don't have to keep quoting me the rules text. I don't see that the attacks ever gain the rule. If I attack with the Harlequin's Kiss, my attacks get the Kiss of Death rule. If I don't attack with the Harlequin's Kiss... why are my attacks getting the Kiss of Death rule.
We all know WHAT it does. How and why are you invoking it?
Back to the Captain Power Fist/Lightning Claw example. Do you understand that when the Captain attacks with the Power Fist that he's not ever gaining the Shred rule from the Lightning Claw? You seem to think he gains all the rules, but can't use Shred since he's not attacking with a weapon with the Shred rule. That's not it at all. He can't use Shred because his attacks never gained it. This is a subtle, but extremely important difference.
There is a difference between not being able to use a rule because you haven't fulfilled its requirements and not having the rule.
I keep quoting the rule text because you are blatantly ignoring it
If you attack with the Caress you still get the kiss of death because it the Kiss is still equipped. Again, the solitaire doesn't have the rule. The Kiss does. That rule will make one of the solitaires attacks a Kiss of Death because it is equipped.
.
The rules for power fist and lighting claws are phrased differently than the Kiss. Because of that they don't work the same way, and are not a valid comparison.
So that I understand, your contention is that the Captain's attacks would gain the Shred special rule when attacking with the Powerfist, but Shred wouldn't really do anything since the requirement to be attacking with a weapon with the Shred special rule wouldn't be met?
So, you're unable to show any evidence that the Solitaire's attacks gain the special rule? I know what it does. You don't have to keep quoting me the rules text. I don't see that the attacks ever gain the rule. If I attack with the Harlequin's Kiss, my attacks get the Kiss of Death rule. If I don't attack with the Harlequin's Kiss... why are my attacks getting the Kiss of Death rule.
We all know WHAT it does. How and why are you invoking it?
Back to the Captain Power Fist/Lightning Claw example. Do you understand that when the Captain attacks with the Power Fist that he's not ever gaining the Shred rule from the Lightning Claw? You seem to think he gains all the rules, but can't use Shred since he's not attacking with a weapon with the Shred rule. That's not it at all. He can't use Shred because his attacks never gained it. This is a subtle, but extremely important difference.
There is a difference between not being able to use a rule because you haven't fulfilled its requirements and not having the rule.
I keep quoting the rule text because you are blatantly ignoring it
If you attack with the Caress you still get the kiss of death because it the Kiss is still equipped. Again, the solitaire doesn't have the rule. The Kiss does. That rule will make one of the solitaires attacks a Kiss of Death because it is equipped.
.
The rules for power fist and lighting claws are phrased differently than the Kiss. Because of that they don't work the same way, and are not a valid comparison.
So that I understand, your contention is that the Captain's attacks would gain the Shred special rule when attacking with the Powerfist, but Shred wouldn't really do anything since the requirement to be attacking with a weapon with the Shred special rule wouldn't be met?
The rule for shred applies only to one weapon, as the requirement for shred as per rule is it is only available to the weapon. You cannot mix the abilities of two weapons. The Kiss ability isnt limited to the weapon, so therefore is freely used as long as it is equipped.
A weapon with instant death, can only cause instant death if that weapon is used. A weapon that grants a 2+ invulnerable save will always grant a 2+ invunerable save to the weilder, regardless of all the other weapons he has or has attacked with.
So, you're unable to show any evidence that the Solitaire's attacks gain the special rule? I know what it does. You don't have to keep quoting me the rules text. I don't see that the attacks ever gain the rule. If I attack with the Harlequin's Kiss, my attacks get the Kiss of Death rule. If I don't attack with the Harlequin's Kiss... why are my attacks getting the Kiss of Death rule.
We all know WHAT it does. How and why are you invoking it?
Back to the Captain Power Fist/Lightning Claw example. Do you understand that when the Captain attacks with the Power Fist that he's not ever gaining the Shred rule from the Lightning Claw? You seem to think he gains all the rules, but can't use Shred since he's not attacking with a weapon with the Shred rule. That's not it at all. He can't use Shred because his attacks never gained it. This is a subtle, but extremely important difference.
There is a difference between not being able to use a rule because you haven't fulfilled its requirements and not having the rule.
I keep quoting the rule text because you are blatantly ignoring it
If you attack with the Caress you still get the kiss of death because it the Kiss is still equipped. Again, the solitaire doesn't have the rule. The Kiss does. That rule will make one of the solitaires attacks a Kiss of Death because it is equipped.
.
The rules for power fist and lighting claws are phrased differently than the Kiss. Because of that they don't work the same way, and are not a valid comparison.
So that I understand, your contention is that the Captain's attacks would gain the Shred special rule when attacking with the Powerfist, but Shred wouldn't really do anything since the requirement to be attacking with a weapon with the Shred special rule wouldn't be met?
The rule for shred applies only to one weapon, as the requirement for shred as per rule is it is only available to the weapon. You cannot mix the abilities of two weapons. The Kiss ability isnt limited to the weapon, so therefore is freely used as long as it is equipped.
A weapon with instant death, can only cause instant death if that weapon is used. A weapon that grants a 2+ invulnerable save will always grant a 2+ invunerable save to the weilder, regardless of all the other weapons he has or has attacked with.
Pretty simple I think.
The restriction on mixing and matching weapon abilities doesn't say "no mixing and matching of SOME weapon abilities". What is your reason for not counting KoD as a weapon ability? Is it an ability the weapon has? Yes or no? I would say yes as it's listed right there in the profile.
And a weapon that grants a 2+ invulnerable save will cease to do so during a Fight Sub-Phase in which the attacker attacks with a different weapon. He loses the 2+ invuln as keeping it would be mixing and matching weapon abilities.
No I always (and most people for that matter) took the mixing of abilities as not being able to use rules tied to the weapon alongside other weapons. So no taking the highest strength and lowest AP for your attacks. No taking instant death from one weapon, and adding it to a weapon with shred etc.
But that invulnerable save? Well thats not mixing abilities, thats the abilities effecting the user not the weapon. Does shred effect the user? No, it effects the weapon. Does kiss of death effect the user yes, it does not effect the weapon.
Abilities of the weapon are different from the abilities of the user. the user is effected by his stats and abilities that can be granted by wargear and weapons or in his base profile. Some weapons are effected by stats and abilities that can be granted by wargear and weapons or in its base profile.
Kiss of death clearly is not a weapon ability, but a user ability, since it directly effects the users attacks, and has no effect on the weapon attacks. Like a 2+ invulnerable save.
Swastakowey wrote: No I always (and most people for that matter) took the mixing of abilities as not being able to use rules tied to the weapon alongside other weapons. So no taking the highest strength and lowest AP for your attacks. No taking instant death from one weapon, and adding it to a weapon with shred etc.
But that invulnerable save? Well thats not mixing abilities, thats the abilities effecting the user not the weapon. Does shred effect the user? No, it effects the weapon. Does kiss of death effect the user yes, it does not effect the weapon.
Abilities of the weapon are different from the abilities of the user. the user is effected by his stats and abilities that can be granted by wargear and weapons or in his base profile. Some weapons are effected by stats and abilities that can be granted by wargear and weapons or in its base profile.
Kiss of death clearly is not a weapon ability, but a user ability, since it directly effects the users attacks, and has no effect on the weapon attacks. Like a 2+ invulnerable save.
So, you're adding an arbitrary distinction and dividing weapon abilities into those that are bound by the core restriction on mixing and matching and those that aren't? Can you cite the rules telling you to do so? I'd like to read them and make my own decision as to why you're allowed to follow the rules for some abilities and not others.
The restriction on mixing and matching weapon abilities doesn't say "no mixing and matching of SOME weapon abilities". What is your reason for not counting KoD as a weapon ability? Is it an ability the weapon has? Yes or no? I would say yes as it's listed right there in the profile.
I have always counted the Kiss's rule as a weapon ability.
You are correct. I must choose between the two, or three if I purchased Haywire Grenades. So I pick the Caress, and will benefit from its special rule.
The Harlequin's Kiss has its own profile and weapon ability, most of the time I would not be able to use either because I didn't choose it.
However, the Harlequins special rule is based on it being equipped, not on it being used. This rule makes one of my attacks a Kiss of Death, RAW. This happens regardless of the weapon I chose, and overrides the restriction on mixing and matching weapon because it is an advance rule.
The lightning claw provides the Shred rule, the shred rule states that the model have it, or that you attack with melee weapon that has it. The power fist has its own weapon profile. Neither is based off being equipped. Neither of these are comparable to how the Kiss works.
So, you're adding an arbitrary distinction and dividing weapon abilities into those that are bound by the core restriction on mixing and matching and those that aren't? Can you cite the rules telling you to do so? I'd like to read them and make my own decision as to why you're allowed to follow the rules for some abilities and not others.
These decisions are not being made arbitrarily, they are based on the phrasing for the items. Each Item has its own rules. You are attempting to replace an items specific rules with a generic rule that usually applies. The problem is it doesn't always. Thats why many items have specific phrasing in their rules, to override the generic rule.
Swastakowey wrote: No I always (and most people for that matter) took the mixing of abilities as not being able to use rules tied to the weapon alongside other weapons. So no taking the highest strength and lowest AP for your attacks. No taking instant death from one weapon, and adding it to a weapon with shred etc.
But that invulnerable save? Well thats not mixing abilities, thats the abilities effecting the user not the weapon. Does shred effect the user? No, it effects the weapon. Does kiss of death effect the user yes, it does not effect the weapon.
Abilities of the weapon are different from the abilities of the user. the user is effected by his stats and abilities that can be granted by wargear and weapons or in his base profile. Some weapons are effected by stats and abilities that can be granted by wargear and weapons or in its base profile.
Kiss of death clearly is not a weapon ability, but a user ability, since it directly effects the users attacks, and has no effect on the weapon attacks. Like a 2+ invulnerable save.
So, you're adding an arbitrary distinction and dividing weapon abilities into those that are bound by the core restriction on mixing and matching and those that aren't? Can you cite the rules telling you to do so? I'd like to read them and make my own decision as to why you're allowed to follow the rules for some abilities and not others.
Because the abilities of weapons are whats being restricted? A weapons abilities are what I would assume effects the weapons profile. Do not weapons and users have different profiles? and abilities that effect each one? Or have I been confusing weapons and users as being the same?
Then its safe to assume, that you cannot mix abilities of weapons (like shred etc) but can keep user abilities as a constant because there is no rule saying you cant mix the abilities granted to a user.
I will get exact working from my rule book, but I always thought this was the case. Given abilities effect different profiles, and everyone agrees we cannot mix profiles.
How would you word the rules in order to work this where you'd gain it's Kiss of Death rule, while keeping a melee weapon profile on the Harlequin's Kiss in order for it to be usable by regular Harlequins (they'd only ever get one or the other), and for the bonus melee attack from having two melee weapons?
You're making the same arguments time and time again. People are either into your idea or not. Why are you still arguing it? Legitimately want to know.
How would you word the rules in order to work this where you'd gain it's Kiss of Death rule, while keeping a melee weapon profile on the Harlequin's Kiss in order for it to be usable by regular Harlequins (they'd only ever get one or the other), and for the bonus melee attack from having two melee weapons?
You're making the same arguments time and time again. People are either into your idea or not. Why are you still arguing it? Legitimately want to know.
I would need to see wording such as "this special rule may be used even when not attacking with a Harlequin's Kiss". I would need something to specifically override the core restriction on mixing and matching weapon abilities.
Or better yet, make it a non Weapon piece of wargear like the Eldar Mandiblasters.
I continue to post partly because I've been working on some very repetitive crap at work and am bored out of my mind. Partly because I genuinely think this is wrong and sets a dangerous precedent. If people are willing to apply a special rule to a model's attacks without the attacks having had gained the rule... what's next? FlingitNow seriously said he thinks Codex: Eldar Harlequin's should benefit from Codex: Harlequin rules. It's a natural extension of not caring which rules a model or its attacks actually have.
I also think there's a fundamental lack of understanding between a model having a rule, a weapon having a rule and a model's attacks having a rule.
The difference between a Lightning claw's shred and the kiss of death is entirely in its wording.
Shred says when making attacks using the equipped weapon, while kiss of death says while having the equipped weapon your attacks benefit from this rule.
Codex:Eldar CLEARLY do not have Codex:Harlequin rules. But the Harlequins codex kiss of death is clearly giving permission to make that special attack regardless of it being attacks made with that weapon.
and you've said it now, you're arguing because you are bored. And because of that you are making a problem out of something that is clearly written choosing to specifically ignore how the kiss of death is written and allowing people to do what it does.
Can anyone confirm if there is a point at which RAI are so clear, that they can be interpreted as RAW?
Yes but there are many on here that like to argue for the sake of it. They contend it takes magical powers to understand anything beyond the purely literal. They completely fail to understand the basic reason language exists and believe inanimate objects can are capable of creating rules (which are just a list of thoughts and ideas).
Fortunately here RaW matches up with RaI on the Harlequins Kiss for codex Harlequins. Though you need to fix a few interactions with other codexes (like Codex Eldar).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kriswall wrote: Don't put words in my mouth. I continue to post because I'm bored. I post in the first place because I enjoy debate and genuinely think I'm right.
I still have yet to see anyone post permission for the Solitaire's attacks to gain the KoD special rule that isn't circular logic.
Why do the attacks have KoD? Because KoD says so?
You're justifying GAINING the rule with already having the rule. This obviously doesn't work as you'd have to Gain it BEFORE having it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Your logic require that you HAVE it before gaining it.
I don't think you understand circular logic. The question is do we have the Kiss of Death rule? Let's check the rules, well none of the rules outside of the KoD give give us KoD (this we can all agree on). So we check KoD it tells us yes we do have it. This is not circular logic we are checking a rule as we may check any rule we want to at anytime unless you have a restriction against reading certain rules.
Your logic is circular as you use your conclusion as a premise. Your premises are as follows:
1) No rule outside of KoD gives us KoD
2) We can't check KoD because we don't have it
Conclusion: we don't have KoD
That is the very definition of circular logic. So please explain why KoD doesn't apply without using circular logic.
Automatically Appended Next Post: For completeness here are my 3 premises please attack them at will:
1) I have general permission to read the rules.
2) No rule outside of KoD gives me permission to have the KoD rule.
3) KoD says: Whenever a model equipped with a Harlequins Kiss makes his attacks in close combat, one of those attacks will be a Kiss of death attack.
Conclusion: Whenever a model equipped with a Harlequins Kiss makes his attacks in close combat, one of those attacks will be a Kiss of death attack.
Kriswall wrote: Don't put words in my mouth. I continue to post because I'm bored. I post in the first place because I enjoy debate and genuinely think I'm right.
I still have yet to see anyone post permission for the Solitaire's attacks to gain the KoD special rule that isn't circular logic.
Why do the attacks have KoD? Because KoD says so?
You're justifying GAINING the rule with already having the rule. This obviously doesn't work as you'd have to Gain it BEFORE having it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Your logic require that you HAVE it before gaining it.
Its not at all circular, its quite linear. You don't need an additional rule to state how a rule works, that logic would require multiple rules for every rule. You would need a rule to tell you when to apply it and then a rule of what it does.
The Harlequin's Kiss has the Kiss of Death rule. The Kiss of Death rule states how it works. It provides the conditions necessary for it to take effect, when it takes effect, and what it does when it takes effect. - This same method is on many rules. Including the lightning claw you brought up earlier. The lightning claw has the Shred rule. The Shred rule tells you the condition necessary for it to take effect (model has it, or an attack made with a weapon with the rule), when it takes effect, and what it does. The difference is how the rules are stated. They both provide detailed instructions for how they work.
The Kiss of Death rule is provided by the Harlequin's Kiss. Just like Shred is provided by using a Lightning claw. There is no real debate about where the rule comes from other than the one you are trying to invent, but even if you were successful it could be applied to like every weapon rule, maybe many more beyond that. The debate is about how the rule is applied. I.E. whether the solitaire gets the Kiss of Death attack when using the Caress.
My point is that the Solitaire does get to use both.
As you have mentioned in numerous posts you must choose which melee weapon to use. So I can choose to use the Caress, no rule on Kiss or the Solitaire prevents me from choosing it. The Harlequin's Kiss has its own profile and weapon ability, most of the time I would not be able to use either because I didn't choose it. However, the Harlequin's Kiss special rule is based on it being equipped, not on it being used. This rule makes one of the solitaire's attacks a Kiss of Death. This happens regardless of the weapon I choose, and overrides the restriction on mixing and matching weapon because it is an advance rule.
You try to counter this by stating you need specific permission to not have to follow the no mix match thing. This isn't true though. The Kiss is an advanced rule with specific instructions to follow. You can't always follow the Kiss's rule while obeying the no mix and match rule. The core rule book recognizes these situations will happen sometimes and provides the necessary instructions for how to handle it, which are, that the advanced rule trumps the core rule. None of the points you make are challenging this, and are mostly serving to demonstrate that is the most valid argument. I encourage you to make additional, but different points if you would like to disprove it.
I would need to see wording such as "this special rule may be used even when not attacking with a Harlequin's Kiss". I would need something to specifically override the core restriction on mixing and matching weapon abilities.
They have specific wording when the rule requires the weapon to strike. In fact, as we've pointed out multiple times, that wording is already used on the Caress. If they wanted your way to be how to play it, they could have easily worded it the same way the Harlequin's Caress "Caress of Death" rule is worded.
Or better yet, make it a non Weapon piece of wargear like the Eldar Mandiblasters.
But it is a melee weapon. We have rules for melee weapons for several reasons. One of which is that being equipped with two melee weapons grants +1 Attack. Also, this is the only model I'm aware of that has it and another Harlequin weapon. Removing the melee weapon component to this piece of wargear would mean regular Harlequins with it wouldn't gain +1 Attack if using it and a pistol.
You're the one that's getting the dangerous misunderstanding of the rules in effect, if you ask me. You're deliberately applying restrictions to things that defy the restrictions. RAW = read the rules as they are f***ing written. Specific rules always take precedent over base rules. We're given how to work a piece of wargear, in it's own rules, in a way that makes sense, in concise language. Quit applying things that no longer apply, man.
Considering you gain +1A for having two melee weapons, just think of that +1A being your Kiss of Death attack from the singular strike it'd be making when being dual-wielded by the Solitaire, if you need a fluff reason to be okay with it.
It doesn't say in the rule you have to strike with the weapon to "gain" the rule. Prince Yriel always has to reroll his 6's on invulnerable saves because of the Spear of Twilight. Or are you seriously going to say that's only when he strikes with that weapon, and therefore it wouldn't apply to shooting attacks? Because come on dude. Just come on. I'm struggling to find words at this point.
And don't even start with the Slippery Slope logical fallacy. You've brought it up before so I just want to nip that in the bud now. The reason you can't use Armorbane when striking with the Lightning Claw of a LC/Chainfist terminator captain is because Armorbane says if the model "is attacking with a melee weapon that has this rule", so we can apply logic and understanding of the English language to gather Armorbane, on a weapon, is just for that specific weapon. Same thing with Shred if you switch up which weapon is striking. There's a clear line of delineation.
As far as gaining rules from Melee weapons, even if not using them, I would like to point out the Shard of Anaris in the Eldar Codex.
In addition to what it does in Melee, it also grants Fearless. If you have to use a weapon to gain all of its effects, you could NEVER actually claim Fearless.
Since Fearless is used at the end of any phase when enough casualties have been taken or lost combat (among other instances), you could not actually claim Fearless because you are not at a step in which blows are being struck.
Therefore, there is precedence for the Kiss to give its special attack. In fact, the Kiss/Embrace are not optional. Both state that they MUST be used. So why does the Solitare have both the Kiss & Caress?
If you required specific permission to read a rule in order to have the ability to use it, I wouldn't be able to read my codebook without getting verbal permission from the design team to go ahead and read it.
The people who are debating on the side of the kiss of death rule being allowed have shown numerous examples of past practice in regards to similar special abilities attached to melee weapons, have shown the way the core rules state how to deal with advanced rules, and whether or not advanced rule would take precedent over general rules.
Those against simply keep stating an obviously overruled basic rule as the entire premise for their debate platform. Then they have tried to infer some sort of special reason why this BASIC rule is inviolable, when the core book it comes from specifically states otherwise.
How did this obvious case of advanced v. basic become a 19 page thread?
I give up. You guys enjoy your HIWPI. Until such time as GW issues an FAQ or Errata, I will continue to believe that a model or its attacks need to actually have a special rule before being able to use said special rule.
Kriswall wrote: I give up. You guys enjoy your HIWPI. Until such time as GW issues an FAQ or Errata, I will continue to believe that a model or its attacks need to actually have a special rule before being able to use said special rule.
I think you have lost . Impressive fight though.
I personally think you arent wrong, just more wrong than we are. But when the rules support us along with intent, I think it puts the pro group ahead. You have one rule that you keep reffering too, but it shown many times to not quite work the way you describe. Your interpretation also means that many questions are raised, such as:
Do I gain multiple weapon benefits when not fighting?
Must I declare what weapon I am using every fight subphase?
How often can I declare what weapons are equipped and when?
Do I need to tell my opponent if I have equipped my sword of saving throws before he shoots me, or can I just assume I equipped it for that shot?
Can I change gear part way through getting shot? To take advantage of a invulnerable save and a feel no pain?
I mean how far are you taking this "must use one weapon and its effects only" thing? It raises more questions and answers nothing.
Its pretty clear by the rules, you cannot mix weapon profiles, but the user profile can mix with the weapon profile. So anything that effects the user is compiled into one group, and the weapons are all separate. You chose the weapon you wish to mix with the user profile (which is made up of all the gear and rules he has including weapons) and then sort out the attack from there. Like with any other attack. Hand weapons give your profile +1 attack. This means you can use a power sword AND a hand weapon, because one effects the user profile and one has a weapon profile.
NOW the real question here is, is the kiss a User rule or a weapon rule.
It in no way effects the weapon as per rule, but affects the user. To me this makes it compatible with the Caress or any other attack. But I believe that is what is up for debate.
Kriswall wrote: I give up. You guys enjoy your HIWPI. Until such time as GW issues an FAQ or Errata, I will continue to believe that a model or its attacks need to actually have a special rule before being able to use said special rule.
Cool you play your house rules if your opponent agrees. I'll play the RaW and RaI which fortunately match up in this case so why you'd make up your own rules is baffling, but that is your choice.
So if it affects the attacks, is it not possible that unless you are attacking with the weapon, you do not benefit?
For the record, I'm not arguing the verbage of the special rule. The problem is the pro-side is using the special rule to claim the ability to use the special rule (iow I can do "X" because "X" allows me to do "X"), where normally, you must be told you have the ability to use the special rule.
Happyjew wrote: So if it affects the attacks, is it not possible that unless you are attacking with the weapon, you do not benefit?
For the record, I'm not arguing the verbage of the special rule. The problem is the pro-side is using the special rule to claim the ability to use the special rule (iow I can do "X" because "X" allows me to do "X"), where normally, you must be told you have the ability to use the special rule.
I'm just going to go ahead and assume you have some actual rules to support the stance that rules can't give you permission to use themselves. Please would you kindly post your support for this or are you using the circular logic of the others?
Happyjew wrote: So if it affects the attacks, is it not possible that unless you are attacking with the weapon, you do not benefit?
For the record, I'm not arguing the verbage of the special rule. The problem is the pro-side is using the special rule to claim the ability to use the special rule (iow I can do "X" because "X" allows me to do "X"), where normally, you must be told you have the ability to use the special rule.
I'm just going to go ahead and assume you have some actual rules to support the stance that rules can't give you permission to use themselves. Please would you kindly post your support for this or are you using the circular logic of the others?
No, I don't. Just like you don't have some rules support that allow a rule to grant itself to a model that does not have said rule.
I can't make close combat attacks at all, because nowhere in the core rulebook does it say I can use the rules in the assault phase section of the core rulebook.
That is preposterous (obviously) but is tantamount to what is being said by some in this thread. The notion that a rule cannot give you permision within itself to be utilized is absolutely, and categorically wrong. These are ALL rules, they have meaning in and of themselves in the context of a tabletop wargame.
The rules themselves may be unclear at times, this instance is not actually one of them. The rule contains every piece of information required to utilize it on the table top, including prerequisites, and the specifics of how the rules affects the model in the fight sub phase. No other information is required. The notion that a basic rule can/should overrule this advanced rule by means of a false required permission to be allowed to read the rule in the first place is nonsense.
Happyjew wrote: So if it affects the attacks, is it not possible that unless you are attacking with the weapon, you do not benefit?
For the record, I'm not arguing the verbage of the special rule. The problem is the pro-side is using the special rule to claim the ability to use the special rule (iow I can do "X" because "X" allows me to do "X"), where normally, you must be told you have the ability to use the special rule.
I'm just going to go ahead and assume you have some actual rules to support the stance that rules can't give you permission to use themselves. Please would you kindly post your support for this or are you using the circular logic of the others?
No, I don't. Just like you don't have some rules support that allow a rule to grant itself to a model that does not have said rule.
I do the rule in question gives me permission, so you need something to deny that permission.
Automatically Appended Next Post: For instance the turn rules tell you how and when to play through the turns. Explaining the turn sequence. Do we need another rule telling us that we can use the turn sequence rules?
HappyJew, Do you agree that wargear provides a model with special rules?
Remember, weapons are wargear.
Also remember, that the second sentence of the what special rules do I have applies to attacks, but in no way supersedes the first sentence. As in, there is no "only" in it. Meaning, as wargear a weapon may still provide a special rule.
Further, that second sentence, in a permissive rule set, is the ONLY way a special rule is allowed to affect an attack, without reading a special rule to give you permission to use it. Meaning, only weapon special rules may ever affect an attack, using the "you need permission to read a special rule to use it" defense.
Happyjew wrote: Fling, would you agree that if a model does not have a rule, he cannot use said rule?
Not necessarily. For instance a model in a unit with another model that has stealth gains a benefit from stealth whilst never having that rule.
Benefiting is not the same as using. Try again.
What a bizarre distinction to make. Cool so the model is not using the stealth rule? Awesome the Harlequin isn't using the Kiss of Death rule merely benefitting from it. Got ANY rules to actually support your position yet or continuing with using the circular logic to try to hand wave your way through it?
Happyjew wrote: Fling, would you agree that if a model does not have a rule, he cannot use said rule?
Not necessarily. For instance a model in a unit with another model that has stealth gains a benefit from stealth whilst never having that rule.
Benefiting is not the same as using. Try again.
What a bizarre distinction to make. Cool so the model is not using the stealth rule? Awesome the Harlequin isn't using the Kiss of Death rule merely benefitting from it. Got ANY rules to actually support your position yet or continuing with using the circular logic to try to hand wave your way through it?
It's bizarre to get you to be precise in language, when we're discussing rules in that language?
Whatever. Can you answer the actual question posed, as asked, or do you refuse to?
There wasn't a question posed you made a comment that using a rule and benefitting are different. Please point the rules that define this difference. Because I absolutely believe the model having his cover save improved by stealth is making use of the stealth rule.
Apart from the question by happy you mean? Unambiguous answer needed, yes or no.
Benefit and use are two different words with two different meanings. I don't have to prove they are different, the English language does that. If you are claiming equivalency in 40k, you are required to prove it. Or does this logic also escape you, same S using a rule you do not have, and claiming that you can do so because the rule says so. The same rule you don't even have permission to read, never made invoke.
Happyjew wrote: So if it affects the attacks, is it not possible that unless you are attacking with the weapon, you do not benefit?
For the record, I'm not arguing the verbage of the special rule. The problem is the pro-side is using the special rule to claim the ability to use the special rule (iow I can do "X" because "X" allows me to do "X"), where normally, you must be told you have the ability to use the special rule.
This isn't correct. Weapon rules tell you to use them. They provide a condition for when the rule takes effect. For example, Shred takes effect when a model with the rule attack, or when an attack is made with a weapon with the rule. None of them I looked at have an additional rule telling you to use one of there other rules which is what you seem to be requesting, its all contained in the single special rule. Please let me know if you are able to locate a weapon with rules that work in the manner you have described.
In the case of the harlequin's kiss the condition for the rule is when a model equipped with the a Kiss makes its close combat attack.
Each weapon has its own rule that should be followed. You don't get to ignore them because they don't work how you think they should. They work how they are described. In this case the "pro-side" is supporting RAW and RAI because we are insisting that you follow the instructions provided, while the anti-side invents debates like this one.
Happyjew wrote: Fling, would you agree that if a model does not have a rule, he cannot use said rule?
Not necessarily. For instance a model in a unit with another model that has stealth gains a benefit from stealth whilst never having that rule.
I see you still struggle with answering unambiguously. Try again. Yes or no, given that benefit and use are different words, your answer does not answer the question asked, but a different one. I'm sure you can do so, given how confident you are in your stance.
I think there are very simple examples to prove your point here.
Here's one:
Eldrad Ulthran has a staff eeaaeeaaoo ...
Anyway, the staff of ulthamar has four special rules: Melee, Spiritlink, Fleshbane and Force.
Spiritlink: Whenever Eldrad passes a Psychic test, roll a
D6 . On a score of 5 or 6 , Eldrad immediately regains a
Warp Charge point.
This does not require Eldrad to strike anyone with the staff.
In other words, any special rule on a weapon is like a special rule on any other piece of gear, and the mistaken assumption that one needs to hit with that weapon comes from the general wording of most of the special rules on most weapons, which do specify that you need to use the weapon for that, as well as the fact that S and AP values are only used for the one weapon that is used in CC.
A bit of understandable confusion, but there's a myriad of examples predating the Harlequins.
Yriels Spear (cursed) for example - if you don't apply the rules - then he is not cursed for the turn he uses his eye blast attack?
What about the SW dreads blizzard shield - does he only get the 3++ in close combat as the blizzard shield is a weapon (it has a profile) which includes the rule - SHIELD - conferring said 3++ to the front armour.
If you can't apply the rules from a weapon outside of combat, many weapons stop working by the clear intent they have
morgoth wrote:I think there are very simple examples to prove your point here.
Here's one:
Eldrad Ulthran has a staff eeaaeeaaoo ...
Anyway, the staff of ulthamar has four special rules: Melee, Spiritlink, Fleshbane and Force.
Spiritlink: Whenever Eldrad passes a Psychic test, roll a
D6 . On a score of 5 or 6 , Eldrad immediately regains a
Warp Charge point.
This does not require Eldrad to strike anyone with the staff.
In other words, any special rule on a weapon is like a special rule on any other piece of gear, and the mistaken assumption that one needs to hit with that weapon comes from the general wording of most of the special rules on most weapons, which do specify that you need to use the weapon for that, as well as the fact that S and AP values are only used for the one weapon that is used in CC.
A bit of understandable confusion, but there's a myriad of examples predating the Harlequins.
morgoth wrote:I think there are very simple examples to prove your point here.
Here's one:
Eldrad Ulthran has a staff eeaaeeaaoo ...
Anyway, the staff of ulthamar has four special rules: Melee, Spiritlink, Fleshbane and Force.
Spiritlink: Whenever Eldrad passes a Psychic test, roll a
D6 . On a score of 5 or 6 , Eldrad immediately regains a
Warp Charge point.
This does not require Eldrad to strike anyone with the staff.
In other words, any special rule on a weapon is like a special rule on any other piece of gear, and the mistaken assumption that one needs to hit with that weapon comes from the general wording of most of the special rules on most weapons, which do specify that you need to use the weapon for that, as well as the fact that S and AP values are only used for the one weapon that is used in CC.
A bit of understandable confusion, but there's a myriad of examples predating the Harlequins.
Massaen wrote:Yriels Spear (cursed) for example - if you don't apply the rules - then he is not cursed for the turn he uses his eye blast attack?
What about the SW dreads blizzard shield - does he only get the 3++ in close combat as the blizzard shield is a weapon (it has a profile) which includes the rule - SHIELD - conferring said 3++ to the front armour.
If you can't apply the rules from a weapon outside of combat, many weapons stop working by the clear intent they have
Already tried these examples, plus the Shard of Anaris granting Fearless. The Nay sayers point to the end of the second sentence, and somehow claim it is the "only" way a weapon can give something a special rule, when it clearly does not say that. I have also repeatedly pointed out that it says attacks, and it is also the only place in the book, outside of the special rule itself, that allows a models attacks to gain a special rule, even though we all know that a special rule on a model affects its attacks, yet somehow we can read a special rule to give itself permission to give the model the special rule to use on its attacks, but can't do it the other way.
Siting the fact that all weapons are wargear, also doesn't dissuade them in the fallacious belief that sentence 2 is the only way a model can gain a special rule from a weapon, even though we have repeatedly pointed out that the use the same wording as other wargear on some special rules attached to weapons, and that the interpretation they are using is the only reason these special rules don't function correctly.
It is the only way to gain the rule, unless you can find another way to gain it. That's how a permissive ruleset works. If you don't have the special rule, you don't get to reference it to prove you have the special rule...
nosferatu1001 wrote: It is the only way to gain the rule, unless you can find another way to gain it. That's how a permissive ruleset works. If you don't have the special rule, you don't get to reference it to prove you have the special rule...
That is wrong. Blatantly and obviously wrong. All you need in a permissive rule set to be allowed to use a rule, is for the rule to say you can. Nowhere, and that is a big point so I'll capitalize it NOWHERE does the rulebook say when you are allowed to read a rule that has been written. The weapon in question states plainly and clearly 1) what you need in order to use it 2) when to use it 3) and how it affects the model.
As has been stated, if you need express permission to read a rule before being allowed to utilize it, then no one would be allowed to play this game. due to having to read the rules in order to reference them and we don't have permission to do so with verbal personal consent from the design team.
Unless you are willing to make that obviously nonsensical jump, then you cannot in good faith tell me when I may or may not read a relevant rule on a model in my army. Note I said read, not activate. For those who would say "then I have shred on my boltguns because the squad leader has a lightning claw and you said I can use the rule whenever I want"
Tl,dr the rule itself may be read whenever I please, you cannot tell me I can't, and the rule tells me how it works. Reading comprehension and the core rulebook tell me I get to use it. How are you going to stop me from doing so?
nosferatu1001 wrote: It is the only way to gain the rule, unless you can find another way to gain it. That's how a permissive ruleset works. If you don't have the special rule, you don't get to reference it to prove you have the special rule...
I did prove it, ALL weapons are wargear, thus if my wargear has a rule I have said rule, just like sentence one says "from the army list entry" that allows wargear to provide a rule.
Some of the rules are then written to require you to attack with the weapon, and KoD is not one of these. Neither is Fear, Cursed, or Whatever it was that Eldrads staff had.
Now find permission for a models attacks to have a special rule, without referencing the special rule. There is only one permission, that is not in a special rule, and that is from weapons. Remember permissive rule set, Your "attacks" do not have the special rule only the model.
"That said, a model's attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using." Where is the permission to use non weapon special rules for attacks?
Hey, if you're only arguing with those two rocks, you can also stop arguing, it's not like they're going to suddenly read, try to understand and get it.
nosferatu1001 wrote: The more specific weapon rule kicks in and states when you actually have the rule. Try again.
What? The More specific KoD rule that says when a model equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss? Can't get much more specific can it?
Or are you referring to the second sentence? The one that is the only permission to apply a special rules to attacks.
Maybe, you are trying to say wargear that is not a weapon can't use special rules when they attack, so anything that gives you rending, shred, or anything that affects attacks don't work when attacking because it is not on a weapon.
"That said, a model's attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using." Yep, no permission to use wargear special rules when attacking, only weapons. But then, there is no permission to use a model's special rules on an attack either.
nosferatu1001 wrote: The more specific weapon rule kicks in and states when you actually have the rule. Try again.
The kiss of death rule has been repeated verbatim multiple times. It does not in any way hinge on the weapon being the one you are attacking with, only that the character has it equipped. I actually have the rule all the time, that is how this SPECIFIC and ADVANCED rule from a CODEX is worded. You are arguing that a basic rule from the brb is stopping it from being used. If my rule is able to be categorized in three separate ways that would, by the raw of this ruleset, allow it to take precedence, how can you possibly state it does not take effect?
The raw is simple, because the RULE is written the way that it is meant to be used. Rules as written tells me exactly how to utilize the kiss of death special rule. It is a RULE and you would use the RULE itself to determine how the RULE is used in game. I have the kiss of death rule on one of my melee attacks because I have a weapon with the kiss of death rule equipped. It specifically allows the weapon to affect a single attack the character makes whether or not the weapon in question is being used. So , for example, if I use Cegorachs rose, I can either, make all the attacks with the kiss, reroll one missed hit and all failed wounds, or attack with the caress and reroll the single attack from the kiss of death and the failed to wound roll from said attack because those rules only affect attacks from that weapon. No attack may use rules from multiple weapons, so my caress attacks cannot benefit from the shred and master craft, and the kiss of death attack doesn't automatically wound at ap2 if I roll a 6 to hit.
How anyone could argue this hard against a case of obvious RAW and RAI this stubbornly is beyond me. These are all written rules, they state plainly how to use them, there is only one rule in the game that may attempt to interfere with how they occur, but we are (again) told plainly how these rules interact (specific advanced codex rule trumps general brb rule) yet somehow we have a 20 page debate about it.
The proof has been given more thaN Once this thread.
You have repeated ad nauseum a basic rule. One that is overruled by an advanced rule, that you do not want to work the way it obviously does. Then attempted to create a fictitious rule that determines when we are allowed to reference other rules.
The only way for the kiss of death rule not to work the way I and others have said, would be if the rule you have made up were in the brb( the one where I am unable to use a rule the design team added to the game to validate its own ability to be used how they wrote it)
That argument has no merit, and the reason you keep insisting that it does is beyond the comprehension of most people, myself included. If I cannot use a rules own wording to verify how to utilize said rule, how do I play a game where all the rules do the same? Where in the rule book does it say I cannot do so?
In closing, you have repeatedly attempted to overrule an advanced rule with a basic one, have been proven to be unable to do so, and are using your own argument as proof of its own merit. That is not a debate, that is nonsense.
I'll also join the "dont need permission, not in this game!" camp!
. Impressive fight though.
