Fhionnuisce wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Provide permission to evoke the Colossal rule. Do so WITHOUT referencing the Colossal rule

People keep setting this requirement but that is not RAW. More that one weapon begins "Unless otherwise stated." If Colossal states otherwise it can be used without even breaking the More than one weapon rule. The real question, which is being danced around but rarely directly addressed, is whether "A model with" is sufficiently stating an exception to trigger that clause.

If you are looking for explicitly granted permission then it is not. If you accept general wording and compare to the restrictive precedent set by rules like Unwieldy and Shred then it is.

Are there any rules that clarify how an exception should be stated that might address this more directly?

'Unless otherwise stated' would require a statement that the weapon ability can be mixed and matched (used) when the weapon is not being used. For me, the statement needs to be explicit and not merely implied. Implied permission isn't the same as permission. The Colossal weapon ability does not have explicit permission. It MAY have implied permission. It may not. That will depend on your individual interpretation. I don't think it's enough to say "well, that ability sure implies that I'm allowed to use it when not attacking with it even though it doesn't actually say that". I think it needs to actually state that it can be mixed and matched.

Now, I may be wrong. GW may be going with a loose definition of "stated" that includes scenarios where there is no statement, but only an implication. If so, they need to clean up their wording via an Errata or make clear that their using a non standard definition of 'stated' through an FAQ. I have to base my interpretations on what they actually wrote and not what they might intend.

Excctly.

Explicit vs maybe, at best, possibly implied.

VAST difference.

 Kriswall wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Provide permission to evoke the Colossal rule. Do so WITHOUT referencing the Colossal rule

People keep setting this requirement but that is not RAW. More that one weapon begins "Unless otherwise stated." If Colossal states otherwise it can be used without even breaking the More than one weapon rule. The real question, which is being danced around but rarely directly addressed, is whether "A model with" is sufficiently stating an exception to trigger that clause.

If you are looking for explicitly granted permission then it is not. If you accept general wording and compare to the restrictive precedent set by rules like Unwieldy and Shred then it is.

Are there any rules that clarify how an exception should be stated that might address this more directly?

'Unless otherwise stated' would require a statement that the weapon ability can be mixed and matched (used) when the weapon is not being used. For me, the statement needs to be explicit and not merely implied. Implied permission isn't the same as permission. The Colossal weapon ability does not have explicit permission. It MAY have implied permission. It may not. That will depend on your individual interpretation. I don't think it's enough to say "well, that ability sure implies that I'm allowed to use it when not attacking with it even though it doesn't actually say that". I think it needs to actually state that it can be mixed and matched.

Now, I may be wrong. GW may be going with a loose definition of "stated" that includes scenarios where there is no statement, but only an implication. If so, they need to clean up their wording via an Errata or make clear that their using a non standard definition of 'stated' through an FAQ. I have to base my interpretations on what they actually wrote and not what they might intend.

"the bearer always strikes at I1" is explicit.

just as "attacks with a weapon that has the Colossul rule always strike at I1" is explicit.

there is nothing implied in "the bearer always strikes at I1" it is an explicit statement.

 Aijec wrote:

Are you implying that the decapitating axe gives instant death on 6's even while not being attacked with?

No, only if you use that weapon.

The majority of players wouldn't let you instant death with the decapitating axe even though the wording is the same as colossal.

Clearly the RAW isn't everything to this story.

Ask yourself if they intended a 275 point model to ALWAYS strike at initiate 1 and what that means in an even lightly competitive enviroment.

It means that even a tactical squad can ruin his day let alone any imperial knight/garg creature/any type of stomp.

Wraithknights are hyper competitively costed so it's an extreme example but make that comparison. For 20 points more you get a TON more mobility/toughness/wounds/offensive melee output and we're comparing KHORNE to ELDAR in melee.

Think about this guy vs an assault squad with a couple LC's. He would literally lose combat and die.

A piece of the argument many posters may or may not realize is that he has the ability to take around 8 different weapons. Other than ID ones they are all useless, is that really accurate?

I'm offering this up as evidence to allow your local players to use their models so that they can be somewhere close to whats promised. Not as debate changing specifics.

I can't really say what the intent of the authors were, but I can tell you that if the 275 D-Thirster can strike at regular Init, then there is no reason ever to take the 250 version. As for IK's and WK's, my Thirster murders them even when striking at I1 unless they get lucky. WS10 means they are usually hitting on 5's. Then you add 3++ and potentially re-roll Invuln's and 4+ FNP on top of that and the advantage is on the side of the Thirster. More often than not, he kills them even when striking at I1.

blaktoof wrote:
"the bearer always strikes at I1" is explicit.

just as "attacks with a weapon that has the Colossul rule always strike at I1" is explicit.

there is nothing implied in "the bearer always strikes at I1" it is an explicit statement.

While I agree with what you said, it's the always that makes that explicit. If you take out the always it's a bit more open to interpretation. Colossal doesn't say always.

an explicit statement is a clear statement.

"A model with this weapon piles in and fights at Initiative step1"

the statement is quite clear.

There is nothing implied in it.

The blood thirster is a model.

Does it have the weapon?

Yes.

Then it is a model with this weapon. It fights and piles in at initiative 1.

The colossul rule references the model having the weapon. If you want to use the more than one weapon rule when striking thats great, however the colossul rule doesnt care about striking with the weapon, it cares about the model having the weapon. Unless you want to argue models do not have weapons until they strike with them, there is no way to say the Bloodthirster does not have the weapon.

Fhionnuisce wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
"the bearer always strikes at I1" is explicit.

just as "attacks with a weapon that has the Colossul rule always strike at I1" is explicit.

there is nothing implied in "the bearer always strikes at I1" it is an explicit statement.

While I agree with what you said, it's the always that makes that explicit. If you take out the always it's a bit more open to interpretation. Colossal doesn't say always.

Yeah, the 'always' bit was a misquote. The version of Colossal that we're discussing doesn't contain the word 'always'.

blaktoof wrote:
an explicit statement is a clear statement.

"A model with this weapon piles in and fights at Initiative step1"

the statement is quite clear.

There is nothing implied in it.

The blood thirster is a model.

Does it have the weapon?

Yes.

Then it is a model with this weapon. It fights and piles in at initiative 1.

The colossul rule references the model having the weapon. If you want to use the more than one weapon rule when striking thats great, however the colossul rule doesnt care about striking with the weapon, it cares about the model having the weapon. Unless you want to argue models do not have weapons until they strike with them, there is no way to say the Bloodthirster does not have the weapon.

But if the Weapon is not in play, then the rule is not in play. If the rule is not in play, then the rule is not forcing the model to fight at a different Initiative Step.

That is part of the problem.

blaktoof wrote:
an explicit statement is a clear statement.

"A model with this weapon piles in and fights at Initiative step1"

the statement is quite clear.

There is nothing implied in it.

The blood thirster is a model.

Does it have the weapon?

Yes.

Then it is a model with this weapon. It fights and piles in at initiative 1.

Blacktoof... you've been posting to these forums long enough to understand the concept of this being a permissive game. You need permission to give your model or its attacks a special rule. The rules even explicitly tell us that a model (or its attacks) DON'T have special rules unless we're told that they do. We're further explicitly told that a model's attacks DON'T gain special rules from a weapon that is not being used in a fight. We are told that we can't mix and match weapon abilities unless otherwise stated. Does Colossal outright state that you can mix and match weapon abilities? No, it does not. If you disagree, quote and highlight the part of Colossal that means "this weapon ability may be used even when the weapon is not being used during a fight". Thus far, people keep pointing at implied permissions, but nobody has yet to point at the part of Colossal that says it can be used when the weapon isn't being used. Does Colossal imply that you can mix and match weapon abilities? Maybe? That's up for interpretation. I don't think it does. I'm not sure it matters, though, as implied permission have more impact on local house rules and very little impact on the rules as written. RaW only tends to care about explicit permission.

Colossal explicitly tells us that a model with the weapon can pile in and fight at initiative step 1. Colossal does NOT explicitly tell us that Colossal may be used when its containing weapon isn't being used. This is what we'd need for a BRB conflict.

Why is there a difference in the wording of the Colossal special rule between the IK codex and the D thirster? It's a special rule with identical names, surely it must be intended to be the same rule? Is it not a possibility that the D thirster version with the missing "fighting" word is a mistake?

 Kriswall wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
an explicit statement is a clear statement.

"A model with this weapon piles in and fights at Initiative step1"

the statement is quite clear.

There is nothing implied in it.

The blood thirster is a model.

Does it have the weapon?

Yes.

Then it is a model with this weapon. It fights and piles in at initiative 1.

Blacktoof... you've been posting to these forums long enough to understand the concept of this being a permissive game. You need permission to give your model or its attacks a special rule. The rules even explicitly tell us that a model (or its attacks) DON'T have special rules unless we're told that they do. We're further explicitly told that a model's attacks DON'T gain special rules from a weapon that is not being used in a fight. We are told that we can't mix and match weapon abilities unless otherwise stated. Does Colossal outright state that you can mix and match weapon abilities? No, it does not. If you disagree, quote and highlight the part of Colossal that means "this weapon ability may be used even when the weapon is not being used during a fight". Thus far, people keep pointing at implied permissions, but nobody has yet to point at the part of Colossal that says it can be used when the weapon isn't being used. Does Colossal imply that you can mix and match weapon abilities? Maybe? That's up for interpretation. I don't think it does. I'm not sure it matters, though, as implied permission have more impact on local house rules and very little impact on the rules as written. RaW only tends to care about explicit permission.

Colossal explicitly tells us that a model with the weapon can pile in and fight at initiative step 1. Colossal does NOT explicitly tell us that Colossal may be used when its containing weapon isn't being used. This is what we'd need for a BRB conflict.

Colossal does not state or imply the model has to be using the weapon.

Does the bloodthirster have the weapon?

A model with this weapon piles in and fights at Initiative step1

not a model with this special rule fights at I1, or a model using this weapon with this special rule strikes at I1, or a model fighting/striking/using this weapon strikes at I1.

Does the blodthirster -have- the weapon, even if it is not striking with it?

blaktoof wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
an explicit statement is a clear statement.

"A model with this weapon piles in and fights at Initiative step1"

the statement is quite clear.

There is nothing implied in it.

The blood thirster is a model.

Does it have the weapon?

Yes.

Then it is a model with this weapon. It fights and piles in at initiative 1.

Blacktoof... you've been posting to these forums long enough to understand the concept of this being a permissive game. You need permission to give your model or its attacks a special rule. The rules even explicitly tell us that a model (or its attacks) DON'T have special rules unless we're told that they do. We're further explicitly told that a model's attacks DON'T gain special rules from a weapon that is not being used in a fight. We are told that we can't mix and match weapon abilities unless otherwise stated. Does Colossal outright state that you can mix and match weapon abilities? No, it does not. If you disagree, quote and highlight the part of Colossal that means "this weapon ability may be used even when the weapon is not being used during a fight". Thus far, people keep pointing at implied permissions, but nobody has yet to point at the part of Colossal that says it can be used when the weapon isn't being used. Does Colossal imply that you can mix and match weapon abilities? Maybe? That's up for interpretation. I don't think it does. I'm not sure it matters, though, as implied permission have more impact on local house rules and very little impact on the rules as written. RaW only tends to care about explicit permission.

Colossal explicitly tells us that a model with the weapon can pile in and fight at initiative step 1. Colossal does NOT explicitly tell us that Colossal may be used when its containing weapon isn't being used. This is what we'd need for a BRB conflict.

Colossal does not state or imply the model has to be using the weapon.

Does the bloodthirster have the weapon?

A model with this weapon piles in and fights at Initiative step1

not a model with this special rule fights at I1, or a model using this weapon with this special rule strikes at I1, or a model fighting/striking/using this weapon strikes at I1.

Does the blodthirster -have- the weapon, even if it is not striking with it?

Colossal may not require that the model be using the AoK, but the BRB does... and Colossal doesn't state that it can be used when the model isn't using the AoK.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Why is there a difference in the wording of the Colossal special rule between the IK codex and the D thirster? It's a special rule with identical names, surely it must be intended to be the same rule? Is it not a possibility that the D thirster version with the missing "fighting" word is a mistake?

It's absolutely a possibility. If this is the case, there might be an FAQ or Errata in the future. Until then, we treat each rule as distinct and only applying to the publication in which it occurs.

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Why is there a difference in the wording of the Colossal special rule between the IK codex and the D thirster? It's a special rule with identical names, surely it must be intended to be the same rule? Is it not a possibility that the D thirster version with the missing "fighting" word is a mistake?

It's not a Universal rule, so there bound to be differences, just like a Blood Angels Heavy Weapon list isn't the same as a Codex Marines Heavy Weapon list, or the differences between their Tactical Squads and Dreadnoughts.

Blaktoof - comply with the requirement in more than one weapon. Find where it is "otherwise stated" in the colossal rule, that it works even though the weapon is not selected. Because to be explicit it must say something along those lines, otherwise it doesn't comply with the more than one weapon rule.

If you cannot find such wording then at best you have an implication.

 Kriswall wrote:
Colossal may not require that the model be using the AoK, but the BRB does... and Colossal doesn't state that it can be used when the model isn't using the AoK.

Exactly. Just as Unwieldy doesn't get mixed with Claws from a Power Fist, Two-handed from a Relic Blade, or Specialist from the Lightning Claw.

Requirement of use is not the only requirement/status we are looking at here.

A model with this weapon piles in and fights at Initiative step1

clearly states that the model with the weapon piles in and fights at I step 1.

It explicitly has no wording about needing to strike with the weapon, or when striking with the weapon.

The BRB requires rules such as shred, rending, etc, tied to a weapon to strike with the weapon to get the bonus.

It does not say the weapon does not have shred when it is not being struck with. That is implied by some posters.

The colossal rule does not require you to be striking with it, it clearly states the model with the weapon does something. A restriction. A restriction this special rule specifies as going into effect by the model having the weapon, not striking with it. The special rule of this weapon affects the model, not the model when striking. Claiming it affects the model when striking is changing its wording to include things it does not state. The part about losing the abilities of a weapon when striking with it, is in regards to striking with a weapon. If a weapon has a special rule that affects the model, not the models attacks when striking, the special rule is in effect according to its rules. Not only when striking with it - because the special rule has nothing to do with using the weapon. The model has the special rule by having the weapon

"A model with this weapon piles in and fights at I1"




Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Blaktoof - comply with the requirement in more than one weapon. Find where it is "otherwise stated" in the colossal rule, that it works even though the weapon is not selected. Because to be explicit it must say something along those lines, otherwise it doesn't comply with the more than one weapon rule.

If you cannot find such wording then at best you have an implication.

it would be helpful if you could quote the actual name of the rule or rule itself when presenting an point of any kind.

it is otherwise stated by saying the model has the rule. Not "when striking with this weapon...." or "attacks with this weapon..."

blaktoof wrote:
It explicitly has no wording about needing to strike with the weapon, or when striking with the weapon.

"It" being the Colossal weapon ability.

Gotcha... So, the BRB doesn't allow mixing and matching unless the weapon ability in question states otherwise. You agree that Colossal doesn't state anything related to using or not using the weapon. We appear to be in agreement. There is no conflict with the BRB and so the More Than One Weapon restrictions stands.

I did. More than one weapon. Have you read it?

No, that is implied that it works even when the weapon is not selected for use. I am sure you know the difference between explicit and implied, yes?

Implying that special rules for weapons that explicitly give the bearer permission to do something, with no written requirement of striking in said rule is actually game breaking.

There are some rules which are tied to striking with a weapon, and there are some rules which are explicitly stated within the special rule itself (codex vs brb, specific vs. advanced...) as giving the bearer, or the model, permission to do something.

For example claiming all special rules are defacto tied to striking only, even if they state they are not means things like the murder sword have no function. It is not possible to resolve the rule "murder" on the first turn if you claim the model does not have that weapon with that rule granting it specific ability to do something until it strikes in melee with it, and they it only is in effect when the model is striking in melee with it.

If the specific rule in the entry specifies the model bearer gets to do something explicitly, then it does.

The bloodthirster is I1 in assault, because the rule for colossal explicitly state it affects the model for having the weapon. No other requirements, no striking with the weapon, etc.

Just as Murder explicitly allows you to nominate another model before the first turn- despite not striking with the weapon to get the special rule- because that special rule specifically states you do get to do something.

There is nothing that is unclear about the wording

"A model with this weapon piles in and fights at I1"

Is the bloodthirster a model?

Does it have the weapon?

Rule can be resolved clearly as per its wording.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I did. More than one weapon. Have you read it?

No, that is implied that it works even when the weapon is not selected for use. I am sure you know the difference between explicit and implied, yes?

that's not that actual name of the rule.

There is no implication that it works at certain times and not others, that is fabricated by yourself and a few other people. It clearly states when the Model is allowed to strike by the virtue of having the weapon, with no other implications based on using the axe or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
It explicitly has no wording about needing to strike with the weapon, or when striking with the weapon.

"It" being the Colossal weapon ability.

Gotcha... So, the BRB doesn't allow mixing and matching unless the weapon ability in question states otherwise. You agree that Colossal doesn't state anything related to using or not using the weapon. We appear to be in agreement. There is no conflict with the BRB and so the More Than One Weapon restrictions stands.

So you agree the model has the weapon. You also agree the rule has no tie at all with striking with the weapon or using the weapon within its wording and explicitly states when it affects the model.


you also agree that specific trumps general, and codex trumps basic?

good, so striking with more than 1 weapon has no bearing on a rule that does not require you to strike with the weapon as the rules and common sense dictate.

blaktoof wrote:
The BRB requires rules such as shred, rending, etc, tied to a weapon to strike with the weapon to get the bonus.

It does not say the weapon does not have shred when it is not being struck with. That is implied by some posters.

Irrelevant. The More Than One Weapon rule limits it before it even has a chance to be used if another Weapon is being used. If nothing else, these rules only reaffirm the base rule to begin with.

 Charistoph wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
The BRB requires rules such as shred, rending, etc, tied to a weapon to strike with the weapon to get the bonus.

It does not say the weapon does not have shred when it is not being struck with. That is implied by some posters.

Irrelevant. The More Than One Weapon rule limits it before it even has a chance to be used if another Weapon is being used. If nothing else, these rules only reaffirm the base rule to begin with.

I realize you posted a statement.

However it has nothing to do with any written rules.

I however congratulate you on being able to post statements.

Well done.

The rule has been posted multiple times this thread (I assume you've read it?) and has been referred to multiple times by that phrase. Apologies if that's too complex a concept.

So you can freely mix and match weapon abilities now? Please show permission to do so - I want ap2 sx2 Lightning claws.

After all, implied permission is good enough for colossal

I take it you give rampage to a model not striking with the blade of blood as well?

blaktoof wrote:
Implying that special rules for weapons that explicitly give the bearer permission to do something, with no written requirement of striking in said rule is actually game breaking.

Read one of the first paragraphs in the Special Rules section of the BRB. A model's attacks can gain special rules/abilities from a weapon when that weapon is being used. Otherwise, the model and its attacks DON'T have the special rules. Per both this paragraph in the special rules section AND the More Than One Weapon rules, giving a model or its attacks a special rule/ability from a weapon when the weapon is not being used is absolutely a rules violation. It breaks the game in the sense that things are happening that the rules don't allow.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:
So you agree the model has the weapon. You also agree the rule has no tie at all with striking with the weapon or using the weapon within its wording and explicitly states when it affects the model.

The model has the weapon. Yes.
The weapon ability doesn't, in and of itself, require that the weapon be actively used to attack in the same way that an ability like Shred does. Yes.
The model's attacks can gain the weapon ability from the weapon when the weapon is not being used to attack. NOPE. Colossal doesn't state this and the BRB requires such a statement.

 Kriswall wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Implying that special rules for weapons that explicitly give the bearer permission to do something, with no written requirement of striking in said rule is actually game breaking.

Read one of the first paragraphs in the Special Rules section of the BRB. A model's attacks can gain special rules/abilities from a weapon when that weapon is being used. Otherwise, the model and its attacks DON'T have the special rules. Per both this paragraph in the special rules section AND the More Than One Weapon rules, giving a model or its attacks a special rule/ability from a weapon when the weapon is not being used is absolutely a rules violation. It breaks the game in the sense that things are happening that the rules don't allow.

Giving a model special rules that are tied to striking with the weapon....

Unless you believe the rule "Murder" does nothing, or a model with the shard of anaris does not have fearless.

Some rules for weapons explicitly give the model a rule, some rules require the model to strike with the weapon because there is no permission for the model to have the rule outside of striking with the weapon.

If the rule specifically says the model has the rule, the model has the rule. If it does not place a restriction on when the model has the rule, then the model has the rule at all times. Specific > General.

Does the bearer of shard of anaris have fearless outside of striking with the weapon.

Claiming anything other than yes is ignoring the RAW for this specific rule.

blaktoof wrote:
Implying that special rules for weapons that explicitly give the bearer permission to do something, with no written requirement of striking in said rule is actually game breaking.

There are some rules which are tied to striking with a weapon, and there are some rules which are explicitly stated within the special rule itself (codex vs brb, specific vs. advanced...) as giving the bearer, or the model, permission to do something.

Irrelevant. Baseline needs to be overridden. Possession is only 9/10 of the law, you are missing the other 1/10, and that is application. The rule is possessed by the Weapon, but the rule does not signify that this applies to all Attacks, including Attacks made without the Weapon.

You are making your case based on other rules, which also do not get any shrift if a Pistol is being used. It is not only because these rules require the Weapon's use that they do not get used, but ALSO because these abilities CANNOT be used when using a Pistol, period, because a Pistol just does not flat have the rule.

If this was tied to a Wargear rule for the Weapon, you would have a case and we would be done. But it is tied to the Weapon's profile, which means that if another Weapon is in use, this Weapon's abilities mean dick.

blaktoof wrote:
For example claiming all special rules are defacto tied to striking only,

You are one making this claim, not us. We are claiming that these abilities are ignored when the Weapon cannot be used, there is a distinct difference and one that is being continuously missed.

blaktoof wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Implying that special rules for weapons that explicitly give the bearer permission to do something, with no written requirement of striking in said rule is actually game breaking.

Read one of the first paragraphs in the Special Rules section of the BRB. A model's attacks can gain special rules/abilities from a weapon when that weapon is being used. Otherwise, the model and its attacks DON'T have the special rules. Per both this paragraph in the special rules section AND the More Than One Weapon rules, giving a model or its attacks a special rule/ability from a weapon when the weapon is not being used is absolutely a rules violation. It breaks the game in the sense that things are happening that the rules don't allow.

Giving a model special rules that are tied to striking with the weapon....

Unless you believe the rule "Murder" does nothing, or a model with the shard of anaris does not have fearless.

Some rules for weapons explicitly give the model a rule, some rules require the model to strike with the weapon because there is no permission for the model to have the rule outside of striking with the weapon.

If the rule specifically says the model has the rule, the model has the rule. If it does not place a restriction on when the model has the rule, then the model has the rule at all times. Specific > General.

Does the bearer of shard of anaris have fearless outside of striking with the weapon.

Claiming anything other than yes is ignoring the RAW for this specific rule.

I'm not familiar with Murder or the Shard of Anaris. Quote the rules and I'll entertain your comments.

I will say that there is ONLY a restriction against mixing and matching weapon abilities during an actual fight. If the Shard of Anaris grants Fearless, it would presumably do so at all times EXCEPT during a fight where a different weapon is being used.

 Kriswall wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Implying that special rules for weapons that explicitly give the bearer permission to do something, with no written requirement of striking in said rule is actually game breaking.

Read one of the first paragraphs in the Special Rules section of the BRB. A model's attacks can gain special rules/abilities from a weapon when that weapon is being used. Otherwise, the model and its attacks DON'T have the special rules. Per both this paragraph in the special rules section AND the More Than One Weapon rules, giving a model or its attacks a special rule/ability from a weapon when the weapon is not being used is absolutely a rules violation. It breaks the game in the sense that things are happening that the rules don't allow.

Giving a model special rules that are tied to striking with the weapon....

Unless you believe the rule "Murder" does nothing, or a model with the shard of anaris does not have fearless.

Some rules for weapons explicitly give the model a rule, some rules require the model to strike with the weapon because there is no permission for the model to have the rule outside of striking with the weapon.

If the rule specifically says the model has the rule, the model has the rule. If it does not place a restriction on when the model has the rule, then the model has the rule at all times. Specific > General.

Does the bearer of shard of anaris have fearless outside of striking with the weapon.

Claiming anything other than yes is ignoring the RAW for this specific rule.

I'm not familiar with Murder or the Shard of Anaris. Quote the rules and I'll entertain your comments.

I will say that there is ONLY a restriction against mixing and matching weapon abilities during an actual fight. If the Shard of Anaris grants Fearless, it would presumably do so at all times EXCEPT during a fight where a different weapon is being used.

Shard of anaris is one of the most commonly taken Eldar wargear weapons.

It has a the Type "Melee, Rending, Vauls Work"

Vaul’s Work: The bearer of this weapon has the Fearless special rule. In a challenge,
Attacks made with this weapon have the Fleshbane and Instant Death special rules.

Murdersword has the type murder-

murder allows the bearer to nominate an enemy model before the first turn of the game, it can then get bonuses when attacking that model in assault.

Both are special rules granted to the model, which no requirement in said special rule to be using the weapon for at least part of the special rule(Anaris- fearless, Murderword- nominating the model are not tied to striking with the weapon)

If more than one weapon is applied to rules that are given to the model for having the weapon and have no requirement within specific rules to be striking with the weapon to benefit from said rule, than neither work.

Anaris would never grant fearless when a player could use it, and a model with the murder sword would never be able to nominate another enemy model before the first turn- which are both given as permission to a model for having the weapon within their own rules with no tie to striking with the weapon to benefit.

The more than one weapon rule applies to striking with the weapon in assault, it does not actually state the special rules cease to exist until the model strikes with them. It does state the model does not gain the benefit of striking with more than one weapon.

blaktoof wrote:
Shard of anaris is one of the most commonly taken Eldar wargear weapons.

It has a the Type "Melee, Rending, Vauls Work"

Vaul’s Work: The bearer of this weapon has the Fearless special rule. In a challenge,
Attacks made with this weapon have the Fleshbane and Instant Death special rules.

Thanks. From a RaW standpoint, the model would have the Fearless special rule at all times EXCEPT when attacking with a Melee weapon other than Shard of Anaris. When attacking when a different weapon, the model and its attacks would not be subject to Vaul's Work and would therefore not have Fearless.

blaktoof wrote:
Murdersword has the type murder-

murder allows the bearer to nominate an enemy model before the first turn of the game, it can then get bonuses when attacking that model in assault.

I can't respond to this unless you post the actual rules quote. I don't even know what Codex this is from, although it sounds like some heresy to me.

The evocation of the Colossal rule comes when you read all of your models rules and see that the rule called Colossal applies anytime the model has a weapon with the particular rule. More than one weapon does not enter into it because Colossal applies at all times that the model possesses that weapon.

You need to follow all the rules, not just some made up parameters of circular permission.

 DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The colossal rule cannot be evoked, as the More than one weapon rule prohibits the model from evoking the rule, and What Special rules do I have tells you you therefore do not have the special rule

Provide permission to evoke the Colossal rule. Do so WITHOUT referencing the Colossal rule, as per the basic construction of game rules. Or is circular permisison allowed now?

5th time of asking.

The evocation of the Colossal rule comes when you read all of your models rules and see that the rule called Colossal applies anytime the model has a weapon with the particular rule. More than one weapon does not enter into it because Colossal applies at all times that the model possesses that weapon.

You need to follow all the rules, not just some made up parameters of circular permission.

Wrong. Read the chapter in the BRB about special rules. The default situation is that a model DOESN'T have a special rule from a weapon unless that weapon is being used. When is a weapon being used? Basically, at all times EXCEPT when a different weapon is being used during a Fight Sub-Phase. There is NO permission ANYWHERE in the rules to give a model or its attacks a special rules from a weapon it isn't using.

...well, unless the weapon ability explicitly states that it may be used when the weapon is not being used to attack with. Colossal doesn't do that.

 Kriswall wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:


The evocation of the Colossal rule comes when you read all of your models rules and see that the rule called Colossal applies anytime the model has a weapon with the particular rule. More than one weapon does not enter into it because Colossal applies at all times that the model possesses that weapon.

You need to follow all the rules, not just some made up parameters of circular permission.

Wrong. Read the chapter in the BRB about special rules. The default situation is that a model DOESN'T have a special rule from a weapon unless that weapon is being used. When is a weapon being used? Basically, at all times EXCEPT when a different weapon is being used during a Fight Sub-Phase. There is NO permission ANYWHERE in the rules to give a model or its attacks a special rules from a weapon it isn't using.

There is a part of the mixing and matching weapons rules that says "unless otherwise stated" Well Colossal states otherwise so in this case you can mix and match abilities, since the model simply needs to possess the weapon for its Colossal rule to be active.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:


The evocation of the Colossal rule comes when you read all of your models rules and see that the rule called Colossal applies anytime the model has a weapon with the particular rule. More than one weapon does not enter into it because Colossal applies at all times that the model possesses that weapon.

You need to follow all the rules, not just some made up parameters of circular permission.

Wrong. Read the chapter in the BRB about special rules. The default situation is that a model DOESN'T have a special rule from a weapon unless that weapon is being used. When is a weapon being used? Basically, at all times EXCEPT when a different weapon is being used during a Fight Sub-Phase. There is NO permission ANYWHERE in the rules to give a model or its attacks a special rules from a weapon it isn't using.

There is a part of the mixing and matching weapons rules that says "unless otherwise stated" Well Colossal states otherwise so in this case you can mix and match abilities, since the model simply needs to possess the weapon for its Colossal rule to be active.

Please quote the portion of the Colossal special rule that states it applies when the model is not using the related weapon during an attack. I'm not looking for some vague implication. I'm looking for wording that unambiguously and explicitly states that the weapon ability can be used when the weapon is not being used.

I've looked. I don't see anything. All I see is instruction for models with the weapon to attack at Initiative step 1. I don't see anything about being able to do so when not using the weapon.

That's what you keep saying, but it doesn't mean your point of view is any more correct than ours.

Locking the thread was called for pages ago, I don't see any possibility in having a common ground here.

Naw wrote:
That's what you keep saying, but it doesn't mean your point of view is any more correct than ours.

Locking the thread was called for pages ago, I don't see any possibility in having a common ground here.

And yet nobody has underlined the portion of the Colossal rule that states it may be used when the weapon is not being used. Odd. My point of view may not be correct, but I've given opportunity after opportunity for my opposition to show me where Colossal states it may be used when the weapon is not being used. Hasn't happened yet. It's beginning to make me think my opposition can't find that statement anymore than I can.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Why is there a difference in the wording of the Colossal special rule between the IK codex and the D thirster? It's a special rule with identical names, surely it must be intended to be the same rule? Is it not a possibility that the D thirster version with the missing "fighting" word is a mistake?

It's absolutely a possibility. If this is the case, there might be an FAQ or Errata in the future. Until then, we treat each rule as distinct and only applying to the publication in which it occurs.

OK, but assuming for a moment that it isn't a mistake and the word "fighting" was deliberately an omission for the D thirster version of the rule, what then are the RAW implications?

 Kriswall wrote:

Naw wrote:
That's what you keep saying, but it doesn't mean your point of view is any more correct than ours.

Locking the thread was called for pages ago, I don't see any possibility in having a common ground here.

And yet nobody has underlined the portion of the Colossal rule that states it may be used when the weapon is not being used. Odd. My point of view may not be correct, but I've given opportunity after opportunity for my opposition to show me where Colossal states it may be used when the weapon is not being used. Hasn't happened yet. It's beginning to make me think my opposition can't find that statement anymore than I can.

Wow! Just wow! It has been said so many times that one more time doesn't make any difference. But hey, I'll try one more time: Rules in a codex can and will alter or override BRB rules, this is one of those cases. The rule is in effect all the tile, not just when you fight in melee.

There is the additional angle of you making up rules to support your view, e.g. when to choose a weapon. I urge you to find an item from BRB that makes you act before your initiative. There are none. Codex authors come up with a lot of fancy stuff that, which more or less fit in to existing rules. Sometimes we are called for to fill in the gaps ourselves. Yet you claim RAW on something that is not in the rules.

I understand that the fight sub-phase is when attacks are made, but the order of acting is based in Initiative. It works when there are no rules or wargear that modify the values. The exact rule is Models make their attacks when their Initiative step is reached and later in the same paragraph that Initiative can be modified.

Naw wrote:
Wow! Just wow! It has been said so many times that one more time doesn't make any difference. But hey, I'll try one more time: Rules in a codex can and will alter or override BRB rules, this is one of those cases. The rule is in effect all the tile, not just when you fight in melee.

Where does possession mean "always works, even when the Weapon's abilities can not be used?" Still waiting on that.

Naw wrote:
There is the additional angle of you making up rules to support your view, e.g. when to choose a weapon. I urge you to find an item from BRB that makes you act before your initiative. There are none. Codex authors come up with a lot of fancy stuff that, which more or less fit in to existing rules. Sometimes we are called for to fill in the gaps ourselves. Yet you claim RAW on something that is not in the rules.

First you make up the rule that possession allows one to ignore when a Weapon's abilities cannot be used, then you accuse others of making up rules. Talk about "wow".

No one stating that the Weapon's abilities cannot be used have made up a rule. Even at the point when we are talking about choosing a weapon, we pointed out that there is nothing stated about it, then we pointed out that in order for certain Weapon abilities to be used, it must be performed at a point that allows abilities that add to Initiative to be used. Nothing made up, just pointing out the obvious points.

Naw wrote:
I understand that the fight sub-phase is when attacks are made, but the order of acting is based in Initiative. It works when there are no rules or wargear that modify the values. The exact rule is Models make their attacks when their Initiative step is reached and later in the same paragraph that Initiative can be modified.

The order of striking blows and pile ins is done by Initiative, but are you saying that a model with a Swiftstrike Weapon cannot used because you cannot pick the Weapon until after that bonus Initiative step has arrived? No. Selecting a Weapon would have to be done before any Initiative bonuses are allowed to be in place, so before Initiative Step 10. Not the Written rules, but there are no actual rules, so we're operating on the logic of the situation.

 Kriswall wrote:


Please quote the portion of the Colossal special rule that states it applies when the model is not using the related weapon during an attack.

I have, several times.

Does the model HAVE the weapon? because the rules state a model WITH this weapon...

Not Attacking with, simply having the weapon evokes the rule.

 Charistoph wrote:
Where does possession mean "always works, even when the Weapon's abilities can not be used?" Still waiting on that.

The "Unless otherwise stated" part of the more than one weapon rules. Colossal states otherwise.

Also Codex > BRB

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:


Please quote the portion of the Colossal special rule that states it applies when the model is not using the related weapon during an attack.

I have, several times.

Does the model HAVE the weapon? because the rules state a model WITH this weapon...

Not Attacking with, simply having the weapon evokes the rule.

 Charistoph wrote:
Where does possession mean "always works, even when the Weapon's abilities can not be used?" Still waiting on that.

The "Unless otherwise stated" part of the more than one weapon rules. Colossal states otherwise.

Also Codex > BRB

Hmmm... and you're going to highlight the bit of Colossal that states it can by mixed and matched in (used) when the weapon in question isn't being used to fight with? I'll wait. Note that "A model with this weapon" does not say "This weapon ability may be used even when the weapon isn't being used to attack".

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Where does possession mean "always works, even when the Weapon's abilities can not be used?" Still waiting on that.

The "Unless otherwise stated" part of the more than one weapon rules. Colossal states otherwise.

Also Codex > BRB

Note that none of us have stated BRB > Codex. This is a fabrication in your mind that we are stating this.

You have yet to provide one single quote to support the question asked. In order for the codex to conflict with the BRB, the question in my quote MUST be answered. Where does possession mean "always works, even when the Weapon's abilities can not be used"?

I would have to say that with the colossal rule, being in effect while the model has the rule would always strike at I1. What I fail to see is any other weapon's rule that specifically overrides the colossal rule. I would think that it would have to call out the colossal rule and cancel it. I do not know of any such weapon with such a rule. Just my opinion.

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
I would have to say that with the colossal rule, being in effect while the model has the rule would always strike at I1.

100% agreed. The issue with your statement though, is that the model doesn't have the rule when not using the Axe of Khorne in the Fight Sub-Phase.

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
I would have to say that with the colossal rule, being in effect while the model has the rule would always strike at I1. What I fail to see is any other weapon's rule that specifically overrides the colossal rule. I would think that it would have to call out the colossal rule and cancel it. I do not know of any such weapon with such a rule. Just my opinion.

If another Weapon is being used, you cannot use the Colossal rule in a Weapon's type. That is what mixing and matching means. The other Weapon does not need to address it, because it is not in force.

The colossal rule is in effect while said model has said weapon, this is what the rules say. Not that it has the colossal rule while striking, or at the fight subphase, or while driving a volkswagon jetta through Compton trying to score some rocks. It has that rule at all times. The multiple weapons rule in the BRB must override it as it is a rule that affects the model not the weapon.

Also, why would another weapon have to specifically override Colossal, but colossal not have to specifically override the more than one weapon ryle?

 Charistoph wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Where does possession mean "always works, even when the Weapon's abilities can not be used?" Still waiting on that.

The "Unless otherwise stated" part of the more than one weapon rules. Colossal states otherwise.

Also Codex > BRB

Note that none of us have stated BRB > Codex. This is a fabrication in your mind that we are stating this.

You have yet to provide one single quote to support the question asked. In order for the codex to conflict with the BRB, the question in my quote MUST be answered. Where does possession mean "always works, even when the Weapon's abilities can not be used"?

Does the model have the weapon with the Colossal rule?

If so then its rules, since they are written so they take effect simply by having the weapon, are in effect.

There is the quote, read the Colossal rule, that rule says a model with this weapon (or something similar).

Do you have anything stating that the model no longer has the weapon when fighting with a different weapon? If not, then Colossal will always apply because the model has the weapon. Therefore it is otherwise stated, and you mix and match Colossal with other weapons.

 jokerkd wrote:
Also, why would another weapon have to specifically override Colossal, but colossal not have to specifically override the more than one weapon ryle?

The wording on Colossal puts a restriction on the model, not a weapon. LC shred rule is attached to the weapon, not the model. If a guy has a LC and a PF he chosses what restictions/benefits he wants to use. Shred and strike at Init with less strength, or double strength at Init 1. They are specific in that they are written to be an effect of the weapon.

Just having the axe on a model puts the colossal rule on the model.

 OIIIIIIO wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
Also, why would another weapon have to specifically override Colossal, but colossal not have to specifically override the more than one weapon ryle?

The wording on Colossal puts a restriction on the model, not a weapon. LC shred rule is attached to the weapon, not the model. If a guy has a LC and a PF he chosses what restictions/benefits he wants to use. Shred and strike at Init with less strength, or double strength at Init 1. They are specific in that they are written to be an effect of the weapon.

Just having the axe on a model puts the colossal rule on the model.

You need to go back and reread the thread. We've posted many, many times about how and when a model, or its attacks can get special rules from a weapon. During the Fight Sub-Phase, there are two ways to do so. The first is using the weapon to strike blows. In our scenario, the Axe of Khorne is not being used to strike blows, so this option isn't relevant. The second is if the special rule explicitly states that it is allowed to function while the weapon is not being used to strike blows. This is relevant to our discussion. Unfortunately, the Colossal special rule doesn't have any specific wording saying that it can function in the specific scenario where it's not being used to strike blows. Hence, the model and its attacks can't gain the Colossal weapon ability from the Axe of Khorne in this manner either. There are literally no other ways for a model or its attacks to gain special rules from a weapon in the Fight Sub-Phase.

If you think there is specific wording in the Colossal rule unambiguously telling us that we can apply Colossal when NOT attacking with the Axe of Khorne, awesome. Play it that way. We're 12 pages in and as of yet, nobody has quoted the specific, unambiguous wording allowing Colossal to be applied while the Axe of Khorne is NOT in use. In the absence of this quote, I'll continue to believe it's not there.

There are essentially two requirements for making use of Colossal in the Fight Sub-Phase.

1) Per Colossal's wording, the model must have the weapon.
2) Per the BRB's wording, either the model must use the weapon to strike blows OR the weapon ability must state that it may be used when the weapon is not being used to strike blows.

Requirement 1 is fulfilled. Requirement 2 fails because the Axe isn't being used and Colossal doesn't have wording stating it may be used when the weapon (the Axe) is not being used to strike blows.

It sort of feels like you guys think that fulfilling requirement 1 alone is enough to make Colossal work. You can't look at isolated rules. You need to read them all and fulfill all of the requirements before doing something. This is how permission works in a permissive rule set.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Where does possession mean "always works, even when the Weapon's abilities can not be used?" Still waiting on that.

The "Unless otherwise stated" part of the more than one weapon rules. Colossal states otherwise.

Also Codex > BRB

Note that none of us have stated BRB > Codex. This is a fabrication in your mind that we are stating this.

You have yet to provide one single quote to support the question asked. In order for the codex to conflict with the BRB, the question in my quote MUST be answered. Where does possession mean "always works, even when the Weapon's abilities can not be used"?

Does the model have the weapon with the Colossal rule?

If so then its rules, since they are written so they take effect simply by having the weapon, are in effect.

There is the quote, read the Colossal rule, that rule says a model with this weapon (or something similar).

Do you have anything stating that the model no longer has the weapon when fighting with a different weapon? If not, then Colossal will always apply because the model has the weapon. Therefore it is otherwise stated, and you mix and match Colossal with other weapons.

So no quote to support your answer to the question. It feels like is that I'm getting is a "because" as your answer.

Colossal's rules matter little because its own rules do not specifically exempt it from the More Than One Weapon restriction. You have prevented nothing on this other than possession. Possession as a concept does not override the restriction against using the rule when the Weapon is not in use. It is not otherwise stated, it is only your assumption at this point.

 Charistoph wrote:

So no quote to support your answer to the question. It feels like is that I'm getting is a "because" as your answer.

Colossal's rules matter little because its own rules do not specifically exempt it from the More Than One Weapon restriction. You have prevented nothing on this other than possession. Possession as a concept does not override the restriction against using the rule when the Weapon is not in use. It is not otherwise stated, it is only your assumption at this point.

I gave a quote, Read the Colossal rule where it says a model with this weapon (or something similar).

 Charistoph wrote:

Colossal's rules matter little because its own rules do not specifically exempt it from the More Than One Weapon restriction.

and that is where Codex> BRB

Since it came up, what does the Imperial Knight colossal rule state? It was discussed, but the exact wording wasn't laid out. And...I'm not about to go buy an Imperial Knight book when I'm never going to field it, just in order to find out. I'm sure someone in this thread has it.

DeathReaper wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

So no quote to support your answer to the question. It feels like is that I'm getting is a "because" as your answer.

Colossal's rules matter little because its own rules do not specifically exempt it from the More Than One Weapon restriction. You have prevented nothing on this other than possession. Possession as a concept does not override the restriction against using the rule when the Weapon is not in use. It is not otherwise stated, it is only your assumption at this point.

I gave a quote, Read the Colossal rule where it says a model with this weapon (or something similar).

I see nothing about it working when another Weapon is being used or when the Weapon cannot be used (ala Disarm). So you have no quote. Possession alone is insufficient to override the More Than One Weapon restriction without it being defined as such.

You need to provide evidence that "possession" allows you to count the rule when the Weapon's abilities normally are not in play. Where is it besides your assumption?

DeathReaper wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Colossal's rules matter little because its own rules do not specifically exempt it from the More Than One Weapon restriction.

and that is where Codex> BRB

Only if it conflicts. Colossal does not address the More Than One Weapon restriction in any form, so it does not conflict. No conflict, Codex is not gaining precedence.

timetowaste85 wrote:Since it came up, what does the Imperial Knight colossal rule state? It was discussed, but the exact wording wasn't laid out. And...I'm not about to go buy an Imperial Knight book when I'm never going to field it, just in order to find out. I'm sure someone in this thread has it.

Here you go:

Colossal: A model fighting with this weapon Piles In and fights at Initiative step 1.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Since it came up, what does the Imperial Knight colossal rule state? It was discussed, but the exact wording wasn't laid out. And...I'm not about to go buy an Imperial Knight book when I'm never going to field it, just in order to find out. I'm sure someone in this thread has it.

It says "a model fighting with this weapon Piles In and fights at Initiative step 1". You'll notice that the inclusion of the word "fighting" makes things a lot clearer for the IK version. I'm interested in the rules implications if this word was omitted deliberately from the D thirster version. The logical conclusion is that the intent would be for the D thirster to go at I1 whichever weapon he was using.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Since it came up, what does the Imperial Knight colossal rule state? It was discussed, but the exact wording wasn't laid out. And...I'm not about to go buy an Imperial Knight book when I'm never going to field it, just in order to find out. I'm sure someone in this thread has it.

It says "a model fighting with this weapon Piles In and fights at Initiative step 1". You'll notice that the inclusion of the word "fighting" makes things a lot clearer for the IK version. I'm interested in the rules implications if this word was omitted deliberately from the D thirster version. The logical conclusion is that the intent would be for the D thirster to go at I1 whichever weapon he was using.

Or more simply, they didn't think there would be a time when you weren't using the Greataxe if you have it. The D-Thirster comes with it as his only Melee Weapon, and does not have the option to add or swap another Weapon in to it.

That being said, the question then comes up with the Smash Attack, which does not use the Weapon or allow for a Weapon's abilities to be in play.

Or when its a daemon of chaos BT, when it can easily get more melee weapons...

DR - "otherwise STATED" - you have implied that the More than one weapon rule is overridden, but it is not stated.

Find the exact statement concernign more than one weapon. 6th time of asking.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Since it came up, what does the Imperial Knight colossal rule state? It was discussed, but the exact wording wasn't laid out. And...I'm not about to go buy an Imperial Knight book when I'm never going to field it, just in order to find out. I'm sure someone in this thread has it.

It says "a model fighting with this weapon Piles In and fights at Initiative step 1". You'll notice that the inclusion of the word "fighting" makes things a lot clearer for the IK version. I'm interested in the rules implications if this word was omitted deliberately from the D thirster version. The logical conclusion is that the intent would be for the D thirster to go at I1 whichever weapon he was using.

Or more simply, they didn't think there would be a time when you weren't using the Greataxe if you have it. The D-Thirster comes with it as his only Melee Weapon, and does not have the option to add or swap another Weapon in to it.

I find this highly unlikely tbh. As you imply, the word "fighting" is not strictly required for the Colossal rule as applies to a KD D thirster, but even if they took the time to consider this, why bother amending the rule from the IK version? If the intent was for it to only apply when using the weapon, why not just leave it as it is? It still would have worked just fine even though the KD D thirster can't take any other weapons.

Leaving the rule as the IK version (or changing it back) would have also made things a lot clearer for the Chaos Daemons D thirster and avoided introducing any ambiguity.

Given the existence and wording of the IK Colossal rule I can only see two possible scenarios re the D thirster.
1. The omission of the word "fighting" from the rule was a mistake in the KD codex which has carried over to the Daemon versions, and which may or may not get errata treatment in the future.
2. The word was deliberately removed for the D thirster version with the intention of it striking at I1 no matter what weapon it used. For all we know the KD and Chaos Daemon rules were written at the same time.

It's clear that some believe RAW that scenario 2 is largely irrelevant; my opinion is that RAW indicates the D thirster is I1 anyway but I believe that part of the debate reached a stalemate a long time ago. I think either an errata or FAQ is needed at this point to clarify the intent and how it should be played.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Since it came up, what does the Imperial Knight colossal rule state? It was discussed, but the exact wording wasn't laid out. And...I'm not about to go buy an Imperial Knight book when I'm never going to field it, just in order to find out. I'm sure someone in this thread has it.

It says "a model fighting with this weapon Piles In and fights at Initiative step 1". You'll notice that the inclusion of the word "fighting" makes things a lot clearer for the IK version. I'm interested in the rules implications if this word was omitted deliberately from the D thirster version. The logical conclusion is that the intent would be for the D thirster to go at I1 whichever weapon he was using.

Or more simply, they didn't think there would be a time when you weren't using the Greataxe if you have it. The D-Thirster comes with it as his only Melee Weapon, and does not have the option to add or swap another Weapon in to it.

That being said, the question then comes up with the Smash Attack, which does not use the Weapon or allow for a Weapon's abilities to be in play.

The codex: Chaos Daemons version has access to additional weapons through rewards

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Since it came up, what does the Imperial Knight colossal rule state? It was discussed, but the exact wording wasn't laid out. And...I'm not about to go buy an Imperial Knight book when I'm never going to field it, just in order to find out. I'm sure someone in this thread has it.

It says "a model fighting with this weapon Piles In and fights at Initiative step 1". You'll notice that the inclusion of the word "fighting" makes things a lot clearer for the IK version. I'm interested in the rules implications if this word was omitted deliberately from the D thirster version. The logical conclusion is that the intent would be for the D thirster to go at I1 whichever weapon he was using.

Or more simply, they didn't think there would be a time when you weren't using the Greataxe if you have it. The D-Thirster comes with it as his only Melee Weapon, and does not have the option to add or swap another Weapon in to it.

I find this highly unlikely tbh. As you imply, the word "fighting" is not strictly required for the Colossal rule as applies to a KD D thirster, but even if they took the time to consider this, why bother amending the rule from the IK version? If the intent was for it to only apply when using the weapon, why not just leave it as it is? It still would have worked just fine even though the KD D thirster can't take any other weapons.

Leaving the rule as the IK version (or changing it back) would have also made things a lot clearer for the Chaos Daemons D thirster and avoided introducing any ambiguity.

Given the existence and wording of the IK Colossal rule I can only see two possible scenarios re the D thirster.
1. The omission of the word "fighting" from the rule was a mistake in the KD codex which has carried over to the Daemon versions, and which may or may not get errata treatment in the future.
2. The word was deliberately removed for the D thirster version with the intention of it striking at I1 no matter what weapon it used. For all we know the KD and Chaos Daemon rules were written at the same time.

It's clear that some believe RAW that scenario 2 is largely irrelevant; my opinion is that RAW indicates the D thirster is I1 anyway but I believe that part of the debate reached a stalemate a long time ago. I think either an errata or FAQ is needed at this point to clarify the intent and how it should be played.

This was my initial impression, but on further thought it is equally possible that the rules writers, like many on this thread, felt the word "fighting" was redundant and unnecessary because of the more than one weapon clause in BRB so took it out.

Fhionnuisce wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Since it came up, what does the Imperial Knight colossal rule state? It was discussed, but the exact wording wasn't laid out. And...I'm not about to go buy an Imperial Knight book when I'm never going to field it, just in order to find out. I'm sure someone in this thread has it.

It says "a model fighting with this weapon Piles In and fights at Initiative step 1". You'll notice that the inclusion of the word "fighting" makes things a lot clearer for the IK version. I'm interested in the rules implications if this word was omitted deliberately from the D thirster version. The logical conclusion is that the intent would be for the D thirster to go at I1 whichever weapon he was using.

Or more simply, they didn't think there would be a time when you weren't using the Greataxe if you have it. The D-Thirster comes with it as his only Melee Weapon, and does not have the option to add or swap another Weapon in to it.

I find this highly unlikely tbh. As you imply, the word "fighting" is not strictly required for the Colossal rule as applies to a KD D thirster, but even if they took the time to consider this, why bother amending the rule from the IK version? If the intent was for it to only apply when using the weapon, why not just leave it as it is? It still would have worked just fine even though the KD D thirster can't take any other weapons.

Leaving the rule as the IK version (or changing it back) would have also made things a lot clearer for the Chaos Daemons D thirster and avoided introducing any ambiguity.

Given the existence and wording of the IK Colossal rule I can only see two possible scenarios re the D thirster.
1. The omission of the word "fighting" from the rule was a mistake in the KD codex which has carried over to the Daemon versions, and which may or may not get errata treatment in the future.
2. The word was deliberately removed for the D thirster version with the intention of it striking at I1 no matter what weapon it used. For all we know the KD and Chaos Daemon rules were written at the same time.

It's clear that some believe RAW that scenario 2 is largely irrelevant; my opinion is that RAW indicates the D thirster is I1 anyway but I believe that part of the debate reached a stalemate a long time ago. I think either an errata or FAQ is needed at this point to clarify the intent and how it should be played.

This was my initial impression, but on further thought it is equally possible that the rules writers, like many on this thread, felt the word "fighting" was redundant and unnecessary because of the more than one weapon clause in BRB so took it out.

So why even have it in the rule in the first place?

Because the different codex writers don't seem to talk to each other and all have their own ideas of how rules should be templated. My guess at least.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
Because the different codex writers don't seem to talk to each other and all have their own ideas of how rules should be templated. My guess at least.

It's also possible that they consider it incredibly obvious that you only get a weapon's rules if you're using it and don't feel the need to add redundant wording in every instance. We'll never know, short of a conversation with the authors.

 Kriswall wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:
Because the different codex writers don't seem to talk to each other and all have their own ideas of how rules should be templated. My guess at least.

It's also possible that they consider it incredibly obvious that you only get a weapon's rules if you're using it and don't feel the need to add redundant wording in every instance. We'll never know, short of a conversation with the authors.

And it's also possible they intended the D thirster to strike at I1 no matter what weapon it is using, necessitating the alteration of the rule to reflect this.

 Charistoph wrote:

Naw wrote:
Wow! Just wow! It has been said so many times that one more time doesn't make any difference. But hey, I'll try one more time: Rules in a codex can and will alter or override BRB rules, this is one of those cases. The rule is in effect all the tile, not just when you fight in melee.

Where does possession mean "always works, even when the Weapon's abilities can not be used?" Still waiting on that.

What are you on? That is how the wargear work. Or are you saying that e.g. Shard of Anaris does not work except when you strike with it? When does the striking end?

Just a little question here, that's somewhat related...

Why do they have the "unless otherwise stated" words in the more than one weapon rule, if all of these weapons that give the bearer some benefit rather than needing to attack with the weapon don't actually do that?

Is there an example of a weapon with stronger wording (that isn't formatted to have the rule before the weapon profile) that would make use of this "unless otherwise stated" phrase? If there isn't, does that not imply that the softer wording that happens to be different in ONLY the way we are arguing about on some of these weapons like blade of blood, shard of anaris, is actually what they meant to take advantage of the "unless otherwise stated" bit?

This is RAI though, I understand if the discussion isn't entertained. I just really don't see a need for any of the wording to be there if there isn't a difference between the weapons, both in the weapon rules and the more than one weapon rule.

Naw wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Naw wrote:
Wow! Just wow! It has been said so many times that one more time doesn't make any difference. But hey, I'll try one more time: Rules in a codex can and will alter or override BRB rules, this is one of those cases. The rule is in effect all the tile, not just when you fight in melee.

Where does possession mean "always works, even when the Weapon's abilities can not be used?" Still waiting on that.

What are you on? That is how the wargear work. Or are you saying that e.g. Shard of Anaris does not work except when you strike with it? When does the striking end?

You have it backwards. Shard of Anaris always works except when you DON'T strike with it. When striking ends isn't explicitly defined, but the Fight Sub-Phase is referred to as the time that models strike blows, so the common interpretation is that striking blows ends at the same time as the Fight Sub-Phase.

Tonberry7 wrote:I find this highly unlikely tbh. As you imply, the word "fighting" is not strictly required for the Colossal rule as applies to a KD D thirster, but even if they took the time to consider this, why bother amending the rule from the IK version? If the intent was for it to only apply when using the weapon, why not just leave it as it is? It still would have worked just fine even though the KD D thirster can't take any other weapons.

Leaving the rule as the IK version (or changing it back) would have also made things a lot clearer for the Chaos Daemons D thirster and avoided introducing any ambiguity.

Given the existence and wording of the IK Colossal rule I can only see two possible scenarios re the D thirster.
1. The omission of the word "fighting" from the rule was a mistake in the KD codex which has carried over to the Daemon versions, and which may or may not get errata treatment in the future.
2. The word was deliberately removed for the D thirster version with the intention of it striking at I1 no matter what weapon it used. For all we know the KD and Chaos Daemon rules were written at the same time.

It's clear that some believe RAW that scenario 2 is largely irrelevant; my opinion is that RAW indicates the D thirster is I1 anyway but I believe that part of the debate reached a stalemate a long time ago. I think either an errata or FAQ is needed at this point to clarify the intent and how it should be played.

If only the presence of the word "fighting" was what is required to make this be this rule be not enforced. That is not the case, though, and that is something we have been stating over and over. It is the exact opposite of what we have been saying. It is not the lack of key words that makes Colossal unusable with another Weapon. It is the lack of key words that makes Colossal USABLE with another Weapon.

Colossal does not carry with it the words needed to override the restrictions placed by More Than One Weapon. Without specifically addressing this restriction, Colossal doesn't work when using another Weapon.

jokerkd wrote:The codex: Chaos Daemons version has access to additional weapons through rewards

I was going by the KDK version, which I thought was the same. I guess it was updated in one of the Campaign books for C:CD, or was it in the orignal documents?

Tonberry7 wrote:And it's also possible they intended the D thirster to strike at I1 no matter what weapon it is using, necessitating the alteration of the rule to reflect this.

If that was the case, they either would have addressed the More Than One Weapon rule, divested the Colossal rule from the Weapon Type, or applied it directly to the model itself either by stat or by rule.

None of these happened, though.

Naw wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Naw wrote:
Wow! Just wow! It has been said so many times that one more time doesn't make any difference. But hey, I'll try one more time: Rules in a codex can and will alter or override BRB rules, this is one of those cases. The rule is in effect all the tile, not just when you fight in melee.

Where does possession mean "always works, even when the Weapon's abilities can not be used?" Still waiting on that.

What are you on? That is how the wargear work. Or are you saying that e.g. Shard of Anaris does not work except when you strike with it? When does the striking end?

I have been over this numerous times by now. The rule is not set up as a Wargear rule. It is set up as a Weapon Ability. Weapon abilities cannot be used if another Weapon is being used, unless otherwise stated. Colossal does not specifically state this without another redefinition of possession. No one has provided a quote for that redefinition at this point and time.

Since the D thirster has no weapon - can he even choose to just punch with his fist if he wanted to?

 chaosmarauder wrote:
Since the D thirster has no weapon - can he even choose to just punch with his fist if he wanted to?

The Greataxe of Khorne is not a Weapon?

 chaosmarauder wrote:
Since the D thirster has no weapon - can he even choose to just punch with his fist if he wanted to?

The D-Thirster has a weapon. Models with weapons have to chooses one of those weapons. Models without Melee weapons count as having a Close Combat Weapon when needed.

 Charistoph wrote:

Tonberry7 wrote:I find this highly unlikely tbh. As you imply, the word "fighting" is not strictly required for the Colossal rule as applies to a KD D thirster, but even if they took the time to consider this, why bother amending the rule from the IK version? If the intent was for it to only apply when using the weapon, why not just leave it as it is? It still would have worked just fine even though the KD D thirster can't take any other weapons.

Leaving the rule as the IK version (or changing it back) would have also made things a lot clearer for the Chaos Daemons D thirster and avoided introducing any ambiguity.

Given the existence and wording of the IK Colossal rule I can only see two possible scenarios re the D thirster.
1. The omission of the word "fighting" from the rule was a mistake in the KD codex which has carried over to the Daemon versions, and which may or may not get errata treatment in the future.
2. The word was deliberately removed for the D thirster version with the intention of it striking at I1 no matter what weapon it used. For all we know the KD and Chaos Daemon rules were written at the same time.

It's clear that some believe RAW that scenario 2 is largely irrelevant; my opinion is that RAW indicates the D thirster is I1 anyway but I believe that part of the debate reached a stalemate a long time ago. I think either an errata or FAQ is needed at this point to clarify the intent and how it should be played.

If only the presence of the word "fighting" was what is required to make this be this rule be not enforced. That is not the case, though, and that is something we have been stating over and over. It is the exact opposite of what we have been saying. It is not the lack of key words that makes Colossal unusable with another Weapon. It is the lack of key words that makes Colossal USABLE with another Weapon.

Colossal does not carry with it the words needed to override the restrictions placed by More Than One Weapon. Without specifically addressing this restriction, Colossal doesn't work when using another Weapon.

Unfortunately not everyone agrees with you here though, the various counter-arguments have also been stated over and over. Which is why I said this aspect of the debate reached a stalemate a long time ago.

I was trying to look at it from another angle and establish why there are differences between two identically named rules and any implications behind that. Ultimately we are just guessing at intent in this regard though and hence the need for an FAQ to clarify that intent.

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Unfortunately not everyone agrees with you here though, the various counter-arguments have also been stated over and over. Which is why I said this aspect of the debate reached a stalemate a long time ago.

I was trying to look at it from another angle and establish why there are differences between two identically named rules and any implications behind that. Ultimately we are just guessing at intent in this regard though and hence the need for an FAQ to clarify that intent.

Obviously people are not agreeing with me or Kriswall, otherwise this would have been done early on.

But your earlier post points out to the problems with one of their counter-arguments, and that is the language in the rule itself removing it from the equation, i.e. "when this weapon is used", "fighting with a weapon with this rule", etc., as used in Unwieldy, Two-handed, or the Knight Gauntlet's Colossal rule. The problem with relying solely on this perspective is that is not the only restriction that needs to be over come.

If "fighting with this weapon" was the only requirement to exclude an ability, we would be good, but it is not the only requirement. We have a default/base restriction against mixing and matching Weapon abilities, such as Unwieldy, Specialist, and Colossal.

In order for a Weapon ability to be used when another Weapon is being used, it must specifically state as such. Colossal does not state this, it only allows for possession.

Possession alone does not fulfill this requirement of using this ability when another Weapon is being used. At least, I have not seen any quote providing any such definition. If you or anyone else can provide such a definition from the rulebook or the codex involved, that would be great, and we can lay this to rest. Until then, this point stands.

Without codex on hand, don't the Tyranid tail biomorphs state something along the lines of being able to override more than one weapon (albeit not benefitting from any rules)?

 Happyjew wrote:
Without codex on hand, don't the Tyranid tail biomorphs state something along the lines of being able to override more than one weapon (albeit not benefitting from any rules)?

It looks like all Tail Biomorphs can:

TAIL BIOMORPHS
A tail biomorph is a Melee weapon that allows its wielder to make a single additional Attack. Note that this Attack is resolved separately from a model’s other close combat attacks and uses the appropriate profile below. Also note that a tail Attack is not affected by other Melee weapons, biomorphs, upgrades or special rules belonging to the owning model, or vice versa. For example, a Hive Tyrant with a heavy venom cannon, a lash whip and bonesword, a prehensile pincer and toxin sacs does not gain an additional Attack for fighting with two close combat weapons, nor does its prehensile pincer tail attack have either the Smash or Poisoned special rules.

 Charistoph wrote:

 chaosmarauder wrote:
Since the D thirster has no weapon - can he even choose to just punch with his fist if he wanted to?

The Greataxe of Khorne is not a Weapon?

Haha I meant no SECOND weapon.

Can he choose to punch with his fist?

 chaosmarauder wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 chaosmarauder wrote:
Since the D thirster has no weapon - can he even choose to just punch with his fist if he wanted to?

The Greataxe of Khorne is not a Weapon?

Haha I meant no SECOND weapon.

Can he choose to punch with his fist?

The rules require that you use a weapon with the Melee type to make close combat attacks. Does his fist have a weapon profile and does it have the Melee type? Nope.

 chaosmarauder wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 chaosmarauder wrote:
Since the D thirster has no weapon - can he even choose to just punch with his fist if he wanted to?

The Greataxe of Khorne is not a Weapon?

Haha I meant no SECOND weapon.

Can he choose to punch with his fist?

Daemon players can buy a second weapon with daemonic rewards

 Kriswall wrote:

 chaosmarauder wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 chaosmarauder wrote:
Since the D thirster has no weapon - can he even choose to just punch with his fist if he wanted to?

The Greataxe of Khorne is not a Weapon?

Haha I meant no SECOND weapon.

Can he choose to punch with his fist?

The rules require that you use a weapon with the Melee type to make close combat attacks. Does his fist have a weapon profile and does it have the Melee type? Nope.

So a dreadnaught that takes 2 shooting weapons instead of a powerfist can't attack in close combat? Or if a dreadnaught gets weapon destroyed on his power fist?

If you don't have a CCW you are given an imaginary CCW with no stats

Charistoph, the First rules for taking the new BTs in a Daemons army were in white dwarf. Issue 57 iirc

chaosmarauder wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 chaosmarauder wrote:
Since the D thirster has no weapon - can he even choose to just punch with his fist if he wanted to?

The Greataxe of Khorne is not a Weapon?

Haha I meant no SECOND weapon.

Can he choose to punch with his fist?

Depends, how is the Smash Attack defined?

jokerkd wrote:Charistoph, the First rules for taking the new BTs in a Daemons army were in white dwarf. Issue 57 iirc

I am not a White Dwarf subscriber or hoarder, sorry. As I said, the KDK version (which I believe came out later) does not have any options associated with it, unless you count Smashing.

Thinking this from the perspective of two melee combatants, the hole in the rules is glaringly obvious.

We have 2 D-thirsters going at each other, we have to make assumptions when _both_ of them have their initiative step.

It is my turn, so do I choose the order and ask opponent to nonimate what weapon he is going to use? What if he has two weapons, one of which raises WS and the other causes instant death. What if I choose the at init weapon after he has chosen the D-weapon?

What's the rule here?

So, this means that the only that this would work is to decide on these things at the beginning of the combat, as others have pointed out. It still leaves those above issues unspelled.

However, looking at the abilities / special rules that weapons have, there are two kinds of rules. Those that are always active, ie. having the item on the model, and those that are activated when struck blows with.

I believe there is a clear distinction here and the rule of not mixing and matching works on the latter, but not the first. To me it is obvious that the rules must work this way, to many others that isn't the case.

Except you stil ignore the requirement that you must have permission to use special rule of weapons you're not using.

Get around that requirement. You can't say ""the rules... " when you're ignoring so,W of the more inconvenient ones.

Naw wrote:
Thinking this from the perspective of two melee combatants, the hole in the rules is glaringly obvious.

We have 2 D-thirsters going at each other, we have to make assumptions when _both_ of them have their initiative step.

It is my turn, so do I choose the order and ask opponent to nonimate what weapon he is going to use? What if he has two weapons, one of which raises WS and the other causes instant death. What if I choose the at init weapon after he has chosen the D-weapon?

What's the rule here?

So, this means that the only that this would work is to decide on these things at the beginning of the combat, as others have pointed out. It still leaves those above issues unspelled.

However, looking at the abilities / special rules that weapons have, there are two kinds of rules. Those that are always active, ie. having the item on the model, and those that are activated when struck blows with.

I believe there is a clear distinction here and the rule of not mixing and matching works on the latter, but not the first. To me it is obvious that the rules must work this way, to many others that isn't the case.

The rules make no distinction between weapon abilities/weapon special rules that are "always active" and those that are activated when used in a fight. There is no such thing in the rules as a weapon ability that is "always active". This appears to be something you've created to explain what you perceive as two different kinds of rules. The reality is that the Special Rules chapter tells us that a models attacks don't have special rules from weapons unless that weapon is being used. The More Than One Weapon section of the Weapons chapter clarifies that we can't benefit from weapon rules in a fight when we aren't using that weapon.

In other words, nope. There is no such thing as a weapon ability that is always active. The rules simply don't support this concept.

Let me then clarify, they depend on the circumstance. Here you don't need to strike with it, you follow the specific codex rule that has clear instruction of piling in and having initiative 1. The rest of us read this as a specific codex rule overruling a more general BRB rule. The BRB rule even allows this by its own wording. This is specifying otherwise.

To me it is obvious that the intent is for the D-thirster always strike at init 1 with the axe and that this is actually supported in the rules.

Naw wrote:
Let me then clarify, they depend on the circumstance. Here you don't need to strike with it, you follow the specific codex rule that has clear instruction of piling in and having initiative 1. The rest of us read this as a specific codex rule overruling a more general BRB rule. The BRB rule even allows this by its own wording. This is specifying otherwise.

To me it is obvious that the intent is for the D-thirster always strike at init 1 with the axe and that this is actually supported in the rules.

The wording of a special rule tells you HOW to apply that rule. The BRB tells you WHEN to apply that rule. For a weapon special rule to be able to be applied when its weapon is not being used, the BRB requires it to state that it can be used when the weapon is not being used. That is not that case here.

Colossal tells us how to apply itself. It doesn't tell us specifically that it can be used when the Axe of Khorne is not being used. You are trying to apply a rule that your attacks don't have.

Codex rules only trump core BRB rules when you have permission to apply those Codex rules. In this case, the Codex rule isn't active, so I'm not sure how you're creating a conflict for a rule you have no permission to apply.

Naw wrote:
Let me then clarify, they depend on the circumstance. Here you don't need to strike with it, you follow the specific codex rule that has clear instruction of piling in and having initiative 1. The rest of us read this as a specific codex rule overruling a more general BRB rule. The BRB rule even allows this by its own wording. This is specifying otherwise.

To me it is obvious that the intent is for the D-thirster always strike at init 1 with the axe and that this is actually supported in the rules.

It cannot overrule without specifically stating it overrules.

That's what you're ignoring every time.

Naw wrote:
Let me then clarify, they depend on the circumstance. Here you don't need to strike with it, you follow the specific codex rule that has clear instruction of piling in and having initiative 1. The rest of us read this as a specific codex rule overruling a more general BRB rule. The BRB rule even allows this by its own wording. This is specifying otherwise.

To me it is obvious that the intent is for the D-thirster always strike at init 1 with the axe and that this is actually supported in the rules.

You were clear. But as has been repeated, there are two sets of language we need to deal with.

First is their own rules. Colossal is fine there. Simple possession allows for its use when the Weapon ability is called upon just as much as striking with the weapon or using it in the Fight Sub-Phase.

However, there is the base rules which disallows the use of their Weapon abilities when another Weapon is in play. Your perspective does not address or include this concept whatsoever, even though it is been repeated every page and referenced or quoted every other page.

Hah, got three separate responses from the opposition. My life is now complete and we really have established that our views will never meet on this subject.

This wouldn't be thirteen pages long if there was no ambiguity and one correct interpretation.

Naw wrote:
Hah, got three separate responses from the opposition. My life is now complete and we really have established that our views will never meet on this subject.

This wouldn't be thirteen pages long if there was no ambiguity and one correct interpretation.

Ignoring rules does create ambiguity, I agree.

Naw wrote:
Hah, got three separate responses from the opposition. My life is now complete and we really have established that our views will never meet on this subject.

This wouldn't be thirteen pages long if there was no ambiguity and one correct interpretation.

Indeed, ignoring rules does creat dissension

When you can reconcile your concept with the rules, productive debate is possible.

What of the Mechanicus Dataspike and the Skitarii Chordclaw?

The Dataspike as seen on the Datasmith and Dominus states: When a model equipped with a weapon that has this special rule makes melee attacks, it makes an additional attack with this weapon at I10, this doesn't grant a Pile-in Move.

The Chordclaw's rules state: When a model equipped with a Chordclaw makes its close combat attacks, one of those attacks will be a dissonance attack (roll this attack separately). A Dissonance Attack has the Fleshbane Special Rule.

The way I, and I think most other Mechanicus/Skitarii players have been playing it, has it that these rules apply when the model is attacking with another weapon. In particular, the Dominus gets to hack away with his power axe but with a quick strike from the Dataspike beforehand.

Does the "equipped" language act as explicit enough permission to counter the 'no mix and match without permission' rule? Otherwise I've been playing this wrong all this time.

 Thariinye wrote:

Does the "equipped" language act as explicit enough permission to counter the 'no mix and match without permission' rule? Otherwise I've been playing this wrong all this time.

This is the EXACT question that no one can, or ever will, agree on. This is why this thread has gone on for 14 pages.

 Thariinye wrote:
What of the Mechanicus Dataspike and the Skitarii Chordclaw?

The Dataspike as seen on the Datasmith and Dominus states: When a model equipped with a weapon that has this special rule makes melee attacks, it makes an additional attack with this weapon at I10, this doesn't grant a Pile-in Move.

The Chordclaw's rules state: When a model equipped with a Chordclaw makes its close combat attacks, one of those attacks will be a dissonance attack (roll this attack separately). A Dissonance Attack has the Fleshbane Special Rule.

The way I, and I think most other Mechanicus/Skitarii players have been playing it, has it that these rules apply when the model is attacking with another weapon. In particular, the Dominus gets to hack away with his power axe but with a quick strike from the Dataspike beforehand.

They are Weapon abilities, so fall under the same case as Unwieldy, Blind, and Colossal.

 Thariinye wrote:
Does the "equipped" language act as explicit enough permission to counter the 'no mix and match without permission' rule? Otherwise I've been playing this wrong all this time.

"Equipped" and "possess" are in the same category. Effectively speaking we have nothing stating whether this does or does not qualify as bypassing or ignoring the More Than One Weapon rule.

Without something stating it does, I have to default with the perspective of "does not".

In that case, the Chordclaw does nothing, as it has Fleshbane as a standard rule, IIRC.

So when a model makes its attacks, it chooses either the chordclaw or transonic razor. If it chooses the Chordclaw, then the rule makes one of chordclaw attacks a chordclaw attack (woo) and if it chooses the transonic razor, nothing happens.

So, bascially, your interpretation causes the rule to do literaly nothing, except say that when attacking with the weapon, one attack must be with the weapon.

woo.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
In that case, the Chordclaw does nothing, as it has Fleshbane as a standard rule, IIRC.

So when a model makes its attacks, it chooses either the chordclaw or transonic razor. If it chooses the Chordclaw, then the rule makes one of chordclaw attacks a chordclaw attack (woo) and if it chooses the transonic razor, nothing happens.

So, bascially, your interpretation causes the rule to do literaly nothing, except say that when attacking with the weapon, one attack must be with the weapon.

woo.

Nope, it does not have Fleshbane, just Melee, Molecular Dissonance (the referenced rule), and Transonic (which the Razor has, and is a non-Vehicle Rending type rule).

 Charistoph wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
In that case, the Chordclaw does nothing, as it has Fleshbane as a standard rule, IIRC.

So when a model makes its attacks, it chooses either the chordclaw or transonic razor. If it chooses the Chordclaw, then the rule makes one of chordclaw attacks a chordclaw attack (woo) and if it chooses the transonic razor, nothing happens.

So, bascially, your interpretation causes the rule to do literaly nothing, except say that when attacking with the weapon, one attack must be with the weapon.

woo.

Nope, it does not have Fleshbane, just Melee, Molecular Dissonance (the referenced rule), and Transonic (which the Razor has, and is a non-Vehicle Rending type rule).

Ah okay, makes sense.

So just to double check, when Abaddon chooses to attack with Drach'nyen, Blood Angels suddenly loose hatred against him, as it comes from the Talon of Horus and you can't mix and match abilities.

Antubis wrote:
So just to double check, when Abaddon chooses to attack with Drach'nyen, Blood Angels suddenly loose hatred against him, as it comes from the Talon of Horus and you can't mix and match abilities.

That Hatred is not a Weapon ability, but in the area of "Wargear abilities". If you notice that this note of Hatred is before the profile and is not referenced by a keyword under "Type".

 Charistoph wrote:

Antubis wrote:
So just to double check, when Abaddon chooses to attack with Drach'nyen, Blood Angels suddenly loose hatred against him, as it comes from the Talon of Horus and you can't mix and match abilities.

That Hatred is not a Weapon ability, but in the area of "Wargear abilities". If you notice that this note of Hatred is before the profile and is not referenced by a keyword under "Type".

Seriously? A little bit of effort for consistency here, ok? Not that it matters as no one plays Blood Angels

 Charistoph wrote:

Antubis wrote:
So just to double check, when Abaddon chooses to attack with Drach'nyen, Blood Angels suddenly loose hatred against him, as it comes from the Talon of Horus and you can't mix and match abilities.

That Hatred is not a Weapon ability, but in the area of "Wargear abilities". If you notice that this note of Hatred is before the profile and is not referenced by a keyword under "Type".

Agreed. Weapon abilities are listed under a weapon's type. Anything outside the profile doesn't count as a weapon ability.

Naw wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Antubis wrote:
So just to double check, when Abaddon chooses to attack with Drach'nyen, Blood Angels suddenly loose hatred against him, as it comes from the Talon of Horus and you can't mix and match abilities.

That Hatred is not a Weapon ability, but in the area of "Wargear abilities". If you notice that this note of Hatred is before the profile and is not referenced by a keyword under "Type".

Seriously? A little bit of effort for consistency here, ok? Not that it matters as no one plays Blood Angels

I have seriously stated this numerous times in this thread. I have even associated this concept with Grenades. So the consistency is there. Try reading a little more of the thread before you start kicking your own teeth in by such declarations.

For Shard of Anaris , the type vaults work grants the bearer fearless . Also listed as types are fleshbane and rending.

Colossal is type as well.

Hatred is a special rule and.it is granted from being the bearer of the weapon, despite it not being listed under type for the talon.

blaktoof wrote:
For Shard of Anaris , the type vaults work grants the bearer fearless . Also listed as types are fleshbane and rending.

Colossal is type as well.

Hatred is a special rule and.it is granted from being the bearer of the weapon, despite it not being listed under type for the talon.

None of the things you listed are types. They are all special rules/weapon abilities. Go back and re-read the rules. The Type section contains both the weapon's type (i.e. Melee, Rapid Fire, etc) as well as the weapon's special rules/weapon abilities.

"A shooting weapon always has one of the following types: Assault, Bomb, Heavy, Ordnance, Pistol, Primary Weapon, Rapid Fire or Salvo."

"Weapons with the Melee type can only be used in close combat."

"The type section of a weapon’s profile also includes any special rules that apply to the weapon in question."

It's important that we're precise about the rules.

 Kriswall wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
For Shard of Anaris , the type vaults work grants the bearer fearless . Also listed as types are fleshbane and rending.

Colossal is type as well.

Hatred is a special rule and.it is granted from being the bearer of the weapon, despite it not being listed under type for the talon.

None of the things you listed are types. They are all special rules/weapon abilities. Go back and re-read the rules. The Type section contains both the weapon's type (i.e. Melee, Rapid Fire, etc) as well as the weapon's special rules/weapon abilities.

"A shooting weapon always has one of the following types: Assault, Bomb, Heavy, Ordnance, Pistol, Primary Weapon, Rapid Fire or Salvo."

"Weapons with the Melee type can only be used in close combat."

"The type section of a weapon’s profile also includes any special rules that apply to the weapon in question."

It's important that we're precise about the rules.

I appreciate your comments, and being precise is important. However you did not actually respond to anything.

As for Vauls work, which grants fearless to the bearer, it is listed under type for the Shard of Anaris.

Just as Colossal is listed under type for the Greataxe of Khorne.

So they are listed as under types. Your entire comment that colossal is not the same as melee, or vauls work is not the same as pistol dodges the question without answering it in any way what so ever.

Claiming they are somehow wargear abilities instead of special rules granted either by being the bearer of a weapon, or by striking with it is nonsensical as there is no rules for such.

blaktoof wrote:
For Shard of Anaris , the type vaults work grants the bearer fearless . Also listed as types are fleshbane and rending.

To be fair, I'm not sure this really would affect much of anything. Are the Tests that Fearless address part of the Fight sub-phase and/or part of Striking Blows? It is after all Initiative Steps are used after all, and I couldn't find anything right off the bat one way or the other any more than the timing of Weapon usage is determined (aside from a specific point it HAD to be accomplished by).

 Charistoph wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
For Shard of Anaris , the type vaults work grants the bearer fearless . Also listed as types are fleshbane and rending.

To be fair, I'm not sure this really would affect much of anything. Are the Tests that Fearless address part of the Fight sub-phase and/or part of Striking Blows? It is after all Initiative Steps are used after all, and I couldn't find anything right off the bat one way or the other any more than the timing of Weapon usage is determined (aside from a specific point it HAD to be accomplished by).

It's becoming increasingly hard to follow your argument as it becomes more and more convoluted. Are you saying that a model with the Shard of Anaris is only Fearless if he is using that weapon in the Fight sub-phase? And that he wouldn't automatically pass a Fear test if he wanted to use a different weapon. I'm just trying to clarify what you are claiming. Thanks.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
For Shard of Anaris , the type vaults work grants the bearer fearless . Also listed as types are fleshbane and rending.

To be fair, I'm not sure this really would affect much of anything. Are the Tests that Fearless address part of the Fight sub-phase and/or part of Striking Blows? It is after all Initiative Steps are used after all, and I couldn't find anything right off the bat one way or the other any more than the timing of Weapon usage is determined (aside from a specific point it HAD to be accomplished by).

It's becoming increasingly hard to follow your argument as it becomes more and more convoluted. Are you saying that a model with the Shard of Anaris is only Fearless if he is using that weapon in the Fight sub-phase? And that he wouldn't automatically pass a Fear test if he wanted to use a different weapon. I'm just trying to clarify what you are claiming. Thanks.

The way I read his post was he is questioning when the fear tests would come into play as you have fearless all the time EXCEPT when "striking blows" with a different weapon. So if the fear test comes after all the initiative steps you still have fearless. But if the fear test occurs after choosing a different weapon but before the blows are struck then you wouldn't have fearless. That's the way I deciphered it.

blaktoof wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
For Shard of Anaris , the type vaults work grants the bearer fearless . Also listed as types are fleshbane and rending.

Colossal is type as well.

Hatred is a special rule and.it is granted from being the bearer of the weapon, despite it not being listed under type for the talon.

None of the things you listed are types. They are all special rules/weapon abilities. Go back and re-read the rules. The Type section contains both the weapon's type (i.e. Melee, Rapid Fire, etc) as well as the weapon's special rules/weapon abilities.

"A shooting weapon always has one of the following types: Assault, Bomb, Heavy, Ordnance, Pistol, Primary Weapon, Rapid Fire or Salvo."

"Weapons with the Melee type can only be used in close combat."

"The type section of a weapon’s profile also includes any special rules that apply to the weapon in question."

It's important that we're precise about the rules.

I appreciate your comments, and being precise is important. However you did not actually respond to anything.

As for Vauls work, which grants fearless to the bearer, it is listed under type for the Shard of Anaris.

Just as Colossal is listed under type for the Greataxe of Khorne.

So they are listed as under types. Your entire comment that colossal is not the same as melee, or vauls work is not the same as pistol dodges the question without answering it in any way what so ever.

Claiming they are somehow wargear abilities instead of special rules granted either by being the bearer of a weapon, or by striking with it is nonsensical as there is no rules for such.

They are weapon special rules. They're "active" per their rules text, except when striking with a different weapon in close combat. I'm really not sure what you're asking. Can you be a little more specific with your question. I don't think they're "wargear abilities", whatever that means. If the Vaul's Whatever ability grants Fearless to the user, it would do so in all instances EXCEPT when the wielder is attacking with a different weapon. During that narrow timeframe, the wielder would not be granted Fearless. Of course, it could easily be argued (and I'd tend to agree) that by the time you'd care whether or not a model is Fearless (typically when determining combat results), you're no longer striking blows and the model would again gain Fearless. The BRB doesn't really define "comes to strike blows", but the most narrow definition possible - based on context and an overall knowledge of the rule set, and one that I can get behind - would be Initiative steps 10 to 1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
For Shard of Anaris , the type vaults work grants the bearer fearless . Also listed as types are fleshbane and rending.

To be fair, I'm not sure this really would affect much of anything. Are the Tests that Fearless address part of the Fight sub-phase and/or part of Striking Blows? It is after all Initiative Steps are used after all, and I couldn't find anything right off the bat one way or the other any more than the timing of Weapon usage is determined (aside from a specific point it HAD to be accomplished by).

It's becoming increasingly hard to follow your argument as it becomes more and more convoluted. Are you saying that a model with the Shard of Anaris is only Fearless if he is using that weapon in the Fight sub-phase? And that he wouldn't automatically pass a Fear test if he wanted to use a different weapon. I'm just trying to clarify what you are claiming. Thanks.

You have Fearless at all times EXCEPT when striking blows with a different weapon. This weapon is sort of a bad example as it's extremely rare that Fearless would come into play during one of the Initiative steps of the Fight Sub-Phase. Typically, Fearless would come into play before the Fight proper starts or after you are done striking blows and when you are determining combat results.

Nobody is saying that a model with Shard of Anaris is only Fearless if he is using that weapon in the Fight Sub-Phase. We are saying that he is always Fearless except during the portion of the Fight Sub-Phase where blows are struck... at a minimum, Initiative steps 10 to 1. During that period, if he has chosen to attack with a different weapon, he doesn't benefit from Shard of Anaris's Vaul's Whatever weapon ability and therefore wouldn't gain Fearless.

How is it a bad example? You take Fear tests at the start of the Fight sub-phase, which essentially comprises the ten initiative steps.

 Tonberry7 wrote:
How is it a bad example? You take Fear tests at the start of the Fight sub-phase, which essentially comprises the ten initiative steps.

There's a big difference between "the start of the Fight Sub-Phase" and "the start of Initiative step 10". It's not a terrible example, it's just that you'd normally never be testing Fearless during an actual Initiative step. Before or after, sure, but not during. In that sense, losing Fearless while striking blows, but having it immediately before and afterwards would look very similar to having it all the time. A better example would be a weapon ability where the loss is felt during Combat.

Surely you have to decide which weapon you are using before initiative steps though, at the start of the Fight sub-phase. Otherwise you don't know when you will be striking. So you could lose Fearless right at the time you might need to test.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
For Shard of Anaris , the type vaults work grants the bearer fearless . Also listed as types are fleshbane and rending.

To be fair, I'm not sure this really would affect much of anything. Are the Tests that Fearless address part of the Fight sub-phase and/or part of Striking Blows? It is after all Initiative Steps are used after all, and I couldn't find anything right off the bat one way or the other any more than the timing of Weapon usage is determined (aside from a specific point it HAD to be accomplished by).

It's becoming increasingly hard to follow your argument as it becomes more and more convoluted. Are you saying that a model with the Shard of Anaris is only Fearless if he is using that weapon in the Fight sub-phase? And that he wouldn't automatically pass a Fear test if he wanted to use a different weapon. I'm just trying to clarify what you are claiming. Thanks.

For clarity, convoluted how? When Striking Blows, you cannot mix and match Weapon abilities, and only use one Weapon's abilities. This is quite a simple concept.

Fear Tests are performed "(called a Fear test) before any blows are struck". More Than One Weapon applies when Striking Blows. Blows cannot be struck before Initiative Step 10 and cannot be struck after Initiative 1. Fearless applies when you take the Fear Test and logically applies after you stop Striking Blows, so available before the Morale Check after determining Assault Results.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Surely you have to decide which weapon you are using before initiative steps though, at the start of the Fight sub-phase. Otherwise you don't know when you will be striking. So you could lose Fearless right at the time you might need to test.

Let's review the More Than One Weapon:

Unless otherwise stated, if a model has more than one shooting weapon, he must choose which one to shoot – he cannot fire both in the same Shooting phase. 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. However, it’s worth remembering that if a model has two or more Melee weapons he gains +1 attack in close combat.

So it is when you come to Strike Blows.

Ok but if the Colossal rule applies at the start of the Fight sub-phase this already modifies the D thirster initiative to I1, when you get to this step and he comes to strike blows you can then choose which weapon to attack with.

having read the entire thread, I agree if it has the axe, its I1, full stop, that being said, that's not HIWPI, I will allow my D kin mates to swing at I with weapons its been upgraded with.

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Ok but if the Colossal rule applies at the start of the Fight sub-phase this already modifies the D thirster initiative to I1, when you get to this step and he comes to strike blows you can then choose which weapon to attack with.

But right before Initiative 10 chooses a different Weapon, this rule is not in force, so could Strike Blows according to the Initiative associated without Colossal. Colossal affects when he Strikes Blows, so would be affected by any rule dismissing it when Striking Blows. Fearless Tests apply outside of Striking Blows, so is not affected by any rule that only applies when Striking Blows.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:
having read the entire thread, I agree if it has the axe, its I1, full stop, that being said, that's not HIWPI, I will allow my D kin mates to swing at I with weapons its been upgraded with.

And the reasons for ignoring More Than One Weapon are?

Without an explanation, this IS just a HYWPI declaration.

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Ok but if the Colossal rule applies at the start of the Fight sub-phase this already modifies the D thirster initiative to I1, when you get to this step and he comes to strike blows you can then choose which weapon to attack with.

While the rules don't explicitly tell us when to select weapons, we can infer that it must happen before Initiative step 10 begins. Assuming it's the very last thing you do before Initiative step 10 begins, you'd start Initiative step 10, review all models to see who fights and proceed. At this point, Colossal is no longer active, because the models have all come to strike blows and have selected their weapons... none of which have the Colossal weapon ability.

In other words, Colossal MIGHT apply at the start of the Fight Sub-Phase, but it definitely doesn't apply at the start of Initiative step 10.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Ok but if the Colossal rule applies at the start of the Fight sub-phase this already modifies the D thirster initiative to I1, when you get to this step and he comes to strike blows you can then choose which weapon to attack with.

But right before Initiative 10 chooses a different Weapon, this rule is not in force, so could Strike Blows according to the Initiative associated without Colossal. Colossal affects when he Strikes Blows, so would be affected by any rule dismissing it when Striking Blows. Fearless Tests apply outside of Striking Blows, so is not affected by any rule that only applies when Striking Blows.

But now you are just contradicting yourself. Unless I am mistaken you are making the following assertions:
1. Colossal is in effect at all times apart from when attacking with another Weapon.
2. You choose which weapon to use when coming to strike blows.
3. Striking Blows occurs during the relevant initiative step of the Fight sub-phase.

So playing along with your interpretation, Colossal says go at I1 if you have a weapon with this rule. So when it gets to I1 you can choose to use a different weapon and Colossal no longer applies when attacking. But it really makes no difference now as all the other initiative steps have already passed and you're still going at I1 anyway.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Ok but if the Colossal rule applies at the start of the Fight sub-phase this already modifies the D thirster initiative to I1, when you get to this step and he comes to strike blows you can then choose which weapon to attack with.

But right before Initiative 10 chooses a different Weapon, this rule is not in force, so could Strike Blows according to the Initiative associated without Colossal. Colossal affects when he Strikes Blows, so would be affected by any rule dismissing it when Striking Blows. Fearless Tests apply outside of Striking Blows, so is not affected by any rule that only applies when Striking Blows.

But now you are just contradicting yourself. Unless I am mistaken you are making the following assertions:
1. Colossal is in effect at all times apart from when attacking with another Weapon.
2. You choose which weapon to use when coming to strike blows.
3. Striking Blows occurs during the relevant initiative step of the Fight sub-phase.

So playing along with your interpretation, Colossal says go at I1 if you have a weapon with this rule. So when it gets to I1 you can choose to use a different weapon and Colossal no longer applies when attacking. But it really makes no difference now as all the other initiative steps have already passed and you're still going at I1 anyway.

If you choose weapons when your initiative step comes other initiative affecting weapons wouldn't work. The tyranid's whip was mentioned earlier in this thread. It allows you to strike at an earlier initiative step. If you chose this weapon on your initiative step then you wouldn't be able to use it at all since the chance to use it has passed. This would mean weapon selection is done before initiative step 10.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Ok but if the Colossal rule applies at the start of the Fight sub-phase this already modifies the D thirster initiative to I1, when you get to this step and he comes to strike blows you can then choose which weapon to attack with.

But right before Initiative 10 chooses a different Weapon, this rule is not in force, so could Strike Blows according to the Initiative associated without Colossal. Colossal affects when he Strikes Blows, so would be affected by any rule dismissing it when Striking Blows. Fearless Tests apply outside of Striking Blows, so is not affected by any rule that only applies when Striking Blows.

But now you are just contradicting yourself. Unless I am mistaken you are making the following assertions:
1. Colossal is in effect at all times apart from when attacking with another Weapon.
2. You choose which weapon to use when coming to strike blows.
3. Striking Blows occurs during the relevant initiative step of the Fight sub-phase.

So playing along with your interpretation, Colossal says go at I1 if you have a weapon with this rule. So when it gets to I1 you can choose to use a different weapon and Colossal no longer applies when attacking. But it really makes no difference now as all the other initiative steps have already passed and you're still going at I1 anyway.

I am not asserting #3 at all. My belief, backed up by wording in the BRB and quoted earlier in this thread, is that the entire Fight Sub-Phase is to be considered the time when a model comes to strike blows. However, given that people were bickering about weapon selection and when it happens, I brought up that weapon selection must occur before Initiative step 10 begins to allow weapons like Lash Whips or Whip Coils to function. If we take the narrowest interpretation and say that weapon selection occurs immediately before Initiative step 10 happens, a D-Thirster who has a chosen a weapon other than the Axe of Khorne to fight with would not be subject to Colossal during any Initiative step. As such, he'd strike at his normal Initiative.

So really, it goes like this...

0. D-Thirster is subject to Colossal
1. Fight Sub-Phase starts
2. ...
3. Weapon Selection Occurs. Axe of Khorne is NOT selected.
4. ...
5. Initiative Step 10 starts. All models who strike at Initiative Step 10 do their thing. D-Thirster is not currently subject to Colossal.
6. Initiative Step 9 starts. All models who strike at Initiative Step 9 do their thing. This includes any D-Thirsters attacking with alternate weapons.
etc, etc.
N. Fight Sub-Phase ends
N+1. D-Thirster is again subject to Colossal

Kriswall-

I am fairly certain you are aware there is a difference on special rule for weapons. Some like rending or fleshbane affect the attack results when striking with the weapon. Some like "Vauls Work, Fleshbane, Murder, Colossal" affect the bearer.

The ones that affect the bearer never explicitly, or specifically call out they stop working at any time.

The rules for one weapon are in regards to special abilities when striking with a weapon, i.e. special rules a weapon has that are tied to striking with the weapon. Not rules that affect the bearer.

nothing in one weapon tells us a weapons special rules cease to exist, or do not work, when striking with another weapon. One weapon tells us we cannot benefit from the special rules used when striking with a weapon, when we are not using it.

Colossal, Vauls work, Cursed(on yriels spear), Murder, etc are not tied with striking with the weapon and these special rules still function when not using the weapon in the assault phase. A d-thirster is subject to colossal at all times. Much like Yriel is cursed at all times.

blaktoof wrote:
Kriswall-

I am fairly certain you are aware there is a difference on special rule for weapons. Some like rending or fleshbane affect the attack results when striking with the weapon. Some like "Vauls Work, Fleshbane, Murder, Colossal" affect the bearer.

The ones that affect the bearer never explicitly, or specifically call out they stop working at any time.

The rules for one weapon are in regards to special abilities when striking with a weapon, i.e. special rules a weapon has that are tied to striking with the weapon. Not rules that affect the bearer.

nothing in one weapon tells us a weapons special rules cease to exist, or do not work, when striking with another weapon. One weapon tells us we cannot benefit from the special rules used when striking with a weapon, when we are not using it.

Colossal, Vauls work, Cursed(on yriels spear), Murder, etc are not tied with striking with the weapon and these special rules still function when not using the weapon in the assault phase. A d-thirster is subject to colossal at all times. Much like Yriel is cursed at all times.

That's not how more than one weapon is worded though. It doesn't specify between striking abilities and other abilities. It just says abilities which encompasses all abilities.

Charistoph wrote:
But right before Initiative 10 chooses a different Weapon, this rule is not in force, so could Strike Blows according to the Initiative associated without Colossal.

Kriswall wrote:
While the rules don't explicitly tell us when to select weapons, we can infer that it must happen before Initiative step 10 begins.

...
3. Weapon Selection Occurs. Axe of Khorne is NOT selected.

So we have these half steps between steps that are not anywhere in the rulebook then? That's good to know.

Tonberry7 explained it really well. You claim this is RAW and then you add steps where there are none.

Tonberry7 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Ok but if the Colossal rule applies at the start of the Fight sub-phase this already modifies the D thirster initiative to I1, when you get to this step and he comes to strike blows you can then choose which weapon to attack with.

But right before Initiative 10 chooses a different Weapon, this rule is not in force, so could Strike Blows according to the Initiative associated without Colossal. Colossal affects when he Strikes Blows, so would be affected by any rule dismissing it when Striking Blows. Fearless Tests apply outside of Striking Blows, so is not affected by any rule that only applies when Striking Blows.

But now you are just contradicting yourself. Unless I am mistaken you are making the following assertions:
1. Colossal is in effect at all times apart from when attacking with another Weapon.
2. You choose which weapon to use when coming to strike blows.
3. Striking Blows occurs during the relevant initiative step of the Fight sub-phase.

So playing along with your interpretation, Colossal says go at I1 if you have a weapon with this rule. So when it gets to I1 you can choose to use a different weapon and Colossal no longer applies when attacking. But it really makes no difference now as all the other initiative steps have already passed and you're still going at I1 anyway.

Well, yeah, I am contradictory if you insert concepts I never stated. I have never stated one could swap Weapons between Initiative Steps. I have never stated "Striking Blows occurs during the relevant initiative step". I did state "before Initiative 10 chooses a different Weapon, this rule is not in force, so could Strike Blows according to the Initiative associated without Colossal." I was intimating that the Colossal rule was nullified BEFORE its relevant Initiative step.

Ask yourself when Striking Blows occurs. They can only happen during Initiative Steps. More Than One Weapon prevents the mixing and matching of Weapon abilities while Striking Blows. This judgement applies across the entire time a model could be Striking Blows which is Initiative Step 10 through Initiative Step 1, and we cannot mix and match Weapon abilities during this entire time (unless specifically stated, of course).

blaktoof wrote:Kriswall-

I am fairly certain you are aware there is a difference on special rule for weapons. Some like rending or fleshbane affect the attack results when striking with the weapon. Some like "Vauls Work, Fleshbane, Murder, Colossal" affect the bearer.

The ones that affect the bearer never explicitly, or specifically call out they stop working at any time.

The rules for one weapon are in regards to special abilities when striking with a weapon, i.e. special rules a weapon has that are tied to striking with the weapon. Not rules that affect the bearer.

nothing in one weapon tells us a weapons special rules cease to exist, or do not work, when striking with another weapon. One weapon tells us we cannot benefit from the special rules used when striking with a weapon, when we are not using it.

Colossal, Vauls work, Cursed(on yriels spear), Murder, etc are not tied with striking with the weapon and these special rules still function when not using the weapon in the assault phase. A d-thirster is subject to colossal at all times. Much like Yriel is cursed at all times.

And you demonstrate how you keep missing the point. There are two levels of language involved in this situation and you are ignoring the rulebook one while only focusing on the Weapon's.

If I use Unwieldy with a Lightning Claw when I also have Power Fist, would that be mixing and matching abilities? If I use Two-Handed with a Pistol when I also have a Relic Blade, would that be mixing and matching abilities? If I use Shred with a Power Fist because I have a Lightning Claw, would that be mixing and matching abilities?

Ignore the language of the rules and focus on the actual question I asked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Naw wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
But right before Initiative 10 chooses a different Weapon, this rule is not in force, so could Strike Blows according to the Initiative associated without Colossal.

So we have these half steps between steps that are not anywhere in the rulebook then? That's good to know.

Tonberry7 explained it really well. You claim this is RAW and then you add steps where there are none.

Ah, yes, let's ignore everything else and focus on one sentence, shall we? It is so much easier to take things out of context to destroy them.

More Than One Weapon is applied when Striking Blows, I already quoted and underlined it. When does Striking Blows occur?

I don't take anything out of context. There isn't a step like in the shooting phase that tells us to choose weapons. You insist that it is there "before" Initiative 10. I say that in the absence of said step the model gets to strike blows on his initiative.

Has it at all occurred to you that maybe those weapons modifying initiative don't actually follow the rules?

Naw wrote:
I don't take anything out of context. There isn't a step like in the shooting phase that tells us to choose weapons. You insist that it is there "before" Initiative 10. I say that in the absence of said step the model gets to strike blows on his initiative.

Has it at all occurred to you that maybe those weapons modifying initiative don't actually follow the rules?

I'm not even sure what you mean when you say some weapons "don't actually follow the rules". Are they cheater weapons? Seriously. I have no idea what you're implying. We have a framework for attacking with weapons. Weapon selection must happen at some point. If it happens before or when Initiative step 10 starts, all weapons in the game are usable. If we instead take a snapshot of a model BEFORE weapons are selected and force him to wait until that Initiative step before selecting a weapon, some weapons become unusable. Highly unlikely that the second interpretation is correct. Ultimately an FAQ would be needed as proof, but applying the reasonable person standard tells us the first interpretation is more likely.

Out of curiosity, how do you think a Canoptek Wraith attacks with Whip Coils? Rule support. Give me a step by step. My understanding of your argument is as follows.

1. Fight Starts
2. Initiative steps 10-3 happen uneventfully.
3. Initiative step 2 happens. The Canoptek Wraith chooses to strike with his Whip Coils. The game somehow unwinds back to Initiative step 5 because the Whip Coils "don't follow the rules".
4. ...
5. Profit!

In your scenario, what happens if the Wraith is killed at Initiative step 4, before 2 happens and he selects his weapon.

It's almost like you'd HAVE TO know ahead of time which weapon your models are knowing so that you know what Initiative step to have them make their to hit rolls at.

Naw wrote:
I don't take anything out of context. There isn't a step like in the shooting phase that tells us to choose weapons. You insist that it is there "before" Initiative 10. I say that in the absence of said step the model gets to strike blows on his initiative.

Has it at all occurred to you that maybe those weapons modifying initiative don't actually follow the rules?

Had to tuck the kids into bed.

So this is how I read the rules and how we play:

Space marine captain with a power sword and a power fist meets a lone ork nob with da power klaw (to simplify, no more combatants).
No one acts at Init 10 - 6 (whoa, does the capt have Init 5 ? can't remember ).
Comes Initiative 5 and the captain can now choose to swing his sword or wait for Initiative 1 to use the fist. The Ork does not get to choose at all.

Why do you think that doesn't work? I am not adding any "before Initiative 10" steps to the game and still follow the rules as they are. This way both the axe and +init modifying items/weapons work.

My (small) gaming group hasn't thought it would work in any other way.

Kriswall wrote:Out of curiosity, how do you think a Canoptek Wraith attacks with Whip Coils? Rule support. Give me a step by step. My understanding of your argument is as follows.

I know I have the Whip Coils? I know they give me higher Initiative. The Initiative step 5 comes and I announce that I'll attack with the Whip Coils and the game is not broken. I know, it's a weird idea but there you are...

Naw wrote:

Naw wrote:
I don't take anything out of context. There isn't a step like in the shooting phase that tells us to choose weapons. You insist that it is there "before" Initiative 10. I say that in the absence of said step the model gets to strike blows on his initiative.

Has it at all occurred to you that maybe those weapons modifying initiative don't actually follow the rules?

Had to tuck the kids into bed.

So this is how I read the rules and how we play:

Space marine captain with a power sword and a power fist meets a lone ork nob with da power klaw (to simplify, no more combatants).
No one acts at Init 10 - 6 (whoa, does the capt have Init 5 ? can't remember ).
Comes Initiative 5 and the captain can now choose to swing his sword or wait for Initiative 1 to use the fist. The Ork does not get to choose at all.

Why do you think that doesn't work? I am not adding any "before Initiative 10" steps to the game and still follow the rules as they are. This way both the axe and +init modifying items/weapons work.

My (small) gaming group hasn't thought it would work in any other way.

Kriswall wrote:Out of curiosity, how do you think a Canoptek Wraith attacks with Whip Coils? Rule support. Give me a step by step. My understanding of your argument is as follows.

I know I have the Whip Coils? I know they give me higher Initiative. The Initiative step 5 comes and I announce that I'll attack with the Whip Coils and the game is not broken. I know, it's a weird idea but there you are...

So, for Whip Coils to work, the Scarab must select its weapon BEFORE its normal Initiative? Awesome. I'm glad you agree. How far before? When does A model get to pick its weapon?

So, if I just KNOW that my D-Thirster has a different weapon that would normally block Colossal and allow him to attack at Initiative 9, would this be the same scenario? Initiative 9 comes around and I announce that I'll be attacking with the non Axe of Khorne weapon? Same exact scenario, from what I can tell. I'm ok agreeing with your interpretation as it appears to give the same exact result as mine. D-Thirsters can attack at Initiative 9 with a non-AoK weapon.

Well, I've asked in my store. And I was told since the Imp Knight also has a colossal weapon rule that ISNT ambiguous, we'll treat it the same way as that.

SO, I think we've all spent ample time on this one, by this point.


Moving on.