I have a D thirster. I love him. And I feel like it's melee D that's incredibly balanced as its initiative 1. That being said, there are times when that is less than helpful. So my question is simple.
If a model has 2 different melee weapons, he can choose which one he fights with. However if a model has 1 melee weapon, can he choose instead to use his bare fists?
I'm asking this because I've come up against the dreaded wulfen. The ability to charge my D-Thirster in and strike at initiative order is much more important to me than rolling D hits. Mainly because if I wait for the D hits, I'll likely be dead. So I want to know if I can not swing his axe and strike at his normal initiative at strength 6/7 and AP2?
Perhaps someone can help me? Especially with a rules quote?
D-thirsters never really worked well out of hte box. They only were super good when you make them unkillable with CD support like Invis and Grimoire (plus access to greater rewards) that way it didn't matter if it was i1 nothing was killing it before it swung.
Aijec wrote: Colossal doesn't affect the model unless you use the actual weapon.
Every single major tournament FAQ rules it this way.
You choose which weapon to use.
That's an interesting house rule but it's written explicitly so that a model with a weapon with the Colossal special rule fights and piles in at Initiative 1.
This is a funny turn of events, as the only other Colossal D-Weapon in game (Thunderstrike Gauntlet) has a different wording that says it's only when that weapon is being used.
Aijec wrote: Colossal doesn't affect the model unless you use the actual weapon.
Every single major tournament FAQ rules it this way.
You choose which weapon to use.
That's an interesting house rule but it's written explicitly so that a model with a weapon with the Colossal special rule fights and piles in at Initiative 1.
Weapons abilities don't apply if you aren't using them.
so Eldrad can only regain warp charge points if he casts psychic powers while fighting in combat with his staff? And Yriel doesn't have to re-roll successful saving throws of 6 if he's not in combat or doesn't swing with his spear?
He only has 1 weapon. So even if Colossal only applied when he used that weapon, he doesn't have a choice but to use it. Smash might be the only exception but that's only 1 attack so it doesn't help much.
This is coming from a competitive player so take from it what you will:
90% of the time I field him he has a greater etherblade from a GR.
I would say it's split 50 50 between what I use in combat, I always use the D weapon more just because its fun and it doesn't but if I wanted to be hyper efficient...
Those weapons explicitly state their use in different phases...
Aijec wrote: Colossal doesn't affect the model unless you use the actual weapon.
Every single major tournament FAQ rules it this way.
You choose which weapon to use.
That's an interesting house rule but it's written explicitly so that a model with a weapon with the Colossal special rule fights and piles in at Initiative 1.
Not a house rule.
Im not trying to be antagonistic here so please let me know if I've missed anything. I've had a look through the rule book and I haven't found anything that says a weapon's abilities only apply if you're using it. Page 48 states "note that certain situations, abilities and weapons can modify a model's initiative".
Usually, as in the case of Shred, the rule itself will say something along the lines of "a model with this rule or attacking with a weapon with this rule does X" where X would be whatever ability is granted by the special rule. Colossal simply says "a model with this weapon Piles In and fights at Initiative step 1". A model is surely considered to be "with" the Great Axe of Khorne regardless of deciding to attack with it or not.
Aijec wrote: Colossal doesn't affect the model unless you use the actual weapon.
Every single major tournament FAQ rules it this way.
You choose which weapon to use.
That's an interesting house rule but it's written explicitly so that a model with a weapon with the Colossal special rule fights and piles in at Initiative 1.
Not a house rule.
Oh so I can ignore the -1 BS from Axe of Blind Fury then right? Because I'm not using a melee weapon in the shooting phase so I'm clearly uneffected by its drawback that only matters outside of combat
Absolutely, the model could choose to use an ether blade if he really wants to, but due to possessing the great axe he would still pile in and swing at initiative 1.
Otherwise all other bloodthirsters would be completely irrelevant.
This isn't the only weapon that has an effect whether it's used in combat or not.
AncientSkarbrand wrote: Absolutely, the model could choose to use an ether blade if he really wants to, but due to possessing the great axe he would still pile in and swing at initiative 1.
Otherwise all other bloodthirsters would be completely irrelevant.
This isn't the only weapon that has an effect whether it's used in combat or not.
To be honest, this was kind of my thinking. Surely if it could choose to not use its axe and strike at normal initiative then there would literally only be one bloodthirster ever selected. Unless you specifically wanted some kind of ranged attack?! So I kind of assumed this was the answer I would get. I just wanted public opinion.
I do however find it interesting that major tournaments allow the D thirster to not use his axe and strike at normal initiative. It seems to go utterly against RAW. But I had seen it done so wanted to ask. I'd thought they had got it wrong, but there was a glimmer of hope. Wishful thinking I suppose. When he was first released I was throwing him at anything. I've very quickly learned you have to carefully pick your fights as he tends to die very easily. I have most success smashing enemy tanks to shreds. Oh well.
According to the logic above, (which I agree with), there is no "blanket" yes or no when it comes to applying the special rules of a weapon. You must read all rules (shocking I know) that a model has before determining when they happen.
Nowhere in the BRB does it say you only read/apply a weapons rules when they are used. Otherwise the Shard of Anaris (Eldar) would only grant Fearless in CC, which is ridiculous.
Yes, rules that apply to the weapon (like shred, or rending) will only happen when the weapon is used. However, if a rule applies to the Model, they will happen regardless of the weapons use. Numerous examples are given above (Eldrad, Yriel, Axe of Blind Fury, etc)
As the Colossal rule specifies the "model with", the rule applies no matter what weapon the BT decides to use.
Another fun example of this very same debate is whether a Solitaire gets a Kiss of Death attack if he uses the Caress (which you will always chose over the Kiss). The Kiss says a "model equipped" makes one of their attacks at strX, apX, blah, blah. So by the same logic that makes a D-Thirster always strike at Init:1, a Solitaire that chooses to attack with the Caress will also make 1 atk as the Kiss.
AncientSkarbrand wrote: Absolutely, the model could choose to use an ether blade if he really wants to, but due to possessing the great axe he would still pile in and swing at initiative 1.
Otherwise all other bloodthirsters would be completely irrelevant.
This isn't the only weapon that has an effect whether it's used in combat or not.
To be honest, this was kind of my thinking. Surely if it could choose to not use its axe and strike at normal initiative then there would literally only be one bloodthirster ever selected. Unless you specifically wanted some kind of ranged attack?! So I kind of assumed this was the answer I would get. I just wanted public opinion.
I do however find it interesting that major tournaments allow the D thirster to not use his axe and strike at normal initiative. It seems to go utterly against RAW. But I had seen it done so wanted to ask. I'd thought they had got it wrong, but there was a glimmer of hope. Wishful thinking I suppose. When he was first released I was throwing him at anything. I've very quickly learned you have to carefully pick your fights as he tends to die very easily. I have most success smashing enemy tanks to shreds. Oh well.
2 greater rewards (1-3 are what you need) and the grimoire will help
Galef wrote: According to the logic above, (which I agree with), there is no "blanket" yes or no when it comes to applying the special rules of a weapon. You must read all rules (shocking I know) that a model has before determining when they happen.
Nowhere in the BRB does it say you only read/apply a weapons rules when they are used. Otherwise the Shard of Anaris (Eldar) would only grant Fearless in CC, which is ridiculous.
Yes, rules that apply to the weapon (like shred, or rending) will only happen when the weapon is used. However, if a rule applies to the Model, they will happen regardless of the weapons use. Numerous examples are given above (Eldrad, Yriel, Axe of Blind Fury, etc)
As the Colossal rule specifies the "model with", the rule applies no matter what weapon the BT decides to use.
Another fun example of this very same debate is whether a Solitaire gets a Kiss of Death attack if he uses the Caress (which you will always chose over the Kiss). The Kiss says a "model equipped" makes one of their attacks at strX, apX, blah, blah. So by the same logic that makes a D-Thirster always strike at Init:1, a Solitaire that chooses to attack with the Caress will also make 1 atk as the Kiss.
--
More Than One Weapon seems to suggest otherwise regarding a blanket "yes or no". However, in order to initiate it, one must have more than one weapon to use, and in order to ignore the one, you must use the other.
Weapons are Wargear, and sometimes they just act like Wargear and sometimes they act like Weapons. Specialist doesn't affect most Pistols, for example, however, Assault Grenades can allow the model to ignore the Charging into Terrain penalty, even if one was thrown and you (obviously) will not be using it in Melee. It is important to note the difference as to when it applies.
AncientSkarbrand wrote: Absolutely, the model could choose to use an ether blade if he really wants to, but due to possessing the great axe he would still pile in and swing at initiative 1.
Otherwise all other bloodthirsters would be completely irrelevant.
This isn't the only weapon that has an effect whether it's used in combat or not.
To be honest, this was kind of my thinking. Surely if it could choose to not use its axe and strike at normal initiative then there would literally only be one bloodthirster ever selected. Unless you specifically wanted some kind of ranged attack?! So I kind of assumed this was the answer I would get. I just wanted public opinion.
I do however find it interesting that major tournaments allow the D thirster to not use his axe and strike at normal initiative. It seems to go utterly against RAW. But I had seen it done so wanted to ask. I'd thought they had got it wrong, but there was a glimmer of hope. Wishful thinking I suppose. When he was first released I was throwing him at anything. I've very quickly learned you have to carefully pick your fights as he tends to die very easily. I have most success smashing enemy tanks to shreds. Oh well.
2 greater rewards (1-3 are what you need) and the grimoire will help
The problem is, I run him out of the KDK book. So I don't have access to rewards or that particular relic. And although wanting to be competitive I also want to stay mono khorne so invis is impossible. Keeping him alive is tough.
jokerkd wrote: We've moved off topic, so we should continue this via PM
Agreed. I think I'm set on how I'll play it now. It's pretty much how I've always played it. It's something I've seen someone do, but before attempting to try and pull the same trick I like to see what the gaming community thinks.
protip, if you want to charge something crazy big that has the ground based firepower to wipe him out before you can charge with him, fly him, and wait to fail a grounding check, dont jink and then you can charge on your turn,
Trazer985 wrote: protip, if you want to charge something crazy big that has the ground based firepower to wipe him out before you can charge with him, fly him, and wait to fail a grounding check, dont jink and then you can charge on your turn,
You might want to recheck the grounding test rules. I believe it specifically says they can't assault the following turn.
Zimko wrote: You might want to recheck the grounding test rules. I believe it specifically says they CAN assault the following turn.
Fixed that for you. If you fail a grounded check in your opponent's turn, you have basically "changed flight modes" in the previous turn, allowing you to charge in yours. Changing flight modes in "your" turn is what prevents charging.
Yes, you can absolutely charge in your turn if your opponent grounds you in their turn. Works really nice with LOC, swoop for protection + line of sight and range, take a wound and drop, charge in with the boomstick next turn.
Works good for a thirster too, you can put him in a spot that will cause your opponent to think twice about shooting him because of the charging options he will have in the following turn. This also makes him useless if they don't go for it though, whereas a fmc with some form of ranged weapons can really take advantage of it.
Jackal wrote: Personally speaking, its says a model with the weapon, not using it.
So just carrying it causes the drop to I1.
This is the drawbacks to carrying a Titan sized axe about.
Otherwise, as stated, people would just run a Dthirster with a reward so they can have the ultimate thirster, making the other 2 pointless options.
That however is my own opinion on the matter.
I'm just going by my own thoughts and what I see from the wording of colossal.
This whole issue with weapon special abilities comes up quite a bit. Given the responses I see in just about every thread, it's pretty apparent that many people don't understand when to apply weapon abilities.
I'll make this easy, but without specific quotes from the BRB, since I don't have my BRB with me.
Point #1 - All weapon abilities apply at all times... UNLESS...
Point #2 - There is a specific restriction preventing us from mixing and matching weapon abilities when it comes time to strike blows. In other words, if you're striking blows (i.e. participating in the fight sub-phase) with Weapon A, you temporarily ignore all special abilities of Weapon B.
In the case of the D-Thirster, Colossal is a weapon ability. If the D-Thirster isn't attacking with that weapon, it would violate Point #2 to use the Colossal rule as that would be mixing and matching weapon abilities.
Lots of people will bring up things like Eldrad's weapons or the axe that gives -1BS. Point #1 clears that up. These sorts of abilities are active at ALL times EXCEPT when a different weapon is actively being used in a fight sub-phase.
Kriswall. .. it doesn't say "a model attacking with this weapon piles in and fights at initiative 1" which is essentially the text of unwieldy.
It's clear that the wording is different in the minimum necessary way to cause it to have an effect whether you're attacking with it or not.
Colossal is a rule that doesn't care whether you're using the weapon, sitting on the weapon, or using the weapon to do your taxes. You have the weapon, you pile in and strike at initiative 1. This is the RAW.
I wouldn't even call it a weapon ability. It's a wargear effect. It certainly isn't much of an ability if it's a downside and nothing else.
It's not even complicated enough to examine the rules for when to apply weapon abilities because it clearly states "model has weapon, model piles in and fights at initiative 1"
AncientSkarbrand wrote: Kriswall. .. it doesn't say "a model attacking with this weapon piles in and fights at initiative 1" which is essentially the text of unwieldy.
It's clear that the wording is different in the minimum necessary way to cause it to have an effect whether you're attacking with it or not.
Colossal is a rule that doesn't care whether you're using the weapon, sitting on the weapon, or using the weapon to do your taxes. You have the weapon, you pile in and strike at initiative 1. This is the RAW.
I wouldn't even call it a weapon ability. It's a wargear effect. It certainly isn't much of an ability if it's a downside and nothing else.
It's not even complicated enough to examine the rules for when to apply weapon abilities because it clearly states "model has weapon, model piles in and fights at initiative 1"
Aside fromn the fact that this is only the case in 50% of the Colossal weapons in the game
Kriswall - then why does it say a model WITH this weapon.
Not a model USING this weapon?
This enough a basic weapon rule as they state quite clearly that using the weapon results in the rule coming into play.
This states that just having the weapon auses it.
IHateNids, are you saying that GW has released rules for models with weapons that have the Colossal special rule with different wording? Or are they forgeworld models, weapons, and wording?
If they have the same wording but are from forgeworld I would say they always drop the model to initiative 1 when piling in and attacking, because the wording in the rule for a thirster of insensate rage clearly states this.
If they have different wording I would say that they're irrelevant to the current discussion, but it's an interesting thing to know.
AncientSkarbrand wrote: Kriswall. .. it doesn't say "a model attacking with this weapon piles in and fights at initiative 1" which is essentially the text of unwieldy.
It's clear that the wording is different in the minimum necessary way to cause it to have an effect whether you're attacking with it or not.
Colossal is a rule that doesn't care whether you're using the weapon, sitting on the weapon, or using the weapon to do your taxes. You have the weapon, you pile in and strike at initiative 1. This is the RAW.
The BRB has a fundamental restriction preventing you from mixing and matching in a weapon ability when you're striking blows and not actually using that weapon. It doesn't really matter what Colossal says if you're not currently using the rule.
The classic example is a Chapter Master with Power Fist and Lightning Claw. If the Chapter Master attacks with the Power Fist, is he able to use the Shred weapon ability? No, of course not. Why not? Because doing so would be mixing and matching weapon abilities form the Lightning Claw (which isn't being used) with weapon abilities from the Power Fist (which is).
You need to demonstrate a RaW permission to use the Colossal rule if you aren't making attacks with a weapon that has Colossal. Until you do, it doesn't really matter what Colossal says. It can say literally anything, but if you have no permission to read and apply the rule, the text doesn't really matter.
Now, I'm more than willing to admit that GW doesn't generally understand how it's own rule set works and may have intended Colossal to work at all times, regardless of the weapon used. If that was the case, they should have made it a model special rule and not a weapon ability.
I wouldn't even call it a weapon ability. It's a wargear effect. It certainly isn't much of an ability if it's a downside and nothing else.
Doesn't matter what you call it. From a rules standpoint, it's a weapon ability. Whether it's a positive or a negative isn't relevant. Unwieldy is a downside, but is clearly a weapon ability.
It's not even complicated enough to examine the rules for when to apply weapon abilities because it clearly states "model has weapon, model piles in and fights at initiative 1"
Again, and per the BRB, if you aren't using a specific weapon to fight with, you ignore all of it's abilities when fighting. There is a specific restriction preventing mixing and matching.
You're following the rule for a model carrying a colossal weapon, and "always piling in and fighting at initiative 1". You need explicit RAW permission to ignore the fact that the model is carrying a colossal weapon to ignore the rule. What you have provided is explicit permission to ignore rules that come into effect by attacking with a weapon, not from possessing said weapon.
Is a rule given by carrying a weapon the same thing as a rule given when attacking with a weapon? I would assert that the latter follows everything you posted, whereas colossal is the former. I would also assert that they are not the same thing and can't be defined as such using the rules.
Otherwise, no one would bother making a difference apparent in the rules text.
Jackal wrote: That's good, but both power fist and Lclaw state the benefits when using said weapon, not by "having" the weapon on the model.
And by ignoring the wording of colossal you have violated it.
It's not an effect that is triggered when using the weapon, its an effect caused by owning the weapon to begin with.
I understand your point, but how do you reconcile the basic restriction preventing you from mixing and matching in weapon abilities from weapons that you aren't currently fighting with? Are you simply ignoring that part of the BRB? This isn't a basic versus advanced issue. We effectively have an issue where one rule says "Do A" and another rule says "Don't do A when you're doing B". There is no conflict. You're simply breaking the rules when you do A and B together in much the same way that you're breaking the rules when you resolve Colossal while attacking with a different weapon.
And I'm legitimately looking for an answer. Are you simply ignoring the rules in the BRB restricting you from mixing and matching weapon abilities when attacking?
You're following the rule for a model carrying a colossal weapon, and "always piling in and fighting at initiative 1". You need explicit RAW permission to ignore the fact that the model is carrying a colossal weapon to ignore the rule. What you have provided is explicit permission to ignore rules that come into effect by attacking with a weapon, not from possessing said weapon.
Is a rule given by carrying a weapon the same thing as a rule given when attacking with a weapon? I would assert that the latter follows everything you posted, whereas colossal is the former. I would also assert that they are not the same thing and can't be defined as such using the rules.
Otherwise, no one would bother making a difference apparent in the rules text.
Is a rule given by carrying a weapon the same thing as a rule given when attacking with a weapon? Yes. The BRB doesn't differentiate. We simply have weapon abilities. Those abilities do wildly different things at wildly different times, but are all weapon abilities.
It seems like you read the restriction against mixing and matching weapon abilities as a restriction against mixing and matching SOME weapon abilities. I'd like to know if this is simply a house rule, or if you have actual rules backup to differentiate the abilities. I'm willing to admit I may have missed something in the BRB (but I don't think I have).
Kriswall, I think it would help if you quoted the specific passage about "mixing and matchng abilities". I don't have my BRB on hand, but I think the rule you are referring to says that you must chose a weapon to strike with, and only apply the special rules that affect "that weapon"
This is a bit different than "mixing and matching" weapon abilities as it still allows rules that always apply to the "Model" to be in affect.
This is actually the reason the old GKFAQ applied the rules for the Great Sword, even if you were using the Nemesis fist.
Oh I agree, its not a cut and shut debate on this.
From what I am aware of, weapons that impose restrictions on a model through having them rather than use are somewhat rare.
Infact, I'm digging through books now on the hunt for them.
As you said, the brb states that you must choose which weapon to use, so the axe would not be in use if using a reward weapon instead.
However, the axe states that a model with the weapon (not when using, just with) strikes at i1.
RAW, either way you break a rule no matter how you do it.
It does need a FAQ as the rules contradict in this case.
My personal opinion and thoughts also sway towards the penalty being applied at all times simply due to the huge benefit if not.
Otherwise you have a model with the best of both worlds that makes the other 2 bloodthirsters redundant as you can swap as needed.
Galef wrote: Kriswall, I think it would help if you quoted the specific passage about "mixing and matchng abilities". I don't have my BRB on hand, but I think the rule you are referring to says that you must chose a weapon to strike with, and only apply the special rules that affect "that weapon"
This is a bit different than "mixing and matching" weapon abilities as it still allows to rules that always apply to the "Model" to be in affect.
I'll have to check when I get home, but the restriction specifically precludes "mixing and matching weapon abilities" when striking blows. Striking blows isn't specifically defined, but the most reasonable interpretation (as well as the most narrow interpretation) seems to be during the fight sub-phase.
BRB p 41 "More than one weapon" - If a model has more than one melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with when he comes to strike blows - he cannot mix and match the abilities of several different melee weapons. "
Zimko wrote: BRB p 41 "More than one weapon" - If a model has more than one melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with when he comes to strike blows - he cannot mix and match the abilities of several different melee weapons. "
Thanks. So, the argument is that if you are striking blows (which I interpret as using a melee weapon in the fight sub-phase), you can't mix and match in abilities from any other melee weapon. In this case, Colossal is an ability of a different melee weapon.
Zimko wrote: BRB p 41 "More than one weapon" - If a model has more than one melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with when he comes to strike blows - he cannot mix and match the abilities of several different melee weapons. "
Thanks. So, the argument is that if you are striking blows (which I interpret as using a melee weapon in the fight sub-phase), you can't mix and match in abilities from any other melee weapon. In this case, Colossal is an ability of a different melee weapon.
Well, Ladies & Gents, I think that wraps this up. Go out and get a D-Thirster, buy some rewards for him and laugh at the other Thirsters that no one will ever take again.
Ghaz wrote: Which leads us to the Harlequin weapons which allow them to 'strike blows' just by being equipped with the weapon(s) in question
The Harlequin weapon issue is definitely ammo for a different RaI interpretation or a house rule, but doesn't really change the way the BRB is written at all. From a RaW standpoint, unless you're striking blows with a specific weapon, you are very explicitly not allowed to mix and match in abilities from a different weapon. The Harlequin weapons don't change that at all.
Hmmm, interesting. Here are some more of my musings.
I feel like perhaps a weapon's "abilities" (that we are told not to mix with another weapon's abilities, though the word is never defined) are considered to be included only in the weapon profile - range, S, AP and Type (as per the examples we are shown on page 40) and a weapon's special rules are to be considered always active (unless stated otherwise, like normal for special rules) but the rule book implies otherwise: Weapons, page 41, Special Rules states "the type section of a weapon's profile also includes any special rules that apply to the weapon in question". Does the Colossal rule count as being included in the type section even though it's written on its own below the weapon profile? If not, does it matter? This quote tells us that any special rules a weapon has apply to the weapon itself, implying that Colossal (and other weapons with similar wording) only effects the weapon. Are we told when a weapon's special rules come into play? Other weapons seem to have special rules that are intended to apply to the model wielding it rather than the weapon, the Axe of Blind Fury for example, surely the wielder of the AoBF is intended to suffer the WS and BS penalty and gain Rage even if they choose to attack with a pistol or aren't in the Assault Phase?
I'm not sure what to believe any more, the RAI seem to be contradictory.
Trazer985 wrote: protip, if you want to charge something crazy big that has the ground based firepower to wipe him out before you can charge with him, fly him, and wait to fail a grounding check, dont jink and then you can charge on your turn,
You might want to recheck the grounding test rules. I believe it specifically says they can't assault the following turn.
Grounding doesn't have anything like that. The only restriction is that FMCs can't charge on the (player) turn they change flight modes
xlDuke wrote: Hmmm, interesting. Here are some more of my musings.
I feel like perhaps a weapon's "abilities" (that we are told not to mix with another weapon's abilities, though the word is never defined) are considered to be included only in the weapon profile - range, S, AP and Type (as per the examples we are shown on page 40) and a weapon's special rules are to be considered always active (unless stated otherwise, like normal for special rules) but the rule book implies otherwise: Weapons, page 41, Special Rules states "the type section of a weapon's profile also includes any special rules that apply to the weapon in question". Does the Colossal rule count as being included in the type section even though it's written on its own below the weapon profile? If not, does it matter? This quote tells us that any special rules a weapon has apply to the weapon itself, implying that Colossal (and other weapons with similar wording) only effects the weapon. Are we told when a weapon's special rules come into play? Other weapons seem to have special rules that are intended to apply to the model wielding it rather than the weapon, the Axe of Blind Fury for example, surely the wielder of the AoBF is intended to suffer the WS and BS penalty and gain Rage even if they choose to attack with a pistol or aren't in the Assault Phase?
I'm not sure what to believe any more, the RAI seem to be contradictory.
I think you missed one point. Nobody is saying a weapon's abilities only apply during a fight sub-phase when that weapon is being used. The abilities apply at all times... except during a fight sub-phase when a different weapon is being used. That's the only time when you can't mix and match in different abilities. Outside of the fight sub-phase, you can mix and match all you want. The trick is that most weapon abilities just don't do anything outside the fight sub-phase.
Ultimately, and as with most things, talk to your opponent and agree beforehand on how you'll be playing things. When attending an organized event, talk to the organizer beforehand and get a ruling before the issue pops up.
Trazer985 wrote: protip, if you want to charge something crazy big that has the ground based firepower to wipe him out before you can charge with him, fly him, and wait to fail a grounding check, dont jink and then you can charge on your turn,
You might want to recheck the grounding test rules. I believe it specifically says they can't assault the following turn.
Grounding doesn't have anything like that. The only restriction is that FMCs can't charge on the (player) turn they change flight modes
xlDuke wrote: Hmmm, interesting. Here are some more of my musings.
I feel like perhaps a weapon's "abilities" (that we are told not to mix with another weapon's abilities, though the word is never defined) are considered to be included only in the weapon profile - range, S, AP and Type (as per the examples we are shown on page 40) and a weapon's special rules are to be considered always active (unless stated otherwise, like normal for special rules) but the rule book implies otherwise: Weapons, page 41, Special Rules states "the type section of a weapon's profile also includes any special rules that apply to the weapon in question". Does the Colossal rule count as being included in the type section even though it's written on its own below the weapon profile? If not, does it matter? This quote tells us that any special rules a weapon has apply to the weapon itself, implying that Colossal (and other weapons with similar wording) only effects the weapon. Are we told when a weapon's special rules come into play? Other weapons seem to have special rules that are intended to apply to the model wielding it rather than the weapon, the Axe of Blind Fury for example, surely the wielder of the AoBF is intended to suffer the WS and BS penalty and gain Rage even if they choose to attack with a pistol or aren't in the Assault Phase?
I'm not sure what to believe any more, the RAI seem to be contradictory.
I think you missed one point. Nobody is saying a weapon's abilities only apply during a fight sub-phase when that weapon is being used. The abilities apply at all times... except during a fight sub-phase when a different weapon is being used. That's the only time when you can't mix and match in different abilities. Outside of the fight sub-phase, you can mix and match all you want. The trick is that most weapon abilities just don't do anything outside the fight sub-phase.
Ultimately, and as with most things, talk to your opponent and agree beforehand on how you'll be playing things. When attending an organized event, talk to the organizer beforehand and get a ruling before the issue pops up.
Ah I see. So using the AoBF example again, the wielder would have the BS and WS penalty and gain Rage at all times unless they're in combat and using a different weapon. At that point the blind fury subsides and there's a beautiful moment of clarity! Seems peculiar to me but appears to be RAW after reading your earlier points and More Than One Weapon.
For what it's worth, about the D-thirster as a unit........I've never been impressed when fighting against it. I play orks, and have played it a couple of times, and it's always just 'meh'.
Thing is, when you're a big mean nasty on your own, initiative becomes a HUGELY important stat. And dropping it to 1 is a big problem. Yes, a BT's innate WS10 makes it hard for many things to hit him in melee, but it's far from impossible.
My two cents.
Last time I fought a D-thirster, a wierdboy with force active managed to 'bonk' him out of existence, before he even got to fight. I'll admit, that's a rare example, but I still stand by my opinion that they are generally lackluster.
Fantastic model (despite being modeled on a tiny whisp of fire), but not terribly impressive in-game.
As for the rules debate: Anyone have a direct rules quote they can list? It's always helpful to see exactly what the rule says before debating it.
Why would they bother using different wording or a different format or rules presentation if there was no difference. GW can be accused of stupidity, but doing unnecessary work for no reason? I doubt it. Much more likely that they used different wording to signify a difference between rules.
They wouldn't have wasted ink on the rules in question if they didn't intend them to be treated differently.
Another example of this is the blade of blood. Why make a rule called Bloodlust and explain separately that the bearer of the blade of blood gains rampage, when they could have just put it in the weapon profile? The only logical answer is that they wanted you to apply the rule as it is written, not requiring an attack with the weapon to get the benefit/downside of being equipped with it.
In my example above, the entire creation of the Bloodlust rule is pointless under your rules interpretation, because there's no difference between it and just putting rampage on the weapon profile.
Under my interpretation, the rule is different than rampage because it is gained simply by being equipped with it, not using it. That is explicitly why they would even make the rule in the first place, there is absolutely no other reason to differentiate the rule from rampage unless it is somehow fundamentally different from a weapon having rampage, which it is in the precise way it's worded.
I think that RAW, the weapon ability as you call it is not a weapon ability at all, but a special rule that the model possesses when equipped with the weapon. That is what it says, anyways. The possession of the weapon confers x effect.
The abilities you are referring to to discount what I say are all activated and come into action when a model uses the weapon to attack. The rules in question here come into effect when a model possesses a weapon. There is a difference, no? Between using and possessing a weapon?
xlDuke wrote: Hmmm, interesting. Here are some more of my musings.
I feel like perhaps a weapon's "abilities" (that we are told not to mix with another weapon's abilities, though the word is never defined) are considered to be included only in the weapon profile - range, S, AP and Type (as per the examples we are shown on page 40) and a weapon's special rules are to be considered always active (unless stated otherwise, like normal for special rules) but the rule book implies otherwise: Weapons, page 41, Special Rules states "the type section of a weapon's profile also includes any special rules that apply to the weapon in question". Does the Colossal rule count as being included in the type section even though it's written on its own below the weapon profile? If not, does it matter? This quote tells us that any special rules a weapon has apply to the weapon itself, implying that Colossal (and other weapons with similar wording) only effects the weapon. Are we told when a weapon's special rules come into play? Other weapons seem to have special rules that are intended to apply to the model wielding it rather than the weapon, the Axe of Blind Fury for example, surely the wielder of the AoBF is intended to suffer the WS and BS penalty and gain Rage even if they choose to attack with a pistol or aren't in the Assault Phase?
I'm not sure what to believe any more, the RAI seem to be contradictory.
I think you missed one point. Nobody is saying a weapon's abilities only apply during a fight sub-phase when that weapon is being used. The abilities apply at all times... except during a fight sub-phase when a different weapon is being used. That's the only time when you can't mix and match in different abilities. Outside of the fight sub-phase, you can mix and match all you want. The trick is that most weapon abilities just don't do anything outside the fight sub-phase.
Ultimately, and as with most things, talk to your opponent and agree beforehand on how you'll be playing things. When attending an organized event, talk to the organizer beforehand and get a ruling before the issue pops up.
Ah I see. So using the AoBF example again, the wielder would have the BS and WS penalty and gain Rage at all times unless they're in combat and using a different weapon. At that point the blind fury subsides and there's a beautiful moment of clarity! Seems peculiar to me but appears to be RAW after reading your earlier points and More Than One Weapon.
Correct. And I really love your explanation. Way to Forge that Narrative, sir! Never forget that the rules are an abstraction and sometimes create situations that seem a little peculiar from a "real world" perspective. You just have to use a little imagination to explain these things away.
Jackal wrote: That's good, but both power fist and Lclaw state the benefits when using said weapon, not by "having" the weapon on the model.
And by ignoring the wording of colossal you have violated it.
And this is the part I don't understand. As you wrote, it is clearly spelled out in the rule, yet people choose to ignore it.
It's not an effect that is triggered when using the weapon, its an effect caused by owning the weapon to begin with.
Exactly! There is nothing ambiguous in that and no reason to go digging around BRB for something that doesn't work here. You have the weapon? Initiative 1, ok np?
Jackal wrote: That's good, but both power fist and Lclaw state the benefits when using said weapon, not by "having" the weapon on the model.
And by ignoring the wording of colossal you have violated it.
And this is the part I don't understand. As you wrote, it is clearly spelled out in the rule, yet people choose to ignore it.
It's not an effect that is triggered when using the weapon, its an effect caused by owning the weapon to begin with.
Exactly! There is nothing ambiguous in that and no reason to go digging around BRB for something that doesn't work here. You have the weapon? Initiative 1, ok np?
Except as has been mentioned, resolving the Colossal weapon ability when not using that weapon during the striking of blows is a very clear violation of the core rules in the BRB (you would be mixing and matching weapon abilities). You can't just ignore the core rules when they are inconvenient to your interpretation.
Why can't he ignore things, when you ignore the Colossal wording even though it says "always" which is an absolute? Also, why are you ignoring the fact that it isn't an ability triggered by using the weapon, but an ability conferred to the model when equipped with the weapon?
I'm also interested in a reply from you about my comment on the last page. It got lost at the end of the page. I just want to know what you would say.
xlDuke wrote: Hmmm, interesting. Here are some more of my musings.
I feel like perhaps a weapon's "abilities" (that we are told not to mix with another weapon's abilities, though the word is never defined) are considered to be included only in the weapon profile - range, S, AP and Type (as per the examples we are shown on page 40) and a weapon's special rules are to be considered always active (unless stated otherwise, like normal for special rules) but the rule book implies otherwise: Weapons, page 41, Special Rules states "the type section of a weapon's profile also includes any special rules that apply to the weapon in question". Does the Colossal rule count as being included in the type section even though it's written on its own below the weapon profile? If not, does it matter? This quote tells us that any special rules a weapon has apply to the weapon itself, implying that Colossal (and other weapons with similar wording) only effects the weapon. Are we told when a weapon's special rules come into play? Other weapons seem to have special rules that are intended to apply to the model wielding it rather than the weapon, the Axe of Blind Fury for example, surely the wielder of the AoBF is intended to suffer the WS and BS penalty and gain Rage even if they choose to attack with a pistol or aren't in the Assault Phase?
I'm not sure what to believe any more, the RAI seem to be contradictory.
I think you missed one point. Nobody is saying a weapon's abilities only apply during a fight sub-phase when that weapon is being used. The abilities apply at all times... except during a fight sub-phase when a different weapon is being used. That's the only time when you can't mix and match in different abilities. Outside of the fight sub-phase, you can mix and match all you want. The trick is that most weapon abilities just don't do anything outside the fight sub-phase.
Ultimately, and as with most things, talk to your opponent and agree beforehand on how you'll be playing things. When attending an organized event, talk to the organizer beforehand and get a ruling before the issue pops up.
Ah I see. So using the AoBF example again, the wielder would have the BS and WS penalty and gain Rage at all times unless they're in combat and using a different weapon. At that point the blind fury subsides and there's a beautiful moment of clarity! Seems peculiar to me but appears to be RAW after reading your earlier points and More Than One Weapon.
Correct. And I really love your explanation. Way to Forge that Narrative, sir! Never forget that the rules are an abstraction and sometimes create situations that seem a little peculiar from a "real world" perspective. You just have to use a little imagination to explain these things away.
Indeed, it's fun to get caught up in these rules debates but ultimately it's down to the people playing the game to resolve these unusual situations.
To alter my stance (again) and refer to another point that AncientSkarbrand touches on a minute ago, can this be resolved by using the "codex trumps rule book" idea? The BRB tells us not to mix weapon abilities in combat, but the codex has a rule that tells us to do so by saying that the model is effected and not just the weapon?
Why can't he ignore things, when you ignore the Colossal wording even though it says "always" which is an absolute? Also, why are you ignoring the fact that it isn't an ability triggered by using the weapon, but an ability conferred to the model when equipped with the weapon?
I'm also interested in a reply from you about my comment on the last page. It got lost at the end of the page. I just want to know what you would say.
How does one use a rule one cannot access? That is the question. Effectively speaking, if you are using another weapon, you are not accessing ANYTHING on that Colossal Weapon any more than Unwieldy, Shred, or Specialist.
I could be wrong, though, as we have seen numerous weapons that have wargear rules first and THEN a profile, and I am not familiar with this weapon specifically. But most Weapons provide a profile and then place rules like Gauss in the Type and after the profile, tying them to their use.
Why can't he ignore things, when you ignore the Colossal wording even though it says "always" which is an absolute? Also, why are you ignoring the fact that it isn't an ability triggered by using the weapon, but an ability conferred to the model when equipped with the weapon?
I'm also interested in a reply from you about my comment on the last page. It got lost at the end of the page. I just want to know what you would say.
Well, I'm ignoring the wording for Colossal as I'm restricted from mixing and matching in the Colossal weapon ability when not attacking with that weapon... per the instructions in the BRB. There is no conflict with the word always because, again, per the BRB, I'm not using that weapon ability when attacking. If I'm not using the ability, it doesn't really matter what it says. IF it said "may be used when attacking with another weapon", you'd be right. It doesn't, hence there is no conflict.
As to your other question (and I'm guessing which one you wanted me to respond to), is there a difference between using a weapon versus having that weapon in your wargear list? Absolutely. When using a weapon to strike blows, you ignore all weapon abilities from other weapons. In all other instances, all weapon abilities are "active" simply by having the weapon in your wargear list. Again, this is why you ignore Colossal when attacking with a weapon that doesn't have Colossal. You're explicitly restricted from mixing and matching that ability in.
Keep in mind that GW seems to be condensing everything into current USR's.
Since colossal is not an existing special rule as it stands at this point in time, why create another one when it's used, what, twice thus far?
Seems like they threw it on the weapon rather than creating yet another USR.
The thirster has the axe, that isn't up for debate.
The rules for the axe state that the model with this weapon is i1.
There is nothing in that wording that states you have to use it to activate colossal.
Ie: a model USING this weapon strikes at x2 strength but i1. Like the fist.
This simply states the model owning it strikes at i1, not just using it.
And for those not too sure:
Colossal: A model with this weapon piles in and fights at initiative step 1.
That is the exact wording.
Now, specific always trumps generic.
The generic is the brb stating about weapon use etc.
The specific is the colossal rule on this weapon.
In hind sight, I'm sure GW possibly forgot you could take rewards and never thought this was possible etc.
But that's just my guess on how this happened.
Jackal wrote: Keep in mind that GW seems to be condensing everything into current USR's.
Since colossal is not an existing special rule as it stands at this point in time, why create another one when it's used, what, twice thus far?
Seems like they threw it on the weapon rather than creating yet another USR.
The thirster has the axe, that isn't up for debate.
The rules for the axe state that the model with this weapon is i1.
There is nothing in that wording that states you have to use it to activate colossal.
Ie: a model USING this weapon strikes at x2 strength but i1. Like the fist.
This simply states the model owning it strikes at i1, not just using it.
And for those not too sure:
Colossal: A model with this weapon piles in and fights at initiative step 1.
That is the exact wording.
Now, specific always trumps generic.
The generic is the brb stating about weapon use etc.
The specific is the colossal rule on this weapon.
In hind sight, I'm sure GW possibly forgot you could take rewards and never thought this was possible etc.
But that's just my guess on how this happened.
The wording requiring you to use the weapon when fighting to "activate" Colossal is in the BRB under the More Than One Weapon section. This isn't an example of the BRB telling you to do one thing and Colossal telling you to do another, so there is no conflict. The BRB tells you to ignore Colossal. Colossal could tell you literally anything and it wouldn't matter because you're ignoring it.
The BRB tells you that a model strikes at the model's initiative. Colossal tells you that a model strikes at initiative 1. That's a conflict. Colossal wins.
The BRB tells you that you aren't allowed to use the Colossal weapon ability. Colossal tells you that a model strikes at initiative 1. That's not a conflict. Both rules are applied. BRB effectively wins because it tells you not to do whatever Colossal wants you to do.
AncientSkarbrand wrote: IHateNids, are you saying that GW has released rules for models with weapons that have the Colossal special rule with different wording? Or are they forgeworld models, weapons, and wording?
If they have the same wording but are from forgeworld I would say they always drop the model to initiative 1 when piling in and attacking, because the wording in the rule for a thirster of insensate rage clearly states this.
If they have different wording I would say that they're irrelevant to the current discussion, but it's an interesting thing to know.
Yes.
I understand that it isnt really a large part in this debate, but the Thunderstrike Gauntlet in IK is also a colossal. it would make the Reaper Sword swing at I1 on the Gallant, but the IK version does seem to dictate only when it's used.
Food for thought is all... but I guess it's not new news the GW cant write a coheisive set of rules :p
AncientSkarbrand wrote: IHateNids, are you saying that GW has released rules for models with weapons that have the Colossal special rule with different wording? Or are they forgeworld models, weapons, and wording?
If they have the same wording but are from forgeworld I would say they always drop the model to initiative 1 when piling in and attacking, because the wording in the rule for a thirster of insensate rage clearly states this.
If they have different wording I would say that they're irrelevant to the current discussion, but it's an interesting thing to know.
Yes.
I understand that it isnt really a large part in this debate, but the Thunderstrike Gauntlet in IK is also a colossal. it would make the Reaper Sword swing at I1 on the Gallant, but the IK version does seem to dictate only when it's used.
Food for thought is all... but I guess it's not new news the GW cant write a coheisive set of rules :p
The annoying part about this is that they reprinted the rules for the D-thirster in the wulfen campaign book but they didn't change the colossal rule to reflect the difference in the IK book.
The question I was referring to was: why do you think they went to the effort of making these rules different, if they are not different in the way they have been explicitly worded to be different?
Also expressed as : why go to the trouble making rules that are made irrelevant and pointless by rules you made ages ago?
I think you're meant to follow the wording of the rule conferred to the model by having the weapon equipped. It is not dependant on using the weapon, therefore it is not included in rules that would be affected when using multiple weapons. The text of mixing and matching abilities doesn't apply, it's a rule that is always acting on the model whilst they have the weapon equipped. Ergo, you don't have to use it to have the effect. That's the point of alot of these rules that fall into this category. They are worded differently for a reason, and they are worded precisely to allow them to affect a model regardless of using the weapon or not.
In my blade of blood example on page 2 of this thread, the whole rule is completely pointless if my interpretation is incorrect.
even if he doesnt use the axe? where is it? it's a D melee weapon, which the nearest comparable weapons are the Knight reaper sword, or the Wraithknight ghostglaive. They are gargantuans. Pick up a sack of coal, and fight with it. that's hitting at initiative 1. Then pick up a sack of coal, put it on your back and fight with bare fists. You're still going to hit at initiative 1.
Droppping it on the floor isn't an option for me, it's the axe of khorne, a great honour to wield it. he knows it slows him down, and knew it the minute he selected the weapon (you didn't think you chose his weapons did you?) He doesnt care about your puny attacks, he laughs at your attempts to harm him , and then once you've tried and failed, he will split you in two.
Trazer985 wrote: even if he doesnt use the axe? where is it? it's a D melee weapon, which the nearest comparable weapons are the Knight reaper sword, or the Wraithknight ghostglaive. They are gargantuans. Pick up a sack of coal, and fight with it. that's hitting at initiative 1. Then pick up a sack of coal, put it on your back and fight with bare fists. You're still going to hit at initiative 1.
Droppping it on the floor isn't an option for me, it's the axe of khorne, a great honour to wield it. he knows it slows him down, and knew it the minute he selected the weapon (you didn't think you chose his weapons did you?) He doesnt care about your puny attacks, he laughs at your attempts to harm him , and then once you've tried and failed, he will split you in two.
The rules are an abstraction. Per the rules, when fighting, you're either using a weapon or you're not allowed to use any of its abilities - positive or negative. There are no rules to represent strapping an unused weapon "on your back" and still suffering/benefiting from some or all of its abilities.
I appreciate what you're trying to do, but applying "real world logic" to the rules will fail almost every time specifically because the rules are an abstraction and aren't meant to accurately represent "the real world".
Jackal wrote: That's good, but both power fist and Lclaw state the benefits when using said weapon, not by "having" the weapon on the model.
And by ignoring the wording of colossal you have violated it.
And this is the part I don't understand. As you wrote, it is clearly spelled out in the rule, yet people choose to ignore it.
It's not an effect that is triggered when using the weapon, its an effect caused by owning the weapon to begin with.
Exactly! There is nothing ambiguous in that and no reason to go digging around BRB for something that doesn't work here. You have the weapon? Initiative 1, ok np?
Except as has been mentioned, resolving the Colossal weapon ability when not using that weapon during the striking of blows is a very clear violation of the core rules in the BRB (you would be mixing and matching weapon abilities). You can't just ignore the core rules when they are inconvenient to your interpretation.
What? Certainly it's not in violation!
Let's have a look at the Initiative Steps. We are told that a model's Initiative determines when he attacks and that having the D weapon on the model means that the model is always at Initiative 1: Models make their attacks when their Initiative step is reached, .... There's no conflict. You act at Init 1 and don't get to act before that. You had a weapon that would have enabled you to attack at Initiative? Too bad, your other weapon overrode that permission.
More Than One Weapon: ...he must choose which one to attack with when he comes to strike blows...
When did he get to strike blows? At Initiative 1, for carrying a weapon that has a rule saying he must do so. Still no conflict.
It is clear that no matter what the D Thirster would always act at Initiative step 1. Now if you wanted to strike with another weapon at that point, you would be welcome to do so.
I'm pretty sure everyone understands your standpoint where you ignore all effects of a weapon you're not using, but it specifically states "abilities" and abilities isn't a "game term" but rather normal grammar. Being slowed down (because of the weight of the weapon) can hardly be considered an ability. It's an effect at best.
If it said to ignore all special rules of the weapon, then I'd be with you.
This isn't clear cut in any way shape or form, but I think the wording of the skill and the logic of physics (which I know doesn't mean much in 40k) makes the RAI fairly clear. The weapon is big enough that just lugging it around slows you down.
I'm pretty sure everyone understands your standpoint where you ignore all effects of a weapon you're not using, but it specifically states "abilities" and abilities isn't a "game term" but rather normal grammar. Being slowed down (because of the weight of the weapon) can hardly be considered an ability. It's an effect at best.
If it said to ignore all special rules of the weapon, then I'd be with you.
This isn't clear cut in any way shape or form, but I think the wording of the skill and the logic of physics (which I know doesn't mean much in 40k) makes the RAI fairly clear. The weapon is big enough that just lugging it around slows you down.
I think this actually is the core issue here. Nobody agree what "abilities" means and nobody agrees what "comes to strike blows" means. I interpret "abilities" as any of the key words found in a weapon's profile. Abilities can be positive or negative. I don't think it's fair to say that one keyword is an ability because it has an outcome perceived as positive, while another is an "effect" because it has an outcome perceived as negative. That's an arbitrary difference that the rules don't make. You're allowing your beliefs to color what the rules actually say. Colossal is a weapon ability as surely as Unwieldy is. The rules make no distinction and no one has yet to provide a definition that allows Unwieldy to be a weapon ability while Colossal is something else.
I interpret "comes to strike blows" as participating in the fight sub-phase. At the very least, it would have to be everything in the fight sub-phase AFTER you select weapons to fight with. I don't have my rule book with me, so I can't quote the fight sub-phase flow, but I'm fairly certain you pick your weapons before you determine which initiative step to fight at. You'd have to. Which initiative step does a Chapter Master with Power Fist and Lightning Claw strike at? Well, that depends on which weapon he's chosen to use when it comes time to strike blows. Which initiative step does a D-thirster strike at? Well, that depends on which weapon he's chosen to use when it comes time to strike blows.
I really don't understand how this thread is still up and running. The rule is very straight forward. a D thirster is always I1 in CC due to having the colossal rule. I think someone is trolling.
This isn't D&D, you can't free action drop your weapon and fight with your fists. You cannot sheath your sword and take out your hammer as a swift action. You have your weapons, you fight with them. The D thirster is always holding his big, heavy axe. Always, he cannot drop it. You could buy an axe of khorne and a greater eatherblade and the bloodthirster would go pirate mode and hold on in his mouth, still holding all 3 weapons.
Yaaar, ye still be strikin' at initiative 1, for ye weapon be colossal! Now let this thread die, and stop tryin' to cheat da rules 'cause ye want a super thirster!
gwarsh41 wrote: I really don't understand how this thread is still up and running. The rule is very straight forward. a D thirster is always I1 in CC due to having the colossal rule. I think someone is trolling.
This isn't D&D, you can't free action drop your weapon and fight with your fists. You cannot sheath your sword and take out your hammer as a swift action. You have your weapons, you fight with them. The D thirster is always holding his big, heavy axe. Always, he cannot drop it. You could buy an axe of khorne and a greater eatherblade and the bloodthirster would go pirate mode and hold on in his mouth, still holding all 3 weapons.
Yaaar, ye still be strikin' at initiative 1, for ye weapon be colossal! Now let this thread die, and stop tryin' to cheat da rules 'cause ye want a super thirster!
And yet, we do have rules that deal with what happens when we have more than one melee weapon and choose weapon A over weapon B. Those rules tell us not to use any of the abilities of weapon B while striking blows with weapon A. The main debate is whether or not Colossal is a weapon ability. I contend that it is due to it being listed in the same place and in the same fashion as pretty much every other weapon ability. If Shred is a weapon ability, then Colossal should also be. It's listed in the same place and in the same fashion. If Colossal is a weapon ability, we ignore it when not using that weapon. If it's not a weapon ability, we'd resolve it's rules text at all times. BUT, if it's not a weapon ability, what is it and how, from a rules standpoint, is it different from something like Shred? Everyone who has tried to answer this last question gets into "real world logic". I have yet to see a compelling rules based reasoning that would begin to convince me that Colossal is not a weapon ability.
Also, the D-thirster doesn't have the Colossal special rule. One of his weapons does. Huge difference. If the D-thirster had the Colossal special rule, this entire thread would be unneeded. He'd be at initiative 1 at all times. When a model's weapons have special rules or abilities, there are times when the model doesn't resolve those effects... namely when striking blows with a different weapon.
gwarsh41 wrote: I really don't understand how this thread is still up and running. The rule is very straight forward. a D thirster is always I1 in CC due to having the colossal rule. I think someone is trolling.
This isn't D&D, you can't free action drop your weapon and fight with your fists. You cannot sheath your sword and take out your hammer as a swift action. You have your weapons, you fight with them. The D thirster is always holding his big, heavy axe. Always, he cannot drop it. You could buy an axe of khorne and a greater eatherblade and the bloodthirster would go pirate mode and hold on in his mouth, still holding all 3 weapons.
Yaaar, ye still be strikin' at initiative 1, for ye weapon be colossal! Now let this thread die, and stop tryin' to cheat da rules 'cause ye want a super thirster!
And yet, we do have rules that deal with what happens when we have more than one melee weapon and choose weapon A over weapon B.
As has been repeatedly said, having the weapon makes you act (take your turn) at Initiative step 1. That is clearly said in the rules, you just keep ignoring it. What you do at that point is then up to you, but it is not your turn until then.
The rest of your message doesn't matter here at all, as I have shown.
gwarsh41 wrote: I really don't understand how this thread is still up and running. The rule is very straight forward. a D thirster is always I1 in CC due to having the colossal rule. I think someone is trolling.
This isn't D&D, you can't free action drop your weapon and fight with your fists. You cannot sheath your sword and take out your hammer as a swift action. You have your weapons, you fight with them. The D thirster is always holding his big, heavy axe. Always, he cannot drop it. You could buy an axe of khorne and a greater eatherblade and the bloodthirster would go pirate mode and hold on in his mouth, still holding all 3 weapons.
Yaaar, ye still be strikin' at initiative 1, for ye weapon be colossal! Now let this thread die, and stop tryin' to cheat da rules 'cause ye want a super thirster!
And yet, we do have rules that deal with what happens when we have more than one melee weapon and choose weapon A over weapon B.
As has been repeatedly said, having the weapon makes you act (take your turn) at Initiative step 1. That is clearly said in the rules, you just keep ignoring it. What you do at that point is then up to you, but it is not your turn until then.
The rest of your message doesn't matter here at all, as I have shown.
As has been repeatedly said, attacking with one weapon means you don't use any weapon abilities from other weapons. That is clearly said in the rules, you just keep ignoring it. Etc, etc. Works both ways.
Your side of the argument has yet to demonstrate that the Colossal rule is allowed to be "mixed and matched" with the abilities of whichever other weapon is actually being used. When I use a Power Fist, I don't bother reading my Lightning Claw's Shred ability because I'm not allowed to mix and match it with the abilities of my Power Fist. Shred effectively isn't "active" during a fight unless I'm using the Lightning Claw. In LITERALLY EXACTLY THE SAME WAY, Colossal isn't "active" during a fight unless I'm using that weapon.
How about this: You cannot mix and match abilities that apply to the weapon if not using that weapon, but abilities that apply to the model will always apply? This way you still have to chose a weapon to gets its abilities (i.e. profile, rules that affect dice rolls while using the weapon, etc) but any other wargear-like abilities that specify "the model" can still happen as intended.
Would that satisfy everyone? (of course not this is the interwebs)
Galef wrote: How about this: You cannot mix and match abilities that apply to the weapon if not using that weapon, but abilities that apply to the model will always apply? This way you still have to chose a weapon to gets its abilities (i.e. profile, rules that affect dice rolls while using the weapon, etc) but any other wargear-like abilities that specify "the model" can still happen as intended.
Would that satisfy everyone? (of course not this is the interwebs)
--
Well... that's a reasonable house rule, but has no grounding in the actual written rules. Are you simply telling us how you would play it? If so, you should mark it as HIWPI. Again, the rules make no distinction between weapon abilities/rules that impact the actual attacks versus those that impact the model as a whole. Weapons have abilities. Period. If you're not using a weapon in melee combat, you can't use any of those abilities. Period. This is what the rules say. You can't just arbitrarily say some abilities can be mixed and matched while others can't because... reasons.
Kris's, this isn't a dig, but you can't use things like Pfist or Lclaw as examples.
Both state in their rules that the effects are when the weapon is used.
Completely different wording than the axe.
Also, you bring up the point of rules like shred etc.
These are widespread USR's.
Again, different from the axe.
By GW's wording this is something new for them in that it's an ability (a bad one) that isn't activated upon using the weapon its self.
If they wanted it to apply like normal, they would say that when using the axe you are i1 etc.
Like they have done time and time again for countless other weapons.
Can I ask what your take is on the wording please?
Just want to know what you make of it and why you think it has been worded differently to all other weapons.
As I said to begin with though, this isn't a dig, I just want to get more from your view point.
The rules differentiate in the exact way they need to within the rules text of the weapon. They say something like "always" or "the bearer" which tells you how the weapon effect is to be resolved while it is equipped.
You can claim abstraction making things insensible all you want, you cannot prove that I am somehow not equipped with the weapon just because I chose a different one. And the rules text in the weapon rules clearly tells you the effect happens while it's equipped, not while it's used. They are very explicit about the differences between the rules. I contend they are because there is a difference to be explicit about in the first place.
If you do not have to be using the weapon for the effect to happen, why are you confusing the situation with rules for using multiple weapons? Those rules are not relevant. It is an effect of having the weapon, not using it. So far, the weapon abilities you've chosen to reflect your position are all dependant on using the weapon. I'm not surprised by this, because you're correct about those weapon abilities. Where you're incorrect is forcing the weapon ability to have anything to do with using the weapon. IT DOES NOT.
Tell me why you think games workshop decided to differentiate these rules from the others, when under your interpretation there is no difference. I am feeling like a broken record, but please see the blade of blood example. The Bloodlust rule is entirely pointless under your interpretation.
We are not saying this arbitrarily. We are following the rules text in the relevant weapons, treating them as affecting the model simply for having it equipped. Equipped, not used.
You're injecting confusion and irrelevant rules into the discussion, and refusing to acknowledge that the rules are different, and that there is probably a reason they're different. I reiterate, your interpretation makes the differences pointless, which means it's probably incorrect. You don't have to use the weapon for the effect to take place. That is the whole point of them!
Look, my hang up is that one of the core rules of the game is that if you aren't using a weapon DURING combat (when a model comes to strike blows), you are explicitly restricted from using ANY of its weapon abilities (no mixing and matching).
I have yet to see anyone make an argument that would convince me to ignore that basic restriction.
I know this just irritates everyone, but I don't care what Colossal says if I have no basic permission to resolve its rules text. I don't see that basic permission existing. This is a permissive rule set. To be able to resolve Colossal, you need to demonstrate permission. Again, why does it matter how Colossal is worded when you have no basic permission to resolve it's text? If there is a specific conflict, what is it?
My take...
BRB effectively says "You can't use Colossal"
Colossal effectively says "When subject to Colossal (always) do X, Y and Z"
This is not a conflict. If you're not using Colossal, you're not subject to Colossal and the fact that you'd normally always do something is moot. Per RaW, the rule "shuts off" temporarily when attacking with a different weapon.
Jackal wrote: Kris's, this isn't a dig, but you can't use things like Pfist or Lclaw as examples.
Both state in their rules that the effects are when the weapon is used.
That hasn't been the point, though. This is not about picking and choosing rules to apply to another Weapon, this is is about being allowed to even recognize those rules exist when using another Weapon.
With Melee Weapons, we are told to check if there is another Weapon with the Melee Type. Same with Specialist Weapons. But that is largely it.
So, again, is this Colossal rule part of its Wargear rules, or its Weapon rules. If part of its Weapon rules, they cannot be used when another Weapon is chosen for use.
Jackal wrote: Kris's, this isn't a dig, but you can't use things like Pfist or Lclaw as examples.
Both state in their rules that the effects are when the weapon is used.
That hasn't been the point, though. This is not about picking and choosing rules to apply to another Weapon, this is is about being allowed to even recognize those rules exist when using another Weapon.
With Melee Weapons, we are told to check if there is another Weapon with the Melee Type. Same with Specialist Weapons. But that is largely it.
So, again, is this Colossal rule part of its Wargear rules, or its Weapon rules. If part of its Weapon rules, they cannot be used when another Weapon is chosen for use.
It's part of the weapon's profile. It's listed in exactly the same place as something like Shred or Guass would be. Hence my contention that Colossal is a weapon ability just like Shred or Guass and should be treated as such... i.e. no mixing and matching.
Where in the colossal rule does it state its only applied when the weapon is being used though?
This is the part that conflicts with the brb.
It says nothing about when using the weapon.
So why would using another weapon matter?
It simply states that owning the axe drops you to i1.
For the rules to work as you suggest, it would have to go on to add when using the axe.
But it doesn't, it stops after stating a model with the axe drops to i1.
Has this been asked on the GWFAQ facebook thing they started? Because we need an answer.
I completely agree with Kriswall's & Charistoph's RAW interpretation. There is no "basic" permission to use any rules associated with the D-Axe if the D-Axe isn't being used.
The problem is that one can argue (and many have) that the Colossal rule itself is given specific permission to make the model act in a certain manner at all times.
Am I the only one not holding my breath AT ALL for a FAQ based on a facebook thread?
Don't get me wrong, I think it's a nice thought and effort, but I'd be more than a little shocked if we got anything resembling a comprehensive FAQ out of it. At least, not anytime soon.
Once again, there's no reason for them to have worded it differently unless it's supposed to be different in the way it's worded to be.
Why include "always".
Why make the rule "bloodlust" instead of just putting rampage on the weapon profile for a blade of blood. This is the one that really gets me. I can deal with the "always" being overridden I suppose, even though always seems to refer to at all times, all the time, every time. But the Bloodlust rule... if anyone has the daemon dex check it out.
I still contend that colossal is not affected by the "mixing and matching weapon abilities" text because that whole paragraph is about using weapons in the fight subphase, which you don't have to do to have colossal affect you. That's what the rule literally says. You can say I don't have access to the rule, but I'm certainly able to read it and think about what it's telling me regardless of what weapon I'm using. The words don't suddenly vanish off the page, and the rule doesn't care if you're using a weapon or drinking tea with it. Mixing and matching weapon abilities applies when you choose a weapon in the fight sub phase. Colossal applies "always".
No one has given a reason gw would word these differently in this way other than to signify this exact difference we're arguing about. If it isn't different, why would they word it to be different? And why word it to be different in this exact way if it's always overridden by a basic rule? This may be a RAI approach, but it's a good question in my opinion.
In either case, I know how my group will play it, so I guess we'll just agree to disagree here.
Jackal wrote: Where in the colossal rule does it state its only applied when the weapon is being used though?
This is the part that conflicts with the brb.
It says nothing about when using the weapon.
So why would using another weapon matter?
It simply states that owning the axe drops you to i1.
For the rules to work as you suggest, it would have to go on to add when using the axe.
But it doesn't, it stops after stating a model with the axe drops to i1.
I'm not saying a weapon's abilities are only "active" when the weapon is being used in combat. Per the BRB, I'm saying that a weapon's abilities are "active" all the time EXCEPT when a different weapon is being used to strike blows, which I interpret as a different weapon being used during the fight sub-phase.
Using another weapon matters because the BRB has an explicit restriction preventing you from mixing and matching in weapon abilities when another weapon is being used.
The rule doesn't have to go on to add "when using the axe". I freely acknowledge that merely possessing the axe drops a model down to initiative step 1. HOWEVER, using a different weapon to fight with temporarily "turns off" that ability based on the restriction preventing mixing and matching of weapon abilities.
How do you turn off an ability that must always remain on?
The colossal rule is triggered at the start of the game and shuts down when it's ended.
The only triggers are the start and end of the game.
At the end of the day though, I feel we could both wander round in circles and never come out with a dead set resolution.
I feel this is the time for me to shake your hand and part ways as we really aren't getting anywhere.
I think the only resolution that will come is if/when GWFAQ it for us.
Jackal wrote: How do you turn off an ability that must always remain on?
The colossal rule is triggered at the start of the game and shuts down when it's ended.
The only triggers are the start and end of the game.
At the end of the day though, I feel we could both wander round in circles and never come out with a dead set resolution.
I feel this is the time for me to shake your hand and part ways as we really aren't getting anywhere.
I think the only resolution that will come is if/when GWFAQ it for us.
So, good day Kris
You do so by reading and comprehending the More Than One Weapon rules and realizing that when you have more than one melee weapon during a fight, you don't get to use both of their rules. In essence, your assumption that the Colossal rule must "always remain on" is a false assumption.
But yeah, once a person has made up their mind, no amount of pointing to actual rules text will change their mind. I get that. I run into it all the time on this forum. Confirmation bias is tough to get around. Work it out with your local gaming club/opponents and enjoy.
Jackal wrote: How do you turn off an ability that must always remain on?
The colossal rule is triggered at the start of the game and shuts down when it's ended.
The only triggers are the start and end of the game.
At the end of the day though, I feel we could both wander round in circles and never come out with a dead set resolution.
I feel this is the time for me to shake your hand and part ways as we really aren't getting anywhere.
I think the only resolution that will come is if/when GWFAQ it for us.
So, good day Kris
I wouldn't call it an ability, it's more of a persistent effect. I agree with Kriswall's & Charistoph's RAW interpretation as well. The rule really only makes sense when using the weapon, regardless of how it is worded. They could of gave the model Colossal as a base rule, but they didn't.
The thing is, the only time you can choose to use another weapon (and therefore ignore the Colossal rule) is when you "strike blows".
Colossal says you don't "strike blows" (identical wording) until Initiative Step 1. So by the time you can pick another weapon, you have already followed the Colossal rule anyways.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The thing is, the only time you can choose to use another weapon (and therefore ignore the Colossal rule) is when you "strike blows".
Colossal says you don't "strike blows" (identical wording) until Initiative Step 1. So by the time you can pick another weapon, you have already followed the Colossal rule anyways.
Sigh... I'll play devil's advocate. I choose to attack with a weapon that does not have Colossal. Initiative Step 1 rolls around. I get ready to roll my to hit rolls. If, as you seem to imply, this is the moment of striking blows, I immediately lose Colossal and have no permission to finish rolling the dice as I'm not Initiative 1 and am not striking with any weapons that would cause me to strike at Initiative Step 1. You've now created a situation where you both have to strike at Initiative Step 1 and can't strike at Initiative Step 1. Congrats. Your interpretation breaks the game by creating an unsolvable situation.
Any thoughts? What am I doing wrong. In the above example, show me the explicit permission that allows/requires you to fight at Initiative Step 1 AND allows you to obey the more than one weapons rules.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The thing is, the only time you can choose to use another weapon (and therefore ignore the Colossal rule) is when you "strike blows".
Colossal says you don't "strike blows" (identical wording) until Initiative Step 1. So by the time you can pick another weapon, you have already followed the Colossal rule anyways.
Sigh... I'll play devil's advocate. I choose to attack with a weapon that does not have Colossal. Initiative Step 1 rolls around. I get ready to roll my to hit rolls. If, as you seem to imply, this is the moment of striking blows, I immediately lose Colossal and have no permission to finish rolling the dice as I'm not Initiative 1 and am not striking with any weapons that would cause me to strike at Initiative Step 1. You've now created a situation where you both have to strike at Initiative Step 1 and can't strike at Initiative Step 1. Congrats. Your interpretation breaks the game by creating an unsolvable situation.
Any thoughts? What am I doing wrong. In the above example, show me the explicit permission that allows/requires you to fight at Initiative Step 1 AND allows you to obey the more than one weapons rules.
You're not doing anything wrong. There is no rule that says a model must make close combat attacks. So, by choosing a weapon that would require a higher initiative step, you've forfeited your attacks as we have no permission to go back and resolve it. It would be like a Sergeant of a Tactical Marine squad trying to use a Power Sword but waiting to Initiative Step 1 to declare it, and therefore makes no attacks as Initiative Step 4 has already passed.
Since you are not required by the rules to make close combat attacks, then if a situation results in which close combat attacks can't be made, then they simply aren't made.
gwarsh41 wrote: I really don't understand how this thread is still up and running. The rule is very straight forward. a D thirster is always I1 in CC due to having the colossal rule. I think someone is trolling.
This isn't D&D, you can't free action drop your weapon and fight with your fists. You cannot sheath your sword and take out your hammer as a swift action. You have your weapons, you fight with them. The D thirster is always holding his big, heavy axe. Always, he cannot drop it. You could buy an axe of khorne and a greater eatherblade and the bloodthirster would go pirate mode and hold on in his mouth, still holding all 3 weapons.
Yaaar, ye still be strikin' at initiative 1, for ye weapon be colossal! Now let this thread die, and stop tryin' to cheat da rules 'cause ye want a super thirster!
And yet, we do have rules that deal with what happens when we have more than one melee weapon and choose weapon A over weapon B.
As has been repeatedly said, having the weapon makes you act (take your turn) at Initiative step 1. That is clearly said in the rules, you just keep ignoring it. What you do at that point is then up to you, but it is not your turn until then.
The rest of your message doesn't matter here at all, as I have shown.
As has been repeatedly said, attacking with one weapon means you don't use any weapon abilities from other weapons. That is clearly said in the rules, you just keep ignoring it. Etc, etc. Works both ways.
How is that so? Let's go by your example of powerfist + lightning claw. Powerfist makes you act init 1 if you choose to strike with it. When is it your turn to act according to the rulebook (I suggest you go through that section of attacking)? It's on your initiative step. Now at this point is your first chance to pick your weapons. If don't attack with the Claw, you can later elect to attack with the PF, at initiative step 1. Simple, yes?
Your side of the argument has yet to demonstrate that the Colossal rule is allowed to be "mixed and matched" with the abilities of whichever other weapon is actually being used.
My side of the argument is that according to the rules you do not get to act or make any decision before you are at Initiative step 1. The colossal rule clearly states that. What gives you a permission to ignore that rule and make a decision to use a specific weapon out of your turn? Again, do re-read that part of the rules, it's quite clear.
When I use a Power Fist, I don't bother reading my Lightning Claw's Shred ability because I'm not allowed to mix and match it with the abilities of my Power Fist. Shred effectively isn't "active" during a fight unless I'm using the Lightning Claw. In LITERALLY EXACTLY THE SAME WAY, Colossal isn't "active" during a fight unless I'm using that weapon.
I addressed that already. When you get to your character's Initiative, you make the choice whether you want to attack with the Claw. If you don't, you can still make your attacks at Init 1 with the PF.
What the tournaments have ruled is nothing but a house rule, it has no basis in the rules as I have demonstrated.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kriswall wrote: You do so by reading and comprehending the More Than One Weapon rules and realizing that when you have more than one melee weapon during a fight, you don't get to use both of their rules.
Could you point out to this reader when the rules tell you to choose your weapon to fight with, according to the rulebook? Quotation is preferable with an explanation why you think it works that way.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The thing is, the only time you can choose to use another weapon (and therefore ignore the Colossal rule) is when you "strike blows".
Colossal says you don't "strike blows" (identical wording) until Initiative Step 1. So by the time you can pick another weapon, you have already followed the Colossal rule anyways.
Sigh... I'll play devil's advocate. I choose to attack with a weapon that does not have Colossal. Initiative Step 1 rolls around. I get ready to roll my to hit rolls. If, as you seem to imply, this is the moment of striking blows, I immediately lose Colossal and have no permission to finish rolling the dice as I'm not Initiative 1 and am not striking with any weapons that would cause me to strike at Initiative Step 1. You've now created a situation where you both have to strike at Initiative Step 1 and can't strike at Initiative Step 1. Congrats. Your interpretation breaks the game by creating an unsolvable situation.
Any thoughts? What am I doing wrong. In the above example, show me the explicit permission that allows/requires you to fight at Initiative Step 1 AND allows you to obey the more than one weapons rules.
You're not doing anything wrong. There is no rule that says a model must make close combat attacks. So, by choosing a weapon that would require a higher initiative step, you've forfeited your attacks as we have no permission to go back and resolve it. It would be like a Sergeant of a Tactical Marine squad trying to use a Power Sword but waiting to Initiative Step 1 to declare it, and therefore makes no attacks as Initiative Step 4 has already passed.
Since you are not required by the rules to make close combat attacks, then if a situation results in which close combat attacks can't be made, then they simply aren't made.
Thank you! This is exactly how it goes and is fully supported by the wording in the rules of Initiative steps in BRB.
Unwieldy: 'A model attacking with this weapon Piles In and fights at Initiaitve step 1, unless it is a monstrous creature or walker.'
Shred: 'If a model has the Shred special rule, or is attacking with a melee weapon with the Shred special rule, it re-rolls failed to Wound rolls in close combat.
Similarly, if a model makes a shooting attack with a weapon that has the Shred special rule, it re-rolls failed to wound rolls.'
Colossal: 'A model with this weapon piles in and fights at Initiative step 1.'
Both Unwieldy and Shred specify that a model must be attacking with the weapon with the special rule in order to gain its effects. Colossal does not, ergo, Colossal applies even when not fighting with the Colossal weapon.
The same for the Blade of Blood, which simply grants its wielder Rampage.
Regarding the mixing and matching of abilities that has been referenced several times. This passage of the BRB is referring to the stats of the weapons I. E. You can't mix and match strength, AP values etc from different weapons when making melee attacks. Also within the Weapons section of the BRB (from where this mix/match business is included) Special Rules are defined as being listed under the weapon type and are explicitly referred to as special rules, never as abilities. Special Rules relevant to melee weapons would include ones such as Shred and Colossal.
Also, even if the prohibition of mixing and matching of abilities were relevant in this case (it isn't), basic vs advanced rules would then apply. As previously stated, rules like Shred require the model to be making attacks with the weapon in question in order for the effect to apply. Colossal has no such condition and so the rule would always apply, taking precedence over a basic rule of not being able to mix/match.
For the record I play Daemonkin & Daemons myself and even if I wished it otherwise, from my first reading of the Colossal rule it was unambiguous that the D thirstier would be going at I1. I can't really believe this thread got further than a few posts to be honest. On the other hand, if you're wanting your D thirstier to strike with a weapon other than its great axe you've either taken the wrong thirster or have got it in a situation it shouldn't be in imo.
We're obviously not going to hit a consensus here. Neither weapon ability nor striking blows is defined. This situation requires interpretation, with different people interpreting different ways.
My suggestion is to come to an agreement with your gaming group, check with organizers before an event and discuss with any new opponents you meet during a game.
RaW is ambiguous in this case due to undefined gaming terms that fail when we try to use normal definitions. For example... "come to strike blows" isn't the same as "strike blows". "Strike blows" could definitely mean making to-hit rolls... or it could mean making to-wound rolls. "Come to strike blows" could mean just showing up to the fight. "Come" is the active part... not "to strike blows". One could pretty easily argue that a model COMES to strike blows by showing up to the fight. Why are you here? I've come to strike blows. In that sense, waiting until to-hit rolls are made seems wrong. The model clearly showed up to fight BEFORE the to-hit rolls are made.
Tonberry7 wrote: Regarding the mixing and matching of abilities that has been referenced several times. This passage of the BRB is referring to the stats of the weapons I. E. You can't mix and match strength, AP values etc from different weapons when making melee attacks.
Incorrect. It specifically states abilities.
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.
The inability to mix and match abilities is specifically stated, nor is anything mentioned regarding Str and AP.
Tonberry7 wrote: Also within the Weapons section of the BRB (from where this mix/match business is included) Special Rules are defined as being listed under the weapon type and are explicitly referred to as special rules, never as abilities. Special Rules relevant to melee weapons would include ones such as Shred and Colossal.
Not in the Weapons section itself, but the Special Rules section, which is referred to by the Weapons section, does state that Special Rules are abilities in its introduction. Or at least, those Special Rules are used to point to those abilities and represent them on the appropriate section.
Special Rules The type section of a weapon’s profile also includes any special rules that apply to the weapon in question. More information on these can be found either in the special rules section or in the codex or army list entry the weapon is found in.
Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule. A special rule might improve a model’s chances of causing damage by granting it poisoned weapons or a boost to its Strength. Conversely, a special rule may improve a model’s survivability by granting it resistance to pain, or the ability to regrow damaged flesh. Special rules allow snipers to target the weak spots of their foes, scouts to range ahead of the army and anti-aircraft guns to blow flyers out of the skies.
So, yeah, Special Rules represent abilities and you cannot mix and match abilities from different weapons when using only one.
Tonberry7 wrote: Also, even if the prohibition of mixing and matching of abilities were relevant in this case (it isn't), basic vs advanced rules would then apply. As previously stated, rules like Shred require the model to be making attacks with the weapon in question in order for the effect to apply. Colossal has no such condition and so the rule would always apply, taking precedence over a basic rule of not being able to mix/match.
It is relevant, as pointed out above. Basic vs Advanced would not necessarily come in to play because this rule does not tell us to use it while another weapon is being used. So, any Weapon Special Rules are otherwise inaccessible while using another Weapon.
It isn't relevant unless you go fishing for ways to make it relevant. The rules for using multiple weapons are irrelevant, because this version of colossal does not require a weapon to be used at all. It is not an ability tied to the weapon ' s use in close combat. It is always active and has been worded to be always active for a reason.
It's abundantly clear regardless of your "RAW" interpretation that the d thirster is supposed to always pile in and strike at initiative one because that's what the bloody rule says.
No one from your camp has bothered to examine the blade of blood, which under your interpretation has a rule created for it that's completely pointless, worded entirely differently from simply having the rampage USR on the weapon for apparently no reason as it makes no difference whatsoever, according to you.
I think that's a good indication that A) you're mistaken or B) the rules are poorly written and ambiguous.
I'm inclined to go with A in this case. It's entirely unambiguous and clear what the rule does, and it follows logically from simply following the rules text as written.
Post the profile and weapon abilities for the Blade of Blood and I'll be happy to respond.
Also, the fact that the rules are poorly written and ambiguous in general is sort of a given. I do agree that the rule text of Colossal is unambiguous. The ambiguity is surrounding when exactly we're allowed to, or more specifically not allowed to, resolve those rules.
Bloodlust: the bearer of the Blade of Blood has rampage.
What I'm saying is, this entire rule and format of presenting it is completely pointless under your interpretation. It operates the exact same as simply:
Blade of Blood: Str user ap2 unwieldy, rampage.
Under your interpretation. I think they worded it differently for a reason, the reason being that you're supposed to follow the RAW of the Bloodlust rule which has an effect regardless of attacking with the weapon or not, and has indeed been worded explicitly t do exactly that.
On a side note, what is the first step of the fight subphase, after a charge has been made?
AncientSkarbrand wrote: It isn't relevant unless you go fishing for ways to make it relevant. The rules for using multiple weapons are irrelevant, because this version of colossal does not require a weapon to be used at all. It is not an ability tied to the weapon ' s use in close combat. It is always active and has been worded to be always active for a reason.
Do not project. I am not fishing, I am simply applying the rules as I understand them. One could as easily state that ignoring the More Than One Weapon in favor of interpreting the "always" in Colossal to extend beyond the Weapon's Type abilities is also fishing.
Being tied to the weapon's use is irrelevant, the simple fact is we do not have permission to access the rule in the first place is what places it outside of bounds and therefore useless. Is the Colossal rule in its Weapon Type or not? If it is, then it cannot be used when another Weapon is in use.
AncientSkarbrand wrote: It's abundantly clear regardless of your "RAW" interpretation that the d thirster is supposed to always pile in and strike at initiative one because that's what the bloody rule says.
If it was abundantly clear, this discussion would have been done on the first page. Apparently, this is not the case. Some are giving the "always" precedence, while others are saying that the "always" is not accessible in the first place, therefore having zero precedence.
AncientSkarbrand wrote: No one from your camp has bothered to examine the blade of blood, which under your interpretation has a rule created for it that's completely pointless, worded entirely differently from simply having the rampage USR on the weapon for apparently no reason as it makes no difference whatsoever, according to you.
It has been mentioned once or twice, but no one has presented the rules for it in correlation to this case. I have seen claims on it, but that is all. Hardly a case to whine about a lack of argument it. If you choose to provide a counter case with it, present the rules with the argument, don't just accuse.
Well, my apologies Charistoph. I really didn't think I was whining but I can see how it seemed that way.
You will Notice I posted the rules just now. I honestly thought I didn't need to say much more than I already had to convey the rules, but in the future I'll do a better job of providing them if I want discussion on them.
I don't have my rulebook with me, might I inquire as to the first step of the fight sub phase? Do you pile in before you select a weapon? Because if you do, you would have to wait til initiative step 1 to select a different weapon and strike blows anyways, as up until that point even under your interpretation you must pile in at initiative 1 and don't yet have "permission" to ignore the Colossal rule because you haven't yet selected another weapon.
AncientSkarbrand wrote: I don't have my rulebook with me, might I inquire as to the first step of the fight sub phase? Do you pile in before you select a weapon? Because if you do, you would have to wait til initiative step 1 to select a different weapon and strike blows anyways, as up until that point even under your interpretation you must pile in at initiative 1 and don't yet have "permission" to ignore the Colossal rule because you haven't yet selected another weapon.
It is not stated at which point a Weapon is selected in the Fight Sub-Phase. The closest is the introduction which states:
With all the assaults launched, it’s time to strike blows! How effective creatures are in close combat depends almost entirely on their physical characteristics – how fast, strong, tough and ferocious they are. In close combat, armour remains useful for warding off your enemies’ attacks, but ranged weapons become a secondary consideration – the best gun in the galaxy won’t save you if your opponent is bashing your brains out with a rock!
This when tied to the More Than One Weapon rule referenced earlier regarding using a Weapon to Strike Blows is the only indication of timing. Which indicates that the Weapon would be chosen at the beginning of the Fight Sub-Phase, disabling any Weapon Abilities of any other Weapons the model may have. In a way, it would have to in order for Unwieldy to be appropriately applied as well, as it also addresses Pile In.
Bloodlust: the bearer of the Blade of Blood has rampage.
What I'm saying is, this entire rule and format of presenting it is completely pointless under your interpretation. It operates the exact same as simply:
Blade of Blood: Str user ap2 unwieldy, rampage.
Under your interpretation. I think they worded it differently for a reason, the reason being that you're supposed to follow the RAW of the Bloodlust rule which has an effect regardless of attacking with the weapon or not, and has indeed been worded explicitly t do exactly that.
On a side note, what is the first step of the fight subphase, after a charge has been made?
It's not quite exactly the same as just writing Rampage. Bloodlust sounds much cooler than Rampage! But yeah, functionally identical to just putting Rampage in the same section.
As to your side note, I don't have my BRB with me. You'll have to check yourself or wait until much later when I have my rules with me.
AncientSkarbrand wrote: I don't have my rulebook with me, might I inquire as to the first step of the fight sub phase? Do you pile in before you select a weapon? Because if you do, you would have to wait til initiative step 1 to select a different weapon and strike blows anyways, as up until that point even under your interpretation you must pile in at initiative 1 and don't yet have "permission" to ignore the Colossal rule because you haven't yet selected another weapon.
It is not stated at which point a Weapon is selected in the Fight Sub-Phase. The closest is the introduction which states:
With all the assaults launched, it’s time to strike blows! How effective creatures are in close combat depends almost entirely on their physical characteristics – how fast, strong, tough and ferocious they are. In close combat, armour remains useful for warding off your enemies’ attacks, but ranged weapons become a secondary consideration – the best gun in the galaxy won’t save you if your opponent is bashing your brains out with a rock!
This when tied to the More Than One Weapon rule referenced earlier regarding using a Weapon to Strike Blows is the only indication of timing. Which indicates that the Weapon would be chosen at the beginning of the Fight Sub-Phase, disabling any Weapon Abilities of any other Weapons the model may have. In a way, it would have to in order for Unwieldy to be appropriately applied as well, as it also addresses Pile In.
I agree that this wording indicates we should pick our weapon at the start of the Fight Sub-Phase, BEFORE getting into the various Initiative Steps.
Okay, so you think GW made the Bloodlust rule just cause it sounds cooler, not because they wanted to word it differently and resolve differently in the way they worded it to be different?
I can't understand that point of view myself, but I can completely accept that you have it. Thanks for replying about it.
That part about the fight sub phase does, to me, present a RAW argument against it in tandem with mixing and matching weapon abilities. I will concede that my argument must thus be RAI, and thus my stance is HIWPI, even if to me it is blatantly obvious RAI.
AncientSkarbrand wrote: Okay, so you think GW made the Bloodlust rule just cause it sounds cooler, not because they wanted to word it differently and resolve differently in the way they worded it to be different?
I can't understand that point of view myself, but I can completely accept that you have it. Thanks for replying about it.
Well, sometimes a model may not come with it, but they may want the option to provide it through a Relic or other Wargear, so they use this option.
Another way to look at it could be that it would be from a Wargear side:
Blade of Blood The bearer of the Blade of Blood has Rampage. In addition, this is a Weapon with the following profile:
Range: -; Str: User; AP: 2, Melee, Unwieldy
This would allow the Blade of Blood to apply Rampage to the model even if they were using a Pistols' CCW profile, as the Bloodlust rule is not tied to the Weapon profile, but more to the Wargear-side of the profile.
AncientSkarbrand wrote: That part about the fight sub phase does, to me, present a RAW argument against it in tandem with mixing and matching weapon abilities. I will concede that my argument must thus be RAI, and thus my stance is HIWPI, even if to me it is blatantly obvious RAI.
Yeah, they didn't really do much in regards to specifying it very well, did they? That is why their Facebook post went huge, even after tossing out the trash responses.
AncientSkarbrand wrote: I don't have my rulebook with me, might I inquire as to the first step of the fight sub phase? Do you pile in before you select a weapon? Because if you do, you would have to wait til initiative step 1 to select a different weapon and strike blows anyways, as up until that point even under your interpretation you must pile in at initiative 1 and don't yet have "permission" to ignore the Colossal rule because you haven't yet selected another weapon.
It is not stated at which point a Weapon is selected in the Fight Sub-Phase. The closest is the introduction which states:
With all the assaults launched, it’s time to strike blows! How effective creatures are in close combat depends almost entirely on their physical characteristics – how fast, strong, tough and ferocious they are. In close combat, armour remains useful for warding off your enemies’ attacks, but ranged weapons become a secondary consideration – the best gun in the galaxy won’t save you if your opponent is bashing your brains out with a rock!
This when tied to the More Than One Weapon rule referenced earlier regarding using a Weapon to Strike Blows is the only indication of timing. Which indicates that the Weapon would be chosen at the beginning of the Fight Sub-Phase, disabling any Weapon Abilities of any other Weapons the model may have. In a way, it would have to in order for Unwieldy to be appropriately applied as well, as it also addresses Pile In.
I agree that this wording indicates we should pick our weapon at the start of the Fight Sub-Phase, BEFORE getting into the various Initiative Steps.
I do not agree with any of the above. Let's look at the rules again.
Page 48 of BRB, under Fight sub-phase, FIGHT CLOSE COMBAT:
In close combat, both players' models fight. [...] How many blows are struck and who strikes first is detailed later.
The section that details this later is called INITIATIVE STEPS:
a model's Initiative determines when he attacks in close combat. [...] Models make their attacks when their Initiative step is reached, assuming they haven't already been killed by a model with a higher Initiative! [...] Note that certain situations, abilities and weapons can modify a model's Initiative.
We aren't given any other instructions. As the rules say, a model is not allowed to make any decisions until it is their Initiative step and in the case of the Colossal rule they are always acting at Initiative step 1. What you have stated above doesn't give you permission to choose a weapon out of your turn, you need to take the whole rules into account.
Naw wrote: I do not agree with any of the above. Let's look at the rules again.
Page 48 of BRB, under Fight sub-phase, FIGHT CLOSE COMBAT:
In close combat, both players' models fight. [...] How many blows are struck and who strikes first is detailed later.
The section that details this later is called INITIATIVE STEPS:
a model's Initiative determines when he attacks in close combat. [...] Models make their attacks when their Initiative step is reached, assuming they haven't already been killed by a model with a higher Initiative! [...] Note that certain situations, abilities and weapons can modify a model's Initiative.
We aren't given any other instructions. As the rules say, a model is not allowed to make any decisions until it is their Initiative step and in the case of the Colossal rule they are always acting at Initiative step 1. What you have stated above doesn't give you permission to choose a weapon out of your turn, you need to take the whole rules into account.
Nothing you quoted actually counters anything Kriswall or I stated. The whole section of the Fight Sub-Phase is about striking blows, that is the point of the introduction. But again, nothing specific as to when the Weapon is selected is stated.
Also keep in mind that both Necrons and 'Nids have Weapons which increase Initiative, and so would have to be taken in to account as much as Unwieldy and Colossal, except that they must be applied before the model's base Initiative is considered in the Step process.
Swiftstrike: A model attacking with this weapon has a +3 bonus to its Initiative during the Fight Sub-Phase.
The only way this works is if the model is asked to select weapons at the Fight Sub-Phase. If you wait until the actual Initiative Step you think the model should be attacking at, i.e. its native Initiative, you'll have missed your opportunity.
Also, fun fact. Whip Coils and Lash Whips are the same thing. I never actually realized this.
Swiftstrike: A model attacking with this weapon has a +3 bonus to its Initiative during the Fight Sub-Phase.
The only way this works is if the model is asked to select weapons at the Fight Sub-Phase. If you wait until the actual Initiative Step you think the model should be attacking at, i.e. its native Initiative, you'll have missed your opportunity.
Also, fun fact. Whip Coils and Lash Whips are the same thing. I never actually realized this.
The only way this works is if the model is asked to select weapons at the Fight Sub-Phase. If you wait until the actual Initiative Step you think the model should be attacking at, i.e. its native Initiative, you'll have missed your opportunity.
But we are not told to select weapons. The only point where we are told to act is when it is our initiative step. I have assumed this discussion is about RAW and how the D thirster works, but you guys are coming up wih your own rules and interpretations without rules support.
Please create a new thread about the Whip Coils and we can continue this discussion there.
RAW, it is quite obvious that just by having the weapon on the model makes them act at initiative step 1.
The only way this works is if the model is asked to select weapons at the Fight Sub-Phase. If you wait until the actual Initiative Step you think the model should be attacking at, i.e. its native Initiative, you'll have missed your opportunity.
But we are not told to select weapons. The only point where we are told to act is when it is our initiative step. I have assumed this discussion is about RAW and how the D thirster works, but you guys are coming up wih your own rules and interpretations without rules support.
Please create a new thread about the Whip Coils and we can continue this discussion there.
RAW, it is quite obvious that just by having the weapon on the model makes them act at initiative step 1.
No, it's really not obvious. I read the rules and based on the Fight Sub-Phase intro, there is a heavy implication that the entire Fight Sub-Phase is considered "striking blows". I read weapon profiles like Whip Coils and Lash Whips and realize that weapon choice MUST occur before Initiative Step 10 begins. I read the More Than One Weapon rules and realize that if I'm attacking with Weapon A, none of Weapon B's abilities are in play. I don't think it's fair to say it's obvious that just having the weapon on the model makes them act at Initiative Step 1. Doing so would force me to ignore everything I just listed.
Might be obvious to you, but methinks you're ignoring everything I just listed out.
There is no need to create a new thread about Whip Coils. It's extremely relevant to this discussion as it pretty much proves that weapon selection happens before Initiative Step 10 starts... which would void out the Colossal weapon ability per the More Than One Weapon rules.
There is no need to create a new thread about Whip Coils. It's extremely relevant to this discussion as it pretty much proves that weapon selection happens before Initiative Step 10 starts... which would void out the Colossal weapon ability per the More Than One Weapon rules.
I agree it is relevant to this topic. But I'd also like to point out that the 'SwiftStrike' rule also says "A model attacking with..." whereas 'Colossal' says "A model with..."
AND ROUND AND ROUND WE GO!!!!!
Nice coincidence about Whip Coils & Lash Whips, btw, Kriswall
Naw wrote: And I believe everything has been said on this matter, time to move on.
Feel free to move on then. Nobody is stopping you.
I actually think the Swiftstrike rule is what clinches it for me. Combining Swiftstrike's unwritten requirement that weapon selection occurs before Initiative Step 10 starts with the heavy implication in the Fight Sub-Phase introduction that the entire Sub-Phase is to be considered "striking blows", I find it impossible not to conclude that any attempt to resolve Colossal when using a different weapon in the Fight Sub-Phase would be a violation of the More Than One Weapon rules.
Now, if people want to house rule it and allow certain weapon abilities to mix and match using some criteria that I don't fully understand, that's cool. I don't really care what people do in the privacy of their own homes (or gaming tables). You Make Da Call tends to be more about a "pure" game of Warhammer 40k that sticks as close to the written rules as possible and not how you're local group plays things..
So if the model simply possesses the weapon, it has its effect.
even if you are attacking with another weapon.
Rules don't exist in a void. There are core rules that tell us when we're allowed to apply a weapon's abilities. To summarize those rules, weapon abilities are pretty much always applied EXCEPT when another weapon is being used in a fight. If a model is fighting with a different weapon, applying Colossal is a core rules violation.
Really you need to amend your sentence to say "if a model simply possesses the weapon AND is currently allowed to use its abilities, it has this effect".
Kriswall, I've stepped out of this argument in light of discussion, but I'm just curious as to what you think the RAI is in this specific circumstance.
What I mean is, do you think they intended it to work this way or that the intent is for the effect to take place even though the RAW doesn't allow it?
Edit: Reread the thread and realized you actually stated it quite early on. Derp.
So if the model simply possesses the weapon, it has its effect.
even if you are attacking with another weapon.
Rules don't exist in a void. There are core rules that tell us when we're allowed to apply a weapon's abilities. To summarize those rules, weapon abilities are pretty much always applied EXCEPT when another weapon is being used in a fight. If a model is fighting with a different weapon, applying Colossal is a core rules violation.
Really you need to amend your sentence to say "if a model simply possesses the weapon AND is currently allowed to use its abilities, it has this effect".
and BRB is trumped by codex rules, since there is a conflict. Colossal trumps brb rules.
The model strikes at I1 just for having a Colossal weapon.
So if the model simply possesses the weapon, it has its effect.
even if you are attacking with another weapon.
Rules don't exist in a void. There are core rules that tell us when we're allowed to apply a weapon's abilities. To summarize those rules, weapon abilities are pretty much always applied EXCEPT when another weapon is being used in a fight. If a model is fighting with a different weapon, applying Colossal is a core rules violation.
Really you need to amend your sentence to say "if a model simply possesses the weapon AND is currently allowed to use its abilities, it has this effect".
and BRB is trumped by codex rules, since there is a conflict. Colossal trumps brb rules.
The model strikes at I1 just for having a Colossal weapon.
There is no conflict. The BRB says 'don't use this rule'. The Colossal weapon says 'do something'. If you obey the BRB, there is no conflict because you're not actually using or resolving Colossal.
A conflict would look like 'make attacks at the Initiative Step equal to the model's Initiative' versus 'make attacks at Initiative Step 1'. That's a conflict. The above is not.
So if the model simply possesses the weapon, it has its effect.
even if you are attacking with another weapon.
Rules don't exist in a void. There are core rules that tell us when we're allowed to apply a weapon's abilities. To summarize those rules, weapon abilities are pretty much always applied EXCEPT when another weapon is being used in a fight. If a model is fighting with a different weapon, applying Colossal is a core rules violation.
Really you need to amend your sentence to say "if a model simply possesses the weapon AND is currently allowed to use its abilities, it has this effect".
and BRB is trumped by codex rules, since there is a conflict. Colossal trumps brb rules.
The model strikes at I1 just for having a Colossal weapon.
Already covered. You cannot mix and match, so the "colossal" rule simply doesn't exist if you aren't using the weapon because you're using another.
Codex only trumps BRB when there is a conflict. Explain the conflict. None of the rest of us sees one.
Colossal says you strike at I1. Other weapon does not have this rule and strikes at initiative.
There is the conflict.
No, no. I get that. Everyone agrees that would be a conflict and that Colossal would win. My point is that you don't have access to Colossal if you aren't using a weapon with the Colossal weapon ability.
The BRB says that if you attack with Weapon A, you're not allowed to mix and match in any of the weapon abilities of Weapon B. Colossal is effectively a weapon ability of Weapon B. So... the BRB tells us we don't have access to the Colossal weapon ability at all. Does the Colossal weapon ability have any wording saying that it can be used even if the weapon it's on isn't being used? Nope. Ergo, no conflict.
I think you're assuming that you have access to the weapon abilities just by having the weapon equipped. This is where your understanding seems flawed. This is not how the BRB actually works during the Fight Sub-Phase. You actually only have access to the abilities on the active weapon you're using.
From my perspective what Kriswall said is where the conflict occurs. BRB says you don't access the rule when using another weapon, but Colossal says it is always active. Thus a conflict in which one is actually takes precedent. Your interpretation puts the BRB rule that you don't mix abilities over the "always" in the Colossal rule, which I don't think is right. Codex should trump. Actually this seems to me as a textbook example of why that rule exists.
As a side note, I don't think special rules on a weapon that assign rules to the model (such as this axe or Blade of Blood) are what they mean in BRB by weapon abilities. However given that they did a terrible job of explaing that in the rules I can't defend that well as anything more than my interpretation of RAI.
Fhionnuisce wrote: From my perspective what Kriswall said is where the conflict occurs. BRB says you don't access the rule when using another weapon, but Colossal says it is always active. Thus a conflict in which one is actually takes precedent. Your interpretation puts the BRB rule that you don't mix abilities over the "always" in the Colossal rule, which I don't think is right. Codex should trump. Actually this seems to me as a textbook example of why that rule exists.
The problem lies in access. You do not have permission to even access that rule when using another Weapon. No access, no 'always'. Simple.
If it stated it worked on Attacks not made by this Weapon (or similar), than it would be conflicting.
Fhionnuisce wrote: As a side note, I don't think special rules on a weapon that assign rules to the model (such as this axe or Blade of Blood) are what they mean in BRB by weapon abilities. However given that they did a terrible job of explaing that in the rules I can't defend that well as anything more than my interpretation of RAI.
So Unwieldy is not an ability? Specialist as well? So a model using a Pistol while carrying a Power Fist will strike at I1, even though not using the Power Fist?
Both Unwieldy and Specialist affect the wielding model, not the Attacks or the target. This standard is unsupportable based on the other evidence that we are reviewing, especially since we do not have any exception to the "mix and match" rule for rules and abilities that affect the wielding model.
If it is intended for the Weapon to have a Wargear effect that is not tied to its Weapon abilities, the ability/effect will not by listed under the Type, and precedes the Weapon profile. The only one who has offered any stats (which have not been refuted) have not indicated Colossal to be in this case, but tied to the Weapon's profile. Since it is tied to the profile, see the above.
Charistoph wrote:The problem lies in access. You do not have permission to even access that rule when using another Weapon. No access, no 'always'. Simple.
If it stated it worked on Attacks not made by this Weapon (or similar), than it would be conflicting.
Well, yes that would be conflicting, but that does not preclude the word always being conflicting as well. Always in fact includes that situation because always is at all times, including when other weapons are being used. I get the you don't have access to the rule argument, I just think the always overrules it
Charistoph wrote:So Unwieldy is not an ability? Specialist as well? So a model using a Pistol while carrying a Power Fist will strike at I1, even though not using the Power Fist?
Both Unwieldy and Specialist affect the wielding model, not the Attacks or the target. This standard is unsupportable based on the other evidence that we are reviewing, especially since we do not have any exception to the "mix and match" rule for rules and abilities that affect the wielding model.
They affect the model, but explicitly state only when using the weapon. They don't add rules text to the model separately. Also I already noted that this is my interpretation and not completely defensible RAW.
Charistoph wrote:If it is intended for the Weapon to have a Wargear effect that is not tied to its Weapon abilities, the ability/effect will not by listed under the Type, and precedes the Weapon profile. The only one who has offered any stats (which have not been refuted) have not indicated Colossal to be in this case, but tied to the Weapon's profile. Since it is tied to the profile, see the above.
Is there any precedence for this interpretation or is this your opinion on how it should work?
Both Unwieldy and Specialist affect the wielding model, not the Attacks or the target. This standard is unsupportable based on the other evidence that we are reviewing, especially since we do not have any exception to the "mix and match" rule for rules and abilities that affect the wielding model.
They affect the model, but explicitly state only when using the weapon. They don't add rules text to the model separately. Also I already noted that this is my interpretation and not completely defensible RAW.
That wasn't the point. Review what I was responding to. You were saying that rules that were adding rules and abilities to the models don't count as Weapon Abilities. Both of these still qualify as fitting that category.
Charistoph wrote:If it is intended for the Weapon to have a Wargear effect that is not tied to its Weapon abilities, the ability/effect will not by listed under the Type, and precedes the Weapon profile. The only one who has offered any stats (which have not been refuted) have not indicated Colossal to be in this case, but tied to the Weapon's profile. Since it is tied to the profile, see the above.
Is there any precedence for this interpretation or is this your opinion on how it should work?
You mean like Grenades? Space Marine Servo-Harness?
Admittedly, as I review what codices I am familiar with, this practice has been falling by the way-side. It was quite prevalent in 5th Edition, and not uncommon for the Relics in 6th Edition. It seems to be falling out with the 7th Edition codices, however.
We might as well call this. There is a fundamental lack of understanding on the opposition side of how the core rules work. They don't understand that it doesn't really matter how a rule is worded if you don't have basic permission to resolve that rule.
At this point, a vocal minority is contesting how this works. From a RaW standpoint, Colossal is not resolved during the Fight Sub-Phase when attacking with a different weapon. RaI might be otherwise, but short of a conversation with the authors, we will never know.
A quick scenario to ensure I understand your position. Even if the rule explicitly stated "this rule applies even when using another weapon in close combat" you would still not apply it because BRB says you do not have permission to read that rule?
So despite there being no conflict, you're claiming there is a conflict, and despite there being no permission to read the rule, as the brb tells you explicitly you cannot read the rule, you're claiming permission.
I'm rather new but I have to agree that RAW he only attacks at i1 if using the axe. Its not how I see RAI and that's not how my group would play it but if you're going purely by the rules its how its worded.
Raw states that the model with that weapon strikes at I1. Nothing about striking with that weapon. It's profile is used when attacking with it but ignoring the rule for the weapon is ignoring the rules as written, the model has the weapon , striking with it or not by having the weapon the model strikes at I1. Not striking at I1 is ignoring the rules.
Exactly the way I see it blaktoof. If there is ever a situation where the model strikes at anythings beside I1 then it does not ALWAYS do so and the Colossal rule has not been applied as written. Yes this conflicts with BRB rules for multiple weapons, but that is where basic vs advanced comes in. Your priority is to resolve codex rules AS WRITTEN.
Zarroc1733 wrote: I'm rather new but I have to agree that RAW he only attacks at i1 if using the axe. Its not how I see RAI and that's not how my group would play it but if you're going purely by the rules its how its worded.
The fact is that the Bloodthirster only have a single weapon on his profile, thus he is forced to attack with the Axe weapon all times (he also lacks any option to equip itself with any other weapons aside such axe)
So in the end the bloodthirster is Always wielding the axe and attacking with it, thus applying colossal on all his attacks.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Using the ability of the weapon while using another weapon is breaking the rules that state you may not mix and match abilities
Cite your permission to break that rule. Page and graph.
It is cited in the rule of the weapon itself. True, the BRB says that you need to use the weapon to have its abilities. Also true, this rule says that if you are merely equipped with it, you suffer the initiative penalty. When there is a conflict between the BRB and a codex, the codex wins.
Now, I understand your thinking, which is essentially that we are not given SPECIFIC permission to break the BRB rule about using a weapon and gaining its associated benefits (or penalties, in this case). But we are given explicit instructions on the initiative step at which the model attacks. It's one. The only way that it is not 1 is if you don't hold the weapon. So you either have to break the rule that the weapon presents or break the rule in the BRB about weapon abilities. Once again, the rules are clear about deferring to the codex/more specific rule, which is to attack at I1 in this case.
How I wish it didn't work like that. But at least now we don't have to worry about not having assault grenades.
Zarroc1733 wrote: I'm rather new but I have to agree that RAW he only attacks at i1 if using the axe. Its not how I see RAI and that's not how my group would play it but if you're going purely by the rules its how its worded.
The fact is that the Bloodthirster only have a single weapon on his profile, thus he is forced to attack with the Axe weapon all times (he also lacks any option to equip itself with any other weapons aside such axe)
So in the end the bloodthirster is Always wielding the axe and attacking with it, thus applying colossal on all his attacks.
You can give him additional weapon upgrades through gifts, which is why this thread is 6 pages long. But even so, you can't get around the fact that the rule doesn't require you to use the weapon, merely to be holding/equipped with it.
So to summarize this entire thread:
Some say he always attacks at Init:1 because the weapon says "a model with the weapon", not "a model using the weapon". Clear RAI, he should always strike at Init:1, strong implication this is RAW as well.
Others say that the BRB doesn't give permission to apply that rule when using another weapon, because you would be "mixing and matching" weapon abilities, which is clearly against the main rules and not in conflict with the Colossal rule (since the rule doesn't specify "no matter what weapon is used").
As this debate is circular, can we get this locked already?
nosferatu1001 wrote: Using the ability of the weapon while using another weapon is breaking the rules that state you may not mix and match abilities
Cite your permission to break that rule. Page and graph.
It is cited in the rule of the weapon itself. True, the BRB says that you need to use the weapon to have its abilities. Also true, this rule says that if you are merely equipped with it, you suffer the initiative penalty. When there is a conflict between the BRB and a codex, the codex wins.
Now, I understand your thinking, which is essentially that we are not given SPECIFIC permission to break the BRB rule about using a weapon and gaining its associated benefits (or penalties, in this case). But we are given explicit instructions on the initiative step at which the model attacks. It's one. The only way that it is not 1 is if you don't hold the weapon. So you either have to break the rule that the weapon presents or break the rule in the BRB about weapon abilities. Once again, the rules are clear about deferring to the codex/more specific rule, which is to attack at I1 in this case.
How I wish it didn't work like that. But at least now we don't have to worry about not having assault grenades.
Zarroc1733 wrote: I'm rather new but I have to agree that RAW he only attacks at i1 if using the axe. Its not how I see RAI and that's not how my group would play it but if you're going purely by the rules its how its worded.
The fact is that the Bloodthirster only have a single weapon on his profile, thus he is forced to attack with the Axe weapon all times (he also lacks any option to equip itself with any other weapons aside such axe)
So in the end the bloodthirster is Always wielding the axe and attacking with it, thus applying colossal on all his attacks.
You can give him additional weapon upgrades through gifts, which is why this thread is 6 pages long. But even so, you can't get around the fact that the rule doesn't require you to use the weapon, merely to be holding/equipped with it.
There is no conflict sadly, because when you are attacking if you choose a weapon, all rules on the weapon you didn't choose cease to exist. You're not conflicting with the colossal rule, because at the moment the colossal rule ceases to exist for him. This (imo) isn't how it was intended, but just like with the Harlequin's Kiss mentioned elsewhere here, it is RAW. Not sayin its hiwpi, but if you're going from pure rules then yes, another weapon can be used at an initiative step other than 1.
Ok, so...somebody can PM me on this to NOT bog down the thread, but it sounds like I'm either playing Blade of Blood the right way, or I'm cheating myself. I've been using it only as when I declare I'm fighting with it as the main (Khorne Prince or BT rocking an Axe of Khorne and Blade of Blood). I've chosen to either fight with the Axe to get instant death attacks, with one attack bonus from also having the BoB, or use the BoB as my main to get rampage (D3) +1 attacks from the Axe of Khorne as backup.
From what I'm understanding, if I play like this, I follow the train of thought Kriswall is saying. If his interpretation is wrong, then I'm playing the BoB wrong as well, as both abilities are "always on".
Personally, I tend to agree with Kris's interpretation, as that's how I've already been playing the BoB. I guess it really come down to talking with my group and getting a consensus. Either way, I'll be getting a boost up from the way I'm already playing.
Playing this game properly means applying all the rules as written to the best of your ability to do so. At times the rules in the BRB and the rules from a codex cannot both be applied as written. That is why the basic vs advanced rule exists. If you can't do both you follow the codex.
Always is not the same as always except when using another weapon. There is no way to follow the general basic rule for fighting with more than one weapon and the advanced codex rule for this weapon and have both applied as written. That means there is a conflict despite your insistence that there is not, and if there is a conflict you follow codex.
You say there is no permission to read the Colossal rule. I say the basic vs advanced rule inherently gives you permission to do, otherwise there is no way to determine if a conflict would exist and BRB would always trump codex by default because you don't have permission to read the codex rules. You cannot claim the basic vs advanced rule doesn't apply just beacuse it doesn't lead to the answer you want and you can't claim any rule in BRB prevents a rule in a codex from working because basic vs advanced dictates otherwise.
Fhionnuisce wrote: Playing this game properly means applying all the rules as written to the best of your ability to do so. At times the rules in the BRB and the rules from a codex cannot both be applied as written. That is why the basic vs advanced rule exists. If you can't do both you follow the codex.
Always is not the same as always except when using another weapon. There is no way to follow the general basic rule for fighting with more than one weapon and the advanced codex rule for this weapon and have both applied as written. That means there is a conflict despite your insistence that there is not, and if there is a conflict you follow codex.
You say there is no permission to read the Colossal rule. I say the basic vs advanced rule inherently gives you permission to do, otherwise there is no way to determine if a conflict would exist and BRB would always trump codex by default because you don't have permission to read the codex rules. You cannot claim the basic vs advanced rule doesn't apply just beacuse it doesn't lead to the answer you want and you can't claim any rule in BRB prevents a rule in a codex from working because basic vs advanced dictates otherwise.
Very true, and that basic vs. advanced comes up often and works, however in this instance its not conflicting. Yes you read that as "always" meaning always, however when you select a different weapon that rule basically ceases to exist. You can't have "always" on a rule that doesn't exist. Its more like he drops the axe and uses another weapon so the axe no longer affects him. And I for one can say that I'm not saying this just because I want the rule to be different. I don't play daemons at all so I'd much prefer it to be i1 no matter what but if you go strictly RAW that's just not how it goes.
Zarroc1733 wrote: Very true, and that basic vs. advanced comes up often and works, however in this instance its not conflicting. Yes you read that as "always" meaning always, however when you select a different weapon that rule basically ceases to exist. You can't have "always" on a rule that doesn't exist. Its more like he drops the axe and uses another weapon so the axe no longer affects him. And I for one can say that I'm not saying this just because I want the rule to be different. I don't play daemons at all so I'd much prefer it to be i1 no matter what but if you go strictly RAW that's just not how it goes.
And that is the basis for 6 pages of dispute. The rule only goes away in that situation if you decide following the more than one weapon rule is more important than following the always clause in Colossal. I just don't see rules support for that conclusion.
Zarroc1733 wrote: Very true, and that basic vs. advanced comes up often and works, however in this instance its not conflicting. Yes you read that as "always" meaning always, however when you select a different weapon that rule basically ceases to exist. You can't have "always" on a rule that doesn't exist. Its more like he drops the axe and uses another weapon so the axe no longer affects him. And I for one can say that I'm not saying this just because I want the rule to be different. I don't play daemons at all so I'd much prefer it to be i1 no matter what but if you go strictly RAW that's just not how it goes.
And that is the basis for 6 pages of dispute. The rule only goes away in that situation if you decide following the more than one weapon rule is more important than following the always clause in Colossal. I just don't see rules support for that conclusion.
Your argument is circular. Your justification to be able to ignore More Than One Weapon is to use Colossal's wording. You're only able to use Colossal's wording because you're ignoring More Than One Weapon. You don't see that this is circular? Circular logic in a debate is generally a warning sign that your logic is faulty.
Kriswall wrote: Your argument is circular. Your justification to be able to ignore More Than One Weapon is to use Colossal's wording. You're only able to use Colossal's wording because you're ignoring More Than One Weapon. You don't see that this is circular? Circular logic in a debate is generally a warning sign that your logic is faulty.
Then can I assume you are of the opinion that there is absolutely no situation whatsoever where a weapon can possibly affect the model when using a different weapon? Because ignoring the text makes that situation completely impossible.
And I'm using Colossal text in conjunction with the basic vs advanced rule, which you have arbitrarily decided doesn't apply with no clear explanation. You keep claiming there is no conflict but several people have pointed out where they see one and you have not addressed those at any point other than to point back at the more than one weapon rule which is the one that is overridden by the basic vs advanced. I am considering the rules as part of a greater ruleset, you seem exclusively fixated on the one rule to the exclusion of all others.
Or to put it another way, you claim the basic rule is not overriden by basic vs advanced because said basic rule says it works this way. Which is pretty circular logic on your part.
Just before this thread gets locked I wanted to remind everyone that this rule is old news.
The models been out for over a year and it's already been judged by EVERY major tournament in unanimous fashion.
They strike at initiative with another weapon.
Feel free to continue the argument but please realize is completely pointless.
Tournaments, major or not, are not the only place to play this game, nor does everyone play in tournaments.
Citing tournament judgements to seek to end the discussion is no more useful than saying what your own local club has decided, and just as binding. The populous here is just too diverse for this to be any more than a HYWPI statement.
Aijec wrote: Just before this thread gets locked I wanted to remind everyone that this rule is old news.
The models been out for over a year and it's already been judged by EVERY major tournament in unanimous fashion.
They strike at initiative with another weapon.
Feel free to continue the argument but please realize is completely pointless.
Yeah... if you read YMDC regularly, you'll note that we generally don't care about tournament house rules. Tournaments can do whatever they want and pretty regularly change completely unambiguous rules for balance reasons. As such, their "rulings" mean less than nothing if you're discussing how the rules are actually written. It's sort of like saying "my cousin Bob plays it this way, so my stance is obviously correct".
Also, some of us just enjoy the debate. Just because this is pointless for you, doesn't mean it's pointless for everyone else.
Regardless which weapon gets used the restriction will still apply. This is how it is RAW.
The argument that this is a mix and match of weapon abilities gets shut down by Pg 13 of the BRB in the basic vs advanced section. It clearly states that a Codex rule has the precedence over a BRB rule if they contradict.
The axe says that simply having it is enough to impose restriction, so there it is.
daemonix wrote: Regardless which weapon gets used the restriction will still apply. This is how it is RAW.
The argument that this is a mix and match of weapon abilities gets shut down by Pg 13 of the BRB in the basic vs advanced section. It clearly states that a Codex rule has the precedence over a BRB rule if they contradict.
The axe says that simply having it is enough to impose restriction, so there it is.
You cannot even read the rule, as you are denied permission to do so
WIthuot using the Colossal rule, cite permission to apply the colossal rule in direct contradiction to the BRB rule. Page and graph.
daemonix wrote: Regardless which weapon gets used the restriction will still apply. This is how it is RAW.
The argument that this is a mix and match of weapon abilities gets shut down by Pg 13 of the BRB in the basic vs advanced section. It clearly states that a Codex rule has the precedence over a BRB rule if they contradict.
The axe says that simply having it is enough to impose restriction, so there it is.
This would absolutely be true if you had general permission to resolve the Colossal rule. You don't, so there is no conflict. This is not a scenario where the BRB tells you to do one thing and a codex rule tells you to do something different. This is a scenario where the BRB tells you to ignore a codex rule. If you're told to ignore the rule, where are you getting permission to resolve it? It can't be from the rule itself because we're ignoring the rule while attacking with other weapons.
daemonix wrote: Regardless which weapon gets used the restriction will still apply. This is how it is RAW.
The argument that this is a mix and match of weapon abilities gets shut down by Pg 13 of the BRB in the basic vs advanced section. It clearly states that a Codex rule has the precedence over a BRB rule if they contradict.
The axe says that simply having it is enough to impose restriction, so there it is.
The issue with this agreement (as has been stated numerous times) is that once you decide to use another weapon, any abilities (meaning ANY changes to user Str, AP or special rules associated with the original weapon) cease to apply. To argue that you could still apply those rules would be EXACTLY like trying to use Shred from a Lightening Claw, even though you have decided to use your Powerfist instead.
The reason there is no conflict between BRB & Codex is because the "Colossal" rule does not, in fact, state that it applies no matter what weapon is chosen. The BRB never distinguishes between rules that "apply to the weapon" vs those that "apply to the model. We always follow the BRB until there is a conflict, which there isn't in this case.
--------------------------
No having said all that, I personally think it is dumb to not always strike at I:1. It is abundantly clear that this is the RAI, as it is with any weapon rule the says "the bearer of" or "a model with this weapon".
So HIWPI, is that Colossal always applies, even though that cannot "fully" be supported by the RAW.
Or rather, I would play it however my opponent saw fit and get on with my game.
daemonix wrote: How do you not have permission to resolve the Colossal rule? Does the model HAVE the weapon? Yes? Rule applies.
Really isn't that complicated
Well, actually it is a bit more complicated than that. As you'll note from the More Than One Weapons rules, simply having a weapon isn't enough to guarantee permission to resolve its weapon abilities. You might want to go back and re-read those core rules.
For example, let's assume we have a Space Marine Captain with a Power Fist and a Lightning Claw. He chooses to attack with the Power Fist. Will he be able to benefit from/resolve the Shred weapon ability (found on the Lightning Claw)? Nope. Why not? Because Shred says it only works when using that weapon to make attacks? NO! We don't care what the actual weapon ability says. The Captain isn't allowed to benefit from/resolve Shred because that would be a violation of the core rules surrounding a model with more than one weapon as relates to mixing and matching weapon abilities.
The fact that many weapon abilities have a clause saying they only work if the weapon in question is being used to make attacks is redundant and sort of bad writing. I think it's what is misleading many people. Shred doesn't need to have a clause telling us it only works when the weapon in question is being used. The core rules, via the more than one weapon rules, tells us everything we need to know. Shred could simply say "This model is able to re-roll its melee attacks" and you still wouldn't be able to resolve its effects unless attacking with the Lightning Claw. Resolving it while attacking with the Power Fist would be mixing and matching weapon abilities and would be a violation of the core rules.
First off you have permission to ignore BRB and follow the dex in the basic vs advanced rule. (that's it's purpose)
Second you can't use the lightning claw/powerfist argument because shred is specific that that weapon must be the one chosen to attack or it doesn't work.
Third is that the axe says a model WITH this weapon. Not a model that attacks with.
That is more than enough permission and guidance to follow to say that the thirster is going to be I1 regardless
Galef wrote: LOL, Kriswall, I beat you to the LC/PF example
Haha. It's actually been brought up numerous times at this point. People just aren't getting that you need general permission to resolve a rule before you can resolve a rule.
I do tend to agree on RaI though. I think Colossal is intended to be a sort of "Super Unwieldy" that applies even when the weapon in question isn't being used. HOWEVER, the rules as written don't reflect this. The author's don't appear to be good at translating RaI into RaW. In an actual game situation, I'd probably just let my opponent pick how it's going to work. I'm more interested in the debate of how things work. I doubt I'll ever actually play against one of these things. I generally play games with tighter rule sets these days but those aren't fun to bicker about. You need poorly written, ambiguous rules for solid bickering.
...For you, but others put the "more than 1 weapon rule" first, since they only view the "Codex trumps BRB" rule as applying once a conflict occurs. In this case, we do not see a conflict, so that rule doesn't apply.
Again, this is the "strictest" point of view for RAW. I personally think the "intent" is for weapons that state "a model with this weapon" are supposed to apply those rules all the time. But unfortunately, the GW designers never placed "hard" rules to give us that direction, so when using the "strictest" letter of the rules, we have to use the "more than 1 weapon" rule.
daemonix wrote: First off you have permission to ignore BRB and follow the dex in the basic vs advanced rule. (that's it's purpose)
Second you can't use the lightning claw/powerfist argument because shred is specific that that weapon must be the one chosen to attack or it doesn't work.
Third is that the axe says a model WITH this weapon. Not a model that attacks with.
That is more than enough permission and guidance to follow to say that the thirster is going to be I1 regardless
You misunderstand. Nobody is questioning the rules text of Colossal. We're asking for page and paragraph that gives you general permission to resolve the rules text of ANY weapon ability when you aren't using that weapon during a Fight Sub-Phase.
"Second you can't use the lightning claw/powerfist argument because shred is specific that that weapon must be the one chosen to attack or it doesn't work."
This statement is incorrect. The wording of Shred isn't the reason you can't use it. The reason you can't use it is because using it would be a violation of the More Than One Weapon rules.
What I'm not getting is where you are coming up with this needing permission to resolve it idea. So far I haven't seen an actual reference to anything saying you cannot resolve it.
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."
The part underlined is what prevents "Colossal" from being resolved if not using the weapon the has "Colossal". 'Colossal' is an ability as shown by it being in the special rules of the D-Axe, so using weapon other that the D-Axe means you cannot apply any rules associated with the D-Axe.
The only "wiggle-room" around this is the beginning "Unless otherwise stated". The problem with that, however, is that the phrase "no matter what weapon is used" or "even when attacking with another weapon" is NOT part of the 'Colossal' rule. It is subjective to interpret "a model with" or "the bearer of" to actually be "otherwise stated". Some can agree, others cannot.
daemonix wrote: What I'm not getting is where you are coming up with this needing permission to resolve it idea. So far I haven't seen an actual reference to anything saying you cannot resolve it.
Um... this is a permissive rule set. You can't do ANYTHING unless you have permission to do so. This is such a fundamental concept that I don't really know how to respond. Of course we need permission to resolve a rule. You can't make melee attacks in the shooting phase because there is no permission to do so. You can't move 24" in the movement phase with a Tactical Marine because there is no permission to do so. You can't resolve a weapon ability when not using that weapon to make attacks in the Fight Sub-Phase because there is no permission to do so.
no now i get what you are trying to say and guess what... it's a contradiction to the brb which is once again covered. and dont give me that crap about it not being a contradiction.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's pretty clear but if you don't want to use the rules then don't.
Same to you, good sir. As I mentioned before, HIWPI does not use the rules b/c I would play it that the BT is always I:1. That doesn't follow the rules.
EDIT: I am truly not trying to be rude, I am merely trying to point out that this particular case CAN and IS able to be interpreted either way. Both arguments are perfectly valid: either you feel the "Colossal" rule trumps the BRB, or you feel the "More than 1 weapon" rule prevents you from applying the 'Colossal' rule when using another weapon.
We need an FAQ/Errata, otherwise neither player is following the rules and must decide which interpretation to use.
Edit: never mind: already asked in the thread before.
Edit 2: Actually on a tangent regarding when weapons are chosen:
If weapons are chosen before initiative Steps, what happens if a model "loses" the weapon his Initiative step (say a Walker suffers a Weapon Destroyed result)? Would he no longer be able to attack? Would he be allowed to choose and use a different weapon?
daemonix wrote: no now i get what you are trying to say and guess what... it's a contradiction to the brb which is once again covered. and dont give me that crap about it not being a contradiction.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's pretty clear but if you don't want to use the rules then don't.
Drama isn't needed. Nor is insultingly referring to my stance as "crap". If it were really as clear as you seem to think, we wouldn't have this many pages of discussion.
At least now you understand my position, even if you don't agree with it. This isn't really a discussion about Colossal at all. The core question is as follows...
Can the rules text of a weapon ability that you have no general permission to resolve grant itself permission to resolve itself? My stance is no as you create a situation where you need X to happen before X can happen.
daemonix wrote: What I'm not getting is where you are coming up with this needing permission to resolve it idea. So far I haven't seen an actual reference to anything saying you cannot resolve it.
Apart frmo the rule stating, in absolute terms, that you cannot mix and match abilities
Meaning you cannot resolve the rule. And, given you are using circular permission to invoke a conflict when none exists, your argument is refuted.
Avadar wrote: Edit: never mind: already asked in the thread before.
Edit 2: Actually on a tangent regarding when weapons are chosen:
If weapons are chosen before initiative Steps, what happens if a model "loses" the weapon his Initiative step (say a Walker suffers a Weapon Destroyed result)? Would he no longer be able to attack? Would he be allowed to choose and use a different weapon?
The rules don't really cover this situation. You'll need to discuss with your opponents. What we know is that the rules as presented only work if you choose your weapon at some point before Initiative Step 10 happens. We don't know what happens if you lose that weapon between selection and making to hit rolls. From a HIWPI standpoint, I'd say the model loses his attacks that round, but can choose a different weapon in the next round.
In the interest of fairness and full disclosure, on my first read through of the Colossal rule my brain put the word always into the rule text. On a fresh read through I see that word is not actually present which does change the context and gives significantly more validity to the strikes at initiative with another weapon approach.
I still consider it be written to require I1 at all times based on my interpretation of the term weapon abilities. To me that means abilities that take effect specifically when using the weapon. Other rules are always applicable just as they would be on any other piece of wargear. However as that requires assuming a definition for a term that best I can tell is not actually defined in the rules, It's difficult to defend one way or the other.
As such I will bow out of this discussion until such time I have found better rules support for my opinion. Good day to you all.
Permission on the rule is pretty simple, the weapon being on the model gives it the rule.
Permission to break the rule about weapon rules not mixing is the basic vs advanced because the rule in the codex IS wirtten contradictory to that.
And btw how then does the Specialist Weapons rule work for you guys? That rule also requires stacking of multiple weapon's rules to function so if it is impossible then specialist weapons can't function even IF you have two.
Food for thought. Page 156 of the BRB at the begining of the Special Rules section states: "Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule."
This at least strongly implies that anything explained in a special rule, whether on a weapon or not, should be considered separately from normal rules handling. Also supports my previous assertion that special rules are not inherently included as weapon abilities for the more than one weapon rule.
daemonix wrote: Permission on the rule is pretty simple, the weapon being on the model gives it the rule.
Permission to break the rule about weapon rules not mixing is the basic vs advanced because the rule in the codex IS wirtten contradictory to that.
And btw how then does the Specialist Weapons rule work for you guys? That rule also requires stacking of multiple weapon's rules to function so if it is impossible then specialist weapons can't function even IF you have two.
The weapon ability on the ACTIVE weapon is what tells you to look at other weapons. You're not resolving a weapon ability from a different weapon... you're just resolving the weapon ability of the active weapon. Nice red herring though. Doesn't support your position at all.
Fhionnuisce wrote: Food for thought. Page 156 of the BRB at the begining of the Special Rules section states: "Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule."
This at least strongly implies that anything explained in a special rule, whether on a weapon or not, should be considered separately from normal rules handling. Also supports my previous assertion that special rules are not inherently included as weapon abilities for the more than one weapon rule.
What specific rule is it breaking?
"Colossal: A model with this weapon Piles In and fights at Initiative step 1." ..note the lack of 'always' or 'equipped' that people seem to think is there.
Please highlight the exact part of the above rule that explicitly and unambiguously overrides the below restriction.
"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."
Please highlight the specific part of the Colossal weapon ability that unambiguously tells you that you can mix and match in its ability when you are not using it to strike blows. This is what is needed for a conflict with the BRB to occur. The "Piles In and fights at Initiative step 1" conflicts with "In close combat, Initiative dictates the order in which creatures strike." Nobody is challenging that conflict. That's not up for debate. That would be a clear cut conflict. Assuming you're allowed to resolve Colossal, you'd be fighting at Initiative step 1. Which part of the Colossal rule conflicts with "cannot mix and match the abilities of several different Melee weapons"?
That's the conflict you need to demonstrate and I'm just not seeing it. Colossal simply doesn't have wording saying that it may be resolved even when the weapon in question isn't being used.
Colossal is basically just a version of Unwieldy that can affect Monstrous Creatures (and Walkers).
Pg 41 BRB: When a model has more than one melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with, he cannot mix and match the abilities of several different weapons
Pg 41 BRB: The type section of a weapon's profile also includes any special rules that apply to the weapon in question
Pg 13 BRB: Where a conflict between BRB and Codex exists the Codex has precedence
Pg 156 BRB: Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks one of the main game rules it is represented by a special rule
Pg 114 KDK: Colossal: a model WITH this weapon piles in and fights at initiative step 1
Pg 114 KDK: Great axe of Khorne, Melee, Colossal.
I can't possibly see how much more than that you would need to see that it has a rule that is different from the core rules and it is still ok to use it.
Do me a favour and show me SOMETHING from the book that gives your point anything to go on because so far it's just been the first point I covered and that already has an as written rule to be ignored.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The part that says A MODEL WITH THIS WEAPON! That is the contradiction. It doesn't matter what weapon the D-Thirster decides to use because HE STILL HAS THE DAMNED AXE!
daemonix wrote: Actually it does because the previous argument was that you couldn't even then LOOK at that weapon and therefore it's abilities.
"Specialist Weapon: A model fighting with this weapon does not receive +1 Attack for fighting with two weapons unless it is armed with two or more Melee weapons with the Specialist Weapon rule."
I have Power Fist. It has Unwieldy and Specialist Weapon. I also have a Lightning Claw. It also Shred and Specialist Weapon. I choose to attack with the Power Fist. Given that I can't mix and match weapon abilities, I am only able to resolve the Power Fist's weapon abilities... Unwieldy and Specialist Weapon. Unwieldy lets me know that I'll be striking at Initiative step 1. Specialist Weapon lets me know that I won't get the +1 Attack unless I have a second weapon with the Specialist Weapon rule. I do, so I get the +1 Attack. I'm not actually resolving that second instance of Specialist Weapon. I'm only validating that I'm armed with a weapon that has that ability. I'm only resolving the first instance.
To make this easier...
My Dude is equipped with a Pimp Glove and a Diamond Cane. The Pimp Glove has the Slap weapon ability and the Diamond Cane has the Swagger special ability. They are as such...
'Slap: A model fighting with this weapon does not receive +1 Attack for fighting with two weapons unless it is armed with at least one other weapon with the Swagger special ability.' 'Swagger: A model fighting with this weapon strikes at Initiative step 10."
The Dude attacks with his Pimp Glove. You would resolve Slap, but not Swagger as resolving Swagger would be mixing and matching weapon abilities. The Dude gets the +1 Attack because he is, in fact, armed with at least one other weapon with the Swagger special ability. He does not strike at Initiative step 10 because he has no permission to resolved Swagger.
I think you might be confused because the Specialist Weapon ability on your active weapon has the same name as the Specialist Weapon ability of your 'off hand' weapon. You aren't actually resolving both instances. That isn't how the rules work.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
daemonix wrote: Pg 41 BRB: When a model has more than one melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with, he cannot mix and match the abilities of several different weapons
Pg 41 BRB: The type section of a weapon's profile also includes any special rules that apply to the weapon in question
Pg 13 BRB: Where a conflict between BRB and Codex exists the Codex has precedence
Pg 156 BRB: Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks one of the main game rules it is represented by a special rule
Pg 114 KDK: Colossal: a model WITH this weapon piles in and fights at initiative step 1
Pg 114 KDK: Great axe of Khorne, Melee, Colossal.
I can't possibly see how much more than that you would need to see that it has a rule that is different from the core rules and it is still ok to use it.
Do me a favour and show me SOMETHING from the book that gives your point anything to go on because so far it's just been the first point I covered and that already has an as written rule to be ignored.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The part that says A MODEL WITH THIS WEAPON! That is the contradiction. It doesn't matter what weapon the D-Thirster decides to use because HE STILL HAS THE DAMNED AXE!
Agree to disagree. You simply aren't showing me any compelling evidence. You simply have no general permission to resolve the rule. It blows my mind that you can't see that "a model fighting with this weapon" is redundant in almost every weapon ability as weapon abilities are ONLY active in the Fight Sub-Phase when a model is actively fighting with that weapon. This is an example of garbage rules writing confusing an otherwise straightforward rule.
It doesn't say " A model fighting with this weapon" it says "A model with this weapon". With means it simply has to have the weapon in it's possession which it does.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I won't pretend I know what they intended since figuring that out would be impossible aside from actually meeting them and asking, but as written the model simply has to have the axe for that rule to be there.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also it only does matter during Pile In and Fighting so it only activates in the fight sub phase as it should.
daemonix wrote: Pg 114 KDK: Colossal: a model WITH this weapon piles in and fights at initiative step 1
Pg 114 KDK: Great axe of Khorne, Melee, Colossal.
So, we don't use Colossal when using another Relic Weapon available to the Bloodthirster. Since we aren't using Colossal, the ability for this axe to reduce the model's Pile In and Attacks in the Fight Sub-phase will not be used and can be ignored any more than Unwieldy affects a Lightning Claw or Specialist affects a Pistol.
daemonix wrote: It doesn't say " A model fighting with this weapon" it says "A model with this weapon". With means it simply has to have the weapon in it's possession which it does.
Negative, good buddy. It could say ALMOST anything. You still have no general permission to resolve it.
"WHAT SPECIAL RULES DO I HAVE?
It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule. Most special rules are given to a model by the relevant Army List Entry or its unit type. That said, a model’s attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using."
Prove to me that the model OR its attacks have the Colossal special rule. "unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule." Show me where it's stated that the model or its attacks have Colossal. Colossal tells you WHAT it does. It doesn't tell you WHEN the model is able to use Colossal.
daemonix wrote: It doesn't say " A model fighting with this weapon" it says "A model with this weapon". With means it simply has to have the weapon in it's possession which it does.
Irrelevant. We are not allowed to use this rule. So being "with it" is not a consideration.
I'm still working on trying to find a clear definition for what is considered abilities of a weapon. I merely pointed out the excerpt from the description of special rules because it provides permission for a special rule to break normal game rules just by virtue of being a special rule. Thus they cannot be immediately dismissed just because standard rules say they would not normally apply, which seemed to be a point of contention in many posts. I still want to try to better define "abilities of weapons" before weighing back in on the primary issue.
What do you mean prove it? Have you even looked at the KDK book? The D-Thirster is only a D-Thirster BECAUSE he has the Great axe of Khorne stock on his profile. The weapon clearly states it has colossal and the colossal rule states that any model with the weapon will pile in and fight at 1. I'm really coming up short at what permission you seem to feel you need to use a rule that the weapon clearly has written to it. If you want to attack at normal initiative then don't take the D-Thirster. You want the D weapon then deal with the drawback.
daemonix wrote: It doesn't say " A model fighting with this weapon" it says "A model with this weapon". With means it simply has to have the weapon in it's possession which it does.
Irrelevant. We are not allowed to use this rule. So being "with it" is not a consideration.
You still have yet to show me where it says you can't use this rule. I have shown the exceptions that say you can now go ahead and give me something that says you can't outside of you simply saying no.
daemonix wrote: What do you mean prove it? Have you even looked at the KDK book? The D-Thirster is only a D-Thirster BECAUSE he has the Great axe of Khorne stock on his profile. The weapon clearly states it has colossal and the colossal rule states that any model with the weapon will pile in and fight at 1. I'm really coming up short at what permission you seem to feel you need to use a rule that the weapon clearly has written to it. If you want to attack at normal initiative then don't take the D-Thirster. You want the D weapon then deal with the drawback.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I can read. I know he has the weapon. I know the weapon has Colossal. I know that when he attacks with that weapon that Colossal resolves. You have yet to show me any permission to resolve Colossal when he's NOT attacking with the Great Axe of Khorne.
I'll just assume you don't understand how multiple melee weapons work. You know, as relates to not being able to use their abilities when not attacking with them.
Agree to disagree. You simply aren't showing me any compelling evidence. You simply have no general permission to resolve the rule. It blows my mind that you can't see that "a model fighting with this weapon" is redundant in almost every weapon ability as weapon abilities are ONLY active in the Fight Sub-Phase when a model is actively fighting with that weapon. This is an example of garbage rules writing confusing an otherwise straightforward rule.
The "a model fighting with this weapon" text is only redundant and "garbage" if your interpretaion of the rules is correct. It is equally possible that it is necessary rules text to resolve it appropriately and the rules you are citing are the poorly written ones and don't mean what you read them to mean.
Fhionnuisce wrote: I'm still working on trying to find a clear definition for what is considered abilities of a weapon. I merely pointed out the excerpt from the description of special rules because it provides permission for a special rule to break normal game rules just by virtue of being a special rule. Thus they cannot be immediately dismissed just because standard rules say they would not normally apply, which seemed to be a point of contention in many posts. I still want to try to better define "abilities of weapons" before weighing back in on the primary issue.
Check the Weapons section. A weapon's special rules/abilities are the things listed in the Type section that aren't Assault, Bomb, Heavy, Ordnance, Pistol, Primary Weapon, Rapid Fire, Salvo or Melee. Those are actual Types. Why GW decided to put special rules/abilities in the Type section is beyond me. The words "rules" and "abilities" are used pretty interchangeably all throughout the BRB. Don't believe me? Go have a read.
Agree to disagree. You simply aren't showing me any compelling evidence. You simply have no general permission to resolve the rule. It blows my mind that you can't see that "a model fighting with this weapon" is redundant in almost every weapon ability as weapon abilities are ONLY active in the Fight Sub-Phase when a model is actively fighting with that weapon. This is an example of garbage rules writing confusing an otherwise straightforward rule.
The "a model fighting with this weapon" text is only redundant and "garbage" if your interpretaion of the rules is correct. It is equally possible that it is necessary rules text to resolve it appropriately and the rules you are citing are the poorly written ones and don't mean what you read them to mean.
Seems more likely that my interpretation is correct as my interpretation follows the more than one weapon special rules. Yours arbitrarily ignores those rules. I'll err on the side of not accidentally cheating.
and once again you are saying "because" and giving me no pg numbers or anything to go off of. The rule is written to be active whenever a model with that weapon piles in or fights. Yes it breaks the rules about multiple weapon rules being in effect and the BRB has already stated it is allowed to override it like that.
And you may assume anything you like about my knowledge of the game. Your opinion on that matters little to me when you can't even understand some very simply written rules.
daemonix wrote: What do you mean prove it? Have you even looked at the KDK book? The D-Thirster is only a D-Thirster BECAUSE he has the Great axe of Khorne stock on his profile. The weapon clearly states it has colossal and the colossal rule states that any model with the weapon will pile in and fight at 1. I'm really coming up short at what permission you seem to feel you need to use a rule that the weapon clearly has written to it. If you want to attack at normal initiative then don't take the D-Thirster. You want the D weapon then deal with the drawback.
daemonix wrote: It doesn't say " A model fighting with this weapon" it says "A model with this weapon". With means it simply has to have the weapon in it's possession which it does.
Irrelevant. We are not allowed to use this rule. So being "with it" is not a consideration.
You still have yet to show me where it says you can't use this rule. I have shown the exceptions that say you can now go ahead and give me something that says you can't outside of you simply saying no.
And there it is. "Show me where it says I can't." That's not how the rules work. This is a "Show me where it says I can" sort of game. You haven't shown me yet where it says you can resolve Colossal.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
daemonix wrote: and once again you are saying "because" and giving me no pg numbers or anything to go off of. The rule is written to be active whenever a model with that weapon piles in or fights. Yes it breaks the rules about multiple weapon rules being in effect and the BRB has already stated it is allowed to override it like that.
And you may assume anything you like about my knowledge of the game. Your opinion on that matters little to me when you can't even understand some very simply written rules.
I can't provide a page number saying that you can't do something. That's not how the game works. You have yet to provide me with a page number saying you CAN do something... namely resolve Colossal. Please cite page and paragraph granting permission to give the model's attacks the Colossal special rule.
You're making the accusation (I can do something). Burden of proof is on the accuser.
In other words I provided all my references to the can side, but the books and written rules are irrelevant because you said so. So far your argument has been pretty weak.
The weapons section does not define abilities of a weapon that way. As best I have been able to determine so far it does not define it at all. Granted your assumption of meaning is the common one and you are correct that they do often seem to use rules and abilities to mean the same thing, but that doesn't change the fact the terminology is not actually defined.
From what I have seen so far the rules actually work better and with less conflict if you assume abilities of weapons means range, strength, ap value, and weapon types, but not special rules.
Before you say it, I know working better a certain way does not make it the right way or RAW, but it is why I am trying to find a clear rules definition for abilities of weapons. It might solve a lot of problems if we knew what the rules writers actually meant by that.
daemonix wrote: In other words I provided all my references to the can side, but the books and written rules are irrelevant because you said so. So far your argument has been pretty weak.
To you, perhaps. You obviously don't understand the core rules surrounding when a model does or does not have access to weapon abilities/special rules. I'm not going to be able to instill that knowledge. You've made up your mind on how this works. That's fine. A person is allowed to play with whatever house rules or misinterpretations he or she wants.
To summarize, for anyone reading.
Player A... This Bloodthirster attacks at Initiative step 1 due to the Colossal special rule despite not using the relevant weapon to attack in the Fight Sub-Phase.
Player B... Um, models have no permission to resolve weapon special abilities during a Fight Sub-Phase if they aren't using the weapon.
Player A... Sure. I have permission because Colossal says models with this axe attacks at Step 1.
Player B... No, I know what it does. You're just not currently allowed to use it. There is no permission to do so.
Player A... Yeah, it says if I have the axe I attack at Step 1. I don't care about the core rules. This gives me permission to ignore all of the rules about when I can use weapon abilities.
Player B... Whatever, dude. Dice off. 4+ and he attacks at normal Initiative. Good luck getting into combat with my Tau.
It clearly states whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks the rules it is represented by a special rule. It also states they are listed in the type block. If colossal is a rule made outside the brb and attached to a weapon and written as it was you cannot deny it simply because you say it isn't allowed. It is there in print and the phrasing is clear enough as well as the brb including everything needed to allow the codex to break the rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And once again you fail to show me WHY I DON'T HAVE PERMISSION TO USE IT! Enjoy being wrong. Happy travels.
daemonix wrote: It clearly states whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks the rules it is represented by a special rule. It also states they are listed in the type block. If colossal is a rule made outside the brb and attached to a weapon and written as it was you cannot deny it simply because you say it isn't allowed. It is there in print and the phrasing is clear enough as well as the brb including everything needed to allow the codex to break the rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And once again you fail to show me WHY I DON'T HAVE PERMISSION TO USE IT! Enjoy being wrong. Happy travels.
"Show me where it says I can't." The anthem of someone who doesn't understand that this is a permissive rule set. Ignorance truly is bliss. Now, if you'll excuse me, to quote a favorite movie... I'm going to go home and sleep with my wife.
And there it is. "Show me where it says I can't." That's not how the rules work. This is a "Show me where it says I can" sort of game. You haven't shown me yet where it says you can resolve Colossal.
Is the model with the Colossal weapon "A model with this weapon"?
If yes, then there is your permission.
Now find something that says Colossal does not apply, but it can not be from the BRB because Codex>rulebook if there is a conflict, and since something saying that rule does not apply is a direct conflict with the codex that says it applies.
Anything in the codex that states Colossal does not apply?
If not then you have no basis for breaking the Colossal rule and letting the D-Thirster swing at I order.
And there it is. "Show me where it says I can't." That's not how the rules work. This is a "Show me where it says I can" sort of game. You haven't shown me yet where it says you can resolve Colossal.
Is the model with the Colossal weapon "A model with this weapon"?
If yes, then there is your permission.
Now find something that says Colossal does not apply, but it can not be from the BRB because Codex>rulebook if there is a conflict, and since something saying that rule does not apply is a direct conflict with the codex that says it applies.
Anything in the codex that states Colossal does not apply?
If not then you have no basis for breaking the Colossal rule and letting the D-Thirster swing at I order.
I'm sorry, not quite. Colossal does not actively override the restrictions in the More Than One Weapon rule any more than Assault Vehicle overrides the restrictions against Charging after arriving from Reserves or Deep Striking.
The model does not have the rule, the Weapon does. When another Weapon is in use, you cannot mix in the abilities of a Weapon. Special Rules are abilities. Colossal is a Special Rule of the Weapon. Therefore, if another Weapon is not in use, we cannot use it, period.
And there it is. "Show me where it says I can't." That's not how the rules work. This is a "Show me where it says I can" sort of game. You haven't shown me yet where it says you can resolve Colossal.
Is the model with the Colossal weapon "A model with this weapon"?
If yes, then there is your permission.
Now find something that says Colossal does not apply, but it can not be from the BRB because Codex>rulebook if there is a conflict, and since something saying that rule does not apply is a direct conflict with the codex that says it applies.
Anything in the codex that states Colossal does not apply?
If not then you have no basis for breaking the Colossal rule and letting the D-Thirster swing at I order.
Nope, youre still missing More than one weapon
You CANNOT use the ability "Colossal" unless you are using the weapon
Provide EXPLICIT permission to use colossal, that is NOT within the Colossal rule itself - because a rule doesnt proc itself.
nosferatu1001 wrote: You CANNOT use the ability "Colossal" unless you are using the weapon
The above is absolutely false.
More than one weapon is trumped by the conflicting Codex rule...
Colossal applies to a model WITH the weapon. it is used anytime a model HAS a weapon with the Colossal rule...
Ummm... Where does it state it applies even when the model is NOT using the Weapon? That is where the conflict is required. Just possession doesn't conflict with the inability to USE the ability.
Read the rules in the context they're written, rather than cherry-picking clauses to support your laughably incorrect assertion.
It's always amused me the folks that seem to spend the most time answering questions here are the ones that have the hardest time actually understanding the rules.
Read the rules in the context they're written, rather than cherry-picking clauses to support your laughably incorrect assertion.
It's always amused me the folks that seem to spend the most time answering questions here are the ones that have the hardest time actually understanding the rules.
Can you answer nos's question then? What rule (not located in the "Colossal" rule) allows you to use the the ability ("Colossal" in this case) of a weapon you are not using?
Read the rules in the context they're written, rather than cherry-picking clauses to support your laughably incorrect assertion.
It's always amused me the folks that seem to spend the most time answering questions here are the ones that have the hardest time actually understanding the rules.
It is it "laughably incorrect," youcan provide a rule showing permission, outside of colossal, to resolve the colossal rule when using another weapon to fight with
I have no issue understanding the rules. YOu seem to have an issue avoiding insulting others, however.
This seems to be the crux of the argument, but where is this actually stated? I may be overlooking it but I have not been able to find rules text that supports this claim. For the rules to work properly you can no more assume a definition than the others can assume permission to apply a rule.
Without a 40k specific definition, you fall back on common language. And an ability can easily be a special rule that confers something to the model / attack being made / etc.
It isnt assuming a definition. Its that tje ruleset deos not define "A" therefore you must use the standard definition.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Without a 40k specific definition, you fall back on common language. And an ability can easily be a special rule that confers something to the model / attack being made / etc.
It isnt assuming a definition. Its that tje ruleset deos not define "A" therefore you must use the standard definition.
That is faulty logic. There is no standard definition for this term in a 40k context. What you are falling back to is the commonly believed definition. Commonly believed does not mean correct. It is commonly believed that tournament rulings dictate how rules are applied, but that's already been dismissed in this thread.
If we are going to fall back on common language then let's actually look at what the words mean instead of making assumptions. Merriam-Webster provides 4 definitions for ability:
1. The power or skill to do something
2. The quality or state of being able
Colossal does not fit either of these as it does not enable anything to happen. It dictates when otherwise enabled actions will occur.
3. Competence in doing
You would be hard pressed to prove Colossal demonstrates or provides competence in anything.
4. Natural aptitude or acquired proficiency
Colossal doesn't address aptitude or proficiency, so no go here either.
So if common language is the basis for our decision then Colossal does not meet any definition for ability so is not affected by the more than one weapon restriction on not mixing abilities. So at this point it seems to me either Colossal applies because nothing in the rules prevent a non-ability from doing so or you should help me find a 40k rules definition for ability that would contradict this.
Read the rules in the context they're written, rather than cherry-picking clauses to support your laughably incorrect assertion.
It's always amused me the folks that seem to spend the most time answering questions here are the ones that have the hardest time actually understanding the rules.
Can you answer nos's question then? What rule (not located in the "Colossal" rule) allows you to use the the ability ("Colossal" in this case) of a weapon you are not using?
Looks like I can't stay away from the thread, it's never-ending, it seems.
Now it is often quoted to give page and graph. May I ask you guys to provide the page and graph where we are explicitly told to choose weapons for melee? Because I cannot find that anywhere. You seem to do so, claiming RAW supports your position.
Pretty clearly falls under "the power or skill to do something". The weapon has the power or skill to do something... to make the attacker strike at Initiative 1. This is a pretty straightforward dictionary definition usage of 'ability'.
Read the rules in the context they're written, rather than cherry-picking clauses to support your laughably incorrect assertion.
It's always amused me the folks that seem to spend the most time answering questions here are the ones that have the hardest time actually understanding the rules.
Can you answer nos's question then? What rule (not located in the "Colossal" rule) allows you to use the the ability ("Colossal" in this case) of a weapon you are not using?
Looks like I can't stay away from the thread, it's never-ending, it seems.
Now it is often quoted to give page and graph. May I ask you guys to provide the page and graph where we are explicitly told to choose weapons for melee? Because I cannot find that anywhere. You seem to do so, claiming RAW supports your position.
It's not in the rulebook, but we can infer from weapons like Lash Whips that have abilities that effectively increase a user's initiative that weapon selection happens at some point before Initiative Step 10 of the Fight Sub-Phase. It can't happen afterwards or else weapons like Lash Whips couldn't function as (very obviously) intended.
No game rules give it the power to strike, Colossal restricts the timing at which it does so. Nothing in Colossal enables it to strike blows if it couldn't already do so.
Fhionnuisce wrote: No game rules give it the power to strike, Colossal restricts the timing at which it does so. Nothing in Colossal enables it to strike blows if it couldn't already do so.
The core rules give A weapon the ability to make its strikes at the user's Initiative value. The Colossal ability gives a SPECIFIC weapon the modified ability to make its strikes at Initiative step 1 instead. Colossal is providing the instruction/ability to strike at Initiative step 1. Nothing else in the rules grants that ability.
I can't believe we're arguing whether or not Colossal is a weapon ability. Welcome to the internet, folks. It's very, very, very, very, very clearly a weapon ability. The simplest (and therefore most likely) interpretation is that everything in the Type section of a weapon's profile that isn't a Type (these are listed in the BRB and include things like Rapid Fire and Melee) is a weapon ability/special rule. The BRB might be a little ambiguous given that it doesn't provide explicit definitions for game terms, but NOWHERE does it even imply that some of a weapon's special rules should be considered abilities while others shouldn't. It should be an all or nothing thing.
Coming up next...
(Bill Clinton Voice) Well, that depends on what you mean by the word 'is'...
I'm not debating that it is a special rule, I am questioning whether special rules are abilities. Yes the simplest explanation is that they would be, but that doesn't mean correct. My hypothesis (which I am happy to have proven or disproven as long as it is rules supported not assumption) is that Special Rules are in fact NOT weapon abilities, which is why so many of them have the "A model attacking with this weapon" style wording. If they are weapon abilities then that wording, as pointed out, is redundant. If they are not then the wording is essential. It seems more likely to me from a common sense standpoint that they poorly explained one rule vs. adding unnecessary text to dozens.
Fhionnuisce wrote: I'm not debating that it is a special rule, I am questioning whether special rules are abilities. Yes the simplest explanation is that they would be, but that doesn't mean correct. My hypothesis (which I am happy to have proven or disproven as long as it is rules supported not assumption) is that Special Rules are in fact NOT weapon abilities, which is why so many of them have the "A model attacking with this weapon" style wording. If they are weapon abilities then that wording, as pointed out, is redundant. If they are not then the wording is essential. It seems more likely to me from a common sense standpoint that they poorly explained one rule vs. adding unnecessary text to dozens.
So... what's the distinction between 'weapon special rule' and 'weapon ability' and what in the core rules gives you the impression that such a distinction should be made?
In other words...
Is Unwieldy a Special Rule or an Ability? Why?
Is Shred a Special Rule or an Ability? Why?
Is Blast a Special Rule or an Ability? Why?
Is Colossal a Special Rule or an Ability? Why?
If, as you hypothesize, special rules are not weapon abilities, what are weapon abilities? The BRB references weapon abilities, so we know they must exist. What are they?
I actually think that adding unnecessary text to dozens of rules make a ton of sense as it clarifies the fact that you can only use the weapon ability when attacking with that weapon. Clarity is never really a bad thing. It avoids an issue where people miss or don't understand the more than one weapon rules and think their Power Fist attacks get Shred because the model also has a Lightning Claw.
Read the rules in the context they're written, rather than cherry-picking clauses to support your laughably incorrect assertion.
It's always amused me the folks that seem to spend the most time answering questions here are the ones that have the hardest time actually understanding the rules.
It is it "laughably incorrect," youcan provide a rule showing permission, outside of colossal, to resolve the colossal rule when using another weapon to fight with
I have no issue understanding the rules. YOu seem to have an issue avoiding insulting others, however.
For someone that's claiming to have no issue understanding plain English, you certainly seem to have a lot of trouble producing legible sentences of your own.
Colossal applies in all circumstances because, well, that's what the rule says. The More Than One Weapon rule is quite simple to understand if you read it in context, which you and a few others have failed to do.
So that would be a "no " then. You can't answer the question. Nor will you even explain your concept of context in this instance to show how it changes what was written into something you just made up (but without specifying what you made up, of course. Gotta love ambiguity in debates...)
Feel free to comply with the tenets any time you like.
Until then, you have no credible argument. Or credibility.
To summarise: unless told otherwise you have no special rule
More than one weapon tells you you cannot use another weapons abilities - no mixing and matching
So, we have no permission to access the colossal rule. Because we lack permission to have the rule, we lack permission to follow its instructions. Because that's how a permissive rule set works
And so,,unless there can be found permission to always apply colossal, outside of the rule itself, the rule csnnot be used.
This is raw
Unless others can demonstrate why their argument isn't just "it doesn't say I can't (read the colossal rule)" - Cindis certainly is guilty of this elementary error in basic rules comprehension, as demonstrated twice now - the argument stands
This seems to be the crux of the argument, but where is this actually stated? I may be overlooking it but I have not been able to find rules text that supports this claim. For the rules to work properly you can no more assume a definition than the others can assume permission to apply a rule.
Special Rules introduction. It's been mentioned before. Second paragraph.
Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule. A special rule might improve a model’s chances of causing damage by granting it poisoned weapons or a boost to its Strength. Conversely, a special rule may improve a model’s survivability by granting it resistance to pain, or the ability to regrow damaged flesh. Special rules allow snipers to target the weak spots of their foes, scouts to range ahead of the army and anti-aircraft guns to blow flyers out of the skies.
To be more accurate, Special Rules represent the abilities. The special rule with the name "Colossal" represents the ability for the weapon to affect the model's Initiative Step in the Fight Sub-Phase.
Cindis wrote:Colossal applies in all circumstances because, well, that's what the rule says. The More Than One Weapon rule is quite simple to understand if you read it in context, which you and a few others have failed to do.
Not according to the quoted rule. It does not state that it applies in all circumstances. Someone misquoted the "always" with that.
Fhionnuisce wrote: I'm not debating that it is a special rule, I am questioning whether special rules are abilities. Yes the simplest explanation is that they would be, but that doesn't mean correct. My hypothesis (which I am happy to have proven or disproven as long as it is rules supported not assumption) is that Special Rules are in fact NOT weapon abilities, which is why so many of them have the "A model attacking with this weapon" style wording. If they are weapon abilities then that wording, as pointed out, is redundant. If they are not then the wording is essential. It seems more likely to me from a common sense standpoint that they poorly explained one rule vs. adding unnecessary text to dozens.
So... what's the distinction between 'weapon special rule' and 'weapon ability' and what in the core rules gives you the impression that such a distinction should be made?
In other words...
Is Unwieldy a Special Rule or an Ability? Why?
Is Shred a Special Rule or an Ability? Why?
Is Blast a Special Rule or an Ability? Why?
Is Colossal a Special Rule or an Ability? Why?
If, as you hypothesize, special rules are not weapon abilities, what are weapon abilities? The BRB references weapon abilities, so we know they must exist. What are they?
I actually think that adding unnecessary text to dozens of rules make a ton of sense as it clarifies the fact that you can only use the weapon ability when attacking with that weapon. Clarity is never really a bad thing. It avoids an issue where people miss or don't understand the more than one weapon rules and think their Power Fist attacks get Shred because the model also has a Lightning Claw.
Per my hypothesis all those would be Special Rules and not weapon abilities, thus would resolve or not based on the individual rule wording. It is worth noting that other than Colossal I believe all those have a "attacking with this weapon" type restriction so that would not in any way change how they work.
Implication then is that weapon abilities would be anything on the weapon profile that is not a Special Rule, but I'm trying to find some rules text clarity for that as I don't like implications in rules.
As to why I think there is a distinction, there's a couple things that stand out. First a lack of any clear definition automatically opens it to interpretation. Then there is the way Special Rules are written. Templating differences stand out to me as indicating there is some intent that they be considered differently. Sometimes using "attacking with this weapon" and sometimes not suggests they have different meanings. Especially when there is the issue of that wording being unnecessary, though granted not entirely without value.
Additionally there is the use of terms throughout the rules. Having gone through close to half the BRB word by word I have actually only seen "ability" or "abilities" used a handful of times, and this is really the only one where it could be interpreted to mean Special Rules. Other examples are such as page 26 and 28 where it seems to reference daemonic rewards/upgrades for summoned units or used to mean psychic powers respectively. Or page 32 where it addresses movement affecting your ability to fire as a way to introduce snapshots. In contrast, "weapon profile" and "Special Rule" are used frequently when the rules are referring to them. Based on writing precedence it seems if they had intended that to mean everything on the profile they would have said "weapon profile", had they meant it to be Special Rules of the weapons they would have said "Special Rules".
Now I know none of that is concrete. That's why I'm still presenting this as hypothesis and looking for rules to support or dispute definitively. It does lend plausibility to the idea though, so I'm continuing to explore it.
Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule. A special rule might improve a model’s chances of causing damage by granting it poisoned weapons or a boost to its Strength. Conversely, a special rule may improve a model’s survivability by granting it resistance to pain, or the ability to regrow damaged flesh. Special rules allow snipers to target the weak spots of their foes, scouts to range ahead of the army and anti-aircraft guns to blow flyers out of the skies.
.
Granted this is a good point as a counter to my hypothesis. And ironically one I initially introduced in this discussion.
So either you believe the "Colossal" rule overrides the BRB by stating "a model with this weapon does X",
Or you believe the "more than 1 weapon" rule precludes the application of the "Colossal" rule when the Great Axe of Khonre is not being used.
---------------
Can we all just agree that you see it one way or the other and will never accept the opposite viewpoint for "reasons"?
Galef wrote: So either you believe the "Colossal" rule overrides the BRB by stating "a model with this weapon does X",
Or you believe the "more than 1 weapon" rule precludes the application of the "Colossal" rule when the Great Axe of Khonre is not being used.
---------------
Can we all just agree that you see it one way or the other and will never accept the opposite viewpoint for "reasons"?
We could, but I at least am actually starting to be swayed. While I am becoming increasing convinced that intent is for Colossal to always apply and intent is Special Rules are always considered independently of other rules, I am becoming less certain RAW plays out that way.
Galef wrote: So either you believe the "Colossal" rule overrides the BRB by stating "a model with this weapon does X",
Or you believe the "more than 1 weapon" rule precludes the application of the "Colossal" rule when the Great Axe of Khonre is not being used.
---------------
Can we all just agree that you see it one way or the other and will never accept the opposite viewpoint for "reasons"?
Debates don't usually end with two opposing viewpoints having a sensible chuckle and walking away. We're all here to crush our enemies, see them driven before us and hear the lamentations of their women (or their men... I'm equal opportunity). I kid, I kid. Actually, I just have a boring job and this is one of my only outlets.
nosferatu1001 wrote: I'm willing to be persuaded. However the chain of permissions need to be shown.
There isn't a single even slightly persuasive argument so far, and one (Cindis) that is almost the definition of a hand waved, whole cloth argument.
Agreed. I'm also perfectly willing to be persuaded. I just haven't seen anything other than circular permission and "show me where it says I can't" type arguments. Neither is persuasive.
This rule is so clearly written, that is the only reason I can see this thread is still active.
EDIT: This makes 9, oh boy!
I assume you're referring to yourself in terms of trolling... i.e. showing up, making insulting comments and adding nothing to the conversation? Yup. I think you'll find trolls are unavoidable on the internet.
The thread is still active because there has not been a consensus and there are still people up for friendly debate. If you have nothing to contribute, perhaps troll elsewhere? Seems like you'd be happier if you don't have to be exposed to our friendly debate.
Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule. A special rule might improve a model’s chances of causing damage by granting it poisoned weapons or a boost to its Strength. Conversely, a special rule may improve a model’s survivability by granting it resistance to pain, or the ability to regrow damaged flesh. Special rules allow snipers to target the weak spots of their foes, scouts to range ahead of the army and anti-aircraft guns to blow flyers out of the skies.
.
Granted this is a good point as a counter to my hypothesis. And ironically one I initially introduced in this discussion.
Not so much when I it stated on page 4 in response to Tonberry.
Charistoph wrote:
Tonberry7 wrote: Also within the Weapons section of the BRB (from where this mix/match business is included) Special Rules are defined as being listed under the weapon type and are explicitly referred to as special rules, never as abilities. Special Rules relevant to melee weapons would include ones such as Shred and Colossal.
Not in the Weapons section itself, but the Special Rules section, which is referred to by the Weapons section, does state that Special Rules are abilities in its introduction. Or at least, those Special Rules are used to point to those abilities and represent them on the appropriate section.
Special Rules The type section of a weapon’s profile also includes any special rules that apply to the weapon in question. More information on these can be found either in the special rules section or in the codex or army list entry the weapon is found in.
Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule. A special rule might improve a model’s chances of causing damage by granting it poisoned weapons or a boost to its Strength. Conversely, a special rule may improve a model’s survivability by granting it resistance to pain, or the ability to regrow damaged flesh. Special rules allow snipers to target the weak spots of their foes, scouts to range ahead of the army and anti-aircraft guns to blow flyers out of the skies.
So, yeah, Special Rules represent abilities and you cannot mix and match abilities from different weapons when using only one.
Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule. A special rule might improve a model’s chances of causing damage by granting it poisoned weapons or a boost to its Strength. Conversely, a special rule may improve a model’s survivability by granting it resistance to pain, or the ability to regrow damaged flesh. Special rules allow snipers to target the weak spots of their foes, scouts to range ahead of the army and anti-aircraft guns to blow flyers out of the skies.
.
Granted this is a good point as a counter to my hypothesis. And ironically one I initially introduced in this discussion.
Not so much when I it stated on page 4 in response to Tonberry.
Fair enough, not trying to take anything away from you. I overlooked or just completely missed that post apparently when I brought that point back up. Happens in discussions that are this extensive.
1. We've established that Colossal is a weapon special rule. 2. We've established that weapon special rules are considered weapon abilities. 3. We don't know exactly when weapon selection occurs during a Fight Sub-Phase, but have established via Whip Coils and Lash Whips wording that it must occur before Initiative Step 10 begins. 4. We've established that when a weapon is being used to strike blows, none of the weapon abilities (special rules) of any other weapons the model has may be used.
So, to add interpretation... once we hit the beginning of Initiative step 10, we already know which weapon we're using and subsequently which weapon abilities we're subject to and which Initiative step we're using.
Seems to follow that if the big guy isn't using his fancy axe in the Fight Sub-Phase, his attacks are not subject to Colossal.
If anyone disagrees with any of the above 4 listed points, let's debate one at a time.
1. We've established that Colossal is a weapon special rule.
2. We've established that weapon special rules are considered weapon abilities.
3. We don't know exactly when weapon selection occurs during a Fight Sub-Phase, but have established via Whip Coils and Lash Whips wording that it must occur before Initiative Step 10 begins.
4. We've established that when a weapon is being used to strike blows, none of the weapon abilities (special rules) of any other weapons the model has may be used.
So, to add interpretation... once we hit the beginning of Initiative step 10, we already know which weapon we're using and subsequently which weapon abilities we're subject to and which Initiative step we're using.
Seems to follow that if the big guy isn't using his fancy axe in the Fight Sub-Phase, his attacks are not subject to Colossal.
If anyone disagrees with any of the above 4 listed points, let's debate one at a time.
The key disagreement comes from Step 4, I believe. The 'more than 1 weapon' rule says "Unless otherwise stated". I can easily see why so many feel that when a rules states "A model with this weapon" or "the bearer of this weapon", you have been given the "otherwise stated" permission (nah, requirement) to use the Colossal rule, even when not using the Great Axe. It makes sense that by not saying "when attacking with" or "when using" the implication is that permission is being stated to always apply the rule.
The problem is that this wording is not absolute enough for others. I am convinced this is the reason why this discuss has yet to be (and may never be) resolved.
jy2 wrote: I look at it like Smash. Whether you decide to actually Smash or not, if you've got the Smash USR, then you strike at AP2.
Smash, Colossal, or Unwieldy, it doesn't actually matter, but Smash is normally assigned to the model, and not as a Weapon ability. I am not aware of a Weapon that provides Smash, though. (I think it would be fun if the Triarch Stalker was equipped with one or two, but that's a different forum).
There is no wording in the Colossal rule than explicitly states that it may be used when not attacking with the weapon in question. Hence, it cannot by used.
I get that others see an implied permission to use when not attacking with the weapon, but implied permission aren't worth much in this game. You need actual written permission. The wording needs to be explicit.
jy2 wrote: I look at it like Smash. Whether you decide to actually Smash or not, if you've got the Smash USR, then you strike at AP2.
Smash, Colossal, or Unwieldy, it doesn't actually matter, but Smash is normally assigned to the model, and not as a Weapon ability. I am not aware of a Weapon that provides Smash, though. (I think it would be fun if the Triarch Stalker was equipped with one or two, but that's a different forum).
Yeah, I'm not sure Smash is a good example. I also can't think of any weapons that have the Smash special rule.
Kriswall wrote: There is no wording in the Colossal rule than explicitly states that it may be used when not attacking with the weapon in question. Hence, it cannot by used.
I think this is viewed as just your opinion and that by the rule stating "a model with ...", instead of "a model attacking with..." is indeed the wording that explicitly requires Colossal to always be in effect.
While I agree with you, Kriswall, that the above is not really enough to ignore the basic BRB rules, it is clearly a valid point of view (since it is shared by so many)
This is an instance where GW wrote the rules into a circle and needs to addressed in an FAQ. There is no right or wrong answer here. We all seem to agree on the "intent" of the rule, but cannot agree on the strictest letter of the rules (which often conflict with the intent)
Letter of the Law vs. Spirit of the Law. People who are apt to be on this forum tend to favor letter of the law, but I get the feeling the rules writers are spirit of the law people. So they wrote a rule that intuitively feels like it should be in effect at all times and called that good enough without thinking about how other people might break it down. Maybe I'm wrong, but that is how it is feeling to me right now.
On the plus side, the entire discussion has made me much more aware of where things are in the rulebook for the next time I need to find a rule during a game
Kriswall wrote: There is no wording in the Colossal rule than explicitly states that it may be used when not attacking with the weapon in question. Hence, it cannot by used.
I think this is viewed as just your opinion and that by the rule stating "a model with ...", instead of "a model attacking with..." is indeed the wording that explicitly requires Colossal to always be in effect.
While I agree with you, Kriswall, that the above is not really enough to ignore the basic BRB rules, it is clearly a valid point of view (since it is shared by so many)
This is an instance where GW wrote the rules into a circle and needs to addressed in an FAQ. There is no right or wrong answer here. We all seem to agree on the "intent" of the rule, but cannot agree on the strictest letter of the rules (which often conflict with the intent)
--
All viewpoints are valid. Some have merit.
To be honest, I'm not sure the RaI is to have Colossal active at all times. I'm of the opinion that Colossal is intended to be a version of Unwieldy that impacts Monstrous Creatures and Walkers. Without a rule like Colossal, there is no easy way to make a Monstrous Creature fight at Initiative step 1.
I do agree that an FAQ is needed to clear this up. Adding in some redundant "when attacking with this weapon" verbiage would be nice as well. It would also resolve the dilemma (assuming I'm right).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fhionnuisce wrote: On the plus side, the entire discussion has made me much more aware of where things are in the rulebook for the next time I need to find a rule during a game
This is partly why I participate in these threads. It really sharpens my overall understanding of the rule set.
jy2 wrote: I look at it like Smash. Whether you decide to actually Smash or not, if you've got the Smash USR, then you strike at AP2.
Smash, Colossal, or Unwieldy, it doesn't actually matter, but Smash is normally assigned to the model, and not as a Weapon ability. I am not aware of a Weapon that provides Smash, though. (I think it would be fun if the Triarch Stalker was equipped with one or two, but that's a different forum).
IIRC, back at the beginning of 6th edition, Fuegan's Fire Axe was changed to have the Smash special rule. Then the 6th edition Eldar codex came out.
Fhionnuisce wrote:Letter of the Law vs. Spirit of the Law. People who are apt to be on this forum tend to favor letter of the law, but I get the feeling the rules writers are spirit of the law people. So they wrote a rule that intuitively feels like it should be in effect at all times and called that good enough without thinking about how other people might break it down. Maybe I'm wrong, but that is how it is feeling to me right now.
The problem is, everyone has a different spirit. I stick to the Letter of the Law here (and on other forums) because that is the closest thing to a constant between everyone posting. Everyone has different experiences and wants different things out of the game. I can be quite flexible on the table, because we are in the game, and there is always the dice-off to resolve things. Not so easy here, and we can sit back and do a little more research than when at the table.
Besides, if you know how something is written, it provides a good starting point for House Rules and where you start with talking to new people to your club.
As Kriswall said, I also believe this was more a "Unwieldy for MC/GC/Walkers", but they wanted to get fancy with the writing instead of just copy/pasting Unwieldy and leaving out the mention of Walkers/MCs.
Fhionnuisce wrote:On the plus side, the entire discussion has made me much more aware of where things are in the rulebook for the next time I need to find a rule during a game
That is why I started going through the rules forums. I cannot play as often as I like, so I use this to help me remember what (and where) the rules are at.
Happyjew wrote:IIRC, back at the beginning of 6th edition, Fuegan's Fire Axe was changed to have the Smash special rule. Then the 6th edition Eldar codex came out.
Smash wasn't a USR during 5th, so that would have been a unique Codex rule. Was this in the FAQ? Of course, 6th Ed Smash is a little different than 7th Ed.
Ironically, just USING the Smash Attack today would forfeit the use of the Weapon which granted access to the Attack!
Happyjew wrote:IIRC, back at the beginning of 6th edition, Fuegan's Fire Axe was changed to have the Smash special rule. Then the 6th edition Eldar codex came out.
Smash wasn't a USR during 5th, so that would have been a unique Codex rule. Was this in the FAQ? Of course, 6th Ed Smash is a little different than 7th Ed.
Ironically, just USING the Smash Attack today would forfeit the use of the Weapon which granted access to the Attack!
Fuegan had a special rule that basically said for the purpose of melee attacks, he was a monstrous creature (in 4th/5th edition). In other words, ignore armour and 2 dice for armour pen.
In 6th edition, the rules were changed, instead giving MCs the Smash special rule (which while different from 7th is still relatively similar).
To update the 4th edition Eldar codex, to match the new rules, GW (IIRC) put Smash on Fuegan's weapon, instead of to Fuegan himself. That said, I could be wrong as that was a while ago.
Please let's drop the "trolling" accusations, it's rude. If you've got a problem with the comments made by another user, please use the Yellow Alert button.
Thanks...
The purpose of YMDC is to try to elucidate what the rules say, because we can only guess what the writers intended when they wrote them.
It is recognised that the letter of the rules is not necessarily what people play, especially in cases where ambiguously written rules lack a clear direction.
Naw wrote: May I ask you guys to provide the page and graph where we are explicitly told to choose weapons for melee? Because I cannot find that anywhere. You seem to do so, claiming RAW supports your position.
It's not in the rulebook, but we can infer from weapons like Lash Whips that have abilities that effectively increase a user's initiative that weapon selection happens at some point before Initiative Step 10 of the Fight Sub-Phase. It can't happen afterwards or else weapons like Lash Whips couldn't function as (very obviously) intended.
So we are in agreement that as it is not in BRB, there's no RAW and thus we can interpret this in so many ways.
You defend your view by pointing at a Codex (sort of like Codex trumps BRB, yes?), yet when others defend their point saying with Colossal rule the Codex trumps the BRB, you don't allow that for them?
I think with this point there's not going to be consensus.
Naw wrote: May I ask you guys to provide the page and graph where we are explicitly told to choose weapons for melee? Because I cannot find that anywhere. You seem to do so, claiming RAW supports your position.
It's not in the rulebook, but we can infer from weapons like Lash Whips that have abilities that effectively increase a user's initiative that weapon selection happens at some point before Initiative Step 10 of the Fight Sub-Phase. It can't happen afterwards or else weapons like Lash Whips couldn't function as (very obviously) intended.
So we are in agreement that as it is not in BRB, there's no RAW and thus we can interpret this in so many ways.
You defend your view by pointing at a Codex (sort of like Codex trumps BRB, yes?), yet when others defend their point saying with Colossal rule the Codex trumps the BRB, you don't allow that for them?
I think with this point there's not going to be consensus.
It's not in the BRB, but even a low level critical reading shows that weapon selection must happen before Initiative step 10. We don't know when it DOES happen, but we do know when it DOESN'T happen... after the beginning of Initiative step 10. Also, I'm not pointing at a Codex in an attempt to override the BRB. I'm pointing at a Codex in an attempt to shed light and context on an ambiguous rule that the BRB doesn't explicitly cover. Completely different thing.
We can definitely interpret this many different ways... but if we interpret weapon selection to occur AFTER Initiative step 10 starts, weapons like Whip Coils and Lash Whips no longer function AT ALL. It's far more likely that weapon selection occurs before, thus allowing these two weapons to function. Hence, any interpretation that sees weapon selection occurring during the Initiative steps is most likely a bad interpretation. That's basic logic.
Naw wrote: May I ask you guys to provide the page and graph where we are explicitly told to choose weapons for melee? Because I cannot find that anywhere. You seem to do so, claiming RAW supports your position.
It's not in the rulebook, but we can infer from weapons like Lash Whips that have abilities that effectively increase a user's initiative that weapon selection happens at some point before Initiative Step 10 of the Fight Sub-Phase. It can't happen afterwards or else weapons like Lash Whips couldn't function as (very obviously) intended.
So we are in agreement that as it is not in BRB, there's no RAW and thus we can interpret this in so many ways.
You defend your view by pointing at a Codex (sort of like Codex trumps BRB, yes?), yet when others defend their point saying with Colossal rule the Codex trumps the BRB, you don't allow that for them?
I think with this point there's not going to be consensus.
It's not in the BRB, but even a low level critical reading shows that weapon selection must happen before Initiative step 10. We don't know when it DOES happen, but we do know when it DOESN'T happen... after the beginning of Initiative step 10.
I do not agree with that, as you have noticed. The only instruction we have is that a model gets to act only when it is his Initiative, nothing else. That a codex writer does not know the rules is no surprise to anyone.
Also, I'm not pointing at a Codex in an attempt to override the BRB. I'm pointing at a Codex in an attempt to shed light and context on an ambiguous rule that the BRB doesn't explicitly cover. Completely different thing.
Fair enough. Nevertheless, I'm also in the camp who thinks there's a conflict in codex vs BRB rules, not only with the Colossal rule but with Whip Coils and Lash Whips also. These should both read that a model equipped with, maybe, rather than attacking with. But either way, there are contradictions in the many rules. Saying they are not doesn't make it less true.
We can definitely interpret this many different ways... but if we interpret weapon selection to occur AFTER Initiative step 10 starts, weapons like Whip Coils and Lash Whips no longer function AT ALL.
So like with the non-working psyker in a unit of non-psykers? Remember that those items are from a Codex, not BRB. We have rules in BRB that do not work directly.
It's far more likely that weapon selection occurs before, thus allowing these two weapons to function. Hence, any interpretation that sees weapon selection occurring during the Initiative steps is most likely a bad interpretation. That's basic logic.
With this interpretation we are still left with the conflicting rules, where we have Colossal rule from a Codex vs Many Weapons from BRB.
Naw wrote: May I ask you guys to provide the page and graph where we are explicitly told to choose weapons for melee? Because I cannot find that anywhere. You seem to do so, claiming RAW supports your position.
It's not in the rulebook, but we can infer from weapons like Lash Whips that have abilities that effectively increase a user's initiative that weapon selection happens at some point before Initiative Step 10 of the Fight Sub-Phase. It can't happen afterwards or else weapons like Lash Whips couldn't function as (very obviously) intended.
So we are in agreement that as it is not in BRB, there's no RAW and thus we can interpret this in so many ways.
You defend your view by pointing at a Codex (sort of like Codex trumps BRB, yes?), yet when others defend their point saying with Colossal rule the Codex trumps the BRB, you don't allow that for them?
I think with this point there's not going to be consensus.
It's not in the BRB, but even a low level critical reading shows that weapon selection must happen before Initiative step 10. We don't know when it DOES happen, but we do know when it DOESN'T happen... after the beginning of Initiative step 10.
I do not agree with that, as you have noticed. The only instruction we have is that a model gets to act only when it is his Initiative, nothing else. That a codex writer does not know the rules is no surprise to anyone.
Also, I'm not pointing at a Codex in an attempt to override the BRB. I'm pointing at a Codex in an attempt to shed light and context on an ambiguous rule that the BRB doesn't explicitly cover. Completely different thing.
Fair enough. Nevertheless, I'm also in the camp who thinks there's a conflict in codex vs BRB rules, not only with the Colossal rule but with Whip Coils and Lash Whips also. These should both read that a model equipped with, maybe, rather than attacking with. But either way, there are contradictions in the many rules. Saying they are not doesn't make it less true.
We can definitely interpret this many different ways... but if we interpret weapon selection to occur AFTER Initiative step 10 starts, weapons like Whip Coils and Lash Whips no longer function AT ALL.
So like with the non-working psyker in a unit of non-psykers? Remember that those items are from a Codex, not BRB. We have rules in BRB that do not work directly.
It's far more likely that weapon selection occurs before, thus allowing these two weapons to function. Hence, any interpretation that sees weapon selection occurring during the Initiative steps is most likely a bad interpretation. That's basic logic.
With this interpretation we are still left with the conflicting rules, where we have Colossal rule from a Codex vs Many Weapons from BRB.
And again, I don't agree that there is a conflict when a codex rules says "do something" and the BRB says "don't resolve that rule". There is only a conflict if you flat out ignore the BRB's restriction. If you obey the BRB's restriction, there is no conflict.
Kriswall, I think you should amend your statement, to "if you CAN obey the BRB, there is no conflict" that might help make it clearer.
I agree that in this case, there is no conflict, however, that is assuming that the wording on Colossal isn't sufficient to ignore the BRB rules.
If, as many here believe, the statement "A model with this weapon piles in and fight at initiative 1" is meant to specifically override the 'more than 1 weapon' rule, than we DO have a conflict and the Codex wins.
Is there any way to discuss whether or not the wording within a weapon's rules can override the BRB, even though the BRB says to not apply that rule if the weapon isn't being used. Or would that just keep us going in a circle?
We'd be going in a circle. I don't think there's anything you can say to convince me that "A model with this weapon piles in and fights at Initiative 1" self grants permission to ignore the More Than One Weapon rules. I just don't see the wording being that strong. I would also imagine that there's nothing I can say to convince you that there isn't a conflict if you simply follow the BRB rules and ignore Colossal's rules text.
We need an FAQ/Errata. In the meantime, I'll be playing this how I interpret RaW to work AND how I imagine RaI... as a version of Unwieldy that impacts Monstrous Creatures.
Thread might as well be locked. We've hit the "Yes It Can/No It Can't" stage without a clear consensus.
While I don't believe that it's RAI like Kriswall does, I do love playing the Devil's advocate, and the new artifacts from the Black Legion books do seem to give Kriswall's argument some credit.
(I still believe the RAI is that the weapon makes you slow, but we'll need a FAQ for that)
The Spineshiver Blade states in its special rule "Quicksilver" that
The bearer of the Spineshiver Blade has +1 Initiative in Close Combat.
While the text implies that the bearer simply has it, I would expect the idea the rulemakers had was that the blade was quick (thus the name it got.) Not that it somehow made the bearer quicker.
So would he get +1i while using a different weapon? I would expect not?
Let's compare the Colossal Great Axe with the unwieldy Powerfist. Say you have the D-Thirster with Great Axe and the Axe of Khorne. You also have a Chaos Lord with a Lightning Claw and a Powerfist. Now let's look at the definitions.
Colosssal (Great Axe): A model with this weapon Piles In and fights at Initiative 1.
Decapitating Blow (Axe of Khorne): Any to Wound rolls of 6 made with this weapon have the Instant Death special rule.
Unwieldy (Power Fist): A model attacking with this weapon Piles In and fights at Initiative step 1, unless.....
Shred (Lightning Claws): If a models has the Shred special rule, or is attacking with a Melee weapon that has the Shred special rule, it re-rolls its failed To Wound rolls.
To me, the RAW is pretty clear. The Chaos Lord attacks with the Claws, he strikes at regular Initiative and can re-roll Wounds. If he attacks with the Power Fist, then he strikes at Initiative 1.
A Thirsters that has a Great Axe attacks at I1, whether or not he uses the Great Axe because the Rules for Colossal does not explicitly say that he has to attack with the Great Axe in order to suffer the Initiative penalty. All the other weapons are explicit when the user gets their special rules and that is only when he attacks with that specific weapon.
Galef wrote: Is there any way to discuss whether or not the wording within a weapon's rules can override the BRB, even though the BRB says to not apply that rule if the weapon isn't being used. Or would that just keep us going in a circle?
That's actually the circle that has been going around.
If the rule was supposed to be active on the bearer at all times, regardless of use, it would have been separated from the Weapon profile, just like Assault Grenades and Defensive Grenades. GW has done this before, I don't see why they would not do this again. Alternatively, it would be the only Attacks this model can make.
Neither applies in the case of a D-Thirster or an Imperial Knight.
jy2 wrote: A Thirsters that has a Great Axe attacks at I1, whether or not he uses the Great Axe because the Rules for Colossal does not explicitly say that he has to attack with the Great Axe in order to suffer the Initiative penalty. All the other weapons are explicit when the user gets their special rules and that is only when he attacks with that specific weapon.
Irrelevant. Unwieldy doesn't apply to the Claws just because it is not being used by the Weapon, it doesn't apply because the Unwieldy rule does not get applied to the Claws at all. If a model with a Colossal Weapon used a Lightning Claw, the Lightning Claw could not have Colossal applied to it any more than Unwieldy could.
In a way, the only way a D-Thrister can get away from using his Weapon, though, is via the Smash Attack, which is still operating under the same principle of not using the Weapon.
jy2 wrote: A Thirsters that has a Great Axe attacks at I1, whether or not he uses the Great Axe because the Rules for Colossal does not explicitly say that he has to attack with the Great Axe in order to suffer the Initiative penalty. All the other weapons are explicit when the user gets their special rules and that is only when he attacks with that specific weapon.
Irrelevant. Unwieldy doesn't apply to the Claws just because it is not being used by the Weapon, it doesn't apply because the Unwieldy rule does not get applied to the Claws at all. If a model with a Colossal Weapon used a Lightning Claw, the Lightning Claw could not have Colossal applied to it any more than Unwieldy could.
In a way, the only way a D-Thrister can get away from using his Weapon, though, is via the Smash Attack, which is still operating under the same principle of not using the Weapon.
Unwieldy does not apply to the Claws because the rules for Unwieldy says it only applies to the weapon that is being used. There is no such distinction for Colossal.
Unwieldy does not apply to the Claws because the rules for Unwieldy says it only applies to the weapon that is being used. There is no such distinction for Colossal.
Unwieldy does not apply to the Claws because the Claws do not have Unwieldy and cannot get them from the Power Fist.
So, since it was brought up earlier (nobody PM'd me either, btw), how do you guys arguing that the D weapon always causing the BT to strike at I1 play the Blade of Blood? It also states you only need to have it; not necessarily attack with it. Do you play it that by attacking with an Axe of Khorne and just having the BoB gives +D3 attacks if outnumbered, or do you play that you have to give up the Axe's Instant Death ability to get it? Same wording of "a model with", as opposed to "a model attacking with". They're basically the same thing, rules-wise. So how was the BoB decided upon?
timetowaste85 wrote: So, since it was brought up earlier (nobody PM'd me either, btw), how do you guys arguing that the D weapon always causing the BT to strike at I1 play the Blade of Blood? It also states you only need to have it; not necessarily attack with it. Do you play it that by attacking with an Axe of Khorne and just having the BoB gives +D3 attacks if outnumbered, or do you play that you have to give up the Axe's Instant Death ability to get it? Same wording of "a model with", as opposed to "a model attacking with". They're basically the same thing, rules-wise. So how was the BoB decided upon?
My stance doesn't change. The no mixing and matching restriction prevents weapon abilities from coming into play in the Fight Sub-Phase when that weapon isn't being used.
In other words, the Blade of Blood does nothing when not being used to make attacks in the same way that a Lightning Claw doesn't provide Shred when not being used to make attacks. Doesn't really matter what Shred, Colossal or anything else says if we have no permission to give our attacks or models the special rule.
Well, one rule benefits daemon players, one doesn't. As long as it's kept fair. I don't plan to run in many (any) tournaments, so I'll just ask my local group. Might be time to grab a D-thirster, depending how they rule it. As a daemon player, I've been counting the BoB as "inactive" when attacking with an AoK. I viewed the abilities as turning off when not in use, same as every other weapon out there. I'll just have to see if I've been gimping myself and time to step it up a notch.
And there it is. "Show me where it says I can't." That's not how the rules work. This is a "Show me where it says I can" sort of game. You haven't shown me yet where it says you can resolve Colossal.
Is the model with the Colossal weapon "A model with this weapon"?
If yes, then there is your permission.
Now find something that says Colossal does not apply, but it can not be from the BRB because Codex>rulebook if there is a conflict, and since something saying that rule does not apply is a direct conflict with the codex that says it applies.
Anything in the codex that states Colossal does not apply?
If not then you have no basis for breaking the Colossal rule and letting the D-Thirster swing at I order.
I'm sorry, not quite. Colossal does not actively override the restrictions in the More Than One Weapon rule any more than Assault Vehicle overrides the restrictions against Charging after arriving from Reserves or Deep Striking.
The model does not have the rule, the Weapon does. When another Weapon is in use, you cannot mix in the abilities of a Weapon. Special Rules are abilities. Colossal is a Special Rule of the Weapon. Therefore, if another Weapon is not in use, we cannot use it, period.
and there is the conflict between the BRB and the Codex...
BRB says you cant use the Colossal rule when using a different weapon,
Codex says simply being in possession of the weapon evokes the Colossal rule.
Unwieldy does not apply to the Claws because the rules for Unwieldy says it only applies to the weapon that is being used. There is no such distinction for Colossal.
Unwieldy does not apply to the Claws because the Claws do not have Unwieldy and cannot get them from the Power Fist.
No mixing and matching abilities.
It's not mixing and matching.
Some weapons give you a special rule but only if you use it. In such a case, the weapon special rule will say so (with this weapon, using/attacking with this weapon, etc.).
Other weapons will give you a special rule irregardless of whether you use it or not (hence why I brought up the example with regards to Smash, of which Colossal is similar).
BTW, can you point out to me where in the BRB does it say about mixing & matching? I couldn't find it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
timetowaste85 wrote: So, since it was brought up earlier (nobody PM'd me either, btw), how do you guys arguing that the D weapon always causing the BT to strike at I1 play the Blade of Blood? It also states you only need to have it; not necessarily attack with it. Do you play it that by attacking with an Axe of Khorne and just having the BoB gives +D3 attacks if outnumbered, or do you play that you have to give up the Axe's Instant Death ability to get it? Same wording of "a model with", as opposed to "a model attacking with". They're basically the same thing, rules-wise. So how was the BoB decided upon?
I play it that he strikes at I1 and he gets Rampage (with the Great Axe + BoB).
With the AoK and BoB, you get Decapitating Blow, you get Rampage and you also get +1A for having 2 Specialist weapons.
Unwieldy does not apply to the Claws because the rules for Unwieldy says it only applies to the weapon that is being used. There is no such distinction for Colossal.
Unwieldy does not apply to the Claws because the Claws do not have Unwieldy and cannot get them from the Power Fist.
No mixing and matching abilities.
It's not mixing and matching.
Some weapons give you a special rule but only if you use it. In such a case, the weapon special rule will say so (with this weapon, using/attacking with this weapon, etc.).
Other weapons will give you a special rule irregardless of whether you use it or not (hence why I brought up the example with regards to Smash, of which Colossal is similar).
BTW, can you point out to me where in the BRB does it say about mixing & matching? I couldn't find it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
timetowaste85 wrote: So, since it was brought up earlier (nobody PM'd me either, btw), how do you guys arguing that the D weapon always causing the BT to strike at I1 play the Blade of Blood? It also states you only need to have it; not necessarily attack with it. Do you play it that by attacking with an Axe of Khorne and just having the BoB gives +D3 attacks if outnumbered, or do you play that you have to give up the Axe's Instant Death ability to get it? Same wording of "a model with", as opposed to "a model attacking with". They're basically the same thing, rules-wise. So how was the BoB decided upon?
I play it that he strikes at I1 and he gets Rampage (with the Great Axe + BoB).
With the AoK and BoB, you get Decapitating Blow, you get Rampage and you also get +1A for having 2 Specialist weapons.
We've established that ALL weapon special rules are considered weapon abilities. It doesn't matter what the special rule does. It's a weapon ability.
The restriction against mixing and matching weapon abilities is in the More Than One Weapon section of the Weapons chapter.
I feel like some people think that a weapon's special abilities should be treated differently based on what they do. This is not the case. The BRB doesn't care what the weapon ability does. It simply says that if you're attacking with weapon A, you're not allowed to use any of the weapon abilities of weapon B. The Axe of Khorne has a weapon ability that causes the bearer to strike at Initiative step 1. If you aren't attacking with the AoK, you have no permission to resolve any of its weapon abilities (including Colossal). The only permission I've seen so far is circular... the stance seems to be that permission to resolve Colossal is provided by resolving Colossal, which requires permission to resolve Colossal... Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Unwieldy does not apply to the Claws because the rules for Unwieldy says it only applies to the weapon that is being used. There is no such distinction for Colossal.
Unwieldy does not apply to the Claws because the Claws do not have Unwieldy and cannot get them from the Power Fist.
No mixing and matching abilities.
It's not mixing and matching.
Yes, it would be. If Unwieldy was put on the Claw, it would be mixing in the Power Fist's Unwieldy on to the Claw.
jy2 wrote:Some weapons give you a special rule but only if you use it. In such a case, the weapon special rule will say so (with this weapon, using/attacking with this weapon, etc.).
Other weapons will give you a special rule irregardless of whether you use it or not (hence why I brought up the example with regards to Smash, of which Colossal is similar).
And in those cases where they are to be on all the time, regardless of Weapon use, they are separated from the Weapon profile itself, such as Assault and Defensive Grenades.
jy2 wrote:BTW, can you point out to me where in the BRB does it say about mixing & matching? I couldn't find it.
It has been referenced and quoted numerous times, and usually every other page. More Than One Weapon in the Weapons section of the rulebook specifically restricts the use of Weapons in Melee to one Weapon and you cannot mix and match the abilities between them.
Colossal cannot be in play when the Weapon's use is prohibited because it is tied to the Weapon's profile, and not its status as a piece of Wargear in this case.
Then tell me how you do get the +1A attack for having 2 Specialist weapons? If by using 1 weapon, you ignore all the special rules for the other weapon, then how can you claim for the other weapon to be a Specialist weapon as well?
jy2 wrote: Then tell me how you do get the +1A attack for having 2 Specialist weapons? If by using 1 weapon, you ignore all the special rules for the other weapon, then how can you claim for the other weapon to be a Specialist weapon as well?
You don't ignore that they exist. You just don't resolve them. This specific question has been asked and already answered in this thread.
You attack with Weapon A. It has a weapon ability called Specialist Weapon. As you are attacking with Weapon A, you resolve Specialist Weapon. This ability tells you that you don't get the normal +1 Attack for having an "off hand" weapon unless that "off hand" weapon has a weapon ability called Specialist Weapon. So, in resolving Weapon A's ability, you look at your other weapons and what abilities they have. You're not actually resolving that other weapon's ability. You're just looking to see that it's there.
To simplify... you're not ignoring that the special rules exist... you're simply not resolving those abilities as you have no permission to do so.
DeathReaper wrote:and there is the conflict between the BRB and the Codex...
BRB says you cant use the Colossal rule when using a different weapon,
Codex says simply being in possession of the weapon evokes the Colossal rule.
Codex Wins. the D goes at I1 always.
I fail to see where possession overrides the restriction against mixing and matching abilities of Weapons.
Well does the model HAVE the weapon when he is attacking with a different weapon? (Yes he does)
Colossal says A model WITH this weapon.
It does not say attacking with, just simply possessing the weapon makes you follow the Colossal rule. That is why the codex will trump the BRB in this case.
DeathReaper... I firmly disagree. You are using Colossal to grant permission to use Colossal. Circular logic, circular permission. Doesn't work. The rule book never lets you resolve Colossal, which is what you're using as your justification.
You also do not have permission to ignore the special rules of a weapon. Certain rules like Two-handed, Specialist Weapon, Colossal, Blade of Blood, etc. gives the unit a special rule, irregardless of whether that weapon is being used or not. You are not resolving its special rule, you just have the special rule due to having the weapon. Other weapons like Lightning Claws or the Axe of Khorne, you only get to use its special rules if you use the weapon itself.
jy2 wrote: You also do not have permission to ignore the special rules of a weapon.
We actually have an explicit requirement to ignore the special rules of weapons that aren't being using to attack during a fight. Go back and review the rules. It's the More Than One Weapon rules from the Weapons section that have been quoted many times in this thread.
jy2 wrote: You are not resolving its special rule, you just have the special rule due to having the weapon. Other weapons like Lightning Claws or the Axe of Khorne, you only get to use its special rules if you use the weapon itself.
Also, I don't think you understand what I mean by resolving a special rule. I mean reading it and then doing what it says to do. You and your attacks explicitly DON'T have the special rule unless you're told that you do. "It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule." How can I get special rules from a weapon? "That said, a model’s attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using." Am I using the Axe of Khorne? Nope. Ergo, my model and its attacks have no permission to have the Colossal rule.
You have yet to show permission to have the rule. The BRB is pretty explicit about when we do and don't gain special rules. Being on a weapon isn't enough. The weapon needs to be used for something.
Kriswall wrote: DeathReaper... I firmly disagree. You are using Colossal to grant permission to use Colossal. Circular logic, circular permission. Doesn't work. The rule book never lets you resolve Colossal, which is what you're using as your justification.
So somehow the model no longer has the weapon with that rule?
Model is forced to use the Colossal rule per the weapon (piece of wargear) stating "a Model WITH this weapon". The model would then not be able to select another weapon to use as it is already applying rules from a separate weapon and the mixing of rules is not allowed.
B-Funk wrote: Model is forced to use the Colossal rule per the weapon (piece of wargear) stating "a Model WITH this weapon". The model would then not be able to select another weapon to use as it is already applying rules from a separate weapon and the mixing of rules is not allowed.
Actually that is a good point.
RAW you have to use the weapon with Colossal because of the wording on colossal and the rule that you can not mix and match.
You can follow both rules, but by doing so you have to use the Colossal weapon.
DeathReaper wrote:Well does the model HAVE the weapon when he is attacking with a different weapon? (Yes he does)
Colossal says A model WITH this weapon.
It does not say attacking with, just simply possessing the weapon makes you follow the Colossal rule. That is why the codex will trump the BRB in this case.
But if using a different Weapon OR not using that Weapon at all, how does Colossal come in to play? Possession may be 9/10 of the law, but you still need that 1/10 to be complete. Your assertion is just as incomplete.
jy2 wrote:You also do not have permission to ignore the special rules of a weapon. Certain rules like Two-handed, Specialist Weapon, Colossal, Blade of Blood, etc. gives the unit a special rule, irregardless of whether that weapon is being used or not. You are not resolving its special rule, you just have the special rule due to having the weapon. Other weapons like Lightning Claws or the Axe of Khorne, you only get to use its special rules if you use the weapon itself.
If a model has a Pistol and Relic Blade (Two-handed) and choose to the use the Pistol, they get +1 Attack for two Melee Weapons. If a model has a pistol and a Power Fist, and chooses to use the Pistol, they get +1 Attack for two Melee Weapons.
Why? Because the Two-Handed rule or Specialist rule cannot be used with the Pistol's Close Combat Attack profile. We are not allowed to mix and match Weapon abilities. Enforcing the Two-handed or Specialist rule on a Pistol's use is the definition of mixing and matching Weapon abilities. So, too, enforcing Colossal on a Pistol or Close Combat Weapon, would be mixing and matching Weapon abilities.
Please go and actually read the More Than One Weapon rule in the BRB Weapons section before posting on this again.
B-Funk wrote:Model is forced to use the Colossal rule per the weapon (piece of wargear) stating "a Model WITH this weapon". The model would then not be able to select another weapon to use as it is already applying rules from a separate weapon and the mixing of rules is not allowed.
A model may be forced to use the Colossal Weapon, but not because of simple possession. It would be because they have nothing else to Fight with. This is the case with the D-Thirster and the Knight's Gauntlet (in some cases). In addition, the Colossal rule does not state it requires using the Weapon.
My question would be if you can only use the special rules of the weapon you are using what happens with models with data spikes? Models equipped with them have to make an additional attack at I10 so by RAW then they would never get to use any other weapon the model was equipped with. Just my thoughts.
Kriswall wrote: DeathReaper... I firmly disagree. You are using Colossal to grant permission to use Colossal. Circular logic, circular permission. Doesn't work. The rule book never lets you resolve Colossal, which is what you're using as your justification.
So somehow the model no longer has the weapon with that rule?
Why are you breaking the Colossal rule?
Why are you evoking the Colossal rule, when your only permission to evoke it comes from the rule itself?
Circular permission, or "it doesnt say I cant"
Find your permission OUTSIDE the colossal rule. Page and Graph
Kriswall wrote: DeathReaper... I firmly disagree. You are using Colossal to grant permission to use Colossal. Circular logic, circular permission. Doesn't work. The rule book never lets you resolve Colossal, which is what you're using as your justification.
So somehow the model no longer has the weapon with that rule?
Why are you breaking the Colossal rule?
Why are you evoking the Colossal rule, when your only permission to evoke it comes from the rule itself?
Circular permission, or "it doesnt say I cant"
Find your permission OUTSIDE the colossal rule. Page and Graph
The Colossal rule states a model with this weapon.
the model has the weapon therefore we MUST follow the rule.
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?
Antubis wrote: My question would be if you can only use the special rules of the weapon you are using what happens with models with data spikes? Models equipped with them have to make an additional attack at I10 so by RAW then they would never get to use any other weapon the model was equipped with. Just my thoughts.
Per Rules as Written, the Dataspike weapon ability would only be usable if you are making your melee attacks with the Dataspike weapon. My guess is that the authors intended this to be an extra attack even when using a different weapon, but don't really understand how the core More Than One Weapon rules are written. If so, they should have made it a piece of wargear and not a Melee weapon.
And no... models equipped with a Dataspike don't have to use the Dataspike to make attacks with. Nothing says that. Choose a different weapon and Dataspike does nothing, per RaW.
Just before this thread gets locked I wanted to remind everyone that this rule is old news.
The models been out for over a year and it's already been judged by EVERY major tournament in unanimous fashion.
They strike at initiative with another weapon.
Feel free to continue the argument but please realize is completely pointless.
Tournaments, major or not, are not the only place to play this game, nor does everyone play in tournaments.
Citing tournament judgements to seek to end the discussion is no more useful than saying what your own local club has decided, and just as binding. The populous here is just too diverse for this to be any more than a HYWPI statement.
The YMDC populace is diverse on just about anything. People log into this forum to plays devils advocate for weeks at a time and they get their way based on the fact that there are holes in the BRB that can't be filled.
If you truly felt this way then you'd back out of the argument immediately as it would be obvious that neither sides point would be heard. If major tournaments aren't a big enough rosetta stone for players to make their own house rules than no discussion on dakka is going to convince anyone of anything. What's the point?
There's no intellectual discussion of details here, no fleshing out of opinions, people are using the word "evoke" for goodness sakes. Where in the BRB does that terminology come up?
jy2 wrote: A Thirsters that has a Great Axe attacks at I1, whether or not he uses the Great Axe because the Rules for Colossal does not explicitly say that he has to attack with the Great Axe in order to suffer the Initiative penalty. All the other weapons are explicit when the user gets their special rules and that is only when he attacks with that specific weapon.
Irrelevant. Unwieldy doesn't apply to the Claws just because it is not being used by the Weapon, it doesn't apply because the Unwieldy rule does not get applied to the Claws at all. If a model with a Colossal Weapon used a Lightning Claw, the Lightning Claw could not have Colossal applied to it any more than Unwieldy could.
In a way, the only way a D-Thrister can get away from using his Weapon, though, is via the Smash Attack, which is still operating under the same principle of not using the Weapon.
Unwieldy does not apply to the Claws because the rules for Unwieldy says it only applies to the weapon that is being used. There is no such distinction for Colossal.
Are you implying that the decapitating axe gives instant death on 6's even while not being attacked with?
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.
Antubis wrote: My question would be if you can only use the special rules of the weapon you are using what happens with models with data spikes? Models equipped with them have to make an additional attack at I10 so by RAW then they would never get to use any other weapon the model was equipped with. Just my thoughts.
Per Rules as Written, the Dataspike weapon ability would only be usable if you are making your melee attacks with the Dataspike weapon. My guess is that the authors intended this to be an extra attack even when using a different weapon, but don't really understand how the core More Than One Weapon rules are written. If so, they should have made it a piece of wargear and not a Melee weapon.
And no... models equipped with a Dataspike don't have to use the Dataspike to make attacks with. Nothing says that. Choose a different weapon and Dataspike does nothing, per RaW.
Or, as has been pointed out many times, codex rules override/alter core rules. This has always been fundamental with WH40K.
There is no conflict, as you haev no *permission* to activate the data spikes rules. Without *permission*, an UTTERLY fundamental rule concept to the entire game, not just to army supplements, you cannot use the rule at all.
Provide permission to process the dataspikes special rules when the weapon is not selected. Page and graph. No circular permission permitted, as thats "it deosnt say I cant" and I'm getting Sx2, AP2 when using lightning claws
Tournaments, major or not, are not the only place to play this game, nor does everyone play in tournaments.
Citing tournament judgements to seek to end the discussion is no more useful than saying what your own local club has decided, and just as binding. The populous here is just too diverse for this to be any more than a HYWPI statement.
The YMDC populace is diverse on just about anything. People log into this forum to plays devils advocate for weeks at a time and they get their way based on the fact that there are holes in the BRB that can't be filled.
If you truly felt this way then you'd back out of the argument immediately as it would be obvious that neither sides point would be heard. If major tournaments aren't a big enough rosetta stone for players to make their own house rules than no discussion on dakka is going to convince anyone of anything. What's the point?
Using House Rules to try and end the discussion is pointless. If you are already planning on using House Rules, or they have already been determined for the group, then reviewing this board is pointless. Reviewing House Rules to provide others a perspective to run from is fine, so long as you are indicating that they are such.
BUT, to say that tournament rulings provide a fait accompli in resolving any issue is actually counter to the dictates of this board. You are not using RAW, but declaring them as RAW. Tournament Rulings are How They Would Play It, and can often run completely counter to the Written Rules (look up Invisibility with the ITC).
In addition, I doubt every tournament organizer would actually rule the same way on any issue. Many are prejudiced (knowingly or unknowingly) to certain outcomes and so would rule in the direction of their prejudice. Which takes it even further from the purpose of a general play discussion.
So, in short, Reviewing Tournament Rules as HYWPI is fine, but tournaments are not the end-all of the gaming world nor should they be considered as such.
Aijec wrote: There's no intellectual discussion of details here, no fleshing out of opinions, people are using the word "evoke" for goodness sakes. Where in the BRB does that terminology come up?
Using words that the BRB does not use is hardly a reason to state that this is not an intellectual discussion. Sometimes synonyms need to be used to get the point across. It's not like the person was actually quoting the rule when he said 'evoke'.
Some people are trying to discuss details, but showing their prejudices at the same time (precedence of "possession" versus "usability", for example). While some ignore pages of quotes for quick declarative judgements which have been addressed numerous times already, so it has to be retrod, again.
Antubis wrote: My question would be if you can only use the special rules of the weapon you are using what happens with models with data spikes? Models equipped with them have to make an additional attack at I10 so by RAW then they would never get to use any other weapon the model was equipped with. Just my thoughts.
Per Rules as Written, the Dataspike weapon ability would only be usable if you are making your melee attacks with the Dataspike weapon. My guess is that the authors intended this to be an extra attack even when using a different weapon, but don't really understand how the core More Than One Weapon rules are written. If so, they should have made it a piece of wargear and not a Melee weapon.
And no... models equipped with a Dataspike don't have to use the Dataspike to make attacks with. Nothing says that. Choose a different weapon and Dataspike does nothing, per RaW.
Or, as has been pointed out many times, codex rules override/alter core rules. This has always been fundamental with WH40K.
I will 100% whole heartedly agree that any active Codex rule that causes a conflict with a core rule in the BRB will take precedence. In the above scenario, Dataspike isn't an active Codex rule because the weapon it's an ability for isn't being used. Per the Special Rules section, a model (or its attacks) doesn't have a special rule unless we're explicitly told that he does. How are you resolving Dataspike when you're never told the model (or its attacks) has the Dataspike special rule?
This is the core issue here that I think some people aren't getting. It doesn't really matter what Dataspike (or Colossal) says if the model (or its attacks) in question doesn't have access to the special rule/weapon ability. The only thing that would matter is if the special rule/weapon ability explicitly said something to the effect of "a model with the weapon can XYZ even when not attacking with this weapon". That would be a conflict. That isn't happening here.
Now, again, RaI seems clear in some cases and murky in others. My guess is that Dataspike was intended to be active at all times while Colossal is meant to work like Unwieldy, but for MCs and Walkers. RaW doesn't allow mixing and matching. Period.
Antubis wrote: My question would be if you can only use the special rules of the weapon you are using what happens with models with data spikes? Models equipped with them have to make an additional attack at I10 so by RAW then they would never get to use any other weapon the model was equipped with. Just my thoughts.
Per Rules as Written, the Dataspike weapon ability would only be usable if you are making your melee attacks with the Dataspike weapon. My guess is that the authors intended this to be an extra attack even when using a different weapon, but don't really understand how the core More Than One Weapon rules are written. If so, they should have made it a piece of wargear and not a Melee weapon.
And no... models equipped with a Dataspike don't have to use the Dataspike to make attacks with. Nothing says that. Choose a different weapon and Dataspike does nothing, per RaW.
Or, as has been pointed out many times, codex rules override/alter core rules. This has always been fundamental with WH40K.
I will 100% whole heartedly agree that any active Codex rule that causes a conflict with a core rule in the BRB will take precedence. In the above scenario, Dataspike isn't an active Codex rule because the weapon it's an ability for isn't being used. Per the Special Rules section, a model (or its attacks) doesn't have a special rule unless we're explicitly told that he does. How are you resolving Dataspike when you're never told the model (or its attacks) has the Dataspike special rule?
This is the core issue here that I think some people aren't getting. It doesn't really matter what Dataspike (or Colossal) says if the model (or its attacks) in question doesn't have access to the special rule/weapon ability. The only thing that would matter is if the special rule/weapon ability explicitly said something to the effect of "a model with the weapon can XYZ even when not attacking with this weapon". That would be a conflict. That isn't happening here.
Now, again, RaI seems clear in some cases and murky in others. My guess is that Dataspike was intended to be active at all times while Colossal is meant to work like Unwieldy, but for MCs and Walkers. RaW doesn't allow mixing and matching. Period.
You don't think that "a model with this weapon" or "a model equipped with this weapon" or whatever is sufficiently forceful to trigger the "unless otherwise stated" part of the mixing and matching weapons bit, like people think it is for Harlequin's Kiss?
EDIT: Also, FWIW, the Colossal special rule in Codex: Imperial Knights does what you are asking for it to do. What, if any, significance is there to the D-axe thirster's wording change, in your opinion?
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 only sometimes (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?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: EDIT: Also, FWIW, the Colossal special rule in Codex: Imperial Knights does what you are asking for it to do. What, if any, significance is there to the D-axe thirster's wording change, in your opinion?
That's an interesting piece of information. What is says to me is the weapon is intended to cause the model to always strike at I1, but the IK writers and the Chaos writers have different interpretations of how rules need to be stated.
In all fairness though I'm not sure there are rules that state a Special Rule must work the same across codices f not a UNIVERSAL Special Rule given in the BRB. Or to state otherwise, I'm not sure we can assume that are the same rule just because they have the same name, awkward as that sounds. I actually hope I'm wrong on that because it just further unnecessarily complicates the rules system.
If you fail a grounded check in your opponent's turn, you have basically "changed flight modes" in the previous turn, allowing you to charge in yours. Changing flight modes in "your" turn is what prevents charging.
