Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 NightHowler wrote:
Rigeld, could you try actually addressing his argument?

Just saying, "you don't understand? cool." is neither constructive, helpful, nor does it do anything but irritate everyone who reads what you write.

Since I said a lot more than that, I don't understand your objection.

His argument was that the weapon does not say "when attacking with this weapon" which almost every other weapon with special attack benefits does say. By not putting the requirement that blows be struck with the weapon, simply having it equipped is enough for the special rule to trigger. So no rules are broken by having the special rule triggered if the weapon is equipped.

There re rules broken - the rule that says a model only has a weapon's special rule while using it. Is attacking with a HC using the HK?

Can you address this? In the 10 pages I have yet to see where you have addressed this critical question.

Have you even read the thread? I've addressed it multiple times.
He (and you) are bringing up the wording as if the wording was relevant. My point is you need permission to use the wording on a weapon's special rule. The permission literally doesn't exist in the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NightHowler wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
NightHowler, how does a model get special rules from weapons?

In the case of the weapon in question the model gets it by equipping it.

That's not what I asked.

How does a model get special rules from weapons?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let me rephrase this.

Without referring to the special rule, how does a model receive a special rule from a weapon?

The same way that a Rune Priest gets adamantium will from his runic staff. By equipping it.

"when a model equipped with a harlequins kiss makes its close combat attacks, one of it its attacks will be a kiss of death attack"

Notice that it does not say "...makes its close combat attacks with the harlequin's kiss.." but rather simply says when the model so equipped makes it's attacks.

This is not like any other piece of wargear that I'm aware of.

And yet... you literally referred to one IN THE SAME EXACT POST.

Look - The Kiss isn't some unique, special, one of a kind weapon. It's not a new thing. Please stop pretending it is.
And no, by the rules a Rune Priest doesn't get Adamantium Will unless he's actually using the Runic Staff. Because that's what the rules actually say.
Which is what I've said - repeatedly - throughout this thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 megatrons2nd wrote:
"you only get the Special Rules from the one you are using.."

Where is that in the rule book? I can't find it. Nowhere that I can find does it say "the only way to receive a special rule from a weapon is to attack with it".

Please answer the question:

Let's start simple: You need permission to use a rule, correct?
(This assumes a permissive rule set - which 40k must be. If you disagree with this then we'll never come to an agreement and the rules literally don't work.)

rigeld2 wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:
Rigeld, could you try actually addressing his argument?

Just saying, "you don't understand? cool." is neither constructive, helpful, nor does it do anything but irritate everyone who reads what you write.

Since I said a lot more than that, I don't understand your objection.

His argument was that the weapon does not say "when attacking with this weapon" which almost every other weapon with special attack benefits does say. By not putting the requirement that blows be struck with the weapon, simply having it equipped is enough for the special rule to trigger. So no rules are broken by having the special rule triggered if the weapon is equipped.

There re rules broken - the rule that says a model only has a weapon's special rule while using it. Is attacking with a HC using the HK?

Can you address this? In the 10 pages I have yet to see where you have addressed this critical question.

Have you even read the thread? I've addressed it multiple times.
He (and you) are bringing up the wording as if the wording was relevant. My point is you need permission to use the wording on a weapon's special rule. The permission literally doesn't exist in the rules.

You don't need to attack with a weapon to use it's special rules unless you've misread something somewhere. Multiple examples have been mentioned in this thread and I can give one example: the Rune Priest's runic weapon. It gives adamantium will. I get this special rule by simply equipping the weapon. I do not need to attack with it. I could charge with my runepriest and use a grenade and still get adamantium will because the rule for adamantium will says that all I need to do is equip the weapon.

Harlequin's Kiss is a little more specific in that it say that you must equip the weapon and then you must attack. But it does not say that you must attack with the Kiss to get the special rule.

Now, if the Kiss also gave Instant Death, I agree, RAW you would not get Instant Death unless you attacked with the Kiss because of this rule:

It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule. Most special rules are given to a model by the relevant Army List Entry or its unit type. That said, a model’s attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using.

But note that the Kiss' special rule is more specific and tells you that you get a special attack added on by simply equipping it - no need to attack with it - just equip it and strike blows.

 NightHowler wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:
Rigeld, could you try actually addressing his argument?

Just saying, "you don't understand? cool." is neither constructive, helpful, nor does it do anything but irritate everyone who reads what you write.

Since I said a lot more than that, I don't understand your objection.

His argument was that the weapon does not say "when attacking with this weapon" which almost every other weapon with special attack benefits does say. By not putting the requirement that blows be struck with the weapon, simply having it equipped is enough for the special rule to trigger. So no rules are broken by having the special rule triggered if the weapon is equipped.

There re rules broken - the rule that says a model only has a weapon's special rule while using it. Is attacking with a HC using the HK?

Can you address this? In the 10 pages I have yet to see where you have addressed this critical question.

Have you even read the thread? I've addressed it multiple times.
He (and you) are bringing up the wording as if the wording was relevant. My point is you need permission to use the wording on a weapon's special rule. The permission literally doesn't exist in the rules.

You don't need to attack with a weapon to use it's special rules unless you've misread something somewhere.

Please quote where I've said you must be attacking. Just once would be nice.
Please don't put words in my mouth.

Multiple examples have been mentioned in this thread and I can give one example: the Rune Priest's runic weapon. It gives adamantium will. I get this special rule by simply equipping the weapon. I do not need to attack with it. I could charge with my runepriest and use a grenade and still get adamantium will because the rule for adamantium will says that all I need to do is equip the weapon.

So you haven't read the thread at all then. Thanks for clarifying that.
This has been addressed. As written, no a Rune Priest doesn't get Adamantium Will except when he's using his weapon.

Harlequin's Kiss is a little more specific in that it say that you must equip the weapon and then you must attack. But it does not say that you must attack with the Kiss to get the special rule.

To clarify, Harlequin's Kiss is the weapon, Kiss of Death is the special rule. They are not interchangeable. Don't use them as such.

Now, if the Kiss also gave +1S, I agree, RAW you would not get the +1S unless you attacked with the Kiss because of this rule:

It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule. Most special rules are given to a model by the relevant Army List Entry or its unit type. That said, a model’s attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using.

But note that the Kiss' special rule is more specific and tells you that you get a special attack added on by simply equipping it - no need to attack with it - just equip it and strike blows.

Where, in that rule does it mention gaining a weapon's special rules? As far as I can see, it's just the underlined. Do you agree?

"Wargear is part of an army list entry, and it's not a weapon, so it applies. "

All weapons are wargear. So if wargear rules apply, so do weapon rules. Look at how you purchase them, from the "wargear list"

"You need permission. You admit it doesn't exist. "

It exists, in the first sentence.

The second sentence applies to attacks from weapons. Since you need permission to apply a special rule, and the only rule that allows special rules to apply to attacks is using a weapon, so yeah.... Sure the special rule says a model with it can use it to attack, but as you said permissive rule set, and a rule can't self permit so can't be added to attacks unless it is on a weapon.

"Formation special rules apply because - as I've quoted - there's a rule specifying they apply. "

So you admit, that formation rules can't be used? No permission in the special rules section, and the formation can't self permit, so.....

"Again - so? And this isn't true. The Kiss isn't unique. "

No, the kiss, the embrace, The Staff of Ulthamar, The Spear of Twighlight, and The Shard of Anaris. Which all simply provide a special rule. And are only broken by your interpretation that the "only" way a Special rule can apply to a model from a weapon is when it makes its attacks.

"You're not applying the rule using my interpretation, you're deliberately pretending that it doesn't work to put my argument in a bad light (which is failing). "

No, not pretending, just stating the way I read the rules, and how it conflicts with yours, You read it as Absolutely the only way to get is, and I read it as most, but not always. You also tell us that a rule can't self permit, then use the formation rule to self permit formation benefits.

rigeld2 wrote:

And no, by the rules a Rune Priest doesn't get Adamantium Will unless he's actually using the Runic Staff.

Actually, the rule for the Runic Weapon specifically tells me how adamantium will is given. It does not say "when attacking with this weapon a Rune Priest has Adamantium Will", instead it says, "when equipped with this weapon a Rune Priest has Adamantium Will." (paraphrasing obviously).

The Kiss has the same wording, "when equipped with this weapon..." and we are NOT told that he has to attack with the weapon to get the bonus attack - just that he has to equip it.

 NightHowler wrote:
Rigeld, could you try actually addressing his argument?

Just saying, "you don't understand? cool." is neither constructive, helpful, nor does it do anything but irritate everyone who reads what you write.

His argument was that the weapon does not say "when attacking with this weapon" which almost every other weapon with special attack benefits does say. By not putting the requirement that blows be struck with the weapon, simply having it equipped is enough for the special rule to trigger. So no rules are broken by having the special rule triggered if the weapon is equipped.

Can you address this? In the 10 pages I have yet to see where you have addressed this critical question.

The thing is, this has been explained multiple times. I have given the RaW many time so i'll just Quote myself:
How does a Model make use of a Special rule listed on a Weapon's Profile (like Kiss of Death) ? ?

 BlackTalos wrote:
So, "Kiss of Death" is a special rule with rules already quoted: when equipped, the weapon gives "bonus XYZ". The special rule is listed under "TYPE" of the Harelquin's Kiss.
Rulebook about TYPE:

Special Rules
The type section of a weapon’s profile also includes any special rules that apply to the weapon in question. More information on these can be found either in the special rules section or in the codex or army list entry the weapon is found in.

So, "Kiss of Death" applies ONLY to the weapon in question. Any disagreement against this RaW would need a clear quote to prove the contrary.

It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule. Most special rules are given to a model by the relevant Army List Entry or its unit type. That said, a model’s attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using.

So, you can gain abilities from the weapons (the ones listed in "TYPE") when you "use" those weapon. Any disagreement against this RaW would need a clear quote to prove the contrary.

MORE THAN ONE WEAPON
Unless otherwise stated,(...) If a model has more than one Melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with when he comes to strike blows – he cannot mix and match the abilities of several different Melee weapons.

So, if you have 2 weapons, with 2 abilities, IE Harlequin's Caress, with the ability "Caress of Death" + Harlequin's Kiss, with the ability "Kiss of Death", you must select one of the two weapons, and you only get the Special Rules from the one you are using. Any disagreement against this RaW would need a clear quote to prove the contrary.

Simple conclusion:
When you are using the Harlequin's Caress, with the ability "Caress of Death", you only have the Special Rule "Caress of Death" plus those listed in the Solitaire's profile.
You do not have the Special Rule "Kiss of Death".

If you do not have the special rule "Kiss of Death", why is there an issue about "not being able to follow / breaking the rule" ? You do not have it.
Can you break the "Fear" rule if none of your models have "Fear"?

As for the only other "equipped" item i can think of:

A storm shield confers a 3+ invulnerable save. In addition, a model equipped with a storm shield can never claim the +1 Attack gained for being armed with two Melee weapons in an assault.

 NightHowler wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
NightHowler, how does a model get special rules from weapons?

In the case of the weapon in question the model gets it by equipping it.

That's not what I asked.

How does a model get special rules from weapons?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let me rephrase this.

Without referring to the special rule, how does a model receive a special rule from a weapon?

The same way that a Rune Priest gets adamantium will from his runic staff. By equipping it.

"when a model equipped with a harlequins kiss makes its close combat attacks, one of it its attacks will be a kiss of death attack"

Notice that it does not say "...makes its close combat attacks with the harlequin's kiss.." but rather simply says when the model so equipped makes it's attacks.

This is not like any other piece of wargear that I'm aware of.

Again, you refuse to answer my question.

Without referencing "Kiss of Death", how do you know the model has the "Kiss of Death" special rule?

 NightHowler wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

And no, by the rules a Rune Priest doesn't get Adamantium Will unless he's actually using the Runic Staff.

Actually, the rule for the Runic Weapon specifically tells me how adamantium will is given. It does not say "when attacking with this weapon a Rune Priest has Adamantium Will", instead it says, "when equipped with this weapon a Rune Priest has Adamantium Will." (paraphrasing obviously).

The Kiss has the same wording, "when equipped with this weapon..." and we are NOT told that he has to attack with the weapon to get the bonus attack - just that he has to equip it.

I haven't ever said you must attack - that's your words.

The actual rules say "using". Is just holding it, "using"?

 Happyjew wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
NightHowler, how does a model get special rules from weapons?

In the case of the weapon in question the model gets it by equipping it.

That's not what I asked.

How does a model get special rules from weapons?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let me rephrase this.

Without referring to the special rule, how does a model receive a special rule from a weapon?

The same way that a Rune Priest gets adamantium will from his runic staff. By equipping it.

"when a model equipped with a harlequins kiss makes its close combat attacks, one of it its attacks will be a kiss of death attack"

Notice that it does not say "...makes its close combat attacks with the harlequin's kiss.." but rather simply says when the model so equipped makes it's attacks.

This is not like any other piece of wargear that I'm aware of.

Again, you refuse to answer my question.

Without referencing "Kiss of Death", how do you know the model has the "Kiss of Death" special rule?

You can not know what special rules a model has without referencing the special rule in question. We are told by the BRB that some models will have special rules, but we then MUST use the special rules given to know when, where, how, and how often to apply that special rule. Moreover, those special rules are more specific than the rule in the BRB that tells us some models may have special rules, so we know that if the special rule in question deviates from the BRB - because it is more specific - it is given permission to bend, or even break less specific rules.

 NightHowler wrote:
You can not know what special rules a model has without referencing the special rule in question.

So I must reference the Stealth special rule to know if my model has the Stealth special rule?

 NightHowler wrote:
You can not know what special rules a model has without referencing the special rule in question. We are told by the BRB that some models will have special rules, but we then MUST use the special rules given to know when, where, how, and how often to apply that special rule. Moreover, those special rules are more specific than the rule in the BRB that tells us some models may have special rules, so we know that if the special rule in question deviates from the BRB - because it is more specific - it is given permission to bend, or even break less specific rules.

I'm sorry, but that is incorrect. There is a way to know what special rules models have, and it's even in the Title:

WHAT SPECIAL RULES DO I HAVE?
It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule. Most special rules are given to a model by the relevant Army List Entry or its unit type. That said, a model’s attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using.

Most of the more commonly used special rules in Warhammer 40,000 are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list. Many troops have their own unique abilities, which are laid out in their codex or Army List Entry.

Follow the above, and your model will obtain any special rule that is either:
A) Given to a model by the relevant Army List Entry (Found under "Special Rules")
B) Gained special rules because of the weapon it is using.

"Kiss of Death", unfortunately, is listed in the Weapon's "TYPE" and is therefore "B".

When do you use your weapon? When striking blows in CC.

 Happyjew wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:
You can not know what special rules a model has without referencing the special rule in question.

So I must reference the Stealth special rule to know if my model has the Stealth special rule?

You are told whether or not the model has stealth usually in the unit entry, but you can also be told he has it by what special rules are on his wargear.

If his wargear tells us, "when equipping this wargear this model has stealth" then he only has stealth if he has that wargear equipped.

If his wargear tells us, "when striking blows with this wargear this model has stealth" then he only has stealth if he has struck blows with that wargear.

If his wargear tells us, "when joined to a unit of X this model has stealth" then he only has stealth if he is joined to a unit of X.

Each of these examples would be more specific than the rule in the BRB that tells us how a model gets a special rule and so would be given permission to break the BRBs restrictions on how a model gets a special rule.

"I haven't ever said you must attack - that's your words.

The actual rules say "using". Is just holding it, "using"? "

Using the rules, how else does a model "use" a weapon?

Also the Actual rules say "That said, a model’s attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using."

See the first half of that sentence telling you it's attacks can gain special rules. You keep focusing on the second half of that sentence. Use the whole thing. Please answer how a models attacks benefit from fearless or FnP. Because well, a weapon obviously only gives special rules to a models attacks. Obviously non attack special rules do absolutely nothing in the game.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
"I haven't ever said you must attack - that's your words.

The actual rules say "using". Is just holding it, "using"? "

Using the rules, how else does a model "use" a weapon?

Currently it's typically attacking. Which is what I've said.

Also the Actual rules say "That said, a model’s attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using."

See the first half of that sentence telling you it's attacks can gain special rules. You keep focusing on the second half of that sentence. Use the whole thing. Please answer how a models attacks benefit from fearless or FnP. Because well, a weapon obviously only gives special rules to a models attacks.

They don't. I've said - repeatedly, to you - that things like that don't function as likely intended. So calling me out on it doesn't gain you anything.
I am using the whole sentence. Every time.

Please answer the question:

Let's start simple: You need permission to use a rule, correct?
(This assumes a permissive rule set - which 40k must be. If you disagree with this then we'll never come to an agreement and the rules literally don't work.)

rigeld2 wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:
"I haven't ever said you must attack - that's your words.

The actual rules say "using". Is just holding it, "using"? "

Using the rules, how else does a model "use" a weapon?

Currently it's typically attacking. Which is what I've said.

Also the Actual rules say "That said, a model’s attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using."

See the first half of that sentence telling you it's attacks can gain special rules. You keep focusing on the second half of that sentence. Use the whole thing. Please answer how a models attacks benefit from fearless or FnP. Because well, a weapon obviously only gives special rules to a models attacks.

They don't. I've said - repeatedly, to you - that things like that don't function as likely intended. So calling me out on it doesn't gain you anything.
I am using the whole sentence. Every time.

Please answer the question:

Let's start simple: You need permission to use a rule, correct?
(This assumes a permissive rule set - which 40k must be. If you disagree with this then we'll never come to an agreement and the rules literally don't work.)

Rigeld, I have to ask you which is more likely?

That none of the wargear in 40k works as intended?

or

That you may possibly be reading this rule wrong?

I think the second is more likely, but that's just my opinion.

Nice to know the entire codex boils down to the interaction between two weapon effects. With how passionate some are debating this issue, it must be a game changer, auto win, easy button.

Does this mean we'll be seeing Harlequins in every list now?

"Let's start simple: You need permission to use a rule, correct?
(This assumes a permissive rule set - which 40k must be. If you disagree with this then we'll never come to an agreement and the rules literally don't work.) "

Yes you need permission for a rule to work.

Nice to know the entire codex boils down to the interaction between two weapon effects. With how passionate some are debating this issue, it must be a game changer, auto win, easy button.

Does this mean we'll be seeing Harlequins in every list now?

The rule is not that critical. This is really a YMDC phenomenon. In an actual game the players (even people debating in this thread) would have long ago just rolled for it and kept playing.

 NightHowler wrote:

Rigeld, I have to ask you which is more likely?

That none of the wargear in 40k works as intended?

or

That you may possibly be reading this rule wrong?

I think the second is more likely, but that's just my opinion.

I think your statement that my reading renders all wargear in 40k inoperable is 100% incorrect and therefore any conclusion you can draw from that statement is incorrect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 megatrons2nd wrote:
"Let's start simple: You need permission to use a rule, correct?
(This assumes a permissive rule set - which 40k must be. If you disagree with this then we'll never come to an agreement and the rules literally don't work.) "

Yes you need permission for a rule to work.

Great!

I have permission to apply Special Rules on my Army List entry to my model. Correct?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NightHowler wrote:

Nice to know the entire codex boils down to the interaction between two weapon effects. With how passionate some are debating this issue, it must be a game changer, auto win, easy button.

Does this mean we'll be seeing Harlequins in every list now?

The rule is not that critical. This is really a YMDC phenomenon. In an actual game the players (even people debating in this thread) would have long ago just rolled for it and kept playing.

Sure, but I'd be working on a local house rule one way or the other... like I do for every contentious issue like this.

And I'd be arguing just as much that it doesn't "stack" as I am here. But here we have a system to break up arguments - the shop owner decides.

 NightHowler wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:
You can not know what special rules a model has without referencing the special rule in question.

So I must reference the Stealth special rule to know if my model has the Stealth special rule?

You are told whether or not the model has stealth usually in the unit entry, but you can also be told he has it by what special rules are on his wargear.

If his wargear tells us, "when equipping this wargear this model has stealth" then he only has stealth if he has that wargear equipped.

If his wargear tells us, "when striking blows with this wargear this model has stealth" then he only has stealth if he has struck blows with that wargear.

If his wargear tells us, "when joined to a unit of X this model has stealth" then he only has stealth if he is joined to a unit of X.

Each of these examples would be more specific than the rule in the BRB that tells us how a model gets a special rule and so would be given permission to break the BRBs restrictions on how a model gets a special rule.

Yet none of these examples references the Stealth special rule. Which according to your claim (You can not know what special rules a model has without referencing the special rule in question.) you must look at the Stealth special rule to see if a model has the Stealth special rule.

 Happyjew wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:
You can not know what special rules a model has without referencing the special rule in question.

So I must reference the Stealth special rule to know if my model has the Stealth special rule?

You are told whether or not the model has stealth usually in the unit entry, but you can also be told he has it by what special rules are on his wargear.

If his wargear tells us, "when equipping this wargear this model has stealth" then he only has stealth if he has that wargear equipped.

If his wargear tells us, "when striking blows with this wargear this model has stealth" then he only has stealth if he has struck blows with that wargear.

If his wargear tells us, "when joined to a unit of X this model has stealth" then he only has stealth if he is joined to a unit of X.

Each of these examples would be more specific than the rule in the BRB that tells us how a model gets a special rule and so would be given permission to break the BRBs restrictions on how a model gets a special rule.

Yet none of these examples references the Stealth special rule. Which according to your claim (You can not know what special rules a model has without referencing the special rule in question.) you must look at the Stealth special rule to see if a model has the Stealth special rule.

Sorry, the rule in question was the rule I thought we were talking about - the Harlequin's Kiss.

In general, we know if a model has a special rule either because we are told in the unit entry that it has it, or because we are told by it's wargear that it has it. Is this the answer you were looking for?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:

Rigeld, I have to ask you which is more likely?

That none of the wargear in 40k works as intended?

or

That you may possibly be reading this rule wrong?

I think the second is more likely, but that's just my opinion.

I think your statement that my reading renders all wargear in 40k inoperable is 100% incorrect and therefore any conclusion you can draw from that statement is incorrect.

Well, you're wrong. It's not 100% incorrect. It's only incorrect to the extent that some special rules on wargear are actually directly related to attacks.

So to be 100% correct (because I can see that's very important to you):

Rigeld, I have to ask you which is more likely?

That huge swathes of the wargear in 40k fails to work intended?

or

That you may possibly be reading this rule wrong?

Excpet, as proven, that IS NOT how you know what special rules you have

You know what special rules a weapon provides you, when you use that weapon. there is ZERO permission to know special rules outside of that permission

So, in order to know I have the Kiss of Death special rule, whcih is granted by a weapon, I MUST be using the weapon. I know this because it is not listed under my "special rules" in my data sheet, and that the rules for "What special rules do I have" only give two routes. Now, they do NOT say "only", but as they are the only 2 routs given, and the rules are permissive, these are in effect the de facto only routes, unless specifically told otherwise. Formations are an example of being told specifically otherwise

So, does HK tell me otherwise? No!

That means I ONLY have the special rule "Kiss of Death" when USING the weapon. WHen do I USE the weapon? When making attacks in close combat, usually.

Proven. Yes, this has some horrible effects past this, such as reducing some special rules - such as HCs provided hammer of wrath - to uselessness. However, that is utterly irrelevant for the sake of this argument.

 NightHowler wrote:
Sorry, the rule in question was the rule I thought we were talking about - the Harlequin's Kiss.

In general, we know if a model has a special rule either because we are told in the unit entry that it has it, or because we are told by it's wargear that it has it. Is this the answer you were looking for?

There is quite a large difference (that you seem not to have made) between wargear giving Special Rules, and Special Rules found in a Weapon profile.

If a Weapon has:
"Sword" S-5 AP-2 Melee, Shred, Instant Death, Special Rule 1, Special Rule Z

When does you model have the rules Shred and Instant Death? What about the "Special Rule 1 and Special Rule Z"? When does he follow those rules?

Now please find where "Kiss of Death" is written, and tell me why it would work any differently?

Given how bad GW is at writing internally consistent rules, I don't see why the idea that certain items of wargear don't actually work as intended is that crazy. We have numerous instances of things not working as likely intended given how they were written. See Shrike, etc, etc. "Huge Swathes" is a little dramatic. The majority of wargear items work fine under the rules.

 NightHowler wrote:
Well, you're wrong. It's not 100% incorrect. It's only incorrect to the extent that some special rules on wargear are actually directly related to attacks.

So to be 100% correct (because I can see that's very important to you):

Rigeld, I have to ask you which is more likely?

That huge swathes of the wargear in 40k fails to work intended?

or

That you may possibly be reading this rule wrong?

You keep saying my argument leads to rules on wargear not working.
That's false. I've explained that - multiple times. Please stop asserting that.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:
Sorry, the rule in question was the rule I thought we were talking about - the Harlequin's Kiss.

In general, we know if a model has a special rule either because we are told in the unit entry that it has it, or because we are told by it's wargear that it has it. Is this the answer you were looking for?

There is quite a large difference (that you seem not to have made) between wargear giving Special Rules, and Special Rules found in a Weapon profile.

If a Weapon has:
"Sword" S-5 AP-2 Melee, Shred, Instant Death, Special Rule 1, Special Rule Z

When does you model have the rules Shred and Instant Death? What about the "Special Rule 1 and Special Rule Z"? When does he follow those rules?

Now please find where "Kiss of Death" is written, and tell me why it would work any differently?

It would work differently because it is worded differently.

If you look at the wargear section and just read through the different weapons you start to see a trend - they are all pretty specific on when and how special rules are applied:

Armourbane:
If a model has this special rule, or is attacking with a melee weapon that has this special rule...

Blind:
Any unit hit byone or more models or weapons with this special rule...

Concussive:
A model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds from a weapon with this special rule...

Graviton:
The roll needed to wound when firing a weapon with this special rule...

Ignores Cover:
Cover saves cannot be taken against wounds caused by weapons with this special rule...

Instant Death:
If a model suffers an unsaved wound from an attack with this special rule...

It goes on and on. They all specify when the special rule for that wargear comes into play - when a model attacks with a weapon with this rule, suffers a wound from a weapon with this rule, etc., etc.

Now let's look at Harlequin's Kiss, because it is different:

Harlequin's Kiss:
When a model equipped with a harlequins kiss makes its close combat attacks, one of it its attacks will be a kiss of death attack...

It is describing a special attack bonus, like the rules above, but unlike the rules above, WHEN the special rule is triggered is different. It says, "When a model equipped... ...makes it's close combat attacks."

"When equipped" has more in common with some other weapons that I'm a little more familiar with.

Digital Weapons:
A model armed with digital weapons can re-roll a single failed roll to wound...

Storm Shield:
A model armed with a storm shield has a + invulnerable save...

Runic Weapon:
A model equipped with this weapon has the Adamantium Will special rule...

(note that this weapon does not say that it has to be used to get the rule, just equipped - thanks)

I think Digital Weapons are especially similar in the way that they are worded.

...yet you still ignore that you dont even get to read that phrase until you have the special rule.

And you demonstrably do NOT have that special rule until you use the weapon.

Until you address this flaw in your argument, you have no argument. Youre simply arguing intent.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
...yet you still ignore that you dont even get to read that phrase until you have the special rule.

And you demonstrably do NOT have that special rule until you use the weapon.

Until you address this flaw in your argument, you have no argument. Youre simply arguing intent.

This is false.

You get the rule when you equip the weapon as described in the rule for the wargear. The rule provided when the weapon is equipped is more specific than the rule you are basing your opinion on and therefore trumps it. You are told in the (more specific rule) that you do not need to use it to gain its benefit because it tells us it triggers "when equipped".

 NightHowler wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
...yet you still ignore that you dont even get to read that phrase until you have the special rule.

And you demonstrably do NOT have that special rule until you use the weapon.

Until you address this flaw in your argument, you have no argument. Youre simply arguing intent.

This is false.

You get the rule when you equip the weapon as described in the rule for the wargear. The rule provided when the weapon is equipped is more specific than the rule you are basing your opinion on and therefore trumps it. You are told in the (more specific rule) that you do not need to use it to gain its benefit because it tells us it triggers "when equipped".

We've shown a core rule that says a model's attacks gain benefit from a weapon special rule when that weapon is being used. There is NO core rule saying that a model's attacks gain benefit from a weapon special rule when that weapon is not being used.

You have yet to show permission to benefit from the Kiss of Death rule in the first place. We don't care how the Kiss of Death is worded if your attacks aren't benefiting from the rule.

This is the core of the issue.

You are using the way other weapon special rules are worded to infer permission to use Kiss of Death when the BRB hasn't said you can. We are saying that since...

A. This is a permissive rule set
B. We are not given permission to use a weapon special rule when the weapon is not being used
C. We are told specifically that we can't attack with one weapon and use a special rule from another weapon

...we aren't able to benefit from Kiss of Death if not using the Harlequin's Kiss.

So, the question remains... what gives you permission to use the Kiss of Death rule? You're missing this extremely key element. This is a permissive rule set. Not only do you have no permission to gain Kiss of Death when not using a Harlequin's Kiss, but you have an explicit restriction preventing you from gaining Kiss of Death when not using a Harlequin's Kiss.

Do you understand? You're told you can't use the rule... but you're using the rule to override being told you can't use the rule, which you can't do... because you can't use the rule. In other words, if the rule says "A happens if B and C are true" but the general core rules also require D to be true... A only happens if B, C and D are true.

A. Model makes a Kiss of Death attack.

B. Model is equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss
C. Model is attacking
D. Model is using a Harlequin's Kiss during the attack

Cite permission to ignore requirement D. You have yet to do so.

 Kriswall wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
...yet you still ignore that you dont even get to read that phrase until you have the special rule.

And you demonstrably do NOT have that special rule until you use the weapon.

Until you address this flaw in your argument, you have no argument. Youre simply arguing intent.

This is false.

You get the rule when you equip the weapon as described in the rule for the wargear. The rule provided when the weapon is equipped is more specific than the rule you are basing your opinion on and therefore trumps it. You are told in the (more specific rule) that you do not need to use it to gain its benefit because it tells us it triggers "when equipped".

We've shown a core rule that says a model's attacks gain benefit from a weapon special rule when that weapon is being used. There is NO core rule saying that a model's attacks gain benefit from a weapon special rule when that weapon is not being used.

You have yet to show permission to benefit from the Kiss of Death rule in the first place. We don't care how the Kiss of Death is worded if your attacks aren't benefiting from the rule.

This is the core of the issue.

You are using the way other weapon special rules are worded to infer permission to use Kiss of Death when the BRB hasn't said you can. We are saying that since...

A. This is a permissive rule set
B. We are not given permission to use a weapon special rule when the weapon is not being used
C. We are told specifically that we can't attack with one weapon and use a special rule from another weapon

...we aren't able to benefit from Kiss of Death if not using the Harlequin's Kiss.

So, the question remains... what gives you permission to use the Kiss of Death rule? You're missing this extremely key element. This is a permissive rule set. Not only do you have no permission to gain Kiss of Death when not using a Harlequin's Kiss, but you have an explicit restriction preventing you from gaining Kiss of Death when not using a Harlequin's Kiss.

Do you understand? You're told you can't use the rule... but you're using the rule to override being told you can't use the rule, which you can't do... because you can't use the rule. In other words, if the rule says "A happens if B and C are true" but the general core rules also require D to be true... A only happens if B, C and D are true.

A. Model makes a Kiss of Death attack.

B. Model is equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss
C. Model is attacking
D. Model is using a Harlequin's Kiss during the attack

Cite permission to ignore requirement D. You have yet to do so.

Permission to ignore requirement D is in the wording of the Harlequin's Kiss. It says that if the wargear is equipped you use it's special rule. That wording for the wargear is more specific than the rule from the BRB stating when you can benefit from a special rule and so it trumps it. I have said this before and it is how I address the issue you're saying I haven't addressed.

I agree that it is a permissive rule set. I disagree that a specific rule (Harlequin's Kiss) is not allowed to break a general rule (What Special Rules Do I Have). Because the Harlequin's Kiss is more specific and because it tells us to trigger the special rule when the weapon is equipped and when the model makes close combat attacks, it trumps the requirement that the model attack with the weapon.

Instead of saying I haven't addressed this issue, please say you disagree with (part X) of how I have addressed it.