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.

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

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

 Kriswall wrote:

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

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

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

 Charistoph wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Naw wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

None of these happened, though.

Naw wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Greataxe of Khorne is not a Weapon?

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

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

 Charistoph wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It looks like all Tail Biomorphs can:

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

 Charistoph wrote:

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

The Greataxe of Khorne is not a Weapon?

Haha I meant no SECOND weapon.

Can he choose to punch with his fist?

 chaosmarauder wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

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

The Greataxe of Khorne is not a Weapon?

Haha I meant no SECOND weapon.

Can he choose to punch with his fist?

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

 chaosmarauder wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

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

The Greataxe of Khorne is not a Weapon?

Haha I meant no SECOND weapon.

Can he choose to punch with his fist?

Daemon players can buy a second weapon with daemonic rewards

 Kriswall wrote:

 chaosmarauder wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

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

The Greataxe of Khorne is not a Weapon?

Haha I meant no SECOND weapon.

Can he choose to punch with his fist?

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

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

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

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

chaosmarauder wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

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

The Greataxe of Khorne is not a Weapon?

Haha I meant no SECOND weapon.

Can he choose to punch with his fist?

Depends, how is the Smash Attack defined?

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

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

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

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

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

What's the rule here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's the rule here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It cannot overrule without specifically stating it overrules.

That's what you're ignoring every time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ignoring rules does create ambiguity, I agree.

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

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

Indeed, ignoring rules does creat dissension

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