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.

The Eternal Blade- +D3 Initative +D3 WS +D3 Attacks +1 S

The Blade of Blood- Gives the Bearer Rampage

Rampage- Gains D3 attacks if outnumbered in combat

Would the Bearer of Both of these weapons be allowed to have D3+D3 Attacks? or not Due to the Rules on Pg. 51 of the rule book under More than one Weapon

The Real Question is does it become the bearers Ability or is it still the ability of the sword at that point

This is Going on a Khorne Daemon Prince or a Bloodthirster so almost always gets Rampage

You can only use one weapon at a time, unless the effect it gives is passive(like a Nemesis Greatsword)

So yes, the Blade of Blood would stack with the Eternal Blade.

You have Rampage all the time just by having the Blade of Blood. Then in melee you use the Eternal Blade.

Page 51 takes precedent. Eternal Blade is a weapon with the Types Melee, Gloryseeker, Specialist Weapon while Blade of Blood has the Types Melee, Bloodlust, Specialist Weapon, Unwieldy. You have to be using the weapon to gain the benefits of its weapon type.

Basically this is the same as having a Power Fist and a Lightning Claw. Your Power Fist attacks do not get Shred, and your Lightning Claw attacks do not have double Strength. Gloryseeker is what gives you +D3 to your I/WS/Attacks (and note you roll only once and use the result for all 3) and Bloodlust is what gives you Rampage. Gloryseeker/Bloodlust for their respective weapons get treated just like Shred does for the Lightning Claw.

EDIT: I could see a possible argument that Bloodlust is actually passive. Page 62 in Codex Chaos Daemons says the following about it: The bearer of the Blade of Blood has the Rampage special rule. So maybe just having the weapon gives you Rampage in this case.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You can only use one weapon at a time, unless the effect it gives is passive(like a Nemesis Greatsword)

So yes, the Blade of Blood would stack with the Eternal Blade.

You have Rampage all the time just by having the Blade of Blood. Then in melee you use the Eternal Blade.

So is this the case in every instance where the weapon says "The bearer of x may y"?

For instance, the Animus Vitae from the DE codex says, "If the bearer of the animus vitae kills one or more models in CC, he may take a leadership test. If passed, he immediately gains a pain token."

Even if you don't use the animus vitae, you're still the bearer, by definition.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

cowmonaut wrote:
Page 51 takes precedent. Eternal Blade is a weapon with the Types Melee, Gloryseeker, Specialist Weapon while Blade of Blood has the Types Melee, Bloodlust, Specialist Weapon, Unwieldy. You have to be using the weapon to gain the benefits of its weapon type.


Basically this is the same as having a Power Fist and a Lightning Claw. Your Power Fist attacks do not get Shred, and your Lightning Claw attacks do not have double Strength. Gloryseeker is what gives you +D3 to your I/WS/Attacks (and note you roll only once and use the result for all 3) and Bloodlust is what gives you Rampage. Gloryseeker/Bloodlust for their respective weapons get treated just like Shred does for the Lightning Claw.

It's not exactly the same. Weapon qualities listed in the profile are specifically cited to be effects of hitting someone with the weapon. Some other weapons say, "If a model HAS this weapon, he gets X", or if the "Bearer" of this weapon does something, Y happens.


EDIT: Formatting

Yes they stack, Yes the bearer of x gain y works were y is passive

Right, but Bloodlust is what gives the bearer Rampage, and Bloodlust is listed as one of the 'weapon types' for the weapon just like Unwieldy and Melee. Which is why I question if it only has an effect if you use it. The wording for Bloodlust seems to say just having it gives you Rampage though so I have no idea why GW listed Bloodlust as a Weapon Type.

Hmm ok i withdraw my confident answer


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Now im sure again had to look it up. Look att the difference in the wording for between bloodlust and decapitating blow on the same page. The reason they call it bloodlust is a form of declaring variables just like in programming. They declare X and the meaning of X is not dependent on usage of the weapon

Decapitating blow- any to wound rolls of 6 made with this weapon have the instant death special rule

So you would have to hit with the axe of khorne to get the instand death rule, but the blade of blood is very much in the grey area

The bearer of the blade gets bloodlust.

The wording on Tzeentch's Mutating Warpblade is similar however "if the bearer kills an enemy in close combat..." without specifying that the Blade itself has to be the weapon used however I was told that in order to gain that effect the blade itself had to cause the final wound (so it couldnt be paired with an ether blade for ap2). Would this also be interpreted as a passive ability granted by bearing the weapon rather than using the weapon.

 Melcavuk wrote:
The wording on Tzeentch's Mutating Warpblade is similar however "if the bearer kills an enemy in close combat..." without specifying that the Blade itself has to be the weapon used however I was told that in order to gain that effect the blade itself had to cause the final wound (so it couldnt be paired with an ether blade for ap2). Would this also be interpreted as a passive ability granted by bearing the weapon rather than using the weapon.

I think this is a debate that currently has no clear answer. I know of several weapons that use the term bearer, making it seem like a passive ability, but you get people coming down on both sides of the argument with no definitive answer. I'd love to see this cleared up.

The rules very clearly state that a model with more than one melee weapon "cannot mix and match the abilities of several different melee weapons"

This is true for all instances, regardless of wordings, any ability derived from a melee weapon cannot be used at the same time as an ability derived from a different melee weapon.

Nemesis Greatswords are an exception to this rule given specific special functionality in a FAQ applying only to them.

In all other instances, you cannot mix special rules on weapons, even if they just refer to the bearer doing/gaining x.

 Drunkspleen wrote:
The rules very clearly state that a model with more than one melee weapon "cannot mix and match the abilities of several different melee weapons"

This is true for all instances, regardless of wordings, any ability derived from a melee weapon cannot be used at the same time as an ability derived from a different melee weapon.

Nemesis Greatswords are an exception to this rule given specific special functionality in a FAQ applying only to them.

In all other instances, you cannot mix special rules on weapons, even if they just refer to the bearer doing/gaining x.

The issue with this, is that the FAQ on the nemesis greatswords was only a Q&A if I recall correctly, meaning a clarification of the wording already present. Clarifications set a precedent, so that when they (GW) use the same wording, it makes a strong argument for saying the effects are the same.

Q&A's aren't always just clarification, there are times when these have changed the rules as well.
They're not consistant with their wording sadly. Be nice if they simply set a standard for passive bonuses.

 grendel083 wrote:
Q&A's aren't always just clarification, there are times when these have changed the rules as well.
They're not consistant with their wording sadly. Be nice if they simply set a standard for passive bonuses.

While that may be true based on perspective(if you thought the rule meant something else), that is not the intent of the Q&A section of FAQs. It's specifically spelled out that this is for clarifying intent of the wording, rather than changing the wording of rules. This is why they have erratas separately. Q&A is for clarifying the intent of existing wording, and Erratas are for modifying existing wording to change the rule.

Either way, there is enough of an argument based on similar Q&As to call into question whether or not weapons that say you get an ability just by having them must be used in order for it to take effect. Several people have taken the position that there are passive abilities you get just by having an item, then there are active abilities you get by using it. If the situation with GW's wording and precedents was clear and concise, you wouldn't have such a divide.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
Q&A's aren't always just clarification, there are times when these have changed the rules as well.
They're not consistant with their wording sadly. Be nice if they simply set a standard for passive bonuses.

While that may be true based on perspective(if you thought the rule meant something else), that is not the intent of the Q&A section of FAQs. It's specifically spelled out that this is for clarifying intent of the wording, rather than changing the wording of rules. This is why they have erratas separately. Q&A is for clarifying the intent of existing wording, and Erratas are for modifying existing wording to change the rule.

Either way, there is enough of an argument based on similar Q&As to call into question whether or not weapons that say you get an ability just by having them must be used in order for it to take effect. Several people have taken the position that there are passive abilities you get just by having an item, then there are active abilities you get by using it. If the situation with GW's wording and precedents was clear and concise, you wouldn't have such a divide.

I know they're not meant to change rules only clarify, but in practise this sadly isn't the case. There are many cases where a Q&A has outright changed a rule. I think it would be more accurate to say they clarify intent, and change rules to match that intent.
But I agree, they really don't have a standard wording for bonuses (passive/wield) which leads to much confusion.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

The issue with this, is that the FAQ on the nemesis greatswords was only a Q&A if I recall correctly, meaning a clarification of the wording already present. Clarifications set a precedent, so that when they (GW) use the same wording, it makes a strong argument for saying the effects are the same.

See the Djin Blade in the DE FAQ...its another FAQ on a nearly similar situation that is opposite from what the Nemesis Greatsword ruling is.

Personally I agree with Drunkenspleen. The 6th edition rules are pretty clear that ANY special rules of a melee weapon cannot be utilized unless that weapon is used to attack.

I think the GK Nemesis Greatsword ruling is just one of those strange exceptions to this.

 yakface wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

The issue with this, is that the FAQ on the nemesis greatswords was only a Q&A if I recall correctly, meaning a clarification of the wording already present. Clarifications set a precedent, so that when they (GW) use the same wording, it makes a strong argument for saying the effects are the same.

See the Djin Blade in the DE FAQ...its another FAQ on a nearly similar situation that is opposite from what the Nemesis Greatsword ruling is.

Personally I agree with Drunkenspleen. The 6th edition rules are pretty clear that ANY special rules of a melee weapon cannot be utilized unless that weapon is used to attack.

I think the GK Nemesis Greatsword ruling is just one of those strange exceptions to this.

I agree with Drunkspleen and Yakface.

 yakface wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

The issue with this, is that the FAQ on the nemesis greatswords was only a Q&A if I recall correctly, meaning a clarification of the wording already present. Clarifications set a precedent, so that when they (GW) use the same wording, it makes a strong argument for saying the effects are the same.

See the Djin Blade in the DE FAQ...its another FAQ on a nearly similar situation that is opposite from what the Nemesis Greatsword ruling is.

Personally I agree with Drunkenspleen. The 6th edition rules are pretty clear that ANY special rules of a melee weapon cannot be utilized unless that weapon is used to attack.

I think the GK Nemesis Greatsword ruling is just one of those strange exceptions to this.

The other example is the Scorpion Chainsword, which was also FAQ'd to not stack with the Scorpion Claw. So given there's a rule that says you can't, with two FAQs supporting it, vs. a FAQ that says you can I'm inclined to believe the FAQ saying you can is an aberration. Especially given the Dreadknight FAQ doesn't actually make any mention of why the attacks are S10, it simply assumes they are. Which would easily confuse someone who wasn't entirely familiar with the codex in question, although it would be nice to be able to assume that the FAQ authors are intimately familiar with the material they are supposed to be answering questions about.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
While that may be true based on perspective(if you thought the rule meant something else), that is not the intent of the Q&A section of FAQs. It's specifically spelled out that this is for clarifying intent of the wording, rather than changing the wording of rules. This is why they have erratas separately. Q&A is for clarifying the intent of existing wording, and Erratas are for modifying existing wording to change the rule.

I would point you to the main rulebook FAQ regarding only being able to allocate wounds to a model if at least one firing weapon is within range.

There is no rules basis for it at all in the actual book, absolutely none, it's not a matter of perspective, it's a change to the rules that GW made via the Q and A part of the FAQ, rather than errata.

There's been many similar situations over the years, but one example is enough to demonstrate that just because it wasn't errata doesn't mean it's not fundamentally changing the rules.

I agree with you there's some merit to cross applying FAQ rulings as precedent, but with the caveat that, I would only do it where the RAW offers no clear resolution, for example, it's useful to refer to the Ork FAQs on the order of operations for buying upgrades, because there's no actual RAW to cover the systems involved in that.

In this instance, given the clarity of the RAW provided in the book, I think it should continue to be applied despite a FAQ potentially setting "precedent" to the contrary.