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.

So if it affects the attacks, is it not possible that unless you are attacking with the weapon, you do not benefit?

For the record, I'm not arguing the verbage of the special rule. The problem is the pro-side is using the special rule to claim the ability to use the special rule (iow I can do "X" because "X" allows me to do "X"), where normally, you must be told you have the ability to use the special rule.

 Happyjew wrote:
So if it affects the attacks, is it not possible that unless you are attacking with the weapon, you do not benefit?

For the record, I'm not arguing the verbage of the special rule. The problem is the pro-side is using the special rule to claim the ability to use the special rule (iow I can do "X" because "X" allows me to do "X"), where normally, you must be told you have the ability to use the special rule.

I'm just going to go ahead and assume you have some actual rules to support the stance that rules can't give you permission to use themselves. Please would you kindly post your support for this or are you using the circular logic of the others?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
So if it affects the attacks, is it not possible that unless you are attacking with the weapon, you do not benefit?

For the record, I'm not arguing the verbage of the special rule. The problem is the pro-side is using the special rule to claim the ability to use the special rule (iow I can do "X" because "X" allows me to do "X"), where normally, you must be told you have the ability to use the special rule.

I'm just going to go ahead and assume you have some actual rules to support the stance that rules can't give you permission to use themselves. Please would you kindly post your support for this or are you using the circular logic of the others?

No, I don't. Just like you don't have some rules support that allow a rule to grant itself to a model that does not have said rule.

I can't make close combat attacks at all, because nowhere in the core rulebook does it say I can use the rules in the assault phase section of the core rulebook.

That is preposterous (obviously) but is tantamount to what is being said by some in this thread. The notion that a rule cannot give you permision within itself to be utilized is absolutely, and categorically wrong. These are ALL rules, they have meaning in and of themselves in the context of a tabletop wargame.

The rules themselves may be unclear at times, this instance is not actually one of them. The rule contains every piece of information required to utilize it on the table top, including prerequisites, and the specifics of how the rules affects the model in the fight sub phase. No other information is required. The notion that a basic rule can/should overrule this advanced rule by means of a false required permission to be allowed to read the rule in the first place is nonsense.

 Happyjew wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
So if it affects the attacks, is it not possible that unless you are attacking with the weapon, you do not benefit?

For the record, I'm not arguing the verbage of the special rule. The problem is the pro-side is using the special rule to claim the ability to use the special rule (iow I can do "X" because "X" allows me to do "X"), where normally, you must be told you have the ability to use the special rule.

I'm just going to go ahead and assume you have some actual rules to support the stance that rules can't give you permission to use themselves. Please would you kindly post your support for this or are you using the circular logic of the others?

No, I don't. Just like you don't have some rules support that allow a rule to grant itself to a model that does not have said rule.

I do the rule in question gives me permission, so you need something to deny that permission.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For instance the turn rules tell you how and when to play through the turns. Explaining the turn sequence. Do we need another rule telling us that we can use the turn sequence rules?

Fling, would you agree that if a model does not have a rule, he cannot use said rule?

HappyJew, Do you agree that wargear provides a model with special rules?

Remember, weapons are wargear.

Also remember, that the second sentence of the what special rules do I have applies to attacks, but in no way supersedes the first sentence. As in, there is no "only" in it. Meaning, as wargear a weapon may still provide a special rule.

Further, that second sentence, in a permissive rule set, is the ONLY way a special rule is allowed to affect an attack, without reading a special rule to give you permission to use it. Meaning, only weapon special rules may ever affect an attack, using the "you need permission to read a special rule to use it" defense.

 Happyjew wrote:
Fling, would you agree that if a model does not have a rule, he cannot use said rule?

Not necessarily. For instance a model in a unit with another model that has stealth gains a benefit from stealth whilst never having that rule.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Fling, would you agree that if a model does not have a rule, he cannot use said rule?

Not necessarily. For instance a model in a unit with another model that has stealth gains a benefit from stealth whilst never having that rule.

Benefiting is not the same as using. Try again.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Fling, would you agree that if a model does not have a rule, he cannot use said rule?

Not necessarily. For instance a model in a unit with another model that has stealth gains a benefit from stealth whilst never having that rule.

Benefiting is not the same as using. Try again.

What a bizarre distinction to make. Cool so the model is not using the stealth rule? Awesome the Harlequin isn't using the Kiss of Death rule merely benefitting from it. Got ANY rules to actually support your position yet or continuing with using the circular logic to try to hand wave your way through it?

 FlingitNow wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Fling, would you agree that if a model does not have a rule, he cannot use said rule?

Not necessarily. For instance a model in a unit with another model that has stealth gains a benefit from stealth whilst never having that rule.

Benefiting is not the same as using. Try again.

What a bizarre distinction to make. Cool so the model is not using the stealth rule? Awesome the Harlequin isn't using the Kiss of Death rule merely benefitting from it. Got ANY rules to actually support your position yet or continuing with using the circular logic to try to hand wave your way through it?

It's bizarre to get you to be precise in language, when we're discussing rules in that language?

Whatever. Can you answer the actual question posed, as asked, or do you refuse to?

There wasn't a question posed you made a comment that using a rule and benefitting are different. Please point the rules that define this difference. Because I absolutely believe the model having his cover save improved by stealth is making use of the stealth rule.

Apart from the question by happy you mean? Unambiguous answer needed, yes or no.

Benefit and use are two different words with two different meanings. I don't have to prove they are different, the English language does that. If you are claiming equivalency in 40k, you are required to prove it. Or does this logic also escape you, same S using a rule you do not have, and claiming that you can do so because the rule says so. The same rule you don't even have permission to read, never made invoke.

Apart from the question by happy you mean? Unambiguous answer needed, yes or no.

Cool then I point you to this post:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Fling, would you agree that if a model does not have a rule, he cannot use said rule?

Not necessarily. For instance a model in a unit with another model that has stealth gains a benefit from stealth whilst never having that rule.

 Happyjew wrote:
So if it affects the attacks, is it not possible that unless you are attacking with the weapon, you do not benefit?

For the record, I'm not arguing the verbage of the special rule. The problem is the pro-side is using the special rule to claim the ability to use the special rule (iow I can do "X" because "X" allows me to do "X"), where normally, you must be told you have the ability to use the special rule.

This isn't correct. Weapon rules tell you to use them. They provide a condition for when the rule takes effect. For example, Shred takes effect when a model with the rule attack, or when an attack is made with a weapon with the rule. None of them I looked at have an additional rule telling you to use one of there other rules which is what you seem to be requesting, its all contained in the single special rule. Please let me know if you are able to locate a weapon with rules that work in the manner you have described.

In the case of the harlequin's kiss the condition for the rule is when a model equipped with the a Kiss makes its close combat attack.

Each weapon has its own rule that should be followed. You don't get to ignore them because they don't work how you think they should. They work how they are described. In this case the "pro-side" is supporting RAW and RAI because we are insisting that you follow the instructions provided, while the anti-side invents debates like this one.

So is the jist of one side that there is a rule you can't use ? If yes what would you do if your opponent insisted he can ?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
So is the jist of one side that there is a rule you can't use ? If yes what would you do if your opponent insisted he can ?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/633275.page#7548376

 FlingitNow wrote:

Apart from the question by happy you mean? Unambiguous answer needed, yes or no.

Cool then I point you to this post:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Fling, would you agree that if a model does not have a rule, he cannot use said rule?

Not necessarily. For instance a model in a unit with another model that has stealth gains a benefit from stealth whilst never having that rule.

I see you still struggle with answering unambiguously. Try again. Yes or no, given that benefit and use are different words, your answer does not answer the question asked, but a different one. I'm sure you can do so, given how confident you are in your stance.

I think there are very simple examples to prove your point here.

Here's one:

Eldrad Ulthran has a staff eeaaeeaaoo ...


Anyway, the staff of ulthamar has four special rules: Melee, Spiritlink, Fleshbane and Force.

Spiritlink: Whenever Eldrad passes a Psychic test, roll a
D6 . On a score of 5 or 6 , Eldrad immediately regains a
Warp Charge point.

This does not require Eldrad to strike anyone with the staff.

In other words, any special rule on a weapon is like a special rule on any other piece of gear, and the mistaken assumption that one needs to hit with that weapon comes from the general wording of most of the special rules on most weapons, which do specify that you need to use the weapon for that, as well as the fact that S and AP values are only used for the one weapon that is used in CC.

A bit of understandable confusion, but there's a myriad of examples predating the Harlequins.

Yriels Spear (cursed) for example - if you don't apply the rules - then he is not cursed for the turn he uses his eye blast attack?

What about the SW dreads blizzard shield - does he only get the 3++ in close combat as the blizzard shield is a weapon (it has a profile) which includes the rule - SHIELD - conferring said 3++ to the front armour.

If you can't apply the rules from a weapon outside of combat, many weapons stop working by the clear intent they have

morgoth wrote:I think there are very simple examples to prove your point here.

Here's one:

Eldrad Ulthran has a staff eeaaeeaaoo ...


Anyway, the staff of ulthamar has four special rules: Melee, Spiritlink, Fleshbane and Force.

Spiritlink: Whenever Eldrad passes a Psychic test, roll a
D6 . On a score of 5 or 6 , Eldrad immediately regains a
Warp Charge point.

This does not require Eldrad to strike anyone with the staff.

In other words, any special rule on a weapon is like a special rule on any other piece of gear, and the mistaken assumption that one needs to hit with that weapon comes from the general wording of most of the special rules on most weapons, which do specify that you need to use the weapon for that, as well as the fact that S and AP values are only used for the one weapon that is used in CC.

A bit of understandable confusion, but there's a myriad of examples predating the Harlequins.

morgoth wrote:I think there are very simple examples to prove your point here.

Here's one:

Eldrad Ulthran has a staff eeaaeeaaoo ...


Anyway, the staff of ulthamar has four special rules: Melee, Spiritlink, Fleshbane and Force.

Spiritlink: Whenever Eldrad passes a Psychic test, roll a
D6 . On a score of 5 or 6 , Eldrad immediately regains a
Warp Charge point.

This does not require Eldrad to strike anyone with the staff.

In other words, any special rule on a weapon is like a special rule on any other piece of gear, and the mistaken assumption that one needs to hit with that weapon comes from the general wording of most of the special rules on most weapons, which do specify that you need to use the weapon for that, as well as the fact that S and AP values are only used for the one weapon that is used in CC.

A bit of understandable confusion, but there's a myriad of examples predating the Harlequins.

Massaen wrote:Yriels Spear (cursed) for example - if you don't apply the rules - then he is not cursed for the turn he uses his eye blast attack?

What about the SW dreads blizzard shield - does he only get the 3++ in close combat as the blizzard shield is a weapon (it has a profile) which includes the rule - SHIELD - conferring said 3++ to the front armour.

If you can't apply the rules from a weapon outside of combat, many weapons stop working by the clear intent they have

Already tried these examples, plus the Shard of Anaris granting Fearless. The Nay sayers point to the end of the second sentence, and somehow claim it is the "only" way a weapon can give something a special rule, when it clearly does not say that. I have also repeatedly pointed out that it says attacks, and it is also the only place in the book, outside of the special rule itself, that allows a models attacks to gain a special rule, even though we all know that a special rule on a model affects its attacks, yet somehow we can read a special rule to give itself permission to give the model the special rule to use on its attacks, but can't do it the other way.

Siting the fact that all weapons are wargear, also doesn't dissuade them in the fallacious belief that sentence 2 is the only way a model can gain a special rule from a weapon, even though we have repeatedly pointed out that the use the same wording as other wargear on some special rules attached to weapons, and that the interpretation they are using is the only reason these special rules don't function correctly.

It is the only way to gain the rule, unless you can find another way to gain it. That's how a permissive ruleset works. If you don't have the special rule, you don't get to reference it to prove you have the special rule...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It is the only way to gain the rule, unless you can find another way to gain it. That's how a permissive ruleset works. If you don't have the special rule, you don't get to reference it to prove you have the special rule...

That is wrong. Blatantly and obviously wrong. All you need in a permissive rule set to be allowed to use a rule, is for the rule to say you can. Nowhere, and that is a big point so I'll capitalize it NOWHERE does the rulebook say when you are allowed to read a rule that has been written. The weapon in question states plainly and clearly 1) what you need in order to use it 2) when to use it 3) and how it affects the model.

As has been stated, if you need express permission to read a rule before being allowed to utilize it, then no one would be allowed to play this game. due to having to read the rules in order to reference them and we don't have permission to do so with verbal personal consent from the design team.
Unless you are willing to make that obviously nonsensical jump, then you cannot in good faith tell me when I may or may not read a relevant rule on a model in my army. Note I said read, not activate. For those who would say "then I have shred on my boltguns because the squad leader has a lightning claw and you said I can use the rule whenever I want"

Tl,dr the rule itself may be read whenever I please, you cannot tell me I can't, and the rule tells me how it works. Reading comprehension and the core rulebook tell me I get to use it. How are you going to stop me from doing so?

Edit: for spelling

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It is the only way to gain the rule, unless you can find another way to gain it. That's how a permissive ruleset works. If you don't have the special rule, you don't get to reference it to prove you have the special rule...

I did prove it, ALL weapons are wargear, thus if my wargear has a rule I have said rule, just like sentence one says "from the army list entry" that allows wargear to provide a rule.

Some of the rules are then written to require you to attack with the weapon, and KoD is not one of these. Neither is Fear, Cursed, or Whatever it was that Eldrads staff had.

Now find permission for a models attacks to have a special rule, without referencing the special rule. There is only one permission, that is not in a special rule, and that is from weapons. Remember permissive rule set, Your "attacks" do not have the special rule only the model.

"That said, a model's attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using." Where is the permission to use non weapon special rules for attacks?

The more specific weapon rule kicks in and states when you actually have the rule. Try again.

Hey, if you're only arguing with those two rocks, you can also stop arguing, it's not like they're going to suddenly read, try to understand and get it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The more specific weapon rule kicks in and states when you actually have the rule. Try again.

What? The More specific KoD rule that says when a model equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss? Can't get much more specific can it?

Or are you referring to the second sentence? The one that is the only permission to apply a special rules to attacks.

Maybe, you are trying to say wargear that is not a weapon can't use special rules when they attack, so anything that gives you rending, shred, or anything that affects attacks don't work when attacking because it is not on a weapon.

"That said, a model's attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using." Yep, no permission to use wargear special rules when attacking, only weapons. But then, there is no permission to use a model's special rules on an attack either.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The more specific weapon rule kicks in and states when you actually have the rule. Try again.

The kiss of death rule has been repeated verbatim multiple times. It does not in any way hinge on the weapon being the one you are attacking with, only that the character has it equipped. I actually have the rule all the time, that is how this SPECIFIC and ADVANCED rule from a CODEX is worded. You are arguing that a basic rule from the brb is stopping it from being used. If my rule is able to be categorized in three separate ways that would, by the raw of this ruleset, allow it to take precedence, how can you possibly state it does not take effect?

The raw is simple, because the RULE is written the way that it is meant to be used. Rules as written tells me exactly how to utilize the kiss of death special rule. It is a RULE and you would use the RULE itself to determine how the RULE is used in game. I have the kiss of death rule on one of my melee attacks because I have a weapon with the kiss of death rule equipped. It specifically allows the weapon to affect a single attack the character makes whether or not the weapon in question is being used. So , for example, if I use Cegorachs rose, I can either, make all the attacks with the kiss, reroll one missed hit and all failed wounds, or attack with the caress and reroll the single attack from the kiss of death and the failed to wound roll from said attack because those rules only affect attacks from that weapon. No attack may use rules from multiple weapons, so my caress attacks cannot benefit from the shred and master craft, and the kiss of death attack doesn't automatically wound at ap2 if I roll a 6 to hit.

How anyone could argue this hard against a case of obvious RAW and RAI this stubbornly is beyond me. These are all written rules, they state plainly how to use them, there is only one rule in the game that may attempt to interfere with how they occur, but we are (again) told plainly how these rules interact (specific advanced codex rule trumps general brb rule) yet somehow we have a 20 page debate about it.

How is it really this hard to comprehend?

It isn't. Possibly that tells you your error.

The proof has been given more thaN Once this thread.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It isn't. Possibly that tells you your error.

The proof has been given more thaN Once this thread.

You have repeated ad nauseum a basic rule. One that is overruled by an advanced rule, that you do not want to work the way it obviously does. Then attempted to create a fictitious rule that determines when we are allowed to reference other rules.

The only way for the kiss of death rule not to work the way I and others have said, would be if the rule you have made up were in the brb( the one where I am unable to use a rule the design team added to the game to validate its own ability to be used how they wrote it)

That argument has no merit, and the reason you keep insisting that it does is beyond the comprehension of most people, myself included. If I cannot use a rules own wording to verify how to utilize said rule, how do I play a game where all the rules do the same? Where in the rule book does it say I cannot do so?

In closing, you have repeatedly attempted to overrule an advanced rule with a basic one, have been proven to be unable to do so, and are using your own argument as proof of its own merit. That is not a debate, that is nonsense.