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.

 Jackal wrote:
That's good, but both power fist and Lclaw state the benefits when using said weapon, not by "having" the weapon on the model.

And by ignoring the wording of colossal you have violated it.

And this is the part I don't understand. As you wrote, it is clearly spelled out in the rule, yet people choose to ignore it.

It's not an effect that is triggered when using the weapon, its an effect caused by owning the weapon to begin with.

Exactly! There is nothing ambiguous in that and no reason to go digging around BRB for something that doesn't work here. You have the weapon? Initiative 1, ok np?

Naw wrote:

 Jackal wrote:
That's good, but both power fist and Lclaw state the benefits when using said weapon, not by "having" the weapon on the model.

And by ignoring the wording of colossal you have violated it.

And this is the part I don't understand. As you wrote, it is clearly spelled out in the rule, yet people choose to ignore it.

It's not an effect that is triggered when using the weapon, its an effect caused by owning the weapon to begin with.

Exactly! There is nothing ambiguous in that and no reason to go digging around BRB for something that doesn't work here. You have the weapon? Initiative 1, ok np?

Except as has been mentioned, resolving the Colossal weapon ability when not using that weapon during the striking of blows is a very clear violation of the core rules in the BRB (you would be mixing and matching weapon abilities). You can't just ignore the core rules when they are inconvenient to your interpretation.

But that's what you're doing.

Why can't he ignore things, when you ignore the Colossal wording even though it says "always" which is an absolute? Also, why are you ignoring the fact that it isn't an ability triggered by using the weapon, but an ability conferred to the model when equipped with the weapon?

I'm also interested in a reply from you about my comment on the last page. It got lost at the end of the page. I just want to know what you would say.

Indeed, it's fun to get caught up in these rules debates but ultimately it's down to the people playing the game to resolve these unusual situations.

To alter my stance (again) and refer to another point that AncientSkarbrand touches on a minute ago, can this be resolved by using the "codex trumps rule book" idea? The BRB tells us not to mix weapon abilities in combat, but the codex has a rule that tells us to do so by saying that the model is effected and not just the weapon?

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
But that's what you're doing.

Why can't he ignore things, when you ignore the Colossal wording even though it says "always" which is an absolute? Also, why are you ignoring the fact that it isn't an ability triggered by using the weapon, but an ability conferred to the model when equipped with the weapon?

I'm also interested in a reply from you about my comment on the last page. It got lost at the end of the page. I just want to know what you would say.

How does one use a rule one cannot access? That is the question. Effectively speaking, if you are using another weapon, you are not accessing ANYTHING on that Colossal Weapon any more than Unwieldy, Shred, or Specialist.

I could be wrong, though, as we have seen numerous weapons that have wargear rules first and THEN a profile, and I am not familiar with this weapon specifically. But most Weapons provide a profile and then place rules like Gauss in the Type and after the profile, tying them to their use.

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
But that's what you're doing.

Why can't he ignore things, when you ignore the Colossal wording even though it says "always" which is an absolute? Also, why are you ignoring the fact that it isn't an ability triggered by using the weapon, but an ability conferred to the model when equipped with the weapon?

I'm also interested in a reply from you about my comment on the last page. It got lost at the end of the page. I just want to know what you would say.

Well, I'm ignoring the wording for Colossal as I'm restricted from mixing and matching in the Colossal weapon ability when not attacking with that weapon... per the instructions in the BRB. There is no conflict with the word always because, again, per the BRB, I'm not using that weapon ability when attacking. If I'm not using the ability, it doesn't really matter what it says. IF it said "may be used when attacking with another weapon", you'd be right. It doesn't, hence there is no conflict.

As to your other question (and I'm guessing which one you wanted me to respond to), is there a difference between using a weapon versus having that weapon in your wargear list? Absolutely. When using a weapon to strike blows, you ignore all weapon abilities from other weapons. In all other instances, all weapon abilities are "active" simply by having the weapon in your wargear list. Again, this is why you ignore Colossal when attacking with a weapon that doesn't have Colossal. You're explicitly restricted from mixing and matching that ability in.

Keep in mind that GW seems to be condensing everything into current USR's.
Since colossal is not an existing special rule as it stands at this point in time, why create another one when it's used, what, twice thus far?

Seems like they threw it on the weapon rather than creating yet another USR.




The thirster has the axe, that isn't up for debate.
The rules for the axe state that the model with this weapon is i1.

There is nothing in that wording that states you have to use it to activate colossal.
Ie: a model USING this weapon strikes at x2 strength but i1. Like the fist.

This simply states the model owning it strikes at i1, not just using it.


And for those not too sure:


Colossal: A model with this weapon piles in and fights at initiative step 1.


That is the exact wording.

Now, specific always trumps generic.
The generic is the brb stating about weapon use etc.
The specific is the colossal rule on this weapon.




In hind sight, I'm sure GW possibly forgot you could take rewards and never thought this was possible etc.
But that's just my guess on how this happened.

 Jackal wrote:
Keep in mind that GW seems to be condensing everything into current USR's.
Since colossal is not an existing special rule as it stands at this point in time, why create another one when it's used, what, twice thus far?

Seems like they threw it on the weapon rather than creating yet another USR.




The thirster has the axe, that isn't up for debate.
The rules for the axe state that the model with this weapon is i1.

There is nothing in that wording that states you have to use it to activate colossal.
Ie: a model USING this weapon strikes at x2 strength but i1. Like the fist.

This simply states the model owning it strikes at i1, not just using it.


And for those not too sure:


Colossal: A model with this weapon piles in and fights at initiative step 1.


That is the exact wording.

Now, specific always trumps generic.
The generic is the brb stating about weapon use etc.
The specific is the colossal rule on this weapon.




In hind sight, I'm sure GW possibly forgot you could take rewards and never thought this was possible etc.
But that's just my guess on how this happened.

The wording requiring you to use the weapon when fighting to "activate" Colossal is in the BRB under the More Than One Weapon section. This isn't an example of the BRB telling you to do one thing and Colossal telling you to do another, so there is no conflict. The BRB tells you to ignore Colossal. Colossal could tell you literally anything and it wouldn't matter because you're ignoring it.

The BRB tells you that a model strikes at the model's initiative. Colossal tells you that a model strikes at initiative 1. That's a conflict. Colossal wins.
The BRB tells you that you aren't allowed to use the Colossal weapon ability. Colossal tells you that a model strikes at initiative 1. That's not a conflict. Both rules are applied. BRB effectively wins because it tells you not to do whatever Colossal wants you to do.

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
IHateNids, are you saying that GW has released rules for models with weapons that have the Colossal special rule with different wording? Or are they forgeworld models, weapons, and wording?

If they have the same wording but are from forgeworld I would say they always drop the model to initiative 1 when piling in and attacking, because the wording in the rule for a thirster of insensate rage clearly states this.

If they have different wording I would say that they're irrelevant to the current discussion, but it's an interesting thing to know.

Yes.

I understand that it isnt really a large part in this debate, but the Thunderstrike Gauntlet in IK is also a colossal. it would make the Reaper Sword swing at I1 on the Gallant, but the IK version does seem to dictate only when it's used.

Food for thought is all... but I guess it's not new news the GW cant write a coheisive set of rules :p

 IHateNids wrote:

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
IHateNids, are you saying that GW has released rules for models with weapons that have the Colossal special rule with different wording? Or are they forgeworld models, weapons, and wording?

If they have the same wording but are from forgeworld I would say they always drop the model to initiative 1 when piling in and attacking, because the wording in the rule for a thirster of insensate rage clearly states this.

If they have different wording I would say that they're irrelevant to the current discussion, but it's an interesting thing to know.

Yes.

I understand that it isnt really a large part in this debate, but the Thunderstrike Gauntlet in IK is also a colossal. it would make the Reaper Sword swing at I1 on the Gallant, but the IK version does seem to dictate only when it's used.

Food for thought is all... but I guess it's not new news the GW cant write a coheisive set of rules :p

The annoying part about this is that they reprinted the rules for the D-thirster in the wulfen campaign book but they didn't change the colossal rule to reflect the difference in the IK book.

The question I was referring to was: why do you think they went to the effort of making these rules different, if they are not different in the way they have been explicitly worded to be different?

Also expressed as : why go to the trouble making rules that are made irrelevant and pointless by rules you made ages ago?

I think you're meant to follow the wording of the rule conferred to the model by having the weapon equipped. It is not dependant on using the weapon, therefore it is not included in rules that would be affected when using multiple weapons. The text of mixing and matching abilities doesn't apply, it's a rule that is always acting on the model whilst they have the weapon equipped. Ergo, you don't have to use it to have the effect. That's the point of alot of these rules that fall into this category. They are worded differently for a reason, and they are worded precisely to allow them to affect a model regardless of using the weapon or not.

In my blade of blood example on page 2 of this thread, the whole rule is completely pointless if my interpretation is incorrect.

This may be a bit pedantic, but would you really call Collossal an ability? It seems like the opposite to me

 jokerkd wrote:
This may be a bit pedantic, but would you really call Collossal an ability? It seems like the opposite to me

It possesses the ability to slow the bearer down in close combat.

even if he doesnt use the axe? where is it? it's a D melee weapon, which the nearest comparable weapons are the Knight reaper sword, or the Wraithknight ghostglaive. They are gargantuans. Pick up a sack of coal, and fight with it. that's hitting at initiative 1. Then pick up a sack of coal, put it on your back and fight with bare fists. You're still going to hit at initiative 1.

Droppping it on the floor isn't an option for me, it's the axe of khorne, a great honour to wield it. he knows it slows him down, and knew it the minute he selected the weapon (you didn't think you chose his weapons did you?) He doesnt care about your puny attacks, he laughs at your attempts to harm him , and then once you've tried and failed, he will split you in two.

Trazer985 wrote:
even if he doesnt use the axe? where is it? it's a D melee weapon, which the nearest comparable weapons are the Knight reaper sword, or the Wraithknight ghostglaive. They are gargantuans. Pick up a sack of coal, and fight with it. that's hitting at initiative 1. Then pick up a sack of coal, put it on your back and fight with bare fists. You're still going to hit at initiative 1.

Droppping it on the floor isn't an option for me, it's the axe of khorne, a great honour to wield it. he knows it slows him down, and knew it the minute he selected the weapon (you didn't think you chose his weapons did you?) He doesnt care about your puny attacks, he laughs at your attempts to harm him , and then once you've tried and failed, he will split you in two.

The rules are an abstraction. Per the rules, when fighting, you're either using a weapon or you're not allowed to use any of its abilities - positive or negative. There are no rules to represent strapping an unused weapon "on your back" and still suffering/benefiting from some or all of its abilities.

I appreciate what you're trying to do, but applying "real world logic" to the rules will fail almost every time specifically because the rules are an abstraction and aren't meant to accurately represent "the real world".

 Kriswall wrote:

Naw wrote:

 Jackal wrote:
That's good, but both power fist and Lclaw state the benefits when using said weapon, not by "having" the weapon on the model.

And by ignoring the wording of colossal you have violated it.

And this is the part I don't understand. As you wrote, it is clearly spelled out in the rule, yet people choose to ignore it.

It's not an effect that is triggered when using the weapon, its an effect caused by owning the weapon to begin with.

Exactly! There is nothing ambiguous in that and no reason to go digging around BRB for something that doesn't work here. You have the weapon? Initiative 1, ok np?

Except as has been mentioned, resolving the Colossal weapon ability when not using that weapon during the striking of blows is a very clear violation of the core rules in the BRB (you would be mixing and matching weapon abilities). You can't just ignore the core rules when they are inconvenient to your interpretation.

What? Certainly it's not in violation!

Let's have a look at the Initiative Steps. We are told that a model's Initiative determines when he attacks and that having the D weapon on the model means that the model is always at Initiative 1: Models make their attacks when their Initiative step is reached, .... There's no conflict. You act at Init 1 and don't get to act before that. You had a weapon that would have enabled you to attack at Initiative? Too bad, your other weapon overrode that permission.

More Than One Weapon: ...he must choose which one to attack with when he comes to strike blows...

When did he get to strike blows? At Initiative 1, for carrying a weapon that has a rule saying he must do so. Still no conflict.

It is clear that no matter what the D Thirster would always act at Initiative step 1. Now if you wanted to strike with another weapon at that point, you would be welcome to do so.

 Kriswall wrote:
...

I'm pretty sure everyone understands your standpoint where you ignore all effects of a weapon you're not using, but it specifically states "abilities" and abilities isn't a "game term" but rather normal grammar. Being slowed down (because of the weight of the weapon) can hardly be considered an ability. It's an effect at best.

If it said to ignore all special rules of the weapon, then I'd be with you.

This isn't clear cut in any way shape or form, but I think the wording of the skill and the logic of physics (which I know doesn't mean much in 40k) makes the RAI fairly clear. The weapon is big enough that just lugging it around slows you down.

 Purifier wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
...

I'm pretty sure everyone understands your standpoint where you ignore all effects of a weapon you're not using, but it specifically states "abilities" and abilities isn't a "game term" but rather normal grammar. Being slowed down (because of the weight of the weapon) can hardly be considered an ability. It's an effect at best.

If it said to ignore all special rules of the weapon, then I'd be with you.

This isn't clear cut in any way shape or form, but I think the wording of the skill and the logic of physics (which I know doesn't mean much in 40k) makes the RAI fairly clear. The weapon is big enough that just lugging it around slows you down.

I think this actually is the core issue here. Nobody agree what "abilities" means and nobody agrees what "comes to strike blows" means. I interpret "abilities" as any of the key words found in a weapon's profile. Abilities can be positive or negative. I don't think it's fair to say that one keyword is an ability because it has an outcome perceived as positive, while another is an "effect" because it has an outcome perceived as negative. That's an arbitrary difference that the rules don't make. You're allowing your beliefs to color what the rules actually say. Colossal is a weapon ability as surely as Unwieldy is. The rules make no distinction and no one has yet to provide a definition that allows Unwieldy to be a weapon ability while Colossal is something else.

I interpret "comes to strike blows" as participating in the fight sub-phase. At the very least, it would have to be everything in the fight sub-phase AFTER you select weapons to fight with. I don't have my rule book with me, so I can't quote the fight sub-phase flow, but I'm fairly certain you pick your weapons before you determine which initiative step to fight at. You'd have to. Which initiative step does a Chapter Master with Power Fist and Lightning Claw strike at? Well, that depends on which weapon he's chosen to use when it comes time to strike blows. Which initiative step does a D-thirster strike at? Well, that depends on which weapon he's chosen to use when it comes time to strike blows.

I really don't understand how this thread is still up and running. The rule is very straight forward. a D thirster is always I1 in CC due to having the colossal rule. I think someone is trolling.

This isn't D&D, you can't free action drop your weapon and fight with your fists. You cannot sheath your sword and take out your hammer as a swift action. You have your weapons, you fight with them. The D thirster is always holding his big, heavy axe. Always, he cannot drop it. You could buy an axe of khorne and a greater eatherblade and the bloodthirster would go pirate mode and hold on in his mouth, still holding all 3 weapons.

Yaaar, ye still be strikin' at initiative 1, for ye weapon be colossal! Now let this thread die, and stop tryin' to cheat da rules 'cause ye want a super thirster!

 gwarsh41 wrote:
I really don't understand how this thread is still up and running. The rule is very straight forward. a D thirster is always I1 in CC due to having the colossal rule. I think someone is trolling.

This isn't D&D, you can't free action drop your weapon and fight with your fists. You cannot sheath your sword and take out your hammer as a swift action. You have your weapons, you fight with them. The D thirster is always holding his big, heavy axe. Always, he cannot drop it. You could buy an axe of khorne and a greater eatherblade and the bloodthirster would go pirate mode and hold on in his mouth, still holding all 3 weapons.

Yaaar, ye still be strikin' at initiative 1, for ye weapon be colossal! Now let this thread die, and stop tryin' to cheat da rules 'cause ye want a super thirster!

And yet, we do have rules that deal with what happens when we have more than one melee weapon and choose weapon A over weapon B. Those rules tell us not to use any of the abilities of weapon B while striking blows with weapon A. The main debate is whether or not Colossal is a weapon ability. I contend that it is due to it being listed in the same place and in the same fashion as pretty much every other weapon ability. If Shred is a weapon ability, then Colossal should also be. It's listed in the same place and in the same fashion. If Colossal is a weapon ability, we ignore it when not using that weapon. If it's not a weapon ability, we'd resolve it's rules text at all times. BUT, if it's not a weapon ability, what is it and how, from a rules standpoint, is it different from something like Shred? Everyone who has tried to answer this last question gets into "real world logic". I have yet to see a compelling rules based reasoning that would begin to convince me that Colossal is not a weapon ability.

Also, the D-thirster doesn't have the Colossal special rule. One of his weapons does. Huge difference. If the D-thirster had the Colossal special rule, this entire thread would be unneeded. He'd be at initiative 1 at all times. When a model's weapons have special rules or abilities, there are times when the model doesn't resolve those effects... namely when striking blows with a different weapon.

 Kriswall wrote:

 gwarsh41 wrote:
I really don't understand how this thread is still up and running. The rule is very straight forward. a D thirster is always I1 in CC due to having the colossal rule. I think someone is trolling.

This isn't D&D, you can't free action drop your weapon and fight with your fists. You cannot sheath your sword and take out your hammer as a swift action. You have your weapons, you fight with them. The D thirster is always holding his big, heavy axe. Always, he cannot drop it. You could buy an axe of khorne and a greater eatherblade and the bloodthirster would go pirate mode and hold on in his mouth, still holding all 3 weapons.

Yaaar, ye still be strikin' at initiative 1, for ye weapon be colossal! Now let this thread die, and stop tryin' to cheat da rules 'cause ye want a super thirster!

And yet, we do have rules that deal with what happens when we have more than one melee weapon and choose weapon A over weapon B.

As has been repeatedly said, having the weapon makes you act (take your turn) at Initiative step 1. That is clearly said in the rules, you just keep ignoring it. What you do at that point is then up to you, but it is not your turn until then.

The rest of your message doesn't matter here at all, as I have shown.

Naw wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 gwarsh41 wrote:
I really don't understand how this thread is still up and running. The rule is very straight forward. a D thirster is always I1 in CC due to having the colossal rule. I think someone is trolling.

This isn't D&D, you can't free action drop your weapon and fight with your fists. You cannot sheath your sword and take out your hammer as a swift action. You have your weapons, you fight with them. The D thirster is always holding his big, heavy axe. Always, he cannot drop it. You could buy an axe of khorne and a greater eatherblade and the bloodthirster would go pirate mode and hold on in his mouth, still holding all 3 weapons.

Yaaar, ye still be strikin' at initiative 1, for ye weapon be colossal! Now let this thread die, and stop tryin' to cheat da rules 'cause ye want a super thirster!

And yet, we do have rules that deal with what happens when we have more than one melee weapon and choose weapon A over weapon B.

As has been repeatedly said, having the weapon makes you act (take your turn) at Initiative step 1. That is clearly said in the rules, you just keep ignoring it. What you do at that point is then up to you, but it is not your turn until then.

The rest of your message doesn't matter here at all, as I have shown.

As has been repeatedly said, attacking with one weapon means you don't use any weapon abilities from other weapons. That is clearly said in the rules, you just keep ignoring it. Etc, etc. Works both ways.

Your side of the argument has yet to demonstrate that the Colossal rule is allowed to be "mixed and matched" with the abilities of whichever other weapon is actually being used. When I use a Power Fist, I don't bother reading my Lightning Claw's Shred ability because I'm not allowed to mix and match it with the abilities of my Power Fist. Shred effectively isn't "active" during a fight unless I'm using the Lightning Claw. In LITERALLY EXACTLY THE SAME WAY, Colossal isn't "active" during a fight unless I'm using that weapon.

How about this: You cannot mix and match abilities that apply to the weapon if not using that weapon, but abilities that apply to the model will always apply? This way you still have to chose a weapon to gets its abilities (i.e. profile, rules that affect dice rolls while using the weapon, etc) but any other wargear-like abilities that specify "the model" can still happen as intended.

Would that satisfy everyone? (of course not this is the interwebs)

--

 Galef wrote:
How about this: You cannot mix and match abilities that apply to the weapon if not using that weapon, but abilities that apply to the model will always apply? This way you still have to chose a weapon to gets its abilities (i.e. profile, rules that affect dice rolls while using the weapon, etc) but any other wargear-like abilities that specify "the model" can still happen as intended.

Would that satisfy everyone? (of course not this is the interwebs)

--

Well... that's a reasonable house rule, but has no grounding in the actual written rules. Are you simply telling us how you would play it? If so, you should mark it as HIWPI. Again, the rules make no distinction between weapon abilities/rules that impact the actual attacks versus those that impact the model as a whole. Weapons have abilities. Period. If you're not using a weapon in melee combat, you can't use any of those abilities. Period. This is what the rules say. You can't just arbitrarily say some abilities can be mixed and matched while others can't because... reasons.

Kris's, this isn't a dig, but you can't use things like Pfist or Lclaw as examples.
Both state in their rules that the effects are when the weapon is used.

Completely different wording than the axe.


Also, you bring up the point of rules like shred etc.
These are widespread USR's.
Again, different from the axe.



By GW's wording this is something new for them in that it's an ability (a bad one) that isn't activated upon using the weapon its self.



If they wanted it to apply like normal, they would say that when using the axe you are i1 etc.
Like they have done time and time again for countless other weapons.


Can I ask what your take is on the wording please?
Just want to know what you make of it and why you think it has been worded differently to all other weapons.


As I said to begin with though, this isn't a dig, I just want to get more from your view point.

The rules differentiate in the exact way they need to within the rules text of the weapon. They say something like "always" or "the bearer" which tells you how the weapon effect is to be resolved while it is equipped.

You can claim abstraction making things insensible all you want, you cannot prove that I am somehow not equipped with the weapon just because I chose a different one. And the rules text in the weapon rules clearly tells you the effect happens while it's equipped, not while it's used. They are very explicit about the differences between the rules. I contend they are because there is a difference to be explicit about in the first place.

If you do not have to be using the weapon for the effect to happen, why are you confusing the situation with rules for using multiple weapons? Those rules are not relevant. It is an effect of having the weapon, not using it. So far, the weapon abilities you've chosen to reflect your position are all dependant on using the weapon. I'm not surprised by this, because you're correct about those weapon abilities. Where you're incorrect is forcing the weapon ability to have anything to do with using the weapon. IT DOES NOT.

Tell me why you think games workshop decided to differentiate these rules from the others, when under your interpretation there is no difference. I am feeling like a broken record, but please see the blade of blood example. The Bloodlust rule is entirely pointless under your interpretation.

We are not saying this arbitrarily. We are following the rules text in the relevant weapons, treating them as affecting the model simply for having it equipped. Equipped, not used.

You're injecting confusion and irrelevant rules into the discussion, and refusing to acknowledge that the rules are different, and that there is probably a reason they're different. I reiterate, your interpretation makes the differences pointless, which means it's probably incorrect. You don't have to use the weapon for the effect to take place. That is the whole point of them!

Look, my hang up is that one of the core rules of the game is that if you aren't using a weapon DURING combat (when a model comes to strike blows), you are explicitly restricted from using ANY of its weapon abilities (no mixing and matching).

I have yet to see anyone make an argument that would convince me to ignore that basic restriction.

I know this just irritates everyone, but I don't care what Colossal says if I have no basic permission to resolve its rules text. I don't see that basic permission existing. This is a permissive rule set. To be able to resolve Colossal, you need to demonstrate permission. Again, why does it matter how Colossal is worded when you have no basic permission to resolve it's text? If there is a specific conflict, what is it?

My take...
BRB effectively says "You can't use Colossal"
Colossal effectively says "When subject to Colossal (always) do X, Y and Z"

This is not a conflict. If you're not using Colossal, you're not subject to Colossal and the fact that you'd normally always do something is moot. Per RaW, the rule "shuts off" temporarily when attacking with a different weapon.

 Jackal wrote:
Kris's, this isn't a dig, but you can't use things like Pfist or Lclaw as examples.
Both state in their rules that the effects are when the weapon is used.

That hasn't been the point, though. This is not about picking and choosing rules to apply to another Weapon, this is is about being allowed to even recognize those rules exist when using another Weapon.

With Melee Weapons, we are told to check if there is another Weapon with the Melee Type. Same with Specialist Weapons. But that is largely it.

So, again, is this Colossal rule part of its Wargear rules, or its Weapon rules. If part of its Weapon rules, they cannot be used when another Weapon is chosen for use.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Jackal wrote:
Kris's, this isn't a dig, but you can't use things like Pfist or Lclaw as examples.
Both state in their rules that the effects are when the weapon is used.

That hasn't been the point, though. This is not about picking and choosing rules to apply to another Weapon, this is is about being allowed to even recognize those rules exist when using another Weapon.

With Melee Weapons, we are told to check if there is another Weapon with the Melee Type. Same with Specialist Weapons. But that is largely it.

So, again, is this Colossal rule part of its Wargear rules, or its Weapon rules. If part of its Weapon rules, they cannot be used when another Weapon is chosen for use.

It's part of the weapon's profile. It's listed in exactly the same place as something like Shred or Guass would be. Hence my contention that Colossal is a weapon ability just like Shred or Guass and should be treated as such... i.e. no mixing and matching.

Where in the colossal rule does it state its only applied when the weapon is being used though?

This is the part that conflicts with the brb.

It says nothing about when using the weapon.
So why would using another weapon matter?

It simply states that owning the axe drops you to i1.



For the rules to work as you suggest, it would have to go on to add when using the axe.
But it doesn't, it stops after stating a model with the axe drops to i1.