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.

Three is no overrule. That requires a conflict. There is none. The fact you keep on missing that basic point is telling.

I am told I cannot combine the special rules from multiple weapons in the BRB. I am told under the kiss of death rule that if I have the Harlequin's kiss weapon equipped when I make melee attacks, then one of them is a kiss of death attack. The kiss of death attack replaces one of my attacks, period. A similar instance occurs with tyranid tail biomorphs. They are a separate attack, that has its own profile, that cannot be modified by the model wielding it, that automatically happen due to a piece of wargear the model has. The only difference is the kiss of death replaces an attack, the tail biomorph adds an additional attack.

The raw is simple, my model is equipped with a Harlequin's kiss, they have a kiss of death attack whenever they make melee attacks. You cannot say they don't, because I have a rule, written by the design team, published in a verified and copywrited work, that plainly spells out that I do. You are telling me that is not the case. How can your thought on the written rules be more viable than what is written in plain black and white in front of my face?

You don't have that weapon special rule you til told you do. When are you told you have that special rule? If that's too tricky to answer correctly, then:

Again, try the analogy. There is a note the other side of the door giving you a cookie by reading the note. You're told you can open the door when making your attacks. When can you get your cookie?
Edit: actually don't bother. The simple rules have been given, and have been ignored, over and over. It's tiresome to be insulted despite remaining civil. It's the sign of a poor argument.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I am told I cannot combine the special rules from multiple weapons in the BRB. I am told under the kiss of death rule that if I have the Harlequin's kiss weapon equipped when I make melee attacks, then one of them is a kiss of death attack. The kiss of death attack replaces one of my attacks, period. A similar instance occurs with tyranid tail biomorphs. They are a separate attack, that has its own profile, that cannot be modified by the model wielding it, that automatically happen due to a piece of wargear the model has. The only difference is the kiss of death replaces an attack, the tail biomorph adds an additional attack.

The raw is simple, my model is equipped with a Harlequin's kiss, they have a kiss of death attack whenever they make melee attacks. You cannot say they don't, because I have a rule, written by the design team, published in a verified and copywrited work, that plainly spells out that I do. You are telling me that is not the case. How can your thought on the written rules be more viable than what is written in plain black and white in front of my face?

actually even more importantly we are not told we cannot combine the special rules from multiple weapons. We are told we have to choose to strike with one weapon, and cannot get the benefits of striking with another weapon. A anecdotal statement attached to the rule is the only thing the "you cannot do this camp" keeps stating which is a cherry picked partial snipping from one sentence.

If a model has more than one Melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with when he comes to strike blows – he cannot mix and match the abilities of several different Melee weapons.

for some reason the camp that believes this statement means you only benefit from weapons when they are striking has myopic reading and only sees the anecdotal statement:

-cannot mix and match the abilities of several different Melee weapons

and forgets the first part which is the actual rule:

If a model has more than one Melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with when he comes to strike blows

if you have a harlequins kiss and a caress you must pick one when it comes time to strike blows.

You pick the caress, you may now benefit from its abilities that require you to strike with it. You may not benefit from the abilities of other weapons that require you to strike with them. As per the rules for Kiss of Death, you may also benefit from those as you are not required to strike with the weapon to benefit from it, and there is no requirement to choose the harlequins kiss to benefit from its rule.

There is no actual rule that says you may not gain any rules from other weapons, this is entirely made up and based on a cherry picked partial reading of the anecdote of a rule, not the actual rule itself. There is a rule that requires you to pick a weapon to strike with- which prevents you from gaining the benefits of striking with another weapon. Misreading of this rule so that someone only reads the anecdotal last part is the only way to claim there is such a rule, however that is misreading the rule and taking the anecdotal statement as the rule, and not the rule itself as the rule. Just as there is no rule stating that the rules on your weapon -only- exist when striking with them.

a model equipped with a harlequins kiss has 'kiss of death' at all times. it only gets used when the model strikes in assault with any attack.

Just as a model with Feel No Pain has the rule at all times, but it is only used when the model is allowed to make a Feel No Pain not save.

I get to open the door, because I have a 200 page rule book that tells me I can look at the other side of the door whenever I please. The Harlequin's kiss has a rule, I need to read the rule to understand what the weapon does, because it is part of a larger game.

I open the door because I am told to as part of the game. Nice try though.

Edit: what I have said was never directed at you as a person, I have been directing all of my annoyance at the basis of your argument. I lurked here for some time before joining, and have nothing but the utmost respect for you as a person. My apologies if my statements came off as a personal attack.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You don't have that weapon special rule you til told you do. When are you told you have that special rule? If that's too tricky to answer correctly, then:

You are told you have that special rule the moment you make the model's close combat attacks, per the rule "Kiss of Death".

I guess English isn't your first language or something because you can't seem to grasp basic reading comprehension. 21 pages now, dude. 21 pages. Seems the board has more or less reached a consensus. Disagree with it! That's fine! At this point just say "Well I disagree agree with this because X is how I view things."

You're inability to agree to disagree is blowing my mind.

"Your". Seriously, insulting someone's ability to read English, while making a common error... Amusing

There is no consensus. If you'll notice, just a lack of the side pointing out the simple rules bring bothered any longer.

So you don't have the rule unless you use the weapon, but you have the rule anyway? Nope, that's not how the rules read

To summarise: you're told you gain weapon special rules when you attack with the weapon. Prior to this point, you have no permission to invoke the special rule, because you don't yet have it.

This has been proven. No further argument will be raised, as requiring one side to provide initial permission has been fruitless over 21 pages.

Definitely hasn't reached a consensus. I just got tired of pointing out that rule wording doesn't matter when we have no permission for a model or its attacks to gain the rule in the first place.

We do have the rule. The first sentence gives permission because of the army list entry, that includes wargear. Then you are given permission to use a weapons special ability for attacks. There is no only when using a weapon do you get it's special rules.

Literally the first sentence in "What rules do I have" gives us permission. The second sentence literally gives us permission to use weapon special rules for attacking.

I have also pointed out, repeatedly, how the rule is written, and it is permission to use special rules on attacks, not a weapons only get special rules because they are attacking.

That is the point of contention for me. You are claiming:
The rules say you only get weapon special rules when you use a weapon.

The rules say you get special rules from your army list entry, which includes wargear, which includes weapons. They then continue to say that attacks can get special rules from weapons.

So either, you are misunderstanding the rules, or literally every piece of wargear in the game doesn't function.

^exactly

Maybe if a poll was started we would know what's the consensus.

I hate to put my hat in this ring - it's been 21 pages of people stating and re-stating the same points, with only minor variations, but I will try to give it my go. One day, perhaps, there will be a free online "general rules", and on that day they can start making in-depth comprehensive rules. Until then, here's the way it seems to me.

Important Rule #1: Equipping the model with wargear.

Weapons are a part of wargear. A model is equipped with all wargear that it has purchased. This includes weapons, even if that number of weapons is greater than what it can actually use.

A model *must* be equipped with all of its wargear at all times, as there is nowhere in the rules that permits you a specific time to equip wargear.

(Example #1: A Harlequin Troupe Master has a Flip Belt wargear for a 5+ Invulnerable save. This particular Troupe Master also has the Starmist Rainment for a 3+ Invulnerable save if it had run during its previous turn. It is constantly equipped with both. There is no time that it chooses a piece of wargear to equip. If it is shot at, it simply gets the better of the two saves from the two pieces of wargear.)

(Example #2 :An Eldar Wraithknight can purchase and "equip" 2 Suncannons, and 2 Scatter Lasers. When it comes time to fire weapons, even though it it equipped with 4 weapons, it must choose which combination of the 2 to shoot with.)

Important Rule #2: Choosing weapons to strike with.

Same as for when having multiple shooting weapons equipped, you must choose which of the weapons you strike with in close combat. The only difference here is that some unit types can shoot multiple weapons, while all unit types can only strike in close combat with a single weapon. However, regardless of which weapon you choose to strike with, you are still "equipped" with both.

This is an important, and necessary, part of the basic rules. It would be impossible for a model to claim the +1 attack for two-weapon bonus without it! A model must "have" (aka; be "equipped") with two weapons in order to gain +1 attacks in close combat. I do not have the rulebook in front of me, but I believe if you look up "two-handed weapons", it provides a specific rule where it states that a model striking with a two-handed weapon (not equipped with) does not get to claim this bonus.


As such, the "equipped with" portion of the Harlequin Kiss would seem to imply that its rules must be followed, regardless of whether you strike with it or not. The implied rule (though this is really where I think the rules break down), is that this is a separate weapon attack, where this weapon's rules and not the other's, are followed. Again, this implied rule is RAI, not RAW. The RAI is that if you have Cegorach's Rose, only this Kiss of Death attack has the Master Crafted and Shred special rule, while the rest are with the Caress. The RAW is that you make one attack at S6 AP2, the rest at S3 (4 if charging) with no AP, and you must choose whether all your attacks will have Master Crafted and Shred, or to-hit rolls of 6 causing auto-wounds at AP2 (including the Kiss of Death attack).

If a model only was "equipped" with the weapon it "strikes with", then +1 attack for being "equipped" with two weapons would be impossible. Subsequently, if you state that a model simply must "have" two weapons to gain the bonus, but "equips" at the last moment, then a model with a two handed weapon and a close combat weapon could "equip" the close combat weapon and still gain +1 attack for "having" two weapons, since the rules for "two-handed weapon" would then be ignored.


Equipped =/= Strikes with. It definitely gets the Kiss of Death rule, even if striking with the other weapon. Like I said, though, the RAI seems to be that the Kiss of Death attack shouldn't benefit from the Caress's abilities, but the RAW seems to state as such.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"Your". Seriously, insulting someone's ability to read English, while making a common error... Amusing

No, I meant your. "You're" means you are, which would make literally no sense with what I said. I meant the possessive "your", as in "your first language", which is something you would be in possession of.

So I am going to continue assuming it's not your first language? It's okay if it is. It'd explain a lot.

There is no consensus. If you'll notice, just a lack of the side pointing out the simple rules bring bothered any longer.

I'd say we've reached a consensus seeing as the only people arguing the other side at this point have repeatedly lost their argument.

So you don't have the rule unless you use the weapon, but you have the rule anyway? Nope, that's not how the rules read

What? We've come up with several scenarios where you have rules in place while not actively attacking with a weapon. It is how the rules read. Saying "It's not how the rules read" doesn't make that a fact, because it is clearly how the rules read.

To summarise: you're told you gain weapon special rules when you attack with the weapon. Prior to this point, you have no permission to invoke the special rule, because you don't yet have it.

Uh, no? You're making that up.

To quote, verbatim, the MORE THAN ONE WEAPON rule:
"he cannot mix and match the abilities of several different weapons."

This does not say you do not have special rules because you haven't struck with the weapon yet.

To quote verbatim the second paragraph of "Special Rules" on page 156:

"When a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule."

The Kiss of Death is a special rule, that bends one of the main game rules and therefore supersedes the "More Than One Weapon" rule. What about that is so hard to understand?

This has been proven.

If by proven, you mean you're the guy who goes out in the frigid cold in the East Coast of the United States and sees snow, therefore Global Warming is not a thing, despite the massive massive massive amount of scientific evidence that the oceans are in fact warmer year and year and the increasing temperature of the oceans is actually why the frigid cold on the coasts is happening.

No further argument will be raised, as requiring one side to provide initial permission has been fruitless over 21 pages.

You're again wrong. Just because you haven't been paying attention because you believe you're right doesn't somehow make other people's arguments proving you wrong invalid.

There is no consensus.

Having the proponents of one side of a debate yell louder and longer and then claiming victory when the other side goes silent doesn't create a consensus. It just shows a form of "debate bullying".

There will be no consensus in this thread. The only thing that will happen is that one side will get tired of making the same arguments and quit before the other side does. That's not a consensus. It's just evidence that one side has better debate stamina.

Given that your interpretation creates a scenario where the Harlequin's Caress may never be chosen to be attacked with (as that would be mixing and matching the CoD ability, which is a more traditional weapon ability wording), I find it very unlikely that you're correct vis a vis either rules or intention.

And to be honest, anyone who claims to know GW's intention with absolute certainty doesn't understand how authorial intent works. Without either being the author or speaking directly to the author, we can never, ever truly know the author's intent. We can guess. We can say "seems straightforward", but we can never know. My interpretation is just as valid as yours. I believe their intent was that you can attack with and benefit from only one weapon at a time. I believe their intent was to give a Solitaire a choice between one guaranteed AP2 swing and the chance for more than one while risking none. But my belief is just that. We can never know the author's intent. My best guess is just as good as your best guess. Belief in intent can also be extremely dangerous as it adds a certain amount of confirmation bias to your argument.

Your side is convinced that GW wants the KoD to be active all the time, so you use how the rule works to grant access to the rule.

I'm convinced that GW wants the KoD attack to work like all other weapon abilities and only be available (during a Fight Sub-Phase... I agree weapon special rules are always active outside a Fight Sub-Phase) when the weapon is being used in an attack. How the rule works doesn't matter if your attacks have never gained the rule.

A mod should really lock this thread as the wheel keeps turning and the same arguments are being used again and again. There will not be a consensus. People also seem unwilling to "agree to disagree". I've said several times to work this out with your opponents or to ask a TO during organized play. The rules as written obviously aren't clear enough to generate a consensus in this thread. It would be nice if the "mixing and matching is sometimes OK" crowd could also agree to disagree, but I'm not holding my breath.

To me this has turned into somewhat of a troll fest now. Probably most know how the rule should and does work but it can be fun to play the devil's advocate too.

@Kriswall you know you're wrong.

Besides, The Harlequin's Kiss is a one shot alternative weapon as depicted in the fluff and the games, it's not something you repeatedly stab someone with.

You wouldn't be wielding it, it's wrist attached you just use it to slip an underhanded poisoned shot when the opportunity arises.

The fact is that no matter how you look at this, it's possible to buy them, the rules allow for their special rules to come into play even if you don't hit anyone with it, just like Eldrad's staff and many other special weapons, and you're just disagreeing because you think it's not fair or something.


Well fair has nothing to do with what's written, what's written is 100% clear and you don't have a standing argument.

You have been trying for 21 pages to push the same rule when it was shown to you that it did not apply from page 1.

Get over it, it does not apply, that's it. No point arguing, your only argument was dead 21 pages ago, you're just trolling at this point.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
To me this has turned into somewhat of a troll fest now. Probably most know how the rule should and does work but it can be fun to play the devil's advocate too.

But which side is trolling? To be honest, I don't think either side is playing devil's advocate. I think both sides genuinely believe they are correct. I don't think either side is trolling. I just don't think either side is willing to back down and let the other side have the last word. Whoever has the last word is often perceived as being correct by default in these threads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

morgoth wrote:
@Kriswall you know you're wrong.

Besides, The Harlequin's Kiss is a one shot alternative weapon as depicted in the fluff and the games, it's not something you repeatedly stab someone with.

You wouldn't be wielding it, it's wrist attached you just use it to slip an underhanded poisoned shot when the opportunity arises.

The fact is that no matter how you look at this, it's possible to buy them, the rules allow for their special rules to come into play even if you don't hit anyone with it, just like Eldrad's staff and many other special weapons, and you're just disagreeing because you think it's not fair or something.


Well fair has nothing to do with what's written, what's written is 100% clear and you don't have a standing argument.

You have been trying for 21 pages to push the same rule when it was shown to you that it did not apply from page 1.

Get over it, it does not apply, that's it. No point arguing, your only argument was dead 21 pages ago, you're just trolling at this point.

Please don't tell me what I know and don't accuse me of trolling. I don't appreciate your accusations that I'm posting maliciously just to aggravate you and your cohorts, which is what I understand trolling to mean.

I think we're done here for now.