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.

PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE POST BEFORE VOTING

While there was an extensive, and at times offensive, thread on this topic, there was not a clear consensus (at least that could be divined from the comments), so I'd like to find out what people think, so I can play this the way the majority of the community prefers.

More than one weapon: ...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

Harlequin's Kiss, Kiss of Death special rule: When a model equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss makes its close combat attacks, one of its attacks will be a Kiss of Death attack (roll this attack separately).

Argument the first: Kiss of Death is not a 'may do' statement. Because it is non-optional, a Solitaire equipped with both a Harlequin's Kiss and a Harlequin's Caress may use the Harlequin's Caress to make his attacks, but still benefit from the Kiss of Death special rule.

Argument the second: Kiss of Death is still a special rule of the Harlequin's Kiss, which comes into play once you opt to use that weapon. If you opt to use the Caress, you cannot still use a Kiss of Death attack.

Argument the third: Kiss of Death is indeed a non-optional rule, but it also gives no permission to override the 'more than one weapon' rule. Therefore, the Solitaire must always use the Harlequin's Kiss, and may not use the Caress at all.



The question stands as follows: Can the Solitaire choose to use the Harlequin's Caress, but still convert one of his attacks into a Kiss of Death attack via the Harlequin's Kiss?

Option A: Yes. The Solitaire may attack with the Caress and still make the Kiss of Death attack.

Option B: No. If the Solitaire chooses to use the Caress, he does not gain the Kiss of Death. He must choose to use the Kiss in order to gain that.

Option C: No. The Solitaire may not choose to use the Caress at all, and is bound to use the Kiss.

Option D: Other/confused/no opinion

I would like it noted that I believe he fault is with the Rule interactions in this case, probably the Vacuum Effect at play, and that the "Intent" is very likely A.
Unfortunately, Restriction's trump Permission unless specifically over-turned....

Very close one. Until just a little bit ago it was almost fifty-fifty.

Definitely something to talk to your opponent about if you plan to use this Weapon in any way.

I'm interested in (reasonably) unbiased data collection, and tried to make the initial post as neutral as possible.

I have yet to hear a convincing argument that allows it. I don't think there's any ambiguity in the rules whatsoever. If people were making a RAI argument, I'd be willing to entertain that. (Based solely on the fact that I don't see how, mathematically, the Kiss would ever be a preferable option to the Caress.) But so far, I haven't seen a single person make that argument.

I voted A because the Kiss of Death mentions that you only need to be "equipped" with the weapon to be allowed to use the Kiss of Death attack.

If an Eldar Autarch has say a Shard of Anaris (which grants Fearless to the model equipped with it) and a Laser lance because the Autarch is on a bike.

If the Autarch strikes with the lance...does he lose the Fearless granted by the other weapon? I don't think so. You just need to have the item to benefit from the rule. Same situation as with the Kiss. You just need to have it to be allowed to substitute one of your attacks for a Kiss of Death attack.

Except that the restriction on benefitting from multiple weapons is limited to striking blows alone. At that time, you are only allowed to use the special rules of one weapon. (So at whatever point that Fearless comes into play, you are not under that restriction.)

The Kiss is a weapon, Kiss of Death is a special rule. The special rule gives you a benefit for having it, but you are only given permission to use that special rule if you choose to use that weapon. If you choose a different weapon, you are explicitly restricted from using that special rule.

Doesn't the part saying "if a model is equipped with a Harlequins Kiss" give you permission to make a Kiss of Death attack it even if you don't attack with the Kiss?

It doesn't say that it gives you permission to ignore the restriction on mixing weapons.

pm713 wrote:
Doesn't the part saying "if a model is equipped with a Harlequins Kiss" give you permission to make a Kiss of Death attack it even if you don't attack with the Kiss?

Where do the rules define what being 'equipped' with a weapon is and how it interacts with the other rules?

 Ghaz wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Doesn't the part saying "if a model is equipped with a Harlequins Kiss" give you permission to make a Kiss of Death attack it even if you don't attack with the Kiss?

Where do the rules define what being 'equipped' with a weapon is and how it interacts with the other rules?

In the weapons section, under the subheading 'More than one Weapon.' That's as close as it gets, I think.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Doesn't the part saying "if a model is equipped with a Harlequins Kiss" give you permission to make a Kiss of Death attack it even if you don't attack with the Kiss?

Where do the rules define what being 'equipped' with a weapon is and how it interacts with the other rules?

In the weapons section, under the subheading 'More than one Weapon.' That's as close as it gets, I think.

That says when he attacks he chooses one weapon, not being able to mix and match the abilities of several different weapons. I see nothing there about just being 'equipped' with two different weapons and how it interacts with the 'More Than One Weapon' rule. Why should someone claim that being 'equipped' with a weapon overrides the 'More Than One Weapon' rule when they have no rules to support what 'equipped' means and how it interacts with the other rules?

It tells you that you can't mix and match special rules between weapons. Is Kiss of Death a special rule? (It is.) Therefore, the 'more than one weapon' rule tells us you cannot use it with a different weapon. (Barring a specific exemption, which does not exist in this case.)

Again, it says when attacking with the weapon. Where in the 'More Than One Weapon' rule is the word 'equipped'?

I'm afraid I'm not picking up what you're putting down. Do we need a definition of 'equipped?' Or do we all assume that a model having a piece of wargear means they are equipped with that wargear? Is this issue more ambiguous than I thought?

Technically b, but causes a whole host of problems with weapons that grant non-combat rules and determining when you get them, and when you may select a weapon. For example how do you choose a weapon before your I step, and if you cannot do so how does a weapon that rant I10 attacks then work?

Out of interest, who voted C and on what grounds? Really cannot see any logic behind GW equipping the character with both weapons if he is not allowed to use one of them.

Crispy78 wrote:
Out of interest, who voted C and on what grounds? Really cannot see any logic behind GW equipping the character with both weapons if he is not allowed to use one of them.

I also think it doesn't make sense for GW to write rules that allow a weapon to hit a unit, but doesn't allow the weapon to allocate wounds for said hit. But the vast majority of the community thinks that's exactly how some weapons work.

I didn't think it was a huge possibility, but it did seem like a possible interpretation of the RAW, so I included it for completeness sake.

The KoD says that a model equipped with(the moment it is purchased it is equipped) this weapon one of it's attacks "will be" a Kiss od Death attack. The "will be" does not give an option in the use or not of the weapon. So one o the attacks must be the KoD attack, and you can't mix weapons, so no using the caress.

Though I got rid of my book, so can't do a full rules quote, just remembering the argument the first time, and the rule stating will be said attack.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
The KoD says that a model equipped with(the moment it is purchased it is equipped) this weapon one of it's attacks "will be" a Kiss od Death attack. The "will be" does not give an option in the use or not of the weapon. So one o the attacks must be the KoD attack, and you can't mix weapons, so no using the caress.

Though I got rid of my book, so can't do a full rules quote, just remembering the argument the first time, and the rule stating will be said attack.

So...when you come to strike blows, are you using a special rule from a weapon you aren't striking with? You are restricted from doing that by the 'more than one weapon' rules, and KoD doesn't grant a specific exemption.

There are RAW arguments for B and C, but no one has yet presented a RAW interpretation which allows B as the correct answer. If people think B is the RAI, that's fine. But the only way to allow B is to use a rule from one weapon while using another weapon while striking blows, something expressly prohibited within the rules and at no time allowed by the specific rules in question.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:
The KoD says that a model equipped with(the moment it is purchased it is equipped) this weapon one of it's attacks "will be" a Kiss od Death attack. The "will be" does not give an option in the use or not of the weapon. So one o the attacks must be the KoD attack, and you can't mix weapons, so no using the caress.

Though I got rid of my book, so can't do a full rules quote, just remembering the argument the first time, and the rule stating will be said attack.

So...when you come to strike blows, are you using a special rule from a weapon you aren't striking with? You are restricted from doing that by the 'more than one weapon' rules, and KoD doesn't grant a specific exemption.

There are RAW arguments for B and C, but no one has yet presented a RAW interpretation which allows B as the correct answer. If people think B is the RAI, that's fine. But the only way to allow B is to use a rule from one weapon while using another weapon while striking blows, something expressly prohibited within the rules and at no time allowed by the specific rules in question.

?????
I did not say you can use both, following the rules for both leaves the Caress a superfluous piece of wargear, as it can never be used, due to the way the kiss' rule is written, making you always use the kiss.
Maybe you missed the last part of my sentence, the part that says "and you can't mix weapons, so no using the caress".

 megatrons2nd wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:
The KoD says that a model equipped with(the moment it is purchased it is equipped) this weapon one of it's attacks "will be" a Kiss od Death attack. The "will be" does not give an option in the use or not of the weapon. So one o the attacks must be the KoD attack, and you can't mix weapons, so no using the caress.

Though I got rid of my book, so can't do a full rules quote, just remembering the argument the first time, and the rule stating will be said attack.

So...when you come to strike blows, are you using a special rule from a weapon you aren't striking with? You are restricted from doing that by the 'more than one weapon' rules, and KoD doesn't grant a specific exemption.

There are RAW arguments for B and C, but no one has yet presented a RAW interpretation which allows B as the correct answer. If people think B is the RAI, that's fine. But the only way to allow B is to use a rule from one weapon while using another weapon while striking blows, something expressly prohibited within the rules and at no time allowed by the specific rules in question.

?????
I did not say you can use both, following the rules for both leaves the Caress a superfluous piece of wargear, as it can never be used, due to the way the kiss' rule is written, making you always use the kiss.
Maybe you missed the last part of my sentence, the part that says "and you can't mix weapons, so no using the caress".

Ah, so you did. I apologize. My mistake. (I thought someone might feel this way--that's why option C is there! )

No worries amigo. I may not personally agree with your interpretation, but it can certainly be a valid way of looking at the RAW.

I always play that they use both (Option #A). It's just thematic for what it does. In the case that you're using Cegorach's Rose, the Master Crafted and Shred abilities should only apply to the Kiss of Death attack.

There's absolutely no rules support for this, but as has been pointed out, the RAW way of doing things makes the Caress a useless piece of wargear. Since that's, well, balls to the walls stupid, everyone I've ever interacted with has nodded in agreement that Option A is the right way to do things.

 Yarium wrote:
I always play that they use both (Option #A). It's just thematic for what it does. In the case that you're using Cegorach's Rose, the Master Crafted and Shred abilities should only apply to the Kiss of Death attack.

There's absolutely no rules support for this, but as has been pointed out, the RAW way of doing things makes the Caress a useless piece of wargear. Since that's, well, balls to the walls stupid, everyone I've ever interacted with has nodded in agreement that Option A is the right way to do things.

Let's try to keep it civil without calling one another stupid, please.

I'm more calling GW stupid . If it was their intention to make it only work that way... well, why not just give the Solitaire a CCW instead? Players that (correctly) pick out that this is the RAW are quite intelligent, but I think are pointing out more of how GW messed up than believing it to be the actual way of doing things.

Did you want a poll thread, or did you want another pointless bickering thread. You can't seem to make up your mind.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Did you want a poll thread, or did you want another pointless bickering thread. You can't seem to make up your mind.

The discussion has actually been remarkably civil thus far. You're welcome not to participate.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Except that the restriction on benefitting from multiple weapons is limited to striking blows alone. At that time, you are only allowed to use the special rules of one weapon. (So at whatever point that Fearless comes into play, you are not under that restriction.)

The Kiss is a weapon, Kiss of Death is a special rule. The special rule gives you a benefit for having it, but you are only given permission to use that special rule if you choose to use that weapon. If you choose a different weapon, you are explicitly restricted from using that special rule.

Fair enough, how about this. If a weapon gives WS 10 to a model equipped with it. If he strikes with another weapon does he lose the WS 10? Don't think so. It is never mentionned the weapon actually needs to be used just having it.

I see it as Having a Kiss of Death gives the model a special rule (Like Furious Charge or Zealot) which grants a single Kiss of Death attack. Once combat begins, the special rule is applied and the single attack is made then the rest of the attacks proceed normally. In this interpretation, at no point does the multiple weapons come into conflict.

I voted A, because the KOD rule does not require you strike with the weapon. Most weapons normally you require to strike with them to get the special rules, and this is a rule that modifies the models (attacks) from any source not the models attacks with the specific weapon.

Just sharing my reasoning, no going to discuss it.

That seems like enough to draw a conclusion. I'm kind of surprised, but if people feel that strongly about my character getting to do this, who am I to argue?