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.

I searched for this and didn't see an answer for it, so I figured I'd go ahead and ask other folks' opinions on it.

So Jain Zar's Disarming Strike allows her to sacrifice an attack to nominate one of her opponent's melee weapons in a challenge, and "her opponent counts as not being equipped with that weapon until the end of the phase."

So in theory, if she killed a Khorne Daemonkin lord carrying Kor'lath, the axe that summons a Bloodthirster when the bearer dies... he wouldn't be considered to be equipped with the weapon at the time of his death and as such Kor'lath wouldn't activate, right? It seems pretty clear to me, but I'm just looking to get a feel for the general consensus on the matter before I go ahead and do it to some poor unfortunate soul.

It depends on the wording and trigger for Kor'lath's weapon. I don't have access to that rule. If it says 'A model equiped with ____ ' and 'immidiately upon dying...' then yes, Jain Zar's Disarming Strike would prevent the trigger. However, if it says 'at the end of the phase do ____' then it may still work.

There's a lot of ways it could be worded so until someone quotes the exact rule I can't tell you. But that is the first place you should look.

The exact wording is "If the bearer of the Axe of Ruin is reduced to 0 Wounds or is otherwise removed as a casualty", so that's more less what the wording hinges on. Is he the bearer of Kor'lath if he's not equipped with it? Seems unlikely.

This is an interesting one. I am actually going to disagree with you on this one. Here is why: The axe says "If the bearer of the Axe..." it does not say that he must have it equipped. There is precedent for weapons granting ability when merely possessed and not "wielding" for use. Also if Jain were to somehow leave combat with the Axe beaer, would he no longer possess the axe? When she slays him, he still bears the axe regardless if he was able to equip or wield it during combat. I say he in fact does summon a thirster....

Hmmm. I'd say Disarming Strike would indeed prevent the rule from triggering. Since being bearer of something is the same as being equiped with something. I can't think of any scenario or example where 'equiped' and 'bearer of' would be different.

It's interesting that they chose to word Disarming Strike that way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 quickfuze wrote:
This is an interesting one. I am actually going to disagree with you on this one. Here is why: The axe says "If the bearer of the Axe..." it does not say that he must have it equipped. There is precedent for weapons granting ability when merely possessed and not "wielding" for use. Also if Jain were to somehow leave combat with the Axe beaer, would he no longer possess the axe? When she slays him, he still bears the axe regardless if he was able to equip or wield it during combat. I say he in fact does summon a thirster....

But one can be 'equiped' with a weapon and not 'wielding' it. Being the bearer of a weapon requires that the model be equiped with the weapon (meaning it is on the model's profile). But since they chose to word Disarming strike to say that he isn't equiped, then it's not on his profile for that phase.

Zimko wrote:
Hmmm. I'd say Disarming Strike would indeed prevent the rule from triggering. Since being bearer of something is the same as being equiped with something. I can't think of any scenario or example where 'equiped' and 'bearer of' would be different.

It's interesting that they chose to word Disarming Strike that way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 quickfuze wrote:
This is an interesting one. I am actually going to disagree with you on this one. Here is why: The axe says "If the bearer of the Axe..." it does not say that he must have it equipped. There is precedent for weapons granting ability when merely possessed and not "wielding" for use. Also if Jain were to somehow leave combat with the Axe beaer, would he no longer possess the axe? When she slays him, he still bears the axe regardless if he was able to equip or wield it during combat. I say he in fact does summon a thirster....

I would say it works per RAW

Is there a section of the rulebook to back the 'wielding' versus being 'equipped'?

The weapon is essentially 'un-equipped' which is as good as removed from profile.

The Thirster is not summoned.

The rulebook isn't especially clear on the matter, the only real reference I could find would be under the Multiple Weapons rule, which states that "If a model has more than one Melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with when he comes to strike blows", implying that yes, equipped and wielding are two different concepts under the rules.

Additionally , under things like Grenades, the rules are applied to models "equipped" with grenades, so the precedent there is that "not equipped = does not have".

Hence why I'm pretty confident that it works, and that once she disarms him, until he gets a chance to pick it up at the end of the phase, if he dies, no Thirster is summoned.

The summoning rule calls the bearer "the bearer." Not the wielder, the equipee, the user, or anything else.

Unless Zar's rule mentions bearing, then you're grasping at cheap straws.

If Arthur bore Excalibur into battle, and he dropped the sword for a moment, he is STILL the bearer of Excalibur throughout the entire battle.

Since the BRB or any rule does not define 'the bearer' then we have to use the dictionary definition:

bearer:

1.
a person or thing that carries or holds something.

That was the first definition on google.

To me that clearly means disarming strike would cause the model to not be 'the bearer' for a phase.

Zimko wrote:
Since the BRB or any rule does not define 'the bearer' then we have to use the dictionary definition:

bearer:

1.
a person or thing that carries or holds something.

That was the first definition on google.

To me that clearly means disarming strike would cause the model to not be 'the bearer' for a phase.

And where in any of that is the word "equipped" . One can carry something without actually wielding or holding it. A weapon can be sheathed or slung for example. Your premise of using Google does not add to this discussion.

I assumed we all agreed that a model 'equiped' with an item was in possession of the item. Whether that means he carrying it, has it on his belt or is holding it in his hand. So it could be anywhere on the model and still be equiped. Jain Zar's Disarming Strike says it counts the weapon as 'unequiped'. So not in the model's possession. (so not being carried or the bearer of). I defined what it means to be the bearer of to show that 'equiped' and 'bearer of' were the same thing.

The rules are not clear on what is considered to be 'equipped' vs 'the bearer' of. Also, 'wielding' is not well defined but for this discussion is irrelevant since neither of he rules in question use 'wielding' in their wording. Since the rules are not clear, I'm just judging based on the general definitions of 'equipped' and 'bearer of'.

Do you have any rule quotes to show there is a difference?

I LOVE kor'lath, but have to vote for it not triggering initially due to the phrasing on disarming strike. If it had said something like, "cannot attack with the weapon," it would be a different story.

But yes, as above - it calls into question if the "bearer" and "model equipped with" are synonymous.

 quickfuze wrote:

Zimko wrote:
Since the BRB or any rule does not define 'the bearer' then we have to use the dictionary definition:

bearer:

1.
a person or thing that carries or holds something.

That was the first definition on google.

To me that clearly means disarming strike would cause the model to not be 'the bearer' for a phase.

And where in any of that is the word "equipped" . One can carry something without actually wielding or holding it. A weapon can be sheathed or slung for example. Your premise of using Google does not add to this discussion.

And if you are not equipped with an object, can you be carrying it?

We are not talking about the "equip" that is commonly used in games to distinguish between an item you possess and an item you are using. As far as i know, that definition is never used in our brb.
English usage suggests that not being equipped with something = not being in possession of that thing

I guess Khorne doesn't reward warriors that drop their weapons. I guess the consolation is that in the 1% of games where an eldar is charging you rather than the other way around you've probably gotten the victory already (unless he is just slow rolling you).

Interesting thought - what if it triggers, but at the end of the phase, when the disarming strike wears off? The text on the axe isn't time-restricted, unlike the disarming strike.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
Interesting thought - what if it triggers, but at the end of the phase, when the disarming strike wears off? The text on the axe isn't time-restricted, unlike the disarming strike.

The axe triggers when the bearer is removed as a casualty, which is time-restricted, since in this case it would happen at the initiative 7 step. Or presumably at the initiative 5 step if Jain Zar fails the kill but someone else in her squad picks up the spare due to lack of other models to allocate wounds to. Point being, it will happen before the end of the phase, and as such happen while the model isn't equipped with Kor'lath.

RAW - Bearer vs equipped is a word issue and since the two words are different bearer does not equal equipped. Ergo, you can be the bearer of a piece of wargear and simultaneously not be equipped with it.

RAI - fluffy wise, you could argue both ways. He did his sacrifice with the dark gods, death in battle = demonificiation or, he's not holding it, which displeases the gods.

 Wopbopadobop wrote:
RAW - Bearer vs equipped is a word issue and since the two words are different bearer does not equal equipped. Ergo, you can be the bearer of a piece of wargear and simultaneously not be equipped with it.

RAI - fluffy wise, you could argue both ways. He did his sacrifice with the dark gods, death in battle = demonificiation or, he's not holding it, which displeases the gods.

Yes. One is a noun, and one is a past tense verb.

to be the bearer of a thing, you must be in possession of that thing. If you were never equipped with that thing, how can you be in possession of it?

How can you be the bearer of something you are not equipped with?

I have changed my mind!

The wording for this can come from the army list entry where you add this as a piece of wargear.


I would imagine it says something like "A deamonkin lord may be equipped with Kor'lath - 50pts (Or whatever it is)

If the model is counted as "not equipped with" as per Jain Zar's rules, then it never selected this piece of wargear in the first place to be the "bearer"

 Wopbopadobop wrote:
RAW - Bearer vs equipped is a word issue and since the two words are different bearer does not equal equipped. Ergo, you can be the bearer of a piece of wargear and simultaneously not be equipped with it.

This would be correct if the rules defined each word with a different meaning. It seems to me though that we can take something from the rules as to what the two words mean together:

From 'Assault Weapons' in the Weapons section:

"A model shooting an Assault weapon shoots the number of times indicated on its profile – whether or not the bearer has moved."

From 'The Shooting Sequence' in the Shooting Phase section:

"3. Select a Weapon. Select a weapon the firing unit is equipped with."

In the first rules quote the rules establish a link between a model shooting an Assault weapon and bearing it, i.e. that being borne is the Assault weapon being shot. The second rules quote establishes models can only fire weapons they are equipped with, which in combination with the first rules quote we can sensibly take that being equipped with a weapon is synonymous with bearing it.

Further, from 'Master-crafted':

"Weapons with the Master-crafted special rule allow the bearer to re-roll one failed roll To Hit per turn with that weapon."

Similarly, a model cannot use a weapon unless it is equipped with it, and so the model bust both be bearing the weapon and equipped with it to take advantage of the Master-crafted special rule. It makes sense that they are synonymous.