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.

blaktoof wrote:
I think the issue is you are still not properly applying the rule you are saying limits this.

The rule does not say the model gains no benefit from equipped items.

the rule does say the model must choose which weapon to strike with if it has more than one.

The rule prevents you from gaining the benefits of abilities that require you to strike with a weapon if you are not striking with it.

Kiss/Embrace as pointed out many times do not require the model strike with the weapon, they give a special rule that works if the model strikes at all with anything.

This is not even an RAI point, this is actually fully within the rules as written.

Is the Kiss of Death a weapon ability? Yes, it is.
Are you attacking with the Harlequin's Kiss? No, you aren't.
Are you allowed to mix and match abilities from other weapons when not attacking with them? No, you aren't.

This is a relatively straightforward chain of logic. If you want to mix and match in the Kiss's ability, then cite your explicit permission to do so. You need explicit wording overriding the BRB's restriction. You can't use implied permissions. Implied permissions don't override explicit restrictions. This is "permissive rule set 101" sort of stuff.

Without a specific and explicit citation overturning the BRB restriction, the restriction stands.

Implied permissions never work because two people can interpret them differently... which is obviously happening here.

Person A - "The BRB says you can NEVER use an ability from a weapon you're not attacking with."
Person B - "But... this ability just says I need to have the weapon equipped."
Person A - "Doesn't matter, the BRB says NEVER."
Person B - "But there is an implied permission."
Person A - "Which page is this implied permission on? How is it worded? Does it specifically say to ignore the BRB restriction."
Person B - "Of course not, it's implied. It's not actually there. The ability just doesn't make sense unless I can use it all the time."
Person A - "It makes perfect sense, assuming you're actually following the BRB restriction. You get the ability when you actually attack with the weapon."
Person B - "But I want ALL OF THE THINGS."
PErson A - "To quote our grandparents, you can't have your cake and eat it too."

 Kriswall wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
I think the issue is you are still not properly applying the rule you are saying limits this.

The rule does not say the model gains no benefit from equipped items.

the rule does say the model must choose which weapon to strike with if it has more than one.

The rule prevents you from gaining the benefits of abilities that require you to strike with a weapon if you are not striking with it.

Kiss/Embrace as pointed out many times do not require the model strike with the weapon, they give a special rule that works if the model strikes at all with anything.

This is not even an RAI point, this is actually fully within the rules as written.

Is the Kiss of Death a weapon ability? Yes, it is.
Are you attacking with the Harlequin's Kiss? No, you aren't.
Are you allowed to mix and match abilities from other weapons when not attacking with them? No, you aren't.

This is a relatively straightforward chain of logic. If you want to mix and match in the Kiss's ability, then cite your explicit permission to do so. You need explicit wording overriding the BRB's restriction. You can't use implied permissions. Implied permissions don't override explicit restrictions. This is "permissive rule set 101" sort of stuff.

Without a specific and explicit citation overturning the BRB restriction, the restriction stands.

Implied permissions never work because two people can interpret them differently... which is obviously happening here.

Person A - "The BRB says you can NEVER use an ability from a weapon you're not attacking with."
Person B - "But... this ability just says I need to have the weapon equipped."
Person A - "Doesn't matter, the BRB says NEVER."
Person B - "But there is an implied permission."
Person A - "Which page is this implied permission on? How is it worded? Does it specifically say to ignore the BRB restriction."
Person B - "Of course not, it's implied. It's not actually there. The ability just doesn't make sense unless I can use it all the time."
Person A - "It makes perfect sense, assuming you're actually following the BRB restriction. You get the ability when you actually attack with the weapon."
Person B - "But I want ALL OF THE THINGS."
PErson A - "To quote our grandparents, you can't have your cake and eat it too."

The thing is your first point is not correct.

A weapon ability is an ability a weapon possesses that only works when the weapon is striking, there are many examples, caress, shred, armorbane, poison, etc.

The harlequins kiss grants the -model- an ability when it is equipped, the rule 'kiss of death' is a model based ability. Not an ability contingent on the weapon, ie 'a weapon ability'.

It is not implied permission, it is the RAW that is being misconstrued by certain people that kiss of death is not an ability of the model, but an ability contingent on striking with the weapon ie choosing to strike with the weapon.

and again there is no rule stating a model does not get the benefit of equipped items which affect the model when it chooses to strike with any weapon.

You have also failed to tie in the entire first part of the rule you are misquoting, which tells you that models with more than 1 weapon choose one to strike with, they cannot gain the benefits of striking with another weapon. As stated in the RAW and this thread, kiss of death is not a weapon ability nor is it tied to striking with the harlequins kiss it is an ability granted to the model.

if the wording of 'embrace' or 'kiss' were the same as caress, or a powerfist, or any weapon that has shred, etc you would be correct. However by the RAW they are not, as they are not abilities gained by choosing to strike with said weapon, they are not weapon abilities, they are abilities granted to the model by having the item. Unless you can find a RAW passage stating models lose their abilities and only use the abilities of the weapon they choose to strike with you actually have no rules support for your stance.

As already discussed in the thread you don't explicit permission. When there is a conflict, any conflict, the codex wins. The rule for the kiss is quite clear that one of the models close combat will be a kiss of death if equipped. All of your arguments require that you ignore this rule, quoting a rule book rule. That rule is over ridden by the phrasing of the codex rule so it's irrelevant.

There is a reason that pretty much everywhere else has arrived at the conclusion that you use both.

Where is the conflict? All we have is your word that 'equipped' conflicts with 'attacks with'. Where in the rulebook can I find what 'equipped with' means in order to decide if there is a conflict?

Trystis wrote:
As already discussed in the thread you don't explicit permission. When there is a conflict, any conflict, the codex wins. The rule for the kiss is quite clear that one of the models close combat will be a kiss of death if equipped. All of your arguments require that you ignore this rule, quoting a rule book rule. That rule is over ridden by the phrasing of the codex rule so it's irrelevant.

There is a reason that pretty much everywhere else has arrived at the conclusion that you use both.

Please post what you consider to be a rules conflict. I don't see a conflict, so I need you to post the two explicit rules that tell you to do conflicting things.

Also, there is no "codex always wins" rule. That's something people say, but it's not really a thing. It just often works out that way. The actual rule is "Basic Versus Advanced" and is on page 13 of the small rulebook...

"Basic rules apply to all models in the game, unless stated otherwise."

So, the fact that you can't mix and match weapon abilities when you attack is a Basic Rule.

"Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because they have a special kind of weapon (such as a boltgun), unusual skills (such as the ability to regenerate), because they are different to their fellows (such as a unit leader or a heroic character), or because they are not normal infantry models (a bike, a swarm or even a tank)."

Kiss of Death is clearly an Advanced Rule.

"Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules." "On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or army list entry always takes precedence."

So, there has to be a contradiction for the advanced rule to override the basic rule. Is there a contradiction? Nope.

Let me show you what a contradiction would look like...

BRB: You can't mix and match weapon abilities when it comes time to strike blows.
Codex: You can use the Kiss of Death ability when attacking with a different weapon.

That's a contradiction and the Codex rule would take precedence.

Compare to...

BRB: You can't mix and match weapon abilities when it comes time to strike blows.
Codex: Harlequin's Kiss has an ability called Kiss of Death and this is what it does.

There is no specific contradiction. There may possibly be an implied one, but implications aren't enough.

So, your turn. Cite your rules that generate a specific contradiction. I'm looking for something in the codex that tells me to use an ability from weapon B when I attack with weapon A. That's literally the only thing that would cause a contradiction.

It doesn't matter what the Kiss of Death does. Unless it includes wording saying that it can be used alongside another weapon... there is no conflict and you're breaking the core rules when you mix and match it with abilities from another weapon.

The contradiction comes from the kiss rule itself. Generally you must choose which weapon to use, the kiss or the embrace, and can't mix or match per the rule book.

The kiss has a special rule that states it only needs to be equipped, not used, in order for its special rule to take effect. Other items have been listed with similar effects, but this may be the first with a special rule that is an attack. The weapon doesn't perform the kiss of death, it is specifically the model per the rule.

It doesn't need to say it can be used alongside other models, because it doesn't say it's used at all. It just says equipped. It isn't used used, per the rule phrasing, one of models attacks becomes a kiss of death, not one of the attacks made with the weapon.

That rule's phrasing overrides the rule book. The mix and match rule doesn't apply because you are not mix and matching weapons, you are using a special rule, that specifies it doesn't need to be used only equipped. This is RAW your argument requires the codex rule to be ignored. Maybe you are right as RAI, but not RAW.

Trystis wrote:
The contradiction comes from the kiss rule itself. Generally you must choose which weapon to use, the kiss or the embrace, and can't mix or match per the rule book.

The kiss has a special rule that states it only needs to be equipped, not used, in order for its special rule to take effect. Other items have been listed with similar effects, but this may be the first with a special rule that is an attack. The weapon doesn't perform the kiss of death, it is specifically the model per the rule.

It doesn't need to say it can be used alongside other models, because it doesn't say it's used at all. It just says equipped. It isn't used used, per the rule phrasing, one of models attacks becomes a kiss of death, not one of the attacks made with the weapon.

That rule's phrasing overrides the rule book. The mix and match rule doesn't apply because you are not mix and matching weapons, you are using a special rule, that specifies it doesn't need to be used only equipped. This is RAW your argument requires the codex rule to be ignored. Maybe you are right as RAI, but not RAW.

It actually DOES need to say that it can be used alongside other weapons because that's the BRB restriction you're trying to create a contradiction with. Anything less than saying it can be used alongside other weapons and you don't have a contradiction.

You have two things instead. Thing 1 says "do this when a model has this weapon". This 2 says "ignore all other weapon abilities when attacking with a different weapon". This isn't a conflict. It's just two different rules that do different things and work fine together.

Where does it say it needs to be used? The rules for the kiss specifically say it only needs to be equipped.

Trystis wrote:
Where does it say it needs to be used? The rules for the kiss specifically say it only needs to be equipped.

Are you arguing that using the Harlequin Kiss's S6 AP2 single attack effect doesn't constitute using the Kiss of Death ability? The BRB rules say you can't use ANY weapon abilities unless you're attacking with that weapon. Does the Kiss of Death explicitly say it can be used when not attacking with the Harlequin's Kiss? No, it does not. Hence, there is no contradiction and both rules work fine together. You just only get the benefit of the Kiss of Death ability if you're attacking with the actual Harlequin's Kiss weapon. Which makes perfect sense. If you're not attacking with a weapon, why should you get to use its special rules? And to be clear, this is a weapon special rule.

 Kriswall wrote:

Trystis wrote:
Where does it say it needs to be used? The rules for the kiss specifically say it only needs to be equipped.

Are you arguing that using the Harlequin Kiss's S6 AP2 single attack effect doesn't constitute using the Kiss of Death ability? The BRB rules say you can't use ANY weapon abilities unless you're attacking with that weapon. Does the Kiss of Death explicitly say it can be used when not attacking with the Harlequin's Kiss? No, it does not. Hence, there is no contradiction and both rules work fine together. You just only get the benefit of the Kiss of Death ability if you're attacking with the actual Harlequin's Kiss weapon. Which makes perfect sense. If you're not attacking with a weapon, why should you get to use its special rules? And to be clear, this is a weapon special rule.

Im still not convinced the rule needs to say what you think it does in order to function as peoeple are suggesting.

BRB- Can't use unless attacking.
Kiss- Must make an attack if equiped.

I think the thing you are not seeing is that the rules for the kiss require the attack to be made. You are not given a choice. To follow both rules, you would never be able to use any weapon other than the kiss because you must make the attack, yet cant make it if you select another weapon. This is a clear and direct conflict of rules in my eyes, and it seems to be in many others.

Perhaps you can actually show where the Kiss actually says you must use it if 'equipped'. And while your at it, please show us what the rules for being 'equipped' mean in the first place.

 Ghaz wrote:
Perhaps you can actually show where the Kiss actually says you must use it if 'equipped'. And while your at it, please show us what the rules for being 'equipped' mean in the first place.

Sure, no problem.

when a model equipped with a harlequins kiss makes its close combat attacks, one of it its attacks will be a kiss of death attack

So, if equiped, 1 attack will be a kiss of death attack. No choice given there.

As for your second point....are you serious? Or just trolling? So are you're implying that we can never use the rule becasue we have no BRB definition of "equiped?"

 extremefreak17 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Perhaps you can actually show where the Kiss actually says you must use it if 'equipped'. And while your at it, please show us what the rules for being 'equipped' mean in the first place.

Sure, no problem.

when a model equipped with a harlequins kiss makes its close combat attacks, one of it its attacks will be a kiss of death attack

So, if equiped, 1 attack will be a kiss of death attack. No choice given there.

As for your second point....are you serious? Or just trolling? So are you're implying that we can never use the rule becasue we have no BRB definition of "equiped?"

I'm willing to grant that equipped with means "has" in this instance. What I'm still not clear on is why you think there is a contradiction.

"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."

Ok... this is clearly an ability of the Harlequin's Kiss. Which you aren't allowed to use unless you are attacking with the Harlequin's Kiss per the BRB. As there is ABSOLUTELY NO WORDING contradicting this restriction (e.g. you may use this ability even when attacking with other weapons), we have to abide by the BRB's restriction.

I grant you that if you were actually allowed to mix and match abilities that you would be able to attack with a different weapon and have the Kiss of Death kick in. You aren't allowed to mix and match and have yet to show any wording allowing you to do so.

 Kriswall wrote:

 extremefreak17 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Perhaps you can actually show where the Kiss actually says you must use it if 'equipped'. And while your at it, please show us what the rules for being 'equipped' mean in the first place.

Sure, no problem.

when a model equipped with a harlequins kiss makes its close combat attacks, one of it its attacks will be a kiss of death attack

So, if equiped, 1 attack will be a kiss of death attack. No choice given there.

As for your second point....are you serious? Or just trolling? So are you're implying that we can never use the rule becasue we have no BRB definition of "equiped?"

I'm willing to grant that equipped with means "has" in this instance. What I'm still not clear on is why you think there is a contradiction.

"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."

Ok... this is clearly an ability of the Harlequin's Kiss. Which you aren't allowed to use unless you are attacking with the Harlequin's Kiss per the BRB. As there is ABSOLUTELY NO WORDING contradicting this restriction (e.g. you may use this ability even when attacking with other weapons), we have to abide by the BRB's restriction.

I grant you that if you were actually allowed to mix and match abilities that you would be able to attack with a different weapon and have the Kiss of Death kick in. You aren't allowed to mix and match and have yet to show any wording allowing you to do so.

It's clearly an ability of the kiss when it's equipped regardless of whether it's used. That absolutely is wording contradicting that restriction. You consistently ignore the rules of the weapon in your argument. Each time you try to imply that you get to ignore the word equipped and replace it with the word used. The rule from the BRB doesn't apply in this case because the phrasing of the rule for the kiss. I can choose the caress, the kiss still exist and is equipped and it's rule will still turn one of the model's close combats attacks into a kiss of death.

It doesn't say one of the attacks made with this weapon or anything remotely like that. The wording is very deliberate and it has to be ignored for the BRB rule to apply.

Wow so this is a circular argument. I'm in the camp of it's equipped and one of my attacks has to be a "kiss of death" but I'm using the caress as my weapon, so therefore you get both rules.

If the BRB states you can't do that, then there's the contradiction you claim not to exist.

This will just go round and round in a petty "I need to be right" argument until the FAQ comes out. I'd just say discuss it with your opponent if it's going to be an issue. Luckily I don't game with rule smiths so I shouldn't have to prove everything citing page numbers to be able to play a game. If i did, i wouldn;t bother playing against that opponent. If your oppoentn doesn't agree then flip a coin, problem solved, until GW clear it up. Perhaps they'll do a battle report which will clear it up in a forthcoming magazine

Gapow wrote:
If the BRB states you can't do that, then there's the contradiction you claim not to exist.

And again, where is this wording for 'equip' found so we can compare it to rules for more than one weapon to determine if there is a conflict? How can you claim two rules conflict when you can't even provide the rule?

If you have nothing left but to argue over what the word equipped means you are effectively just trolling now. Have fun with that.

 Ghaz wrote:

Gapow wrote:
If the BRB states you can't do that, then there's the contradiction you claim not to exist.

And again, where is this wording for 'equip' found so we can compare it to rules for more than one weapon to determine if there is a conflict? How can you claim two rules conflict when you can't even provide the rule?

That is the problem.....There are two weapons that use the "equipped with" terminology. The Harlequins Kiss, and the Harlequins Embrace, literally every other weapon in the game says "when making attacks with this weapon" or similar to that phrase. We can't provide other rules, because these two rules are the first versions of it. As such we are providing the rules for comparison.

Trystis wrote:
If you have nothing left but to argue over what the word equipped means you are effectively just trolling now. Have fun with that.

In other words, you can't support your position with anything other than "... because I said so..."? You keep saying there's a rules difference, but you won't provide a single rule to back up your claims.

 Ghaz wrote:

Trystis wrote:
If you have nothing left but to argue over what the word equipped means you are effectively just trolling now. Have fun with that.

In other words, you can't support your position with anything other than "... because I said so..."? You keep saying there's a rules difference, but you won't provide a single rule to back up your claims.

In other words you have nothing left than to debate the definition of a word that is in common usage. While the rule book doesn't define the word equipped it and other codexes provide plenty of in context examples. They along with the literal definition indicate that any piece of gear a model has is equipped. Using the logic of your argument I could demand the rule book definition of every rule in order to cast doubt on how it works.

We have provided the rule that matters. The one for the kiss.

Also it's insufficient to just say that we are wrong because you don't except the definition of equipped, you would need to provide one that indicate we are wrong. We are using it in the logical method based on both it's context in the game, and on its actual definition. Where is the rule that says we are using equipped incorrectly?

And you have no rules to back up your claims that it changes the rules other than you want it to. That is the pot calling the kettle black. Good day.

The Kiss of Death is an ability. Period. End of sentence.

It doesn't matter if it's an "on equip" ability or an "on use" ability (neither of which is defined in the BRB and is an arbitrary difference that one side is creating to help their argument) because the BRB doesn't care. It restricts ALL other weapon abilities.

You're basically saying "Oh, I know the BRB says I can't use this abilitiy, but this is an 'on equip' ability, so it's extra special and is exempted from the BRB restriction."

There is no EXPLICIT contradiction. The side wanting their cake and to eat it too has yet to post anything in the Kiss of Death rule explicitly saying it can be used with other weapons. THAT would create a contradiction since the BRB says it can't.

Until then, enjoy your house rule.

Mods, we might as well lock this thread. It's a he said/she said at this point.

End result... There is no clear consensus. Play it how you like. Don't expect strangers or tournaments to allow you to mix and match abilities from weapons you aren't attacking with.

I was trying to make the point that neither of us have rules for what equipped means. Equipped is a a word and shouldn't need a rule, because it has a definition. I do have a dictionary and a rule book of examples for context which is enough.

The rule says exactly what it means. You're the one trying to make it mean something else.

If there is no contradiction then you follow exactly what the rule says and get both the caress and kiss.

If there is a contradiction then the codex takes precedence and you get both the caress and the kiss.

Anything else and you are not following the rule.

I think it all comes down to "will be a KoD attack". You don't have a choice. When you make attavks, one will be KoD, and since you can't mix and match weapon abilities, then you can only ever attack with the kiss. Solved!

 Kriswall wrote:

 extremefreak17 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Perhaps you can actually show where the Kiss actually says you must use it if 'equipped'. And while your at it, please show us what the rules for being 'equipped' mean in the first place.

Sure, no problem.

when a model equipped with a harlequins kiss makes its close combat attacks, one of it its attacks will be a kiss of death attack

So, if equiped, 1 attack will be a kiss of death attack. No choice given there.

As for your second point....are you serious? Or just trolling? So are you're implying that we can never use the rule becasue we have no BRB definition of "equiped?"

I'm willing to grant that equipped with means "has" in this instance. What I'm still not clear on is why you think there is a contradiction.

"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."

Ok... this is clearly an ability of the Harlequin's Kiss. Which you aren't allowed to use unless you are attacking with the Harlequin's Kiss per the BRB. As there is ABSOLUTELY NO WORDING contradicting this restriction (e.g. you may use this ability even when attacking with other weapons), we have to abide by the BRB's restriction.

I grant you that if you were actually allowed to mix and match abilities that you would be able to attack with a different weapon and have the Kiss of Death kick in. You aren't allowed to mix and match and have yet to show any wording allowing you to do so.

I don't think you understand. The unit entry is telling us we must make the attack (regardless of what weapon is selected) while the book is telling us we cant make the attack if another weapon is selected. The rules directly contradict each other when we select a different weapon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

Gapow wrote:
If the BRB states you can't do that, then there's the contradiction you claim not to exist.

And again, where is this wording for 'equip' found so we can compare it to rules for more than one weapon to determine if there is a conflict? How can you claim two rules conflict when you can't even provide the rule?

Just leave. You are not adding any value here.

 extremefreak17 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 extremefreak17 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Perhaps you can actually show where the Kiss actually says you must use it if 'equipped'. And while your at it, please show us what the rules for being 'equipped' mean in the first place.

Sure, no problem.

when a model equipped with a harlequins kiss makes its close combat attacks, one of it its attacks will be a kiss of death attack

So, if equiped, 1 attack will be a kiss of death attack. No choice given there.

As for your second point....are you serious? Or just trolling? So are you're implying that we can never use the rule becasue we have no BRB definition of "equiped?"

I'm willing to grant that equipped with means "has" in this instance. What I'm still not clear on is why you think there is a contradiction.

"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."

Ok... this is clearly an ability of the Harlequin's Kiss. Which you aren't allowed to use unless you are attacking with the Harlequin's Kiss per the BRB. As there is ABSOLUTELY NO WORDING contradicting this restriction (e.g. you may use this ability even when attacking with other weapons), we have to abide by the BRB's restriction.

I grant you that if you were actually allowed to mix and match abilities that you would be able to attack with a different weapon and have the Kiss of Death kick in. You aren't allowed to mix and match and have yet to show any wording allowing you to do so.

I don't think you understand. The unit entry is telling us we must make the attack (regardless of what weapon is selected) while the book is telling us we cant make the attack if another weapon is selected. The rules directly contradict each other when we select a different weapon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

Gapow wrote:
If the BRB states you can't do that, then there's the contradiction you claim not to exist.

And again, where is this wording for 'equip' found so we can compare it to rules for more than one weapon to determine if there is a conflict? How can you claim two rules conflict when you can't even provide the rule?

Just leave. You are not adding any value here.

I'm still on Krisswall's ideology side here. It's rather simple.

I have underlined where you are making a mistake above.

Who Has the special rule? The Harlequin or the Weapon? It should be easy to answer, the special rule is either
A) Under the model's list of special rules.
B) In the weapon's Profile.

If A, sure, the model has the rule, as you are proposing above.
If B, how can you use the rule of a weapon (Concussive, Strikedown, Shred,....) if you are not "equipped" with the weapon (IE - you are attacking with another weapon?)

Blacktalos, it is not as simple as that.

Most weapon rules like shred, armorbane, fleshbane, strikedown, are rules that work from striking with the weapon.

Mixing and matching has been terribly misquoted many times in this thread, it does not say what many people are stating it does.

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.

You cannot mix and match the abilities by striking with more than one, you have to choose one to strike with. This does not prevent the model from using any abilities the model has that do not require striking with a weapon, ie if a model has poison, PE, or some such.

This limits weapons that have an effect on striking with the weapon, so any rule that says "when a weapon with special rule here strikes" such as shred, armorbane, poison, etc etc.

However the rule 'kiss of death' is not a rule granted by striking with the weapon. As is evident by its wording, it grants a special rule to the model.

So although it is a weapon that gives the model a rule, the model has the rule. The rule itself does not require the weapon to be striking to benefit as per caress, shred, strikedown, concussive, armorbane, etc etc.

It is a rule the model has by being equipped with the item, not a rule the weapon has that the model can use when striking.

This is most similar to the old NDK Greatsword, which was also an "equipped" ability, and was FAQd to confirm that this ability funcitoned even if using the powerfist-equivalent weapon.

You have a contradiction, in you have a rule requiring an effect to happen when something is equipped - and as we have no rule altering the definition we use the commonly accepted English use of the word - and a rule disallowing you from using this ability unless you are actively using the weapon.

Now, it isnt an explicit contradiction - wording ot the effect of "even if the weapon is not chosen for use, ...." would have bene crystal clear. But to say there isnt a contradiction is certainly not correct.

the codex states this WILL happen. the rulebook says it cannot happen. There is a conflict there

nosferatu1001 wrote:
This is most similar to the old NDK Greatsword, which was also an "equipped" ability, and was FAQd to confirm that this ability funcitoned even if using the powerfist-equivalent weapon.

You have a contradiction, in you have a rule requiring an effect to happen when something is equipped - and as we have no rule altering the definition we use the commonly accepted English use of the word - and a rule disallowing you from using this ability unless you are actively using the weapon.

Now, it isnt an explicit contradiction - wording ot the effect of "even if the weapon is not chosen for use, ...." would have bene crystal clear. But to say there isnt a contradiction is certainly not correct.

the codex states this WILL happen. the rulebook says it cannot happen. There is a conflict there

If anything, this is a confirmation that it's poorly worded enough to require an FAQ. Without an FAQ, it's hard to know what they really intended. I choose to fall back on my interpretation, which is consistent with every other weapon ability excepting the prior edition NDK Greatsword.

Are there any actual, current instances of other weapon abilities a model is allowed to use when not attacking with the weapon?

There are plenty of instances of impossibly illogical rules in 40k, if that's what you mean.