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.

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

I think i am agreeing with you there, but i'm not sure which way your post was swaying.....

I understand that there is an argument for the "Equipped" part of a weapon, for a rule like:
'A model equipped with an X weapon has the Eternal Warrior Special rule'

It would be clear that the model has the rule, very much like existing rules of Storm Shields:

A storm shield confers a 3+ invulnerable save. In addition, a model equipped with a storm shield can never claim the +1 Attack gained for being armed with two Melee weapons in an assault.

It is clear from the above that the model could not "give up" the restriction.

Or could it?

If a model has bought the Storm Shield, could he decide to "not make use of it" for a Turn? Would he still be "equipped" then?

It all comes down to how the rules are written, and in then end, the rules is written on the weapon's profile. So if you are not using the weapon profile, how can the model get the rule?

I think the discussion is almost:
Does a model not using a weapon in combat count as "equipped" with that weapon?

As Nos says:

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.

I would agree with Krisswall and others that no: a Model is not "equipped" when he fights Close Combat using another weapon....

Oh I do think it is poorly worded - anytime you override a rule you should really be explicit about it, especially somethiung as fundamental as more than one weapon

However currently "equipped" presents a contradiction, as it is a mandatory occurrence no matter whether you use the item or not. the rulebook states you cannot use that ability unless "using", your rule doesnt care about "using", just "having".

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Oh I do think it is poorly worded - anytime you override a rule you should really be explicit about it, especially somethiung as fundamental as more than one weapon

However currently "equipped" presents a contradiction, as it is a mandatory occurrence no matter whether you use the item or not. the rulebook states you cannot use that ability unless "using", your rule doesnt care about "using", just "having".

Oh sorry, other side then. Equipped as in "a model equipped with a space Marine bike" beig T5 is equipped: can't voluntarily "not have it".

And i do see your point wich is the only flaw in the argument that "You can't if you don't have it".

A lot of items with the wording "equipped" are quite final about having a rule or not. (As you say, they usually MUST have the rules)

 BlackTalos wrote:

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

I think i am agreeing with you there, but i'm not sure which way your post was swaying.....

I understand that there is an argument for the "Equipped" part of a weapon, for a rule like:
'A model equipped with an X weapon has the Eternal Warrior Special rule'

It would be clear that the model has the rule, very much like existing rules of Storm Shields:

A storm shield confers a 3+ invulnerable save. In addition, a model equipped with a storm shield can never claim the +1 Attack gained for being armed with two Melee weapons in an assault.

It is clear from the above that the model could not "give up" the restriction.

Or could it?

If a model has bought the Storm Shield, could he decide to "not make use of it" for a Turn? Would he still be "equipped" then?

It all comes down to how the rules are written, and in then end, the rules is written on the weapon's profile. So if you are not using the weapon profile, how can the model get the rule?

I think the discussion is almost:
Does a model not using a weapon in combat count as "equipped" with that weapon?

As Nos says:

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.

I would agree with Krisswall and others that no: a Model is not "equipped" when he fights Close Combat using another weapon....

Slightly off topic but with the mention of the storm shield this occurred to me. The wording on the Blizzard Shield in the Space Wolves codex gives the profile

S: user AP: 2 Type: Melee, Shield.
Shield: A blizzard shield confers a 3+ invulnerable save against all hits that strike the Dreadnought's front armor facing.

Now the wording is confers not equipped but by your and krisswall's logic the dreadnought doesn't get that save in CC unless he uses the shield as his weapon and not the x2 master-crafted giant axe.

It's the rules like this and other non attack related rules linked to weapons that make me believe that you may have the RAW on this but the RAI is definitely not on your side.

Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

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

I think i am agreeing with you there, but i'm not sure which way your post was swaying.....

I understand that there is an argument for the "Equipped" part of a weapon, for a rule like:
'A model equipped with an X weapon has the Eternal Warrior Special rule'

It would be clear that the model has the rule, very much like existing rules of Storm Shields:

A storm shield confers a 3+ invulnerable save. In addition, a model equipped with a storm shield can never claim the +1 Attack gained for being armed with two Melee weapons in an assault.

It is clear from the above that the model could not "give up" the restriction.

Or could it?

If a model has bought the Storm Shield, could he decide to "not make use of it" for a Turn? Would he still be "equipped" then?

It all comes down to how the rules are written, and in then end, the rules is written on the weapon's profile. So if you are not using the weapon profile, how can the model get the rule?

I think the discussion is almost:
Does a model not using a weapon in combat count as "equipped" with that weapon?

As Nos says:

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.

I would agree with Krisswall and others that no: a Model is not "equipped" when he fights Close Combat using another weapon....

Slightly off topic but with the mention of the storm shield this occurred to me. The wording on the Blizzard Shield in the Space Wolves codex gives the profile

S: user AP: 2 Type: Melee, Shield.
Shield: A blizzard shield confers a 3+ invulnerable save against all hits that strike the Dreadnought's front armor facing.

Now the wording is confers not equipped but by your and krisswall's logic the dreadnought doesn't get that save in CC unless he uses the shield as his weapon and not the x2 master-crafted giant axe.

It's the rules like this and other non attack related rules linked to weapons that make me believe that you may have the RAW on this but the RAI is definitely not on your side.

I would agree that per RaW, the Dread doesn't get the 3++ when he's swinging the Axe. He would get the 3++ during shooting, for example, but not during combat.

Also, I'm not even remotely concerned with RaI. RaI is ultimately unknowable. In some cases it seems clearer than others, but I don't think this is one of those times. I'm just trying to point out that the actual RaW doesn't accomplish what most people seem to want it to accomplish. Actual RaW doesn't let you attack with one weapon and use an ability from another weapon.

 Kriswall wrote:

Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

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

I think i am agreeing with you there, but i'm not sure which way your post was swaying.....

I understand that there is an argument for the "Equipped" part of a weapon, for a rule like:
'A model equipped with an X weapon has the Eternal Warrior Special rule'

It would be clear that the model has the rule, very much like existing rules of Storm Shields:

A storm shield confers a 3+ invulnerable save. In addition, a model equipped with a storm shield can never claim the +1 Attack gained for being armed with two Melee weapons in an assault.

It is clear from the above that the model could not "give up" the restriction.

Or could it?

If a model has bought the Storm Shield, could he decide to "not make use of it" for a Turn? Would he still be "equipped" then?

It all comes down to how the rules are written, and in then end, the rules is written on the weapon's profile. So if you are not using the weapon profile, how can the model get the rule?

I think the discussion is almost:
Does a model not using a weapon in combat count as "equipped" with that weapon?

As Nos says:

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.

I would agree with Krisswall and others that no: a Model is not "equipped" when he fights Close Combat using another weapon....

Slightly off topic but with the mention of the storm shield this occurred to me. The wording on the Blizzard Shield in the Space Wolves codex gives the profile

S: user AP: 2 Type: Melee, Shield.
Shield: A blizzard shield confers a 3+ invulnerable save against all hits that strike the Dreadnought's front armor facing.

Now the wording is confers not equipped but by your and krisswall's logic the dreadnought doesn't get that save in CC unless he uses the shield as his weapon and not the x2 master-crafted giant axe.

It's the rules like this and other non attack related rules linked to weapons that make me believe that you may have the RAW on this but the RAI is definitely not on your side.

I would agree that per RaW, the Dread doesn't get the 3++ when he's swinging the Axe. He would get the 3++ during shooting, for example, but not during combat.

Also, I'm not even remotely concerned with RaI. RaI is ultimately unknowable. In some cases it seems clearer than others, but I don't think this is one of those times. I'm just trying to point out that the actual RaW doesn't accomplish what most people seem to want it to accomplish. Actual RaW doesn't let you attack with one weapon and use an ability from another weapon.

So you want to use a Melee weapon during the shooting phase? The brb says that Melee weapons can only be used in the Assault phase, and it has been claimed that you can't use an ability if your not using the weapon, so what RaW are you basing this on? Of course this argument falls apart as stated with Eldrad's staff, runic ward abilities and others like it. I disagree about the RaI being unclear because it would seriously handicap a bunch of weapons (even excluding the kiss) if we followed this RaW.

I retract the comment about the shield. I didn't realize it was a melee weapon. I thought it was wargear. My bad. That's what I get for reading this on my phone.

And not following RAW because it "would seriously handicap a bunch of weapons" is a terrible reason.

 Kriswall wrote:
I retract the comment about the shield. I didn't realize it was a melee weapon. I thought it was wargear. My bad. That's what I get for reading this on my phone.

And not following RAW because it "would seriously handicap a bunch of weapons" is a terrible reason.

Your right I should have used "limit" instead of "handicap". I don't believe that GW expected their rules to limit the blizzard shield this way, but if you allow it to benefit from the invulnerable save regardless of the fact that it's a melee weapon and what not then the same could be said about allowing the kiss while equipped to do its thing.

I think at this point the only way that you can say the kiss won't provide its rule is if you essential limit a bunch of weapons, which really doesn't seem like any wants.

Trystis wrote:
I think at this point the only way that you can say the kiss won't provide its rule is if you essential limit a bunch of weapons, which really doesn't seem like any wants.

And it is the core of RaW V HYWPI positions.

We must all agree that the RaW would limit these weapons (because that is simply how the rules are written).

But i'm quite sure that Krisswall, Rigeld and any others who are adamant that RaW works in this way might actually play it completely differently when they are playing (HIWPI).

 BlackTalos wrote:

Trystis wrote:
I think at this point the only way that you can say the kiss won't provide its rule is if you essential limit a bunch of weapons, which really doesn't seem like any wants.

And it is the core of RaW V HYWPI positions.

We must all agree that the RaW would limit these weapons (because that is simply how the rules are written).

But i'm quite sure that Krisswall, Rigeld and any others who are adamant that RaW works in this way might actually play it completely differently when they are playing (HIWPI).

You are correct. I would play it allowing it because I think that's what GW intended... but we're debating RaW here. In the real world (i.e. not a snarky sub forum dedicated to bickering about rules), I'm actually quite laissez-faire when it comes to my games. I'm more of a painter than a player. I don't tend to be competitive at all when I play 40k.

If our harliquin equips it, it is a trinket (in wow) and it buffs him.. we all know this.. he can still slam with his 2 hander because he isn't dual wielding cos it is a trinket

This is the right answer.

Peace

ConanMan wrote:
If our harliquin equips it, it is a trinket (in wow) and it buffs him.. we all know this.. he can still slam with his 2 hander because he isn't dual wielding cos it is a trinket

This is the right answer.

Peace

I cannot choose between legitimate serious answer, a bout of trolling (post history seems completely clean) or an attempted joke for World of Warcraft players to understand...... lol
Please elaborate / explain...

sorry just saw this.. it's simple.. the Harlequin Kiss says "equipped" which we can all agree is a new term in the rules vernacular with no precident.. it also says this new definition term TWICE once in the kiss and again in the Special Item Gear (some sort of rose) of the Harlequin codex.. so we can rule out accidental wording.. it was conspicuous and deliberate.

You see it wasn't a "Troll" it was a serious point. This word is used all the time in gaming. It means carrying in an item slot In every game. All these games have muliple equip slots but usually 2 or 3 weapon slots.. an equip is used all the time in this context.

What possible reason would there be to introduce a new term into the 40k rules vernacular if it WASN'T to introduce a new CONCEPT. This to me is RAW. Equipped. Holding. Not using. Why not using? Because they have words for that. They are in every codex ever put out.

You are buffed by it because you have it in your pocket. Why is it RAW? Because there are terms for the other things. And the emphasis is there

ConanMan wrote:
sorry just saw this.. it's simple.. the Harlequin Kiss says "equipped" which we can all agree is a new term in the rules vernacular with no precident..

No, we can't. No, it's not.

"Equipped" has been used many times in multiple codexes. Off the top of my head, the Demons codex.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Bhazakhain wrote:
Agree. If you have a kiss and caress and you choose to attack with the caress then by not separating off one dice for the kiss of death you are breaking the rules. There is a reason why the rules for the kiss and caress don't say 'attacks made by this weapon......'.

Anyway, hope GW reply to my email. Love that people are arguing over one S6 AP2 attack.

You are actually breaking the rules by mixing and matching abilities from different weapons. There is no conflict here. The BRB tells us we can't attack with one weapon and use abilities from another. The Kiss of Death is clearly an ability from another weapon. Since the Kiss of Death doesn't EXPLICITLY say that it works with other weapons, we have to assume it doesn't. Assuming it works with other weapons is adding an implied permission to override the BRB's restriction.

Implied permission = not actually a rule. It's HYWPI. Which is fine. Just mark it as such.

To be honest, this makes perfect RAI sense to me. The Kiss works by basically punching your opponent and activating the gun thing attached to your fist. If you're not attacking with the Kiss, but instead the Caress, you shouldn't get this ability.

So you're telling me because I choose to attack with my power sword in close combat, my sergeant with his frag grenades still fights at initiative 1 when charging into cover because I'm "mixing and matching" rules for weapons.

In other words, I think you're wrong.

I keep going back to grenades. The Kiss states model gains X ability. It does not state the weapon itself is needed for that attack. You're equipped with something just by having it, going on any other metric in the game. Therefore Harlequin gains advantage of Kiss while striking with Embrace. It's that simple. Why is this still being argued?

 Kriswall wrote:
I retract the comment about the shield. I didn't realize it was a melee weapon. I thought it was wargear. My bad. That's what I get for reading this on my phone.

All weapons are wargear. When a unit has a weapon, where's it listed in the rulebooks? Right in the Wargear section.

There is nowhere in the rules for Kiss that the stipulation is when striking with the Harlequin's Kiss. Doesn't matter if it's also got it's own melee profile or not. I keep going back to grenades. It's accepted just by having them, you fight at full initiative when charging into cover.

Kriswall,

I'm not saying you are wrong - but would it be POSSIBLE that the BRB rule disallowing "mixing and matching" abilities from weapons is intended (but poorly expressed) to prevent mixing rules on the SAME ATTACKS?

As in a model with a lightning claw and a power fist getting both shred, AP 2 and Sx2 when attacking?

One COULD argue that combining the kiss and another weapon would not be considered "mixing and matching", since no single attack uses rules from more than one weapon.

Granted, you are not able to do this with any weapon combination, since the BRB tells you to use ONE weapon, but if that was how the "mixing and matching" rule was supposed to be interpreted, then the Kiss would work, using its rule.

To be honest, the "mixing and matching" rule itself is not very clear. It is very possible that you are right, but I wouldn't say that your interpretation of the BRB is an "absolute truth" in this case.

Just a thought...

kiss is an ability granted to the model, it does not require the model to strike with the kiss. If kiss/embrace were worded the same as caress then it would not work, but they are not worded that way.

there is no RAW stating a model loses the abilities of its equipped items and only has the abilities of the item it is striking with in assault.

there is also no RAW stating a model does not gain the benefit of rules that affect the model when striking with a weapon. Ie if a model has a rule that lets it have armorbane when the model attacks in assault, and it strikes with a powersword does it have armorbane? yes.

rigeld2 wrote:

ConanMan wrote:
sorry just saw this.. it's simple.. the Harlequin Kiss says "equipped" which we can all agree is a new term in the rules vernacular with no precident..

No, we can't. No, it's not.

"Equipped" has been used many times in multiple codexes. Off the top of my head, the Demons codex.

What in the Demons Codex has the "equipped" wording? Maybe with a bit of reference for it, as I don't own the Demon Codex.

blaktoof wrote:


there is also no RAW stating a model does not gain the benefit of rules that affect the model when striking with a weapon. Ie if a model has a rule that lets it have armorbane when the model attacks in assault, and it strikes with a powersword does it have armorbane? yes.

I think I get what you're stating but you're wording it really awkwardly.

"If a model has this special rule or is attacking with a melee weapon that has this special rule..." opens the Armourbane rule. Your MODEL would need the armourbane rule, not simply a weapon that has it, to roll that extra d6 in all close assaults with any weapon.

Basically we're looking at the specific wording of the rule for Harlequin's Kiss. Just says the model has to be equipped, not that he's attacking with it. Therefore one of the attacks, even when hitting with the Embrace, is made at S6 AP2.

@megatrons2nd: You're missing the mountain for the mole hill. "Equipped" as rules wording is littered throughout even the Base Rule Book.

 SRSFACE wrote:

blaktoof wrote:


there is also no RAW stating a model does not gain the benefit of rules that affect the model when striking with a weapon. Ie if a model has a rule that lets it have armorbane when the model attacks in assault, and it strikes with a powersword does it have armorbane? yes.

I think I get what you're stating but you're wording it really awkwardly.

"If a model has this special rule or is attacking with a melee weapon that has this special rule..." opens the Armourbane rule. Your MODEL would need the armourbane rule, not simply a weapon that has it, to roll that extra d6 in all close assaults with any weapon.

Basically we're looking at the specific wording of the rule for Harlequin's Kiss. Just says the model has to be equipped, not that he's attacking with it. Therefore one of the attacks, even when hitting with the Embrace, is made at S6 AP2.

@megatrons2nd: You're missing the mountain for the mole hill. "Equipped" as rules wording is littered throughout even the Base Rule Book.

Yes, but none are weapons. So the multi weapon rule limitation bonks head on with the rule for kiss/embrace. Hence this discussion. As written, the Solitaire can only ever use the kiss, as it says that one attack will be a kiss of death attack. With the no mixing of multiple weapons it will not be able to use the embrace. As intended, it is probably meant to use both, due to the fact that it is stupid to give a model a weapon it can't use(though giving the option to take it is a different story). Though I suppose the rule could mean that any model with two weapon choices could choose to make some attacks with one weapon and some with the other.

 megatrons2nd wrote:


Yes, but none are weapons. So the multi weapon rule limitation bonks head on with the rule for kiss/embrace. Hence this discussion. As written, the Solitaire can only ever use the kiss, as it says that one attack will be a kiss of death attack. With the no mixing of multiple weapons it will not be able to use the embrace. As intended, it is probably meant to use both, due to the fact that it is stupid to give a model a weapon it can't use(though giving the option to take it is a different story). Though I suppose the rule could mean that any model with two weapon choices could choose to make some attacks with one weapon and some with the other.

What?

You're not making any attacks with the Harlequin's Kiss.

A model being equipped with one makes one of it's attacks as a Kiss of Death attack. It says literally nothing about attacking with the weapon with that special rule. It does not say you are forced into attacking with the Kiss anywhere in it's rules.

As has been stated several times by now, grenades work this way. You gain the benefit of charging through terrain and retaining your initiative just for having them equipped.

I don't see what's so hard about any of this. Language is clear and concise. Why are people reading between the lines and making claims "RAW you have to attack with the Kiss" when there is literally no stipulation to do so? The multi-weapon in assault rules don't come into play here. The issue is people claiming, despite no language to support it, that you have to make your close combat attacks with the Kiss in order for one of them to be S6 AP2. That is not the case.

It's not like GW doesn't have precedent on how to word it such that you'd have to make the attacks with the kiss, seeing as the Caress contains such language and is actually listed first in the Wargear section. If they meant for it to be where you have to attack with the Kiss in order to gain the benefit of it's special rule, it'd be worded "When a model makes an attack with a weapon with this special rule..." for the Kiss of Death special rule.

As for the language of "equipped," that simply means it's an item on the model. That's it. If it's in their wargear section or is purchasable for the unit, it's equipped. End of story.

 SRSFACE wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:


Yes, but none are weapons. So the multi weapon rule limitation bonks head on with the rule for kiss/embrace. Hence this discussion. As written, the Solitaire can only ever use the kiss, as it says that one attack will be a kiss of death attack. With the no mixing of multiple weapons it will not be able to use the embrace. As intended, it is probably meant to use both, due to the fact that it is stupid to give a model a weapon it can't use(though giving the option to take it is a different story). Though I suppose the rule could mean that any model with two weapon choices could choose to make some attacks with one weapon and some with the other.

What?

You're not making any attacks with the Harlequin's Kiss.

A model being equipped with one makes one of it's attacks as a Kiss of Death attack. It says literally nothing about attacking with the weapon with that special rule. It does not say you are forced into attacking with the Kiss anywhere in it's rules.

As has been stated several times by now, grenades work this way. You gain the benefit of charging through terrain and retaining your initiative just for having them equipped.

I don't see what's so hard about any of this. Language is clear and concise. Why are people reading between the lines and making claims "RAW you have to attack with the Kiss" when there is literally no stipulation to do so? The multi-weapon in assault rules don't come into play here. The issue is people claiming, despite no language to support it, that you have to make your close combat attacks with the Kiss in order for one of them to be S6 AP2. That is not the case.

It's not like GW doesn't have precedent on how to word it such that you'd have to make the attacks with the kiss, seeing as the Caress contains such language and is actually listed first in the Wargear section. If they meant for it to be where you have to attack with the Kiss in order to gain the benefit of it's special rule, it'd be worded "When a model makes an attack with a weapon with this special rule..." for the Kiss of Death special rule.

As for the language of "equipped," that simply means it's an item on the model. That's it. If it's in their wargear section or is purchasable for the unit, it's equipped. End of story.

I will check on the grenades in a while. However, the rules for the kiss very clearly say if it is equipped with the kiss, 1 attack will be a kiss of death attack. There is no option in the wording, you will do this, no choice in the matter, "End of Story". The rules also clearly state that you may not mix the abilities of multiple weapons. So, the kiss does occupy a weird spot in being a weapon that is obviously meant to allow it's use with another weapon, even though the rules do not allow for it. Now onto looking at the grenades rules. Be back later.

 SRSFACE wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:


Yes, but none are weapons. So the multi weapon rule limitation bonks head on with the rule for kiss/embrace. Hence this discussion. As written, the Solitaire can only ever use the kiss, as it says that one attack will be a kiss of death attack. With the no mixing of multiple weapons it will not be able to use the embrace. As intended, it is probably meant to use both, due to the fact that it is stupid to give a model a weapon it can't use(though giving the option to take it is a different story). Though I suppose the rule could mean that any model with two weapon choices could choose to make some attacks with one weapon and some with the other.

What?

You're not making any attacks with the Harlequin's Kiss.

A model being equipped with one makes one of it's attacks as a Kiss of Death attack. It says literally nothing about attacking with the weapon with that special rule. It does not say you are forced into attacking with the Kiss anywhere in it's rules.

As has been stated several times by now, grenades work this way. You gain the benefit of charging through terrain and retaining your initiative just for having them equipped.

I don't see what's so hard about any of this. Language is clear and concise. Why are people reading between the lines and making claims "RAW you have to attack with the Kiss" when there is literally no stipulation to do so? The multi-weapon in assault rules don't come into play here. The issue is people claiming, despite no language to support it, that you have to make your close combat attacks with the Kiss in order for one of them to be S6 AP2. That is not the case.

It's not like GW doesn't have precedent on how to word it such that you'd have to make the attacks with the kiss, seeing as the Caress contains such language and is actually listed first in the Wargear section. If they meant for it to be where you have to attack with the Kiss in order to gain the benefit of it's special rule, it'd be worded "When a model makes an attack with a weapon with this special rule..." for the Kiss of Death special rule.

As for the language of "equipped," that simply means it's an item on the model. That's it. If it's in their wargear section or is purchasable for the unit, it's equipped. End of story.

Well I'm convinced. I'd still like a poll to get an idea of what the community support is. Even if I'm technically correct, im not going to try to argue RAW against a 90% majority. (Like allied ICs getting in BB transports in 6th.)

Until such time as you show permission to ignore the BRB restriction on mixing and matching weapon abilities, it doesn't matter how the Kiss of Death weapon ability is worded. If you're not attacking with the Kiss, you can't use its abilities. That would literally be mixing and matching abilities. The BRB explicitly tells us this is forbidden. If the Kiss of Death special rule/weapon ability had wording that said "this special rule may be used even when not attacking with the Kiss", you'd be in business. There is no such wording, so you either need a house rule or an FAQ/Errata to allow the mixing and matching of weapon abilities.

This seems extremely cut and dried. There is no conflict, so there is no advanced vs. basic going on here. If you attack with the Kiss, you get the Kiss of Death. If you attack with the Caress, you get the Caress of Death. The BRB specifically states you can't attack with one and gain the abilities of the other. The Kiss of Death does no explicitly override this restriction.

Pages and pages and nobody seems able to cite actual rules showing the restriction from the BRB being overridden.

He said/she said. Check with your opponents. Don't expect strangers/tournaments to necessarily be ok with mixing and matching weapon abilities. Etc, etc. Perhaps we're in need of a lock. This is going nowhere.

What if you dont attack with the kiss? Will the kiss still turn one of your attacks into a kiss attack?

Because it the kiss merely says turn one of your attacks. Do you get to choose to use it or not?

I dont care what RAW is im still using it the intended way, I was just interested on how gear selection works. Like if I took armour that made me I1, could I simply not use the armour and ignore the downsides? Same with the kiss, if I simply have the kiss would it change my attacks, regardless into a kiss attack? Or does it say I may use the kiss?

What about if a model has the instant death rule, but not his weapon? Can he mix the rules from another piece of gear (or himself) with the rules of a weapon in his hand?

 Swastakowey wrote:
What if you dont attack with the kiss? Will the kiss still turn one of your attacks into a kiss attack?

Because it the kiss merely says turn one of your attacks. Do you get to choose to use it or not?

I dont care what RAW is im still using it the intended way, I was just interested on how gear selection works. Like if I took armour that made me I1, could I simply not use the armour and ignore the downsides? Same with the kiss, if I simply have the kiss would it change my attacks, regardless into a kiss attack? Or does it say I may use the kiss?

What about if a model has the instant death rule, but not his weapon? Can he mix the rules from another piece of gear (or himself) with the rules of a weapon in his hand?

From a Rules as Written standpoint, if you attack with Weapon A, you may not use any abilities from Weapon B. If you attack with the Harlequin's Kiss, you MUST use the Kiss of Death. If you don't attack with the Harlequin's Kiss, you are not able to use the Kiss of Death as that would be mixing and matching weapon abilities.

Armour is entirely different. If the model has armour, it is in effect all the time. If you have multiple pieces of Wargear that offer an armour save, we are told in the rules to use the best save.

If a model has a special rule such as Instant Death, all attacks he makes will have the ID rule, regardless of Weapon used. Weapon abilities only work when the weapon in question is used.

Ok so yea technically you wouldnt get to use both. Unless the Kiss was not listed under the weapons section, but as some gear or an item instead.

Well now I'm undecided again.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Well now I'm undecided again.

I think its clear what it is meant to be, but as written technically it cannot be, unless we change the rules as per rules, to make it so.