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.

Rigeld, I couldn't find your rebuttal for the other ways to acquire special rules. Being equipped with does still fulfill the first sentence of the granting of special rules, the second sentence is strengthened by the wording of weapons that state when attacking with whatever weapon, something not present in the Harlequins Kiss. So, the restriction for attacking with a weapon to get it's special rule might not apply in this case. Though, that is up to the interpretation of the reader. I am focusing on the granting of a special rule by the "equipped with" portion of the rule in question, this does firmly place the rule under the first part of the special rule a model has. The second part is for when a model makes attacks, and are limited to said attacks, something this rule is not limited to in the way it is written.

As to not allowing the choice, look at Psychers with set powers, they still "generate powers" but the roll and even the choice of charts is removed, but they still get access to other charts, though the choice was removed for choosing them. So not really a problem in forcing them to use the Kiss over the caress every time.

Yes this would have been simpler if they wrote better rules, but it is not, so it is up to the interpretations of the readers.

RAW the Kiss will always apply, then no mixing and matching weapons, thus blocking the caress. I do admit that your interpretation is a valid one, just focusing on, or adding more weight to, one line instead of another.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Following the core rules in the rulebook which tell me I'm not allowed to use the Kiss of Death and then not using the Kiss of Death is breaking which core rule? Remember that you only gain the benefit of the Kiss of Death when attacking with the Harlequin's Kiss. The KoD is optional and contingent upon attacking with the HK. The restriction on mixing and matching is not optional.

The KoD rule requires you make a KoD attack whenever a model equipped with a Harlequins Kiss attacks in close combat. So if you are equipped with a Harlequins Kiss and attacking in close combat you must make a KoD attack or you are breaking the Kiss of Death rule. The restriction on making a kiss of death attack is no it optional.

How do I get benefits/restrictions from a special rule on a weapon I'm not using?

Through the magic of breaking the core rules. Oh, and HIWPI.

Not breaking core rules. Just applying a different line due to the nature of the way the rule in question is written.

rigeld2 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Following the core rules in the rulebook which tell me I'm not allowed to use the Kiss of Death and then not using the Kiss of Death is breaking which core rule? Remember that you only gain the benefit of the Kiss of Death when attacking with the Harlequin's Kiss. The KoD is optional and contingent upon attacking with the HK. The restriction on mixing and matching is not optional.

The KoD rule requires you make a KoD attack whenever a model equipped with a Harlequins Kiss attacks in close combat. So if you are equipped with a Harlequins Kiss and attacking in close combat you must make a KoD attack or you are breaking the Kiss of Death rule. The restriction on making a kiss of death attack is no it optional.

How do I get benefits/restrictions from a special rule on a weapon I'm not using?

From the KoD rule which clearly applies whenever a model equipped with a Harlequins Kiss attacks in close combat. Or is that not when it applies? Is the Harlequin codex lying when it says that is when the rule applies?

Can someone please give me a quote from the BRB that says that the only way to get a special rule from a weapon is to make an attack with it. I have seen this assertion in several posts however I do not seem to be able to find that rule in the BRB. I have posted what I found under the Special Rules entry in it listed 3 ways to get special rules, not just one.

Arthurmw43 wrote:
Can someone please give me a quote from the BRB that says that the only way to get a special rule from a weapon is to make an attack with it. I have seen this assertion in several posts however I do not seem to be able to find that rule in the BRB. I have posted what I found under the Special Rules entry in it listed 3 ways to get special rules, not just one.

Special Rules Section - What Special Rules Do I Have? Section - "...a model's attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using."

I don't believe there is any permission in the rule book for a model or its attacks to gain special rules because of a weapon it ISN'T using. There are obviously many ways for a model or its attacks to gain special rules, but I believe this is the only wording surrounding getting a special rule from a weapon. Might be wrong. It's a big book, but I'm pretty confident this is the key wording.

This is actually the key issue. FlingitNow would like the Solitaire to gain special rules from of a weapon the Solitaire ISN'T using. There is no permission in the core rule book to do so. This is a permissive rule set. If there is no permission, you can't do a thing. Since there is no permission to gain the special rule, how the Kiss of Death rule is worded isn't important. The Solitaire's attacks never actually gain the Kiss of Death rule. The only way for his attacks to gain the Kiss of Death special rule is by using the Harlequin's Kiss weapon in combat.

 Kriswall wrote:

Arthurmw43 wrote:
Can someone please give me a quote from the BRB that says that the only way to get a special rule from a weapon is to make an attack with it. I have seen this assertion in several posts however I do not seem to be able to find that rule in the BRB. I have posted what I found under the Special Rules entry in it listed 3 ways to get special rules, not just one.

Special Rules Section - What Special Rules Do I Have? Section - "...a model's attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using."

I don't believe there is any permission in the rule book for a model or its attacks to gain special rules because of a weapon it ISN'T using. There are obviously many ways for a model or its attacks to gain special rules, but I believe this is the only wording surrounding getting a special rule from a weapon. Might be wrong. It's a big book, but I'm pretty confident this is the key wording.

This is actually the key issue. FlingitNow would like the Solitaire to gain special rules from of a weapon the Solitaire ISN'T using. There is no permission in the core rule book to do so. This is a permissive rule set. If there is no permission, you can't do a thing. Since there is no permission to gain the special rule, how the Kiss of Death rule is worded isn't important. The Solitaire's attacks never actually gain the Kiss of Death rule. The only way for his attacks to gain the Kiss of Death special rule is by using the Harlequin's Kiss weapon in combat.

You obviously missed his earlier post. The one where he points out that there are other ways to get special rules, not just by using said weapon. Try posting the whole rule again, from start to finish, and then you will see where the disconnect is. You are focusing on that last part, and we are focusing on the first part.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
Rigeld, I couldn't find your rebuttal for the other ways to acquire special rules. Being equipped with does still fulfill the first sentence of the granting of special rules, the second sentence is strengthened by the wording of weapons that state when attacking with whatever weapon, something not present in the Harlequins Kiss. So, the restriction for attacking with a weapon to get it's special rule might not apply in this case. Though, that is up to the interpretation of the reader.

Which sentence allows you to gain the special rules of a weapon? Simple question.

I am focusing on the granting of a special rule by the "equipped with" portion of the rule in question, this does firmly place the rule under the first part of the special rule a model has. The second part is for when a model makes attacks, and are limited to said attacks, something this rule is not limited to in the way it is written.

Sigh.
Again - how does the model have the special rule in the first place? If you reference "equipped with" for that it's a self-referential argument and not a valid discussion.

As to not allowing the choice, look at Psychers with set powers, they still "generate powers" but the roll and even the choice of charts is removed, but they still get access to other charts, though the choice was removed for choosing them. So not really a problem in forcing them to use the Kiss over the caress every time.

I wasn't stating the lack of choice as support for my argument, simply stating that was a consequence that Fling asserted didn't exist.

RAW the Kiss will always apply, then no mixing and matching weapons, thus blocking the caress. I do admit that your interpretation is a valid one, just focusing on, or adding more weight to, one line instead of another.

So first it's "up to interpretation" and now it's "RAW"? I'm confused - which is it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Arthurmw43 wrote:
Can someone please give me a quote from the BRB that says that the only way to get a special rule from a weapon is to make an attack with it. I have seen this assertion in several posts however I do not seem to be able to find that rule in the BRB. I have posted what I found under the Special Rules entry in it listed 3 ways to get special rules, not just one.

There's only one sentence addressing how to get special rules from a weapon.
Without that, you never could - because the weapon isn't listed in any of the other methods to get a special rule.

There is no permission in the core rule book to do so.

There is however permission in the Harlequin codex. Or can codexes not change or add to any rules in the core rulebook now?

This is a permissive rule set. If there is no permission, you can't do a thing. Since there is no permission to gain the special rule, how the Kiss of Death rule is worded isn't important. The Solitaire's attacks never actually gain the Kiss of Death rule. The only way for his attacks to gain the Kiss of Death special rule is by using the Harlequin's Kiss weapon in combat.

Yet we have permission ignoring that permission is not RaW. Say that words don't matter is not RaW. Kiss of Death tells you exactly how and when it applies. Why do you keep ignoring that?

 megatrons2nd wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Arthurmw43 wrote:
Can someone please give me a quote from the BRB that says that the only way to get a special rule from a weapon is to make an attack with it. I have seen this assertion in several posts however I do not seem to be able to find that rule in the BRB. I have posted what I found under the Special Rules entry in it listed 3 ways to get special rules, not just one.

Special Rules Section - What Special Rules Do I Have? Section - "...a model's attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using."

I don't believe there is any permission in the rule book for a model or its attacks to gain special rules because of a weapon it ISN'T using. There are obviously many ways for a model or its attacks to gain special rules, but I believe this is the only wording surrounding getting a special rule from a weapon. Might be wrong. It's a big book, but I'm pretty confident this is the key wording.

This is actually the key issue. FlingitNow would like the Solitaire to gain special rules from of a weapon the Solitaire ISN'T using. There is no permission in the core rule book to do so. This is a permissive rule set. If there is no permission, you can't do a thing. Since there is no permission to gain the special rule, how the Kiss of Death rule is worded isn't important. The Solitaire's attacks never actually gain the Kiss of Death rule. The only way for his attacks to gain the Kiss of Death special rule is by using the Harlequin's Kiss weapon in combat.

You obviously missed his earlier post. The one where he points out that there are other ways to get special rules, not just by using said weapon. Try posting the whole rule again, from start to finish, and then you will see where the disconnect is. You are focusing on that last part, and we are focusing on the first part.

WHAT SPECIAL RULES DO I HAVE?
It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule. Most special rules are given to a model by the relevant Army List Entry or its unit type. That said, a model’s attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using.

Where is it stated otherwise? Just one place. Where?

Special Rules Section - What Special Rules Do I Have? Section - "...a model's attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using."

I don't believe there is any permission in the rule book for a model or its attacks to gain special rules because of a weapon it ISN'T using. There are obviously many ways for a model or its attacks to gain special rules, but I believe this is the only wording surrounding getting a special rule from a weapon. Might be wrong. It's a big book, but I'm pretty confident this is the key wording.

So we are agreeing that a model can get special rules in other ways, other than by making attacks? If so we don't need to keep rehashing the whole mix and match argument. What I'm suggesting is that in the case of Special rules that do not require an attack to be made, confer their rules, to the model, without an attack being made.

But the logic of not being able to check what the special rule grants, one would have a problem getting outflank as a special rule as it is granted to most units via the special rule of infiltrate.

What I'm suggesting is on par with a genestealer with rending claws (comes stock) purchasing toxin sacs (biomorph). all its close combat attacks have both rending and poisoned. the toxin sacs are an add-on that confers additional Special Rules to the model. Now the Kiss is more than just an add-on it is also a weapon in its own right but the Special Rule from the kiss does not require an attack to be made, only to be equipped.

Yes, neither is armor, or formations, or helmets......

It only says "most" notice how it does not deny weapons, nor include any of the previous. So unless a special rule is in the unit entry, or unit type we can't apply it. So we have been playing it wrong this whole time, and Troops choices don't get objective secured in a CAD.

The weapon entry also does not say that it is the only way that a weapon can give a model a special rule. It does say it's attacks, however. Thus you are not mixing and matching if you do apply both, because it is only modifying 1 attack, so then all is well. As the limitation on using the abilities of two weapons is circumvented by the special rules that only limit the special rules to attacks only.

Under Weapons

Special Rules
The type section of a weapon's profile also includes any special rules that apply to the weapon in question. More information on these can be found either in the special rules section(pg156) or in the codex or army list entry the weapon is found in.

More than one weapon
Unless otherwise stated, if a model has more than one shooting weapon, he must choose which one to shoot-he cannot fire both in the same shooting phase. If a model has more than one Melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with when it comes time to strike blows-he cannot mix and match the abilities of several different Melee weapons.

Notice how it doesn't say you can't use both, you just can't mix the abilities together. This could conceivably be interpreted as just deciding the number of each attack to be used.

Special Rules section

What Special rules do I have?
Most special rules are given to a model by the relevant Army list entry or its unit type. That said, a model's attacks gain special rules because of the weapon it is using.

So maybe models with attack special rules not attached to a weapon can't use them, because their attacks only get a special rule from its weapons.

See how wonderful over interpreting a rule can be.

Arthurmw43 wrote:
So we are agreeing that a model can get special rules in other ways, other than by making attacks?

Slight correction - using the weapon. That's typically making an attack, but doesn't have to be.

What I'm suggesting is that in the case of Special rules that do not require an attack to be made, confer their rules, to the model, without an attack being made.

But the logic of not being able to check what the special rule grants, one would have a problem getting outflank as a special rule as it is granted to most units via the special rule of infiltrate.

Incorrect - the model has Infiltrate. That gives us permission to reference the Infiltrate SR. The Infiltrate SR bestows the Outflank SR - which means you have permission to reference that one as well.

What I'm suggesting is on par with a genestealer with rending claws (comes stock) purchasing toxin sacs (biomorph). all its close combat attacks have both rending and poisoned. the toxin sacs are an add-on that confers additional Special Rules to the model. Now the Kiss is more than just an add-on it is also a weapon in its own right but the Special Rule from the kiss does not require an attack to be made, only to be equipped.

The Toxin Sacs upgrade says

If a model has the toxin sacs biomorph, its close combat attacks have the Poisoned special rule.

So the model never has the Special Rule.

I'm not even sure how that example is relevant either..

In addition to the special rules reading, I think it would be good to have some disambiguation on the pronouns used in the Harlequin's Kiss rules:

Currently: ""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). A Kiss of Death Attack is always resolved at Strength 6 AP2. If a 6 is rolled To Wound with a Kiss of Death Attack, that attack has the Instant Death special rule."

Does the "its," highlighted in red ("First It"), refer to the model or the Harlequins kiss? If it is the former, then the attacks are that of the model, and receive the kiss of death rule, regardless of whether or not the close combat attack is made by the Harlequins Kiss. If it is the latter, then it would follow that only close combat attacks made directly by the Harlequins kiss receive the kiss of death special rule.

The second "its", highlighted in green ("Second It"), is also important. Does it only reference Harlequin's kiss attacks or does it reference "close combat attacks" (see red "its" for what this references).

Finally, what does "equipped" mean in terms of 40k? Does the BRB differentiate between "equipped" and "attacks with", "uses" or another verb?

Option 1: The First It references the Harlequin's Kiss, therefore the close combat attacks are made with the Harlequin's Kiss. The Second it is irrelevant, as either way as both options refer directly to the use of the Harlequin's kiss in making the attack.
Option 2: The First It references the model that is "equipped with" but not necessarily making a close combat attack using the Harlequin's kiss. Now the Second It becomes important. If it references close combat attacks made with the Harlequin's kiss then you only get kiss of death if you make attacks using the Harlequin's Kiss as the weapon. Otherwise, one of the model's attacks receives Kiss of Death, regardless of whether or not all attacks are made by the weapon.

FWIW, my interpretation is that the attacks are all referencing that of the model since he/she/it is going through the physical motion of attacking with Weapon A in their hand, meaning that 1 of the attacks is always a Kiss of Death, even if the model use another weapon. I think we can all agree the writers need to go back to school and learn to not rely on pronouns so much!

 megatrons2nd wrote:
Yes, neither is armor, or formations, or helmets......

It only says "most" notice how it does not deny weapons, nor include any of the previous. So unless a special rule is in the unit entry, or unit type we can't apply it. So we have been playing it wrong this whole time, and Troops choices don't get objective secured in a CAD.

So I can just write a special rule on something and it gets it? Sweet - Eternal Warrior Swarmlord here I come!

Oh - I need a rule allowing it? Darn, it's too bad Formations and Detachment's don't have a spec...

If you choose to use a Battle-forged army, you must tell your opponent what units belong to what Detachments and what Command Benefits each will receive (if any) before you start deploying your army.

Instead of including a Force Organisation chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain.

Oh. Darn.

The weapon entry also does not say that it is the only way that a weapon can give a model a special rule. It does say it's attacks, however. Thus you are not mixing and matching if you do apply both, because it is only modifying 1 attack, so then all is well. As the limitation on using the abilities of two weapons is circumvented by the special rules that only limit the special rules to attacks only.

No, it doesn't say "it's attacks". It says "using" which is typically, but not always attacks.
And I didn't realize the rules forbidding mixing and matching only applied to all but one attack. Could you explain that rule to me? Citing it would be great.

Notice how it doesn't say you can't use both, you just can't mix the abilities together. This could conceivably be interpreted as just deciding the number of each attack to be used.

No, you can't decide the number of each attack to be used - because you must pick one to attack with. It's right there in the rule you quoted. One - not "one for all but one attack" or "one but you can use the ability of another if you feel like it"

So maybe models with attack special rules not attached to a weapon can't use them, because their attacks only get a special rule from its weapons.

The attacks don't have the special rules from the model (unless the special rule specifically applies itself to a model's attacks).

See how wonderful over interpreting a rule can be.

Yes, making up rules can be fun.

So what I'm getting from you is that you don't have a good argument, you just want to present potential problems by making up rules.
That doesn't seem a polite method to have a rules discussion.

I made a point earlier, do you attack with the kiss? I thought it was like armour giving a model a reroll on the charge. He isnt attacking with the armour, but his attacks are still effected by both the weapon and the armour.

If you have 2 weapons, one gives fearless and the other is a power sword, and you attack with the powersword, do you still benefit from fearless?

So I can just write a special rule on something and it gets it? Sweet - Eternal Warrior Swarmlord here I come!

Well if you were on the GW Design team by all means yes. Are you trying to say stuff you add to your book is as valid as stuff written in there from the start? What an odd stance explain this to me in more detail.

The attacks don't have the special rules from the model (unless the special rule specifically applies itself to a model's attacks).

How do we know which special rules apply then? We apparently aren't allowed to read them until we know if they apply. So how do we know which special rules modify our attacks without looking at the special rules themselves?

Yes, making up rules can be fun.

So what I'm getting from you is that you don't have a good argument, you just want to present potential problems by making up rules.
That doesn't seem a polite method to have a rules discussion.

What you're doing here is attacking the poster not his argument. This is not polite.

"No, it doesn't say "it's attacks". It says "using" which is typically, but not always attacks."

What Special rules do I have?
"Most special rules are given to a model by the relevant Army list entry or its unit type. That said, a model's attacks gain special rules because of the weapon it is using."

Direct from the book quote. Do you see an allowance for using the special rules from the CAD? No, neither do I. Oh, you want to include that under the most, why can't the Equipped HK rule?

Oh, right because weapon special rules can only come from a weapon being used. Look closely at that part, see how it says "a model's attacks gain special rules because of the weapon it is using" Do you see an allowance for using a special rule from any other source when making attacks? No, there isn't even a most. So using the interpretation you have set forth, no special rules for attacks can come from another source.

"And I didn't realize the rules forbidding mixing and matching only applied to all but one attack. Could you explain that rule to me? Citing it would be great."

Did you read the whole thing? Do you see where the ranged portion specifically calls out not being able to shoot both weapons? Do you see that in the Melee part? No, so it is just as valid an interpretation the way the rule is written.

"Yes, making up rules can be fun."
Not making up, just interpreting what is written, to the absurd levels already presented.

"So what I'm getting from you is that you don't have a good argument, you just want to present potential problems by making up rules.
That doesn't seem a polite method to have a rules discussion."

I quoted the rules as written in the book, and then interpreted them in a similar manner to what has already been presented thus far. Limiting every special rule because it is on a weapon to the only when it is used bit is half using the rule. It also flies in the face of the "most" portion of the first sentence that would allow for the use from a weapon special rule outside of the second part of the second sentence, is just as poor.

 FlingitNow wrote:

So I can just write a special rule on something and it gets it? Sweet - Eternal Warrior Swarmlord here I come!

Well if you were on the GW Design team by all means yes. Are you trying to say stuff you add to your book is as valid as stuff written in there from the start? What an odd stance explain this to me in more detail.

It's almost like taking statements out of context leads to an incorrect interpretation. Read what I replied to, please.

The attacks don't have the special rules from the model (unless the special rule specifically applies itself to a model's attacks).

How do we know which special rules apply then? We apparently aren't allowed to read them until we know if they apply. So how do we know which special rules modify our attacks without looking at the special rules themselves?

No, you can read them when you're told you have them.
For model special rules, it's when the rule is on the army list entry (for example).
For weapons, it's when the weapon is used.

Yes, making up rules can be fun.

So what I'm getting from you is that you don't have a good argument, you just want to present potential problems by making up rules.
That doesn't seem a polite method to have a rules discussion.

What you're doing here is attacking the poster not his argument. This is not polite.

No, I'm not. I'm making statements about how I'm viewing his argument based on what he's said. I haven't attacked the poster at all - I'm strictly discussing his argument.

Do you have anything of substance to add yet? Maybe a rule proving your assertions correct? You've yet to provide one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 megatrons2nd wrote:
"No, it doesn't say "it's attacks". It says "using" which is typically, but not always attacks."

What Special rules do I have?
"Most special rules are given to a model by the relevant Army list entry or its unit type. That said, a model's attacks gain special rules because of the weapon it is using."

Direct from the book quote.

Yup! Does it say "it's attacks" or does it say "using"?

Do you see an allowance for using the special rules from the CAD? No, neither do I. Oh, you want to include that under the most, why can't the Equipped HK rule?

It's amazing you can pretend the explicit rules I quoted are even remotely like the, at best, implication, of "equipped" in the KoD rule.

Oh, right because weapon special rules can only come from a weapon being used. Look closely at that part, see how it says "a model's attacks gain special rules because of the weapon it is using" Do you see an allowance for using a special rule from any other source when making attacks? No, there isn't even a most. So using the interpretation you have set forth, no special rules for attacks can come from another source.

Not true. If a model's special rules modify its attacks, a weapon can further modify them (because it doesn't say "solely" or anything that would remove the other special rules).

"And I didn't realize the rules forbidding mixing and matching only applied to all but one attack. Could you explain that rule to me? Citing it would be great."

Did you read the whole thing? Do you see where the ranged portion specifically calls out not being able to shoot both weapons? Do you see that in the Melee part? No, so it is just as valid an interpretation the way the rule is written.

So somehow, "must choose which one to attack with" means you can attack with two weapons?
Are you sure?

"Yes, making up rules can be fun."
Not making up, just interpreting what is written, to the absurd levels already presented.

It's not absurd. Your "interpretations" either ignore rules or invent words - neither is an "interpretation" if we're being honest.

"So what I'm getting from you is that you don't have a good argument, you just want to present potential problems by making up rules.
That doesn't seem a polite method to have a rules discussion."

I quoted the rules as written in the book, and then interpreted them in a similar manner to what has already been presented thus far. Limiting every special rule because it is on a weapon to the only when it is used bit is half using the rule. It also flies in the face of the "most" portion of the first sentence that would allow for the use from a weapon special rule outside of the second part of the second sentence, is just as poor.

Your "interpretation" means that the weapon part of the rule is useless and never has an effect on the game. It also has to make some assumptions (as shown throughout the thread) that just aren't valid (mostly the self-referential one).

Mine uses the rules as they're presented and makes no assumptions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I made a point earlier, do you attack with the kiss? I thought it was like armour giving a model a reroll on the charge. He isnt attacking with the armour, but his attacks are still effected by both the weapon and the armour.

Yes, in fact you must attack with it (or otherwise "use" it) to use the special rule.

If you have 2 weapons, one gives fearless and the other is a power sword, and you attack with the powersword, do you still benefit from fearless?

A weapon wouldn't bestow Fearless on it's wielded except when it's being used (attacking typically).

"Yup! Does it say "it's attacks" or does it say "using"? "

It says: "When a model equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss makes it's close combat attacks, one of its attacks will be a kiss of death attack(roll this attack separately)"

Far different from: When a model attacks with this weapon it does....(pretty much every weapon in the game)

I do not see "using" anywhere in that. It does say "it's attacks" It is written like special rules applied to models, not like the special rules applied to weapons.

Let me ask you this, If the weapon was the Harlequins Embrace how would it work?

Using your interpretation you would never be able to use the HoW attack. Since you can't reference the rule until you go to choose the weapon you are attacking with you have already missed the I10step(except for the Solitaire which is I10) and it is only I7. Do I lose the rule now? Am I just not allowed to resolve it? You don't choose a weapon until "he comes to strike blows" which as we know from the assault rules is the models respective Initiative value.

"Mine uses the rules as they're presented and makes no assumptions. "

Sadly you "assume" that the only way a weapon can give you a special rule is if you are using it/attacking with it. I do not make this assumption. I read that a rule is provided because it is "equipped with" the item. Which does fall into the Paradigm set in the first sentence providing special rules.

Self Referencing is what many rules do. If you don not Reference the rule, you will literally never be able to use some of them. Especially rules that provide other rules.

"Your "interpretation" means that the weapon part of the rule is useless and never has an effect on the game. It also has to make some assumptions (as shown throughout the thread) that just aren't valid (mostly the self-referential one)."

No, my interpretation leaves an opening for weapons that say equipped with to still provide a special rule outside of attacking with it, which 98% of the weapons tell you, explicitly, When making attacks with this weapon do whatever. Unlike the Kiss and Embrace. What other weapon says to do something when a model is equipped with it? There are none in the Dark Eldar Codex that don't specify when attacking with, or when wounding with said weapon. The Eldar have the Spiritlink rule, so great now Eldrad can't get bonus warp charges, as he can't "use" a staff outside of melee. Awesome, Yriel doesn't have to reroll saves of 6. The Shard of Anaris, Vaul's work rule, gives Fearless, and in a challenge making attacks with the weapon have Fleshbane and ID, so obviously, he is not fearless, except in melee. All the other Eldar stuff specifies when attacking with the weapon or wounding with the weapon.

Most of the rest of my "interpretations" are taking the absurdity to the same level I see when using 2 words out of a sentence, and ignoring another completely, to disallow a rule from functioning. I really do not believe them.

"When a model (equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss) makes it's close combat attacks, one of its attacks will be a kiss of death attack(roll this attack separately)"

If the part in parenthesis wasn't there would this be a weapon rule or a model rule?

 megatrons2nd wrote:
"Yup! Does it say "it's attacks" or does it say "using"? "

It says: "When a model equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss makes it's close combat attacks, one of its attacks will be a kiss of death attack(roll this attack separately)"

Sorry - we're talking past each other. I thought you were referring to the multiple weapons rule - going back and rereading I was wrong.

Far different from: When a model attacks with this weapon it does....(pretty much every weapon in the game)

Relevance?

Let me ask you this, If the weapon was the Harlequins Embrace how would it work?

Using your interpretation you would never be able to use the HoW attack. Since you can't reference the rule until you go to choose the weapon you are attacking with you have already missed the I10step(except for the Solitaire which is I10) and it is only I7. Do I lose the rule now? Am I just not allowed to resolve it? You don't choose a weapon until "he comes to strike blows" which as we know from the assault rules is the models respective Initiative value.

Correct! Embrace doesn't function as written. I've basically said that multiple times.

"Mine uses the rules as they're presented and makes no assumptions. "

Sadly you "assume" that the only way a weapon can give you a special rule is if you are using it/attacking with it. I do not make this assumption. I read that a rule is provided because it is "equipped with" the item. Which does fall into the Paradigm set in the first sentence providing special rules.

It's not an assumption - it's what the rules permit. As I've explained. Your argument requires the assumption that the rules mean things that they don't actually say.

Self Referencing is what many rules do. If you don not Reference the rule, you will literally never be able to use some of them. Especially rules that provide other rules.

You're not just self-referencing - you're self permitting.
"I have permission to use the rule because the rule give me permission to use the rule which I can use because the rule gives me permission to use the rule which I can use because ..."
Circular argument is circular.

"Your "interpretation" means that the weapon part of the rule is useless and never has an effect on the game. It also has to make some assumptions (as shown throughout the thread) that just aren't valid (mostly the self-referential one)."

No, my interpretation leaves an opening for weapons that say equipped with to still provide a special rule outside of attacking with it, which 98% of the weapons tell you, explicitly, When making attacks with this weapon do whatever. Unlike the Kiss and Embrace. What other weapon says to do something when a model is equipped with it? There are none in the Dark Eldar Codex that don't specify when attacking with, or when wounding with said weapon. The Eldar have the Spiritlink rule, so great now Eldrad can't get bonus warp charges, as he can't "use" a staff outside of melee. Awesome, Yriel doesn't have to reroll saves of 6. The Shard of Anaris, Vaul's work rule, gives Fearless, and in a challenge making attacks with the weapon have Fleshbane and ID, so obviously, he is not fearless, except in melee. All the other Eldar stuff specifies when attacking with the weapon or wounding with the weapon.

You act like this is new information. Some things the intent is obvious (Spiritlink, Harlequin's Embrace, etc). Hell, Yriel has come up in YMDC multiple times and this is the conclusion that's been reached.

Most of the rest of my "interpretations" are taking the absurdity to the same level I see when using 2 words out of a sentence, and ignoring another completely, to disallow a rule from functioning. I really do not believe them.

It's not an absurdity - and your mocking is even less polite than calling it that.

"When a model (equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss) makes it's close combat attacks, one of its attacks will be a kiss of death attack(roll this attack separately)"

If the part in parenthesis wasn't there would this be a weapon rule or a model rule?

Depends. Is it on a weapon or a model?

I wonder how many pages this will go - very entertaining to read !

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I wonder how many pages this will go - very entertaining to read !

I think the problem, is that upon further reading, it seems weapons with rules that arent related to Close Combat etc, cant properly function as written.

So technically heaps of stuff doesnt work (or as my understanding after reading these 2 threads) when it comes to melee weapons and their rules outside of combat.

So we have an issue, where do we assume that its meant to be used like most other special rules? Or do we play it as written where only when actually using a weapon do we get any of the special rules that come with it.

I think the vast majority of people will play it not as written. So a sword that gives FnP will always give FnP even when not using the weapon in combat or using another weapon, despite the rule saying otherwise.

But im still reading....

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I wonder how many pages this will go - very entertaining to read !

I think the problem, is that upon further reading, it seems weapons with rules that arent related to Close Combat etc, cant properly function as written.

So technically heaps of stuff doesnt work (or as my understanding after reading these 2 threads) when it comes to melee weapons and their rules outside of combat.

So we have an issue, where do we assume that its meant to be used like most other special rules? Or do we play it as written where only when actually using a weapon do we get any of the special rules that come with it.

I think the vast majority of people will play it not as written. So a sword that gives FnP will always give FnP even when not using the weapon in combat or using another weapon, despite the rule saying otherwise.

But im still reading....

Yeah, the old thread was quite clear on that. I shall use some of Rigeld's posts:

rigeld2 wrote:
So what you're saying is that you don't understand the argument at all. Cool.

Please show me the "Cursed" rule in Yriel's Army List Entry.
Since you can't, I'll point out that it's on his Spear. Do you agree?
Now - the rule you quoted says that if there is a conflict then the more advanced rule takes precedence.

There's no conflict between Cursed and when weapons are used, and how those rules interact. None. If you disagree, explain the conflict.

rigeld2 wrote:

Drazosh wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Drazosh wrote:With Cursed or Blinded, I'd be happy to ignore them when not attacking, since they're mostly drawbacks

Fortunately, the rules support that. You cannot benefit form a special rule on a weapon unless you're attacking with it.

I couldn't find a source for the word "benefit," or that would have clarified matters earlier. Cursed is clearly not a benefit, so it wouldn't be ignored, following that wording. Anything positive, though, would be.

Wait... or do you mean that the rules support ignoring those specific rules? Forgive the misunderstanding.

I do mean that the rules support ignoring special rule on a weapon that you're not currently using.
Meaning Cursed has no effect unless Yriel suffers wounds at his initiative step.

So technically, by RaW, Special Rules found under the weapons "TYPE" can only be used when the weapon is used to strike blows (at your Initiative step).
The RaW you need to follow was clearly given on Page 6 of the thread:
So, "Kiss of Death" is a special rule with rules already quoted: when equipped, the weapon gives "bonus XYZ". The special rule is listed under "TYPE" of the Harelquin's Kiss.
Rulebook about TYPE:

Special Rules
The type section of a weapon’s profile also includes any special rules that apply to the weapon in question. More information on these can be found either in the special rules section or in the codex or army list entry the weapon is found in.

So, "Kiss of Death" applies ONLY to the weapon in question. Any disagreement against this RaW would need a clear quote to prove the contrary.

It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule. Most special rules are given to a model by the relevant Army List Entry or its unit type. That said, a model’s attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using.

So, you can gain abilities from the weapons (the ones listed in "TYPE") when you "use" those weapon. Any disagreement against this RaW would need a clear quote to prove the contrary.

MORE THAN ONE WEAPON
Unless otherwise stated,(...) 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.

So, if you have 2 weapons, with 2 abilities, IE Harlequin's Caress, with the ability "Caress of Death" + Harlequin's Kiss, with the ability "Kiss of Death", you must select one of the two weapons, and you only get the Special Rules from the one you are using. Any disagreement against this RaW would need a clear quote to prove the contrary.

Simple conclusion:
When you are using the Harlequin's Caress, with the ability "Caress of Death", you only have the Special Rule "Caress of Death" plus those listed in the Solitaire's profile.
You do not have the Special Rule "Kiss of Death".

If you do not have the special rule "Kiss of Death", why is there an issue about "not being able to follow / breaking the rule" ? You do not have it.
Can you break the "Fear" rule if none of your models have "Fear"?

"It's not an assumption - it's what the rules permit. As I've explained. Your argument requires the assumption that the rules mean things that they don't actually say."

But it is not what the rules actually say. If you went by what the rules actually say, then no rules outside of what is written on the army list entry or unit type, or given by psychic powers, terrain, or scenario special rules could function. Go ahead reread the rule, it says "most special rules are given to a model by the relevant Army unit list entry or its unit type." Do you see an exclusion for providing a special rule from a weapon. I don't. I see a second sentence that applies to weapons and attacks, but that sentence also does not only limit special rules given from weapons to only attacks. "That said, a model's attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using." I don't see a "the only way a weapon provides a special rule is".

You are literally excluding weapons from a list that can include them. Thus following logic, your interpretation that does not include other sources beyond what is stated, No formation special rules may apply, nor wargear as it is not part of the army list entry. Remember, I am applying the rule using your interpretation of the rule. It's not specifically called out, so they can not apply.


"Relevance?"

Go through every codex you have. Read every weapon entry. Notice how every weapon tells you that when attacking with this weapon, or wounds with this weapon it does something. Now go read the Kiss, see how it simply tells you to do something without a restriction to using the weapon.

"You're not just self-referencing - you're self permitting.
"I have permission to use the rule because the rule give me permission to use the rule which I can use because the rule gives me permission to use the rule which I can use because ..."
Circular argument is circular."

You do realize that the rules are all self permitting? Go ahead, try to use them without the permission in the rule. I'll wait.......

 megatrons2nd wrote:
"It's not an assumption - it's what the rules permit. As I've explained. Your argument requires the assumption that the rules mean things that they don't actually say."

But it is not what the rules actually say. If you went by what the rules actually say, then no rules outside of what is written on the army list entry or unit type, or given by psychic powers, terrain, or scenario special rules could function. Go ahead reread the rule, it says "most special rules are given to a model by the relevant Army unit list entry or its unit type." Do you see an exclusion for providing a special rule from a weapon. I don't. I see a second sentence that applies to weapons and attacks, but that sentence also does not only limit special rules given from weapons to only attacks. "That said, a model's attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using." I don't see a "the only way a weapon provides a special rule is".

So you're using a "doesn't say I can't" argument... yeah, that'll go places.
You need permission. You admit it doesn't exist.

You are literally excluding weapons from a list that can include them. Thus following logic, your interpretation that does not include other sources beyond what is stated, No formation special rules may apply, nor wargear as it is not part of the army list entry. Remember, I am applying the rule using your interpretation of the rule. It's not specifically called out, so they can not apply.

No, that's not correct.
Formation special rules apply because - as I've quoted - there's a rule specifying they apply.
Wargear is part of an army list entry, and it's not a weapon, so it applies.
You're not applying the rule using my interpretation, you're deliberately pretending that it doesn't work to put my argument in a bad light (which is failing).

Go through every codex you have. Read every weapon entry. Notice how every weapon tells you that when attacking with this weapon, or wounds with this weapon it does something. Now go read the Kiss, see how it simply tells you to do something without a restriction to using the weapon.

Again - so? And this isn't true. The Kiss isn't unique.

"You're not just self-referencing - you're self permitting.
"I have permission to use the rule because the rule give me permission to use the rule which I can use because the rule gives me permission to use the rule which I can use because ..."
Circular argument is circular."

You do realize that the rules are all self permitting? Go ahead, try to use them without the permission in the rule. I'll wait.......

So you don't understand what I'm saying then - awesome. You could've just said that.

Let's start simple: You need permission to use a rule, correct?
(This assumes a permissive rule set - which 40k must be. If you disagree with this then we'll never come to an agreement and the rules literally don't work.)

Rigeld, could you try actually addressing his argument?

Just saying, "you don't understand? cool." is neither constructive, helpful, nor does it do anything but irritate everyone who reads what you write.

His argument was that the weapon does not say "when attacking with this weapon" which almost every other weapon with special attack benefits does say. By not putting the requirement that blows be struck with the weapon, simply having it equipped is enough for the special rule to trigger. So no rules are broken by having the special rule triggered if the weapon is equipped.

Can you address this? In the 10 pages I have yet to see where you have addressed this critical question.

NightHowler, how does a model get special rules from weapons?

"you only get the Special Rules from the one you are using.."

Where is that in the rule book? I can't find it. Nowhere that I can find does it say "the only way to receive a special rule from a weapon is to attack with it".

 Happyjew wrote:
NightHowler, how does a model get special rules from weapons?

In the case of the weapon in question the model gets it by equipping it.

edited to add that there are other examples of this, but the Harlequin's Kiss is different from most. Where most of the other special rules are either "when attacking with this weapon - attack bonus" or "when equipped with this weapon - non attack bonus", the Kiss actually says "when equipped with this weapon - attack bonus".

I can see how this will cause no end of confusion until an FAQ comes out because it is unique in that you don't have to attack with it to get an attack bonus.

Also, when trying to hit the "edit" button I accidentally hit the "exalt" button...
Is there a way to "un-exalt" my own post?

 NightHowler wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
NightHowler, how does a model get special rules from weapons?

In the case of the weapon in question the model gets it by equipping it.

That's not what I asked.

How does a model get special rules from weapons?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let me rephrase this.

Without referring to the special rule, how does a model receive a special rule from a weapon?

 Happyjew wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
NightHowler, how does a model get special rules from weapons?

In the case of the weapon in question the model gets it by equipping it.

That's not what I asked.

How does a model get special rules from weapons?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let me rephrase this.

Without referring to the special rule, how does a model receive a special rule from a weapon?

The same way that a Rune Priest gets adamantium will from his runic staff. By equipping it.

"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"

Notice that it does not say "...makes its close combat attacks with the harlequin's kiss.." but rather simply says when the model so equipped makes it's attacks.

This is not like any other piece of wargear that I'm aware of.