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.
The model doesn't have the rule, so cannot make use of it. Proven.
Your continued refusal to show permission to invoke the rile you don't even have is telling.
If it is proven then prove it. Cite the rules that state "The model doesn't have the rule, so cannot make use of it". Because that severely nerfed Stealth, PE etc.
I've quoted permission for the rule to be used. You claim I can't read that rule. So do we have general permission to read the rules? If so you need a specific exception to that rule for KoD. Or do we have specific rules telling us what rules we can read? If so quote them.
Permission to ignore requirement D is in the wording of the Harlequin's Kiss. It says that if the wargear is equipped you use it's special rule. That wording for the wargear is more specific than the rule from the BRB stating when you can benefit from a special rule and so it trumps it. I have said this before and it is how I address the issue you're saying I haven't addressed.
I agree that it is a permissive rule set. I disagree that a specific rule (Harlequin's Kiss) is not allowed to break a general rule (What Special Rules Do I Have). Because the Harlequin's Kiss is more specific and because it tells us to trigger the special rule when the weapon is equipped and when the model makes close combat attacks, it trumps the requirement that the model attack with the weapon.
Instead of saying I haven't addressed this issue, please say you disagree with (part X) of how I have addressed it.
Fair.
I disagree with this part...
The core rulebook tells you that your attacks don't gain the Kiss of Death special rule. Your permission to ignore this restriction requires a special rule you don't have. At the point when you try to decide whether or not your attack gains the Kiss of Death rule, you don't have access to the Kiss of Death rule... so you can't use having it as justification to gaining it.
This is what we mean by circular reasoning.
"You don't have Kiss of Death."
"I do."
"What is telling you that you do?"
"The Kiss of Death rule."
"But you don't have the Kiss of Death rule."
"I do."
"What is telling you that you do?"
"The Kiss of Death rule."
"But you don't have the Kiss of Death rule."
etc, etc
Since the BRB is restricting you from having access to the Kiss of Death rule when not attacking with a Harlequin's Kiss, you'd need specific wording saying "this weapon ability/special rule may be used even when not attacking with a Harlequin's Kiss". Without specific wording like that, there is no real conflict. It doesn't matter what the rule says, because your attacks don't gain the rule unless you're using the Harlequin's Kiss... which you aren't when attacking with the Harlequin's Caress.
This is my core disagreement. Your permission to gain the rule requires that you already have the rule. If you don't have the rule, the rules text doesn't mean anything.
Kriswall, this is why I like debating with you. You actually read what other people write and reply thoughtfully.
I understand the basis of your argument to be that you cannot use the special rules from more than one weapon because of the more than one weapon rule on page 41 which says, "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." and since the Kiss of Death is one of the Harlequin's Kiss' special abilities, you are not allowed to use it if you have used any other weapon's abilities.
You have a very strong argument and I will admit that you are probably correct. The reason I joined this discussion is because the claim was made earlier in the thread that "you must use the weapon to gain it's abilities", but there are other weapons where this is not the case. Examples have been mentioned earlier but the only one that concerns me is the Rune Priest's Runic Weapon which grant's adamantium will if the model is equipped with the weapon. Adamantium will is not an attack ability, and if the statement "you must use the weapon to gain it's abilities" is true then pieces of wargear like the Runic Weapon would cease to grant their special rules except in the combat phase when using the weapon to strike blows, rendering it useless.
I don't play Eldar and have little interest in whether or not the wargear works this way or not, but I thought that debating it would help me understand whether or not this statement is true: "you must use a weapon to gain it's abilities".
Since you're basing your argument on the More Than One Weapon rule and not on the What Special Rules Do I Have rule, I think I can safely concede that the Harlequin's Kiss will not grant the Kiss of Death special rule if you have used the special rules from a different weapon while maintaining that Runic Weapons grant Ward outside of the assault phase - no need to use the Runic Weapon to gain Adamantium Will since you are not using a different weapon in your opponent's psychic phase and thus not breaking the More Than One Weapon rule.
Please believe me when I say that I haven't been trolling, I've been playing devil's advocate to help me get a grasp on how this argument affects my army.
I think i can agree with the conclusions from this. It would make a lot more sense by RaW and cover the weapons with abilities which apply mainly out of Combat (Eldar weapons and the Runic Staff).
I don't think anyone was ever accused of trolling in this thread, it is just an unclear section of the rules that (for me anyway) needs clarification with some good logic.
So far i am still unsure about weapons such as the Runic staff to have allowance for their rules (Adamantium Will) outside of the Combat phase, but you make a good point. Weapons are part of a model's wargear, so rules similar to a Storm shield should work in the same way.
To try and describe the issue i have in slightly more depth:
A piece of wargear, such as a Storm Shield or others that say "equipped", often have rules allocated to the item.
On the other hand, the weapons we are trying to "make work" have special rules listed inside their profiles.
So a Storm shield does not say:
"Storm Shield" - Model has the "Shield" special rule
where "Shield" would be a 3++, and you would have to "activate" the special rule in some way or another.
No, the Storm shield just has "rules"
The Runic staff, or Harlequin's Kiss, however have a profile, which include a Special rule. And only by "What Special Rules Do I Have" can they activate those abilities, even if these say "equipped".
If these same weapons were:
"Runic Staff" S +2 AP 4 Melee, Force
In addition, a model equipped with a Runic staff has the Adamantium Will special rule.
"Harlequin's Kiss" S User AP - Melee
A model equipped with a HK has the "Kiss of Death" Special rule.
Then i would have absolutely no issue with the model having those rules.
Basically, my reluctance to completely agree with your point is that these rules are listed in the weapon's "TYPE". And rules listed there can only be invoked by the "What Special Rules Do I Have" rule, never by the rule itself (or we have a circular logic, which cannot work)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FlingitNow wrote: It seems likely the intent is for the Solitaire to gain the benefits of the 1 special attack whilst using the caress. However RaW is that he can't. Perhaps the codex will be clearer than the white though I wouldn't hold my breath and a proper FAQ seems even less likely.
By the way FlingIt, just out of curiosity, but you changed your point of view since the 1st page right?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/18 10:35:13
DA:80-S+G+M+B++I-Pw40k01++D+++A+++WD100R++T(T)DM+
Roronoa Zoro wrote:When the world shoves you around, you just gotta stand up and shove back. It's not like somebody's gonna save you if you start babbling excuses. - Bring on the hardship. It's preferred in a path of carnage.
Manchu wrote:
It's like you take a Space Marine and say "what could make him cooler?" Instead of adding more super-genetic-psycho-organic modification, you take it all away. You have a regular human left in power armor and all the armies of hell at the gates. And she doesn't even flinch. Pure. Badass.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Essentially I assumed you need the special rule to get the benefit of it. What's that saying about assumptions and mothers?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/18 10:43:09
Except that isn't what's been argued. Just your usual twisting of others words to suit your argument
You do no have the special rule KOD. Show permission to invoke the rule, that isn't found within the rule itself. Page and graph. Or don't, as usual, a spend rely on yet more hand waving to ignore basic facts.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Except that isn't what's been argued. Just your usual twisting of others words to suit your argument
You do no have the special rule KOD. Show permission to invoke the rule, that isn't found within the rule itself. Page and graph. Or don't, as usual, a spend rely on yet more hand waving to ignore basic facts.
Why can't I use the KoD rule to tell me when it applies? Have you got any rules to support this stance?
So, Fling, if I take a Harlequin squad from Codex: Eldar, and equip them Harlequin's Kisses, they all get Kiss of Death when making their close combat attacks? After all, they are making cc attacks and equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss.
Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia
Happyjew wrote: So, Fling, if I take a Harlequin squad from Codex: Eldar, and equip them Harlequin's Kisses, they all get Kiss of Death when making their close combat attacks? After all, they are making cc attacks and equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Except that isn't what's been argued. Just your usual twisting of others words to suit your argument
You do no have the special rule KOD. Show permission to invoke the rule, that isn't found within the rule itself. Page and graph. Or don't, as usual, a spend rely on yet more hand waving to ignore basic facts.
Why can't I use the KoD rule to tell me when it applies? Have you got any rules to support this stance?
How are you using a. Special rule you don't have? Or one where another model has it that explicitly allows a model without it to use it? Worked that one out yet?
Happyjew wrote: So, Fling, if I take a Harlequin squad from Codex: Eldar, and equip them Harlequin's Kisses, they all get Kiss of Death when making their close combat attacks? After all, they are making cc attacks and equipped with a Harlequin's Kiss.
Yes that appears to be RaW.
Wow. Just Wow. So, to be clear, you're arguing that a model from an entirely different Codex, making an attack with an entirely different weapon (same name though) that doesn't have the Kiss of Death rule in its profile will still get to make a Kiss of Death attack because you think RaW supports weapon special rules to self permit?
For reference, a Codex: Eldar Harlequin's Kiss is "S User, AP -, Melee, Rending".
If I understand what you've just said, your argument is ludicrous.
I would argue (pretty successfully, I think) that Codex: Eldar Harlequins equipped with Harlequin's Kisses DON'T make a Kiss of Death attack when attacking. Why not? Because their attacks NEVER gain that rule. Just like a Solitaire from Codex: Harlequins who isn't attacking with a Harlequin's Kiss. His attacks NEVER gain that rule. The fact that an equipped weapon has a rule is 100% irrelevant if the model's attacks never GAIN the rule.
Please explain your reasoning. Please explain to me how a model attacking with a weapon that doesn't have a special rule benefits from that special rule. You are insistent that it works for Solitaires. Perhaps you can explain how it works with Eldar Harlequins.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/18 11:57:54
Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com
How are you using a. Special rule you don't have? Or one where another model has it that explicitly allows a model without it to use it? Worked that one out yet?
So the text of stealth can allow a model without stealth to benefit but the text of kiss of death can't? Wow just wow.
Kiss of death tells me when it applies. It doesn't require me to have the special. It requires that I am attacking in CC whilst equipped with a Harlequins Kiss.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would argue (pretty successfully, I think) that Codex: Eldar Harlequins equipped with Harlequin's Kisses DON'T make a Kiss of Death attack when attacking. Why not? Because their attacks NEVER gain that rule. Just like a Solitaire from Codex: Harlequins who isn't attacking with a Harlequin's Kiss. His attacks NEVER gain that rule. The fact that an equipped weapon has a rule is 100% irrelevant if the model's attacks never GAIN the rule.
That's cool but please mark your posts HYWPI. Or support these debunked assertations with actual rules.
Kiss of Death is clear. It doesn't require me to have the special rule. It requires that I am attacking in CC whilst equipped with a Harlequins Kiss.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/18 12:27:31
How are you using a. Special rule you don't have? Or one where another model has it that explicitly allows a model without it to use it? Worked that one out yet?
So the text of stealth can allow a model without stealth to benefit but the text of kiss of death can't? Wow just wow.
Kiss of death tells me when it applies. It doesn't require me to have the special. It requires that I am attacking in CC whilst equipped with a Harlequins Kiss.
Every Stealth situation I can think of results from a model having Stealth listed in its Army Unit Entry or from a model gaining it from a non-Weapon piece of Wargear.
Your Stealth argument is an entirely different situation and meaningless to this situation. Stealth doesn't confer to a weapon's attacks and isn't gained from a weapon special rule. If you disagree, show me a weapon with the Stealth special rule and we'll discuss it.
You obviously don't understand how models/attacks GAIN special rules. The Stealth rules text doesn't grant the Stealth rule to a model. The fact that Stealth is listed on a model's wargear is what causes the model to gain the Stealth special rule. The obvious restrictions being that during the fight sub-phase, you may only gain special rules from weapons you're using. Same with the shooting sequence. You only gain special rules from weapons you're shooting with. Non-weapon wargear works all the time as the BRB presents no restrictions for them.
Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com
Actually, I'm switching sides. I'm joining Fling on this one. Codex: Eldar Harlequins with Kiss of Death is just to good to pass up.
Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia
How are you using a. Special rule you don't have? Or one where another model has it that explicitly allows a model without it to use it? Worked that one out yet?
So the text of stealth can allow a model without stealth to benefit but the text of kiss of death can't? Wow just wow.
Kiss of death tells me when it applies. It doesn't require me to have the special. It requires that I am attacking in CC whilst equipped with a Harlequins Kiss.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would argue (pretty successfully, I think) that Codex: Eldar Harlequins equipped with Harlequin's Kisses DON'T make a Kiss of Death attack when attacking. Why not? Because their attacks NEVER gain that rule. Just like a Solitaire from Codex: Harlequins who isn't attacking with a Harlequin's Kiss. His attacks NEVER gain that rule. The fact that an equipped weapon has a rule is 100% irrelevant if the model's attacks never GAIN the rule.
That's cool but please mark your posts HYWPI. Or support these debunked assertations with actual rules.
Kiss of Death is clear. It doesn't require me to have the special rule. It requires that I am attacking in CC whilst equipped with a Harlequins Kiss.
So, to be clear, you think that Eldar Harlequins can make Kiss of Death attacks despite the Kiss of Death rule not being present in Codex: Eldar?
Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com
How are you using a. Special rule you don't have? Or one where another model has it that explicitly allows a model without it to use it? Worked that one out yet?
So the text of stealth can allow a model without stealth to benefit but the text of kiss of death can't? Wow just wow.
Well, yes. Considering they're worded completely differently and all.
And a model without stealth still never has the stealth rule, they just add +1 to their cover saves if they're in a unit with a model with stealth.
I would argue (pretty successfully, I think) that Codex: Eldar Harlequins equipped with Harlequin's Kisses DON'T make a Kiss of Death attack when attacking. Why not? Because their attacks NEVER gain that rule. Just like a Solitaire from Codex: Harlequins who isn't attacking with a Harlequin's Kiss. His attacks NEVER gain that rule. The fact that an equipped weapon has a rule is 100% irrelevant if the model's attacks never GAIN the rule.
That's cool but please mark your posts HYWPI. Or support these debunked assertations with actual rules.
Kiss of Death is clear. It doesn't require me to have the special rule. It requires that I am attacking in CC whilst equipped with a Harlequins Kiss.
Since you've gone off the deep end and decided that rules in one codex apply to another I'm not sure if you're serious right now or not.
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
How are you using a. Special rule you don't have? Or one where another model has it that explicitly allows a model without it to use it? Worked that one out yet?
So the text of stealth can allow a model without stealth to benefit but the text of kiss of death can't? Wow just wow.
Kiss of death tells me when it applies. It doesn't require me to have the special. It requires that I am attacking in CC whilst equipped with a Harlequins Kiss.
WOw, just wow. More quote snipping.
You have to be able to reference the rule. A model with stealth in their special rules absolutely HAS that special rule, and can reference (invoke) it. That then allows other models in the unit without the rule to benefit from the rule.
A HK-equipped model absolutely does NOT have the special rule unless and until they attack. Until that point the special rule cannot be invoked, as you need permission from something outside to tell you you can use the special rule. This was proven. I suggest you step back and realise the road youre treading here...
Yet again you cant keep to a single story, yet another new one...any more goal shifting, dissembling to be done?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/18 14:01:03
Permission to ignore requirement D is in the wording of the Harlequin's Kiss. It says that if the wargear is equipped you use it's special rule. That wording for the wargear is more specific than the rule from the BRB stating when you can benefit from a special rule and so it trumps it. I have said this before and it is how I address the issue you're saying I haven't addressed.
I agree that it is a permissive rule set. I disagree that a specific rule (Harlequin's Kiss) is not allowed to break a general rule (What Special Rules Do I Have). Because the Harlequin's Kiss is more specific and because it tells us to trigger the special rule when the weapon is equipped and when the model makes close combat attacks, it trumps the requirement that the model attack with the weapon.
Instead of saying I haven't addressed this issue, please say you disagree with (part X) of how I have addressed it.
Fair.
I disagree with this part...
The core rulebook tells you that your attacks don't gain the Kiss of Death special rule. Your permission to ignore this restriction requires a special rule you don't have. At the point when you try to decide whether or not your attack gains the Kiss of Death rule, you don't have access to the Kiss of Death rule... so you can't use having it as justification to gaining it.
This is what we mean by circular reasoning.
"You don't have Kiss of Death." "I do." "What is telling you that you do?" "The Kiss of Death rule." "But you don't have the Kiss of Death rule." "I do." "What is telling you that you do?" "The Kiss of Death rule." "But you don't have the Kiss of Death rule." etc, etc
Since the BRB is restricting you from having access to the Kiss of Death rule when not attacking with a Harlequin's Kiss, you'd need specific wording saying "this weapon ability/special rule may be used even when not attacking with a Harlequin's Kiss". Without specific wording like that, there is no real conflict. It doesn't matter what the rule says, because your attacks don't gain the rule unless you're using the Harlequin's Kiss... which you aren't when attacking with the Harlequin's Caress.
This is my core disagreement. Your permission to gain the rule requires that you already have the rule. If you don't have the rule, the rules text doesn't mean anything.
Kriswall, this is why I like debating with you. You actually read what other people write and reply thoughtfully.
I understand the basis of your argument to be that you cannot use the special rules from more than one weapon because of the more than one weapon rule on page 41 which says, "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." and since the Kiss of Death is one of the Harlequin's Kiss' special abilities, you are not allowed to use it if you have used any other weapon's abilities.
You have a very strong argument and I will admit that you are probably correct. The reason I joined this discussion is because the claim was made earlier in the thread that "you must use the weapon to gain it's abilities", but there are other weapons where this is not the case. Examples have been mentioned earlier but the only one that concerns me is the Rune Priest's Runic Weapon which grant's adamantium will if the model is equipped with the weapon. Adamantium will is not an attack ability, and if the statement "you must use the weapon to gain it's abilities" is true then pieces of wargear like the Runic Weapon would cease to grant their special rules except in the combat phase when using the weapon to strike blows, rendering it useless.
I don't play Eldar and have little interest in whether or not the wargear works this way or not, but I thought that debating it would help me understand whether or not this statement is true: "you must use a weapon to gain it's abilities".
Since you're basing your argument on the More Than One Weapon rule and not on the What Special Rules Do I Have rule, I think I can safely concede that the Harlequin's Kiss will not grant the Kiss of Death special rule if you have used the special rules from a different weapon while maintaining that Runic Weapons grant Ward outside of the assault phase - no need to use the Runic Weapon to gain Adamantium Will since you are not using a different weapon in your opponent's psychic phase and thus not breaking the More Than One Weapon rule.
Please believe me when I say that I haven't been trolling, I've been playing devil's advocate to help me get a grasp on how this argument affects my army.
I think i can agree with the conclusions from this. It would make a lot more sense by RaW and cover the weapons with abilities which apply mainly out of Combat (Eldar weapons and the Runic Staff). I don't think anyone was ever accused of trolling in this thread, it is just an unclear section of the rules that (for me anyway) needs clarification with some good logic.
So far i am still unsure about weapons such as the Runic staff to have allowance for their rules (Adamantium Will) outside of the Combat phase, but you make a good point. Weapons are part of a model's wargear, so rules similar to a Storm shield should work in the same way.
To try and describe the issue i have in slightly more depth: A piece of wargear, such as a Storm Shield or others that say "equipped", often have rules allocated to the item. On the other hand, the weapons we are trying to "make work" have special rules listed inside their profiles.
So a Storm shield does not say: "Storm Shield" - Model has the "Shield" special rule where "Shield" would be a 3++, and you would have to "activate" the special rule in some way or another.
No, the Storm shield just has "rules"
The Runic staff, or Harlequin's Kiss, however have a profile, which include a Special rule. And only by "What Special Rules Do I Have" can they activate those abilities, even if these say "equipped".
If these same weapons were: "Runic Staff" S +2 AP 4 Melee, Force In addition, a model equipped with a Runic staff has the Adamantium Will special rule.
"Harlequin's Kiss" S User AP - Melee A model equipped with a HK has the "Kiss of Death" Special rule.
Then i would have absolutely no issue with the model having those rules.
Basically, my reluctance to completely agree with your point is that these rules are listed in the weapon's "TYPE". And rules listed there can only be invoked by the "What Special Rules Do I Have" rule, never by the rule itself (or we have a circular logic, which cannot work)
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/03/18 14:28:05
DA:80-S+G+M+B++I-Pw40k01++D+++A+++WD100R++T(T)DM+
Roronoa Zoro wrote:When the world shoves you around, you just gotta stand up and shove back. It's not like somebody's gonna save you if you start babbling excuses. - Bring on the hardship. It's preferred in a path of carnage.
Manchu wrote:
It's like you take a Space Marine and say "what could make him cooler?" Instead of adding more super-genetic-psycho-organic modification, you take it all away. You have a regular human left in power armor and all the armies of hell at the gates. And she doesn't even flinch. Pure. Badass.
Permission to ignore requirement D is in the wording of the Harlequin's Kiss. It says that if the wargear is equipped you use it's special rule. That wording for the wargear is more specific than the rule from the BRB stating when you can benefit from a special rule and so it trumps it. I have said this before and it is how I address the issue you're saying I haven't addressed.
I agree that it is a permissive rule set. I disagree that a specific rule (Harlequin's Kiss) is not allowed to break a general rule (What Special Rules Do I Have). Because the Harlequin's Kiss is more specific and because it tells us to trigger the special rule when the weapon is equipped and when the model makes close combat attacks, it trumps the requirement that the model attack with the weapon.
Instead of saying I haven't addressed this issue, please say you disagree with (part X) of how I have addressed it.
Fair.
I disagree with this part...
The core rulebook tells you that your attacks don't gain the Kiss of Death special rule. Your permission to ignore this restriction requires a special rule you don't have. At the point when you try to decide whether or not your attack gains the Kiss of Death rule, you don't have access to the Kiss of Death rule... so you can't use having it as justification to gaining it.
This is what we mean by circular reasoning.
"You don't have Kiss of Death."
"I do."
"What is telling you that you do?"
"The Kiss of Death rule."
"But you don't have the Kiss of Death rule."
"I do."
"What is telling you that you do?"
"The Kiss of Death rule."
"But you don't have the Kiss of Death rule."
etc, etc
Since the BRB is restricting you from having access to the Kiss of Death rule when not attacking with a Harlequin's Kiss, you'd need specific wording saying "this weapon ability/special rule may be used even when not attacking with a Harlequin's Kiss". Without specific wording like that, there is no real conflict. It doesn't matter what the rule says, because your attacks don't gain the rule unless you're using the Harlequin's Kiss... which you aren't when attacking with the Harlequin's Caress.
This is my core disagreement. Your permission to gain the rule requires that you already have the rule. If you don't have the rule, the rules text doesn't mean anything.
Kriswall, this is why I like debating with you. You actually read what other people write and reply thoughtfully.
I understand the basis of your argument to be that you cannot use the special rules from more than one weapon because of the more than one weapon rule on page 41 which says, "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." and since the Kiss of Death is one of the Harlequin's Kiss' special abilities, you are not allowed to use it if you have used any other weapon's abilities.
You have a very strong argument and I will admit that you are probably correct. The reason I joined this discussion is because the claim was made earlier in the thread that "you must use the weapon to gain it's abilities", but there are other weapons where this is not the case. Examples have been mentioned earlier but the only one that concerns me is the Rune Priest's Runic Weapon which grant's adamantium will if the model is equipped with the weapon. Adamantium will is not an attack ability, and if the statement "you must use the weapon to gain it's abilities" is true then pieces of wargear like the Runic Weapon would cease to grant their special rules except in the combat phase when using the weapon to strike blows, rendering it useless.
I don't play Eldar and have little interest in whether or not the wargear works this way or not, but I thought that debating it would help me understand whether or not this statement is true: "you must use a weapon to gain it's abilities".
Since you're basing your argument on the More Than One Weapon rule and not on the What Special Rules Do I Have rule, I think I can safely concede that the Harlequin's Kiss will not grant the Kiss of Death special rule if you have used the special rules from a different weapon while maintaining that Runic Weapons grant Ward outside of the assault phase - no need to use the Runic Weapon to gain Adamantium Will since you are not using a different weapon in your opponent's psychic phase and thus not breaking the More Than One Weapon rule.
Please believe me when I say that I haven't been trolling, I've been playing devil's advocate to help me get a grasp on how this argument affects my army.
I think i can agree with the conclusions from this. It would make a lot more sense by RaW and cover the weapons with abilities which apply mainly out of Combat (Eldar weapons and the Runic Staff).
I don't think anyone was ever accused of trolling in this thread, it is just an unclear section of the rules that (for me anyway) needs clarification with some good logic.
So far i am still unsure about weapons such as the Runic staff to have allowance for their rules (Adamantium Will) outside of the Combat phase, but you make a good point. Weapons are part of a model's wargear, so rules similar to a Storm shield should work in the same way.
To try and describe the issue i have in slightly more depth:
A piece of wargear, such as a Storm Shield or others that say "equipped", often have rules allocated to the item.
On the other hand, the weapons we are trying to "make work" have special rules listed inside their profiles.
So a Storm shield does not say:
"Storm Shield" - Model has the "Shield" special rule
where "Shield" would be a 3++, and you would have to "activate" the special rule in some way or another.
No, the Storm shield just has "rules"
The Runic staff, or Harlequin's Kiss, however have a profile, which include a Special rule. And only by "What Special Rules Do I Have" can they activate those abilities, even if these say "equipped".
If these same weapons were:
"Runic Staff" S +2 AP 4 Melee, Force
In addition, a model equipped with a Runic staff has the Adamantium Will special rule.
"Harlequin's Kiss" S User AP - Melee
A model equipped with a HK has the "Kiss of Death" Special rule.
Then i would have absolutely no issue with the model having those rules.
Basically, my reluctance to completely agree with your point is that these rules are listed in the weapon's "TYPE". And rules listed there can only be invoked by the "What Special Rules Do I Have" rule, never by the rule itself (or we have a circular logic, which cannot work)
Mixed feelings.
Kiss of Death is a Special Rule and as such is subject to the What Special Rules Do I Have and More Than One Weapon core rules. If Kiss of Death were instead simply rules text appended to the Harlequin's Kiss directly... we'd be having a different conversation as the rules text wouldn't be a special rule and wouldn't necessarily be subject to the preceding rules. We'd have to decide whether or not a non-special rule bit of rules text was considered to be a weapon ability. If so, we'd still be prohibited from mixing and matching it during the fight sub-phase. I'm inclined to believe that it would be a weapon ability.
On a related note, I'm willing to allow that "using" simply means "holding". My Solitaire has an HC and an HK. He has them in his hands, so he's "using" both. I'm ok with this. "Using" is a little vague. I'm ok with saying that a model or its attacks benefit from a weapon's special rules at all times (unless restrictions apply). What I'm not ok with is mixing and matching special rules from more than one weapon in the fight sub-phase. In essence, the Solitaire has the Kiss of Death special rule active at all times EXCEPT during a fight sub-phase when he chooses to attack with a different weapon. During the fight sub-phase, he loses access to KoD as he is prohibited from mixing and matching weapon abilities from more than one weapon. KoD is useless in pretty much every instance other than a fight sub-phase, so having it active during other times doesn't really do anything.
For the Runic Staff example, the model would gain the Adamantium Will special rule at all times... except during a fight sub-phase where he/she chooses to attack with a weapon other than the Runic Staff. He loses access to this bit of rules text as keeping it would be mixing and matching weapon abilities. Runic Staff is different from the Harlequin's Kiss issue in that its weapon ability is useful outside of a fight sub-phase.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/18 14:53:24
Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com
nosferatu1001 wrote: No, answer how you are referencing a special rule, and invoking it, without referencing the special rule itself. Page and graph.
This is the initial permission you must show. Failure to do so, again, is sufficient to show you have no argument.
permission is granted by the rule contained within Kiss of Death which is more specific than the rulebook, in a codex which trumps rulebook, and as it is an advanced rule trumps basic rules.
or do you believe grey knights never can use the force power?
Finally, Sarah’s Psyker is equipped with a force weapon, so her Psyker also knows Force.
obviously the MODEL has the force psychic power by being equipped with it, not by striking with it.
If the model did not gain the force psychic power until the model was striking the model would never be able to know Force as a power, because choosing psychic powers happens before the game begins.
so RAW you can gain abilities from weapons for a model without using the weapon to strike with, there is no RAW to actually prevent this that anyone has been able to quote.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/03/18 15:37:47
blaktoof wrote: obviously the MODEL has the force psychic power by being equipped with it, not by striking with it.
You do realize that Force on a weapon is different from the Force psychic power, right?
And no - you don't get Force for having a weapon with Force equipped, but simply for having it:
Any Psyker that has one or more weapons with this special rule knows the Force psychic power in addition to any other powers they know:
So the model never has the Force special rule, the model's attacks don't have the Force special rule...
so RAW you can gain abilities from weapons for a model without using the weapon to strike with, there is no RAW to actually prevent this that anyone has been able to quote.
Other than "What Special Rules Do I Have" and "More than One Weapon" you're right...
Too bad those rules prove your assertions wrong.
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
Really, youre taking an example of how a rule operates over the actual rule? A rule that was quoted directly below the text you just quote snipped?
Thats a new one even for you.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Further to Blaktoof - wrong, no conflict exists (proven) it is not more specific (proven) and codex only beats rulebook whena conflict arises.
So no, rty again. SHow permission to evoke a SR you do not have. Page and graph.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/03/18 15:57:20
And no - you don't get Force for having a weapon with Force equipped, but simply for having it:
Unfortunately your comments are nothing to do with the actual rules
Finally, Sarah’s Psyker is equipped with a force weapon, so her Psyker also knows Force.
Really? Nothing to do with them?
Any Psyker that has one or more weapons with this special rule knows the Force psychic power in addition to any other powers they know
Or did I make up that direct quote from the actual rules?
Go ahead - tell me I'm wrong again, but this time don't tell me I don't have actual rules support when I've literally, word for word, quoted what I've said.
obviously it is for being equipped with a weapon that has 'force' that you get the Force power, by the rules as written.
Examples != rules. I quoted rules. You quoted an example. So no, your statement is (again) incorrect.
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
And no - you don't get Force for having a weapon with Force equipped, but simply for having it:
Unfortunately your comments are nothing to do with the actual rules
Finally, Sarah’s Psyker is equipped with a force weapon, so her Psyker also knows Force.
Really? Nothing to do with them?
Any Psyker that has one or more weapons with this special rule knows the Force psychic power in addition to any other powers they know
Or did I make up that direct quote from the actual rules?
Go ahead - tell me I'm wrong again, but this time don't tell me I don't have actual rules support when I've literally, word for word, quoted what I've said.
obviously it is for being equipped with a weapon that has 'force' that you get the Force power, by the rules as written.
Examples != rules. I quoted rules. You quoted an example. So no, your statement is (again) incorrect.
your wrong again.
The passage you stated does not invalidate that the RAW that the model has the Force power because it is equipped with a weapon that has force.
you also have failed to cite any ruling that 'having' an item is different than 'being equipped' with an item to show a conflict within the rules that would make your statement valid over any other one, and why you are trying to ignore RAW for something that says the same thing but does not include the word 'equipped' as that is the crux of your point is an extreme strawman in the land of cherry picking fantasy.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/18 16:43:09
And no - you don't get Force for having a weapon with Force equipped, but simply for having it:
Unfortunately your comments are nothing to do with the actual rules
Finally, Sarah’s Psyker is equipped with a force weapon, so her Psyker also knows Force.
Really? Nothing to do with them?
Any Psyker that has one or more weapons with this special rule knows the Force psychic power in addition to any other powers they know
Or did I make up that direct quote from the actual rules?
Go ahead - tell me I'm wrong again, but this time don't tell me I don't have actual rules support when I've literally, word for word, quoted what I've said.
obviously it is for being equipped with a weapon that has 'force' that you get the Force power, by the rules as written.
Examples != rules. I quoted rules. You quoted an example. So no, your statement is (again) incorrect.
your wrong again.
The passage you stated does not invalidate that the RAW that the model has the Force power because it is equipped with a weapon that has force.
You mean the example? Since when are examples rules?
And again, how am I wrong? Does the rule I quoted say "has" or "equipped"? Which word did I use in my statement?
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
unless you think pintle mounted weapons do not have a 360 degree of fire, or any numerous examples where they are taking the rules and explaining how to use them in an example.
do you actually think the examples of rules are non rules?
really?
perhaps you can cite where the rules used in examples, or examples are non rules. If you cannot find a rules statement saying examples of rules in the rules section are not rules then you can maybe come up with a RAI if you want you can even add some personal thoughts on why the authors bothered to write things that are rules, but are not rules, in the rules. Would love to hear that explanation.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/03/18 16:48:56
nosferatu1001 wrote: Really, youre taking an example of how a rule operates over the actual rule? A rule that was quoted directly below the text you just quote snipped?
Thats a new one even for you.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Further to Blaktoof - wrong, no conflict exists (proven) it is not more specific (proven) and codex only beats rulebook whena conflict arises.
So no, rty again. SHow permission to evoke a SR you do not have. Page and graph.
Nos you are breaking forum tenets here by not labelling your post HYWPI. Please do so unless you want to discuss RaW. There is no RaW requiring you to have a separate rule to allow you to use a rule. If a rule tells you how and when it applies that is enough.
Kiss of Death tells you how it applies. Now do you have ANY rules that state you can only invoke special rules a model has. Any rules to support your position at all? Or are you just arguing HYWPI?
So, Fling, a model from Codex: Eldar with a Harlequin's Kiss gets Kiss of Death? Yes or no?
Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia
I'll also join the "dont need permission, not in this game!" camp!