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 has access to the Force special rule at all times with the exception being if they are attacking with a weapon that doesn't have Force during the Fight Sub-Phase. Since they can't use the Force Psychic Power during the Fight Sub-Phase, this isn't a practical problem.
So, during the Psychic phase (and all the time really except when attacking with a weapon that doesn't have Force during the Fight Sub-Phase), any psyker equipped with a weapon having the Force special rule gains the Force Psychic Power.
During the Psychic phase, the Psyker may use it's Force Psychic Power to grant Instant Death as an additional Special Rule to all weapons already having the Force special rule in his unit.
Fast forward to the Assault phase, and more specifically, the Fight Sub-Phase. If the Psyker chooses to attack with his Force Weapon, his attacks will gain the Force and Instant Death special rules. Force doesn't really do anything during the Fight Sub-Phase, so we can sort of ignore it. If it makes you feel better, resolve the rule, granting your model the Force Psychic Power... which has no impact on combat. As a special rule, it only has effect outside the Fight Sub-Phase. Instant Death does, and so would be usable.
The rules surrounding Force work just fine and have absolutely nothing to do with the Harlequin's Kiss/More Than One Weapon issue.
Next example?
Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com
Happyjew wrote: So, Fling, a model from Codex: Eldar with a Harlequin's Kiss gets Kiss of Death? Yes or no?
Didn't I already answer this? Just go read the relevant rules and it should be clear.
I just wanted to make sure you're OK with a model using a rule that neither the model, its weapons nor its wargear has.
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
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.
It's a good explanation, but i struggle to find what RaW your are using to support the reasoning?
As in, HIWPI i kinda said ages ago that you would of course get Kiss of Death and Caress both in combat. The current (massive) debate is about by a pure RaW setting.
Both you and Nighthowler seem to have agreed upon, for example, the Runic Staff granting it's power anytime (out of combat).
[Snip]
Sorry. Read and re-read the first comment in the text above and i think i understand what is implied:
"Kiss of Death", as a Special Rule, is "always in existence" and it's method of activation comes from "equipping the weapon", as described the rule. Which would apply in as a constant, but then "More Than One Weapon" denies its usage in combat, as you are selecting the Caress.
Getting more confused though.... lol
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/18 17:21:14
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.
It's a good explanation, but i struggle to find what RaW your are using to support the reasoning?
As in, HIWPI i kinda said ages ago that you would of course get Kiss of Death and Caress both in combat. The current (massive) debate is about by a pure RaW setting.
Both you and Nighthowler seem to have agreed upon, for example, the Runic Staff granting it's power anytime (out of combat).
[Snip]
Sorry. Read and re-read the first comment in the text above and i think i understand what is implied:
"Kiss of Death", as a Special Rule, is "always in existence" and it's method of activation comes from "equipping the weapon", as described the rule. Which would apply in as a constant, but then "More Than One Weapon" denies its usage in combat, as you are selecting the Caress.
Getting more confused though.... lol
Yes, it is confusing and a little non intuitive... but that's GW rules for you. But I think you have it. The Solitaire benefits from Kiss of Death at all times UNLESS he's using a different weapon in the Fight Sub-Phase, at which point More Than One Weapon kicks in and restricts him from using Kiss of Death.
I'm honestly not sure what's so hard to understand about this. The rules are designed to only allow you to FIGHT with one weapon at a time. You can either fight with the Caress or with the Kiss. Not both. More Than One Weapon says you can never fight with both. I think FlingitNow has it in his head that the More Than One Weapon rule doesn't count somehow, or that he's allowed to ignore it. He doesn't seem to understand that you can't use the wording in a rule you don't currently access to in order to justify having access to it.
Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com
Happyjew wrote: So, Fling, a model from Codex: Eldar with a Harlequin's Kiss gets Kiss of Death? Yes or no?
Didn't I already answer this? Just go read the relevant rules and it should be clear.
I just wanted to make sure you're OK with a model using a rule that neither the model, its weapons nor its wargear has.
Well if the model is equipped with a Harlequins Kiss and making close combat attacks what does Kiss of Death say happens? Does Kiss of Death care if you have the Kiss of Death rule if so please cite the rule that states this. Many people have repeatedly made this insubstantiated claim yet they have refused to supply any rules to support their stance.
Happyjew wrote: So, Fling, a model from Codex: Eldar with a Harlequin's Kiss gets Kiss of Death? Yes or no?
Didn't I already answer this? Just go read the relevant rules and it should be clear.
I just wanted to make sure you're OK with a model using a rule that neither the model, its weapons nor its wargear has.
Well if the model is equipped with a Harlequins Kiss and making close combat attacks what does Kiss of Death say happens? Does Kiss of Death care if you have the Kiss of Death rule if so please cite the rule that states this. Many people have repeatedly made this insubstantiated claim yet they have refused to supply any rules to support their stance.
Fling, I'm curious about your stance on something.
If you take the position that the Harlequin's Kiss' special rule, Kiss of Death, is always used every time attacks are made if the weapon is equipped, are you then also saying that if you equip the Harlequin's Kiss and the Harlequin's Caress together that you would be disallowed from using the Caress' special rules since you have no choice but to use the Kiss' special rule?
The reason I ask is because the More Than One Weapon rule says you cannot mix and match attacks from more than one weapon (you have to pick one and stick with it), so assuming that you are correct and you MUST use the Kiss' special rule, then what would allow you to also use the Caress' special rule (knowing that you can't use the rules from more than one weapon)?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/18 19:25:18
So the fact that the rule exists, means I can invoke it at any time? This leads to madness.
Mephrit Dynasty Cohort. "All units (except fortifications) must have the Necrons Faction." When I plop my Necron army on the table vs an Eldar player... I'll simply invoke that rule and declare his army illegal. Is that RAW?
I'm sure there's other absurd examples of this.
You can't just read a rule out of context and follow it's instructions. You have to be told by another rule when to invoke a rule. Otherwise the whole system falls to madness.
Zimko wrote: So the fact that the rule exists, means I can invoke it at any time? This leads to madness.
Mephrit Dynasty Cohort. "All units (except fortifications) must have the Necrons Faction." When I plop my Necron army on the table vs an Eldar player... I'll simply invoke that rule and declare his army illegal. Is that RAW?
Apparently.
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
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?
No, I'm arguing raw. The rules have been given, you just pretend they don't apply. Because your circular illogic is circular. As ever, worthless to continue arguing.
Not sure if I'm too late to the party but here's my two cents:
firstly HIWPI and RAI for me is that he can use the kiss with the caress.... however this is a RAW argument so here goes:
first way of looking at it) This game is classified as a permissive ruleset and that means that rules affects are what is said and not what is implied, this therefore means that when the kiss rule comes into play it does not say it can be used in conjuction with the caress apart from the 'equipped part' which just implies that you get you get the kiss attack and since it doesn't actually say "this attack is made regardlesss of which weapon is being used etc" means that it because it is a 'weapon' and not 'wargear' that it's ability doesn't come into play when not using the kiss
second way of looking at it) the weapon does not confer the special rule to the character, therefore when melee comes and he chooses caress, no KoD is on the character therefore he does not gain 1 seperate attack
Here's my 2ć - there are some very intelligent eloquent people here posting in this thread. If you are expecting ironclad rules from GW it is not going to happen any time soon plus Phil Kelly more than likely wrote these rules. Remember when dark eldar first got an invulnerable save for their vehicles... A lot of people said it just didn't work. In regards to this discussion I think most of us know the intent and that's how I'll play it. Sometimes it's fun to argue and this is a hobby though so believe me when I say I understand from both sides of the fence where everyone is coming from in regards to this new rule. At the end of the day it's not worth getting out of sorts if you understand my drift.
No, I'm arguing raw. The rules have been given, you just pretend they don't apply. Because your circular illogic is circular. As ever, worthless to continue arguing.
You keep saying circular logic. I do not think circular logic means what you think it means.
I say the rule applies because the rule tells me it applies. This is not circular logic.
You say the rule doesn't apply. You prove by saying as the rule doesn't apply we can't use it to determine whether the rule applies and no other rule tells us it applies therefore it doesn't. That is circular logic as you are using your conclusion as a premise. I am not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fling, I'm curious about your stance on something.Â
If you take the position that the Harlequin's Kiss' special rule, Kiss of Death, is always used every time attacks are made if the weapon is equipped, are you then also saying that if you equip the Harlequin's Kiss and the Harlequin's Caress together that you would be disallowed from using the Caress' special rules since you have no choice but to use the Kiss' special rule?Â
The reason I ask is because the More Than One Weapon rule says you cannot mix and match attacks from more than one weapon (you have to pick one and stick with it), so assuming that you are correct and you MUST use the Kiss' special rule, then what would allow you to also use the Caress' special rule (knowing that you can't use the rules from more than one weapon)?
The more than 1 weapon says 2 things, firstly you choose which weapon to use and secondly that only the rules of one weapon can effect your attacks.
So if we have a HK and a Caress we are force to break one of those rules (either by not having a choice, or by using 2 weapons abilities). So we are forced into a conflict of codex vs rulebook and we have rules to determine how to resolve that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/19 14:24:12
No, I'm arguing raw. The rules have been given, you just pretend they don't apply. Because your circular illogic is circular. As ever, worthless to continue arguing.
You keep saying circular logic. I do not think circular logic means what you think it means.
I say the rule applies because the rule tells me it applies. This is not circular logic.
You say the rule doesn't apply. You prove by saying as the rule doesn't apply we can't use it to determine whether the rule applies and no other rule tells us it applies therefore it doesn't. That is circular logic as you are using your conclusion as a premise. I am not.
You are using a rule that you are told EXPLICITLY that your attacks don't gain to justify your attacks gaining the rule.
I have the rule because the rule I don't have says I have the rule. But if you don't have it, how can you do what it tells you to do? Because it told me to have it.
Think of it this way. You are looking at a door. The door is closed. Behind the door is a note that says "Open the door". You have to do what notes tell you to do. If the door is closed, and you can't currently see the note, what is your justification for opening the door? You have none. The door should remain closed. You're opening the door and then telling us you did so because the note you found inside told you to.
Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com
Fling, I'm curious about your stance on something.Â
If you take the position that the Harlequin's Kiss' special rule, Kiss of Death, is always used every time attacks are made if the weapon is equipped, are you then also saying that if you equip the Harlequin's Kiss and the Harlequin's Caress together that you would be disallowed from using the Caress' special rules since you have no choice but to use the Kiss' special rule?Â
The reason I ask is because the More Than One Weapon rule says you cannot mix and match attacks from more than one weapon (you have to pick one and stick with it), so assuming that you are correct and you MUST use the Kiss' special rule, then what would allow you to also use the Caress' special rule (knowing that you can't use the rules from more than one weapon)?
The more than 1 weapon says 2 things, firstly you choose which weapon to use and secondly that only the rules of one weapon can effect your attacks.
So if we have a HK and a Caress we are force to break one of those rules (either by not having a choice, or by using 2 weapons abilities). So we are forced into a conflict of codex vs rulebook and we have rules to determine how to resolve that.
Except that nothing in the Caress tells you that you must use it's rules (it's worded completely differently from the Kiss). So even if you are correct about the Kiss - that you are forced to use it's attacks - you have no rules that allow you to also use a second weapon's special rules as well.
In other words, even if you are correct that you have no choice but to use the Kiss, with the Caress you do have a choice and there are no rules that allow you to chose a second weapon's special rules. You're not breaking any rules if you play it your way, you're just never allowed to use the Caress' special rules if you play it your way.
You are using a rule that you are told EXPLICITLY that your attacks don't gain to justify your attacks gaining the rule.
So you agree one rule says I don't gain the rule and the other says I do? Is that correct?
I have the rule because the rule I don't have says I have the rule. But if you don't have it, how can you do what it tells you to do? Because it told me to have it.
Yes a rule can tell you when it applies. I don't understand why this is baffling to you.
Think of it this way. You are looking at a door. The door is closed. Behind the door is a note that says "Open the door". You have to do what notes tell you to do. If the door is closed, and you can't currently see the note, what is your justification for opening the door? You have none. The door should remain closed. You're opening the door and then telling us you did so because the note you found inside told you to.
Cool but if before hand I read the sign and knew it was there (like in this instance we have all read the KoD rule) then I know I can open the door. So I'm opening the door because we both know that note is in there and have agreed what that note says before I get to the door.
So do you have a non-circular argument that results in KoD not applying when it says it applies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Except that nothing in the Caress tells you that you must use it's rules (it's worded completely differently from the Kiss). So even if you are correct about the Kiss - that you are forced to use it's attacks - you have no rules that allow you to also use a second weapon's special rules as well.
In other words, even if you are correct that you have no choice but to use the Kiss, with the Caress you do have a choice and there are no rules that allow you to chose a second weapon's special rules. You're not breaking any rules if you play it your way, you're just never allowed to use the Caress' special rules if you play it your way.
If you don't have the choice of which weapon you are using you are breaking rules. I already covered this in the post you are responding to. So I don't understand the point you're trying to make?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/19 15:32:01
Think of it this way. You are looking at a door. The door is closed. Behind the door is a note that says "Open the door". You have to do what notes tell you to do. If the door is closed, and you can't currently see the note, what is your justification for opening the door? You have none. The door should remain closed. You're opening the door and then telling us you did so because the note you found inside told you to.
Cool but if before hand I read the sign and knew it was there (like in this instance we have all read the KoD rule) then I know I can open the door. So I'm opening the door because we both know that note is in there and have agreed what that note says before I get to the door.
So do you have a non-circular argument that results in KoD not applying when it says it applies.
Let me rephrase since you obviously missed my point.
You are standing at a door. The door is closed. Behind the door is a note telling you to open the door. You can only follow notes currently in your hand, and you must pick up any note you see. Now, what is your justification for opening the door? You don't have a note telling you to do so.
Or better yet, you are standing in front of a locked and closed door. Behind the door is a key. You know the key exists and you've seen the key in the past. Does having prior knowledge of the key enable you to open the door? Of course not. Does prior knowledge of the Kiss of Death special rule enable your attacks to gain it? Again, no. The core rules say no.
Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com
Guys - I think trying to argue using reason is doomed to failure. After all, theyve jumped ther shark by saying that codex Eldar harliquins would gain the KoD rule.
Fling - your circular logic is, 40k you need permission. You accepted this. There is no permission to have the rule, except that found within the rule. Excpet until you have the rule, you have no permisison to invoke the rule.. That is what you are missing - there is no initial permission, granted by "What special rules..." OR some other source, that lets you a) acknowledge KoD or b) invo9ke it.
Absolutely nothing you can say will alter those facts. This isnt a matter of interpretaiton, this is simply a case where you are flat out, provably wrong.
Except that nothing in the Caress tells you that you must use it's rules (it's worded completely differently from the Kiss). So even if you are correct about the Kiss - that you are forced to use it's attacks - you have no rules that allow you to also use a second weapon's special rules as well.
In other words, even if you are correct that you have no choice but to use the Kiss, with the Caress you do have a choice and there are no rules that allow you to chose a second weapon's special rules. You're not breaking any rules if you play it your way, you're just never allowed to use the Caress' special rules if you play it your way.
If you don't have the choice of which weapon you are using you are breaking rules. I already covered this in the post you are responding to. So I don't understand the point you're trying to make?
Please be patient with me if I have a hard time following how you've broken any rules.
If I'm not mistaken, you're saying that:
1) You have no choice but to use the special rules from the Kiss because of how it is worded
2) You are told by the more More Than One Weapon rule that you must choose a weapon
3) Because you're not allowed to choose you're breaking a rule?
More Than One Weapon 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.
The way this rule is worded, it is telling us that the reason we must choose is because we are not allowed to mix the abilities of several weapons. So telling me that you're breaking the rule that tells me you to choose by only using the Kiss' ability is an invalid argument. If the Kiss' ability is mandatory then you do not need to choose because which weapon's ability you will use has already been decided for you.
If I have misunderstood something somewhere, please let me know.
FlingitNow wrote: Yes but you still must choose. If there is no choice that rule is broken.
Yes, you must choose.
And you have no option but to choose to attack with the Kiss.
No rules are broken.
This word "choose" you keep using. I do not think it means what you think it means.
That is not choosing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nosferatu1001 wrote: Guys - I think trying to argue using reason is doomed to failure. After all, theyve jumped ther shark by saying that codex Eldar harliquins would gain the KoD rule.
Fling - your circular logic is, 40k you need permission. You accepted this. There is no permission to have the rule, except that found within the rule. Excpet until you have the rule, you have no permisison to invoke the rule.. That is what you are missing - there is no initial permission, granted by "What special rules..." OR some other source, that lets you a) acknowledge KoD or b) invo9ke it.
Absolutely nothing you can say will alter those facts. This isnt a matter of interpretaiton, this is simply a case where you are flat out, provably wrong.
There is permission in the rule. We know this because the rule tells us. We don't need another rule telling us that we can invoke the rule or the same is true of the turn sequence. Your circular logic is circular.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/19 17:37:48
FlingitNow wrote: Yes but you still must choose. If there is no choice that rule is broken.
Yes, you must choose.
And you have no option but to choose to attack with the Kiss.
No rules are broken.
This word "choose" you keep using. I do not think it means what you think it means.
That is not choosing.
Yes it is.
You have a choice between yellow and blue. If you choose yellow you lose and restart. You choose blue.
You have a choice between breaking a rule and not breaking a rule. You choose to not break a rule.
It's still a choice. Or are you implying that "choice" means more than selecting from different options? I mean, you could perfectly well choose to select the Caress, but that'd break a rule.
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
FlingitNow wrote: Yes but you still must choose. If there is no choice that rule is broken.
Yes, you must choose.
And you have no option but to choose to attack with the Kiss.
No rules are broken.
This word "choose" you keep using. I do not think it means what you think it means.
That is not choosing.
Yes it is.
You have a choice between yellow and blue. If you choose yellow you lose and restart. You choose blue.
You have a choice between breaking a rule and not breaking a rule. You choose to not break a rule.
It's still a choice. Or are you implying that "choice" means more than selecting from different options? I mean, you could perfectly well choose to select the Caress, but that'd break a rule.
Cool so I will choose caress. That forces a rule break of either a codex rule or a BrB rule. Which one wins?
FlingitNow wrote: Yes but you still must choose. If there is no choice that rule is broken.
Yes, you must choose.
And you have no option but to choose to attack with the Kiss.
No rules are broken.
This word "choose" you keep using. I do not think it means what you think it means.
That is not choosing.
I love the Princess Bride reference BTW. But I do not accept excuses. I'm simply going to have to find myself a new giant.
So if the argument comes down to a debate about the meaning of the English word choose - whether it means to decide based on your own free will or whether it may also mean to be forced to decide - then an answer can not be found on this forum since one of the tenets of YMDC is not to debate English language.
But for what it's worth, the phrase "forced to choose" includes a valid use of the word choose, and the sentence does not stop at choose a weapon - it goes on to say that you must choose because you are not allowed to mix weapon rules.
What's more, is that this problem only arises with your interpretation of the rules for the Harlequin's Kiss. If you read the rules for the Kiss as only taking effect if the Kiss is the chosen weapon then there is no rule broken - since you have chosen to read the rules for the Caress, you never read the rule for the Kiss that says it takes effect if the weapon is equipped and attacks are made.
FlingitNow wrote: Yes but you still must choose. If there is no choice that rule is broken.
Yes, you must choose.
And you have no option but to choose to attack with the Kiss.
No rules are broken.
This word "choose" you keep using. I do not think it means what you think it means.
That is not choosing.
Yes it is.
You have a choice between yellow and blue. If you choose yellow you lose and restart. You choose blue.
You have a choice between breaking a rule and not breaking a rule. You choose to not break a rule.
It's still a choice. Or are you implying that "choice" means more than selecting from different options? I mean, you could perfectly well choose to select the Caress, but that'd break a rule.
Cool so I will choose caress. That forces a rule break of either a codex rule or a BrB rule. Which one wins?
You do realize that "conflict" is not the same as "break", right?
By saying you can choose Caress and "break" the BRB rule, you have to generate a conflict with the BRB rule.
What rule is allowing you to use the abilities of multiple weapons? KoD isn't - it just dictates what happens if you attack with a HK.
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
You do realize that "conflict" is not the same as "break", right?
By saying you can choose Caress and "break" the BRB rule, you have to generate a conflict with the BRB rule.
What rule is allowing you to use the abilities of multiple weapons? KoD isn't - it just dictates what happens if you attack and have a HK.
Fixed the underlined for you. So we agree I have a choice that requires multiple options. There are 2 in this case I choose caress what happens? If I can't choose caress what choice do I have other than the Kiss. Having 1 option is not a choice.
6000+
2500
2000
2000
4500 
