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.

Zimko wrote:
You might want to recheck the grounding test rules. I believe it specifically says they CAN assault the following turn.

Fixed that for you. If you fail a grounded check in your opponent's turn, you have basically "changed flight modes" in the previous turn, allowing you to charge in yours. Changing flight modes in "your" turn is what prevents charging.

--

Yes, you can absolutely charge in your turn if your opponent grounds you in their turn. Works really nice with LOC, swoop for protection + line of sight and range, take a wound and drop, charge in with the boomstick next turn.

Works good for a thirster too, you can put him in a spot that will cause your opponent to think twice about shooting him because of the charging options he will have in the following turn. This also makes him useless if they don't go for it though, whereas a fmc with some form of ranged weapons can really take advantage of it.

Personally speaking, its says a model with the weapon, not using it.
So just carrying it causes the drop to I1.

This is the drawbacks to carrying a Titan sized axe about.



Otherwise, as stated, people would just run a Dthirster with a reward so they can have the ultimate thirster, making the other 2 pointless options.




That however is my own opinion on the matter.
I'm just going by my own thoughts and what I see from the wording of colossal.

 Jackal wrote:
Personally speaking, its says a model with the weapon, not using it.
So just carrying it causes the drop to I1.

This is the drawbacks to carrying a Titan sized axe about.



Otherwise, as stated, people would just run a Dthirster with a reward so they can have the ultimate thirster, making the other 2 pointless options.




That however is my own opinion on the matter.
I'm just going by my own thoughts and what I see from the wording of colossal.

This whole issue with weapon special abilities comes up quite a bit. Given the responses I see in just about every thread, it's pretty apparent that many people don't understand when to apply weapon abilities.

I'll make this easy, but without specific quotes from the BRB, since I don't have my BRB with me.

Point #1 - All weapon abilities apply at all times... UNLESS...
Point #2 - There is a specific restriction preventing us from mixing and matching weapon abilities when it comes time to strike blows. In other words, if you're striking blows (i.e. participating in the fight sub-phase) with Weapon A, you temporarily ignore all special abilities of Weapon B.

In the case of the D-Thirster, Colossal is a weapon ability. If the D-Thirster isn't attacking with that weapon, it would violate Point #2 to use the Colossal rule as that would be mixing and matching weapon abilities.

Lots of people will bring up things like Eldrad's weapons or the axe that gives -1BS. Point #1 clears that up. These sorts of abilities are active at ALL times EXCEPT when a different weapon is actively being used in a fight sub-phase.

Kriswall. .. it doesn't say "a model attacking with this weapon piles in and fights at initiative 1" which is essentially the text of unwieldy.

It's clear that the wording is different in the minimum necessary way to cause it to have an effect whether you're attacking with it or not.

Colossal is a rule that doesn't care whether you're using the weapon, sitting on the weapon, or using the weapon to do your taxes. You have the weapon, you pile in and strike at initiative 1. This is the RAW.

I wouldn't even call it a weapon ability. It's a wargear effect. It certainly isn't much of an ability if it's a downside and nothing else.

It's not even complicated enough to examine the rules for when to apply weapon abilities because it clearly states "model has weapon, model piles in and fights at initiative 1"

EDIT: thread moving too fast to keep up.

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
Kriswall. .. it doesn't say "a model attacking with this weapon piles in and fights at initiative 1" which is essentially the text of unwieldy.

It's clear that the wording is different in the minimum necessary way to cause it to have an effect whether you're attacking with it or not.

Colossal is a rule that doesn't care whether you're using the weapon, sitting on the weapon, or using the weapon to do your taxes. You have the weapon, you pile in and strike at initiative 1. This is the RAW.

I wouldn't even call it a weapon ability. It's a wargear effect. It certainly isn't much of an ability if it's a downside and nothing else.

It's not even complicated enough to examine the rules for when to apply weapon abilities because it clearly states "model has weapon, model piles in and fights at initiative 1"

Aside fromn the fact that this is only the case in 50% of the Colossal weapons in the game

Kriswall - then why does it say a model WITH this weapon.
Not a model USING this weapon?

This enough a basic weapon rule as they state quite clearly that using the weapon results in the rule coming into play.
This states that just having the weapon auses it.

IHateNids, are you saying that GW has released rules for models with weapons that have the Colossal special rule with different wording? Or are they forgeworld models, weapons, and wording?

If they have the same wording but are from forgeworld I would say they always drop the model to initiative 1 when piling in and attacking, because the wording in the rule for a thirster of insensate rage clearly states this.

If they have different wording I would say that they're irrelevant to the current discussion, but it's an interesting thing to know.

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
Kriswall. .. it doesn't say "a model attacking with this weapon piles in and fights at initiative 1" which is essentially the text of unwieldy.

It's clear that the wording is different in the minimum necessary way to cause it to have an effect whether you're attacking with it or not.

Colossal is a rule that doesn't care whether you're using the weapon, sitting on the weapon, or using the weapon to do your taxes. You have the weapon, you pile in and strike at initiative 1. This is the RAW.

The BRB has a fundamental restriction preventing you from mixing and matching in a weapon ability when you're striking blows and not actually using that weapon. It doesn't really matter what Colossal says if you're not currently using the rule.

The classic example is a Chapter Master with Power Fist and Lightning Claw. If the Chapter Master attacks with the Power Fist, is he able to use the Shred weapon ability? No, of course not. Why not? Because doing so would be mixing and matching weapon abilities form the Lightning Claw (which isn't being used) with weapon abilities from the Power Fist (which is).

You need to demonstrate a RaW permission to use the Colossal rule if you aren't making attacks with a weapon that has Colossal. Until you do, it doesn't really matter what Colossal says. It can say literally anything, but if you have no permission to read and apply the rule, the text doesn't really matter.

Now, I'm more than willing to admit that GW doesn't generally understand how it's own rule set works and may have intended Colossal to work at all times, regardless of the weapon used. If that was the case, they should have made it a model special rule and not a weapon ability.

I wouldn't even call it a weapon ability. It's a wargear effect. It certainly isn't much of an ability if it's a downside and nothing else.

Doesn't matter what you call it. From a rules standpoint, it's a weapon ability. Whether it's a positive or a negative isn't relevant. Unwieldy is a downside, but is clearly a weapon ability.

It's not even complicated enough to examine the rules for when to apply weapon abilities because it clearly states "model has weapon, model piles in and fights at initiative 1"

Again, and per the BRB, if you aren't using a specific weapon to fight with, you ignore all of it's abilities when fighting. There is a specific restriction preventing mixing and matching.

That's good, but both power fist and Lclaw state the benefits when using said weapon, not by "having" the weapon on the model.

And by ignoring the wording of colossal you have violated it.

It's not an effect that is triggered when using the weapon, its an effect caused by owning the weapon to begin with.

You aren't mixing and matching weapon abilities.

You're following the rule for a model carrying a colossal weapon, and "always piling in and fighting at initiative 1". You need explicit RAW permission to ignore the fact that the model is carrying a colossal weapon to ignore the rule. What you have provided is explicit permission to ignore rules that come into effect by attacking with a weapon, not from possessing said weapon.

Is a rule given by carrying a weapon the same thing as a rule given when attacking with a weapon? I would assert that the latter follows everything you posted, whereas colossal is the former. I would also assert that they are not the same thing and can't be defined as such using the rules.

Otherwise, no one would bother making a difference apparent in the rules text.

 Jackal wrote:
That's good, but both power fist and Lclaw state the benefits when using said weapon, not by "having" the weapon on the model.

And by ignoring the wording of colossal you have violated it.

It's not an effect that is triggered when using the weapon, its an effect caused by owning the weapon to begin with.

I understand your point, but how do you reconcile the basic restriction preventing you from mixing and matching in weapon abilities from weapons that you aren't currently fighting with? Are you simply ignoring that part of the BRB? This isn't a basic versus advanced issue. We effectively have an issue where one rule says "Do A" and another rule says "Don't do A when you're doing B". There is no conflict. You're simply breaking the rules when you do A and B together in much the same way that you're breaking the rules when you resolve Colossal while attacking with a different weapon.

And I'm legitimately looking for an answer. Are you simply ignoring the rules in the BRB restricting you from mixing and matching weapon abilities when attacking?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
You aren't mixing and matching weapon abilities.

You're following the rule for a model carrying a colossal weapon, and "always piling in and fighting at initiative 1". You need explicit RAW permission to ignore the fact that the model is carrying a colossal weapon to ignore the rule. What you have provided is explicit permission to ignore rules that come into effect by attacking with a weapon, not from possessing said weapon.

Is a rule given by carrying a weapon the same thing as a rule given when attacking with a weapon? I would assert that the latter follows everything you posted, whereas colossal is the former. I would also assert that they are not the same thing and can't be defined as such using the rules.

Otherwise, no one would bother making a difference apparent in the rules text.

Is a rule given by carrying a weapon the same thing as a rule given when attacking with a weapon? Yes. The BRB doesn't differentiate. We simply have weapon abilities. Those abilities do wildly different things at wildly different times, but are all weapon abilities.

It seems like you read the restriction against mixing and matching weapon abilities as a restriction against mixing and matching SOME weapon abilities. I'd like to know if this is simply a house rule, or if you have actual rules backup to differentiate the abilities. I'm willing to admit I may have missed something in the BRB (but I don't think I have).

Kriswall, I think it would help if you quoted the specific passage about "mixing and matchng abilities". I don't have my BRB on hand, but I think the rule you are referring to says that you must chose a weapon to strike with, and only apply the special rules that affect "that weapon"

This is a bit different than "mixing and matching" weapon abilities as it still allows rules that always apply to the "Model" to be in affect.

This is actually the reason the old GK FAQ applied the rules for the Great Sword, even if you were using the Nemesis fist.

--

Oh I agree, its not a cut and shut debate on this.


From what I am aware of, weapons that impose restrictions on a model through having them rather than use are somewhat rare.
Infact, I'm digging through books now on the hunt for them.

As you said, the brb states that you must choose which weapon to use, so the axe would not be in use if using a reward weapon instead.

However, the axe states that a model with the weapon (not when using, just with) strikes at i1.

RAW, either way you break a rule no matter how you do it.


It does need a FAQ as the rules contradict in this case.




My personal opinion and thoughts also sway towards the penalty being applied at all times simply due to the huge benefit if not.

Otherwise you have a model with the best of both worlds that makes the other 2 bloodthirsters redundant as you can swap as needed.

That is however my own view at the end.

 Galef wrote:
Kriswall, I think it would help if you quoted the specific passage about "mixing and matchng abilities". I don't have my BRB on hand, but I think the rule you are referring to says that you must chose a weapon to strike with, and only apply the special rules that affect "that weapon"

This is a bit different than "mixing and matching" weapon abilities as it still allows to rules that always apply to the "Model" to be in affect.

I'll have to check when I get home, but the restriction specifically precludes "mixing and matching weapon abilities" when striking blows. Striking blows isn't specifically defined, but the most reasonable interpretation (as well as the most narrow interpretation) seems to be during the fight sub-phase.

BRB p 41 "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. "

Zimko wrote:
BRB p 41 "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. "

Thanks. So, the argument is that if you are striking blows (which I interpret as using a melee weapon in the fight sub-phase), you can't mix and match in abilities from any other melee weapon. In this case, Colossal is an ability of a different melee weapon.

Which leads us to the Harlequin weapons which allow them to 'strike blows' just by being equipped with the weapon(s) in question

 Kriswall wrote:

Zimko wrote:
BRB p 41 "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. "

Thanks. So, the argument is that if you are striking blows (which I interpret as using a melee weapon in the fight sub-phase), you can't mix and match in abilities from any other melee weapon. In this case, Colossal is an ability of a different melee weapon.

Well, Ladies & Gents, I think that wraps this up. Go out and get a D-Thirster, buy some rewards for him and laugh at the other Thirsters that no one will ever take again.

 Ghaz wrote:
Which leads us to the Harlequin weapons which allow them to 'strike blows' just by being equipped with the weapon(s) in question

The Harlequin weapon issue is definitely ammo for a different RaI interpretation or a house rule, but doesn't really change the way the BRB is written at all. From a RaW standpoint, unless you're striking blows with a specific weapon, you are very explicitly not allowed to mix and match in abilities from a different weapon. The Harlequin weapons don't change that at all.

Hmmm, interesting. Here are some more of my musings.

I feel like perhaps a weapon's "abilities" (that we are told not to mix with another weapon's abilities, though the word is never defined) are considered to be included only in the weapon profile - range, S, AP and Type (as per the examples we are shown on page 40) and a weapon's special rules are to be considered always active (unless stated otherwise, like normal for special rules) but the rule book implies otherwise: Weapons, page 41, Special Rules states "the type section of a weapon's profile also includes any special rules that apply to the weapon in question". Does the Colossal rule count as being included in the type section even though it's written on its own below the weapon profile? If not, does it matter? This quote tells us that any special rules a weapon has apply to the weapon itself, implying that Colossal (and other weapons with similar wording) only effects the weapon. Are we told when a weapon's special rules come into play? Other weapons seem to have special rules that are intended to apply to the model wielding it rather than the weapon, the Axe of Blind Fury for example, surely the wielder of the AoBF is intended to suffer the WS and BS penalty and gain Rage even if they choose to attack with a pistol or aren't in the Assault Phase?

I'm not sure what to believe any more, the RAI seem to be contradictory.

Zimko wrote:

Trazer985 wrote:
protip, if you want to charge something crazy big that has the ground based firepower to wipe him out before you can charge with him, fly him, and wait to fail a grounding check, dont jink and then you can charge on your turn,

You might want to recheck the grounding test rules. I believe it specifically says they can't assault the following turn.

Grounding doesn't have anything like that. The only restriction is that FMCs can't charge on the (player) turn they change flight modes

xlDuke wrote:
Hmmm, interesting. Here are some more of my musings.

I feel like perhaps a weapon's "abilities" (that we are told not to mix with another weapon's abilities, though the word is never defined) are considered to be included only in the weapon profile - range, S, AP and Type (as per the examples we are shown on page 40) and a weapon's special rules are to be considered always active (unless stated otherwise, like normal for special rules) but the rule book implies otherwise: Weapons, page 41, Special Rules states "the type section of a weapon's profile also includes any special rules that apply to the weapon in question". Does the Colossal rule count as being included in the type section even though it's written on its own below the weapon profile? If not, does it matter? This quote tells us that any special rules a weapon has apply to the weapon itself, implying that Colossal (and other weapons with similar wording) only effects the weapon. Are we told when a weapon's special rules come into play? Other weapons seem to have special rules that are intended to apply to the model wielding it rather than the weapon, the Axe of Blind Fury for example, surely the wielder of the AoBF is intended to suffer the WS and BS penalty and gain Rage even if they choose to attack with a pistol or aren't in the Assault Phase?

I'm not sure what to believe any more, the RAI seem to be contradictory.

I think you missed one point. Nobody is saying a weapon's abilities only apply during a fight sub-phase when that weapon is being used. The abilities apply at all times... except during a fight sub-phase when a different weapon is being used. That's the only time when you can't mix and match in different abilities. Outside of the fight sub-phase, you can mix and match all you want. The trick is that most weapon abilities just don't do anything outside the fight sub-phase.

Ultimately, and as with most things, talk to your opponent and agree beforehand on how you'll be playing things. When attending an organized event, talk to the organizer beforehand and get a ruling before the issue pops up.

 CrownAxe wrote:

Zimko wrote:

Trazer985 wrote:
protip, if you want to charge something crazy big that has the ground based firepower to wipe him out before you can charge with him, fly him, and wait to fail a grounding check, dont jink and then you can charge on your turn,

You might want to recheck the grounding test rules. I believe it specifically says they can't assault the following turn.

Grounding doesn't have anything like that. The only restriction is that FMCs can't charge on the (player) turn they change flight modes

Yes, I've been corrected.

 Kriswall wrote:

xlDuke wrote:
Hmmm, interesting. Here are some more of my musings.

I feel like perhaps a weapon's "abilities" (that we are told not to mix with another weapon's abilities, though the word is never defined) are considered to be included only in the weapon profile - range, S, AP and Type (as per the examples we are shown on page 40) and a weapon's special rules are to be considered always active (unless stated otherwise, like normal for special rules) but the rule book implies otherwise: Weapons, page 41, Special Rules states "the type section of a weapon's profile also includes any special rules that apply to the weapon in question". Does the Colossal rule count as being included in the type section even though it's written on its own below the weapon profile? If not, does it matter? This quote tells us that any special rules a weapon has apply to the weapon itself, implying that Colossal (and other weapons with similar wording) only effects the weapon. Are we told when a weapon's special rules come into play? Other weapons seem to have special rules that are intended to apply to the model wielding it rather than the weapon, the Axe of Blind Fury for example, surely the wielder of the AoBF is intended to suffer the WS and BS penalty and gain Rage even if they choose to attack with a pistol or aren't in the Assault Phase?

I'm not sure what to believe any more, the RAI seem to be contradictory.

I think you missed one point. Nobody is saying a weapon's abilities only apply during a fight sub-phase when that weapon is being used. The abilities apply at all times... except during a fight sub-phase when a different weapon is being used. That's the only time when you can't mix and match in different abilities. Outside of the fight sub-phase, you can mix and match all you want. The trick is that most weapon abilities just don't do anything outside the fight sub-phase.

Ultimately, and as with most things, talk to your opponent and agree beforehand on how you'll be playing things. When attending an organized event, talk to the organizer beforehand and get a ruling before the issue pops up.

Ah I see. So using the AoBF example again, the wielder would have the BS and WS penalty and gain Rage at all times unless they're in combat and using a different weapon. At that point the blind fury subsides and there's a beautiful moment of clarity! Seems peculiar to me but appears to be RAW after reading your earlier points and More Than One Weapon.

For what it's worth, about the D-thirster as a unit........I've never been impressed when fighting against it. I play orks, and have played it a couple of times, and it's always just 'meh'.

Thing is, when you're a big mean nasty on your own, initiative becomes a HUGELY important stat. And dropping it to 1 is a big problem. Yes, a BT's innate WS10 makes it hard for many things to hit him in melee, but it's far from impossible.

My two cents.

Last time I fought a D-thirster, a wierdboy with force active managed to 'bonk' him out of existence, before he even got to fight. I'll admit, that's a rare example, but I still stand by my opinion that they are generally lackluster.

Fantastic model (despite being modeled on a tiny whisp of fire), but not terribly impressive in-game.

As for the rules debate: Anyone have a direct rules quote they can list? It's always helpful to see exactly what the rule says before debating it.

Why would they bother using different wording or a different format or rules presentation if there was no difference. GW can be accused of stupidity, but doing unnecessary work for no reason? I doubt it. Much more likely that they used different wording to signify a difference between rules.

They wouldn't have wasted ink on the rules in question if they didn't intend them to be treated differently.

Another example of this is the blade of blood. Why make a rule called Bloodlust and explain separately that the bearer of the blade of blood gains rampage, when they could have just put it in the weapon profile? The only logical answer is that they wanted you to apply the rule as it is written, not requiring an attack with the weapon to get the benefit/downside of being equipped with it.

In my example above, the entire creation of the Bloodlust rule is pointless under your rules interpretation, because there's no difference between it and just putting rampage on the weapon profile.

Under my interpretation, the rule is different than rampage because it is gained simply by being equipped with it, not using it. That is explicitly why they would even make the rule in the first place, there is absolutely no other reason to differentiate the rule from rampage unless it is somehow fundamentally different from a weapon having rampage, which it is in the precise way it's worded.

I think that RAW, the weapon ability as you call it is not a weapon ability at all, but a special rule that the model possesses when equipped with the weapon. That is what it says, anyways. The possession of the weapon confers x effect.

The abilities you are referring to to discount what I say are all activated and come into action when a model uses the weapon to attack. The rules in question here come into effect when a model possesses a weapon. There is a difference, no? Between using and possessing a weapon?

Well it's nice to know that Yriel can assault an MC, use his Plasma Grenades, and never have to worry about being cursed.

xlDuke wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

xlDuke wrote:
Hmmm, interesting. Here are some more of my musings.

I feel like perhaps a weapon's "abilities" (that we are told not to mix with another weapon's abilities, though the word is never defined) are considered to be included only in the weapon profile - range, S, AP and Type (as per the examples we are shown on page 40) and a weapon's special rules are to be considered always active (unless stated otherwise, like normal for special rules) but the rule book implies otherwise: Weapons, page 41, Special Rules states "the type section of a weapon's profile also includes any special rules that apply to the weapon in question". Does the Colossal rule count as being included in the type section even though it's written on its own below the weapon profile? If not, does it matter? This quote tells us that any special rules a weapon has apply to the weapon itself, implying that Colossal (and other weapons with similar wording) only effects the weapon. Are we told when a weapon's special rules come into play? Other weapons seem to have special rules that are intended to apply to the model wielding it rather than the weapon, the Axe of Blind Fury for example, surely the wielder of the AoBF is intended to suffer the WS and BS penalty and gain Rage even if they choose to attack with a pistol or aren't in the Assault Phase?

I'm not sure what to believe any more, the RAI seem to be contradictory.

I think you missed one point. Nobody is saying a weapon's abilities only apply during a fight sub-phase when that weapon is being used. The abilities apply at all times... except during a fight sub-phase when a different weapon is being used. That's the only time when you can't mix and match in different abilities. Outside of the fight sub-phase, you can mix and match all you want. The trick is that most weapon abilities just don't do anything outside the fight sub-phase.

Ultimately, and as with most things, talk to your opponent and agree beforehand on how you'll be playing things. When attending an organized event, talk to the organizer beforehand and get a ruling before the issue pops up.

Ah I see. So using the AoBF example again, the wielder would have the BS and WS penalty and gain Rage at all times unless they're in combat and using a different weapon. At that point the blind fury subsides and there's a beautiful moment of clarity! Seems peculiar to me but appears to be RAW after reading your earlier points and More Than One Weapon.

Correct. And I really love your explanation. Way to Forge that Narrative, sir! Never forget that the rules are an abstraction and sometimes create situations that seem a little peculiar from a "real world" perspective. You just have to use a little imagination to explain these things away.