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.

Raw states that the model with that weapon strikes at I1. Nothing about striking with that weapon. It's profile is used when attacking with it but ignoring the rule for the weapon is ignoring the rules as written, the model has the weapon , striking with it or not by having the weapon the model strikes at I1. Not striking at I1 is ignoring the rules.

Using the ability of the weapon while using another weapon is breaking the rules that state you may not mix and match abilities

Cite your permission to break that rule. Page and graph.

Exactly the way I see it blaktoof. If there is ever a situation where the model strikes at anythings beside I1 then it does not ALWAYS do so and the Colossal rule has not been applied as written. Yes this conflicts with BRB rules for multiple weapons, but that is where basic vs advanced comes in. Your priority is to resolve codex rules AS WRITTEN.

Zarroc1733 wrote:
I'm rather new but I have to agree that RAW he only attacks at i1 if using the axe. Its not how I see RAI and that's not how my group would play it but if you're going purely by the rules its how its worded.

The fact is that the Bloodthirster only have a single weapon on his profile, thus he is forced to attack with the Axe weapon all times (he also lacks any option to equip itself with any other weapons aside such axe)

So in the end the bloodthirster is Always wielding the axe and attacking with it, thus applying colossal on all his attacks.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Using the ability of the weapon while using another weapon is breaking the rules that state you may not mix and match abilities

Cite your permission to break that rule. Page and graph.

It is cited in the rule of the weapon itself. True, the BRB says that you need to use the weapon to have its abilities. Also true, this rule says that if you are merely equipped with it, you suffer the initiative penalty. When there is a conflict between the BRB and a codex, the codex wins.

Now, I understand your thinking, which is essentially that we are not given SPECIFIC permission to break the BRB rule about using a weapon and gaining its associated benefits (or penalties, in this case). But we are given explicit instructions on the initiative step at which the model attacks. It's one. The only way that it is not 1 is if you don't hold the weapon. So you either have to break the rule that the weapon presents or break the rule in the BRB about weapon abilities. Once again, the rules are clear about deferring to the codex/more specific rule, which is to attack at I1 in this case.


How I wish it didn't work like that. But at least now we don't have to worry about not having assault grenades.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lord Perversor wrote:

Zarroc1733 wrote:
I'm rather new but I have to agree that RAW he only attacks at i1 if using the axe. Its not how I see RAI and that's not how my group would play it but if you're going purely by the rules its how its worded.

The fact is that the Bloodthirster only have a single weapon on his profile, thus he is forced to attack with the Axe weapon all times (he also lacks any option to equip itself with any other weapons aside such axe)

So in the end the bloodthirster is Always wielding the axe and attacking with it, thus applying colossal on all his attacks.

You can give him additional weapon upgrades through gifts, which is why this thread is 6 pages long. But even so, you can't get around the fact that the rule doesn't require you to use the weapon, merely to be holding/equipped with it.

So to summarize this entire thread:
Some say he always attacks at Init:1 because the weapon says "a model with the weapon", not "a model using the weapon". Clear RAI, he should always strike at Init:1, strong implication this is RAW as well.

Others say that the BRB doesn't give permission to apply that rule when using another weapon, because you would be "mixing and matching" weapon abilities, which is clearly against the main rules and not in conflict with the Colossal rule (since the rule doesn't specify "no matter what weapon is used").

As this debate is circular, can we get this locked already?

--

You can't imply raw. Strict raw, he cannot mix and match.

 luke1705 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Using the ability of the weapon while using another weapon is breaking the rules that state you may not mix and match abilities

Cite your permission to break that rule. Page and graph.

It is cited in the rule of the weapon itself. True, the BRB says that you need to use the weapon to have its abilities. Also true, this rule says that if you are merely equipped with it, you suffer the initiative penalty. When there is a conflict between the BRB and a codex, the codex wins.

Now, I understand your thinking, which is essentially that we are not given SPECIFIC permission to break the BRB rule about using a weapon and gaining its associated benefits (or penalties, in this case). But we are given explicit instructions on the initiative step at which the model attacks. It's one. The only way that it is not 1 is if you don't hold the weapon. So you either have to break the rule that the weapon presents or break the rule in the BRB about weapon abilities. Once again, the rules are clear about deferring to the codex/more specific rule, which is to attack at I1 in this case.


How I wish it didn't work like that. But at least now we don't have to worry about not having assault grenades.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lord Perversor wrote:

Zarroc1733 wrote:
I'm rather new but I have to agree that RAW he only attacks at i1 if using the axe. Its not how I see RAI and that's not how my group would play it but if you're going purely by the rules its how its worded.

The fact is that the Bloodthirster only have a single weapon on his profile, thus he is forced to attack with the Axe weapon all times (he also lacks any option to equip itself with any other weapons aside such axe)

So in the end the bloodthirster is Always wielding the axe and attacking with it, thus applying colossal on all his attacks.

You can give him additional weapon upgrades through gifts, which is why this thread is 6 pages long. But even so, you can't get around the fact that the rule doesn't require you to use the weapon, merely to be holding/equipped with it.

There is no conflict sadly, because when you are attacking if you choose a weapon, all rules on the weapon you didn't choose cease to exist. You're not conflicting with the colossal rule, because at the moment the colossal rule ceases to exist for him. This (imo) isn't how it was intended, but just like with the Harlequin's Kiss mentioned elsewhere here, it is RAW. Not sayin its hiwpi, but if you're going from pure rules then yes, another weapon can be used at an initiative step other than 1.

Ok, so...somebody can PM me on this to NOT bog down the thread, but it sounds like I'm either playing Blade of Blood the right way, or I'm cheating myself. I've been using it only as when I declare I'm fighting with it as the main (Khorne Prince or BT rocking an Axe of Khorne and Blade of Blood). I've chosen to either fight with the Axe to get instant death attacks, with one attack bonus from also having the BoB, or use the BoB as my main to get rampage (D3) +1 attacks from the Axe of Khorne as backup.

From what I'm understanding, if I play like this, I follow the train of thought Kriswall is saying. If his interpretation is wrong, then I'm playing the BoB wrong as well, as both abilities are "always on".

Personally, I tend to agree with Kris's interpretation, as that's how I've already been playing the BoB. I guess it really come down to talking with my group and getting a consensus. Either way, I'll be getting a boost up from the way I'm already playing.

Playing this game properly means applying all the rules as written to the best of your ability to do so. At times the rules in the BRB and the rules from a codex cannot both be applied as written. That is why the basic vs advanced rule exists. If you can't do both you follow the codex.

Always is not the same as always except when using another weapon. There is no way to follow the general basic rule for fighting with more than one weapon and the advanced codex rule for this weapon and have both applied as written. That means there is a conflict despite your insistence that there is not, and if there is a conflict you follow codex.

You say there is no permission to read the Colossal rule. I say the basic vs advanced rule inherently gives you permission to do, otherwise there is no way to determine if a conflict would exist and BRB would always trump codex by default because you don't have permission to read the codex rules. You cannot claim the basic vs advanced rule doesn't apply just beacuse it doesn't lead to the answer you want and you can't claim any rule in BRB prevents a rule in a codex from working because basic vs advanced dictates otherwise.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
Playing this game properly means applying all the rules as written to the best of your ability to do so. At times the rules in the BRB and the rules from a codex cannot both be applied as written. That is why the basic vs advanced rule exists. If you can't do both you follow the codex.

Always is not the same as always except when using another weapon. There is no way to follow the general basic rule for fighting with more than one weapon and the advanced codex rule for this weapon and have both applied as written. That means there is a conflict despite your insistence that there is not, and if there is a conflict you follow codex.

You say there is no permission to read the Colossal rule. I say the basic vs advanced rule inherently gives you permission to do, otherwise there is no way to determine if a conflict would exist and BRB would always trump codex by default because you don't have permission to read the codex rules. You cannot claim the basic vs advanced rule doesn't apply just beacuse it doesn't lead to the answer you want and you can't claim any rule in BRB prevents a rule in a codex from working because basic vs advanced dictates otherwise.

Very true, and that basic vs. advanced comes up often and works, however in this instance its not conflicting. Yes you read that as "always" meaning always, however when you select a different weapon that rule basically ceases to exist. You can't have "always" on a rule that doesn't exist. Its more like he drops the axe and uses another weapon so the axe no longer affects him. And I for one can say that I'm not saying this just because I want the rule to be different. I don't play daemons at all so I'd much prefer it to be i1 no matter what but if you go strictly RAW that's just not how it goes.

Zarroc1733 wrote:
Very true, and that basic vs. advanced comes up often and works, however in this instance its not conflicting. Yes you read that as "always" meaning always, however when you select a different weapon that rule basically ceases to exist. You can't have "always" on a rule that doesn't exist. Its more like he drops the axe and uses another weapon so the axe no longer affects him. And I for one can say that I'm not saying this just because I want the rule to be different. I don't play daemons at all so I'd much prefer it to be i1 no matter what but if you go strictly RAW that's just not how it goes.

And that is the basis for 6 pages of dispute. The rule only goes away in that situation if you decide following the more than one weapon rule is more important than following the always clause in Colossal. I just don't see rules support for that conclusion.

Fhionnuisce wrote:

Zarroc1733 wrote:
Very true, and that basic vs. advanced comes up often and works, however in this instance its not conflicting. Yes you read that as "always" meaning always, however when you select a different weapon that rule basically ceases to exist. You can't have "always" on a rule that doesn't exist. Its more like he drops the axe and uses another weapon so the axe no longer affects him. And I for one can say that I'm not saying this just because I want the rule to be different. I don't play daemons at all so I'd much prefer it to be i1 no matter what but if you go strictly RAW that's just not how it goes.

And that is the basis for 6 pages of dispute. The rule only goes away in that situation if you decide following the more than one weapon rule is more important than following the always clause in Colossal. I just don't see rules support for that conclusion.

Your argument is circular. Your justification to be able to ignore More Than One Weapon is to use Colossal's wording. You're only able to use Colossal's wording because you're ignoring More Than One Weapon. You don't see that this is circular? Circular logic in a debate is generally a warning sign that your logic is faulty.

 Kriswall wrote:
Your argument is circular. Your justification to be able to ignore More Than One Weapon is to use Colossal's wording. You're only able to use Colossal's wording because you're ignoring More Than One Weapon. You don't see that this is circular? Circular logic in a debate is generally a warning sign that your logic is faulty.

Then can I assume you are of the opinion that there is absolutely no situation whatsoever where a weapon can possibly affect the model when using a different weapon? Because ignoring the text makes that situation completely impossible.

And I'm using Colossal text in conjunction with the basic vs advanced rule, which you have arbitrarily decided doesn't apply with no clear explanation. You keep claiming there is no conflict but several people have pointed out where they see one and you have not addressed those at any point other than to point back at the more than one weapon rule which is the one that is overridden by the basic vs advanced. I am considering the rules as part of a greater ruleset, you seem exclusively fixated on the one rule to the exclusion of all others.

Or to put it another way, you claim the basic rule is not overriden by basic vs advanced because said basic rule says it works this way. Which is pretty circular logic on your part.

Just before this thread gets locked I wanted to remind everyone that this rule is old news.

The models been out for over a year and it's already been judged by EVERY major tournament in unanimous fashion.

They strike at initiative with another weapon.

Just before this thread gets locked I wanted to remind everyone that this rule is old news.

The models been out for over a year and it's already been judged by EVERY major tournament in unanimous fashion.

They strike at initiative with another weapon.

Feel free to continue the argument but please realize is completely pointless.

Tournaments, major or not, are not the only place to play this game, nor does everyone play in tournaments.

Citing tournament judgements to seek to end the discussion is no more useful than saying what your own local club has decided, and just as binding. The populous here is just too diverse for this to be any more than a HYWPI statement.

 Aijec wrote:
Just before this thread gets locked I wanted to remind everyone that this rule is old news.

The models been out for over a year and it's already been judged by EVERY major tournament in unanimous fashion.

They strike at initiative with another weapon.

Feel free to continue the argument but please realize is completely pointless.

Yeah... if you read YMDC regularly, you'll note that we generally don't care about tournament house rules. Tournaments can do whatever they want and pretty regularly change completely unambiguous rules for balance reasons. As such, their "rulings" mean less than nothing if you're discussing how the rules are actually written. It's sort of like saying "my cousin Bob plays it this way, so my stance is obviously correct".

Also, some of us just enjoy the debate. Just because this is pointless for you, doesn't mean it's pointless for everyone else.

Agreed as above

And saying "every" major tournament, without defining "every", "major" or even tournament is just sloppy...

Regardless which weapon gets used the restriction will still apply. This is how it is RAW.

The argument that this is a mix and match of weapon abilities gets shut down by Pg 13 of the BRB in the basic vs advanced section. It clearly states that a Codex rule has the precedence over a BRB rule if they contradict.

The axe says that simply having it is enough to impose restriction, so there it is.

daemonix wrote:
Regardless which weapon gets used the restriction will still apply. This is how it is RAW.

The argument that this is a mix and match of weapon abilities gets shut down by Pg 13 of the BRB in the basic vs advanced section. It clearly states that a Codex rule has the precedence over a BRB rule if they contradict.

The axe says that simply having it is enough to impose restriction, so there it is.

You cannot even read the rule, as you are denied permission to do so

WIthuot using the Colossal rule, cite permission to apply the colossal rule in direct contradiction to the BRB rule. Page and graph.

Nos it is written pretty clearly what happens when you have the axe on the model.

There is no contradiction since the power to override is already given to the codex and I made it pretty clear what pg and section it is.

daemonix wrote:
Regardless which weapon gets used the restriction will still apply. This is how it is RAW.

The argument that this is a mix and match of weapon abilities gets shut down by Pg 13 of the BRB in the basic vs advanced section. It clearly states that a Codex rule has the precedence over a BRB rule if they contradict.

The axe says that simply having it is enough to impose restriction, so there it is.

This would absolutely be true if you had general permission to resolve the Colossal rule. You don't, so there is no conflict. This is not a scenario where the BRB tells you to do one thing and a codex rule tells you to do something different. This is a scenario where the BRB tells you to ignore a codex rule. If you're told to ignore the rule, where are you getting permission to resolve it? It can't be from the rule itself because we're ignoring the rule while attacking with other weapons.

How do you not have permission to resolve the Colossal rule? Does the model HAVE the weapon? Yes? Rule applies.

Really isn't that complicated

daemonix wrote:
Regardless which weapon gets used the restriction will still apply. This is how it is RAW.

The argument that this is a mix and match of weapon abilities gets shut down by Pg 13 of the BRB in the basic vs advanced section. It clearly states that a Codex rule has the precedence over a BRB rule if they contradict.

The axe says that simply having it is enough to impose restriction, so there it is.

The issue with this agreement (as has been stated numerous times) is that once you decide to use another weapon, any abilities (meaning ANY changes to user Str, AP or special rules associated with the original weapon) cease to apply. To argue that you could still apply those rules would be EXACTLY like trying to use Shred from a Lightening Claw, even though you have decided to use your Powerfist instead.

The reason there is no conflict between BRB & Codex is because the "Colossal" rule does not, in fact, state that it applies no matter what weapon is chosen. The BRB never distinguishes between rules that "apply to the weapon" vs those that "apply to the model. We always follow the BRB until there is a conflict, which there isn't in this case.
--------------------------
No having said all that, I personally think it is dumb to not always strike at I:1. It is abundantly clear that this is the RAI, as it is with any weapon rule the says "the bearer of" or "a model with this weapon".
So HIWPI, is that Colossal always applies, even though that cannot "fully" be supported by the RAW.
Or rather, I would play it however my opponent saw fit and get on with my game.

--

daemonix wrote:
How do you not have permission to resolve the Colossal rule? Does the model HAVE the weapon? Yes? Rule applies.

Really isn't that complicated

Well, actually it is a bit more complicated than that. As you'll note from the More Than One Weapons rules, simply having a weapon isn't enough to guarantee permission to resolve its weapon abilities. You might want to go back and re-read those core rules.

For example, let's assume we have a Space Marine Captain with a Power Fist and a Lightning Claw. He chooses to attack with the Power Fist. Will he be able to benefit from/resolve the Shred weapon ability (found on the Lightning Claw)? Nope. Why not? Because Shred says it only works when using that weapon to make attacks? NO! We don't care what the actual weapon ability says. The Captain isn't allowed to benefit from/resolve Shred because that would be a violation of the core rules surrounding a model with more than one weapon as relates to mixing and matching weapon abilities.

The fact that many weapon abilities have a clause saying they only work if the weapon in question is being used to make attacks is redundant and sort of bad writing. I think it's what is misleading many people. Shred doesn't need to have a clause telling us it only works when the weapon in question is being used. The core rules, via the more than one weapon rules, tells us everything we need to know. Shred could simply say "This model is able to re-roll its melee attacks" and you still wouldn't be able to resolve its effects unless attacking with the Lightning Claw. Resolving it while attacking with the Power Fist would be mixing and matching weapon abilities and would be a violation of the core rules.

LOL, Kriswall, I beat you to the LC/PF example

First off you have permission to ignore BRB and follow the dex in the basic vs advanced rule. (that's it's purpose)

Second you can't use the lightning claw/powerfist argument because shred is specific that that weapon must be the one chosen to attack or it doesn't work.

Third is that the axe says a model WITH this weapon. Not a model that attacks with.

That is more than enough permission and guidance to follow to say that the thirster is going to be I1 regardless

 Galef wrote:
LOL, Kriswall, I beat you to the LC/PF example

Haha. It's actually been brought up numerous times at this point. People just aren't getting that you need general permission to resolve a rule before you can resolve a rule.

I do tend to agree on RaI though. I think Colossal is intended to be a sort of "Super Unwieldy" that applies even when the weapon in question isn't being used. HOWEVER, the rules as written don't reflect this. The author's don't appear to be good at translating RaI into RaW. In an actual game situation, I'd probably just let my opponent pick how it's going to work. I'm more interested in the debate of how things work. I doubt I'll ever actually play against one of these things. I generally play games with tighter rule sets these days but those aren't fun to bicker about. You need poorly written, ambiguous rules for solid bickering.

daemonix wrote:

That is more than enough permission

...For you, but others put the "more than 1 weapon rule" first, since they only view the "Codex trumps BRB" rule as applying once a conflict occurs. In this case, we do not see a conflict, so that rule doesn't apply.

Again, this is the "strictest" point of view for RAW. I personally think the "intent" is for weapons that state "a model with this weapon" are supposed to apply those rules all the time. But unfortunately, the GW designers never placed "hard" rules to give us that direction, so when using the "strictest" letter of the rules, we have to use the "more than 1 weapon" rule.

daemonix wrote:
First off you have permission to ignore BRB and follow the dex in the basic vs advanced rule. (that's it's purpose)

Second you can't use the lightning claw/powerfist argument because shred is specific that that weapon must be the one chosen to attack or it doesn't work.

Third is that the axe says a model WITH this weapon. Not a model that attacks with.

That is more than enough permission and guidance to follow to say that the thirster is going to be I1 regardless

You misunderstand. Nobody is questioning the rules text of Colossal. We're asking for page and paragraph that gives you general permission to resolve the rules text of ANY weapon ability when you aren't using that weapon during a Fight Sub-Phase.

"Second you can't use the lightning claw/powerfist argument because shred is specific that that weapon must be the one chosen to attack or it doesn't work."

This statement is incorrect. The wording of Shred isn't the reason you can't use it. The reason you can't use it is because using it would be a violation of the More Than One Weapon rules.