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.

What I'm not getting is where you are coming up with this needing permission to resolve it idea. So far I haven't seen an actual reference to anything saying you cannot resolve it.

MORE THAN ONE WEAPON
"Unless otherwise stated, if a model has more than one shooting weapon, he must choose which one to shoot – he cannot fire both in the same Shooting phase. If a model has more than one Melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with when he comes to strike blows – he cannot mix and match the abilities of several different Melee weapons. However, it’s worth remembering that if a model has two or more Melee weapons he gains +1 attack in close combat."

The part underlined is what prevents "Colossal" from being resolved if not using the weapon the has "Colossal". 'Colossal' is an ability as shown by it being in the special rules of the D-Axe, so using weapon other that the D-Axe means you cannot apply any rules associated with the D-Axe.

The only "wiggle-room" around this is the beginning "Unless otherwise stated". The problem with that, however, is that the phrase "no matter what weapon is used" or "even when attacking with another weapon" is NOT part of the 'Colossal' rule. It is subjective to interpret "a model with" or "the bearer of" to actually be "otherwise stated". Some can agree, others cannot.


--

daemonix wrote:
What I'm not getting is where you are coming up with this needing permission to resolve it idea. So far I haven't seen an actual reference to anything saying you cannot resolve it.

Um... this is a permissive rule set. You can't do ANYTHING unless you have permission to do so. This is such a fundamental concept that I don't really know how to respond. Of course we need permission to resolve a rule. You can't make melee attacks in the shooting phase because there is no permission to do so. You can't move 24" in the movement phase with a Tactical Marine because there is no permission to do so. You can't resolve a weapon ability when not using that weapon to make attacks in the Fight Sub-Phase because there is no permission to do so.

no now i get what you are trying to say and guess what... it's a contradiction to the brb which is once again covered. and dont give me that crap about it not being a contradiction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's pretty clear but if you don't want to use the rules then don't.

daemonix wrote:

if you don't want to use the rules then don't.

Same to you, good sir. As I mentioned before, HIWPI does not use the rules b/c I would play it that the BT is always I:1. That doesn't follow the rules.

EDIT: I am truly not trying to be rude, I am merely trying to point out that this particular case CAN and IS able to be interpreted either way. Both arguments are perfectly valid: either you feel the "Colossal" rule trumps the BRB, or you feel the "More than 1 weapon" rule prevents you from applying the 'Colossal' rule when using another weapon.

We need an FAQ/Errata, otherwise neither player is following the rules and must decide which interpretation to use.

--

Edit: never mind: already asked in the thread before.

Edit 2: Actually on a tangent regarding when weapons are chosen:

If weapons are chosen before initiative Steps, what happens if a model "loses" the weapon his Initiative step (say a Walker suffers a Weapon Destroyed result)? Would he no longer be able to attack? Would he be allowed to choose and use a different weapon?

daemonix wrote:
no now i get what you are trying to say and guess what... it's a contradiction to the brb which is once again covered. and dont give me that crap about it not being a contradiction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's pretty clear but if you don't want to use the rules then don't.

Drama isn't needed. Nor is insultingly referring to my stance as "crap". If it were really as clear as you seem to think, we wouldn't have this many pages of discussion.

At least now you understand my position, even if you don't agree with it. This isn't really a discussion about Colossal at all. The core question is as follows...

Can the rules text of a weapon ability that you have no general permission to resolve grant itself permission to resolve itself? My stance is no as you create a situation where you need X to happen before X can happen.

daemonix wrote:
What I'm not getting is where you are coming up with this needing permission to resolve it idea. So far I haven't seen an actual reference to anything saying you cannot resolve it.

Apart frmo the rule stating, in absolute terms, that you cannot mix and match abilities

Meaning you cannot resolve the rule. And, given you are using circular permission to invoke a conflict when none exists, your argument is refuted.

Avadar wrote:
Edit: never mind: already asked in the thread before.

Edit 2: Actually on a tangent regarding when weapons are chosen:

If weapons are chosen before initiative Steps, what happens if a model "loses" the weapon his Initiative step (say a Walker suffers a Weapon Destroyed result)? Would he no longer be able to attack? Would he be allowed to choose and use a different weapon?

The rules don't really cover this situation. You'll need to discuss with your opponents. What we know is that the rules as presented only work if you choose your weapon at some point before Initiative Step 10 happens. We don't know what happens if you lose that weapon between selection and making to hit rolls. From a HIWPI standpoint, I'd say the model loses his attacks that round, but can choose a different weapon in the next round.

In the interest of fairness and full disclosure, on my first read through of the Colossal rule my brain put the word always into the rule text. On a fresh read through I see that word is not actually present which does change the context and gives significantly more validity to the strikes at initiative with another weapon approach.

I still consider it be written to require I1 at all times based on my interpretation of the term weapon abilities. To me that means abilities that take effect specifically when using the weapon. Other rules are always applicable just as they would be on any other piece of wargear. However as that requires assuming a definition for a term that best I can tell is not actually defined in the rules, It's difficult to defend one way or the other.

As such I will bow out of this discussion until such time I have found better rules support for my opinion. Good day to you all.

Permission on the rule is pretty simple, the weapon being on the model gives it the rule.

Permission to break the rule about weapon rules not mixing is the basic vs advanced because the rule in the codex IS wirtten contradictory to that.

And btw how then does the Specialist Weapons rule work for you guys? That rule also requires stacking of multiple weapon's rules to function so if it is impossible then specialist weapons can't function even IF you have two.

Food for thought. Page 156 of the BRB at the begining of the Special Rules section states: "Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule."

This at least strongly implies that anything explained in a special rule, whether on a weapon or not, should be considered separately from normal rules handling. Also supports my previous assertion that special rules are not inherently included as weapon abilities for the more than one weapon rule.

daemonix wrote:
Permission on the rule is pretty simple, the weapon being on the model gives it the rule.

Permission to break the rule about weapon rules not mixing is the basic vs advanced because the rule in the codex IS wirtten contradictory to that.

And btw how then does the Specialist Weapons rule work for you guys? That rule also requires stacking of multiple weapon's rules to function so if it is impossible then specialist weapons can't function even IF you have two.

The weapon ability on the ACTIVE weapon is what tells you to look at other weapons. You're not resolving a weapon ability from a different weapon... you're just resolving the weapon ability of the active weapon. Nice red herring though. Doesn't support your position at all.

Actually it does because the previous argument was that you couldn't even then LOOK at that weapon and therefore it's abilities.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
Food for thought. Page 156 of the BRB at the begining of the Special Rules section states: "Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule."

This at least strongly implies that anything explained in a special rule, whether on a weapon or not, should be considered separately from normal rules handling. Also supports my previous assertion that special rules are not inherently included as weapon abilities for the more than one weapon rule.

What specific rule is it breaking?

"Colossal: A model with this weapon Piles In and fights at Initiative step 1." ..note the lack of 'always' or 'equipped' that people seem to think is there.

Please highlight the exact part of the above rule that explicitly and unambiguously overrides the below restriction.

"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."

Please highlight the specific part of the Colossal weapon ability that unambiguously tells you that you can mix and match in its ability when you are not using it to strike blows. This is what is needed for a conflict with the BRB to occur. The "Piles In and fights at Initiative step 1" conflicts with "In close combat, Initiative dictates the order in which creatures strike." Nobody is challenging that conflict. That's not up for debate. That would be a clear cut conflict. Assuming you're allowed to resolve Colossal, you'd be fighting at Initiative step 1. Which part of the Colossal rule conflicts with "cannot mix and match the abilities of several different Melee weapons"?

That's the conflict you need to demonstrate and I'm just not seeing it. Colossal simply doesn't have wording saying that it may be resolved even when the weapon in question isn't being used.

Colossal is basically just a version of Unwieldy that can affect Monstrous Creatures (and Walkers).

Pg 41 BRB: When a model has more than one melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with, he cannot mix and match the abilities of several different weapons

Pg 41 BRB: The type section of a weapon's profile also includes any special rules that apply to the weapon in question

Pg 13 BRB: Where a conflict between BRB and Codex exists the Codex has precedence

Pg 156 BRB: Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks one of the main game rules it is represented by a special rule

Pg 114 KDK: Colossal: a model WITH this weapon piles in and fights at initiative step 1

Pg 114 KDK: Great axe of Khorne, Melee, Colossal.


I can't possibly see how much more than that you would need to see that it has a rule that is different from the core rules and it is still ok to use it.

Do me a favour and show me SOMETHING from the book that gives your point anything to go on because so far it's just been the first point I covered and that already has an as written rule to be ignored.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
The part that says A MODEL WITH THIS WEAPON! That is the contradiction. It doesn't matter what weapon the D-Thirster decides to use because HE STILL HAS THE DAMNED AXE!

daemonix wrote:
Actually it does because the previous argument was that you couldn't even then LOOK at that weapon and therefore it's abilities.

"Specialist Weapon: A model fighting with this weapon does not receive +1 Attack for fighting with two weapons unless it is armed with two or more Melee weapons with the Specialist Weapon rule."

I have Power Fist. It has Unwieldy and Specialist Weapon. I also have a Lightning Claw. It also Shred and Specialist Weapon. I choose to attack with the Power Fist. Given that I can't mix and match weapon abilities, I am only able to resolve the Power Fist's weapon abilities... Unwieldy and Specialist Weapon. Unwieldy lets me know that I'll be striking at Initiative step 1. Specialist Weapon lets me know that I won't get the +1 Attack unless I have a second weapon with the Specialist Weapon rule. I do, so I get the +1 Attack. I'm not actually resolving that second instance of Specialist Weapon. I'm only validating that I'm armed with a weapon that has that ability. I'm only resolving the first instance.

To make this easier...

My Dude is equipped with a Pimp Glove and a Diamond Cane. The Pimp Glove has the Slap weapon ability and the Diamond Cane has the Swagger special ability. They are as such...

'Slap: A model fighting with this weapon does not receive +1 Attack for fighting with two weapons unless it is armed with at least one other weapon with the Swagger special ability.'
'Swagger: A model fighting with this weapon strikes at Initiative step 10."

The Dude attacks with his Pimp Glove. You would resolve Slap, but not Swagger as resolving Swagger would be mixing and matching weapon abilities. The Dude gets the +1 Attack because he is, in fact, armed with at least one other weapon with the Swagger special ability. He does not strike at Initiative step 10 because he has no permission to resolved Swagger.

I think you might be confused because the Specialist Weapon ability on your active weapon has the same name as the Specialist Weapon ability of your 'off hand' weapon. You aren't actually resolving both instances. That isn't how the rules work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

daemonix wrote:
Pg 41 BRB: When a model has more than one melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with, he cannot mix and match the abilities of several different weapons

Pg 41 BRB: The type section of a weapon's profile also includes any special rules that apply to the weapon in question

Pg 13 BRB: Where a conflict between BRB and Codex exists the Codex has precedence

Pg 156 BRB: Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks one of the main game rules it is represented by a special rule

Pg 114 KDK: Colossal: a model WITH this weapon piles in and fights at initiative step 1

Pg 114 KDK: Great axe of Khorne, Melee, Colossal.


I can't possibly see how much more than that you would need to see that it has a rule that is different from the core rules and it is still ok to use it.

Do me a favour and show me SOMETHING from the book that gives your point anything to go on because so far it's just been the first point I covered and that already has an as written rule to be ignored.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
The part that says A MODEL WITH THIS WEAPON! That is the contradiction. It doesn't matter what weapon the D-Thirster decides to use because HE STILL HAS THE DAMNED AXE!

Agree to disagree. You simply aren't showing me any compelling evidence. You simply have no general permission to resolve the rule. It blows my mind that you can't see that "a model fighting with this weapon" is redundant in almost every weapon ability as weapon abilities are ONLY active in the Fight Sub-Phase when a model is actively fighting with that weapon. This is an example of garbage rules writing confusing an otherwise straightforward rule.

It doesn't say " A model fighting with this weapon" it says "A model with this weapon". With means it simply has to have the weapon in it's possession which it does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I won't pretend I know what they intended since figuring that out would be impossible aside from actually meeting them and asking, but as written the model simply has to have the axe for that rule to be there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also it only does matter during Pile In and Fighting so it only activates in the fight sub phase as it should.

daemonix wrote:
Pg 114 KDK: Colossal: a model WITH this weapon piles in and fights at initiative step 1

Pg 114 KDK: Great axe of Khorne, Melee, Colossal.

So, we don't use Colossal when using another Relic Weapon available to the Bloodthirster. Since we aren't using Colossal, the ability for this axe to reduce the model's Pile In and Attacks in the Fight Sub-phase will not be used and can be ignored any more than Unwieldy affects a Lightning Claw or Specialist affects a Pistol.

daemonix wrote:
It doesn't say " A model fighting with this weapon" it says "A model with this weapon". With means it simply has to have the weapon in it's possession which it does.

Negative, good buddy. It could say ALMOST anything. You still have no general permission to resolve it.

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

Prove to me that the model OR its attacks have the Colossal special rule. "unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule." Show me where it's stated that the model or its attacks have Colossal. Colossal tells you WHAT it does. It doesn't tell you WHEN the model is able to use Colossal.

daemonix wrote:
It doesn't say " A model fighting with this weapon" it says "A model with this weapon". With means it simply has to have the weapon in it's possession which it does.

Irrelevant. We are not allowed to use this rule. So being "with it" is not a consideration.

I'm still working on trying to find a clear definition for what is considered abilities of a weapon. I merely pointed out the excerpt from the description of special rules because it provides permission for a special rule to break normal game rules just by virtue of being a special rule. Thus they cannot be immediately dismissed just because standard rules say they would not normally apply, which seemed to be a point of contention in many posts. I still want to try to better define "abilities of weapons" before weighing back in on the primary issue.

What do you mean prove it? Have you even looked at the KDK book? The D-Thirster is only a D-Thirster BECAUSE he has the Great axe of Khorne stock on his profile. The weapon clearly states it has colossal and the colossal rule states that any model with the weapon will pile in and fight at 1. I'm really coming up short at what permission you seem to feel you need to use a rule that the weapon clearly has written to it. If you want to attack at normal initiative then don't take the D-Thirster. You want the D weapon then deal with the drawback.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

daemonix wrote:
It doesn't say " A model fighting with this weapon" it says "A model with this weapon". With means it simply has to have the weapon in it's possession which it does.

Irrelevant. We are not allowed to use this rule. So being "with it" is not a consideration.

You still have yet to show me where it says you can't use this rule. I have shown the exceptions that say you can now go ahead and give me something that says you can't outside of you simply saying no.

daemonix wrote:
What do you mean prove it? Have you even looked at the KDK book? The D-Thirster is only a D-Thirster BECAUSE he has the Great axe of Khorne stock on his profile. The weapon clearly states it has colossal and the colossal rule states that any model with the weapon will pile in and fight at 1. I'm really coming up short at what permission you seem to feel you need to use a rule that the weapon clearly has written to it. If you want to attack at normal initiative then don't take the D-Thirster. You want the D weapon then deal with the drawback.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I can read. I know he has the weapon. I know the weapon has Colossal. I know that when he attacks with that weapon that Colossal resolves. You have yet to show me any permission to resolve Colossal when he's NOT attacking with the Great Axe of Khorne.

I'll just assume you don't understand how multiple melee weapons work. You know, as relates to not being able to use their abilities when not attacking with them.

 Kriswall wrote:

Agree to disagree. You simply aren't showing me any compelling evidence. You simply have no general permission to resolve the rule. It blows my mind that you can't see that "a model fighting with this weapon" is redundant in almost every weapon ability as weapon abilities are ONLY active in the Fight Sub-Phase when a model is actively fighting with that weapon. This is an example of garbage rules writing confusing an otherwise straightforward rule.

The "a model fighting with this weapon" text is only redundant and "garbage" if your interpretaion of the rules is correct. It is equally possible that it is necessary rules text to resolve it appropriately and the rules you are citing are the poorly written ones and don't mean what you read them to mean.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
I'm still working on trying to find a clear definition for what is considered abilities of a weapon. I merely pointed out the excerpt from the description of special rules because it provides permission for a special rule to break normal game rules just by virtue of being a special rule. Thus they cannot be immediately dismissed just because standard rules say they would not normally apply, which seemed to be a point of contention in many posts. I still want to try to better define "abilities of weapons" before weighing back in on the primary issue.

Check the Weapons section. A weapon's special rules/abilities are the things listed in the Type section that aren't Assault, Bomb, Heavy, Ordnance, Pistol, Primary Weapon, Rapid Fire, Salvo or Melee. Those are actual Types. Why GW decided to put special rules/abilities in the Type section is beyond me. The words "rules" and "abilities" are used pretty interchangeably all throughout the BRB. Don't believe me? Go have a read.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fhionnuisce wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Agree to disagree. You simply aren't showing me any compelling evidence. You simply have no general permission to resolve the rule. It blows my mind that you can't see that "a model fighting with this weapon" is redundant in almost every weapon ability as weapon abilities are ONLY active in the Fight Sub-Phase when a model is actively fighting with that weapon. This is an example of garbage rules writing confusing an otherwise straightforward rule.

The "a model fighting with this weapon" text is only redundant and "garbage" if your interpretaion of the rules is correct. It is equally possible that it is necessary rules text to resolve it appropriately and the rules you are citing are the poorly written ones and don't mean what you read them to mean.

Seems more likely that my interpretation is correct as my interpretation follows the more than one weapon special rules. Yours arbitrarily ignores those rules. I'll err on the side of not accidentally cheating.

and once again you are saying "because" and giving me no pg numbers or anything to go off of. The rule is written to be active whenever a model with that weapon piles in or fights. Yes it breaks the rules about multiple weapon rules being in effect and the BRB has already stated it is allowed to override it like that.

And you may assume anything you like about my knowledge of the game. Your opinion on that matters little to me when you can't even understand some very simply written rules.

daemonix wrote:
What do you mean prove it? Have you even looked at the KDK book? The D-Thirster is only a D-Thirster BECAUSE he has the Great axe of Khorne stock on his profile. The weapon clearly states it has colossal and the colossal rule states that any model with the weapon will pile in and fight at 1. I'm really coming up short at what permission you seem to feel you need to use a rule that the weapon clearly has written to it. If you want to attack at normal initiative then don't take the D-Thirster. You want the D weapon then deal with the drawback.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

daemonix wrote:
It doesn't say " A model fighting with this weapon" it says "A model with this weapon". With means it simply has to have the weapon in it's possession which it does.

Irrelevant. We are not allowed to use this rule. So being "with it" is not a consideration.

You still have yet to show me where it says you can't use this rule. I have shown the exceptions that say you can now go ahead and give me something that says you can't outside of you simply saying no.

And there it is. "Show me where it says I can't." That's not how the rules work. This is a "Show me where it says I can" sort of game. You haven't shown me yet where it says you can resolve Colossal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

daemonix wrote:
and once again you are saying "because" and giving me no pg numbers or anything to go off of. The rule is written to be active whenever a model with that weapon piles in or fights. Yes it breaks the rules about multiple weapon rules being in effect and the BRB has already stated it is allowed to override it like that.

And you may assume anything you like about my knowledge of the game. Your opinion on that matters little to me when you can't even understand some very simply written rules.

I can't provide a page number saying that you can't do something. That's not how the game works. You have yet to provide me with a page number saying you CAN do something... namely resolve Colossal. Please cite page and paragraph granting permission to give the model's attacks the Colossal special rule.

You're making the accusation (I can do something). Burden of proof is on the accuser.

In other words I provided all my references to the can side, but the books and written rules are irrelevant because you said so. So far your argument has been pretty weak.

The weapons section does not define abilities of a weapon that way. As best I have been able to determine so far it does not define it at all. Granted your assumption of meaning is the common one and you are correct that they do often seem to use rules and abilities to mean the same thing, but that doesn't change the fact the terminology is not actually defined.

From what I have seen so far the rules actually work better and with less conflict if you assume abilities of weapons means range, strength, ap value, and weapon types, but not special rules.

Before you say it, I know working better a certain way does not make it the right way or RAW, but it is why I am trying to find a clear rules definition for abilities of weapons. It might solve a lot of problems if we knew what the rules writers actually meant by that.