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.

daemonix wrote:
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.

To you, perhaps. You obviously don't understand the core rules surrounding when a model does or does not have access to weapon abilities/special rules. I'm not going to be able to instill that knowledge. You've made up your mind on how this works. That's fine. A person is allowed to play with whatever house rules or misinterpretations he or she wants.

To summarize, for anyone reading.

Player A... This Bloodthirster attacks at Initiative step 1 due to the Colossal special rule despite not using the relevant weapon to attack in the Fight Sub-Phase.
Player B... Um, models have no permission to resolve weapon special abilities during a Fight Sub-Phase if they aren't using the weapon.
Player A... Sure. I have permission because Colossal says models with this axe attacks at Step 1.
Player B... No, I know what it does. You're just not currently allowed to use it. There is no permission to do so.
Player A... Yeah, it says if I have the axe I attack at Step 1. I don't care about the core rules. This gives me permission to ignore all of the rules about when I can use weapon abilities.
Player B... Whatever, dude. Dice off. 4+ and he attacks at normal Initiative. Good luck getting into combat with my Tau.

This is how the real world would work.

It clearly states whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks the rules it is represented by a special rule. It also states they are listed in the type block. If colossal is a rule made outside the brb and attached to a weapon and written as it was you cannot deny it simply because you say it isn't allowed. It is there in print and the phrasing is clear enough as well as the brb including everything needed to allow the codex to break the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And once again you fail to show me WHY I DON'T HAVE PERMISSION TO USE IT! Enjoy being wrong. Happy travels.

daemonix wrote:
It clearly states whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks the rules it is represented by a special rule. It also states they are listed in the type block. If colossal is a rule made outside the brb and attached to a weapon and written as it was you cannot deny it simply because you say it isn't allowed. It is there in print and the phrasing is clear enough as well as the brb including everything needed to allow the codex to break the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And once again you fail to show me WHY I DON'T HAVE PERMISSION TO USE IT! Enjoy being wrong. Happy travels.

"Show me where it says I can't." The anthem of someone who doesn't understand that this is a permissive rule set. Ignorance truly is bliss. Now, if you'll excuse me, to quote a favorite movie... I'm going to go home and sleep with my wife.

 Kriswall wrote:


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.

Is the model with the Colossal weapon "A model with this weapon"?

If yes, then there is your permission.

Now find something that says Colossal does not apply, but it can not be from the BRB because Codex>rulebook if there is a conflict, and since something saying that rule does not apply is a direct conflict with the codex that says it applies.

Anything in the codex that states Colossal does not apply?

If not then you have no basis for breaking the Colossal rule and letting the D-Thirster swing at I order.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:


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.

Is the model with the Colossal weapon "A model with this weapon"?

If yes, then there is your permission.

Now find something that says Colossal does not apply, but it can not be from the BRB because Codex>rulebook if there is a conflict, and since something saying that rule does not apply is a direct conflict with the codex that says it applies.

Anything in the codex that states Colossal does not apply?

If not then you have no basis for breaking the Colossal rule and letting the D-Thirster swing at I order.

I'm sorry, not quite. Colossal does not actively override the restrictions in the More Than One Weapon rule any more than Assault Vehicle overrides the restrictions against Charging after arriving from Reserves or Deep Striking.

The model does not have the rule, the Weapon does. When another Weapon is in use, you cannot mix in the abilities of a Weapon. Special Rules are abilities. Colossal is a Special Rule of the Weapon. Therefore, if another Weapon is not in use, we cannot use it, period.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:


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.

Is the model with the Colossal weapon "A model with this weapon"?

If yes, then there is your permission.

Now find something that says Colossal does not apply, but it can not be from the BRB because Codex>rulebook if there is a conflict, and since something saying that rule does not apply is a direct conflict with the codex that says it applies.

Anything in the codex that states Colossal does not apply?

If not then you have no basis for breaking the Colossal rule and letting the D-Thirster swing at I order.

Nope, youre still missing More than one weapon

You CANNOT use the ability "Colossal" unless you are using the weapon

Provide EXPLICIT permission to use colossal, that is NOT within the Colossal rule itself - because a rule doesnt proc itself.

Page and graph. 3rd time of asking.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You CANNOT use the ability "Colossal" unless you are using the weapon

The above is absolutely false.

More than one weapon is trumped by the conflicting Codex rule...

Colossal applies to a model WITH the weapon. it is used anytime a model HAS a weapon with the Colossal rule...

And we know, since there is a conflict that more than one weapon is trumped by Codex > BRB.

And since the model has the weapon Colossal applies, as Colossal applies to a model WITH the weapon.

You are asking for a page and graph, but I have already show that a model simply needs to have the weapon for Colossal to apply.

Anything saying it does not apply? Page and graph.

 DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You CANNOT use the ability "Colossal" unless you are using the weapon

The above is absolutely false.

More than one weapon is trumped by the conflicting Codex rule...

Colossal applies to a model WITH the weapon. it is used anytime a model HAS a weapon with the Colossal rule...

Ummm... Where does it state it applies even when the model is NOT using the Weapon? That is where the conflict is required. Just possession doesn't conflict with the inability to USE the ability.

 DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You CANNOT use the ability "Colossal" unless you are using the weapon

The above is absolutely false.

More than one weapon is trumped by the conflicting Codex rule...

Colossal applies to a model WITH the weapon. it is used anytime a model HAS a weapon with the Colossal rule...

And we know, since there is a conflict that more than one weapon is trumped by Codex > BRB.

And since the model has the weapon Colossal applies, as Colossal applies to a model WITH the weapon.

You are asking for a page and graph, but I have already show that a model simply needs to have the weapon for Colossal to apply.

Anything saying it does not apply? Page and graph.

No, the above is aboslutely true

You have no permission to proc the collosal rule, basic rules state this. Until you resolve the rule, you cannot do what it tells you.

You are stating a rule grants permission to resolve itself. Which is of course a nonsense

If you hadnt so aggregiously quote snipped in your effort to demonstrate your flawed argument, this would have been more obvious

What special rules do I have states youre wrong
More than one weapon styates that youre wrong

Find PERMISSION NOT IN "£COLOSSAL" to use the ability of another weapon THEN you can use colossal THEN you strike at I1

Demonstrate YOUR permission. You have fialed to do so 3 times now, demonstrating that you cannot do so.

Your argument is refuted. Page and graph showing permission OUTSIDE of colossal is required, or concede.

D-Thirsters always fight at I1.

Read the rules in the context they're written, rather than cherry-picking clauses to support your laughably incorrect assertion.

It's always amused me the folks that seem to spend the most time answering questions here are the ones that have the hardest time actually understanding the rules.

Cindis wrote:
D-Thirsters always fight at I1.

Read the rules in the context they're written, rather than cherry-picking clauses to support your laughably incorrect assertion.

It's always amused me the folks that seem to spend the most time answering questions here are the ones that have the hardest time actually understanding the rules.

Can you answer nos's question then? What rule (not located in the "Colossal" rule) allows you to use the the ability ("Colossal" in this case) of a weapon you are not using?

Cindis wrote:
D-Thirsters always fight at I1.

Read the rules in the context they're written, rather than cherry-picking clauses to support your laughably incorrect assertion.

It's always amused me the folks that seem to spend the most time answering questions here are the ones that have the hardest time actually understanding the rules.

It is it "laughably incorrect," youcan provide a rule showing permission, outside of colossal, to resolve the colossal rule when using another weapon to fight with

I have no issue understanding the rules. YOu seem to have an issue avoiding insulting others, however.

 Charistoph wrote:
Special Rules are abilities.

This seems to be the crux of the argument, but where is this actually stated? I may be overlooking it but I have not been able to find rules text that supports this claim. For the rules to work properly you can no more assume a definition than the others can assume permission to apply a rule.

Without a 40k specific definition, you fall back on common language. And an ability can easily be a special rule that confers something to the model / attack being made / etc.

It isnt assuming a definition. Its that tje ruleset deos not define "A" therefore you must use the standard definition.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Without a 40k specific definition, you fall back on common language. And an ability can easily be a special rule that confers something to the model / attack being made / etc.

It isnt assuming a definition. Its that tje ruleset deos not define "A" therefore you must use the standard definition.

That is faulty logic. There is no standard definition for this term in a 40k context. What you are falling back to is the commonly believed definition. Commonly believed does not mean correct. It is commonly believed that tournament rulings dictate how rules are applied, but that's already been dismissed in this thread.

If we are going to fall back on common language then let's actually look at what the words mean instead of making assumptions. Merriam-Webster provides 4 definitions for ability:

1. The power or skill to do something
2. The quality or state of being able

Colossal does not fit either of these as it does not enable anything to happen. It dictates when otherwise enabled actions will occur.

3. Competence in doing

You would be hard pressed to prove Colossal demonstrates or provides competence in anything.

4. Natural aptitude or acquired proficiency

Colossal doesn't address aptitude or proficiency, so no go here either.

So if common language is the basis for our decision then Colossal does not meet any definition for ability so is not affected by the more than one weapon restriction on not mixing abilities. So at this point it seems to me either Colossal applies because nothing in the rules prevent a non-ability from doing so or you should help me find a 40k rules definition for ability that would contradict this.

 Happyjew wrote:

Cindis wrote:
D-Thirsters always fight at I1.

Read the rules in the context they're written, rather than cherry-picking clauses to support your laughably incorrect assertion.

It's always amused me the folks that seem to spend the most time answering questions here are the ones that have the hardest time actually understanding the rules.

Can you answer nos's question then? What rule (not located in the "Colossal" rule) allows you to use the the ability ("Colossal" in this case) of a weapon you are not using?

Looks like I can't stay away from the thread, it's never-ending, it seems.

Now it is often quoted to give page and graph. May I ask you guys to provide the page and graph where we are explicitly told to choose weapons for melee? Because I cannot find that anywhere. You seem to do so, claiming RAW supports your position.

Pretty clearly falls under "the power or skill to do something". The weapon has the power or skill to do something... to make the attacker strike at Initiative 1. This is a pretty straightforward dictionary definition usage of 'ability'.

Colossal is clearly a weapon ability.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Naw wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Cindis wrote:
D-Thirsters always fight at I1.

Read the rules in the context they're written, rather than cherry-picking clauses to support your laughably incorrect assertion.

It's always amused me the folks that seem to spend the most time answering questions here are the ones that have the hardest time actually understanding the rules.

Can you answer nos's question then? What rule (not located in the "Colossal" rule) allows you to use the the ability ("Colossal" in this case) of a weapon you are not using?

Looks like I can't stay away from the thread, it's never-ending, it seems.

Now it is often quoted to give page and graph. May I ask you guys to provide the page and graph where we are explicitly told to choose weapons for melee? Because I cannot find that anywhere. You seem to do so, claiming RAW supports your position.

It's not in the rulebook, but we can infer from weapons like Lash Whips that have abilities that effectively increase a user's initiative that weapon selection happens at some point before Initiative Step 10 of the Fight Sub-Phase. It can't happen afterwards or else weapons like Lash Whips couldn't function as (very obviously) intended.

No game rules give it the power to strike, Colossal restricts the timing at which it does so. Nothing in Colossal enables it to strike blows if it couldn't already do so.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
No game rules give it the power to strike, Colossal restricts the timing at which it does so. Nothing in Colossal enables it to strike blows if it couldn't already do so.

The core rules give A weapon the ability to make its strikes at the user's Initiative value. The Colossal ability gives a SPECIFIC weapon the modified ability to make its strikes at Initiative step 1 instead. Colossal is providing the instruction/ability to strike at Initiative step 1. Nothing else in the rules grants that ability.

I can't believe we're arguing whether or not Colossal is a weapon ability. Welcome to the internet, folks. It's very, very, very, very, very clearly a weapon ability. The simplest (and therefore most likely) interpretation is that everything in the Type section of a weapon's profile that isn't a Type (these are listed in the BRB and include things like Rapid Fire and Melee) is a weapon ability/special rule. The BRB might be a little ambiguous given that it doesn't provide explicit definitions for game terms, but NOWHERE does it even imply that some of a weapon's special rules should be considered abilities while others shouldn't. It should be an all or nothing thing.

Coming up next...

(Bill Clinton Voice) Well, that depends on what you mean by the word 'is'...

I'm not debating that it is a special rule, I am questioning whether special rules are abilities. Yes the simplest explanation is that they would be, but that doesn't mean correct. My hypothesis (which I am happy to have proven or disproven as long as it is rules supported not assumption) is that Special Rules are in fact NOT weapon abilities, which is why so many of them have the "A model attacking with this weapon" style wording. If they are weapon abilities then that wording, as pointed out, is redundant. If they are not then the wording is essential. It seems more likely to me from a common sense standpoint that they poorly explained one rule vs. adding unnecessary text to dozens.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
I'm not debating that it is a special rule, I am questioning whether special rules are abilities. Yes the simplest explanation is that they would be, but that doesn't mean correct. My hypothesis (which I am happy to have proven or disproven as long as it is rules supported not assumption) is that Special Rules are in fact NOT weapon abilities, which is why so many of them have the "A model attacking with this weapon" style wording. If they are weapon abilities then that wording, as pointed out, is redundant. If they are not then the wording is essential. It seems more likely to me from a common sense standpoint that they poorly explained one rule vs. adding unnecessary text to dozens.

So... what's the distinction between 'weapon special rule' and 'weapon ability' and what in the core rules gives you the impression that such a distinction should be made?

In other words...

Is Unwieldy a Special Rule or an Ability? Why?
Is Shred a Special Rule or an Ability? Why?
Is Blast a Special Rule or an Ability? Why?
Is Colossal a Special Rule or an Ability? Why?

If, as you hypothesize, special rules are not weapon abilities, what are weapon abilities? The BRB references weapon abilities, so we know they must exist. What are they?

I actually think that adding unnecessary text to dozens of rules make a ton of sense as it clarifies the fact that you can only use the weapon ability when attacking with that weapon. Clarity is never really a bad thing. It avoids an issue where people miss or don't understand the more than one weapon rules and think their Power Fist attacks get Shred because the model also has a Lightning Claw.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Cindis wrote:
D-Thirsters always fight at I1.

Read the rules in the context they're written, rather than cherry-picking clauses to support your laughably incorrect assertion.

It's always amused me the folks that seem to spend the most time answering questions here are the ones that have the hardest time actually understanding the rules.

It is it "laughably incorrect," youcan provide a rule showing permission, outside of colossal, to resolve the colossal rule when using another weapon to fight with

I have no issue understanding the rules. YOu seem to have an issue avoiding insulting others, however.

For someone that's claiming to have no issue understanding plain English, you certainly seem to have a lot of trouble producing legible sentences of your own.

Colossal applies in all circumstances because, well, that's what the rule says. The More Than One Weapon rule is quite simple to understand if you read it in context, which you and a few others have failed to do.

So that would be a "no " then. You can't answer the question. Nor will you even explain your concept of context in this instance to show how it changes what was written into something you just made up (but without specifying what you made up, of course. Gotta love ambiguity in debates...)

Feel free to comply with the tenets any time you like.

Until then, you have no credible argument. Or credibility.


To summarise: unless told otherwise you have no special rule
More than one weapon tells you you cannot use another weapons abilities - no mixing and matching

So, we have no permission to access the colossal rule. Because we lack permission to have the rule, we lack permission to follow its instructions. Because that's how a permissive rule set works

And so,,unless there can be found permission to always apply colossal, outside of the rule itself, the rule csnnot be used.

This is raw

Unless others can demonstrate why their argument isn't just "it doesn't say I can't (read the colossal rule)" - Cindis certainly is guilty of this elementary error in basic rules comprehension, as demonstrated twice now - the argument stands

So, page an graph required.

Fhionnuisce wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Special Rules are abilities.

This seems to be the crux of the argument, but where is this actually stated? I may be overlooking it but I have not been able to find rules text that supports this claim. For the rules to work properly you can no more assume a definition than the others can assume permission to apply a rule.

Special Rules introduction. It's been mentioned before. Second paragraph.

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. A special rule might improve a model’s chances of causing damage by granting it poisoned weapons or a boost to its Strength. Conversely, a special rule may improve a model’s survivability by granting it resistance to pain, or the ability to regrow damaged flesh. Special rules allow snipers to target the weak spots of their foes, scouts to range ahead of the army and anti-aircraft guns to blow flyers out of the skies.

To be more accurate, Special Rules represent the abilities. The special rule with the name "Colossal" represents the ability for the weapon to affect the model's Initiative Step in the Fight Sub-Phase.

Cindis wrote:Colossal applies in all circumstances because, well, that's what the rule says. The More Than One Weapon rule is quite simple to understand if you read it in context, which you and a few others have failed to do.

Not according to the quoted rule. It does not state that it applies in all circumstances. Someone misquoted the "always" with that.

 Kriswall wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:
I'm not debating that it is a special rule, I am questioning whether special rules are abilities. Yes the simplest explanation is that they would be, but that doesn't mean correct. My hypothesis (which I am happy to have proven or disproven as long as it is rules supported not assumption) is that Special Rules are in fact NOT weapon abilities, which is why so many of them have the "A model attacking with this weapon" style wording. If they are weapon abilities then that wording, as pointed out, is redundant. If they are not then the wording is essential. It seems more likely to me from a common sense standpoint that they poorly explained one rule vs. adding unnecessary text to dozens.

So... what's the distinction between 'weapon special rule' and 'weapon ability' and what in the core rules gives you the impression that such a distinction should be made?

In other words...

Is Unwieldy a Special Rule or an Ability? Why?
Is Shred a Special Rule or an Ability? Why?
Is Blast a Special Rule or an Ability? Why?
Is Colossal a Special Rule or an Ability? Why?

If, as you hypothesize, special rules are not weapon abilities, what are weapon abilities? The BRB references weapon abilities, so we know they must exist. What are they?

I actually think that adding unnecessary text to dozens of rules make a ton of sense as it clarifies the fact that you can only use the weapon ability when attacking with that weapon. Clarity is never really a bad thing. It avoids an issue where people miss or don't understand the more than one weapon rules and think their Power Fist attacks get Shred because the model also has a Lightning Claw.

Per my hypothesis all those would be Special Rules and not weapon abilities, thus would resolve or not based on the individual rule wording. It is worth noting that other than Colossal I believe all those have a "attacking with this weapon" type restriction so that would not in any way change how they work.

Implication then is that weapon abilities would be anything on the weapon profile that is not a Special Rule, but I'm trying to find some rules text clarity for that as I don't like implications in rules.

As to why I think there is a distinction, there's a couple things that stand out. First a lack of any clear definition automatically opens it to interpretation. Then there is the way Special Rules are written. Templating differences stand out to me as indicating there is some intent that they be considered differently. Sometimes using "attacking with this weapon" and sometimes not suggests they have different meanings. Especially when there is the issue of that wording being unnecessary, though granted not entirely without value.

Additionally there is the use of terms throughout the rules. Having gone through close to half the BRB word by word I have actually only seen "ability" or "abilities" used a handful of times, and this is really the only one where it could be interpreted to mean Special Rules. Other examples are such as page 26 and 28 where it seems to reference daemonic rewards/upgrades for summoned units or used to mean psychic powers respectively. Or page 32 where it addresses movement affecting your ability to fire as a way to introduce snapshots. In contrast, "weapon profile" and "Special Rule" are used frequently when the rules are referring to them. Based on writing precedence it seems if they had intended that to mean everything on the profile they would have said "weapon profile", had they meant it to be Special Rules of the weapons they would have said "Special Rules".

Now I know none of that is concrete. That's why I'm still presenting this as hypothesis and looking for rules to support or dispute definitively. It does lend plausibility to the idea though, so I'm continuing to explore it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

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. A special rule might improve a model’s chances of causing damage by granting it poisoned weapons or a boost to its Strength. Conversely, a special rule may improve a model’s survivability by granting it resistance to pain, or the ability to regrow damaged flesh. Special rules allow snipers to target the weak spots of their foes, scouts to range ahead of the army and anti-aircraft guns to blow flyers out of the skies.

.

Granted this is a good point as a counter to my hypothesis. And ironically one I initially introduced in this discussion.

So either you believe the "Colossal" rule overrides the BRB by stating "a model with this weapon does X",

Or you believe the "more than 1 weapon" rule precludes the application of the "Colossal" rule when the Great Axe of Khonre is not being used.
---------------
Can we all just agree that you see it one way or the other and will never accept the opposite viewpoint for "reasons"?

 Galef wrote:
So either you believe the "Colossal" rule overrides the BRB by stating "a model with this weapon does X",

Or you believe the "more than 1 weapon" rule precludes the application of the "Colossal" rule when the Great Axe of Khonre is not being used.
---------------
Can we all just agree that you see it one way or the other and will never accept the opposite viewpoint for "reasons"?

We could, but I at least am actually starting to be swayed. While I am becoming increasing convinced that intent is for Colossal to always apply and intent is Special Rules are always considered independently of other rules, I am becoming less certain RAW plays out that way.

 Galef wrote:
So either you believe the "Colossal" rule overrides the BRB by stating "a model with this weapon does X",

Or you believe the "more than 1 weapon" rule precludes the application of the "Colossal" rule when the Great Axe of Khonre is not being used.
---------------
Can we all just agree that you see it one way or the other and will never accept the opposite viewpoint for "reasons"?

Debates don't usually end with two opposing viewpoints having a sensible chuckle and walking away. We're all here to crush our enemies, see them driven before us and hear the lamentations of their women (or their men... I'm equal opportunity). I kid, I kid. Actually, I just have a boring job and this is one of my only outlets.

I'm willing to be persuaded. However the chain of permissions need to be shown.

There isn't a single even slightly persuasive argument so far, and one (Cindis) that is almost the definition of a hand waved, whole cloth argument.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I'm willing to be persuaded. However the chain of permissions need to be shown.

There isn't a single even slightly persuasive argument so far, and one (Cindis) that is almost the definition of a hand waved, whole cloth argument.

Agreed. I'm also perfectly willing to be persuaded. I just haven't seen anything other than circular permission and "show me where it says I can't" type arguments. Neither is persuasive.