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.

8 pages of trolling and still going.

This rule is so clearly written, that is the only reason I can see this thread is still active.

EDIT: This makes 9, oh boy!

 gwarsh41 wrote:
8 pages of trolling and still going.

This rule is so clearly written, that is the only reason I can see this thread is still active.

EDIT: This makes 9, oh boy!

I assume you're referring to yourself in terms of trolling... i.e. showing up, making insulting comments and adding nothing to the conversation? Yup. I think you'll find trolls are unavoidable on the internet.

The thread is still active because there has not been a consensus and there are still people up for friendly debate. If you have nothing to contribute, perhaps troll elsewhere? Seems like you'd be happier if you don't have to be exposed to our friendly debate.

Fhionnuisce wrote:

 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.

Not so much when I it stated on page 4 in response to Tonberry.

Charistoph wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Also within the Weapons section of the BRB (from where this mix/match business is included) Special Rules are defined as being listed under the weapon type and are explicitly referred to as special rules, never as abilities. Special Rules relevant to melee weapons would include ones such as Shred and Colossal.

Not in the Weapons section itself, but the Special Rules section, which is referred to by the Weapons section, does state that Special Rules are abilities in its introduction. Or at least, those Special Rules are used to point to those abilities and represent them on the appropriate section.

Special Rules
The type section of a weapon’s profile also includes any special rules that apply to the weapon in question. More information on these can be found either in the special rules section or in the codex or army list entry the weapon is found in.

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.

So, yeah, Special Rules represent abilities and you cannot mix and match abilities from different weapons when using only one.

 Charistoph wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:

 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.

Not so much when I it stated on page 4 in response to Tonberry.

Fair enough, not trying to take anything away from you. I overlooked or just completely missed that post apparently when I brought that point back up. Happens in discussions that are this extensive.

So, quick summary time...

1. We've established that Colossal is a weapon special rule.
2. We've established that weapon special rules are considered weapon abilities.
3. We don't know exactly when weapon selection occurs during a Fight Sub-Phase, but have established via Whip Coils and Lash Whips wording that it must occur before Initiative Step 10 begins.
4. We've established that when a weapon is being used to strike blows, none of the weapon abilities (special rules) of any other weapons the model has may be used.

So, to add interpretation... once we hit the beginning of Initiative step 10, we already know which weapon we're using and subsequently which weapon abilities we're subject to and which Initiative step we're using.

Seems to follow that if the big guy isn't using his fancy axe in the Fight Sub-Phase, his attacks are not subject to Colossal.

If anyone disagrees with any of the above 4 listed points, let's debate one at a time.

I look at it like Smash. Whether you decide to actually Smash or not, if you've got the Smash USR, then you strike at AP2.

 Kriswall wrote:
So, quick summary time...

1. We've established that Colossal is a weapon special rule.
2. We've established that weapon special rules are considered weapon abilities.
3. We don't know exactly when weapon selection occurs during a Fight Sub-Phase, but have established via Whip Coils and Lash Whips wording that it must occur before Initiative Step 10 begins.
4. We've established that when a weapon is being used to strike blows, none of the weapon abilities (special rules) of any other weapons the model has may be used.

So, to add interpretation... once we hit the beginning of Initiative step 10, we already know which weapon we're using and subsequently which weapon abilities we're subject to and which Initiative step we're using.

Seems to follow that if the big guy isn't using his fancy axe in the Fight Sub-Phase, his attacks are not subject to Colossal.

If anyone disagrees with any of the above 4 listed points, let's debate one at a time.

The key disagreement comes from Step 4, I believe. The 'more than 1 weapon' rule says "Unless otherwise stated". I can easily see why so many feel that when a rules states "A model with this weapon" or "the bearer of this weapon", you have been given the "otherwise stated" permission (nah, requirement) to use the Colossal rule, even when not using the Great Axe. It makes sense that by not saying "when attacking with" or "when using" the implication is that permission is being stated to always apply the rule.

The problem is that this wording is not absolute enough for others. I am convinced this is the reason why this discuss has yet to be (and may never be) resolved.

--

 jy2 wrote:
I look at it like Smash. Whether you decide to actually Smash or not, if you've got the Smash USR, then you strike at AP2.

Smash, Colossal, or Unwieldy, it doesn't actually matter, but Smash is normally assigned to the model, and not as a Weapon ability. I am not aware of a Weapon that provides Smash, though. (I think it would be fun if the Triarch Stalker was equipped with one or two, but that's a different forum).

Fair enough.

There is no wording in the Colossal rule than explicitly states that it may be used when not attacking with the weapon in question. Hence, it cannot by used.

I get that others see an implied permission to use when not attacking with the weapon, but implied permission aren't worth much in this game. You need actual written permission. The wording needs to be explicit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

 jy2 wrote:
I look at it like Smash. Whether you decide to actually Smash or not, if you've got the Smash USR, then you strike at AP2.

Smash, Colossal, or Unwieldy, it doesn't actually matter, but Smash is normally assigned to the model, and not as a Weapon ability. I am not aware of a Weapon that provides Smash, though. (I think it would be fun if the Triarch Stalker was equipped with one or two, but that's a different forum).

Yeah, I'm not sure Smash is a good example. I also can't think of any weapons that have the Smash special rule.

 Kriswall wrote:
There is no wording in the Colossal rule than explicitly states that it may be used when not attacking with the weapon in question. Hence, it cannot by used.

I think this is viewed as just your opinion and that by the rule stating "a model with ...", instead of "a model attacking with..." is indeed the wording that explicitly requires Colossal to always be in effect.
While I agree with you, Kriswall, that the above is not really enough to ignore the basic BRB rules, it is clearly a valid point of view (since it is shared by so many)

This is an instance where GW wrote the rules into a circle and needs to addressed in an FAQ. There is no right or wrong answer here. We all seem to agree on the "intent" of the rule, but cannot agree on the strictest letter of the rules (which often conflict with the intent)

--

Letter of the Law vs. Spirit of the Law. People who are apt to be on this forum tend to favor letter of the law, but I get the feeling the rules writers are spirit of the law people. So they wrote a rule that intuitively feels like it should be in effect at all times and called that good enough without thinking about how other people might break it down. Maybe I'm wrong, but that is how it is feeling to me right now.

On the plus side, the entire discussion has made me much more aware of where things are in the rulebook for the next time I need to find a rule during a game

 Galef wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
There is no wording in the Colossal rule than explicitly states that it may be used when not attacking with the weapon in question. Hence, it cannot by used.

I think this is viewed as just your opinion and that by the rule stating "a model with ...", instead of "a model attacking with..." is indeed the wording that explicitly requires Colossal to always be in effect.
While I agree with you, Kriswall, that the above is not really enough to ignore the basic BRB rules, it is clearly a valid point of view (since it is shared by so many)

This is an instance where GW wrote the rules into a circle and needs to addressed in an FAQ. There is no right or wrong answer here. We all seem to agree on the "intent" of the rule, but cannot agree on the strictest letter of the rules (which often conflict with the intent)

--

All viewpoints are valid. Some have merit.

To be honest, I'm not sure the RaI is to have Colossal active at all times. I'm of the opinion that Colossal is intended to be a version of Unwieldy that impacts Monstrous Creatures and Walkers. Without a rule like Colossal, there is no easy way to make a Monstrous Creature fight at Initiative step 1.

I do agree that an FAQ is needed to clear this up. Adding in some redundant "when attacking with this weapon" verbiage would be nice as well. It would also resolve the dilemma (assuming I'm right).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fhionnuisce wrote:
On the plus side, the entire discussion has made me much more aware of where things are in the rulebook for the next time I need to find a rule during a game

This is partly why I participate in these threads. It really sharpens my overall understanding of the rule set.

 Charistoph wrote:

 jy2 wrote:
I look at it like Smash. Whether you decide to actually Smash or not, if you've got the Smash USR, then you strike at AP2.

Smash, Colossal, or Unwieldy, it doesn't actually matter, but Smash is normally assigned to the model, and not as a Weapon ability. I am not aware of a Weapon that provides Smash, though. (I think it would be fun if the Triarch Stalker was equipped with one or two, but that's a different forum).

IIRC, back at the beginning of 6th edition, Fuegan's Fire Axe was changed to have the Smash special rule. Then the 6th edition Eldar codex came out.

Fhionnuisce wrote:Letter of the Law vs. Spirit of the Law. People who are apt to be on this forum tend to favor letter of the law, but I get the feeling the rules writers are spirit of the law people. So they wrote a rule that intuitively feels like it should be in effect at all times and called that good enough without thinking about how other people might break it down. Maybe I'm wrong, but that is how it is feeling to me right now.

The problem is, everyone has a different spirit. I stick to the Letter of the Law here (and on other forums) because that is the closest thing to a constant between everyone posting. Everyone has different experiences and wants different things out of the game. I can be quite flexible on the table, because we are in the game, and there is always the dice-off to resolve things. Not so easy here, and we can sit back and do a little more research than when at the table.

Besides, if you know how something is written, it provides a good starting point for House Rules and where you start with talking to new people to your club.

As Kriswall said, I also believe this was more a "Unwieldy for MC/GC/Walkers", but they wanted to get fancy with the writing instead of just copy/pasting Unwieldy and leaving out the mention of Walkers/MCs.

Fhionnuisce wrote:On the plus side, the entire discussion has made me much more aware of where things are in the rulebook for the next time I need to find a rule during a game

That is why I started going through the rules forums. I cannot play as often as I like, so I use this to help me remember what (and where) the rules are at.

Happyjew wrote:IIRC, back at the beginning of 6th edition, Fuegan's Fire Axe was changed to have the Smash special rule. Then the 6th edition Eldar codex came out.

Smash wasn't a USR during 5th, so that would have been a unique Codex rule. Was this in the FAQ? Of course, 6th Ed Smash is a little different than 7th Ed.

Ironically, just USING the Smash Attack today would forfeit the use of the Weapon which granted access to the Attack!

 Charistoph wrote:

Happyjew wrote:IIRC, back at the beginning of 6th edition, Fuegan's Fire Axe was changed to have the Smash special rule. Then the 6th edition Eldar codex came out.

Smash wasn't a USR during 5th, so that would have been a unique Codex rule. Was this in the FAQ? Of course, 6th Ed Smash is a little different than 7th Ed.

Ironically, just USING the Smash Attack today would forfeit the use of the Weapon which granted access to the Attack!

Fuegan had a special rule that basically said for the purpose of melee attacks, he was a monstrous creature (in 4th/5th edition). In other words, ignore armour and 2 dice for armour pen.
In 6th edition, the rules were changed, instead giving MCs the Smash special rule (which while different from 7th is still relatively similar).
To update the 4th edition Eldar codex, to match the new rules, GW (IIRC) put Smash on Fuegan's weapon, instead of to Fuegan himself. That said, I could be wrong as that was a while ago.

Please let's drop the "trolling" accusations, it's rude. If you've got a problem with the comments made by another user, please use the Yellow Alert button.

Thanks...

The purpose of YMDC is to try to elucidate what the rules say, because we can only guess what the writers intended when they wrote them.

It is recognised that the letter of the rules is not necessarily what people play, especially in cases where ambiguously written rules lack a clear direction.

test removed.

reds8n

 Kriswall wrote:

Naw wrote:
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.

So we are in agreement that as it is not in BRB, there's no RAW and thus we can interpret this in so many ways.

You defend your view by pointing at a Codex (sort of like Codex trumps BRB, yes?), yet when others defend their point saying with Colossal rule the Codex trumps the BRB, you don't allow that for them?

I think with this point there's not going to be consensus.

Naw wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Naw wrote:
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.

So we are in agreement that as it is not in BRB, there's no RAW and thus we can interpret this in so many ways.

You defend your view by pointing at a Codex (sort of like Codex trumps BRB, yes?), yet when others defend their point saying with Colossal rule the Codex trumps the BRB, you don't allow that for them?

I think with this point there's not going to be consensus.

It's not in the BRB, but even a low level critical reading shows that weapon selection must happen before Initiative step 10. We don't know when it DOES happen, but we do know when it DOESN'T happen... after the beginning of Initiative step 10. Also, I'm not pointing at a Codex in an attempt to override the BRB. I'm pointing at a Codex in an attempt to shed light and context on an ambiguous rule that the BRB doesn't explicitly cover. Completely different thing.

We can definitely interpret this many different ways... but if we interpret weapon selection to occur AFTER Initiative step 10 starts, weapons like Whip Coils and Lash Whips no longer function AT ALL. It's far more likely that weapon selection occurs before, thus allowing these two weapons to function. Hence, any interpretation that sees weapon selection occurring during the Initiative steps is most likely a bad interpretation. That's basic logic.

 Kriswall wrote:

Naw wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Naw wrote:
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.

So we are in agreement that as it is not in BRB, there's no RAW and thus we can interpret this in so many ways.

You defend your view by pointing at a Codex (sort of like Codex trumps BRB, yes?), yet when others defend their point saying with Colossal rule the Codex trumps the BRB, you don't allow that for them?

I think with this point there's not going to be consensus.

It's not in the BRB, but even a low level critical reading shows that weapon selection must happen before Initiative step 10. We don't know when it DOES happen, but we do know when it DOESN'T happen... after the beginning of Initiative step 10.

I do not agree with that, as you have noticed. The only instruction we have is that a model gets to act only when it is his Initiative, nothing else. That a codex writer does not know the rules is no surprise to anyone.

Also, I'm not pointing at a Codex in an attempt to override the BRB. I'm pointing at a Codex in an attempt to shed light and context on an ambiguous rule that the BRB doesn't explicitly cover. Completely different thing.

Fair enough. Nevertheless, I'm also in the camp who thinks there's a conflict in codex vs BRB rules, not only with the Colossal rule but with Whip Coils and Lash Whips also. These should both read that a model equipped with, maybe, rather than attacking with. But either way, there are contradictions in the many rules. Saying they are not doesn't make it less true.

We can definitely interpret this many different ways... but if we interpret weapon selection to occur AFTER Initiative step 10 starts, weapons like Whip Coils and Lash Whips no longer function AT ALL.

So like with the non-working psyker in a unit of non-psykers? Remember that those items are from a Codex, not BRB. We have rules in BRB that do not work directly.

It's far more likely that weapon selection occurs before, thus allowing these two weapons to function. Hence, any interpretation that sees weapon selection occurring during the Initiative steps is most likely a bad interpretation. That's basic logic.

With this interpretation we are still left with the conflicting rules, where we have Colossal rule from a Codex vs Many Weapons from BRB.

Naw wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Naw wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Naw wrote:
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.

So we are in agreement that as it is not in BRB, there's no RAW and thus we can interpret this in so many ways.

You defend your view by pointing at a Codex (sort of like Codex trumps BRB, yes?), yet when others defend their point saying with Colossal rule the Codex trumps the BRB, you don't allow that for them?

I think with this point there's not going to be consensus.

It's not in the BRB, but even a low level critical reading shows that weapon selection must happen before Initiative step 10. We don't know when it DOES happen, but we do know when it DOESN'T happen... after the beginning of Initiative step 10.

I do not agree with that, as you have noticed. The only instruction we have is that a model gets to act only when it is his Initiative, nothing else. That a codex writer does not know the rules is no surprise to anyone.

Also, I'm not pointing at a Codex in an attempt to override the BRB. I'm pointing at a Codex in an attempt to shed light and context on an ambiguous rule that the BRB doesn't explicitly cover. Completely different thing.

Fair enough. Nevertheless, I'm also in the camp who thinks there's a conflict in codex vs BRB rules, not only with the Colossal rule but with Whip Coils and Lash Whips also. These should both read that a model equipped with, maybe, rather than attacking with. But either way, there are contradictions in the many rules. Saying they are not doesn't make it less true.

We can definitely interpret this many different ways... but if we interpret weapon selection to occur AFTER Initiative step 10 starts, weapons like Whip Coils and Lash Whips no longer function AT ALL.

So like with the non-working psyker in a unit of non-psykers? Remember that those items are from a Codex, not BRB. We have rules in BRB that do not work directly.

It's far more likely that weapon selection occurs before, thus allowing these two weapons to function. Hence, any interpretation that sees weapon selection occurring during the Initiative steps is most likely a bad interpretation. That's basic logic.

With this interpretation we are still left with the conflicting rules, where we have Colossal rule from a Codex vs Many Weapons from BRB.

And again, I don't agree that there is a conflict when a codex rules says "do something" and the BRB says "don't resolve that rule". There is only a conflict if you flat out ignore the BRB's restriction. If you obey the BRB's restriction, there is no conflict.

Kriswall, I think you should amend your statement, to "if you CAN obey the BRB, there is no conflict" that might help make it clearer.
I agree that in this case, there is no conflict, however, that is assuming that the wording on Colossal isn't sufficient to ignore the BRB rules.

If, as many here believe, the statement "A model with this weapon piles in and fight at initiative 1" is meant to specifically override the 'more than 1 weapon' rule, than we DO have a conflict and the Codex wins.

Is there any way to discuss whether or not the wording within a weapon's rules can override the BRB, even though the BRB says to not apply that rule if the weapon isn't being used. Or would that just keep us going in a circle?

--

We'd be going in a circle. I don't think there's anything you can say to convince me that "A model with this weapon piles in and fights at Initiative 1" self grants permission to ignore the More Than One Weapon rules. I just don't see the wording being that strong. I would also imagine that there's nothing I can say to convince you that there isn't a conflict if you simply follow the BRB rules and ignore Colossal's rules text.

We need an FAQ/Errata. In the meantime, I'll be playing this how I interpret RaW to work AND how I imagine RaI... as a version of Unwieldy that impacts Monstrous Creatures.

Thread might as well be locked. We've hit the "Yes It Can/No It Can't" stage without a clear consensus.

While I don't believe that it's RAI like Kriswall does, I do love playing the Devil's advocate, and the new artifacts from the Black Legion books do seem to give Kriswall's argument some credit.

(I still believe the RAI is that the weapon makes you slow, but we'll need a FAQ for that)

The Spineshiver Blade states in its special rule "Quicksilver" that

The bearer of the Spineshiver Blade has +1 Initiative in Close Combat.

While the text implies that the bearer simply has it, I would expect the idea the rulemakers had was that the blade was quick (thus the name it got.) Not that it somehow made the bearer quicker.

So would he get +1i while using a different weapon? I would expect not?

Let's compare the Colossal Great Axe with the unwieldy Powerfist. Say you have the D-Thirster with Great Axe and the Axe of Khorne. You also have a Chaos Lord with a Lightning Claw and a Powerfist. Now let's look at the definitions.

Colosssal (Great Axe): A model with this weapon Piles In and fights at Initiative 1.

Decapitating Blow (Axe of Khorne): Any to Wound rolls of 6 made with this weapon have the Instant Death special rule.


Unwieldy (Power Fist): A model attacking with this weapon Piles In and fights at Initiative step 1, unless.....

Shred (Lightning Claws): If a models has the Shred special rule, or is attacking with a Melee weapon that has the Shred special rule, it re-rolls its failed To Wound rolls.


To me, the RAW is pretty clear. The Chaos Lord attacks with the Claws, he strikes at regular Initiative and can re-roll Wounds. If he attacks with the Power Fist, then he strikes at Initiative 1.

A Thirsters that has a Great Axe attacks at I1, whether or not he uses the Great Axe because the Rules for Colossal does not explicitly say that he has to attack with the Great Axe in order to suffer the Initiative penalty. All the other weapons are explicit when the user gets their special rules and that is only when he attacks with that specific weapon.

 Galef wrote:
Is there any way to discuss whether or not the wording within a weapon's rules can override the BRB, even though the BRB says to not apply that rule if the weapon isn't being used. Or would that just keep us going in a circle?

That's actually the circle that has been going around.

If the rule was supposed to be active on the bearer at all times, regardless of use, it would have been separated from the Weapon profile, just like Assault Grenades and Defensive Grenades. GW has done this before, I don't see why they would not do this again. Alternatively, it would be the only Attacks this model can make.

Neither applies in the case of a D-Thirster or an Imperial Knight.

 jy2 wrote:
A Thirsters that has a Great Axe attacks at I1, whether or not he uses the Great Axe because the Rules for Colossal does not explicitly say that he has to attack with the Great Axe in order to suffer the Initiative penalty. All the other weapons are explicit when the user gets their special rules and that is only when he attacks with that specific weapon.

Irrelevant. Unwieldy doesn't apply to the Claws just because it is not being used by the Weapon, it doesn't apply because the Unwieldy rule does not get applied to the Claws at all. If a model with a Colossal Weapon used a Lightning Claw, the Lightning Claw could not have Colossal applied to it any more than Unwieldy could.

In a way, the only way a D-Thrister can get away from using his Weapon, though, is via the Smash Attack, which is still operating under the same principle of not using the Weapon.

 Charistoph wrote:

 jy2 wrote:
A Thirsters that has a Great Axe attacks at I1, whether or not he uses the Great Axe because the Rules for Colossal does not explicitly say that he has to attack with the Great Axe in order to suffer the Initiative penalty. All the other weapons are explicit when the user gets their special rules and that is only when he attacks with that specific weapon.

Irrelevant. Unwieldy doesn't apply to the Claws just because it is not being used by the Weapon, it doesn't apply because the Unwieldy rule does not get applied to the Claws at all. If a model with a Colossal Weapon used a Lightning Claw, the Lightning Claw could not have Colossal applied to it any more than Unwieldy could.

In a way, the only way a D-Thrister can get away from using his Weapon, though, is via the Smash Attack, which is still operating under the same principle of not using the Weapon.

Unwieldy does not apply to the Claws because the rules for Unwieldy says it only applies to the weapon that is being used. There is no such distinction for Colossal.

 jy2 wrote:

Unwieldy does not apply to the Claws because the rules for Unwieldy says it only applies to the weapon that is being used. There is no such distinction for Colossal.

Unwieldy does not apply to the Claws because the Claws do not have Unwieldy and cannot get them from the Power Fist.

No mixing and matching abilities.

So, since it was brought up earlier (nobody PM'd me either, btw), how do you guys arguing that the D weapon always causing the BT to strike at I1 play the Blade of Blood? It also states you only need to have it; not necessarily attack with it. Do you play it that by attacking with an Axe of Khorne and just having the BoB gives +D3 attacks if outnumbered, or do you play that you have to give up the Axe's Instant Death ability to get it? Same wording of "a model with", as opposed to "a model attacking with". They're basically the same thing, rules-wise. So how was the BoB decided upon?

It's the exact same argument.

It hasn't been decided upon. There are two camps, some believe you get the benefit from having the weapon and some believe you must use it.

We won't reach a conclusion here.