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.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
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?

My stance doesn't change. The no mixing and matching restriction prevents weapon abilities from coming into play in the Fight Sub-Phase when that weapon isn't being used.

In other words, the Blade of Blood does nothing when not being used to make attacks in the same way that a Lightning Claw doesn't provide Shred when not being used to make attacks. Doesn't really matter what Shred, Colossal or anything else says if we have no permission to give our attacks or models the special rule.

Well, one rule benefits daemon players, one doesn't. As long as it's kept fair. I don't plan to run in many (any) tournaments, so I'll just ask my local group. Might be time to grab a D-thirster, depending how they rule it. As a daemon player, I've been counting the BoB as "inactive" when attacking with an AoK. I viewed the abilities as turning off when not in use, same as every other weapon out there. I'll just have to see if I've been gimping myself and time to step it up a notch.

 Charistoph wrote:

 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.

and there is the conflict between the BRB and the Codex...

BRB says you cant use the Colossal rule when using a different weapon,

Codex says simply being in possession of the weapon evokes the Colossal rule.

Codex Wins. the D goes at I1 always.

 Charistoph wrote:

 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.

It's not mixing and matching.

Some weapons give you a special rule but only if you use it. In such a case, the weapon special rule will say so (with this weapon, using/attacking with this weapon, etc.).

Other weapons will give you a special rule irregardless of whether you use it or not (hence why I brought up the example with regards to Smash, of which Colossal is similar).

BTW, can you point out to me where in the BRB does it say about mixing & matching? I couldn't find it.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
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?

I play it that he strikes at I1 and he gets Rampage (with the Great Axe + BoB).

With the AoK and BoB, you get Decapitating Blow, you get Rampage and you also get +1A for having 2 Specialist weapons.

 jy2 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 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.

It's not mixing and matching.

Some weapons give you a special rule but only if you use it. In such a case, the weapon special rule will say so (with this weapon, using/attacking with this weapon, etc.).

Other weapons will give you a special rule irregardless of whether you use it or not (hence why I brought up the example with regards to Smash, of which Colossal is similar).

BTW, can you point out to me where in the BRB does it say about mixing & matching? I couldn't find it.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
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?

I play it that he strikes at I1 and he gets Rampage (with the Great Axe + BoB).

With the AoK and BoB, you get Decapitating Blow, you get Rampage and you also get +1A for having 2 Specialist weapons.

We've established that ALL weapon special rules are considered weapon abilities. It doesn't matter what the special rule does. It's a weapon ability.

The restriction against mixing and matching weapon abilities is in the More Than One Weapon section of the Weapons chapter.

I feel like some people think that a weapon's special abilities should be treated differently based on what they do. This is not the case. The BRB doesn't care what the weapon ability does. It simply says that if you're attacking with weapon A, you're not allowed to use any of the weapon abilities of weapon B. The Axe of Khorne has a weapon ability that causes the bearer to strike at Initiative step 1. If you aren't attacking with the AoK, you have no permission to resolve any of its weapon abilities (including Colossal). The only permission I've seen so far is circular... the stance seems to be that permission to resolve Colossal is provided by resolving Colossal, which requires permission to resolve Colossal... Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

DeathReaper wrote:and there is the conflict between the BRB and the Codex...

BRB says you cant use the Colossal rule when using a different weapon,

Codex says simply being in possession of the weapon evokes the Colossal rule.

Codex Wins. the D goes at I1 always.

I fail to see where possession overrides the restriction against mixing and matching abilities of Weapons.

jy2 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 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.

It's not mixing and matching.

Yes, it would be. If Unwieldy was put on the Claw, it would be mixing in the Power Fist's Unwieldy on to the Claw.

jy2 wrote:Some weapons give you a special rule but only if you use it. In such a case, the weapon special rule will say so (with this weapon, using/attacking with this weapon, etc.).

Other weapons will give you a special rule irregardless of whether you use it or not (hence why I brought up the example with regards to Smash, of which Colossal is similar).

And in those cases where they are to be on all the time, regardless of Weapon use, they are separated from the Weapon profile itself, such as Assault and Defensive Grenades.

jy2 wrote:BTW, can you point out to me where in the BRB does it say about mixing & matching? I couldn't find it.

It has been referenced and quoted numerous times, and usually every other page. More Than One Weapon in the Weapons section of the rulebook specifically restricts the use of Weapons in Melee to one Weapon and you cannot mix and match the abilities between them.

Colossal cannot be in play when the Weapon's use is prohibited because it is tied to the Weapon's profile, and not its status as a piece of Wargear in this case.

Then tell me how you do get the +1A attack for having 2 Specialist weapons? If by using 1 weapon, you ignore all the special rules for the other weapon, then how can you claim for the other weapon to be a Specialist weapon as well?

 jy2 wrote:
Then tell me how you do get the +1A attack for having 2 Specialist weapons? If by using 1 weapon, you ignore all the special rules for the other weapon, then how can you claim for the other weapon to be a Specialist weapon as well?

You don't ignore that they exist. You just don't resolve them. This specific question has been asked and already answered in this thread.

You attack with Weapon A. It has a weapon ability called Specialist Weapon. As you are attacking with Weapon A, you resolve Specialist Weapon. This ability tells you that you don't get the normal +1 Attack for having an "off hand" weapon unless that "off hand" weapon has a weapon ability called Specialist Weapon. So, in resolving Weapon A's ability, you look at your other weapons and what abilities they have. You're not actually resolving that other weapon's ability. You're just looking to see that it's there.

To simplify... you're not ignoring that the special rules exist... you're simply not resolving those abilities as you have no permission to do so.

So you do consider the rules for the other weapon even though you are not using it then.

 jy2 wrote:
So you do consider the rules for the other weapon even though you are not using it then.

Only when a rule that is on the weapon you are actually using says to do so.

 Charistoph wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:and there is the conflict between the BRB and the Codex...

BRB says you cant use the Colossal rule when using a different weapon,

Codex says simply being in possession of the weapon evokes the Colossal rule.

Codex Wins. the D goes at I1 always.

I fail to see where possession overrides the restriction against mixing and matching abilities of Weapons.

Well does the model HAVE the weapon when he is attacking with a different weapon? (Yes he does)

Colossal says A model WITH this weapon.

It does not say attacking with, just simply possessing the weapon makes you follow the Colossal rule. That is why the codex will trump the BRB in this case.

DeathReaper... I firmly disagree. You are using Colossal to grant permission to use Colossal. Circular logic, circular permission. Doesn't work. The rule book never lets you resolve Colossal, which is what you're using as your justification.

You also do not have permission to ignore the special rules of a weapon. Certain rules like Two-handed, Specialist Weapon, Colossal, Blade of Blood, etc. gives the unit a special rule, irregardless of whether that weapon is being used or not. You are not resolving its special rule, you just have the special rule due to having the weapon. Other weapons like Lightning Claws or the Axe of Khorne, you only get to use its special rules if you use the weapon itself.

 jy2 wrote:
You also do not have permission to ignore the special rules of a weapon.

We actually have an explicit requirement to ignore the special rules of weapons that aren't being using to attack during a fight. Go back and review the rules. It's the More Than One Weapon rules from the Weapons section that have been quoted many times in this thread.

 jy2 wrote:
You are not resolving its special rule, you just have the special rule due to having the weapon. Other weapons like Lightning Claws or the Axe of Khorne, you only get to use its special rules if you use the weapon itself.

Also, I don't think you understand what I mean by resolving a special rule. I mean reading it and then doing what it says to do. You and your attacks explicitly DON'T have the special rule unless you're told that you do. "It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule." How can I get special rules from a weapon? "That said, a model’s attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using." Am I using the Axe of Khorne? Nope. Ergo, my model and its attacks have no permission to have the Colossal rule.

You have yet to show permission to have the rule. The BRB is pretty explicit about when we do and don't gain special rules. Being on a weapon isn't enough. The weapon needs to be used for something.

 Kriswall wrote:
DeathReaper... I firmly disagree. You are using Colossal to grant permission to use Colossal. Circular logic, circular permission. Doesn't work. The rule book never lets you resolve Colossal, which is what you're using as your justification.

So somehow the model no longer has the weapon with that rule?

Why are you breaking the Colossal rule?

Model is forced to use the Colossal rule per the weapon (piece of wargear) stating "a Model WITH this weapon". The model would then not be able to select another weapon to use as it is already applying rules from a separate weapon and the mixing of rules is not allowed.

B-Funk wrote:
Model is forced to use the Colossal rule per the weapon (piece of wargear) stating "a Model WITH this weapon". The model would then not be able to select another weapon to use as it is already applying rules from a separate weapon and the mixing of rules is not allowed.

Actually that is a good point.

RAW you have to use the weapon with Colossal because of the wording on colossal and the rule that you can not mix and match.

You can follow both rules, but by doing so you have to use the Colossal weapon.

DeathReaper wrote:Well does the model HAVE the weapon when he is attacking with a different weapon? (Yes he does)

Colossal says A model WITH this weapon.

It does not say attacking with, just simply possessing the weapon makes you follow the Colossal rule. That is why the codex will trump the BRB in this case.

But if using a different Weapon OR not using that Weapon at all, how does Colossal come in to play? Possession may be 9/10 of the law, but you still need that 1/10 to be complete. Your assertion is just as incomplete.

jy2 wrote:You also do not have permission to ignore the special rules of a weapon. Certain rules like Two-handed, Specialist Weapon, Colossal, Blade of Blood, etc. gives the unit a special rule, irregardless of whether that weapon is being used or not. You are not resolving its special rule, you just have the special rule due to having the weapon. Other weapons like Lightning Claws or the Axe of Khorne, you only get to use its special rules if you use the weapon itself.

If a model has a Pistol and Relic Blade (Two-handed) and choose to the use the Pistol, they get +1 Attack for two Melee Weapons. If a model has a pistol and a Power Fist, and chooses to use the Pistol, they get +1 Attack for two Melee Weapons.

Why? Because the Two-Handed rule or Specialist rule cannot be used with the Pistol's Close Combat Attack profile. We are not allowed to mix and match Weapon abilities. Enforcing the Two-handed or Specialist rule on a Pistol's use is the definition of mixing and matching Weapon abilities. So, too, enforcing Colossal on a Pistol or Close Combat Weapon, would be mixing and matching Weapon abilities.

Please go and actually read the More Than One Weapon rule in the BRB Weapons section before posting on this again.

B-Funk wrote:Model is forced to use the Colossal rule per the weapon (piece of wargear) stating "a Model WITH this weapon". The model would then not be able to select another weapon to use as it is already applying rules from a separate weapon and the mixing of rules is not allowed.

A model may be forced to use the Colossal Weapon, but not because of simple possession. It would be because they have nothing else to Fight with. This is the case with the D-Thirster and the Knight's Gauntlet (in some cases). In addition, the Colossal rule does not state it requires using the Weapon.

My question would be if you can only use the special rules of the weapon you are using what happens with models with data spikes? Models equipped with them have to make an additional attack at I10 so by RAW then they would never get to use any other weapon the model was equipped with. Just my thoughts.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
DeathReaper... I firmly disagree. You are using Colossal to grant permission to use Colossal. Circular logic, circular permission. Doesn't work. The rule book never lets you resolve Colossal, which is what you're using as your justification.

So somehow the model no longer has the weapon with that rule?

Why are you breaking the Colossal rule?

Why are you evoking the Colossal rule, when your only permission to evoke it comes from the rule itself?

Circular permission, or "it doesnt say I cant"

Find your permission OUTSIDE the colossal rule. Page and Graph

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
DeathReaper... I firmly disagree. You are using Colossal to grant permission to use Colossal. Circular logic, circular permission. Doesn't work. The rule book never lets you resolve Colossal, which is what you're using as your justification.

So somehow the model no longer has the weapon with that rule?

Why are you breaking the Colossal rule?

Why are you evoking the Colossal rule, when your only permission to evoke it comes from the rule itself?

Circular permission, or "it doesnt say I cant"

Find your permission OUTSIDE the colossal rule. Page and Graph

The Colossal rule states a model with this weapon.

the model has the weapon therefore we MUST follow the rule.

The colossal rule cannot be evoked, as the More than one weapon rule prohibits the model from evoking the rule, and What Special rules do I have tells you you therefore do not have the special rule

Provide permission to evoke the Colossal rule. Do so WITHOUT referencing the Colossal rule, as per the basic construction of game rules. Or is circular permisison allowed now?

5th time of asking.

Antubis wrote:
My question would be if you can only use the special rules of the weapon you are using what happens with models with data spikes? Models equipped with them have to make an additional attack at I10 so by RAW then they would never get to use any other weapon the model was equipped with. Just my thoughts.

Per Rules as Written, the Dataspike weapon ability would only be usable if you are making your melee attacks with the Dataspike weapon. My guess is that the authors intended this to be an extra attack even when using a different weapon, but don't really understand how the core More Than One Weapon rules are written. If so, they should have made it a piece of wargear and not a Melee weapon.

And no... models equipped with a Dataspike don't have to use the Dataspike to make attacks with. Nothing says that. Choose a different weapon and Dataspike does nothing, per RaW.

 Charistoph 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.

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.

The YMDC populace is diverse on just about anything. People log into this forum to plays devils advocate for weeks at a time and they get their way based on the fact that there are holes in the BRB that can't be filled.

If you truly felt this way then you'd back out of the argument immediately as it would be obvious that neither sides point would be heard. If major tournaments aren't a big enough rosetta stone for players to make their own house rules than no discussion on dakka is going to convince anyone of anything. What's the point?


There's no intellectual discussion of details here, no fleshing out of opinions, people are using the word "evoke" for goodness sakes. Where in the BRB does that terminology come up?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jy2 wrote:

 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.

Are you implying that the decapitating axe gives instant death on 6's even while not being attacked with?

The majority of players wouldn't let you instant death with the decapitating axe even though the wording is the same as colossal.

Clearly the RAW isn't everything to this story.

Ask yourself if they intended a 275 point model to ALWAYS strike at initiate 1 and what that means in an even lightly competitive enviroment.

It means that even a tactical squad can ruin his day let alone any imperial knight/garg creature/any type of stomp.

Wraithknights are hyper competitively costed so it's an extreme example but make that comparison. For 20 points more you get a TON more mobility/toughness/wounds/offensive melee output and we're comparing KHORNE to ELDAR in melee.

Think about this guy vs an assault squad with a couple LC's. He would literally lose combat and die.

A piece of the argument many posters may or may not realize is that he has the ability to take around 8 different weapons. Other than ID ones they are all useless, is that really accurate?

I'm offering this up as evidence to allow your local players to use their models so that they can be somewhere close to whats promised. Not as debate changing specifics.

 Kriswall wrote:

Antubis wrote:
My question would be if you can only use the special rules of the weapon you are using what happens with models with data spikes? Models equipped with them have to make an additional attack at I10 so by RAW then they would never get to use any other weapon the model was equipped with. Just my thoughts.

Per Rules as Written, the Dataspike weapon ability would only be usable if you are making your melee attacks with the Dataspike weapon. My guess is that the authors intended this to be an extra attack even when using a different weapon, but don't really understand how the core More Than One Weapon rules are written. If so, they should have made it a piece of wargear and not a Melee weapon.

And no... models equipped with a Dataspike don't have to use the Dataspike to make attacks with. Nothing says that. Choose a different weapon and Dataspike does nothing, per RaW.

Or, as has been pointed out many times, codex rules override/alter core rules. This has always been fundamental with WH40K.

Only when the re is a conflict

There is no conflict, as you haev no *permission* to activate the data spikes rules. Without *permission*, an UTTERLY fundamental rule concept to the entire game, not just to army supplements, you cannot use the rule at all.

Provide permission to process the dataspikes special rules when the weapon is not selected. Page and graph. No circular permission permitted, as thats "it deosnt say I cant" and I'm getting Sx2, AP2 when using lightning claws

 Aijec wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

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.

The YMDC populace is diverse on just about anything. People log into this forum to plays devils advocate for weeks at a time and they get their way based on the fact that there are holes in the BRB that can't be filled.

If you truly felt this way then you'd back out of the argument immediately as it would be obvious that neither sides point would be heard. If major tournaments aren't a big enough rosetta stone for players to make their own house rules than no discussion on dakka is going to convince anyone of anything. What's the point?

Using House Rules to try and end the discussion is pointless. If you are already planning on using House Rules, or they have already been determined for the group, then reviewing this board is pointless. Reviewing House Rules to provide others a perspective to run from is fine, so long as you are indicating that they are such.

BUT, to say that tournament rulings provide a fait accompli in resolving any issue is actually counter to the dictates of this board. You are not using RAW, but declaring them as RAW. Tournament Rulings are How They Would Play It, and can often run completely counter to the Written Rules (look up Invisibility with the ITC).

In addition, I doubt every tournament organizer would actually rule the same way on any issue. Many are prejudiced (knowingly or unknowingly) to certain outcomes and so would rule in the direction of their prejudice. Which takes it even further from the purpose of a general play discussion.

So, in short, Reviewing Tournament Rules as HYWPI is fine, but tournaments are not the end-all of the gaming world nor should they be considered as such.

 Aijec wrote:
There's no intellectual discussion of details here, no fleshing out of opinions, people are using the word "evoke" for goodness sakes. Where in the BRB does that terminology come up?

Using words that the BRB does not use is hardly a reason to state that this is not an intellectual discussion. Sometimes synonyms need to be used to get the point across. It's not like the person was actually quoting the rule when he said 'evoke'.

Some people are trying to discuss details, but showing their prejudices at the same time (precedence of "possession" versus "usability", for example). While some ignore pages of quotes for quick declarative judgements which have been addressed numerous times already, so it has to be retrod, again.

Naw wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Antubis wrote:
My question would be if you can only use the special rules of the weapon you are using what happens with models with data spikes? Models equipped with them have to make an additional attack at I10 so by RAW then they would never get to use any other weapon the model was equipped with. Just my thoughts.

Per Rules as Written, the Dataspike weapon ability would only be usable if you are making your melee attacks with the Dataspike weapon. My guess is that the authors intended this to be an extra attack even when using a different weapon, but don't really understand how the core More Than One Weapon rules are written. If so, they should have made it a piece of wargear and not a Melee weapon.

And no... models equipped with a Dataspike don't have to use the Dataspike to make attacks with. Nothing says that. Choose a different weapon and Dataspike does nothing, per RaW.

Or, as has been pointed out many times, codex rules override/alter core rules. This has always been fundamental with WH40K.

I will 100% whole heartedly agree that any active Codex rule that causes a conflict with a core rule in the BRB will take precedence. In the above scenario, Dataspike isn't an active Codex rule because the weapon it's an ability for isn't being used. Per the Special Rules section, a model (or its attacks) doesn't have a special rule unless we're explicitly told that he does. How are you resolving Dataspike when you're never told the model (or its attacks) has the Dataspike special rule?

This is the core issue here that I think some people aren't getting. It doesn't really matter what Dataspike (or Colossal) says if the model (or its attacks) in question doesn't have access to the special rule/weapon ability. The only thing that would matter is if the special rule/weapon ability explicitly said something to the effect of "a model with the weapon can XYZ even when not attacking with this weapon". That would be a conflict. That isn't happening here.

Now, again, RaI seems clear in some cases and murky in others. My guess is that Dataspike was intended to be active at all times while Colossal is meant to work like Unwieldy, but for MCs and Walkers. RaW doesn't allow mixing and matching. Period.

 Kriswall wrote:

Naw wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Antubis wrote:
My question would be if you can only use the special rules of the weapon you are using what happens with models with data spikes? Models equipped with them have to make an additional attack at I10 so by RAW then they would never get to use any other weapon the model was equipped with. Just my thoughts.

Per Rules as Written, the Dataspike weapon ability would only be usable if you are making your melee attacks with the Dataspike weapon. My guess is that the authors intended this to be an extra attack even when using a different weapon, but don't really understand how the core More Than One Weapon rules are written. If so, they should have made it a piece of wargear and not a Melee weapon.

And no... models equipped with a Dataspike don't have to use the Dataspike to make attacks with. Nothing says that. Choose a different weapon and Dataspike does nothing, per RaW.

Or, as has been pointed out many times, codex rules override/alter core rules. This has always been fundamental with WH40K.

I will 100% whole heartedly agree that any active Codex rule that causes a conflict with a core rule in the BRB will take precedence. In the above scenario, Dataspike isn't an active Codex rule because the weapon it's an ability for isn't being used. Per the Special Rules section, a model (or its attacks) doesn't have a special rule unless we're explicitly told that he does. How are you resolving Dataspike when you're never told the model (or its attacks) has the Dataspike special rule?

This is the core issue here that I think some people aren't getting. It doesn't really matter what Dataspike (or Colossal) says if the model (or its attacks) in question doesn't have access to the special rule/weapon ability. The only thing that would matter is if the special rule/weapon ability explicitly said something to the effect of "a model with the weapon can XYZ even when not attacking with this weapon". That would be a conflict. That isn't happening here.

Now, again, RaI seems clear in some cases and murky in others. My guess is that Dataspike was intended to be active at all times while Colossal is meant to work like Unwieldy, but for MCs and Walkers. RaW doesn't allow mixing and matching. Period.

You don't think that "a model with this weapon" or "a model equipped with this weapon" or whatever is sufficiently forceful to trigger the "unless otherwise stated" part of the mixing and matching weapons bit, like people think it is for Harlequin's Kiss?

EDIT: Also, FWIW, the Colossal special rule in Codex: Imperial Knights does what you are asking for it to do. What, if any, significance is there to the D-axe thirster's wording change, in your opinion?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Provide permission to evoke the Colossal rule. Do so WITHOUT referencing the Colossal rule

People keep setting this requirement but that is not RAW. More that one weapon begins "Unless otherwise stated." If Colossal states otherwise it can be used without even breaking the More than one weapon rule. The real question, which is being danced around but only sometimes (rarely) directly addressed, is whether "A model with" is sufficiently stating an exception to trigger that clause.

If you are looking for explicitly granted permission then it is not. If you accept general wording and compare to the restrictive precedent set by rules like Unwieldy and Shred then it is.

Are there any rules that clarify how an exception should be stated that might address this more directly?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
EDIT: Also, FWIW, the Colossal special rule in Codex: Imperial Knights does what you are asking for it to do. What, if any, significance is there to the D-axe thirster's wording change, in your opinion?

That's an interesting piece of information. What is says to me is the weapon is intended to cause the model to always strike at I1, but the IK writers and the Chaos writers have different interpretations of how rules need to be stated.

In all fairness though I'm not sure there are rules that state a Special Rule must work the same across codices f not a UNIVERSAL Special Rule given in the BRB. Or to state otherwise, I'm not sure we can assume that are the same rule just because they have the same name, awkward as that sounds. I actually hope I'm wrong on that because it just further unnecessarily complicates the rules system.