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.

Fhionnuisce wrote:

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 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?

'Unless otherwise stated' would require a statement that the weapon ability can be mixed and matched (used) when the weapon is not being used. For me, the statement needs to be explicit and not merely implied. Implied permission isn't the same as permission. The Colossal weapon ability does not have explicit permission. It MAY have implied permission. It may not. That will depend on your individual interpretation. I don't think it's enough to say "well, that ability sure implies that I'm allowed to use it when not attacking with it even though it doesn't actually say that". I think it needs to actually state that it can be mixed and matched.

Now, I may be wrong. GW may be going with a loose definition of "stated" that includes scenarios where there is no statement, but only an implication. If so, they need to clean up their wording via an Errata or make clear that their using a non standard definition of 'stated' through an FAQ. I have to base my interpretations on what they actually wrote and not what they might intend.

Excctly.

Explicit vs maybe, at best, possibly implied.

VAST difference.

 Kriswall wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:

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 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?

'Unless otherwise stated' would require a statement that the weapon ability can be mixed and matched (used) when the weapon is not being used. For me, the statement needs to be explicit and not merely implied. Implied permission isn't the same as permission. The Colossal weapon ability does not have explicit permission. It MAY have implied permission. It may not. That will depend on your individual interpretation. I don't think it's enough to say "well, that ability sure implies that I'm allowed to use it when not attacking with it even though it doesn't actually say that". I think it needs to actually state that it can be mixed and matched.

Now, I may be wrong. GW may be going with a loose definition of "stated" that includes scenarios where there is no statement, but only an implication. If so, they need to clean up their wording via an Errata or make clear that their using a non standard definition of 'stated' through an FAQ. I have to base my interpretations on what they actually wrote and not what they might intend.

"the bearer always strikes at I1" is explicit.

just as "attacks with a weapon that has the Colossul rule always strike at I1" is explicit.

there is nothing implied in "the bearer always strikes at I1" it is an explicit statement.

 Aijec wrote:

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

No, only if you use that weapon.

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.

I can't really say what the intent of the authors were, but I can tell you that if the 275 D-Thirster can strike at regular Init, then there is no reason ever to take the 250 version. As for IK's and WK's, my Thirster murders them even when striking at I1 unless they get lucky. WS10 means they are usually hitting on 5's. Then you add 3++ and potentially re-roll Invuln's and 4+ FNP on top of that and the advantage is on the side of the Thirster. More often than not, he kills them even when striking at I1.

blaktoof wrote:
"the bearer always strikes at I1" is explicit.

just as "attacks with a weapon that has the Colossul rule always strike at I1" is explicit.

there is nothing implied in "the bearer always strikes at I1" it is an explicit statement.

While I agree with what you said, it's the always that makes that explicit. If you take out the always it's a bit more open to interpretation. Colossal doesn't say always.

an explicit statement is a clear statement.

"A model with this weapon piles in and fights at Initiative step1"

the statement is quite clear.

There is nothing implied in it.

The blood thirster is a model.

Does it have the weapon?

Yes.

Then it is a model with this weapon. It fights and piles in at initiative 1.

The colossul rule references the model having the weapon. If you want to use the more than one weapon rule when striking thats great, however the colossul rule doesnt care about striking with the weapon, it cares about the model having the weapon. Unless you want to argue models do not have weapons until they strike with them, there is no way to say the Bloodthirster does not have the weapon.

Fhionnuisce wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
"the bearer always strikes at I1" is explicit.

just as "attacks with a weapon that has the Colossul rule always strike at I1" is explicit.

there is nothing implied in "the bearer always strikes at I1" it is an explicit statement.

While I agree with what you said, it's the always that makes that explicit. If you take out the always it's a bit more open to interpretation. Colossal doesn't say always.

Yeah, the 'always' bit was a misquote. The version of Colossal that we're discussing doesn't contain the word 'always'.

blaktoof wrote:
an explicit statement is a clear statement.

"A model with this weapon piles in and fights at Initiative step1"

the statement is quite clear.

There is nothing implied in it.

The blood thirster is a model.

Does it have the weapon?

Yes.

Then it is a model with this weapon. It fights and piles in at initiative 1.

The colossul rule references the model having the weapon. If you want to use the more than one weapon rule when striking thats great, however the colossul rule doesnt care about striking with the weapon, it cares about the model having the weapon. Unless you want to argue models do not have weapons until they strike with them, there is no way to say the Bloodthirster does not have the weapon.

But if the Weapon is not in play, then the rule is not in play. If the rule is not in play, then the rule is not forcing the model to fight at a different Initiative Step.

That is part of the problem.

blaktoof wrote:
an explicit statement is a clear statement.

"A model with this weapon piles in and fights at Initiative step1"

the statement is quite clear.

There is nothing implied in it.

The blood thirster is a model.

Does it have the weapon?

Yes.

Then it is a model with this weapon. It fights and piles in at initiative 1.

Blacktoof... you've been posting to these forums long enough to understand the concept of this being a permissive game. You need permission to give your model or its attacks a special rule. The rules even explicitly tell us that a model (or its attacks) DON'T have special rules unless we're told that they do. We're further explicitly told that a model's attacks DON'T gain special rules from a weapon that is not being used in a fight. We are told that we can't mix and match weapon abilities unless otherwise stated. Does Colossal outright state that you can mix and match weapon abilities? No, it does not. If you disagree, quote and highlight the part of Colossal that means "this weapon ability may be used even when the weapon is not being used during a fight". Thus far, people keep pointing at implied permissions, but nobody has yet to point at the part of Colossal that says it can be used when the weapon isn't being used. Does Colossal imply that you can mix and match weapon abilities? Maybe? That's up for interpretation. I don't think it does. I'm not sure it matters, though, as implied permission have more impact on local house rules and very little impact on the rules as written. RaW only tends to care about explicit permission.

Colossal explicitly tells us that a model with the weapon can pile in and fight at initiative step 1. Colossal does NOT explicitly tell us that Colossal may be used when its containing weapon isn't being used. This is what we'd need for a BRB conflict.

Why is there a difference in the wording of the Colossal special rule between the IK codex and the D thirster? It's a special rule with identical names, surely it must be intended to be the same rule? Is it not a possibility that the D thirster version with the missing "fighting" word is a mistake?

 Kriswall wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
an explicit statement is a clear statement.

"A model with this weapon piles in and fights at Initiative step1"

the statement is quite clear.

There is nothing implied in it.

The blood thirster is a model.

Does it have the weapon?

Yes.

Then it is a model with this weapon. It fights and piles in at initiative 1.

Blacktoof... you've been posting to these forums long enough to understand the concept of this being a permissive game. You need permission to give your model or its attacks a special rule. The rules even explicitly tell us that a model (or its attacks) DON'T have special rules unless we're told that they do. We're further explicitly told that a model's attacks DON'T gain special rules from a weapon that is not being used in a fight. We are told that we can't mix and match weapon abilities unless otherwise stated. Does Colossal outright state that you can mix and match weapon abilities? No, it does not. If you disagree, quote and highlight the part of Colossal that means "this weapon ability may be used even when the weapon is not being used during a fight". Thus far, people keep pointing at implied permissions, but nobody has yet to point at the part of Colossal that says it can be used when the weapon isn't being used. Does Colossal imply that you can mix and match weapon abilities? Maybe? That's up for interpretation. I don't think it does. I'm not sure it matters, though, as implied permission have more impact on local house rules and very little impact on the rules as written. RaW only tends to care about explicit permission.

Colossal explicitly tells us that a model with the weapon can pile in and fight at initiative step 1. Colossal does NOT explicitly tell us that Colossal may be used when its containing weapon isn't being used. This is what we'd need for a BRB conflict.

Colossal does not state or imply the model has to be using the weapon.

Does the bloodthirster have the weapon?

A model with this weapon piles in and fights at Initiative step1

not a model with this special rule fights at I1, or a model using this weapon with this special rule strikes at I1, or a model fighting/striking/using this weapon strikes at I1.

Does the blodthirster -have- the weapon, even if it is not striking with it?

blaktoof wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
an explicit statement is a clear statement.

"A model with this weapon piles in and fights at Initiative step1"

the statement is quite clear.

There is nothing implied in it.

The blood thirster is a model.

Does it have the weapon?

Yes.

Then it is a model with this weapon. It fights and piles in at initiative 1.

Blacktoof... you've been posting to these forums long enough to understand the concept of this being a permissive game. You need permission to give your model or its attacks a special rule. The rules even explicitly tell us that a model (or its attacks) DON'T have special rules unless we're told that they do. We're further explicitly told that a model's attacks DON'T gain special rules from a weapon that is not being used in a fight. We are told that we can't mix and match weapon abilities unless otherwise stated. Does Colossal outright state that you can mix and match weapon abilities? No, it does not. If you disagree, quote and highlight the part of Colossal that means "this weapon ability may be used even when the weapon is not being used during a fight". Thus far, people keep pointing at implied permissions, but nobody has yet to point at the part of Colossal that says it can be used when the weapon isn't being used. Does Colossal imply that you can mix and match weapon abilities? Maybe? That's up for interpretation. I don't think it does. I'm not sure it matters, though, as implied permission have more impact on local house rules and very little impact on the rules as written. RaW only tends to care about explicit permission.

Colossal explicitly tells us that a model with the weapon can pile in and fight at initiative step 1. Colossal does NOT explicitly tell us that Colossal may be used when its containing weapon isn't being used. This is what we'd need for a BRB conflict.

Colossal does not state or imply the model has to be using the weapon.

Does the bloodthirster have the weapon?

A model with this weapon piles in and fights at Initiative step1

not a model with this special rule fights at I1, or a model using this weapon with this special rule strikes at I1, or a model fighting/striking/using this weapon strikes at I1.

Does the blodthirster -have- the weapon, even if it is not striking with it?

Colossal may not require that the model be using the AoK, but the BRB does... and Colossal doesn't state that it can be used when the model isn't using the AoK.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Why is there a difference in the wording of the Colossal special rule between the IK codex and the D thirster? It's a special rule with identical names, surely it must be intended to be the same rule? Is it not a possibility that the D thirster version with the missing "fighting" word is a mistake?

It's absolutely a possibility. If this is the case, there might be an FAQ or Errata in the future. Until then, we treat each rule as distinct and only applying to the publication in which it occurs.

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Why is there a difference in the wording of the Colossal special rule between the IK codex and the D thirster? It's a special rule with identical names, surely it must be intended to be the same rule? Is it not a possibility that the D thirster version with the missing "fighting" word is a mistake?

It's not a Universal rule, so there bound to be differences, just like a Blood Angels Heavy Weapon list isn't the same as a Codex Marines Heavy Weapon list, or the differences between their Tactical Squads and Dreadnoughts.

Blaktoof - comply with the requirement in more than one weapon. Find where it is "otherwise stated" in the colossal rule, that it works even though the weapon is not selected. Because to be explicit it must say something along those lines, otherwise it doesn't comply with the more than one weapon rule.

If you cannot find such wording then at best you have an implication.

 Kriswall wrote:
Colossal may not require that the model be using the AoK, but the BRB does... and Colossal doesn't state that it can be used when the model isn't using the AoK.

Exactly. Just as Unwieldy doesn't get mixed with Claws from a Power Fist, Two-handed from a Relic Blade, or Specialist from the Lightning Claw.

Requirement of use is not the only requirement/status we are looking at here.

A model with this weapon piles in and fights at Initiative step1

clearly states that the model with the weapon piles in and fights at I step 1.

It explicitly has no wording about needing to strike with the weapon, or when striking with the weapon.

The BRB requires rules such as shred, rending, etc, tied to a weapon to strike with the weapon to get the bonus.

It does not say the weapon does not have shred when it is not being struck with. That is implied by some posters.

The colossal rule does not require you to be striking with it, it clearly states the model with the weapon does something. A restriction. A restriction this special rule specifies as going into effect by the model having the weapon, not striking with it. The special rule of this weapon affects the model, not the model when striking. Claiming it affects the model when striking is changing its wording to include things it does not state. The part about losing the abilities of a weapon when striking with it, is in regards to striking with a weapon. If a weapon has a special rule that affects the model, not the models attacks when striking, the special rule is in effect according to its rules. Not only when striking with it - because the special rule has nothing to do with using the weapon. The model has the special rule by having the weapon

"A model with this weapon piles in and fights at I1"




Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Blaktoof - comply with the requirement in more than one weapon. Find where it is "otherwise stated" in the colossal rule, that it works even though the weapon is not selected. Because to be explicit it must say something along those lines, otherwise it doesn't comply with the more than one weapon rule.

If you cannot find such wording then at best you have an implication.

it would be helpful if you could quote the actual name of the rule or rule itself when presenting an point of any kind.

it is otherwise stated by saying the model has the rule. Not "when striking with this weapon...." or "attacks with this weapon..."

blaktoof wrote:
It explicitly has no wording about needing to strike with the weapon, or when striking with the weapon.

"It" being the Colossal weapon ability.

Gotcha... So, the BRB doesn't allow mixing and matching unless the weapon ability in question states otherwise. You agree that Colossal doesn't state anything related to using or not using the weapon. We appear to be in agreement. There is no conflict with the BRB and so the More Than One Weapon restrictions stands.

I did. More than one weapon. Have you read it?

No, that is implied that it works even when the weapon is not selected for use. I am sure you know the difference between explicit and implied, yes?

Implying that special rules for weapons that explicitly give the bearer permission to do something, with no written requirement of striking in said rule is actually game breaking.

There are some rules which are tied to striking with a weapon, and there are some rules which are explicitly stated within the special rule itself (codex vs brb, specific vs. advanced...) as giving the bearer, or the model, permission to do something.

For example claiming all special rules are defacto tied to striking only, even if they state they are not means things like the murder sword have no function. It is not possible to resolve the rule "murder" on the first turn if you claim the model does not have that weapon with that rule granting it specific ability to do something until it strikes in melee with it, and they it only is in effect when the model is striking in melee with it.

If the specific rule in the entry specifies the model bearer gets to do something explicitly, then it does.

The bloodthirster is I1 in assault, because the rule for colossal explicitly state it affects the model for having the weapon. No other requirements, no striking with the weapon, etc.

Just as Murder explicitly allows you to nominate another model before the first turn- despite not striking with the weapon to get the special rule- because that special rule specifically states you do get to do something.

There is nothing that is unclear about the wording

"A model with this weapon piles in and fights at I1"

Is the bloodthirster a model?

Does it have the weapon?

Rule can be resolved clearly as per its wording.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I did. More than one weapon. Have you read it?

No, that is implied that it works even when the weapon is not selected for use. I am sure you know the difference between explicit and implied, yes?

that's not that actual name of the rule.

There is no implication that it works at certain times and not others, that is fabricated by yourself and a few other people. It clearly states when the Model is allowed to strike by the virtue of having the weapon, with no other implications based on using the axe or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
It explicitly has no wording about needing to strike with the weapon, or when striking with the weapon.

"It" being the Colossal weapon ability.

Gotcha... So, the BRB doesn't allow mixing and matching unless the weapon ability in question states otherwise. You agree that Colossal doesn't state anything related to using or not using the weapon. We appear to be in agreement. There is no conflict with the BRB and so the More Than One Weapon restrictions stands.

So you agree the model has the weapon. You also agree the rule has no tie at all with striking with the weapon or using the weapon within its wording and explicitly states when it affects the model.


you also agree that specific trumps general, and codex trumps basic?

good, so striking with more than 1 weapon has no bearing on a rule that does not require you to strike with the weapon as the rules and common sense dictate.

blaktoof wrote:
The BRB requires rules such as shred, rending, etc, tied to a weapon to strike with the weapon to get the bonus.

It does not say the weapon does not have shred when it is not being struck with. That is implied by some posters.

Irrelevant. The More Than One Weapon rule limits it before it even has a chance to be used if another Weapon is being used. If nothing else, these rules only reaffirm the base rule to begin with.

 Charistoph wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
The BRB requires rules such as shred, rending, etc, tied to a weapon to strike with the weapon to get the bonus.

It does not say the weapon does not have shred when it is not being struck with. That is implied by some posters.

Irrelevant. The More Than One Weapon rule limits it before it even has a chance to be used if another Weapon is being used. If nothing else, these rules only reaffirm the base rule to begin with.

I realize you posted a statement.

However it has nothing to do with any written rules.

I however congratulate you on being able to post statements.

Well done.

The rule has been posted multiple times this thread (I assume you've read it?) and has been referred to multiple times by that phrase. Apologies if that's too complex a concept.

So you can freely mix and match weapon abilities now? Please show permission to do so - I want ap2 sx2 Lightning claws.

After all, implied permission is good enough for colossal

I take it you give rampage to a model not striking with the blade of blood as well?

blaktoof wrote:
Implying that special rules for weapons that explicitly give the bearer permission to do something, with no written requirement of striking in said rule is actually game breaking.

Read one of the first paragraphs in the Special Rules section of the BRB. A model's attacks can gain special rules/abilities from a weapon when that weapon is being used. Otherwise, the model and its attacks DON'T have the special rules. Per both this paragraph in the special rules section AND the More Than One Weapon rules, giving a model or its attacks a special rule/ability from a weapon when the weapon is not being used is absolutely a rules violation. It breaks the game in the sense that things are happening that the rules don't allow.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:
So you agree the model has the weapon. You also agree the rule has no tie at all with striking with the weapon or using the weapon within its wording and explicitly states when it affects the model.

The model has the weapon. Yes.
The weapon ability doesn't, in and of itself, require that the weapon be actively used to attack in the same way that an ability like Shred does. Yes.
The model's attacks can gain the weapon ability from the weapon when the weapon is not being used to attack. NOPE. Colossal doesn't state this and the BRB requires such a statement.

 Kriswall wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Implying that special rules for weapons that explicitly give the bearer permission to do something, with no written requirement of striking in said rule is actually game breaking.

Read one of the first paragraphs in the Special Rules section of the BRB. A model's attacks can gain special rules/abilities from a weapon when that weapon is being used. Otherwise, the model and its attacks DON'T have the special rules. Per both this paragraph in the special rules section AND the More Than One Weapon rules, giving a model or its attacks a special rule/ability from a weapon when the weapon is not being used is absolutely a rules violation. It breaks the game in the sense that things are happening that the rules don't allow.

Giving a model special rules that are tied to striking with the weapon....

Unless you believe the rule "Murder" does nothing, or a model with the shard of anaris does not have fearless.

Some rules for weapons explicitly give the model a rule, some rules require the model to strike with the weapon because there is no permission for the model to have the rule outside of striking with the weapon.

If the rule specifically says the model has the rule, the model has the rule. If it does not place a restriction on when the model has the rule, then the model has the rule at all times. Specific > General.

Does the bearer of shard of anaris have fearless outside of striking with the weapon.

Claiming anything other than yes is ignoring the RAW for this specific rule.

blaktoof wrote:
Implying that special rules for weapons that explicitly give the bearer permission to do something, with no written requirement of striking in said rule is actually game breaking.

There are some rules which are tied to striking with a weapon, and there are some rules which are explicitly stated within the special rule itself (codex vs brb, specific vs. advanced...) as giving the bearer, or the model, permission to do something.

Irrelevant. Baseline needs to be overridden. Possession is only 9/10 of the law, you are missing the other 1/10, and that is application. The rule is possessed by the Weapon, but the rule does not signify that this applies to all Attacks, including Attacks made without the Weapon.

You are making your case based on other rules, which also do not get any shrift if a Pistol is being used. It is not only because these rules require the Weapon's use that they do not get used, but ALSO because these abilities CANNOT be used when using a Pistol, period, because a Pistol just does not flat have the rule.

If this was tied to a Wargear rule for the Weapon, you would have a case and we would be done. But it is tied to the Weapon's profile, which means that if another Weapon is in use, this Weapon's abilities mean dick.

blaktoof wrote:
For example claiming all special rules are defacto tied to striking only,

You are one making this claim, not us. We are claiming that these abilities are ignored when the Weapon cannot be used, there is a distinct difference and one that is being continuously missed.

blaktoof wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Implying that special rules for weapons that explicitly give the bearer permission to do something, with no written requirement of striking in said rule is actually game breaking.

Read one of the first paragraphs in the Special Rules section of the BRB. A model's attacks can gain special rules/abilities from a weapon when that weapon is being used. Otherwise, the model and its attacks DON'T have the special rules. Per both this paragraph in the special rules section AND the More Than One Weapon rules, giving a model or its attacks a special rule/ability from a weapon when the weapon is not being used is absolutely a rules violation. It breaks the game in the sense that things are happening that the rules don't allow.

Giving a model special rules that are tied to striking with the weapon....

Unless you believe the rule "Murder" does nothing, or a model with the shard of anaris does not have fearless.

Some rules for weapons explicitly give the model a rule, some rules require the model to strike with the weapon because there is no permission for the model to have the rule outside of striking with the weapon.

If the rule specifically says the model has the rule, the model has the rule. If it does not place a restriction on when the model has the rule, then the model has the rule at all times. Specific > General.

Does the bearer of shard of anaris have fearless outside of striking with the weapon.

Claiming anything other than yes is ignoring the RAW for this specific rule.

I'm not familiar with Murder or the Shard of Anaris. Quote the rules and I'll entertain your comments.

I will say that there is ONLY a restriction against mixing and matching weapon abilities during an actual fight. If the Shard of Anaris grants Fearless, it would presumably do so at all times EXCEPT during a fight where a different weapon is being used.

 Kriswall wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Implying that special rules for weapons that explicitly give the bearer permission to do something, with no written requirement of striking in said rule is actually game breaking.

Read one of the first paragraphs in the Special Rules section of the BRB. A model's attacks can gain special rules/abilities from a weapon when that weapon is being used. Otherwise, the model and its attacks DON'T have the special rules. Per both this paragraph in the special rules section AND the More Than One Weapon rules, giving a model or its attacks a special rule/ability from a weapon when the weapon is not being used is absolutely a rules violation. It breaks the game in the sense that things are happening that the rules don't allow.

Giving a model special rules that are tied to striking with the weapon....

Unless you believe the rule "Murder" does nothing, or a model with the shard of anaris does not have fearless.

Some rules for weapons explicitly give the model a rule, some rules require the model to strike with the weapon because there is no permission for the model to have the rule outside of striking with the weapon.

If the rule specifically says the model has the rule, the model has the rule. If it does not place a restriction on when the model has the rule, then the model has the rule at all times. Specific > General.

Does the bearer of shard of anaris have fearless outside of striking with the weapon.

Claiming anything other than yes is ignoring the RAW for this specific rule.

I'm not familiar with Murder or the Shard of Anaris. Quote the rules and I'll entertain your comments.

I will say that there is ONLY a restriction against mixing and matching weapon abilities during an actual fight. If the Shard of Anaris grants Fearless, it would presumably do so at all times EXCEPT during a fight where a different weapon is being used.

Shard of anaris is one of the most commonly taken Eldar wargear weapons.

It has a the Type "Melee, Rending, Vauls Work"

Vaul’s Work: The bearer of this weapon has the Fearless special rule. In a challenge,
Attacks made with this weapon have the Fleshbane and Instant Death special rules.

Murdersword has the type murder-

murder allows the bearer to nominate an enemy model before the first turn of the game, it can then get bonuses when attacking that model in assault.

Both are special rules granted to the model, which no requirement in said special rule to be using the weapon for at least part of the special rule(Anaris- fearless, Murderword- nominating the model are not tied to striking with the weapon)

If more than one weapon is applied to rules that are given to the model for having the weapon and have no requirement within specific rules to be striking with the weapon to benefit from said rule, than neither work.

Anaris would never grant fearless when a player could use it, and a model with the murder sword would never be able to nominate another enemy model before the first turn- which are both given as permission to a model for having the weapon within their own rules with no tie to striking with the weapon to benefit.

The more than one weapon rule applies to striking with the weapon in assault, it does not actually state the special rules cease to exist until the model strikes with them. It does state the model does not gain the benefit of striking with more than one weapon.

blaktoof wrote:
Shard of anaris is one of the most commonly taken Eldar wargear weapons.

It has a the Type "Melee, Rending, Vauls Work"

Vaul’s Work: The bearer of this weapon has the Fearless special rule. In a challenge,
Attacks made with this weapon have the Fleshbane and Instant Death special rules.

Thanks. From a RaW standpoint, the model would have the Fearless special rule at all times EXCEPT when attacking with a Melee weapon other than Shard of Anaris. When attacking when a different weapon, the model and its attacks would not be subject to Vaul's Work and would therefore not have Fearless.

blaktoof wrote:
Murdersword has the type murder-

murder allows the bearer to nominate an enemy model before the first turn of the game, it can then get bonuses when attacking that model in assault.

I can't respond to this unless you post the actual rules quote. I don't even know what Codex this is from, although it sounds like some heresy to me.

The evocation of the Colossal rule comes when you read all of your models rules and see that the rule called Colossal applies anytime the model has a weapon with the particular rule. More than one weapon does not enter into it because Colossal applies at all times that the model possesses that weapon.

You need to follow all the rules, not just some made up parameters of circular permission.

 DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
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.

The evocation of the Colossal rule comes when you read all of your models rules and see that the rule called Colossal applies anytime the model has a weapon with the particular rule. More than one weapon does not enter into it because Colossal applies at all times that the model possesses that weapon.

You need to follow all the rules, not just some made up parameters of circular permission.

Wrong. Read the chapter in the BRB about special rules. The default situation is that a model DOESN'T have a special rule from a weapon unless that weapon is being used. When is a weapon being used? Basically, at all times EXCEPT when a different weapon is being used during a Fight Sub-Phase. There is NO permission ANYWHERE in the rules to give a model or its attacks a special rules from a weapon it isn't using.

...well, unless the weapon ability explicitly states that it may be used when the weapon is not being used to attack with. Colossal doesn't do that.